The following discussion took place due to the video Nephilim Giants AFTER Noah’s Flood? Dr. Michael Heiser when a certain canadiankewldude commented
Noah’s wife carried one bad gene, Ham received it, Ham rapes his mother, Saw Noah’s nakedness. Read Leviticus 18 through 20. Dr Heiser supports Ham raping his mother.
Canaan ended up cursed and with two halves of Nephilim genes combined through a Sinful act.
Nephilim and giants almost all came from the line of Canaan, if any of them intermarried, that would explain the odd single bad seed in other lines, except Shem’s.
Thus far, no Canaanites researched, appear to be dark skinned, from Ham. In Genesis they began spreading out before the Babel incident. The land of Canaan, later Israel and other far off lands.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Besides that there’s zero evidence for that, are you implying that God failed? He meant to be rid of them but missed that loophole?
canadiankewldude
They all died in the flood, aside from animals, only 8 people lived beyond the flood.
I simply have been researching ways the Nephilim could be present after the great flood.
God has never failed nor ever lied.
Thus, my focus has been how the Nephilim were present in the land of Canaan during the life of Moses, while keeping things true, Biblically.
How do you explain Nephilim after the days of Noah, Biblically.
God Bless
Ken Ammi
A return of Nephilim post-flood implies that God failed as much as a survival of them: God must have missed a loophole and the flood was much of a waste—see what I mean.
Now, you seek to answer, “ways the Nephilim could be present after the great flood…how the Nephilim were present in the land…How do you explain Nephilim after the days of Noah, Biblically.”
It’s very simple: post-flood Nephilim isn’t biblical—period, full stop.
You seem to be genuinely researching this so rather than making statement, I will ask you what makes you think that there were ever post-flood Nephilim?
If you know your stuff, and you surely do, you’ll realize you’re literally forced to build an entire all-encompassing theory upon one single verse—period.
So then, ensure that you re-read the narrative, not just one verse, and read the next chapter about the fallout of the statement in that one verse—and yes, I’m being vague on purpose since the travel is worth the destination, or so I have found.
Shalom!
canadiankewldude
Hugh Ross says:
“The explanation for the post-flood Nephilim is that sons of God, distinct from those who went to the daughters of humans before the flood, went to the daughters of humans born after the flood. If these sons of God were fallen angels, then these fallen angels are in addition to the ones who were locked up in the abyss as a result of their having sexual relations with human females before the flood. Thus, the abyss would contain two sets of fallen angels: those who had violated human women before the flood and those who had violated human women after the flood. If the sons of God were human males, this interpretation would imply that God had commanded the sons of Shem and/or Japheth not to have sexual relations with the daughters of Ham and/or Canaan. The violation of this command evidently would have produced a second generation of Nephilim.” – Hugh Ross
Dr. Michael Heiser also says very directly that they exist post flood, I fail to understand why they too are in err.
For the record, I do not abide by the opinions of Hugh Ross. He was just more research on this topic.
I have been researching more but I keep running into suggestions which are counter to Scripture.
How are you so sure that non of the cursed Canaanites, giants, men of renown and so forth not Nephilim.
KJB is my research, please suggest other than Gen. 6.
God Bless
Ken Ammi
I’ve written critiques of Ross’ and Heiser’s Nephilology already. Ross’ premise is faulty, “The explanation for the post-flood Nephilim” presupposes “post-flood Nephilim” but there’s no such thing—ever.
Bottom line is that they both exclusively build an entire all-encompassing theory upon one single verse and then turn that one single verse into a worldview hermeneutic whereby to then misread, misunderstand, misinterpret, and misapply other verses.
The concept of 1. post-flood Nephilim, 2. that anyone, post-flood, was related to them, and 3. that they were very, very tall are all literally based on one single verse that that single verse is Num 13:33 which is part of an “evil report” the speakers of which were rebuked by God.
Heiser was all but forced to actually interact with the narrative of that chapter when so many people complained to him that he was just merely picking up one uncontextual verse and ran with it.
Here are some Bible-fact based critiques of his views:
Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy
Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”
I actually featured Heiser in my book “The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants.”
That ended that as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.