Discussion on “Fallen Angels & ‘Nephilim’ Giants / Hybrids”

The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries.jpg

The following took place due to someone who goes by the pseudonym “Judgement” on Youtube who posted a video titled “Fallen Angels & ‘Nephilim’ Giants / Hybrids – A Friendly Dispute with Pastor Tyler Baker.”

I commented:

FYI: that there is/was some sort of holy line of Seth and wicked line of Cain is pure myth. Also, the “VALIANT” teacher claim that Nephilim is the Hebrew word for giant but that is simply not the case and we can know that in part because the word “giant” (a generic words, by the way) is also used to translate Rephaim.

The following took place due to someone who goes by the pseudonym “Judgement” on Youtube who posted a video titled “Fallen Angels & ‘Nephilim’ Giants / Hybrids – A Friendly Dispute with Pastor Tyler Baker.”

I commented:

FYI: that there is/was some sort of holy line of Seth and wicked line of Cain is pure myth. Also, the “VALIANT” teacher claim that Nephilim is the Hebrew word for giant but that is simply not the case and we can know that in part because the word “giant” (a generic words, by the way) is also used to translate Rephaim.
Lastly, the original, traditional and majority view amongst the earliest Jews and Christians is the Angel view of Gen 6. I prove this in my book “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including notes on giants and the Nephilim.”
However, I do agree that many take the concept of Nephilim and giants much too far—into sci fi land. The fact is that there is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim (and no, Goliath was not Nephilim: he was Philistine who were Rephaim—and there is no indication that they, collectively, had six digits: that is only about one single person).

Judgement replied:

The claim about there not being the “nephilim” form of the word post-flood is also false because if you check the concordance, it is being used in “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” (NUMBERS 13:33) referring to the sons of Anak. And yes, it is the Hebrew 5303 “Nephil.”
There were giants and that the most logical conclusion is that they were due to genetic aberrations emerging from an actual genetic defect emerging from Fallen Angels reproducing with human women pursuant to the Jude and Luke 1 exegesis in this video. I also completely reject that last parenthetical statement “and no, Goliath was not Nephilim: he was Philistine who were Rephaim–and there is no indication that they, collectively, had six digits: that is only about one single person.”
That’s not true, and I can disprove that claim using exegesis of the word “Gath”: “And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant.” (2 Samuel 21:20) “And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.” (1 Samuel 17) One last thing: “believed by the earliest JEWS and Christians” found your problem. Read Revelation 2:9 “I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” and 3:9 “Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.”
It looks like these particular “orthodox” judeo-christians got kvetched and fleeced for the goyim that the babylonian talmud says that they are. I hope you didn’t spend too much of your book talking about these topics.

Ken Ammi:

Right you are, the “‘nephilim’ form of the word post-flood” is found but the actual Nephilim beings are not since the statement in Num 13:33 was by unfaithful/disloyal spies who were said to present an evil/bad report and were rebuked for it (and they stated things about which the whole rest of the Bible knows nothing: such as post-flood Nephilim).
However, we cannot jump from the Hebrew word Nephilim to the English word giants and then chase the English word around the Bible as a way to do theology.
The generic word giants does not belong in English Bibles and worse yet, it is used to translate pre-flood Nephilim and post-flood Rephaim which only causes confusion.
So when you say “There were giants” you need to forgo the word giants and use Nephilim or Rephaim. You are referring Nephilim but since the only actual reference to them is Gen 6 and that gives us no physical description of them whatsoever then you cannot say that they suffered from “genetic aberrations.”
As to “that last parenthetical statement” let us take it a piece at a time:
I wrote “Goliath was not Nephilim: he was Philistine who were Rephaim,” you sought to “disprove that claim” but you quoted “…the Philistines, named Goliath” which proves my point since I stated that he was a Philistine.
I wrote “there is no indication that THEY, COLLECTIVELY, had six digits: that is only about one single person,” you sought to “disprove that claim” but you quoted the text about “A MAN of great stature”: see the point? In the video is was claimed that six digits was a trait in general, I pointed out that there is no indication of this since we are only told about one single person and the quote agrees with me since it refers to “a” singular “man” as in one.
I am not sure what a historical fact about that the Angel view is the original traditional and majority view amongst both Jews and Christians has to do with “the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan” or “the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not”: can you explain that?
Are you saying the authors of the 31 texts which take the Angel view spanning from 250 BC to the 5th century AD are all heretics because well, because you say so?

Judgement:

Thank you for your response. indeed the context of Numbers 13:33 is due to an evil report, however we have a discretionary disagreement where I do not believe whether or not they saw giants being either rephaim or nephilim was the evil component of the report, but rather the evil report was the editorial section of it, which is that it is too dangerous for the children of Israel to proceed and they should give up.
Caleb is said earlier in the book to have a unique spirit who doesn’t fear things the same way others, thus the context of mentioning him in verse 30 leads me to read it as such. I mentioned the Jew thing because you seemingly suggested that their religious orthodoxy should be taken into consideration on this issue.
I reject that approach entirely. It’s not because I say so, it’s because the bible calls anybody who self refers as a Jew is a liar. That’s the approach I take. And last, no I do not need to replace giant with rephaim and nephilim in my mind. The modern Hebrew is not the same as the ancient Hebrew and people have stopped speaking the language since the 3rd century.
If you are unsatisfied with the implication of polydactyly being a linked gene with functional giantism, then here is another example proving the idea of giants without pointing out the polydactyly: “10 All the cities of the plain, and all Gilead, and all Bashan, unto Salchah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.” Og has a bed that is 1.5ft. * 9cub = 13.5 ft. His bed is 13.5 ft long.. and it’s even longer if you’re using the 18in. cubit used in Ezekiel.
One thing is the same in my theology between rephaim and nephilim: they are a genetic aberration seemingly resulting from the opposite of the blessing that is the virgin birth and conception. I guess my point is, even if rephaim and nephilim are different over some minor genealogical detail, what is the significance of the disagreement? That’s where I’m at in this discourse (which I do appreciate btw).

Ken Ammi:

Appreciate the interaction, friend. I am afraid that on Num 13 you are so close and yet, so far ;o) It is not a case of v. 33 focusing on “the editorial section” about “that it is too dangerous” since that came up before and it came up before we are told of the evil/bad portion of the report:
The 10 spies report, “We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it” which is taken as is.
They also report, “Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there” and they add that they saw Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites (note, not one word about Nephilim, nor relation to Nephilim, nor unusual height).
Then “Caleb stilled the people” and encouraged them to “possess it; for we are well able to overcome it” (note, not one word about Nephilim, nor relation to Nephilim, nor unusual height).
The 10 attempt to fear monger the people, “We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we” (note, not one word about Nephilim, nor relation to Nephilim, nor unusual height).
Then, and only then, are we told “they brought up an evil report” and only within that report do they claim three things about which the whole rest of the Bible knows absolutely nothing: post-flood Nephilim, Anakim being related to Nephilim, and the unusual height of Nephilim.
Moreover, Caleb and Moses (and Joshua, by extension) comment on this event and while they mention the Anakim being in the land they state nothing at all about the three points (read around the area of Joshua 14:12, Deuteronomy 1:28). God Himself comments on this and refers to the “Amalekites and the Canaanites” but not about the three points (Numbers 14:25).

Friend, I am a Jew (who has accepted Jesus as my LORD, God and Savior) and the Bible nowhere states that “anybody who self refers as a Jew is a liar.” It only states that there are some who call themselves Jews but they really are not.

I am not “unsatisfied with the implication of polydactyly being a linked gene with functional giantism” but merely pointed out the simple fact that the video claimed that six digits was a trait in general but the Bible only tells us that about one single person-this is a non-issue and a simple fact and quoting texts “the idea of giants without pointing out the polydactyly” is to make an admitted argument from silence.

Moreover, you are using the English term giants to refer to Rephaim so just make sure to keep in mind that the English term is generic and also (sadly) used to translate Nephilim which (sadly) leads people to change an English word around the Hebrew Bible and so they connect together things that the text never connects.

Og was the last remnant of the Rephaim and you would have to demand that you can know his personal size from the size of his bed: hey, my bed is five times wider than I am. And even if he was 12-14 ft. tall so what? Height has NOTHING to do with Nephilim—period. John Peter Lange noted the following in “Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scripture, Volume 1: Genesis to Ruth, “It is an interesting fact that Alexander the Great, in his march to India, arranged his camp grounds and cavalry cribs in double number and of unusual size, that he might produce in the inhabitants of the land strange ideas of the size of his army.”

If there Nephilim and Rephaim are both genetic aberration seemingly resulting from the opposite of the blessing that is the virgin birth and conception in your theology then, with all due regard and discretion, you need to change your theology. Now, Gen 6 tells us that Nephilim were genetic aberrations but where do you get such an idea about Rephaim? There is zero biblical relation between Nephilim and Rephaim (except that someone, sadly, decided to translate both terms in the same way).

There is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim nor any concept of a return of Nephilim—period.

And I guess it was a “period” as Judgment did not reply again.

For some related info, see my books (on which I am offering a money saving deal:
What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology
What Does the Bible Say About Demons? A Styled Demonology
What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology
On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including notes on giants and the Nephilim
The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon

The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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. Here is my donate page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.