Discussion on Hugh Ross’ “Reasons to Believe” vid, “Who Were the Nephilim?”

The following discussion ensued due to Hugh Ross’ Reasons to Believe org’s video “28:19 RTB 101: Who Were the Nephilim?”

I generally parse long discussions into segments when I post them herein due the notoriously short cyber attention spans. However, I thought to give a long one a try so, let me know if you like reading long discussions in one short or parsed.

This one got very linguistic, do deeply semantic that we seemed to talk past each other at times.

I, Ken Ammi, commented:
It is actually not accurate that “this subject” of Nephilim “pops up again and again as you look at other books of Scripture”: they are mentioned a grand total of two times (one reliably in Gen 6 and one unreliably, since it relates an “evil report” in Num 13).

Also no, it does not say in “in Genesis 6[:4] that they were present before the flood and after the flood”: the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verse later.

By that “evidentially” it also happened after the flood means that he recognizes that there is no scriptural description of such.

To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking: there is no indication whatsoever, except for the rebuked “evil report,” that Anakim have anything to do with Nephilim: Anakim are a subgroup of Rephaim and they are all regular humans.

There is no indication whatsoever that “King David King David’s mighty men wiped out the last so than the Nephilim”: this is what happens when you violate category distinctions and take it upon yourself to read “Nephilim” where that word (and that concept) does not appear.

Gen 6 is the only reliable description we have of them and it provides no physical description. Also, he is only opting for the high range of possibilities for Goliath’s height (he was a Repha) which is based on Greek manuscripts while Hebrew ones, plus Dead Sea Scrolls, plus Josephus have him at just shy of 7 ft. We have no physical description of Og (another Repha) and his bed fits the exact dimensions of a ritual bed, not one upon which he slept, where the male and female gods supposedly copulated.

There is no indication that “they,” plural” had “birth defects like six fingers and six toes”: that is only stated about one single person (another Repha).
That they are “all evil” is something else that is unknown: again, Gen 6 being the only reliable reference has them as being mighty and of renown, that is all.

The last of the Nephilim died in the flood so they could not have been “a threat to the emerging Hebrew nation” and there is no indication whatsoever that “God set up…a procedure where they could be eliminated from the human race”: God tells us many, many, many times why He is commanding such things and never states one single word about Nephilim nor relation to them nor any such thing.

It is unknown that “these individuals were tall and able to carry a minimum, in terms of Goliath, 250 pounds of weaponry and armor into battle”: since Goliath is said to have had someone helping him with his armor and also, you can watch any strongman/powerlifting competitions and see guys that are right around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.

That “there’s something non-human about these sons of God” is accurate: that is the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christian alike for centuries. In Job 38:7 the “sons of God” witnessed, at the very least, the creation of the Earth.

A certain Taylor J. replied:
If the nephalim of gen 6 aren’t divine beings, then I’m unsure what is being referenced in Jude 1:6. Also a sidenote, 1 Peter 3:19 seems to be talking about the watchers being imprisoned who are the divine beings who fathered the nephilim

A certain M C: chimed in with:
To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking
I’m not sure I follow Ken.

You referenced – Numbers 13:32-33 (ESV)
“So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report(dibbâh) of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

The word “dibbâh” doesn’t make it untrue it makes it not a good report. That’s consistent with it’s scriptural use elsewhere.

“The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander(dibbâh) is a fool.” Prov 10:18
“For I hear many whispering(dibbâh). Terror is on every side! ” Jer 20:10 “and you became the talk and evil gossip(dibbâh) of the people,” Ezek 36:3
So the sons of Anak the Anakim were Nephilim that’s what the passage says.

Deu 2:10
“(The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.”
Deu 2:19
“And when you approach the territory of the people of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.’ (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there—but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim—”

The Anakim (who come from the Nephilim) are accounted Raphaim , the Moabite name for Raphaim is Emim and the Ammonite name is Zamzummim
Not sure why you think that’s people inventing anything. They appear to be words used in different cultures to mean the same thing.
that they were present before the flood and after the flood
You are correct, the flood doesn’t appear to link to them at all. I’m not sure it matter’s though.

When and Whenever are conjunctions. They join the first statement or clause to another single or multiple events.

Masoretic Text > English
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward,”
when
“the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
Septuagint Text > English
“Now giants were upon the land in those days, and after that,”
whenever
“the sons of God visited the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants who were from long ago, the people of renown.”
The text is specific you are correct The floods irrelevant to their appearance, only the event that creates them matters.
Nephilim/Giants occur when/whenever Sons of God have children with women.

Ken Ammi:
Indeed, I am the one noting that “To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking.”

The Numbers 13:32-33 issue is not the word dibbâh, is not how the report is labeled. The issue is that the report contains five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing—it contradicts the original report and embellishes it as well.

Friend, “that’s what the passage says” is much too vague. What is the narrative of the passage, what is the context of the passage, who does the passage quote, why did those whom it quotes say such things, what was the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc. are key questions.
In order to just say “that’s what the passage says” you would have to merely pick up one uncontextual statement, run with it, and build all-encompassing theories upon it since what “the passage says” are five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and which contradicts other, reliable, passages.

Note that the texts you quoted state nothing about Nephilim, you are just inserting the concept of “Anakim (who come from the Nephilim).” Thus, when you say “They appear to be words used in different cultures to mean the same thing” you seem to miss that “Nephilim” are nowhere in that whole mix. In fact, we are told that the Anakim are named after a man named Anak—which is why they’re aka “the sons of Anak”—and not that they were fathered by Angels nor by Nephilim.

Indeed, “Nephilim/Giants occur when/whenever Sons of God have children with women” which was only pre-flood.

M C:
you are just inserting the concept of “Anakim (who come from the Nephilim)
I didn’t insert anything. In Numbers 13:33 the scripture says …
English “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim”
Hebrew ” w šām rʾh ʾēṯ hǎ nep̄î·lîm bēn ʿǎnāq min hǎ nep̄î·lîm ”
it contradicts the original report and embellishes it as well.
Numbers 13:22 They went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron. Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak , were there.
Numbers 13:28 However, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there
Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim
What contradiction ? in all three references to the people who dwelled in the land we are told the Anakim dwelt there.
Adding more detail to a statement doesn’t make it untrue.

Bass were there.
We saw bass there.
We saw fish , bass (who are fish)
Nephilim” are nowhere in that whole mix the sons of Anak—and not that they were fathered by Angels nor by Nephilim
Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm
gigas / nephilim occur when sons of God have children with women.
Hebrew – “ēṯ hǎ nep̄î·lîm bēn ʿǎnāq ” the Nephilim the sons of Anak
Greek – “kai ekei oraō o gigas” there we saw the giants
But we don’t need the hebrew statement “the nephilim the sons of Anak” to tie Rephaim to Nephilim if you use the Septuagint.

2 Kings 22:22 “And these four were born descendants of the gigas in Gath, the rapha , a household. And they fell by David’s hand and by his servant’s hand.
1 Chronicles 20:8 “This Rapha was born in Gath. All four were *gigas*, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

The Rapha (plural Raphaim) are Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim) ….
Duet 2:10 Formerly the Emim dwelled in it, a great and mighty and strong people, like the Anakim. Just as the Anakim, these also should be considered Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.
Emim , Anakim are Repahim …. Gigas(Nephilim)

Ken Ammi:
Friend, to write in terms of “In Numbers 13:33 the scripture says” is far too generic: the questions to ask is what is being said, who said it, what is the content of the statement, what is the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc.
You were commenting on Deu 2:19 and wrote, “The Anakim (who come from the Nephilim)” which is when what “you quoted state nothing about Nephilim, you are just inserting the concept of ‘Anakim (who come from the Nephilim).’”

You are asking me to actually believe one of the five assertions made by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers within an “evil report” and whom God ends up rebuking. Their assertion about post-flood Nephilim, that Anakim are related to them (not in the LXX however) and that Nephilim were very tall are three of the assertions they made about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing. How can you believe them?

The contradiction is that the original report affirmed that the land flows with milk and honey (something stated circa 20 times in the Bible) but the ten rebuked spies assert it “eateth up the inhabitants thereof.”

Oddly, you say “‘Nephilim’ are nowhere in that whole mix after having quoted (the odd English rendering), “there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim” so they are in the mix of the “evil report” though not in the real-life on the ground at the time mix.
So, are you reading that as that “we saw the Nephilim” does not mean “we saw the Nephilim” but rather, “we saw the Nephilim” but only as an a.k.a. for “the sons of Anak”? Because if so then you still have Anakim “who come from the Nephilim” so they would be the offspring of the offspring of those fathered by Angels even though you say “nor by Nephilim.”

From the “evil report” on which you are relying, you would not even be able to “tie Rephaim to Nephilim” since that’s about Anakim and they were a Rephaim subgroup so you still can’t assert all Rephaim are tied in to or with Nephilim.

Now, it is mistaken to say “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas / nephilim occur when sons of God have children with women” since the LXX (which typically as gigantes and gigantos rather than gigas but they are related terms, in any case) also renders (not even translates) “Nephilim” as gigantes/gigantos/gigas but also renders “Rephaim” as such and also renders “gibborim” as such as Rephaim did not “occur when sons of God have children with women” and neither did gibborim “occur when sons of God have children with women” since gibbor is merely a descriptive term that means might/mighty.

This is why your argument about 2 Kings 22:22 fails. This is also why there’s no way for you to substantiate the assertion, “Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim).”

M C:
evil report
There’s no evil report ..the hebrew word “dibbah” never means evil ..
The comment “who come from the nephilim” wasn’t part of the report, it appears in () in the English rendering because the hebrew grammar shows it to be a comment appended by the scholars who copied the masoretic manuscripts.

All of the reports from all of the spies show that the Son’s of Anak where in the land.
Numbers 13:22 “the descendants of Anak , were there.”
Numbers 13:28 “And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there”
Numbers 13:33 “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak”

Moses said …
“Only do not rebel against the LORD. And do not fear the people of the land, for they are bread for us. Their protection is removed from them, and the LORD is with us; do not fear them.”

Does any part of that statement say you were lying the people aren’t big and strong or that the Anakim weren’t there ? They were rebuked for not believing God would deliver the land to them in the face of the Ankim being present.

The comment entry about the Anakim being nephilim is there in the manuscript, you can choose to believe it or not.

M C:
Now, it is mistaken to say Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas occur when sons of God have children
It’s not a mistake at all… I cited the Greek and Hebrew Lemma equivalents..
Do you understand what a lemma is ? It’s the recorded base word… the dictionary word that others are formed around.

The written manuscript (in hebrew or greek) contain the word surrounded in grammar that morphs the words,they can appear slightly differently as a result but they mean the same thing.

For Example.
English Lemma break = break, breaks, broke, broken and breaking in written forms.
that guy broke my bike, I saw him do it or I saw that guy break my bike
It means the same thing … the bike was broken !! broke, broken, break .. are the same effective word that’s called word morphology.

Genesis 6:4 (LXX) “Now giants(hoi gigantes/ho gigas) were upon the land in those days, and after that, whenever the sons of God visited the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants (hoi gigantes/ho gigas)who were from long ago, the people of renown.”
Genesis 6:4 (ESV) “The Nephilim(nep̄i·lîmʹ/nep̄î·lîm) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Manuscript transliterated – Hebrew “nep̄i·lîmʹ” is Greek “hoi gigantes”
Lemma transliterated – Hebrew “nep̄î·lîm” is Greek “ho gigas”
This is also why there’s no way for you to substantiate the assertion Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim)
So in Greek(LXX) lemma-gigas occur whenever the sons of God father children with the daughters of men.
So in Hebrew(ESV) lemma-nep̄î·lîm occur whenever the sons of God father children with the daughters of men.

Looks pretty simple to substantiate. Scripture tells you clear as day. Greek-gigas and Hebrew-nep̄î·lîm occur when the sons of God father Children with the daughters of Men.

M C:
Their assertion about post-flood Nephilim, that Anakim are related to them (not in the LXX however)
“ho gigas” are everwhere in LXX.. (there’s another 10 passages if you’d like)
“ho gigas” only occur through one behaviour as noted in Gen 6:4
Genesis LXX 14:5 “In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and massacred the giants lemma-gigas who were in Ashtaroth Carnaim, and strong nations together with them, and the Emim who were in the city Shaveh,”
Genesis ESV 14:5 “In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim lemma-rep̄ā·ʾîm in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim,”
So the scholars writing in Hebrew use “rep̄ā·ʾîm” to indicate who was defeathed where as the in the Greek they use “gigas”

Numbers LXX 13:34 “And there we have seen the giants lemma-gigas , and we were, compared to them, like locusts; and surely we appeared likewise before them.”
Numbber ESV 13:33 “And there we saw the Nephilim lemma-nep̄î·lîm (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”
In Greek the “gigas” make the people look as locusts, in Hebrew the “nep̄î·lîm” make them look like locusts, only in Hebrew you have a comment that the anakim are “nep̄î·lîm”.

Deut 1:28 (ESV) “Where are we going up? Our brothers have made our hearts melt, saying, “The people are greater and taller than we. The cities are great and fortified up to heaven. And besides, we have seen the sons of the Anakim there.”
Deut 1:28 (LXX) “Where are we going?’ Our brothers disturbed our heart, saying, ‘There is a great and numerous nation, stronger than you, and great and walled cities as far as heaven. But we also saw sons of the giants lemma-gigas in that place.’
Hebrew sons of Anak, Greek sons of the giants.

Ken Ammi:
What the report is called is not as relevant as that it contains falsehoods.

Your reading of v. 33 proves one falsehood since it has it that “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak” and we know that Nephilim were not sons of Anak but sons of the sons of God.

Indeed, that Anakim were in the land is well attested, but that Nephilim were in the land it not, nor that Anakim are related to Nephilim in any way, not that there were post-flood Nephilim (by any other name).

Thus, this is not about “you can choose to believe it or not” since the one and only reason for believing it would be one single verse spoken by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies within a dibbah report, who make 4-5 assertions that are utterly unknown in the whole rest of the Bible, who also contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshuah, God, and the rest of the Bible and whom God rebukes: why believe them?

You wrote, “Now, it is mistaken to say Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas occur when sons of God have children It’s not a mistake at all” so you say it is and then it’s not. In any case, it is erroneous to say “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm” exclusively since that would be ignoring the other two major renderings with gigas (gigantes/gigantos) in the LXX which are for “Rephaim” and “gibbor/gibborim.”

Thus, indeed, “Greek-gigas and Hebrew-nep̄î·lîm occur when the sons of God father Children with the daughters of Men” (which is only in Gen 6:4) but Greek-gigas and Hebrew-Rephaim or gibbor(im) must be taken into account as well and prove that gigas implies nothing about height.

Such is why when you say “‘ho gigas’ are everwhere in LXX” you need to incorporate that beyond Num 13:33 those are references to Repahim, not Nephilim. So no, “rep̄ā·ʾîm” are not “different to gigas” since “gigas” is just rendering rep̄ā·ʾîm in that case but not in all cases. You might be committing a word-concept fallacy whereby you may think that whenever a word appears it always means the same thing.

Thus, it is not that in Num 13:33 “nep̄î·lîm” are “different” “to” “gigas” but they are different gigas.
Now, when you say “Sons of Anak in one translation , gigas in another” you are missing the fact that the case is “Nephilim in one translation , gigas in another” since in the LXX Nephilim are gigantes/gigantos (or gigas) while the Anakim are typically “Ενακιμ” not “γίγαντας”—and note that Anakim are not mention in the LXX’s Num 13:33.

M C:
What the report is called is not as relevant as that it contains falsehoods Ken I’ll say this as nice as possible, no where in sripture does it say the report was false, Moses , Joshua and Caleb didn’t call it a lie they rebuked the people for failing to believe God would deliver them into the land if it was his will. If Moses who wrote the Torah thought it was a lie he would have said so .. I believe Moses and the written word of God. *it is erroneous to say “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm” *

In Genesis 6:4 In the LXX the Lemma in Greek is “Gigas” for the offspring of the sons of god and daughters of men. In Genesis 6:4 in the Hebrew the lemma in Hebrew is “nep̄î·lîm” for the offspring of the sons of god and daughters of men. Both the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts show Greek – “gigas” and Hebrew “nep̄î·lîm” are offspring of the same union. Please explain how that simple concept is erroneous ? Ill explain a lemma in languages again A Lemma is the the dictionary word that others are formed around.
1)It is the word’s meaning. 2)The other variants of the word (with the same meaning) are written differently at times to support the grammar , tense and sentence structure etc.

Here is an example in English. The word Break is the lemma.. Break = break, breaks, broke, broken and breaking in written forms. Here is an example in a sentence .. that guy broke my bike, I saw him do it or I saw that guy break my bike * or *my bike is broken, I saw that guy do it Three forms of the same word .. effectively means the same thing. gigas = gigas, gigantes, gigantos Three forms of the same word.. effectively means the same thing.

It’s why the translators from greek to English translate the word to Giant(s).. because that’s how languages work. prove that gigas implies nothing about height Genesis 6:4 LXX “Now giants(gigas) were upon the land in those days, and after that, whenever the sons of God visited the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants(gigas) who were from long ago, the people of renown. No mention of height there just how they are created… So when you see “gigas” you know then how they were created. It’s really not hard to follow.

Ken Ammi:
Friend, it does not work that way: we don’t need to only accepted that something is false if someone has called it “false.” I noted, “it contains falsehoods.” And you can’t demand that “If Moses who wrote the Torah thought it was a lie he would have said so” since you can’t impose a subjective standard onto an author.
They make five assertions (or four, if we exclude the gloss) so these would have to be backed by something besides their one single verse in order to be accepted:
1) “it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof”: contradicts the original report and circa 20 other texts.

2) “all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature”: embellishes the original report and while we know that some Rephaim, such as Anakim, were subjectively “tall” there’s no indication that Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites were all “of a” subjectively “great stature.”

3) “we saw the giants [Nephilim]”: we are told circa five times that eight people and some animals survived so they did not, nor is there indication that they returned so they could not have been there and also embellishes the original report—wherein Nephilim were not mentioned when the groups whom they saw were listed.

4) “giants [Nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [Nephilim]”: this includes the gloss (as opposed to “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak”) and I am including it just in case someone else is interested in that bit, Anakim come from Anak who comes from Abrba with no indication that they are related to Nephilim nor indication of how that could even be a possibility.

5) “we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight”: this is the only thing we get that is even close to a physical description of Nephilim. In short, pun intended, “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak” is simply incoherent.
Thus, “they rebuked the people for failing to believe God would deliver them into the land” which is the motivation for them concocting a fear-mongering scare-tactic “don’t go in the woods” tall tale.

“Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm” is erroneous because it is myopic. As I already elucidated, you need to write that as “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm AND ALSO Rephaim AND ALSO gibborim” and Rephaim and gibborim are not “offspring of the same union” as that which resulted in Nephilim.

Now, perhaps we could say that gigas, gigantes, gigantos “effectively means the same thing” in that it “means” earth-born but the usage is very different: Nephilim, Repahim, gibborim are very different.
“the translators from greek to English translate the word to Giant(s)” only in the case of Nephilim and Rephaim, thankfully they dropped doing so for gibborim.

“prove that gigas implies nothing about height” sure: it means earth-born and we have no physical description of Nephilim so can’t just assume that referring to them as such implies any such a thing and, again, some Rephaim were tall but there’s no reason to think that “Repha” or “Repahim” or “gigas” or “gigantes” or “gigantos” implies any such thing as referring to one of their physical features. Now, “prove that gigas implies” something “about height.”

Indeed, “Genesis 6:4…No mention of height there” and an unreliable one in Num 13:33 so we have none.
As for “when you see ‘gigas’ you know then how they were created”: this is just a simple error and contradicts how any and all languages are used. There are no linguistics whereby a word can and must only ever mean one single thing any time that it is used.
For example, you are asserting that anyone who is gibbor was created via “sons of God visited the daughters of humans” so you just asserted that God Himself was created via “sons of God visited the daughters of humans.”

M C:
this is just a simple error and contradicts how any and all languages are used It’s not a simple error Ken its comprehension 101. You seem to struggle understanding what nouns , adjectives , adverbs , lemmas etc are and how word morphology works. Let’s use an English example. Let’s say we are reading a history book about talking about ancient Egpyt.

You have the following paragraph. Mules(noun) were about in those days, and also afterward, when male donkeys mated with female horses and they had offspring. These were the hardy(adjective) equidae of that time, equidae of reknown. You can comprehend from the passage that -Mules were about ancient Egypt and also afterward. -Mules are the offspring male donkey’s mate with female horses, they occur when this happens. -They are Hardy equine animals. -they were well known for being hardy.

Reading the same book we read that all the mules and donkeys were destroyed by a fire except but some horses escaped. We also read In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and stole(verb) the mules(noun) that were in Ashtaroth Carnaim You can comprehend from the two passages that… -Horses escaped Ancient egypt but we know no male donkeys -If there were mules in Ashtaroth Carnaim then male donkeys must have come from somewhere at some time.

Let’s replace donkey with Son’s of God , female horses with daughters of men and mules with gigas… It’s not tough to comprehend where mules come from here in the example so it shouldn’t be tough to comprehend were gigas come from….
For example, you are asserting that anyone who is gibbor was created via [when] sons of God visited the daughters of humans so you just asserted that God Himself was created via sons of God visited the daughters of humans I asserted no such thing . You really struggle with junior school english … Nouns and Adjectives … again. In Hebrew the word “gibbor” (the singular form of gibborim) can be used two ways.

As an adjective – mighty, brave As a noun – a mighty warrior, a brave man The grammar that surrounds the use of the word determines if it’s a noun or adjective. The Hebrew to English translation of Genesis 6:4 is “These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. ” This sentence structure shows you it’s a noun here. It also shows you they were the might men of a specific time period … of old. When God is called gibbor it’s being used as an adjective … God is mighty or the mighty God.

Now, perhaps we could say that gigas, gigantes, gigantos – effectively means the same as in that it means earth-born but the usage is very different gigas it means earth-born – now prove that gigas implies something about height The septuagint didn’t invent the word gigas, gigantes or gigantos .. they existed in Greek a long time before it was used in the Septuagint.

The words are recorded Greek mythological works , homers poetic works (750bc) and other works around the same time – gigas (singular) gigantes (plural) were a race of great strength and aggression, though not necessarily of great size. In Greek mythology the gigantes were born from the goddess Gaia (who was goddess of the Earth).

The greek word there is “gegenes” Nephilim using the laws of hebrew word morphology had to come from the Word “naphil” it is of Aramaic origin it’s also found in the talmud and the midrash. Again the two words mean the same thing …Giant I never said Gigas had anything to do with height …. you keep adding that.

Ken Ammi:
I’d hate to think that we’ve talking past each other due to miscommunications since this has been a fascinating discussion for which I thank you.

I utterly despise debating metaphors so will break it down to that what we don’t have in the Bible is that “some…escaped” the flood (if such is what you implied in the metaphor). Rather, we have the exact opposite (a handful of times at that).

We simply have no reliable reference to Nephilim after the flood.

Again, when you are reading of post-flood gigas in reliable texts, you are reading about Rephaim who are utterly unrelated to Nephilim.

Thus, to assert that gigas are gigas and all gigas are the same is an example of “a simple error and contradicts how any and all languages are used.”

For example, humans are called “men” and Angels are called “men” and Nephilim are called “men” but that does no mean that those three sort of “men” are categorically of the same origin.

It seems that you are fixated on semantics while I am pointing out that you are basing your views on assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all—and you can’t get around that fact by parsing grammar (nor by nitpicking someone for whom English is a second language).
And if you are not arguing in favor of post-flood Nephilim after all then this has been a waste of time since that was the main point was making initially (along with the issue of height).

The point about gibborim is that the word, noun or adjectives, tell us nothing about the origin of the person being described as such but only about one of their characteristics.

Thus, Nephilim were “might men of a specific time period” and while others who are described as “might men” were not.

I’m unsure why you went into the history of the words gigas, gigantes or gigantos. Speaking of grammar, it was difficult to discern if you were claing that “the two words” that “mean the same thing” were “gegenes” or “naphil” or “Nephilim and “naphil” (FYI: naphal is the proposed Hebrew root, naphiyla is the proposed Aramaic root).

In any case, to say “the two words mean the same thing …Giant” only begs the question of what you mean by “Giant” and I can only discern that you mean “earth-born.”

Now, that, “lemma…can appear slightly differently as a result but they mean the same thing” does not seem to be the case. That “The written manuscript (in hebrew or greek) contain the word surrounded in grammar that morphs the words” is not just about morphology but about that context determines the meaning.

Thus, it is not the case that “they can appear slightly differently as a result but they mean the same thing” since the surrounding grammar, the context, and not etymology, is what defines the word. That is why in the LXX gigas/gigantes/gigantos is used in three different ways and those three ways do not “mean the same thing.”

M C:
I don’t think we are talking past each other I can see how the example I did might prompt that question. I do appreciate your position of context and what it might mean etc.

We are both debating about nephilim or giants existing post flood, I’m pretty sure we aren’t arguing about how they were created pre flood.

I don’t think any Nephilim/Giants created before the flood escaped. The Greek “whenever” or hebrew “when” with the grammar don’t clarify if it was single incident or multiple at multiple times. I think your position is it didn’t happen and mine is that the possibility exists that it did , thats what I was trying to show in the mule eg.

We agree on the same points for Gibborim. It’s a description of Characteristics the Nephilim before the flood had and a host of other people after the flood that weren’t Nephilim.

I take your point that you believe the rest of the bible doesn’t seem to know anything about it , I’m guess I’m arguing that is does and by the use of the grammar and words and the consistency of God’s action towards those linked to the nephilim/giant offspring show that there is an unfolding backdrop to the conquest of the promised land. I think that’s really the debate we are having.
I’ll post another reply with the words conversation so this doesn’t go on forever

Now, the “another reply” M C reads as follows (and you will see what happened with it within my next reply):
Sorry to have confused you around the words. The words used in the Septuagint were used in other works before the Septuagint and weren’t unique to scripture was the point.

We don’t have to guess the meaning associated with the words when that they were used in the Septuagint. Greek “gegenes” = Earthborn – children of the Goddess Gaia and a human. Greek gigas = was the root for giant. Gigantes comes from Gigas. There’s a thematic relationship there in that the history of Gigas was that they were the offspring of the Titans and humans. Size wasn’t attached to the gigas specifically in Greek. gigas/gigantes etc doesn’t mean earthborn there’s other specific words words for earthborn. naphal = is hebrew verb is “to fall”

It can take an active or passive participle on the written word that would produce nophelim or nephulim. Nophelim does not appear tested anywhere in scripture. Nephulim does 18 times mostly meaning “those who fall”. eg Ezekiel 32:20, Judges 18:1, Samuel 28:8 etc Neither of these words match the word morphology found with Nephilim it has an extra yod on it as we see it written in Genesis and Numbers.

To produce that would require a word exactly the same as aramic Naphil transcribed to Hebrew Naphil was aramaic for giant – offspring of Gods and humans, there are direct aramaic to greek translations that reference this outside scripture. The argument here is that the words aren’t describing fallen or eartborn , both the hebrew and the Greek are arguing “Giant” the union of “gods” and humans. In Genesis 6:4 we have gigantes as the pure form of the word used for such a union we also see it in 1 Chron 20:8 LXX. “This Rapha was born in Gath.

All four were giants(gigantes), and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.” It also appears again in Isiaih 13:3 and 14:9 when talking about a divine being being cast down to hades. “Hades below was embittered after meeting you; all the giants(gigantes) who ruled the land, who roused all the kings of the nations from their thrones, rose together with you.”

Ken Ammi:
Since I never know what YT is doing with comments, I’ll just note that I see the comment that ends with “I’ll post another reply with the words conversation so this doesn’t go on forever” but only got the follow up via an email notification, I don’t see that follow up comment here—oi vey.

No, not “nephilim or giants existing post flood” since the only post-flood “giants” are Rephaim, not Nephilim. Thus, this would be about “how they” Nephilim “were created pre flood” but not Rephaim.
Agreed, “I don’t think any Nephilim/Giants created before the flood escaped.”

I can elucidate if you prefer but as for whenever/when v. 4 tells us to what it refers (the days and after) which is based on v. 1 and has nothing to do with the flood, which is not mentioned for the very first time until v. 17. Thus, the “multiple times” did occur but where all pre-flood.

Yes, agree on gibborim.

Nephilim came to a full and final end at the flood—end of biblical story. Thus, no one post-flood is a Nephil nor related to them. As for “God’s action towards those linked to the nephilim/giant offspring…” 1) again, none of them were “linked to the nephilim/giant offspring” and 2) have you read the various times God Himself elucidated why He commanded such doing regarding the “conquest of the promised land”?

We may be getting into the area of word/concept fallacies. For example, imagine that a word MEANS 15 ft. tall, that still would not mean that 15 ft. tall is how it’s being USED at any given time. For example, I’ve been called a “giant” many, many, many times and I’m an unimpressive 6 ft. even (in the modern day USA).
Thus, when you say, “Greek gigas = was the root for giant. Gigantes comes from Gigas” that linguistic, semantic, etymological fact does not necessarily tell us how it’s being USED in any given case: only the context does that.

Also, “Greek gigas = was the root for giant. Gigantes comes from Gigas” and you noted gigas/gigantes comes from “‘gegenes’ = Earthborn – children of the Goddess Gaia and a human” but we can’t then conclude that Gen 6 is telling us that Nephilim were “children of the Goddess Gaia and a human” (and in Greek myth the gegenes/gigas/gigantes/Titans were children of Gaia and Uranus so when you say “Gigas…were the offspring of the Titans and humans” it may be due to differing Greek mythologies).

Indeed, “Size wasn’t attached to the gigas specifically in Greek” but “gigantes” does “mean earthborn.”
The J. Edward Wright Endowed Professor of Judaic Studies, who is J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. himself, and who is the Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants.”

Again, “arguing ‘Giant’ the union of ‘gods’ and humans” is only the case with Nephilim (as “Giants”) nor with Rephaim (as “Giants”—wow, I’m SO sick of the term “Giants”!). Thus, that “This Rapha was born in Gath. All four were giants(gigantes)” does not correlate that Rapha with “Genesis 6:4…gigantes as the pure form of the word used for such a union.”
And Isaiah 13:3 and 14:9, “I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones [gibbor] for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness….Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead [rephaim/γίγαντες] for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.”

Interestingly, dead/rephaim as chief ones touches upon the Ugaritic literature which had recently deceased kings and heroes as kings and heroes but after kings and heroes had been dead for a while, they were then referred to as rephaim.

M C:
Thanks Ken, I don’t think we will ever 100% agree on the details but I really do appreciate the time taken to respond and present your point and the learnings for me around them, you haven’t wasted your time responding. I think our common ground is that the offspring of the sons of God and women weren’t just men and that they are now gone 🙂 God bless.

Ken Ammi:
I likewise appreciate the interaction and yes, we can agree on that much.

For more details, see my relevant books.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.