Discussion with a fellow Nephilim related issues author

As I sometimes do, I am reproducing a discussion but will not be revealing the author’s name since this discussion did not take place on the open www. Still, I thought it instructive enough in terms of how to handle disagreements on such issues.

The author contacted me to note, “I have finished my new book [title withheld] and I would like to ask you to consider writing an endorsement – I would be honored if you did! Let me know and I will send you the draft copy.”

My reply was, “I pray I find you and yours well. I am honored that you asked for my endorsement and my delay in replying is because I was torn: I want to help a brother out yet, on the other hand, if the book claims that post-flood Nephilim is a biblical teaching then I will be unable to endorse it.”

The author’s reply was, “I appreciate your candor! I do make the case that Nimrod became a hybrid and was summarily known as Ninurta in Akkadian and Ningirsu in the Sumerian literature. He was known as the son of Enlil (Heilel Isa 14:12) / Satan. He had so many epithets in the ancient world it is hard to keep up with them all. He was Melqart in Tyre and Heracles to the Greeks. However, I appreciate your concern.”

This means that it is worse than I thought as there is zero indication about anything unusual whatsoever about Nimrod. Thus, this is the stuff of which neo-theo-sci-fi is made.

My reply was to ask “Do you think that the flood had anything to do with Nephilim?” which is a typical question that I ask post-flood Nephilim believers—and you will see why as we progress.

Author’s reply:
“I do. I think Nephilim (hybrids) was the main reason God sent the flood.

What I mean by Nephilim after the flood is hybrids. I do NOT think any pre-flood Nephilim survived the flood; they all died. However, I do believe that Satan was up to no good after the flood and created more hybrids (Rephaim, Zamzumim, etc). I commonly (non-technically) refer to those as Nephilim…but that term probably creates a little confusion. So…there were hybrids after the flood but NO pre-flood Nephilim.”

My reply:
“I appreciate your attempted distinctions.
It seems like the flood was somewhat of a waste if God meant to be rid of them but they just came right back–like Satan found a loophole that God missed.
I would assume that you would, at least for the most part, consider it speculation that Satan “created more hybrids” post-flood since there is nothing about that in scripture–in fact, it is odd to state that Satan “created MORE hybrids” since there is no indication that he ever created any: only speculation about him inciting the Angels to do so but that is guess work.
Also, FYI: Zamzumim are Rephaim, just a subgroup like Anakim.
Indeed, referring to Rephaim as Nephilim creates confusion but for the main reason that there is no indication that the Rephaim people group were anything but 100% human–with how the root word repha is used being another issue.”

“We do have ‘We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.’ (Num 13:33)
So – the point is that Anakim are the same ‘kind.’
(That too was considered a land of the Rephaites, who used to live there; but the Ammonites called them Zamzummites. (Deut 2:20) They were a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. The LORD destroyed them from before the Ammonites, who drove them out and settled in their place. (Deut 2:21)
Then we have Amos saying: ‘Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, Whose height was like the height of the cedars, And he was as strong as the oaks; Yet I destroyed his fruit above And his roots beneath.’ (Amos 2:9)
The hybrids come about somehow. I am not trying to convert you but I am curious what would your solution be?”

I appreciated his attempted distinctions but he has now collapsed various categories into one and it cannot help but cause him problems.

My reply:
“I wonder if you might consider it odd that you are all but forced to appeal to Num 13:33 because well, that is the only post-flood Nephilim game in town—que no?
What ‘We do have’ in Num 13:33 is the recorded evil report stated by unfaithful, disloyal, self-contradictory, embellishing, rebuked spies who also contradict Moses, Joshua, Caleb, God and the rest of the Bible and make three claims about which the entire rest of the Bible knows nothing.
Yet, there are more oddities with that one verse: when Moses relates that event in Deut 1:28 he utterly ignores the mention of Nephilim and when the LXX renders it, it utterly ignores Anakim.
Now, if for some odd reason someone—nervous throat clear ;o)—still want to believe those spies (someone would never believe such people in the day-to-day life) then they would still only be able to claim that the subgroup Anakim are the same “kind” but not the main group Rephaim.
Deuteronomy 2:10 specifies that ‘The Emims’ were ‘a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims. Which also were accounted giants [rapha’], as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.’
I do not recall that Amorites were related to Anakim or any Rephaim but you seem to mention them due to a presumed implication about unusual height but I am unsure what height has to do with any of this.
So you say ‘The hybrids come about somehow’ but the only indication I have been given about post-flood hybrids is by actually believing utterly unreliable people.
I am appreciating this discussion, brother.”

Author’s reply:
“So that I understand you – you believe in pre-flood Nephilim – hybrids between angels and women. Is that correct? But hybrids after the flood you do not believe. Am I correct?
Genesis 6:4 tells us that the sons of God came into the daughters of man when they bore them children at two distinct times: before the flood and after. The relative pronoun ‘asher’ translated ‘when’ is being used for two temporal clauses ‘in those days,’ as well as ‘and also afterward.’ We can visualize it like this:

The Nephilim in Num 13:33 were the of the same category as the Anakim = Emim = Rephaim = Amorites etc. God said the Amorites were immensely tall
‘Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, Whose height was like the height of the cedars, And he was as strong as the oaks; Yet I destroyed his fruit above And his roots beneath.’ (Amos 2:9)
King Og was about 15″ tall and known as king of the Amorites and was a Rephaim. According to Ugaritic texts Og was king of the Rp’um and lived in Ashtoreth and Edrei. The Rephaim were known as dead kings. I document all this in my new book.
I get the sense that you have invested a lot of energy into disproving post-flood Nephilm. If that is correct, what has motivated you to do so? Why is it a problem if there were hybrids (Nephilim, Rephaim, etc) after the flood?”

My reply:
“Love to be discussing this with you since we are able to trade detailed stuff rather than the sorts of vague generalities I often hear.
Indeed, the sons of God were Angels who mated with human women who birthed hybrid Nephilim, the last of them died in the flood, they did not return and never will, in any way, shape or form.
I submit to you that the whole entire post-flood Nephilim theory is literally based one single (un-contextual) verse which is then turned into a hermeneutic whereby other texts are then misread.
If you re-read Genesis 6:4 you will note that it does not state at two distinct times: before the flood and after. In fact, the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until v. 17—which is a full 13 verses later.
The point about Num 13:33—which is the one single (un-contextual) verse—is that in order to claim there were Nephilim in the land you have to take the word of utterly unreliable people whom in your daily life you would never, ever, believe—more on this below.
But yes, they refer to Anakim, which are a subgroup of Rephaim but I am unsure about Amorites being a subgroup of Rephaim.
Now, even if “God said the Amorites were immensely tall” that has nothing to do with Nephilim.
I wonder if you could offer a ratio-based comparison between the strength of a person (or humanoid) and the strength of an oak (and a dead dry oak or a green living one?).
You may claim ‘King Og was about 15″ tall’ but we are never told his height.
Also, Sihon was a king of Amorites, Og was a Repha and king of Bashan.
That ‘Rephaim were known as dead kings” is what I meant by “the root word repha is used being another issue’ since it refers to healing, to death, to a people group, etc., etc., etc. But these varied meanings (and there are more) are not necessarily all applicable at the same time and in the same relation. In other words, just because repha can mean healing does not necessarily mean that the people group Rephaim were known as healers nor does that when rephaim are summoned for healing it necessarily mean that the one of the Rephaim people group were being summoned.
So when you say ‘Rephaim were known as dead kings’ it really refers to when kings were repha—dead.
As to why I seek to disprove post-flood Nephilim: it is because no matter how it is spun, there is no such biblical teaching and it implies that God failed. That is why I wonder ‘if you might consider it odd that you are all but forced to appeal to Num 13:33 because well, that is the only post-flood Nephilim game in town’ and that is then used to re-read and mis-read other texts—such as Gen 6:4.
Recall that I noted, that ten of the spies, were self-contradictory since they contradicted their original report.
They also embellished their original report.
They also contradict Moses, Joshua, Caleb, God and the rest of the Bible which affirm that Anakim where in the land but never say one single word about Nephilim nor relation to them.
They also make three claims about which the entire rest of the Bible knows nothing: 1) that there were post-flood Nephilim, 2) that Anakim are related to them, and 3) that they are very tall.
And all of that is after we are told they presented an evil report.
Thus, the key features of the post-flood Nephilim claim, including a physical description of them, comes exclusively from people who should never be believed.
If I showed up at your church and told you something theological but you found that I was unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, an embellisher, contradicted authorities such as Moses and God, was rebuked, made up stuff, and was said to present an evil report: would you really take a fragment of what I said and preach it as God inspired fact?
Lastly, when you ask about ‘hybrids (Nephilim, Rephaim, etc) after the flood’ that is my point: there is no indication that Rephaim are hybrids—the genealogy we have for Rapha begins with Ner who begat Kish who begat Saul who begat Jonathan who begat Meribbaal who begat Micah who begat Jehoadah who begat Zimri who begat Moza who begat Rapha (1 Chronicles 8:33-37).”

Author’s reply:
“I do not agree with your assertion that the Num 13:33 verse is un-contextual – nor that they were lying. I see them as telling the truth of the land but without faith – they did not believe that THEY could do it – and that was the point – THEY could not. God promised to go before them.
Goliath was called a Rephaim and he was very tall. As for Og – he was an Amorite:
‘And we took all his cities at that time; there was not a city which we did not take from them: sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. (Deut 3:4) ‘All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides a great many rural towns. (Deut 3:5) ‘And we utterly destroyed them, as we did to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city. (Deut 3:6) ‘But all the livestock and the spoil of the cities we took as booty for ourselves. (Deut 3:7) ‘And at that time we took the land from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were on this side of the Jordan, from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon (Deut 3:8)
And his bed (or sarcophagus) was 15′ long and 6′ wide – that suggests a very large person. Perhaps he was a bit shorter but probably pretty close to that.
Og was called a Rephaim before he was dead – so I am not sure what your point is. Goliath was a Rephaim. Ugaritic talks about living ‘dead’ kings. Og’s name actually means ‘death’ in Sumerian.
You also assert that Gen 6 does not specify – yet point of the grammar – is that the word asher (which/when) tells us that when the sons of God came – there were Nephlim in those days and there Nephilim on the earth afterward.
Of course, the LXX gives us another witness – gigantes were demigods – AKA hybrids. There is a ton of evidence – which I have in my book.”

He followed before I could reply with:
“If you would like to read my book and poke holes in it (and not endorse), I welcome that. I would rather someone like you tell me why my arguments are weak before I publish. Let me know if that is something you would like to do.”

My reply was the last of this discussion since even though he offered to have me read his draft and I agreed, he never replied again:
“Let us break down Num 13—the key narrative consists of three parts: 1) the original report which is accepted as is, 2) Caleb chiming in and the other spies replying to him, and 3) being told that only then did the other spies present an evil report and the contents of that report.
Starting at v. 26 ‘they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation…and shewed them the fruit of the land’ which is not commonsensical since they just supposedly saw the most awe-inspiring beings on the planet and the first thing they do is talk about fruit, and then the land, and then the cities, and then the various peoples of the land and only eventually do they mention Nephilim.
The as is report, ‘the land…floweth with milk and honey.’
The evil report, ‘The land…eateth up the inhabitants.’
This is a contradiction since they first speak well of the land but then ill.
The as is report, ‘the people be strong that dwell in the land…they are stronger than we.’
The evil report, ‘all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.’
This is an embellishment since they twice describe the peoples as strong but later as of great stature.
The as is report, ‘we saw the children of Anak…Amalekites…Hittites…Jebusites…Amorites…Canaanites.’
The evil report, ‘we saw the Nephilim.’
This is another embellishment since they somehow initially forgot to mention having seen the most awe-inspiring beings on the planet.
The as is report, ‘Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.’
The evil report, ‘we saw the Nephilim.’
This is a missing data point since they are able to specify where they saw the various people groups but speak generically about the most awe-inspiring beings on the planet.
Clearly, indeed, they were ‘without faith – they did not believe that THEY could do it’ which is what lead them to concoct a ‘Don’t do in the woods’ style of scare tactic fear mongering tall tale.
They note, ‘the cities are walled, and very great’ and protected by strong people while the Israelites were itinerant tent dwellers so this was intimidating, at the very least. And the people were afraid since ‘Caleb stilled the people’ and encouraged them.
But note that first ‘the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we’ and then, after they express their faithlessness we are told ‘they brought up an evil report’ in which, again, they make three claims about which the whole entire Bible knows nothing.
It cannot be a coincidence that the one and only place in the whole Bible where you can appeal to for post-flood Nephilim is v. 33, and that the one and only place in the whole Bible where you can appeal to for Anakim being related to Nephilim is v. 33, and that the one and only place in the whole Bible where you can appeal to for that Nephilim are very tall is v. 33.
Do not bypass this: if, God forbid, we deleted v. 33 from the Bible then no one would ever claim post-flood Nephilim, that Anakim are related to them, nor that they were very tall.
And such is how the Bible actually reads since in order to argue those points you must believe some of the least reliable people in the whole Bible. Again, Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible affirm Anakim in the land but never say a single word about Nephilim.
This one verse is also what causes you to claim that Gen 6:4 states something that it does not. See, it becomes a hermeneutic.
As for Goliath yes, he was a Repha but that he was ‘very tall’ is subjective and also irrelevant to the issue of Nephilim—keep in mind that Gen 6 offers no physical description of Nephilim so you have to completely rely on the evil report for that they are very tall.
My bed is 7 ft and yes, if you subtract one foot from it you would get a good estimation of my height. Yet, you would also think that I am five times wider than I actually am. Plus, I am not an ancient monarch living a lavish lifestyle, sharing a bed with a harem, perhaps, etc. Yet, his ‘bed’ seems to not be anything he slept on as its dimensions fit ‘beds’ that archeologists have found that are actually ritual objects wherein the male and female gods mated—he was not sleeping on it.
BTW: if he was 13 or so feet tall then my reaction is: good for him. What do I care? I am just attempting to be as biblically accurate as possible and the fact is that unusual height is essentially biblically a non-issue which is why the Bible only provides us with 1) only two specific heights (both of Rephaim), 2) vague terminology such as ‘tall’ or ‘very tall’/‘great stature’ compared to Israelite males who averaged 5.0-5.3 ft., and 3) metaphors such as correlations to grasshoppers, cedars, etc.
Indeed, ‘Rephaim’ was a titled used of a people group and the root ‘repha’ was also used for healing, death, etc. Thus, ‘Og was called a Rephaim before he was dead’ because he was of that people group and ‘Goliath was a Rephaim’ indeed.
Indeed also, ‘there were Nephlim in those days and there Nephilim on the earth afterward’ but, again, the flood is not mentioned until 13 verses later so we need to read for immediate context.
Verse 4 tells us exactly to what days it is referring, ‘those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them’ but when was that?
Well, v. 1 tells us ‘when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them’ but when was that?
I have no idea but it could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children started having children.
Yet, in any case, the text is clear that ‘those days’ were ‘when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them’ and so ‘also after that’ is after ‘the sons of God’ first ‘came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them’ so that they began to do it and kept doing it and yet, that is all still pre-flood: and that is a contextual conclusion.
As I noted, Moses utterly disregards Nephilim when he relates the Num 13 situation and the LXX does not mention that Anakim are related to them—which gives us another witness.
But why say ‘gigantes were demigods – AKA hybrids’ since ‘gigantes’ literally means ‘earth-born’? I know, this has to do with that Greek mythology refers to Titans as gigantes but since we agree that Nephilim were hybrids then that is a non issue.
I would still he honored just to read your book, of course, but when do you intend to publish?
I only ask because I am currently writing a book and am also studying up for a debate I have coming up in Dec and you know how crazy things can get with studying and writing.

For more details, see my various books about Nephilim related issues.


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/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.