A certain Dr. Ravae Wilson wrote an article posted on the Woodside Bible Church’s (Chris Brooks, Senior Pastor) website that’s titled The Bible Said What? The Nephilim.
That which I term the Gen 6 affair is quoted thusly:
“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.’ 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. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” – Genesis 6:1-4
Dr. Ravae Wilson noted:
The Nephilim are only mentioned twice in Scripture, both in Genesis 6:1–4 and then in Numbers 13:33. Their name, derived from the Hebrew root naphal (to fall), is often translated as “fallen ones.” However, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates the root word as “giants,” which has shaped much of our cultural understanding of who these beings were.
I’ll put it thusly, “The Nephilim are only mentioned twice in Scripture, both” reliably, “in Genesis 6:1–4 and then” unreliably, “in Numbers 13:33.”
It’s actually impossible that, “the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates the root word as ‘giants,’” since, as noted, it’s a Greek version but giants is an English word. That version rendered (didn’t translate) as gigantes which means earth-born—and for some odd reason it did likewise with the words gibborim and Rephaim.
Dr. Ravae Wilson got into the issue of, “who exactly were these ‘sons of God?’” and answered via:
…different interpretations of who the Nephilim actually were. While there are many theories, there are two main ones we’re going to focus on today:
The Nephilim were giants. The traditional view, based on Numbers 13 and the Septuagint translation, is that the Nephilim were literal giants—massive beings with extraordinary strength and size. This interpretation aligns with the Israelite spies’ description of feeling like “grasshoppers” in comparison. It also helps us make sense of the fact that the Nephilim lived after the flood. This is an indicator that giants like Goliath were exceptional, but not superhuman.
The Nephilim were fallen ones. Many believe the “sons of God” were angelic beings who left their heavenly domain to engage in forbidden relationships with human women. This view is supported by passages like Job 1:6, where “sons of God” refers to angels, and Jude 6, which speaks of angels abandoning their proper dwelling. This interpretation also aligns with ancient non-biblical Jewish texts—like the Book of Enoch—which describe the Nephilim as the offspring of these unions. However, this view raises questions about whether angels, as spiritual beings, could physically reproduce [Matthew 22:30].
So, which interpretation is true? We don’t know.
This is what we can know:
Stating, “The Nephilim were giants” only begs these questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Dr. Wilson’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Well, we were told, “Nephilim were literal giants—massive beings with extraordinary strength and size” which was, “based on Numbers 13 and the Septuagint translation” so that’s gigantically incoherent since it’s much too generically vague.
Firstly, Dr. Wilson’s usage doesn’t agree with the English Bibles’ usage since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
Secondly, “based on Numbers 13” means based on one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Thirdly, “based on…the Septuagint translation” is based on the Dr.’s linguistically mistaken premise of ignoring the Greek word and swapping in an English word, not telling the readers that it was gigantes nor what that means, and committing a word-concept fallacy of merely assuming that giants must and can only refers to well, something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).
As for, “massive beings with extraordinary…size” the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
Anyone appealing to Num 13:33 needs to mention that they’re relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
8. Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal—which I’m currently updating.
It’s also a misrepresentation of Num 13 to generically refer to, “the Israelite spies’ description” since that ignores that there are two reports in that chapter and 12 spies but he’s myopically hyper-focused on the second of the two reports, the evil report, and that is was by the 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
As for, “the fact that the Nephilim lived after the flood” Just how did Nephilim get past the flood, past God? That implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. If Nephilim, would wold have been the most awe inspiring beings on the planet, made it past the flood somehow: why are they only exclusively mentioned in one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked?
As for, “giants like Goliath were exceptional, but not superhuman” he’s referred to as a Repha, not a Nephil, virtually every single time he’s mentioned so he’s irrelevant.
As for, “‘sons of God’ were angelic beings” well, the only angelic beings are Angels, by definition, and the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved 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.
As for, “whether angels, as spiritual beings, could physically reproduce [Matthew 22:30]”:
1) I can only imagine that Dr. Wilson accidentally swapped spiritual for what was meant to be said which is spirits: humans can be spiritual and we reproduce all of the time.
2) Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
3) Matthew 22:30 has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they could physically reproduce since it Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven.” So, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so. And besides, as human history sadly proves, offspring are able to be reproduced without the benefit of marriage—even though on Earth, disloyal Angels did marry.
Dr. Ravae Wilson tells us, “I have my own theories…I cannot in good conscience present them to you as ‘truth’” and I wonder is the lack of confidence (at least that’s how I read it) is due to committing so many errors along the way that it’s difficult (at least that’s how I read it) to come to a certain conclusion—in terms of certainty.
Dr. Wilson wrote, “Nephilim were present during the pre-flood era…which led to the destruction of the earth and humanity. This would naturally lead one to think that the Nephilim were destroyed in the flood” but rather then interacting with the narratives of Gen 6 and Num 13 (and 14) we get, “but their mention in Numbers 13 raises more questions” which are actually done away with when we handle the little data we have as is.
Nephilim lived pre-flood, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form, centuries post flood 10 unreliable guys came up with a fantasy tall-tale about them and were rebuked by God—end of (biblical) story.
That’s in keeping with what we’re told, it requires no special pleading rescue devices, it’s not premised on various errors, and creates no problems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Leave a Reply