In making my online rounds discussing Nephilology, I’ve been directed to the GotQuestions site more than once so I will be reviewing their article Who / what were the Nephilim?
It begins by noting, “The Nephilim (‘fallen ones, giants’) may have been the offspring of sexual relationships between the sons of God and the daughters of men in Genesis 6:1–4.” If, “Nephilim (‘fallen ones, giants’)” refers to how some have taken it upon themselves to render the word then, fair enough, but we will have to keep an eye on what we’re told about, “giants.”
Since the qualifying term, “may have been” was employed, it’s followed with, “One theory is that the ‘sons of God’ were fallen angels (demons) who took on physical form and mated with human females (or demons who possessed human males who then mated with human females).”
Technically, “fallen angels (demons)” is a category error—especially since demons didn’t even exist during the Gen 6 affair’s timeline, see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
As for, “took on physical form” there’s literally no indication of any such thing in the entire Bible. Rather, 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.
The, “demons who possessed human males” view is historically virtually unknown and, again, demons didn’t exist yet.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians 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.
And, of course, if it was demon possessed human males which resulted in what the article goes on to assert were, “Nephilim, who were…of a giant size” why haven’t demons possessed men produced such offspring ever since—since they have kept mating ever since?
See what I meant about, “keep an eye on what we’re told about, ‘giants’”? The key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s GotQuestions’ usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Well, the answer to the second question appears to be something (that was merely asserted) about some vaguely generic concept of subjectively unusual height.
That means that the answer to the third question is, “No” since the answer to the first question 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.
It’s speculated, “If demons were involved in producing the Nephilim, it is likely those demons are the ones who were judged by God and are now ‘kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day’ (Jude 1:6).” Well, no because both Jude and 2 Peter 2 specify, “Angels….Angels.”
The category error continues with an objection, “to the theory that the Nephilim were demon-human hybrids: first, there is nothing in the text to expressly identify the sons of God as angels.”
If they were demon-human hybrids then the objection would be that there is nothing in the text to expressly identify the sons of God as demons. If they were Angel-human hybrids then the objection would be that there is nothing in the text to expressly identify the sons of God as Angels. Yet, Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”).
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
Another objection is, “the Bible never indicates that angels are physiologically compatible with women and can procreate with them (unless Genesis 6 is the only instance).” Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”
And yes, Genesis 6 is the only instance since those Angels were incarcerated and, again, there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
One speculation is that the demons were attempting to pollute the human bloodline in order to prevent the coming of the Messiah.
We then get back to the misused of that notorious modern English word with, “Another view of the Nephilim is that the statement ‘There were giants on the earth in those days’ (Genesis 6:4, NKJV) simply means that everyone was big and tall and mighty.” But we don’t even know if Nephilim were subjectively tall (“tall” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “giants”). Also, merely assuming they were by reading that into the terms, “giants” or, “tall” is a word-concept fallacy. And, why would it be that, “everyone was big and tall” if only they are (supposedly) identified as such? By the way, by definition, if, “everyone was big and tall” then none one was big and tall since it’s all subjective and if all are the same then that flattens everything out, if everyone was the same then no one was subjectively big nor tall.
Next up is, “that these sons of God were simply men. This would explain why there were giants before the flood ‘and also afterward’ (Genesis 6:4; cf. 1 Samuel 17:4–7), as primeval genetic material survived in Noah’s family. The fact that Nephilim were still around sporadically after the flood is an indicator that giants like Goliath were exceptional, but not superhuman.”
Since the context is Gen 6, we will swap the useless word, “giants” for the specific term, “Nephilim” and note that the assertion of Nephilim, “before the flood ‘and also afterward” is followed by a citation that states no such thing. Genesis 6:4 reads, “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” and the flood’s not even mentioned, for the very first time, until a full 13 verses later.
I’m flummoxed as to why 1 Samuel 17:4–7 is cited since it’s about a Repha, not a Nephil. The key portion reads, “Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span” so what has that to do with Nephilim? Nothing—recall that it was merely asserted that Nephilim were whatever, “giants” and, “tall” means. Also, the article didn’t bother noting that the Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
Note that, “primeval genetic material survived in Noah’s family” is not only a made up un-biblical tall-tale but contradicts the Bible five times and implies that God failed, that He missed a loophole, that the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
As for, “Nephilim were still around” there’s literally zero reliable indication of that: it seems that the author of the article was just chasing the English term, “giants” around a Hebrew Bible.
We then get to that, “According to legend (the Book of Enoch and other non-biblical writings), the Nephilim were a unique race of giants…” and indeed, that’s legend. 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch” and my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
We’re then told, “As mentioned, there were some Nephilim after the flood, according to Genesis 6:4” yes, that was, “mentioned” but is not in Gen 6:4.
But then we’re told, “When the Israelites spied out the land of Canaan, they reported back to Moses, “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” (Numbers 13:33).”
Yet, that misrepresents the text in a few ways: it wasn’t, “the Israelites spied…they” since the article ignores that there are two reports in that chapter, the first one is accepted as is but the only one the article notes was by 10 of those men, the ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, unreliable, embellishers who presented an, “evil report” and were rebuked by God: I’ve no idea why such key facts were ignored.
They just made up a tall-tale about Nephilim and, overall, their report consists of five assertions that are unbacked by even one single other verse in the entire Bible, see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Moreover, the article continues directly with, “Later, as Moses addressed the people of Israel before they entered Canaan, he mentioned the sons of Anak: ‘You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky. The people are strong and tall—Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: ‘Who can stand up against the Anakites?’’ (Deuteronomy 9:1–2). These ‘giants’ were destroyed by the Israelites with God’s help (Deuteronomy 3:10–11; 9:3; Joshua 11:21–22; 1 Samuel 17).”
For some odd reason, the article failed to note that Anakim aren’t mentioned in the LXX version—and fails to note that in Deut 1, which was ignored, Moses relates the Num 13 events and mentions Anakim but doesn’t say a single word about Nephilim: he was surely being too practical, he was concerned about the real dangers on the ground, not about some tall-tale about Nephilim.
Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper. Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.
This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).
I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales and also Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.
But post-flood Nephilologists play the name-game when they realize they’ve no support for their theory. We just saw that since based on an unreliable evil report, the literal (illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical) impossibility that, “the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim” is a platform from which to then merely assert that Anakim—named after Anak, Arba’s son—were Nephilim, by any other name.
Well, Deut 2 tells us that Anakim were a subgroup of Rephaim: like a clan of a tribe.
Also, what about those texts denoted anything Nephilimic? Nothing at all.
Sadly, the article concludes by making more unsupportable assertions such as, “Genesis 6:4 states that there were Nephilim in the land in the days before the flood.”
It also states, “The passage does not explicitly say how these giants came to be” even though it tells us exactly how, “sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives…the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
And, the obligatory, “It is best to not be dogmatic on an issue that the Bible says so little about and that is not theologically significant in the grand scheme of things.”
And yet, “on an issue that the Bible says so little” it’s all the more important for us to handle the little that we’re told very carefully, accurately, and specifically.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.