The Hidden Orchard Project, “offers a radical Exploration of Spirituality, Science, and the Bible from a Jewish perspective.” Undergoing consideration is their article The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim: Exploring the Legends of Fallen Angels and Giants.
Beyond the title, we get a reference to giants in the first sentence, “people have been captivated by the Bible’s mention of rebellious Angels, their giant offspring” so that begs these key questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Hidden Orchard Project’s author’s usage?
Do those two usages agree?
We will have to keep track of the article to see if we get answers.
Thus far, we can tell it’s referring to Nephilim.
Throughout time, people have been captivated by the Bible’s mention of rebellious Angels, their giant offspring, and the various implications of these ideas.
It’s noted, “the Torah glances at this idea without much explanation and moves on quickly. The Talmud has little to say about the Nephilim” about which you can see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts and also 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. It’s also quite rightly noted, “In the absence of an accessible tradition, the Nephilim have taken on a life apart from the Torah” about which I wrote the article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
That thought is continued thusly, “As a result, one may find the Nephilim discussed in the domain of mysterious and elusive cryptids like; Sasquatch, the Nordics, Mothman, Chupacabra, and Aliens.” I would add that such is the case because entire ministries have been established based on the current cottage industry of pop-Nephilology—which is un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales. Since there’s only so much one can do—especially for a living—based on a mere two sentences in the Bible, they, like a black hole, consume anything that even appears to be possibly somehow relevant or else is forced to be made to appear relevant: such as the trendy assertion that Sasquatch/Yeti/Bigfoot has something to do with Nephilim.
Back to the giants, we’re told, “We see the first mention of the Nephilim in Genesis” which is quoted thusly:
The view taken by the article’s author is, “The word ‘Nephilim’ in Hebrew (נפלים) connotes the idea of fallen ones – fallen angels.” Yet, that’s a non-sequitur that creates problems. One issue is that being referred to as fallen doesn’t necessitate that they were Angels. Also, that would make the verse read, “It was then, and later too, that the fallen Angels appeared on earth—when divine beings cohabited with the human women, who bore them offspring. Such were the heroes of old, the men of renown.” So, if Nephilim were fallen Angels then who are the diving beings and who were their offspring? A normative reading would be that we’re being told that Nephilim are the resultant offspring of when the diving beings/Angels/sons of God/bene ha Elohim mated with human women.
It’s noted, “Somehow, these Angelic outcasts were able to mate with human women” and the, “Somehow” is spelled out for us since the narrative’s focus is attraction, marriages, mating, and offspring. But how could have take place? Simple: 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.” See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
But that statement continued with, “bearing giant hybrid offspring” which biblically contextually reads, “bearing Nephilim hybrid offspring.”
We’re then told, “Tradition teaches that (7) names in the Hebrew Bible are connected to, or have some lineage to the Nephilim” but tradition is all it is especially since it’s an argument from silence with zero backing data in the Bible.
We’re told the tradition is, “of course, the Nephilim, and also the Anakim, Avim, Eimim, Gibburim, Rephaim, and the Zamzumim. Some draw a connection to the Amorites as well.”
The article end with a notification that reads:
This post is for subscribers only
Subscribe now
Already have an account? Sign in
Thus, it seems like we’re just reading a snipped—which is why I can see some endnotes numbers but not the endnotes. In any case, we will deal with what we have.
Whoever made up that tradition didn’t seem to understand that Anakim, Eimim, Rephaim, and Zamzumim are all the same: Rephaim were aka Zamzumim and Anakim and Eimim were like clans of the Rephaim/Zamzumim tribe—see Deut 2.
Avim and Amorites are just two other tribes.
Gibburim doesn’t even refer to a people group of any sort but is merely a descriptive term meaning mighty/might.
Thus, the seven reduced to three and there’s literally zero indication any of the have anything to do with Nephilim. That’s the case especially since all of those lived post-flood but, of course, Nephilim didn’t since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
And right on schedule, the article’s author notes, “One puzzling question is how these groups managed to survive the flood. One tradition suggests that the land of Canaan, Israel, was not affected by the flood, enabling the giants there to survive.” So then, according to that tradition, indeed, a local flood was much of a waste. And yet, it would seem that the tradition opted for a local flood just to get Nephilim past it—for some odd reason. Well, the scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
Next, we’re told, “As a result, conquering the land became a major challenge for the Israelites as a result of the giants there. We see this in the incident of the spies who reported giants in the land. Long after Moses had defeated the giants, Sichon and Og, a young David fought and killed the last of the giants, Goliath.”
This is getting very linguistically messy: the author is now jumping from Nephilim to giants to Rephaim—by any other name.
We are forced to guess that by, “as a result of the giants there” what is meant is, “of the Nephilim aka Rephaim aka…,” etc. As for, “the spies who reported” Nephilim, “in the land”: that’s irrelevant since that was an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. They’re the only reason why anyone would even imagine post-flood Nephilim but there’s zero reason to believe them and many reasons not to—including the damage that does to the flood narrative and to theology proper—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal. The last sentence biblically contextually reads, “Long after Moses had defeated the Rephaim, Sichon and Og, a young David fought and killed the last of the Rephaim, Goliath”—and actually, Og is said to have been the last Repha.
It’s at the point of the article asking, “How Did the Angles Fall in the First Place?” where we get the, “This post is for subscribers only” so we will leave off here.
Chasing the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants around a Hebrew Bible is always a bad idea, especially when it’s usage is left for the reader to guess that it’s sometimes used and sometimes not as it’s mixed with Hebrew terms such as Nephilim and Rephaim.
So, here are the answers:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
It merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others—and, just in case anyone was wondering, it never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
What’s the author’s usage?
Seems to have been swapped for Nephilim which was then swapped with Rephaim and the other supposed various post-flood akas for Nephilim—which created category errors.
Do those two usages agree?
They seem to, even if in a sloppy manner.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.