Under consideration is Hugh Ross’s article Q&A: How Did the Nephilim Reappear after the Flood?.
Hugh Ross was asked:
“If the flood of Noah wiped out all the Nephilim, then where did the Nephilim who show up after the flood come from?
If the sons of God were fallen angels and if these misbehaving angels were locked up in the abyss, as Jude 6 declares, then how could they come back to visit the daughters of humans?
If the sons of God were human men, then from whose gene pool did they come?
Is it possible that some of the pre-flood Nephilim actually survived the flood catastrophe?”
He affirms that “Nephilim did not survive the flood catastrophe” which is accurate and seals the deal—or, it should (since it does, biblically speaking).
However, Hugh Ross goes on to push for post-flood Nephilim based on pure, and unbiblical, speculations. This is rather than wondering why anyone would ever argue in favor of post-flood Nephilim in the first place.
He states, “The explanation for the post-flood Nephilim is that sons of God, distinct from those who went to the daughters of humans before the flood, went to the daughters of humans born after the flood” for which there is no biblical support whatsoever.
He adds, “If these sons of God were fallen angels, then these fallen angels are in addition to the ones who were locked up in the abyss as a result of their having sexual relations with human females before the flood” for which there is no biblical support whatsoever and, in fact, there is only a one time fall of Angels mentioned in the Bible.
Also, the logic is that “Nephilim did not survive the flood catastrophe” and “fallen angels…were locked” the implication of which his that it was all a waste and God failed since more Angels did it all again.
Hugh Ross offers this alternative, “If the sons of God were human males, this interpretation would imply that God had commanded the sons of Shem and/or Japheth not to have sexual relations with the daughters of Ham and/or Canaan. The violation of this command evidently would have produced a second generation of Nephilim” for which there is no biblical support whatsoever.
He then notes that “the second appearance of the Nephilim seems much more limited than the first. Thanks to a small Hebrew nation, and especially to David and his mighty men, the few post-flood Nephilim were completely exterminated” for which there is no biblical support whatsoever.
He ends with “In Navigating Genesis, appendix C, I include lists of all the Scripture passages mentioning ‘sons of God,’ ‘sons of men,’ ‘children of God,’ and ‘children of men.’ Those texts will help you see how the entire Bible treats this subject” but something is conspicuously missing: where is his list of Scripture passages that mention post-flood (which is almost the entire Bible) “Nephilim”?
Well, that list would consist of precisely one single citations: Numbers 13:33.
Perhaps I ought to try my hand at replying to the questions before I bring it all home.
“If the flood of Noah wiped out all the Nephilim, then where did the Nephilim who show up after the flood come from?”
There is no “If” but “since.” The other issue is that the second part of the question needs to be replied to with a question in turn: what makes you think there were post-flood Nephilim? I know, I know: Numbers 13:33—to which we shall get.
“If the sons of God were fallen angels and if these misbehaving angels were locked up in the abyss, as Jude 6 declares, then how could they come back to visit the daughters of humans?”
They did not, nor did any others ever.
“If the sons of God were human men, then from whose gene pool did they come?”
They were not human (most directly, Job 38:7 proves that “sons of God” can refer to non-humans since those “sons of God” witnessed, at least, the creation of Earth).
“Is it possible that some of the pre-flood Nephilim actually survived the flood catastrophe?”
No: they did not survive, did not return, never will, in any way, shape, or form—unless you want to imply that God failed.
So, what of Numbers 13:33? Well, that is the one single verse upon which the entire post-flood Nephilim theory is based. That there were post-flood Nephilim (against all logic and theo-logic), that they were very tall, and that Anakim were related to them is all base on one single verse.
Firstly: that verse is recording assertions made by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies who presented an “evil report” and whom God rebuked.
Secondly, they made four claims about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing: 1) that there were post-flood Nephilim, 2) that they were very tall, 3) that Anakim were related to them, 4) that all of the people of the land were “of great stature.”
Thirdly, they contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible since they affirm that Anakim, et al., were in the land but never say one single word about Nephilim, nor relation to them.
Fourthly, when Moses related that event in Deuteronomy 1:27-28 he mentions Anakim but, again, says not a word about Nephilim. Also, in the Septuagint/LXX version (which is v. 34 therein) Anakim are not mentioned.
Thus, there are multiple very serious issues with that once verse and just to pick it up without interacting with the narrative, take it as “gospel truth” and build an entire all-encompassing theory from it—which leads to the unbiblical speculation into which Hugh Ross was forced—is inappropriate hermeneutically, logically, theo-logically, and even on a basic commonsense level.
See my various books on Nephilim related issues for more details.
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.