Michelle Hayman posted an article titled Fallen Angels, and the Bloodlines of the Ancient “Gods” and self-describes as, “I write this as a personal journey through forbidden pages of history and scripture.”
She notes, “the mighty figures worshipped as gods in ancient Rome were not mere myths or overactive imaginations. They were real beings, born of an unholy union between fallen angels and human women” so that’s the Angel view which was the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, 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.
Since Michelle Hayman noted, “These were the Nephilim described in” the modern English Bible’s she’s reading’s version of, “Genesis, ‘giants in the earth’” the questions become: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s her usage? Do those two usages agree?
She also noted, “According to Genesis 6:4 (KJV), they were on the earth both before and after the Flood” but there’s literally no such thing in any version in any language from any time and that brings up a lot of issues such as that God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc., and just how did Nephilim get past the flood, past God?
In fact, she went on to merely assert, “In the Biblical narrative, they were destroyed by the Flood” so that was the end of them, right? Biblically yes, of course. Yet, she went on to write, “yet whispers of their bloodline and influence echo through mythology, empire, and even the modern corridors of power” which means that those mythologies are un-biblical.
Michelle Hayman does ask, “If these Nephilim, the fallen ones were the ‘mighty men of old’, could it be that ancient mythologies around the world are distorted memories of these very beings? The thought sent chills down my spine” and it also sent chills down my spine since pop-Nephilology is currently owned by people who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians, they sells un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
She appeals to, “the example of Rome’s foundational myth. The Romans traced their imperial lineage to the Trojan hero Aeneas, who—according to legend—was the son of a mortal man (Anchises) and a goddess: Venus. In other words, Aeneas was half-divine, half-human” which, if anything, might be watered down cultural memories of how Nephilim came to be.
And it’s the same when she traces that down to, “Venus was not originally Roman. She was the same being the Greeks called Aphrodite, and the Sumerians and Babylonians worshipped as Inanna/Ishtar.”
Thus, Michelle Hayman has it that, “From this perspective, Aeneas was of Nephilim” but that’s just a, “perspective” indeed: it’s conceptual, not biological.
Thus, as for, “Caesar and his descendants; were proud to carry this hybrid bloodline” well, they may have been proud of that but it’s a false pride since such wasn’t the case.
She then references, “the Book of Enoch,” really 1 Enoch, which has it that, “female entities…transformed into sirens.” She noted, “The Book of Enoch, a powerful and ancient text revered by early Jews and even quoted in the New Testament (Jude 1:14-15)” yet, Paul quoted Greek poets so I’m unsure what the point is. The fact is that 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.
It’s also noted, “While much of Christian tradition emphasizes male angelic figures, some modern theologians acknowledge that angels, being spiritual entities, transcend human gender, capable of manifesting in multiple forms depending on their intent or deception.”
That’s a distinction between biblical Angelology and man-made tradition since 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.
Yet, Michelle Hayman wrote, “The Watchers, as Enoch calls them, left their heavenly estate (Jude 1:6–7, KJV), took human form” but there’s no indication of that: again, they are already of human form, and ontologically so.
She went on to write, “The Egyptian historian Manetho recorded how these beings created chimeric creatures; part human, part animal…These were not mere symbols. They were likely the result of forbidden tampering with God’s design” but both sides of Nephilim’s parentage looked human so there’s every indication that they did as well and animals had nothing to do with that.
Michelle Hayman then jumps to, “The Nazis, deeply involved in Germanic paganism and occult rites, saw themselves as a pure bloodline; the Aryans, descended from divine progenitors. Marriage required genealogical purity tests, echoing ancient Nephilim strategies to preserve corrupted bloodlines” but, if anything, Nephilim were the result of the 100% exact opposite of, “genealogical purity” since the whole point was that Angels mixed with humans and, by extension, half-human Nephilim would have mixed with humans.
She goes on to note, “The Nephilim narrative is not a mere historical footnote; it is the key to understanding a long war; a war between two seeds, two lineages, two spirits” but, again, “they were destroyed by the Flood” and there’s literally zero reliable indication that, “they were on the earth both before and after the Flood.”
We shouldn’t let our hatred of Paganism, by any other name, damage theology proper since by implying a failed God we do more damage than Paganism does.
She asks, “What if today’s global elite; particularly those linked to the legacy of the Roman Empire; are the descendants of the Nephilim, the ancient giants mentioned in the Bible?”
Writing, “Nephilim, the ancient giants” seems to imply Michelle Hayman’s referring to Nephilim as giants yet, that’s myopic 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, BTW, never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
She wrote, “After the Great Flood, many assume they were wiped out” yes, she did, but she claimed that wasn’t the end of them and claimed Gen 6 states otherwise and, “scriptures; and historical records, suggest otherwise.”
So, just what was the loophole that God missed when He failed since the flood was much of a waste?
Well, Michelle Hayman tell us, “During the time of Abraham, multiple tribes descended from these giants had established themselves in the land of Canaan. These tribes bore names like Rephaims, Emims, and Anakims.”
Now, if it’s, “Nephilim, the ancient giants” then, “Rephaims, Emims, and Anakims” are irrelevant: that’s just a category error. In fact, that’s a list of one, not three, since Emmim and Anakim were like clans of the Rephaim tribe and Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
Michelle Hayman then incoherently and myopically wrote, “During Israel’s exodus from Egypt, Moses sent spies into the land of Canaan. What they found was staggering. A single cluster of grapes was so heavy that it had to be carried on a pole by two men. This was not mere hyperbole; it reflected the enormous size and strength of the inhabitants. These giants, some of whom bore the names Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, lived in Hebron around 1490 BC.”
Note that she artificially inserted something to do with grapes and that a, “cluster of grapes” has something to do with, “the enormous size and strength of the inhabitants” which is another category error.
Having not noted anything about the inhabitants besides a mere assertion about, “enormous size” she then jumped to, “These giants, some of whom bore the names Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai.” Yet, enormous is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.
Also, when Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai are referred to as giants in the modern English version she’s reading, it’s just identifying them as Rephaim and not even implying anything about their size.
Michelle Hayman then noted, “The Book of Deuteronomy even records the bed of King Og of Bashan, measuring nine cubits by four cubits; over 13 feet long and nearly 6 feet wide. These were not ordinary humans.”
So if, for example, you purchase an extra-large bed that would make you a not ordinary human?
For some odd reason, she didn’t mention that she’s basing the not ordinary human accusation based on a, “bed” not on Og since we’ve no physical description of him and that, “bed” wasn’t something upon which he slept: it was a ritual object, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Michelle Hayman then specifically refers to Nephilim of, “unnatural size” but that came after stating nothing about their size and, in fact, 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.
And speaking of sci-fi, she asks, “Could the Nephilim have manipulated DNA” which may only be true if manipulated DNA refers to good ol’ fashioned copulation.
She then adds to the previous category error by asserting, “Each of these tribes carried the blood of the giants,” by which she means both Nephilim and also something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height above the parochial average—see how useless that modern English word is?
She lists, “Rephaim…The Horim…Emims…Zuzims and Zamzummim.”
Well, Horim were their own tribe but Zuzim is just another form of Zamzummim which are just an aka for Rephaim and, again, Emmim were like a clan of that tribe.
Michelle Hayman also noted, “Rephaim were descendants of Rapha, meaning ‘fearful one’ or ‘giant’ in Hebrew” well, it can’t be, “‘giant’ in Hebrew” since, “giant” isn’t Hebrew. The root word rapha ranges in meaning from healing/healer to dead/death but not giants and that’s complicated more because by giants she means Nephilim, something about height, and now also Rapha: see how convoluted it gets when one uses that word, doesn’t define it, and uses it to mean various things—all without informing the readership who has to do the hard work of trying to figure out what’s being meant by it with every usage?
See my entire chapter on Rephaim in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
She notes, “Eventually, these tribes were defeated by the Israelites under the leadership of Moses and Joshua” who were never said to have anything to do with Nephilim whatsoever.
Michelle Hayman then circles back to 1 Enoch to note that it, “contains detailed descriptions of the Nephilim…as possessing bodies of immense and unnatural proportions” indeed, It has Nephilim as being MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality.
She asks, “If they once tampered with the human genome to produce Nephilim, giants and hybrids who were neither fully human nor fully angelic, is it so unthinkable that the same corrupt intelligence is still at work today; only with modern tools?”
Well, humans may be inspired by the Gen 6 affair (as I term it) and/or may be demonically inspired but Nephilim have been dead and gone since the flood (likely to Sheol) and their Angel dads have been incarcerated in Tartarus (2 Peter 2) so they’re not doing anything—well, not doing anything physically, this gets technically complex due to that demons are fallen Angels, in a round about manner, see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Michelle Hayman then notes, “Jesus Himself warned us that His return would come ‘as it was in the days of Noah’ (Matthew 24:37, KJV). What were those days marked by? Violence. Corruption. Hybridity. The mingling of the holy with the profane.” Yet, Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were (and they were nothing about Hybridity):
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”
But He kept speaking directly with:
“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17).
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.