Under consideration is an article by Gina on the “Shredding the Veil” titled Giants: Rephaim, Zamzummim, Emim, Anakim, Nephilim, Zuzim, October 25, 2016 AD (find all segments here).
Gina lays it out her conclusion emphatically as that “There is no other acceptable conclusion than that the sons of God in Gen 6:2 were the faithful men of God who unwisely chose women of the unfaithful, and wicked men who lived according to the flesh.” Yet, this is an assertion as the text refers to the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” getting married and producing the Nephilim aka “giants” aka “fallen ones” and nothing about “faithful men” nor “unfaithful, and wicked men” nor that these “lived according to the flesh.”
She also specifies, “To argue…that the sons of God in Gen 6:2, and 6:4 were fallen angels is to say that sons of God are not led by the spirit of God. This is a contradiction of the scriptures!” This is a non-sequitur which gets us back to the point about Gina defining Genesis 6’s “sons of God” by exclusively and therefore myopically referring to Romans 8:13-14. The fact is that there are various references to “sons of God” within the Bible ranging from beings who witnessed part of God’s original creation (Job 38:7, also see 1:6 and 2:1) to Adam (Luke 3:38) to Jesus (various references such as Matthew 27:43) to believers (such as the Romans’ text). Overall, “sons of God” seems to refer to being directly created by God: the beings who predated most of creation were clearly directly created, Adam was created from dust/dirt/soil, Jesus was born of a virgin and believers are born again.
Thus, when Gina again emphasizes, “They cannot be fallen angels, led by lusts of the flesh, and also be sons of God led by the spirit of God!” she is not being specific enough and is painting with a proverbial broom.
She goes on to explain that “Genesis chap. 6 was not discussing fallen angels, but fallen, wicked, earth-born men.” Genesis 6 does refer to the Nephilim as “men” and yet, even on the Angel view of these were half human and are therefore rightly called “men”—we do the same in, for example, referring to Barack Obama as the first US “black” president even though he is half “black” and half “white.”
Recall that Gina referred to “faithful men” and “women of the unfaithful, and wicked men” but why did not any unfaithful men marry women of the faithful godly men? In other words, why was it exclusively male sons of God with exclusively female daughters of men? Or to put is as some would: why only male Sethites and only female Cainites? The Angel view makes perfect sense of this since biblically Angels look just like human males. Thus, only male Angels with female humans.
Gina ends by stating, “The so-called Book of Enoch is a fabrication” of which I will say that there are various books (plural) of Enoch and she is referring to “1 Enoch” aka “Ethiopic Enoch” and about which I agree that even though Jude quotes Enoch the seventh from Adam he may not have quoted “the book of” Enoch as we know it today and what we have today certainly seems to be a fabrication or perhaps an amalgam—see my section on these books.
She also notes that the “Book of Enoch…contradicts God’s word” with which I agree, see my Wherein the Book of Enoch contradicts the Bible.
She states that it “cannot be relied upon for any information” which is an overstatement. For example, if nothing else you can learn from it the manner whereby the Genesis 6 affair was interpreted by early writers—in fact, the Angels view was the preferred view amongst the early Jewish and Christian authors, see Early commentaries on Genesis 6: Angels or not? – interactive chart.
Gina concludes by stating, “The DNA for tall or giant people is still carried throughout the blood line of mankind. Goliath, at 6 cubits and a span, was about 9-1/2 ft tall. (1 Sam. 17:4) We have people today who are sometimes 7 feet tall. We see it occur now and then in each generation.”
Well, if “The DNA for tall or giant people” results in people who are 7-9 feet then giants were not so gigantic after all. As for Goliath, he is taller in Greek than he is in Hebrew as there is a discrepancy between manuscripts of these languages so that he ranged from 6.7 ft. to 9.8 ft.
Overall, Gina did a good job reviewing the info on “giants” even if she overemphasized the issue on occasion and she misses on the Genesis 6 affair issue mostly by being too myopic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.