Northwest Creation Network’s article Who Were the Nephilim? notes that, “Nephilim…are described as giants” which begs the questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Northwest Creation Network’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
It’s noted, “In the Greek Septuagint the word ‘nephilim’ was also translated as ‘gigantes’ (gigantic). This translation is undoubtedly used because the Nephilim later became known as giants to the ancient Hebrews, as illustrated by the manner in which they were referenced when the Israelite spies were sent into Canaan (Numbers 13:33 ).” Technically, Nephilim isn’t translated as such, that’s a mere rendering. Also, gigantes doesn’t mean whatever gigantic means but rather, earth-born. As for, “later” well, that’s a generic term but is, “illustrated” by, “the Israelite spies” and yet, Num 13:33 doesn’t record a statement made by, “the” twelve, “spies” but only by the ten unreliable ones whom God rebuked: it merely records their made up tall-tale of an, “evil report.” And such is affirmed later in the article, “the only specific mention of Nephilim on the earth after the flood is part of the bad report from the spies in Numbers 13:33 , a report that is called ‘bad’ (or ‘evil’) as in an unreliable source.”
We’re told that, “There are at least three schools of thought regarding the Sons of God” and it’s noted that, “they are distinguished from the daughters of men.”
Oddly, it’s noted that, “The older view, held nearly unanimously by ancient writers prior to Augustine of Hippo, is that the Nephilim were a hybrid race between certain fallen angels, called the Benei Ha’Elohim (“Sons of God”) or The Watchers in extra-Biblical traditions, and human women. While there has always been a minority of churchmen who followed this view, it has been promoted recently by popular writers such as Stephen Quayle.”
Indeed, 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—Augustine’s view was quite nuanced so see my chapter about him. Thus, it’s generic to merely assert, “a minority of churchmen who followed this view” since we know not when is being referenced. As for, Quayle well, he’s a plagiarist and evolutionist who teaches un-biblical Nephilology—and un-biblical Angelology and un-biblical Rephaim-ology, etc., etc., etc.: see my book 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.
We’re then told, “The more recent view which has been the majority position in the church since St. Augustine in the fourth century is that the Sons of God refers to the god-fearing line of Seth; and the daughters of men refers to the daughters of the unbelieving line of Cain.”
One major issue with such as view is that it’s late-dated and based on myth and prejudice since there’s no indication of any such things as an, “god-fearing line of Seth” or, “unbelieving line of Cain.”
The last view considered is that, “others hold that the Sons of God were other created men…Those holding to this position call into question the origin of Cain’s wife or those whom he feared would kill him Genesis 4:14-17 . However, this view falls into conflict with Genesis, which states that Eve is the mother of all the living.”
Well, that view is not traditionally listed as an option—however obscure it may be—but fails on various levels such as that Cain’s wife was clearly a relative since, for example, multiple generations are listed in Gen 4-5: for details, see my short video When Kev Baker asked where Cain got his wife, Ken Ammi replied.
In a subsection titled, “After the Flood” it’s noted, “Many…assume that many of the descriptions of giants in the Bible are references to Nephilim bloodlines” and Henry Morris from his book The Genesis Record:
“There were giants “also after that,” in the days of the Canaanites, and these were likewise known as, among other things, the Nephilim (Numbers 13:33).
Humanly speaking, they were descended from Anak, and so were also known as the Anakim.
These people were, of course, known to Moses and it was probably he who editorially inserted the phrase “and also after that” into Noah’s original record here in Genesis 6:4.
Moses probably also inserted the information that these were the “mighty men of old, men of renown,” men whose exploits of strength and violence had made them famous in song and fable in all nations in the ages following the Flood. To rebellious men of later times, they were revered as great heroes; but in God’s sight they were merely ungodly men of violence and evil.”
Gen 6 doesn’t state anything about, “giants ‘also after that,’ in the days of the Canaanites” but undiscerning English readers tend to uncritically chase the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” around a Hebrew Bible. So, since that’s how some mistakenly take it, that Gen 6’s giants are the very same as in the post-flood Canaan then they think things such as, “these were likewise known as, among other things, the Nephilim” but if that’s the case then why does that term only exclusively solely appear in one single post-flood verse?
As for, “Humanly speaking, they were descended from Anak” after whom Anakim were named well, such is part of the mere assertion by the ten unreliable guys: and note that Anakim aren’t mention in the LXX version for that verse.
As for speculating about, “Moses…probably…editorially inserted the phrase ‘and also after that’” not so since it has nothing to do with post-flood days: it’s not pointing us forward in time but rather, backward. It can’t mean anything about the flood since the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later. Also, God didn’t fail, He didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc.
Gen 6:4 states, “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.”
The question becomes: when were those days?
Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.
It’s also speculated, “Moses probably also inserted the information that these were the ‘mighty men of old, men of renown,’ men whose exploits of strength and violence had made them famous in song and fable in all nations in the ages following the Flood.” Yet, that’s also unnecessary since mighty men is the term gibborim and Angels are referred to as such, as are Nephilim, yet so are humans such as Gideon, Boaz, and some of David’s soldiers, and so is God (Isa 9’s El Gibbor).
We’re told, “Several tribes are encountered in the campaign of the Five Kings in Abraham’s day that some argue might be Nephilim or hybrids of Nephilim” yet, that’s an incoherent category error since as the article follows up by noting, “Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 2 name these tribes as the Rephaim (‘titans’, children of ‘Rapha’), Zuzim or Zamzummim (‘terrible ones’), Emim, Horites, and Anakim (‘crushing tyrants’).”
I’m unsure whence came the terms titans or crushing tyrants but Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them. Rephaim were like a tribe who were aka Zuzim, Zamzummim and Emim and Anakim were like clans for that tribe—and Horites were an unrelated people group.
Also, as we’re told, “Anakim are directly connected with the Nephilim in the false report of the spies described in (Numbers 13:33 ).” Moreover, “The context of the passages suggest that the other tribes of giants were relatives of the Anakim or other lines of Nephilim, particularly the Rephaim whose giant descendant is described as living in Gath along with the Anakim Goliath and Lahmi…Rephaim are giants (in fact these peoples are generally described as being tall or large) and seem to have been thus matched with the Nephilim based on the English rendering of ‘giants’ in Genesis 6.”
But if, and since, “Anakim are directly connected with the Nephilim” only, “in the false report” then, “The context of the passages suggest” correlations based on falsehoods. We still haven’t been told the usage of, “giants” so we can’t know to what or whom, “tribes of giants” or, “giant descendant” or, “Rephaim are giants” means but we did get hints: “described as being tall or large” and, “Nephilim based on the English rendering of ‘giants.’”
Thus, it seem we can answer the aforementioned key questions thusly:
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 so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
What’s the article’s usage?
Something about subjectively unusual, “tall or large”—with tall and large being just as vague, generic, subjective and multi-usage as giants.
Do those two usages agree?
No.
Thus, Biblically contextually, what we were told really means, “…other tribes of [Rephaim] were relatives of the Anakim” but not, “other lines of Nephilim” and, “Rephaim whose [Rephaim] descendant is described as living in Gath along with the Anakim Goliath and Lahmi…Rephaim are [Rephaim] (in fact these peoples are generally described as being tall or large)” and yes, they’re referred to on average as having been, “tall” (Deut 2) but that’s subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
As for, “seem to have been thus matched with the Nephilim based on the English rendering of ‘giants’” that’s not only violating the English Bible’s usage again but it’s a word-concept fallacy—especially since 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.
Moreover, I will add accuracy to other statements made in the article such as, “The tribe of the Anakim were descended from a giant [Repha] named Anak, who was a son or grandson of a giant [Repha] named ‘Arba’…This tribe was so tall, that the weak-kneed spies reported, ‘we are like grasshoppers to them.’”
Do you see what happened? We don’t have physical descriptions of Arba nor Anak but the word-concept fallacy of (mis)reading the vague, generic, subjective and multi-usage modern English word leads to merely asserting that they were subjectively generically vaguely tall. Morerover, it was affirmed that Num 13:33 records falsehoods but it’s still appealed to as if it was accurate: firstly, it’s misread as referring to the size of Anakim when it’s about the fantasy size of Nephilim. Secondly, only non-LXX versions are appealed to. Thirdly, tall, large, giants, and like grasshoppers are uselessly vaguely generically subjective terms.
Furthermore, “Scripture describes how the tribes of giants [Rephaim] were fought and destroyed by the tribes of normal men [meaning slightly shorter] who replaced them, including the Israelites. Moses killed Og, king of the Rehpaim who lived on the Golan heights near Mt. Hermon. Og had a bed nine cubits long (13.5 to 15.5 feet, depending on which cubit was used) and was called ‘last of the remnant of the giants [Rephaim].” See how by now the article jumps languages from referring to Rephaim as Rephaim and then (likely unknowingly) referring to Rephaim as giants?
Moreover, “Caleb later retook Hebron and killed the three giants [Anakim]…David and Saul fought a remnant of smaller giants [Rephaim]” but since we weren’t told the height of the former giants then being told that the remnant were smaller is a non-issue argument from silence. It’s noted, “Goliath…was about nine feet tall, and his brother Lahmi ‘whose spear had a shaft like a weaver’s rod’. The last of the Gittite giants [Rephaim] was slain, ‘In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha.’” There we have it again: jumping from English to Hebrew. Also, it wasn’t noted that the Masoretic text has Goliath 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. so, that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
As for, the spear/shaft: regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft. Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23). That Egyptian is actually the tallest person specified in the Bible.
We’re then told, “The last Scriptural reference to the giants” which, recall, as per the article is a mere reference to vaguely subjectively generic tall/large, “may be Isaiah 45:14 , which prophecies that Sabean ‘men of stature’ will become slaves in chains of the redeemed Israelites” and yet, that seems to be a reference to stature as in social standing since no physical description is even hinted at, “Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God.” Note that the context pertains to, “labour…merchandise” etc. so that their impressive social standing means nothing since they, “shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine…in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication…”
A summary is then offered in terms of, “The characteristics of these tribes described in Scripture”:
[1] Their height was two or three times the height of normal men.
[2] They were associated with some kind of unholy intermixing before the Flood.
[3] They were closely associated with the wicked Canaanites after the Flood.
[4] In one case they are described as having polydactyly (extra fingers and toes).
[5] Unlike the Canaanites, there are no examples of Nephilim who became followers of God.
[1] There’s literally zero reliable indication of any such thing.
[2] That’s only the case with Nephilim, there’s zero reliable indication that it pertains to any post-flood, “tribes.”
[3] Very well then, “tribes” were, “were closely associated with the wicked Canaanites after the Flood” but without reference to Nephilim.
[4] It’s not, “In one case” singular, “they are” plural but rather, in one case one single person was referred to as such.
[5] “there are no examples of Nephilim who became followers of God” ever.
We’re then told of, “Apocryphal references” for which you can see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts. It’s noted that, “the Book of Jubilees and Book of Enoch…were both considered canonical by the Ethiopic Church from the time of Christ until today, and the Book of Enoch was quoted in the Biblical Epistle of Jude.”
That 1 Enoch is in the Ethiopian canon doesn’t make that one canon uniquely correct but rather, uniquely incorrect since 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah (see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch) in fact, that cannon also contains a text titled, The Life of Adam and Eve which claims that when God created Adam, God commanded the Angels to worship Adam. It also contains 2 Enoch which claims that the reason God created was because God was alone and didn’t find peace within Himself. Yes, Jude quoted Enoch and Paul quoted Greek poets so, what of it?
It’s noted, “Jubilees has the following to say…Jared, for in his days the angels of the Lord descended on the earth” whereas 1 Enoch has that occurring in the days of Jared. Jubilees also has post-flood Nephilim being the result of a recipe that was found for creating them. Yet, the recipe is sons of God mating with daughters of men, not some occult ritual. Yet, even then, they only make it to the time of Noah’s grandsons.
1 Enoch is then quoted to the effect that Nephilim were, “three hundred cubits” which is actually a watered down version of the more traditional reading/translation which is that they were 3,000 ells. In any case, that results in miles tall which is great folklore but poor reality. At least it doesn’t have physical post-flood Nephilim—it has unclean spirits being the spirits of dead Nephilim but that’s just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
We’re also told of, “Controversies” such as that, “Some argue that the Sons of God could not be angels because: Angels are spiritual beings, and therefore not reproductively compatible with human women” yet, humans can be spiritual and humans are compatible with humans. This is actually an issue of swapping spirit for spiritual. The mere assertion would be that Angels are spirit and yet, there’s no indication of that since Angels are described as looking just like human males and performing physical actions and without any indication that such isn’t their ontology. Why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy? See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.