Hereinafter is a review of that which Rev. Dr. Stephen De Young wrote regarding Nephilim, Giant, Angels, and Demons in his book The Religion of the APOSTLES: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century.
I thought to review such data since some years before the publication of that book, I wrote an article titled Critical Review of Fr. Stephen De Young’s “Here There Be Giants.”
Rev. Dr. Fr. De Young is an Orthodox Priest of the Archangel Gabriel Church who, “holds a Master of Divinity degree from Westminster Theological Seminary, a Master of Arts from the University of Balamand, and a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Amridge University.”
Chap. Giants on the Earth begins with reference to Nephilim. The first reference to giants is a reference to, “the giant Goliath” and yet, in sadly typical form for authors writing on Nephilology related issues, that word is never defined. That is to say, we readers are left to do the task of discerning the answers to these key questions: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? What is De Young’ usage? Do those two usages agree?
He notes, “the rediscovery of the original ancient context of Genesis 6:1–4 has led to a fascination with the subject of the ‘Nephilim,’ who were borne of sexual immorality involving angelic beings and human women.”
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.
Yet, at, “sexual immorality involving angelic beings and human women” he footnotes, “This took place in a ritual context in which a king, seen as divine, would engage sexually with a temple prostitute. Within the ritual, one or the other party would be seen to be embodying a particular pagan god. This resulted in the next generation of kings and ‘mighty men’ with two divine and one human parent.”
Of course, we do not have indication that such was the case pre-flood nor is there any hint of any such thing within that which I term the Gen 6 affair: however, this will come into play centuries post-flood with regards to a particular bed—stand by.
Stephen De Young also noted, “In some quarters, this has been developed into full-fledged conspiracy theories regarding these Nephilim still existing in our world today. Those fascinated by crypto-archaeology produce doctored photos of what they hold to be gigantic human skeletons, the remains of these people. This near obsession has exploded as a reaction to a reading of Genesis and later texts.”
Indeed, this is that which I term pop-Nephilology which is un-biblical tall-tales sold to Christians.
My books specifically focused on that cottage industry are Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales and 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.
As a side note, at this point, De Young wrote, “The devil, however, was not the only angelic being who fell into sin. The same fate befell similar creatures in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:1–2; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6).” Granting that perhaps he is employing the term angelic being in a generic manner, he had previously cited Isa 14 and Ezek 28 regarding the Devil’s fall. Thus, he could have easily been more accurate in specifying that he is a Cherub, not an Angel: and De Young actually spelled that out, “The devil is identified as a ‘guardian cherub’ (28:14)” later on. Ergo, the creatures in the days of Noah may be similar in that they too fell, but those were Angels, not Cherubim.
Yet, he added, “While Satan is often reckoned as having been an archangel” without telling us what often enumerates not reckoned by whom nor where abouts, “ranks of angels are not various species but rather offices held or roles performed” which is fair enough. Yet, Angels differ from Cherubim and Seraphim, for that matter, in at least that they have different job titles, different job functions, and different morphologies, see my books What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology and What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology and What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology.
A reference for those who insist that Isa 14 and Ezek 28 is merely about the human rulers only, see my post The Apocalypse of the Hidden Hand: The Bible’s teaching on the spiritual sovereign behind the human sovereign.
We come to those key questions at the point at which he wrote, “The word Nephilim, sometimes left untranslated in English translations of 6:4, refers to ‘giants.’” Do you discern the missing data point? If, “Nephilim…refers to ‘giants’” then that only begs the question: to what does giants refer? I can think of at least six usages.
He elucidates:
Some have sought its origin in the Hebrew word naphal, arguing for a translation of “fallen ones,” connected to the fall of the angelic beings involved.
The verb, however, would be the wrong conjugation and would be something closer to “those fallen on.” Some have advanced that translation, arguing that it is referring to the fact that the descendants of these being were attacked and slain by Israel.
One certain thing is that it is literally impossible that, “it is referring to the fact that the descendants of these being were attacked and slain by Israel” since Israel only existed post-flood but Nephilim only existed pre-flood.
Stephen De Young notes that, “All this is seen” without telling us by whom, “to be special pleading, however, in light of the fact that the Aramaic word nephilin means ‘giants.’” Do you discern the missing data point? If, “the Aramaic word nephilin means ‘giants’” then that only begs the question: to what does giants refer?
These are typical giantology and Nephilology linguistics vicious circles—see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
He wrote, “nephilin” since the Aramaic male plural ending of a word is in, while it is Nephilim in Hebrew since the Hebrew male plural ending is im.
Yet, the issue is not just the Aramaic word nephilin but its root. You see, the Hebrew word naphal is the root word which leads to a reading of fallen ones. Yet, some who argue for whatever giants means claim that the Aramaic root naphiyla is what means giants.
Yet, note that the J. Edward Wright Endowed Professor of Judaic Studies, who is J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. himself, and who is the Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona notes, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants” (private communique between us, July 2019).
As for the Septuagint/LXX, De Young told us, “the Aramaic word nephilin means ‘giants.’ This is certainly the understanding taken by the Septuagint translators, who rendered the word gigantes.” Do you discern the missing data point? He did not tell us what gigantes (γιγαντες) means, he only implied it means giants (and still has not told us what that means): it means earth-born.
Yet, we now come as close as we will get to answering those key questions:
Like the English “giant,” this is often a reference to physical size, but it is important to note that it can also be used to describe a tyrant or what we in modern times would call a bully or a thug.
Its usage is similar to the phrase “strong man,” an English idiom for a dictator, though not necessarily a statement about a person’s physical stature. It includes both size and demeanor.
By placing this word in parallel in the text with a reference to the gibborim, the mighty men, the heroes, the men of great renown, Genesis 6 recasts these figures from ancient traditions in the Near East as something darker, more wicked, and more brutal.
Fair enough, “‘giant’…often,” not always such as when used metaphorically (so and so is a giant of industry), “a reference to physical size” which is really useless since, in that case, it merely refers to someone who is vaguely tall by some generic level above the subjective parochial average.
That it can also, “describe a tyrant…bully or a thug,” etc. is precisely the reason why authors need to define their usage—and we still do not know De Young’s usage.
Pop-Nephilologists seem to, consciously or not, avoid defining their usage since it allows them to water things down and ergo, tie together data points that do not actually correlate.
Stephen De Young continues:
Later Second Temple Jewish literature such as 1 Enoch and the Book of the Giants discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran preserve the ancient Babylonian traditions that formed the background for the genealogies and narratives of Genesis 4—6. In Babylonian tradition, there was a group of seven gods called the apkallu.
In king lists tracing the succession of dynasties, each of the six kings who reigned before the Flood was listed with the name of the apkallu who served as his advisor.
These gods were considered by the Mesopotamians to have communicated various advances of technology, art, and culture to humanity through these kings, which is what enabled them to rule.
Since delving into that in detail would go beyond my scope for this review, I will direct interested readers to my books The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts and In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch regarding, “Later Second Temple Jewish literature.”
As for, “a group of seven gods called the apkallu” that is too generic a statement since there are mythological varieties as to who they were, when they lived, what they did, etc. See the appendix dealing with that issue in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
Furthermore:
As Genesis 6 communicates, these “giants” were present on the earth not only in the time of the Flood of Noah but also after (Gen. 6:4). They continue to appear in the early history of Israel as recounted in the latter part of the Torah, the Book of Joshua, and Samuel in the form of multiple tribes.
Just as at the time of the Flood, these demonically wicked “heroes” of the nations were under God’s judgment, and it would be Israel that served as the means by which that judgment was brought to bear. Israel would expressly be sent by God to annihilate the giants, and only the giants, as a distinction was made between these and Canaanite foreigners per se.
Likely the most famous of these giants in Israel’s early history is Og, the king of Bashan. The narrative of the Og’s defeat is decidedly spare, representing only five verses (Num. 21:31–35), and recounted in eleven verses in Deuteronomy (3:1–11), much of this consisting of descriptions of the land rather than the battle against Og. Deuteronomy 3:11 identifies Og as a giant and describes his gigantic iron bed.
It is not just the size of the bed that is suggestive of Og being one of the Nephilim, but also that this bed matches the dimensions and description of a ritual bed found in excavations of the ziggurat at Etemenanki, which was used for pagan sexual rituals. Deuteronomy, then, indicates by this that Og was the product of demonic fornication.
There is no indication that, “Genesis 6 communicates…also after (Gen. 6:4)” and citing without elucidating is of no assistance.
He told us, “They continue to appear in the early history of Israel as recounted in the latter part of the Torah, the Book of Joshua, and Samuel in the form of multiple tribes” yet, there is literally zero reliable indication of that whatsoever.
We will see that the one and only place in the whole entire Bible besides the pre-flood Gen 6 affair wherein Nephilim are recorded is one single sentence, “in the latter part of the Torah” but that is unreliable and they are never mentioned in, “the Book of Joshua, and Samuel” in any way, shape, or form.
Ponder this, De Young told us, “at the time of the Flood, these demonically wicked ‘heroes’ of the nations were under God’s judgment.”
He also wrote:
The interpretation of these few verses in Genesis leading into the Flood of Noah seems to be primarily a subject of literary curiosity. Understanding this text and the traditions that lie behind it, however, is critical to understanding later narratives…
…divine wrath had expressed itself in the form of a flood; that surrounding that event had been a part-human, part-divine race of giant tyrants…
Genesis 4—9 describes the sinful corruption of humanity at the instigation of demonic powers, culminating in the Flood in the days of Noah…
Saint Jude (1:7–8) compared the attempted crimes of the men of Sodom to the sin of the rebellious angels before the Flood in Genesis 6:1–2…
The Flood was not enacted out of divine peevishness or rage, but rather out of Yahweh’s desire to purify His creation
from the corruption brought about by both fallen spiritual powers
and fallen humanity…
Genesis 4—9 describes the sinful corruption of humanity at the instigation of demonic powers, culminating in the Flood…
The prophecy in Genesis 5 makes it clear that God was using the Flood of Noah to save the created world from the sin of human beings…
This is a very, very important logical, bio-logical, and theo-logical point so let us review, “at the time of the Flood…under God’s judgment…divine wrath had expressed itself in the form of a flood…sinful corruption…culminating in the Flood…rebellious angels before the Flood…Yahweh’s desire to purify…sinful corruption…culminating in the Flood…God was using the Flood of Noah to save…”
Now, how could that be the case if there were post-flood Nephilim? That is a fundamental level contradiction and damages theology proper as well since it implies that it was, “Yahweh’s desire” but God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
The mere assertion of post-flood Nephilim also forces post-flood Nephilologists to literally merely invent un-biblical fantasy stories about just how Nephilim made it past the flood, past God, past His desire—and all such tall-tales imply that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Stephen De Young implies that since God failed, He had to get mere humans to do what He could not do, “it would be Israel that served as the means by which that judgment was brought to bear” for which there is also zero reliable indication—more to come on this point.
But be careful when reading English since De Young has jumped from the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants to the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim and back again. Thus, we readers have to do the work of discerning to what he might be referring with any given usage.
It is also a fallacious modus operandi that strictly English readers will chase the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants around an ancient Hebrew Bible and thus, correlate data points that have no viably cogent relation.
Now, given the various usages of giants which he has proposed, he tells us that, “the most famous of these giants” is Og, for whom we do not have a physical description, at least not until millennia after his time, in wild folkloric tall-tales, see my related paper How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
It is unclear whether when De Young wrote, “Og as a giant” he meant, “Og as vaguely taller by some generic level above the subjective parochial average” or what the Hebrew Bible is actually telling us which is, “Og as a Repha” since that is the Hebrew behind what De Young reads, and writes, as giant: it is identifying his tribal affiliation, he is of the Rephaim tribe, and not identifying his size—De Young even wrote of, “‘Rephaim,’ which in this context pertained to a line of kings who were ethnic Rephaites.”
Recall that I noted, “Of course, we do not have indication that such was the case pre-flood nor is there any hint of any such thing within that which I term the Gen 6 affair: however, this will come into play centuries post-flood with regards to a particular bed—stand by.”
Well, you may now sit since this is when that comes into play since, indeed, indications are that the bed was not something upon which Og slept but was a ritual object.
Note that Stephen De Young merely assumes Og’s size from the size of his bed but then does away with that assumption since he noted that it, “was used for pagan sexual rituals” and even then, he thinks that it denotes, “Og was the product of demonic fornication.”
In short (pun intended) concluding something about Og’s size based on that bed is a non-sequitur based on various mere assumptions, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
As for, “demonic fornication” there is no indication that any such thing is possible since, by definition, demons are disembodied thus, they cannot fornicate physically and we have no indication that there is any way to impregnate human women via symbolic fornication nor via demonically possessed human king/priests who, somehow, produced not fully human beings.
For any who may be thinking that this point debunks the Angel view of the Gen 6 affair, note that the view that Angels are spirits is largely based on one poorly translated English word and that the fact is that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology, see my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
De Young noted, “confirmed by St. Paul (1 Cor. 15:40–41), angelic beings have bodies, albeit bodies of an entirely different sort than the earthly, terrestrial bodies of humans.”
Just in case, I will note that 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.”
Note that De Young merely asserted that the size of the bed is part of what, “is suggestive of Og being one of the Nephilim” without telling us how the size of a bed or even Og’s imaginary size correlates to Nephilim.
Again, Og was a Repha and we are told that about him every time that he is mentioned. Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
Something about a bed being part of what, “is suggestive of Og being one of the Nephilim” leads Stephen De Young to write, “Og and his people were completely eradicated from the land because of his origins” for which there is literally zero indication.
At this point, he wrote that the defeat of Rephaim, “is cited later in the Old Testament as a particularly triumphant moment in the history of Israel (see Ps. 135/134 and 136/135, sung as the Polyeleos in the Orthodox Church; and Amos 2:9).”
Amos referred to Amorites and we will not delve into how they are correlated to Rephaim, let us grant it.
Just in case, let us note that Amos 2:9 says, “the Amorite…whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.”
He was clearly just saying they were big and strong and not implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation.
In fact, people who do measure cedars and claim Amorites were that tall never get around to a calculation correlating the strength of oaks—since they are only interested in tall-tales.
Plus, if they take it that incoherently literal then they have to conclude that Amorites had fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.
De Young notes that linguistically, “Rephaim seems to be derived from an Ugaritic root, rph, which refers to ancient (dead) kings in several funerary and religious texts. It signifies that Og is therefore presented not only as a giant but as the last of a race of these kings who were extinguished once Og and all his sons were slain.”
That is myopic since rph or the Hebrew root rapha ranges wildly in meaning/definition or usage from dead to heal: for example, “I am the LORD, your healer” (Ex 15:26): רָפָא/rāp̄ā’. Also, an Angel from apocrypha is named Raphael: God the healer, healing God, etc.
So, it is a case of, “Og is therefore presented” never, “as a giant” if referring to vaguely tall by some generic level above the subjective parochial average but Pagan mythology is oft incorporated into biblical theology when Rephaim are said to have been some sort of demonic living dead.
This happens due to that in Ugaritic texts recently deceased kings and heroes are referred to as kings and heroes but after they had been dead for some time, they were referred to as rph, could be summoned from the grave/underworld to attend rituals, etc., see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.
Thus, when De Yong tells us, “In many other passages, the Rephaim are described as the denizens of Sheol or Hades (see Prov. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Job 26:5–6)” that is misapplying the root reference to the dead and turning it into the 100% human Rephaim tribe as being, “denizens of Sheol or Hades.”
He further wrote, “The other major biblical clan group of giants is the Anakim, sometimes called the ‘Sons of Anak’ in English translations.” Biblically contextually, “clan group of giants” means, “clan group of Rephaim” since Anakim were like a clan of that tribe (Deut 2).
He adds:
In Numbers 13, twelve spies were sent to scout out the land as the people of Israel drew near to Canaan. The spies returned and reported that they had seen the “Anakim” in the land, in the south, near Hebron, and that the Anakim were Nephilim (Num. 13:22, 28, 33).
This news caused most of the spies, and the majority of the people, to refuse to enter the land for fear of the Anakim. This rebellion was punished by forty years of wandering in the wilderness.
Deuteronomy identifies the Anakim as related to the Rephaim and with a third group of giants whom the Moabites referred to as the Emim, or “feared ones” (Deut. 2:10–11).
Note the category error, “Anakim were Nephilim” but also, “Anakim…related to the Rephaim.”
It is a misrepresentation of the narrative to generically assert, “twelve spies were sent to scout out the land as the people of Israel drew near to Canaan. The spies returned and reported that they had seen the ‘Anakim’ in the land, in the south, near Hebron, and that the Anakim were Nephilim.”
For some reason, he mashed together all of the spies and both of the reports in Num 13. All spies went and returned, a report was presented that was factually accepted as is, yet a division then occurs with the loyal, reliable, and faithful Caleb and Joshua up against the ten disloyal, unreliable, unfaithful, contradictory, and embellishers.
It was those ten, whom God rebuked, who presented an, “evil report” wherein they made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible and they contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
For some odd reason, De Young also did not mention that he only gets Anakim were Nephilim from non-LXX versions since that version’s version of that verse lacks any reference to Anakim.
Thus, it was a case of, “This” fear-mongering, scare-tactic don’t go in the woods style of tall-tale was not what, “caused most of the spies…to refuse to enter the land for fear of the Anakim” it was for fear of fantasy Nephilim and was a story concocted by the ten.
The legit reason for concern was the very specifically six people groups noted to have been seen in the land within the reliable, as is, report, “the descendants of Anak…The Amalekites…The Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites…And the Canaanites.”
What the ten did is to embellish that by artificially inserting Nephilim and ubiquitous above the average height into the mix when they sought to take their fear-mongering scare-tactic up a gigantic notch.
Indeed, “Anakim…related to the Rephaim” not Nephilim. As for, “a third group of giants whom the Moabites referred to as the Emim” the very text he cites tells us that Emmim was a mere aka for Rephaim. Thus, they were not, “a third group” and, “of giants” biblically contextually means, “of Rephaim” or rather, “were Rephaim.”
Stephen De Young goes back to an already touched upon issue:
Throughout the narratives of the conquest beginning in Numbers and Deuteronomy and continuing in Joshua, it has been noted that, in some cities and locations, God commanded complete and total destruction of the residents.
In others, the people in the land were merely dispossessed and their land given by God to Israel.
A careful reading of the text reveals that those places where total destruction was mandated were the places in which the Anakim dwelt, while those where the Anakim have not been cited were spared total annihilation.
This is made especially clear by the summary of Joshua’s conquest in Joshua 11, which culminates with the statement that the mission was accomplished because Joshua had cut off all the Anakim from the land and had devoted their cities to destruction (v. 21).
We are told in verse 22 that the only Anakim who survived judgment at the hands of Israel had done so by fleeing to three Philistine cities: Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod.
Goliath, the giant slain by the Prophet David, came to oppose Israel from Gath (1 Sam. 17), marking him out as one of these surviving Anakim.
The issue here is that De Young is misreading Anakim as Nephilim due to his reliance upon one unreliable non-LXX sentence from one unreliable evil report by ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Thus, he thinks that, “total destruction was mandated” due to Nephilim, by any other name. The fact is that God told us many times why He commanded such things but never said a single word about Nephilim, by any other name, see a whole chapter on that issue alone in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
Thus, as De Young continues to build his narrative about Anakim, it will be misguided.
As you well know by now, “Goliath, the giant” biblically contextually means, “Goliath, the Repha.”
Indeed, it was, “against His spiritual enemies, demonic powers that had come to dominate the region of Canaan and the Transjordan” and (mid)guided the actions, such as human sacrifice, of those people groups who were given opportunity to repent (sometimes centuries) but they did not.
Stephen De Young notes of Cherubim that, “These creatures were, in Babylonian understandings, sphynx-like spiritual beings who protected the thrones of the gods” and that:
In Egyptian thought, the parallel creature was a seraph (plural seraphim). Seraph was the Egyptian word for serpent.
Consequently, seraphim were serpentine beings who protected the royal throne. The Pharaonic headdress, which resembles a cobra’s hood and features a cobra protruding from the brow of that head- dress, is a representation of a seraph.
Thus, the identification of the devil as a serpent in Genesis 3 and a cherub in Ezekiel 28 are actually commensurate with each other.
In Greek translation, made after the return from Babylon, the translators chose a word from Babylonian mythology used to describe the primordial gods, “dragon,” and used it to replace the Egyptian-influenced “serpent” imagery. The devil as a dragon is an identification then picked up by St. John in the Book of Revelation.
It may be that, “seraphim were serpentine beings” as per, “In Egyptian thought” but not biblically: the only text that specifically references them is Isa 6 and it does not note any serpentine features, “Each had six wings…face…feet…hand[s].”
Yet, De Young adds, “the identification of the devil as a serpent in Genesis 3 and a cherub in Ezekiel 28 are actually commensurate with each other” but not with anything to do with Seraphim.
And, “the identification of the devil as a serpent” is not an, “the identification of the devil as a serpent” but a mere aka since Rev chaps. 12 and 20 reference, “the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” so it was not a physical description but a characterization. And so, when De Young wrote, “In a confusion of terms that has a long history, the devil and Satan are generally considered to be the same demonic being” he needs to take that up with Rev chaps. 12 and 20.
Stephen De Young wrote, “The giants of the Old Testament, who owe their existence to demonic sexual immorality, are described as having angelic ‘parents.’” At this point, we are back to not knowing to what he is referring by giants. I might as well make this point now: De Young’s usage of giants seems to change with every usage so it is difficult to pinpoint.
The usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (does not even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so, just in case, it never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
There is also the ongoing issue of, “demonic sexual immorality” sliding into, “angelic ‘parents’” which is a category error: demons did not even yet exist during the Gen 6 timeline, see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
De Young references, “The line of Cain’s descendants brings about innovations in culture and technology but culminates in the kingly figure of Lamech, who hymns his own greatness and superiority to God in a song sung to his two wives (4:23–24).”
That seems quite hyperbolic:
“innovations in culture and technology”: I suppose that anyone not living in Eden and its garden would be innovating, by definition. “Cain’s descendants…innovations…and technology” are recorded in Gen 4 as, “dwell in tents and have livestock…play the lyre and pipe…forger of all instruments of bronze and iron.”
About those, De Young notes, “Cain’s descendants produce these cultural and technological innovations because they are receiving these secrets from angelic beings.”
Subjectively, I would be quite disappointed if an Angel appeared to me with the secrets of creation but only taught me how to make a tent.
One of the funniest moments in all pseudepigrapha—perhaps the only funny moment in pseudepigrapha—is when the Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, in 1 Enoch has that story’s version of God telling the fallen Watchers (Angels), “You have been in heaven, but all the mysteries had not yet been revealed to you, and you knew the worthless ones” (XVI:1, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch).
I am quite unsure whence came the characterization of, “the kingly figure of Lamech.”
As for, “hymns his own greatness” and especially, “superiority to God” I am unsure how De Young concluded that from, “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold”: if anything, the one case of murder (for which killing would be an ethically poor translation) and one case of what may be killing in self-defense, he may be said to be hymning his superiority to Cain since he multiplied what was said of Cain, “sevenfold.”
Continuing:
Second Peter 2:4 reads, “For God did not pardon angels when they sinned but rather threw them into Tartarus and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.”
Here St. Peter makes plain the connection between these wicked angels and the Titans of Greco-Roman religion through reference to Tartarus in addition to paralleling the language of 1 Enoch and other related literature.
In his list of examples, St. Peter places this example immediately before the Flood. Saint Jude, likewise, refers to the angels who did not remain in their original estate and are now kept in eternal chains beneath gloomy darkness until the Day of Judgment (v. 6). Saint Jude parallels this with those of Sodom who chased after “strange flesh,” seeking to fornicate with the two angels sent to Lot’s home (v. 7).
Revelation 9 presents part of the final judgment as the abyss is opened, with smoke rising from it as from a furnace, and demonic beings emerge there- from (9:1–3).
Well said. In my book What Does the Bible Say About Demons? A Styled Demonology, I trace all of the symbolism in the Rev 9 event so as to show that it does, indeed, refer to the fallen Angels being let loose from the Tartarus-Abyss.
De Young notes:
Ancient Judaism understood the great heroes and kings of the surrounding pagan nations as being not heroes but giants, tyrants, thugs, and bullies. They understood the proposed mixture of human and divine parentage of these heroes as being their origin in demonic fornication for which the offending spirits were punished and the progeny of which were eradicated by God.
It was therefore natural for their religious outlook to similarly interpret the phenomenon of demons, that they were the disembodied spirits of dead giants [here referring to Nephilim]. This understanding is reflected in a variety of Second Temple sources, such as 1 Enoch 15:8–9.
“Ancient” is a subjective term and so, “Ancient Judaism” can refer to a range of centuries if not millennia after the Torah. Such is from when such folklore came yet, again, for a biblical view, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
And that will bring the review to a conclusion: overall, we got a mixture of undefined, watered down terminology along with missteps in attempting to connect un-connected and un-connectable, data points along with logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically problematic assertions and implications, along with category errors and well, he never does get around to telling us just how Nephilim made it past the flood, past God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Leave a Reply