To the Quora site question Is there a biblical source for the term ‘nephalem’? I found this term with the definition of being a half-angel half-demon hybrid but cannot find a source for it James Pettis (self-ID as “B.S. in Physics, John Carroll University”) replied
you’ve been misled
the problem is with the careless reading of a Bible passage that mentions two different things:
#1 – the nephalim
#2 – the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men”
(note: Genesis chapter 6)
SOME people interpret “the sons of God” as “angels”…
and so: the offspring of “the sons of God” and “the daughters of men” as “demi-angels”
BUT…this passage clearly teaches us that the nephalim existed BEFORE the sons of god sired children upon the daughters of men (and afterward as well, but that’s not relevant to this discussion).
So: we know for a fact
based on what that Bible passage very clearly teaches
that the nephilim
are not the same
as the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men.
If you read the Bible
focusing on the nephalim
you will find that they are pretty consistently described as giants
that is to say: as unusually tall humans (from the author’s perspective)
for example: Goliath was one of the nephalim.
And note: there are entire tribes of nephalim mentioned in the Bible
but
none of them are credited with supernatural or angelic powers or abilities.
And again: the Bible is clear (in Genesis 6) that the nephalim predate the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men, so the nephalim are not, cannot be, the same as those offspring.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
You’ve been misled—and now you’re misleading.
The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
You misled the questioner by using the term “giants” to mean “unusually tall humans” but that’s not the English Bible’s usage of “giants”: do you know what it is?
Also, where are they “described as giants…unusually tall humans”?
“Goliath was one of the nephalim”: we’re told he was a Repha, not a Nephil, every time he’s mentioned: how did you miss that? Also, he could not have been a Nephil since, of course, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
Where are “entire tribes of nephalim mentioned in the Bible”?
James Pettis
everything you’ve written is (of course) mistaken. it’s a case of “I can either believe you, or the Bible” (or in the case of giants: “I can either believe you, or the dictionary and the Bible”)
i recommend that you read the Bible
one of your errors is not so obvious, and so I address only it
There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
Like the Anakim, they are also regarded as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.
So: the Anakim are part of the Nephilim
and
the Anakim are Rephaim
thus: the Rephaim are Nephilim
Ken Ammi
My friend, the problem is that you came to a non-sequitur of a faulty conclusion based on a faulty and myopic premise.
As for, “the case of giants” I can’t know to what you’re referring until you help me understand you better so, what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
When you appeal, especially exclusively, to Num 13:33 you needed to mention that you’re relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
8. Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
I could go on but see my post “Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal”
Thus, you’re, exclusively, relying on one utterly unreliable sentence (conceptually and textually).
You also committed an aggrandizing fallacy by taking one utterly unreliable mere assertion about a clan and applying it to the whole tribe.
Merely appealing to one verse and basing an entire all-encompassing theory on it is fallacious rather, key hermeneutical questions are: who said it, why was it said, what was the reaction to it, was it accurate, etc.
It’s literally impossible that, if we myopically focus only on non-LXX versions, Anakim were related to Nephilim since they were related to Rephaim and since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc., then that one single sentence is illogical, ill-biological, and ill-theological.
Just how did Nephilim get past the flood, past God?
James Pettis
But there’s no reliable indication that Nephilim were even “unusually tall”: even though that term is vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage.
Well…I’m going by the Bible’s descriptions of the Nephilim. Of course: you can consider that unreliable if you like.
As for, “’giants’ if you prefer that term” that only begs these questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
Yes. they agree.
The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring.
That’s one opinion. But given what’s actually written there, I can’t agree with it.
Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
The author (clearly) doesn’t agree with you. Obviously it was NOT “artificially inserted”, obviously there IS reason (for example: to prevent readers from conflating the two groups); and obviously the chapter is not only about the sons of God and the daughters of men and their offspring.
IN ANY CASE
even if everything you said were the absolute truth and not (in many cases) obviously mistaken
what you’re telling me here is that I have a choice:
either
- I can believe the Bible and what the words actually mean
or
- I can believe you when you tell me what the Bible really means
Now: which one of those should I choose?
If it were a case where “the words can mean either A or B, and I’m saying that they mean B, not A” that would be one thing.
But this is not such a case. This is you telling me that I should believe you instead of the Bible.
Not going to happen.
Ken Ammi
Recall that I specifically specified, “there’s no reliable indication that Nephilim were even ‘unusually tall.’”
Replying with, “the Bible’s descriptions of the Nephilim” is too vague for a few reasons such as:
1) Why merely assert the multiple descriptions rather than quoting and citing?
2) Key hermeneutical questions are: who said it, why was it said, what was the reaction to it, was it accurate, etc.
I asked three questions about the usage(s) of, “giants” and you only merely asserted, “Yes. they agree” but I don’t go by thus saith James so what’s the answer to the first two questions, please?
You also merely asserted, “doesn’t agree…Obviously…obviously…and obviously.” Why not actually argue your point and/or counter argue against mine?
You merely asserted, “obviously the chapter is not only about the sons of God and the daughters of men and their offspring” but didn’t elucidate what the actual case is, if such isn’t the case. Unless, that is, you imply that it’s, “not only about the sons of God and the daughters of men and their offspring” since it’s also about all of humanity, animals, etc. If that’s the case then it’s a case of that my qualifying term was, “The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus” and, “The Gen 6 affair” only involved sons of God and daughters of men but you moved the goalpost to, “the chapter” when I was clearly specifically referring to vss. 1-2 and 4: that’s the affair.
Well, that ended it since no more interaction was forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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