Under consideration, is Rev. Dr. Steven C. Brown’s “‘THE GIANTS OF THE BIBLE’—From Genesis to Goliath,” Pure Christianity Series, Vol 7, 2004.
The preface notes, “most people have heard of at least one giant, Goliath” and asks, “how much more information is available from the Bible on this subject of ‘GIANTS’?” and refers to “gigantic peoples.”
Those who know my modus operandi know that these few statements into the text are already making me sweat since I have to guess what he means by the vague, generic, subjective, and as of yet undefined English term giants. Yet, his quotations of the term, “GIANTS,” gives me hope—it is generally very common that people will speak and write about giants without ever bothering to define the term.
He continues, “the ‘beings’ mentioned in Genesis, Chapter 6, were called ‘Giants’ in the King James Version, and ‘Nephilim’ in the New International Version. Wondering if the ‘Nephilim’ were indeed gigantic persons, I tried to find a definition in my Bible dictionary. I could not.”
Note something very common: since the modern usage of the term giants implies something about unusual height (subjectively unusual to the average populace), he automatically assumes that because the King James Version renders (not translates) Nephilim as giants then this implies, “gigantic persons” which it does not. This basic level error in assumption will actually mislead him through and through.
The last notable portion of the preface notes, “I would find difficulty getting definitions of the words used, because many times the different translations of the same Word of God transliterated into different choices of words from our spoken, English language.”
There are quite a few issues here such as that translation differs from transliteration, that just like any language, English has undergone changes, that many Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias fall for the same folly into which he will fall (see my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries From the 1500s to the 2000s) and ultimately, the context of any given statement will inform us of the meaning—something that he does not engage very much even whilst seeking to do so.
It is actually not until chapter six that he actually offers his actual definition of giants—since stating thing such as that “GIANTS” are “gigantic peoples” is circular and begs the question.
“One fact that we do know for certain, is that there were ‘Giants’ in the Bible, because the Bible tells us so:
‘There were giants in the earth in those days;’ Genesis 6:4 (KJV)
We also know from further reading, that these ‘giants’ were not only on the earth during the days of this passage, but:
‘…also after that.’ Genesis 6:4b (KJV).”
Another form of question begging circularity is that, “there were ‘Giants’ in the Bible” because the Bible he is reading refers to, “giants.”
He tells us of “the days of this passage” and “also after that” but merely asserts that this refers to the flood—another very common error—yet, it does not.
Skipping over v. 3, here are the first few verses in Genesis 6—and note that I will pause at a particular point, “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose…There were [Nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that…”
Note the cogent flow, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” is when “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives” so that “There were [Nephilim] in the earth in those days” when that first occurred, “and also after that” so that it continued to occur.
In fact, v. 4 emphasizes this by continuing from where I paused with “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
To re-review, “There were [Nephilim] in the earth in those days and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” so that the question becomes: when was that?
Well, v. 1 told us, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” so that the question becomes: when was that?
I certainly have no idea but it could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children.
Yet, in any case, that is when “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives” which were “those days” and “also after that” but still all pre-flood.
In fact, the flood is not mentioned for the very first time until v. 17—a full 13 vss. later. Since vss. 1-4 form a complete thought and offer chronological timeline data points then we need not read ahead and then circle back to artificially insert the flood into it.
Back to Brown:
“I chose to go to THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE in Hebrew, Greek and English by Hendrickson Publishers, Jay P. Green, Sr.; General Editor and translator, for some of the initial groundwork on the Genesis 6 passage. For the study, I used the column designated, ‘A literal translation of the Bible’:
‘The giants were in the earth in those days, and even afterwards when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bore to them‑they were heroes which existed from ancient time, the men of name.’ Genesis 6:4 (ILB).”
Of course, having giants for Nephilim is not literal—except, perhaps, if we do the etymology that Brown did not do.
English version that employ the term giants are following the Septuagint/LXX which rendered (not translated) Nephilim as gigantes which merely means earth-born.
Yet, the LXX also rendered Rephaim as gigantes and also rendered gibborim as gigantes and it is generally a terrible idea to render more than one word with only one word—especially such very different words such as nephil, repha, and gibbor which clearly do not mean the same thing, do not share a root, etc.
Fortunately, some English versions do not have gibborim as giants but they do have Nephilim and Rephaim as giants which leads to two problems: some, such as Brown, merely assume that this implies unusual height and some merely assume that ergo, Nephilim and Rephaim refers to the same thing, the same beings, the same people group: either directly as if Nephilim and Rephaim are an a.k.a. for each other or that they are related.
Brown notes, “in the context of the entire Bible, you will find that Jude 6 from the New Testament may offer additional input. It directly relates the beings of Gen. 6:2 with the beings of Jude 6” which is something with which I agree—and I would add 2 Peter 2, which Brown also does, eventually.
Of “sons of God,” Brown notes, “Some seem to assume that these fathers” of Nephilim, “are of the one third of the heavenly host that fell with Satan’s fall from Heaven. I question this assumption for several reasons” including:
“if they were connected to Satan somehow, I believe the Bible would have specifically indicated that connection. On the contrary, they were specifically connected to God. (i.e.: sons of God.) They were ‘fallen’ in the sense that they were in Heaven and came to earth, but even more importantly, they fell from God’s grace by their own rebellion.”
Chronological tenses are important at this point. Technically, there is no such thing as “fell with Satan’s fall.” This concept comes from Revelation chapter 12 which symbolically has it that, “a great red dragon” whose, “tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth” (vss. 3-4).
I noted that there “Technically…is no such thing” as “with” since Satan would seem to have already been fallen when he then, afterward, cast Angles to Earth.
FYI: it would seem that Satan’s fall is recorded in the Genesis 3 events while the Angels’ fall is recorded in the Genesis 6 events.
In any case, he cast them to the Earth and then what? Well, then they “saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives” with Satan, as usual, being behind the motivator scenes but not personally involved.
They were “sons of God” since that tends to be an a.k.a. for Angels but are, in Revelation 12, referred to as “his,” Satan’s “angels”—yet, that is much later on, as we shall see.
Overall yes, regardless of motivation or being pushed—cast—into it, “they fell…by their own rebellion.”
Brown quotes and comments thusly:
“And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home‑these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great day.’ Jude 6 (NIV)
The specific place that these angels are being held in everlasting chains is a part (or level) of Hell known as Tartarus, a Greek word which means the lowest abyss of Hell. A spot especially and exclusively reserved for these ‘beings’ that are now finally called out specifically as ‘angels.’ The 2 Peter reference from this verse reads as follows:
‘For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to Hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;’
‘…if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment.’ 2 Peter 2:4, 9. (NIV).”
There is no indication that there is any such thing as “a part (or level) of Hell known as Tartarus, a Greek word which means the lowest abyss of Hell.” This is just a compounding of various different terms/concepts.
Hell is much like giants: a word that is used to render (not translate) various Hebrew and Greek words. However, none of those words are—or should be—Tartarus or Abyss. Peter does not write whatever hell is supposed to mean but rather, to Tartarus which his Greek audience would have understood as being the lowest part of the Abyss, which according to Greek mythology contains the baddest of the bad such as Titans.
Brown continues by asking and replying:
“Is this the only reference to ‘giants’ in the Bible? Hardly! It’s only the beginning. We have heard of Goliath, but did you know that he also had four brothers? And all of them were likewise giants. The Scriptures we have studied so far tell us that the ‘giants’ or ‘nephilim’ ‘were on the earth in those days‑and also afterward‑’ (NIV) or, ‘at that time and even later.’ (CEV).”
At this point, he has jumped from Nephilim to Rephaim and so has broken the context. And note that he does so via misreading and misapplying Genesis 6:4.
He informs us that he will appeal to “THE DISCIPLES’ STUDY BIBLE‑NIV translation, and the new, CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH VERSION (CEV).”
He writes of, “‘the Anointed Cherub which covers,’ otherwise known as Satan” and I am glad to see that—knowingly or not—he is specifying that Satan is not an Angel.
“Satan also chose to rebel against God, and then there was war in the Heavens and Michael (the Archangel) fought the Dragon (Satan) along with 1/3 of the heavenly host (angels) who fell with him. And Michael won. But the particular sin which caused God to cleanse the earth of all of its inhabitants except Noah and those in the Ark, was, I believe…that sin we have reviewed in Gen. 6:4:
‘…and the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.’ Genesis 6:4b (NIV).”
This ties back to the Revelation 12 issue and the importance of its chronology since there it is tricky to claim that “there was” past tense, “war in the Heavens…And Michael won,” past tense and this is especially important if one is, as Brown is, placing that war in pre-flood days.
Revelation 12 has it that, “a great red dragon…drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth” but then, after that, that chapter’s woman, “brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne” but then, after that, “there was war in heaven” (vss. 3-7).
Thus, Angels were cast down, then Jesus is born and ascends, and then there was/is a war. And I say was/is because we can be sure that it is timelined to after Jesus’ ascension which some would say happened already and some not. Yet, it has to be placed at some point after Jesus’ ascension and most certainly not to pre-flood days.
Incidentally, while he does not focus on this, Brown claims, “angels have taken upon physical form in other places of the Bible.”
Actually, there is not one single text which describes or even implies that Angels “have taken upon” themselves, “physical form.” Rather, since they are always described as looking just like human males, the indication is that they are so ontologically: they naturally have a physicality of their own sort—and we were made “a little lower” (Psalm 8:5) than they.
Brown asks and answers:
“Were there giants on the earth after the flood? It appears to me that it was God’s original intention to destroy all of the Nephilim and yet save a remnant of righteous man through Noah and his descendants.”
This is very, very important, “God’s original intention to destroy all of the Nephilim”—as it “appears” to Brown.
Yet, “But the Bible tells us that the Nephilim were not entirely annihilated in the flood.”
Firstly, nowhere does the Bible tell us any such thing. In fact, we are told, “thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives” (Genesis 6:18), “Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives…Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons” (Genesis 7:7, 13), “thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives…Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives” (Genesis 8:16, 18), “eight souls were saved” (1 Peter 3:20), “saved Noah the eighth person” (2 Peter 2:5) plus some animals.
Now, if and since, “God’s original intention to destroy all of the Nephilim” then is Brown’s—not the Bible’s—claim that “Nephilim were not entirely annihilated in the flood” implies that God failed.
Brown goes on to argue in favor of that “the Bible tells us…” thusly:
“As early as Gen. 6:4 we are advised of this:
‘The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later.’ Genesis 6:4 (CEV)
‘…and even later’ is a clue in our investigation that would lead us to consider that the Nephilim might reappear at a later date in history. Indeed they do, as we check out some of the cross‑references and footnotes of our Bibles. In Gen. 6:3b, we have proof of God’s intent to destroy every living being:
‘No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years.’ Genesis 6:3b. (CEV).”
Do you see how misreading and misapplying “even later” leads to faulty—unbiblical—conclusions down the line—it is like one domino that topples another, and another, and another.
But some are surely agreeing that not only “Nephilim might reappear” but did—we will get to that.
For now, note that “we have proof of God’s intent to destroy every living being” (which even he knows is hyperbolic—“every” minus the eight and some animals) and apparently did so since the emphasis here is not a claim that Nephilim survived by that they might—somehow—reappear—which is a different form of implying that God failed, He intended to destroy all of the Nephilim and did so but they just came right back and cause all of the same problems all over again so that the flood was a waste.
Brown goes on to write, “You will also see the appearance of the descendants of the Nephilim in Moses’ time and the giant Goliath which a young king David slew; and many, many, other very exciting passages.”
He provides, “SCRIPTURAL TRACKING for THE GIANTS OF THE BIBLE” but since it is about “GIANTS” then he compounds the two verse that refer to Nephilim with the many others that refer to Rephaim.
Here we finally come to the, or a, definition of giants, “DEFINITIONS: [From SMITH’S BIBLE DICTIONARY unless otherwise stated.]” the first of which is “A. Giants, men of extraordinary size or height. 1. They are first spoken of in Gen. 6:4” which is rather odd since one thing that is missing from that verse is any physical description of them whatsoever—so, perhaps we get one later on, we shall see.
Note that “extraordinary size or height” is subjective and that there is no standard of extraordinariness. Biblical references to height are subjective to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.
Next is, “2. The Rephaim…They were probably an aboriginal people of which the Emmim, Anakim and Zuzim [which see] were branches” yet, what indication have we that Rephaim—and thus, all Rephaim subgroups—were “of extraordinary size or height”? Perhaps we will eventually be told.
Next, “B. An’akim (long‑necked), a race of giants…the war‑like appearance of the Anakim had struck the Israelites with terror in the time of Moses, Num. 13:28; Deut. 9:2.”
It is not helpful to define these giants as “a race of giants” since that is circular. Also, another problem with the term “a race of giants” is that biblically, it means “a race of Rephaim.”
I would say that “the war‑like appearance of the Anakim had struck the Israelites with terror in the time of Moses” is myopic but certainly part of the issue.
Numbers 13:28 records the original report stated by the spies after they reconsidered Canaan, “the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there” yet, they go on to mention having seen Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites.
Deuteronomy 9:2 “A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!”
Thus, we must apparently take the subjective term “tall” to refer to the subjective term “extraordinary” referring to “size or height.”
Next, let us go to, “D. E’mims (terrors), a tribe or family of gigantic stature” so “gigantic” referring to “extraordinary size or height” but all we are told about then within that context is “Emims…a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims” (Deuteronomy 2:10). Thus, again, the subjective term “tall” referring to the subjective term “extraordinary” referring to “size or height.”
Next, “E. Goli’ath (splendor), a famous giant…possibly descended from the old Rephaim [GIANTS]…His height was ‘six cubits and a span,’ which, taking the cubit at 21 inches, would make him 10 1/2 feet high.”
Biblically, he as a famous Repha—not “possibly” about it—but the “10 1/2 feet high” is based on the Masoretic text while the earlier LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls and Flavius Josephus have him at just shy of 7 ft.—which compared to the average Israelite male was “of extraordinary size or height.”
Now to “H. Zamzum’mim…described as having originally been a powerful and numerous nation of giants” to be biblically read as a nation of Rephaim.
Deuteronomy 2:20 refers to that Rephaim, “welt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims” so that this is an a.k.a. for Rephaim.
“…in Job 2:1, the mention of angels presenting ‘themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them…’ (NIV) An interesting side‑note here is the fact that these angels are God’s angels as I’ve said before, not Satan’s.”
Technically, we cannot really say that Job 2:1 contains a “mention of angels” since it has “sons of God” and not “Angels.” However, Job 38:7 has the sons of God, at the very least, witnessing the creation of the Earth so while we may not be able to assert that they are “Angels,” they are certainly not human.
Now, do note that the LXX does have Job chaps 1, 2, and 38 as referring to angelos.
“…the Genesis 6:2, 4 cross‑references are next in Num. 13:33…verses 22 & 28 also apply:
‘They went up through the Negev and came to Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai and Talmai, the descendants of Anak lived. (Hebron had been built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)’ Numbers 13:22 (NIV)
‘But the people who live there are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large. We even saw descendants of Anak there.’ Numbers 13:28 (NIV)
‘We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the
Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.’ Numbers 13:33 (NIV).”
Here Brown fails to interact with the narrative of Numbers chapter 13 in terms of who is saying what, why they are saying it, what is the reaction to it, etc.
- 22 is part of the narrative.
- 28 is part of the original report that is accepted as is.
- 33 is part of an “evil report” stated my unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies whom God rebuked—to death—so that no one should believe them.
Yet, that one single verse is the only one single verse upon which the entire all-encompassing theory of post-flood Nephilim is based, and it then becomes a worldview hermeneutic that some used (abuse) in order to pull other verses into a grand (unbiblical) narrative. Such has been the case with Brown who thinks that giants are giants are giants, and all are related—related to the original pre-flood Nephilim.
“Can you imagine how the people of those times must have feared and been amazed at these giant peoples?! I can understand why they may have developed legends about them…myths, if you will.
They seem to have been mighty warriors, and the average person may have mistakenly looked at them as some kind of god, or the children of a god. These giants were obviously not like everyone else, to them.
I think these ‘gods’ that the people wrote fables and myths about and around, may have been the angels of Genesis 6:2, 4. Verse 4 also specifically says:
‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days‑and also afterward…’
‘They were the heroes of old, men of renown.’ (NIV)
Sounds to me, like the very stuff that legends, or myths, are made of; except for the fact that these giants were real, very real” (ellipses in original).
Brown is fixated on “extraordinary size or height” and so exhibits symptoms of Gigorexia Nervosa (an obsession for seeing giants and inventing them where they are nowhere to be seen).
Technically, there is no indication that they “feared” or where “amazed at these giant peoples.” Now, it is true that after the original report, “Caleb stilled the people” (v. 30) and relating the event, in Deuteronomy 1:27 Moses states, “our brethren have discouraged our heart” but why and how?
“Caleb stilled the people” since he discerned that they are not stilled which was after they heard “the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great” which was surely intimidating to itinerate, wilderness, tent dwellers—and they were told they would be confronting six people groups: Anakim, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites.
But note that the peoples were said to be “strong” and not giants nor even tall—though some of them were, subjectively.
And “our brethren have discouraged our heart” by “saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.” Note that this is not part of the Numbers 13 narrative, but paraphrasing Numbers 13’s recording of the “evil report.”
- 31 even has the unfaithful, disloyal, etc. spies stating, “We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we” so, again, “stronger” and not giants nor even tall—though some of them were, subjectively.
Yet, within the “evil report” about which we are told in the next verse, they embellish those two references to strength by asserting, “all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature”—and yes, of course, great stature is subjective.
Also, note that in relating this event, Moses mentions Anakim but utterly disregards Nephilim—as does the whole entire rest of the Bible.
But subjective or not, compared to 5.0-5.3 ft. or not, we are told, “we saw the [Nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the [Nephilim]: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” Yet, the point is that this was stated by the unfaithful, disloyal, etc. spies who made six claims about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all whatsoever.
Now, it is conceivable that what was once commonly known and shared history came to be called legend and myth after the Tower of Babel event when humanity spread out through the Earth.
Yet, perhaps it was the Numbers 13:32-33 “evil report” that was the invention of legend and myth about Nephilim not only living post-flood but having been very, very, very tall. Now, since Genesis 6:4 is the only reliable reference to Nephilim and provides no physical description of them and Numbers 13:33 is utterly unreliable when we have no reliable physical description of them whatsoever—we cannot even claim that they were one inch taller than average.
Moreover, it was exclusively the unfaithful, disloyal, etc. spies who merely claimed to have seen Nephilim, the nation of Israelites did not. Thus, there is no indication that anyone “looked at them as some kind of god, or the children of a god,” etc.
Brown also writes, “Rephaites/Rephaim…is an ancient nation of Giants” which we know by now is to be biblically read (as should be written) as a nation of Rephaim—which would be circular but such is what it means.
He also writes:
“Moses had commanded his people to leave the mountain and go into the land that God had promised them, but they were afraid of the gigantic people that the spies they had sent out reported to them:
‘Where can we go? Our brothers have made us lose heart. They say, ‘The people are stronger and taller than we are; the cities are large, with walls up to the sky. We even saw the Anakites there.’’ Deuteronomy 1:28 (NIV).”
By now, we know how misguided such a statement is.
He writes of “Horites” a.k.a. “Horim” a.k.a. “Ho’rim” a.k.a. “Ho’rites” as “lesser‑known race of giants” and we already know some of the problems with such generic statements.
“God does not disown these angels who fathered the Nephilim and despised His authority. They were uniquely and severely rebellious, apart from Satan and his fallen angels.
And He rewarded them with their own unique and severe punishment. Not Hades, not Gehenna, but Tartarus; the very lowest abyss of Hell.”
Interestingly, Brown implies—or outright states—some that the Bible does not which is that there was a group of “angels who fathered” who are distinct from a group who are Satan’s “fallen angels” and yet, biblically, there was only a one time fall of Angels, one group.
As for “Hades, not Gehenna, but Tartarus; the very lowest abyss of Hell” well, we have reviewed this linguistics issue, for more details on this see my book What Does the
Bible Say About Heaven and Hell? A Styled Superumology and Infernology.
“I don’t believe He was convinced that the descendants of these rebellious angels were entirely gone. The reason I feel this way, is the battle instructions that a dying Moses gives to Israel and Joshua before they cross the Jordan.”
This is another of those falling dominoes since misreading/misapplying Genesis 6:4 leads Brown to assert that “the battle instructions” were about dealing with Nephilim, or Nephilim 2.0, or Nephilim relative, or however one my term it.
Well, Brown does not really mere assert since he provides various quotations and citations yet, the shortcut is that none of them, not one, ever states one single word about Nephilim, nor relation to Nephilim whatsoever.
For details on this, see chapter “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
He notes, “In the books of 1 & 2 Samuel we will focus on 5 battles with gigantic men.”
He elucidates that which I just quoted:
“In 2 Samuel, we hear of the four brothers of Goliath. Similar in stature and all are descendants of Rapha from Gath. (See definitions‑CEV, also Strong’s Universal Subject Guide in the New Exhaustive Concordance.) [Ed. Note: Rapha is a term for Giants.].”
Just in case, Goliath is the Rapha (a.k.a. Repha) from Gath—and that “Rapha is a term for Giants” is inaccurate, we I have already variously reviewed.
Thus, the “5 battles with gigantic men” were all relating to “brothers of Goliath” who are a.k.a. here as “descendants of Rapha from Gath.” Some English versions cause a little confusion with this but the bottom line is that Goliath had four sons.
As for “gigantic” well, we reviewed how Goliath was, most reliably, just shy of 7 ft. and we are told nothing of his sons so feel free to add or subtract a few inches in either direction—I suppose.
Brown notes, “A footnote for 20:4 in the CEV reads as follows: ‘20.4 the Rapha: This may refer to a group of people that lived in Palestine before the Israelites and who were famous for their large size.’”
Again, “large” is subjective and the only reliable data we have is that some of them were subjectively tall.
Brown claims that, “the size of his humongous bed or ‘coffin’…obviously attests to Og’s tremendous size.”
This is a fascinating manner whereby to be in awe about the size of someone whose size were are never told.
But why “obviously” regarding “tremendous size” since, as is typically done, subtracting about a foot from his bed/coffin results in 12-13 ft.
Well, if you subtract a foot from my bed’s height you would have a fair estimation of my height—yet, my doing likewise with its width you would conclude that I am actually about five time wider than I actually am.
Yet, I am not an ancient sovereign living the lifestyles of the rich and infamous regarding what may have been an oversized bed.
Neither will I be ceremoniously buried in a lavishly oversized coffin so as to emphasize my grandeur.
But these are just common sense points.
It is was a bed then archeologists have found beds of such dimensions and they were not meant to be slept on, they were ritual objected whereon supposed gods mated with alleged goddesses.
If it was a coffin then archeologists have found coffins that are larger than to fit subjectively average humans in Egypt, they contained three skeletons—they are not large because the skeletons it contained are large but because they contained more than one average sized skeleton. Also, King Tutankhamun’s sarcophagus was 8.25 ft. but he was 5.11 ft.
The ritual bed: correlates to a ritual found in the Etemenanki ziggurat.
The Egyptian coffin: see my article What the giant Egyptian sarcophagus has to do with King Og of Bashan.
Brown writes, “Smith’s definition of Og” has him as “one of the last representatives of the giant race of Rephaim,” again, biblically read as “the Rephaim race of Rephaim.”
And Smith also asserts, “The belief in Og’s enormous stature is corroborated by an allusion to his iron bedstead.”
Brown quotes “Dr. Strong’s work,” as in Strong’s concordance, etc. thusly:
“I. Giants‑men of unusual size.
- Names of:
Let us review these “Giants‑men of unusual size”—yes, with “Giants” and “unusual” being subjective.
“Nephilim…….Gen. 6:4”: offers no physical description whatsoever.
“Rephaim……..Gen. 14:5”: the verse reads, “And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emins in Shaveh Kiriathaim” so that it offers no physical description whatsoever but we know that some Rephaim were subjectively “tall.”
“Anakim………Num. 13:28‑33”: here he is not only urging us to accept the “evil report” as reliable but is mixing up a faux report about Nephilim with Anakim—perhaps because they are allegedly related thus, like fathers like sons.
“Emim………..Gen. 14:5”: this is the same citation for Rephaim that I just quoted so, ditto.
“Zamzummim……Deut. 2:20”: I quoted this earlier, “That also was accounted a land of [Rephaim]: [Rephaim]dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims” so what goes for Rephaim goes for Zamzummims since they are one and the same.
We have reviewed this Goliath and Og, as to the “Others,” they are Goliath’s sons.
“1.) Giants: First spoken of in Gen. 6:4, under the name Nephilim. Afterwards the ‘sons of God mingled with the daughters of men and produced a race of violent and insolent Gibborim. (Authorized version ‘mighty men’).’”
It is backward to claim “Giants…spoken of…under the name Nephilim” since that is putting the English cart before the Hebrew horse. Thus, it is a matter of Nephilim spoken of in only some English versions as Giants which implies nothing about unusual height—or usual height, or any sort of height at all.
Brown touches upon well gone over ground already:
“In Numbers, chapter 13, we see the connection between the Anakim (also known as the Rephaim) and the Nephilim. In v.22, we see that the three tribes of the Anakim lived in Hebron, and in v.33: ‘We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim.)’ (NIV)
And in Genesis, chapter 6, where this whole study began, we find ourselves coming full‑circle in our investigation:
‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days‑and also afterward‑when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.’ Genesis 6:4 (NIV).”
Rather, “In Numbers, chapter 13, we see the” false and rebuked and nowhere else even hinted at impossible “connection between the Anakim (also known as the Rephaim) and the Nephilim.”
And yet, this all stems from misreading, misunderstanding, misapplying Genesis 6:4—which he does due to having read Numbers 13:33 and then circling all the way back to Genesis 6:4.
And so thus ends it. This really is the stuff of which the entire theory of post-flood Nephilim is made: read an “evil report,” actually believe it, and rather than pondering how it can possibly conform to the whole entire rest of the Bible, force-fit the whole entire rest of the Bible to it. Something less hermeneutically sound is difficult to ponder.
For more details, see my contextually relevant books—all found at here:
What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology
The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim, and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts
Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s
Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010
What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
The Pastoral Nephilim and Giants: What Do Pastors Teach and Preach?
Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers
Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales
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.