Rick Sawyer, ThD, DMin posted an article titled Messianic Theology: The Unseen Realm on his The Center for Messianic Learning site which, “teaches Bible and biblical theology from a Divine Council worldview, recovering the faith and practice of the first- and second-century Yeshua-followers for Jews and Gentiles today.”
About him, the site notes, “After 35 years as a Baptist pastor and several years as a seminary professor, I now try to teach Messianic theology from the same Divine Council worldview the first-century followers of Messiah Yeshua (Jesus) would have had.”
His premise is:
I have departed from my usual sola Scriptura position in my treatment of spirit beings since the Scriptures—neither the Tanakh nor the Apostolic Writings—do not directly address the ancient Hebrew understanding of these beings. I believe the writers assumed their readers shared their worldview.
That worldview embraced the literal existence of numerous “species” of spirit beings, evidenced by Daniel’s multiple references to “watchers” (Dan. 4:13, 17, 23) and Peter’s and Jude’s reference to the “angels that sinned” and “kept not their first estate” that are kept in chains in the underworld until their final judgment (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6).
These comments share the vocabulary of the apocryphal Book of Enoch, which—although considered canonical only by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church—probably was never considered inspired scripture by first-century Jews but was clearly being widely read by them and defined a vastly different worldview than our “enlightened” and “scientific” Western worldview.
At this early stage, we know not to what he is referring as Spirit Beings so we will have to discern who is being referenced and discern whether they actually are spirits or not.
As for, “the Scriptures—neither the Tanakh nor the Apostolic Writings—do not directly address the ancient Hebrew understanding of these beings” that seems to be in part due to that the Bible is more of an anthropological anthology rather than a theological one, it is about humanity’s creation, fall, and redemption. Thus, whatever subject it touches upon, it touches upon briefly as it quickly and inevitably always makes the point be how it affects humanity.
And so we must take the precious little it does provide us and handle it very carefully. We must also compare non sola Scriptura texts to the Bible in part since they will come to us from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah (and then continuing on to the whole Tanahk and New Testament).
I will also note that, “species” is not biblical taxonomy, “kinds” are: which may be part of why he quoted that term.
As for, 1 Enoch in Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s canon, that it includes it does not 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.
The Eritrean Orthodox canon includes Jubilees as well which I would described as I did 1 Enoch.
As for to what, to whom, he is referring by Spirit Beings, the article begins by linking to a PDF study guide which includes:
Angels מַלְּאָכִ ים (malakim) Messengers; carry out divine missions; not all spirit beings are angels …
Watchers עִ ירִ ין (Dan. 4:13) Possibly a class of divine beings; linked to rebellion in Enochian texts
Demons שֵדִ ים (shedim) Disembodied spirits of Nephilim; deceptive and destructive
Nephilim נְּפִ ילִים Hybrid offspring of benéi Elohim and human women (Gen. 6:1–4)…
4. Nephilim and Post-Flood Giants
• Nephilim reappear after the flood (Num. 13:33).
• Their descendants include Rephaim, Anakim, Emim.
5. Demons and Modern Deception
• Demons are spirits of dead Nephilim (per Enoch, Jubilees)…
Suggested Reading & Resources
• Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm
• Jonathan Cahn, The Return of the Gods
• Tim Chaffey, Fallen: The Sons of God and the Nephilim
• Midrash Bereshit Rabbah, Talmud Bavli (Sanhedrin, Bava Batra)
• Rambam (Maimonides), Guide for the Perplexed
• Ramban (Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah
Actually beginning with the Suggested Reading & Resources may help us understand why I already discern some red flags.
Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but his Nephilology was not altogether biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—search online for these articles for examples:
Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy.
Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”.
I also included him in my book, The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
I am not very aware of Cahn but have been made aware to beware of his modis operandi and thus, his conclusions.
My name appears favorably in Chaffey’s book since I assisted him in his research. Yet, his Nephilology was not altogether biblical and erroneous in key aspects such as asserting their size and post-flood existence.
Midrashim are in the genre of sermonizing homilies so they can tell us something about Rabbinic Judaism’s folkloric tradition and such, but are not to be taken as doing history.
Rambam (1135-1204) and Ramban (1195-1270) were Rabbis who all of those millennia later, said what they did based on whatever basis.
It is odd to state, “not all spirit beings are angels” since Angels are not spirits (regardless of what one poorly translated modern English word says) since biblical Angelology is and 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. Thus, he likely gets that they are spirits from non sola scriptura sources.
Watchers is not a class but is a merely a Second Temple Era aka for Angels.
That, “Demons” are, “Disembodied spirits of Nephilim” is merely folklore (“per Enoch, Jubilees”) from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
I too hold that Nephilim were, “Hybrid offspring of benéi Elohim and human women” but referring to, “Nephilim and Post-Flood Giants” is hugely problematic beginning with that it is language jumping from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the modern generically subjective English word giants so, we need to know: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? What is Sawyer’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Biblically contextually, “Nephilim and Post-Flood Giants” would mean, “Nephilim and Post-Flood Nephilim.”
As for, “Nephilim reappear after the flood” well, the word did, they did not and that, “Their descendants include Rephaim, Anakim, Emim” is a logical, bio-logical, and theo-logical impossibility since, to begin with, that it would imply that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Also, only the appearance of the word in one single post-flood sentence only from non-LXX version has Nephilim correlated to Anakim. None whatsoever have them correlated to Rephaim as a whole (Anakim, and Emim, were like clans of the Rephaim tribe).
I have a feeling that we have just outlined problems that will plague the whole article even though we have barely began reviewing it. That what remains consists of over 5,000 words and repetitive compilations by NotebookLM (Google’s AI‑powered tool now called Gemini Notebook) means I will attempt to succinctly seek those portions that argue in favor of what I just identified as lacking specificity or committing errors. And my focus will be sola scriptura due to what I noted, if non sola scriptura sources not merely expound and expand upon the Bible’s statements but contradict them then the issue will become why accept them over the Bible?
Of Angels, we are told:
…they are organized into different ranks and orders; and that there are now both holy and fallen angels..
Holy angels are “ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation“ (Heb. 1:14)…
Satan/Lucifer is an angel, a cherub of the highest rank of “angelic” creatures (Ezek. 28:12-16). He sinned through the pride of self-will, and thereby became the author of sin and the cause of the fall of man. He is the open and declared enemy of both HaShem and man, and with his fallen angels (“demons”) is in a state of present and open warfare against HaShem and His saints. Some demons are presently being held captive “in chains” in Sheol. They will all be eternally punished in the Lake of Fire, which was created specifically for HaSatan and his “demons.”
The claim of, “ranks and orders” can be said to be biblical but some, such as Rick Sawyer, misuse it—as we shall see.
The only ranks and orders of which I can think are the Angel of the LORD, the Archangel, and regular Angels, I suppose we could say—and we could probably add others by specific job functions.
As for, “spirits” in Heb. 1:14, I certainly do not know why he pinpointed that verse but this is that about which I noted one single poorly translated modern English word.
Search the BibleGateway site specifically for Heb 1:7, then click on, “Hebrews 1:7 in all English translations” just below the verse, and you will find that 43 out of 64 versions rightly have Angels as, “winds” rather than, “spirits.” And looking at v 7 first is key since v. 14 plays off of it and must also be translated as, “winds” to be consistent.
Now, the difference is translation is not because translators just flipped a coin, it is because Heb is quoting (and then playing off of) Psalm 104:4 (do the same in BibleGateway for that one: the stats for which are 46 having, “winds” out of 58) and the entire context of the Psalm demands that we translate as, “winds” and not, “spirits” since it constantly makes correlations to natural phenomena.
This easy-fix linguistics issue is also a case of that one single modern English word does not outweigh every single actual description of Angels in the Bible: that they are male, physical, etc.—for more linguistics details, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
The issue of the misusage of ranks and orders comes into play when we are told, “Satan/Lucifer is an angel, a cherub of the highest rank of ‘angelic’ creatures (Ezek. 28:12-16).”
Ezek 28 does not say a single word about Angels, it identifies Satan/Lucifer as a Cherub. Assenting, “angel, a cherub” is a category error that violates the law of identity: Angels are Angels and Cherubim are Cherubim. Thus, writing, “of the highest rank of ‘angelic’ creatures” is problematic since, by definition, the only, “angelic’ creatures” are Angels—now, if Rick Sawyer is implying that the Cherub outranked or was in charge of Angels then that is another topic.
Biblically, the way that the Cherub was, “the cause of the fall of man” would be by extension that he beguiled Eve and she then took part in causing Adam to sin.
Another interesting bit of linguistics is, “fallen angels (‘demons’)” since they are the same but technically different since, as per my biblical argument in the Demons Ex Machina article, demons are the disembodied spirits of physically incarcerated Angels. Thus, it is not the case that, “demons are presently being held captive ‘in chains’ in Sheol” as per Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined, that is Angels and they are in Tartarus—not demons nor Sheol.
I suppose one can write in terms of, “HaSatan and his ‘demons’” but Rev 12 refers to Satan and his Angels: likely since when the Abyss is opened, as per Rev 9, the spirit/demons reinhabit their Angel bodies and emerge—which is all very highly symbolically expressed.
He goes on to note the, “Names for spirit beings”:
At least four classes of spirit beings are described in Scripture: בּנֵי הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙, benéi Elohim (sometimes simply elohim, gods); כְּרוּבּים, cherubim; שְּׂרָפִ֔ים, seraphim; and מַּלְאָכִ֤ים, malakim (messengers, angels)…
אֱלֹהִים֙ (elohim)…is used as a generic term for any resident of the spiritual realm, often including deceased humans.
Other primary names for spirit beings include “principalities” and “powers.” Scripture refers to spirit beings by many names, including the following. These may refer to either “species” or “job descriptions.”
powers / powers of heaven (Matt. 24:29; Mark 13:25; Luke 21:26; Rom. 8:38; Eph. 6:12; 1Pet. 3:22)
principalities (Rom. 8:38)
authorities (1Pet. 3:22)
spiritual forces of wickedness (Eph. 6:12)
ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14)…
kherubim/cherubim…The prophet Yechezk’el (Ezekiel) provides us with a detailed description of the kherubim (Ezek. 10:8-14)…
seraphim…appears only in the writings of the prophet Yesha’yahu (Isaiah 6:2, 6), and is closely related to the word used to describe the “fiery serpent” that Moshe had made in the wilderness (Num. 21:6-8). He provides us with the following description (Isa. 6:1-5)…
It is categorically mistaken to refer to, “spirit beings” who, by definition are not embodied, followed by directing us to, “a detailed description…the following description” both of which are physical descriptions of bodies.
It is tricky to appeal to, “powers…principalities…authorities…spiritual forces” and, “ministering” winds since while we know that contextually winds refers to Angels, we do not know which category of being fits into those categories.
We are provided this list:
“Angels” in Christianity
Groups or Classes
Archangels
Seraphim
Ophanim
Cherubim
Thrones
Dominions
Virtues
Powers
Principalities
Recording angels
Guardian angels
Writing in terms of, “in Christianity” can mean anything within the past two millennia but note that, again, the only “Angels…” are, “Recording angels,” “Guardian angels” and, “Archangels” and that should not be plural since biblically Michael is the only one.
Lastly, as far as the review of the current article is concerned, we are told of, “classes of nephilim — anakim, rephaim, and emim” which we saw has no merit.
Anyone appealing to Num 13:33 needs to mention that they are 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—which I am currently updating.
Thus, these points are meant to inform us of the biblical data and all which contradict it are problems to be dealt with in some manner.
I thought to close by including a review of Rick Sawyer’s article N’philim since he linked to it from the article we just finished reviewing.
He quotes that which I term the Gen 6 affair thusly:
When mankind began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God [benéi Elohim] saw that the daughters of man were beautiful, and they took any they chose as wives for themselves. (Gen. 6:1-2, HCSB)
The Nephilim were on the earth both in those days and afterwards, when the sons of God [benéi Elohim] came to the daughters of man, who bore children to them. They were the powerful men of old, the famous men. (Gen. 6:4, HCSB)
He comments:
Many interpreters believe that “the sons of God” were descendants of Cain and that the ‘daughters of men’ were the descendants of Seth” and footnotes, “2. For example: ‘… the sons of God saw the daughters of men — By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption.
The women, religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity.’ (Robert Jameson, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. This one volume commentary was prepared by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown and published in 1871.).
This is an example of how and why the Sethite view is based on myth and prejudice since there is no indication of, “family of Seth, who were professedly religious” referring to their entire lineage and, “descendants of apostate Cain” is meant to condemn that entire lineage. But note that in reality, what that view does is make it so that Sethites were not really professedly religious since, on that view, they were actually such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that is rather odd.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that, “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which some LXX editions have as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there is only a one-time fall of Angels in the Bible. So, if they are not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we are no idea to what sin they are referring.
Note that Sawyer wrote, “Num. 13:33 (height)” yet, that is one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Thus, the dirty little secret is that since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical pop-Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
He also wrote, “Amos 2:9-10 (height)” but that is not about Nephilim—and no one can be correlated to Nephilim due to height—that text reads, “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 literally then they have to conclude that Amorites had fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.
He added, “King James, Douay-Rheims, Wycliffe, and some other versions translate Nephilim as ‘giants’” which begs the key questions about their usages of that word. Sawyer tells us, “The Hebrew word transliterated as ‘Nephilim’ or N’filim is נְפִילים, literally fallen ones. It comes from the root word נְפִיל (naphal), to fall or to be thrown down. Translated” I would be hyper-technical and call it a rendering, “as giants in some English versions, the translation is not literally accurate, but it does adequately convey the idea of their appearance.”
Note that it does not make any sense to refer to that, “the translation is not literally accurate” without first telling us his usage since the way he, and/or the AI, have been writing is that it is still question begging. Yet, his reference to, “Num. 13:33 (height)” and, “their appearance” seems to imply that by giants he means something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).
That means that his usage does not agree with English Bibles’ usage since therein, it merely renders 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.
Now, note another aspect of reliance upon Num 13:33, he wrote:
Nephilim were…hybrid…were literally mutants…Perhaps the human DNA had become almost totally corrupt by the time of Noah, leading God to destroy the entire human species in order to protect the uncorrupted DNA of Noah so the Messiah could be born as pure human.
According to Numbers 13:33, the Nephilim also inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest, and included Goliath and his four brothers from the Canaanite city of Gath. While God sent the flood to wipe out the Nephilim, the fact that Goliath and his brothers were Nephilim indicates that this “demonic” cohabitation was resumed after the flood.
That was hugely problematic.
Note his qualifying term, “leading God to destroy the entire human species” when Gen 7 states that it was, “Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.” Thus, that would include Nephilim. Now, it does seem that by the speculation, “in order to protect the uncorrupted DNA” he was communicating that entire human species (sans the eight on the ark) had become Nephilimized, as it were.
Now, how could it be that God destroyed all of the Nephilimized and yet, “Nephilim also inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest”?
As for, “this ‘demonic” cohabitation was resumed after the flood” there is literally zero reliable indication of it.
It is very, very (very [very]) common that post-flood Nephilologists fundamentally contradict themselves this way and typically do so within one sentence or paragraph. This implies that, as aforementioned, God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper and the worse part is that Rick Sawyer premised it on a mistaken categorization of Goliath and fam since it is simply not the case that post-flood Nephilim, “included Goliath and his four brothers” since they are referred to as a Rephaim, not a Nephilim, every single time they are mentioned thus, this was another category error. Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
Swayer argues thusly:
Curiously, after the reference to Nephilim in Numbers 13:33, the word changes from נְפִיל (nephilim) to רְפָאִ֛ים (repha’im). However, if we look carefully, we can see that both words refer to the same race.
“There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim) …” (Num. 13:33)
Like the Anakim [sons of Anak], they are also regarded as Repha’im, but the Moabites call them Emim. (Deut. 2:11)
It is also regarded as the land of the Repha’im, for Repha’im formerly lived in it, but the Ammonites call them Zamzummin, (Deut. 2:20)
So the Nephilim (נְפִיל), the Anakim (כָּעֲנָקִ֑ים) [or Anakites], the Repha’im (רְפָאִ֛ים) [or Rephaites], the Emim (אֵמִֽים), and the Zamzummim (זַמְזֻמִּֽים) [or Zamzummites] are all the same race of mutant giants. This helps explain why during the conquest of Canaan, God instructed the Israelites to totally exterminate the entire race: they were all capable of passing on the mutant Nephalim DNA.
It is rather odd to refer to, “the word” that, “changes” since the word Nephilim does not change, the category of personage being referred to changes.
Again, he appeals to a non-LXX version of Num 13:33, uncritically (without interacting with the narrative) merely picks up one verse, runs with it, and applies it when he turns to Deut 2 which is about Rephaim and does not even imply any relation to Nephilim whatsoever.
“So the Nephilim (נְפִיל)” have nothing except one unreliable non-LXX sentence to do with the Anakim clan of the Rephaim aka Zamzummim tribe of which Emim were also like a clan.
And note that, “cohabitation was resumed after the flood” does not tell us how and it is a merely asserted positive affirmation: just how was that done especially considering that there is only a one-time fall of Angels in the Bible and Jude and 2 Peter 2 tell us that those sons of God/Angels were incarcerated: now, they do not tell us when but since the flood was when God was cleaning house, as it were, then it would have been during the flood or before it.
As for, “the conquest of Canaan, God instructed the Israelites to totally exterminate the entire race” God told us many times why He commanded such but never said one single word about Nephilim—in any way, shape, or form. Yet, what Rick Sawyer is doing is a typical post-flood Nephilologist move when they realize they have nothing to go on except for one hugely problematic sentence: they play the word-name swap game.
Also, the way the make their (demonstrably fallacious) case is to myopically only read that one sentence in non-LXX versions so they can claim a correlation (of some unknown sort) between the Anakim clan and Nephilim and then expand that assertion to (in some unknown way) encompass all Rephaim.
Thus, they manipulate post-flood references to Anakim and Rephaim by asserting that they are references to post-flood Nephilim.
He actually goes on to quote, “‘Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim’…(Josh. 14:15, HCSB)” and Arba was Anak’s father—Anakim were named after Anak—and there is zero indication either of them had anything to do with Nephilim.
He added:
For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. (Matt. 24:36 NASB95)
And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: (Luke 17:26 NASB95)
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, … (Genesis 6:4 NASB95, describing “the days of Noah”)
Does this suggest that there are Nephilim on earth today? You decide.
I do not need to decide, all I need to do is note that Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
But He kept speaking directly with:
Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17).
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.
Deut 2 has all Rephaim in general being, “tall”—which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants—and Sawyer notes, “Only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Repha’im. His bed was made of iron. Isn’t it in Rabbah of the Ammonites? It is 13 feet six inches long and six feet wide by a standard measure. (Deut. 3:11, HCSB).”
I am unsure what a bed has to do with anything—actually, I do: it is to make much ado about nothing.
Rephaim were tall subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days. As for Og specifically, he does not say anything about the description of his size since there is nothing in the Bible about it. And indications are that the bed was a ritual object, not something upon which he slept—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
In a subsection titled, “Giants” he quotes English versions that have Rephaim as giants and includes, “Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span [nine feet, nine inches]. (1Sam. 17:4, NAS).” For some reason, he was myopic again in not noting that the Masoretic text has Goliath at 9.9ft. 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 is the preponderance of the earliest data (the Greek LXX Codex Venetus actually has 5 cubits and a span).
Rick Sawyer included subsection titled, “Ghosts, Aliens, and UFOs” about which I will direct the interested readers to my book Fifty Shades of Gray Aliens.
Thus, there is much for him to correct regarding his views of Nephilim, giants, Rephaim, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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