Robert A Eubanks wrote an article titled The Nephilim Explained and Melchizedek Explained: Genesis 6:4 and Genesis 14:18 Mystery Solved.
In a section titled, “Nephilim Explained — ‘In Those Days, and Also Afterward’” he quotes, “‘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. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.’ (Genesis 6:4, KJV).”
He then comments, “This verse is our starting point. It speaks of the Nephilim, giants born when the sons of God intermingled with women.”
Since biblically contextually, “Nephilim, giants” means, “Nephilim, Nephilim” then the key questions are: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Eubanks’ usage? Do those two usages agree?
As for sons of God, he tells us, “They weren’t angels. The term ‘sons of God’ in this context most likely refers to men from the line of Seth, who lived extraordinary lives—some reaching nearly 1,000 years.”
It’s a merely asserted positive affirmation that, “They weren’t angels” so that’s dismissible.
Then there’s the, “most likely” (as per what metric, I know not) and a merely positive affirmation that it may refer, “to men from the line of Seth” for some unelucidated reason.
I’m unsure how whatever, “lived extraordinary lives—some reaching nearly 1,000 years” has to do with the title sons of God.
Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has 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’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
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.
The Sethite view is a late comer of a view based on myth and prejudice.
Robert Eubanks claims, “These men walked closely with Jesus Himself, which extended their lives. Their long lifespans and spiritual intimacy made them more than ordinary—they were called sons of God because they walked with God in a literal, visible way, just as Enoch walked with God and was taken (Genesis 5:24).”
Yet, that claim is actually that these men did not walk closely with Jesus Himself because they didn’t walk with God in any sense since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.
Thus, when he tells us, “The Holy Spirit rested upon them in a way unseen since” sure, because they were such terrible sinners that God drowned them to death.
He then applies this human-Sethite view in terms of that, “The Sons of God Were Different: Radiance, Power, and Presence” so that, “In the fiery furnace, even a pagan king recognized it: ‘Lo, I see four men loose… and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.’ (Daniel 3:25, KJV).”
That is certainly odd that the man who somehow suddenly appears in the furnace during Daniels’ time was a Sethite.
Of Melchizedek, he quotes, “‘Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God…’ (Hebrews 7:3).”
Somehow, from that, he gets that, “Melchizedek didn’t just act like a Son of God—he looked like one.” The former part is true: he wasn’t a terrible sinner that God drowned to death but there’s not a single word about how he looked in the whole Bible.
Now, Eubanks’ interesting proposal is that, “Melchizedek is Shem” as he notes, “Shem…found[ed] the city of Salem, which became Jerusalem, right in the heart of Canaanite territory. In Genesis 14, Shem appears as Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God.”
If we grant the claim then the man named Shem held the title Melchizedek which, “by translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then he is also king of Salem, that is, king of peace” (Heb 7).
Now, let’s jump to my main area of interest which is:
…just as Genesis 6 warned, Israel saw Nephilim in the land (Numbers 13:33). Once again, the intermingling of the godly and ungodly lines had produced unnatural results.
Before and After: The Nephilim Through Intermingling
Genesis 6 says, “in those days and also afterward”—meaning the Nephilim didn’t just exist before the flood. They reappeared after.
How? Because Sons of God (those who walked with Jesus) still walked the earth after the flood—through the line of Shem. And again, they intermingled with the cursed lines (men who did not walk with Jesus), just as Seth’s line had once intermarried with the line of Cain.
This mixture of the holy and the profane created giants and men of renown, people with unnatural power, stature, and reputation—whether physical. mental or spiritual.
It’s misrepresenting the text to generically assert, “Israel saw Nephilim in the land” then appeal to one single sentence (Numbers 13:33), premised by, “just as Genesis 6 warned” which it did not at all do.
For some odd reason, Eubanks didn’t elucidate that there are two reports in Num 13 and two spies. The first report was reliable, the second was an, “evil report.” The 12 spies divided into reliable Joshua and Caleb and the 10 unreliable ones who made up a tall-tale and were rebuked by God—to death.
Israel saw no such thing, 10 unreliable guys merely asserted that they did.
And how could that have even been possible? Well, Eubanks told us, “Genesis 6 warned” so that, “Once again, the intermingling of the godly and ungodly lines had produced unnatural results” due to that, “Genesis 6 says, ‘in those days and also afterward’—meaning the Nephilim didn’t just exist before the flood. They reappeared after” which implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
It’s a mere asserted implication of a hidden assumption that the word, “afterward” refers to the flood.
Well, it can’t mean anything about the flood since:
1) the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.
2) the ONLY post-flood reference to Nephilim is from an “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
3) God didn’t fail, He didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc.
Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
The question becomes: when were those days?
Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.
Yet, Eubanks answers, “How? Because Sons of God (those who walked with Jesus) still walked the earth after the flood—through the line of Shem” which he states after personally labeling them as such.
And yet, these holiest sons of God weren’t so holy again since, “again, they intermingled with the cursed lines” some mysterious unknown, “men who did not walk with Jesus”: I hope he meant women.
And now he reveals what before was a mere guess, “most likely refers to men from the line of Seth” is not stated with certainty, “just as Seth’s line had once intermarried with” and tells us it was with, “the line of Cain.”
He merely asserts that this was a, “mixture of the holy and the profane” without any indication that Cainintes were profane and with mere assertions that entire lineages were holy or profane—and, again, showing us that by holy he means terrible sinners.
This is the mythical and prejudice part of the Sethite view.
Somehow, the alleged, “mixture of the holy and the profane” resulted in whatever he means by, “giants” well, he does note, “whether physical. mental or spiritual.”
Just in case the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
The only physical description we have of Nephilim is Num 13:33 which is why we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.