The Shredding The Veil’s tagline is, “refuting the lies spread over God’s word.” Gina wrote an article titled Giants: Rephaim, Zamzummim, Emim, Amorite, Anakim, Nephilim, Zuzim.
She begins by noting, “It appears that the giants were called by many names” but the primary, key, issues are: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Gina’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
She notes, “For the most part, the references are from Young’s Literal Translation as the generic translation of the King James loses some of the connotations regarding these giants.”
Referring to Gen. 14:5, she notes, “The Rephaim and the Emim were giants (tall people) that were occupying the lands after the flood.”
We now that the answer to the second question and so the third so I will offer the first.
The usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “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.
Gina’s usage if, “tall” so the usages don’t agree. Also, tall is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.
Just in case, it’s, “The Rephaim and the Emim…were” only, “occupying the lands after the flood” since they didn’t even exist until centuries post-flood.
Having listed, “The Rephaim and the Emim,” she adds, “As the Zuzim are named with these two tribes, it is probably safe to say that these were also a tribe of giant people” so that tall has been replaced with giant but chasing the modern English word giants around an ancient Hebrew Bible leads to logical, bio-logical, and theo-logical problems.
And a huge problem came up in the very next sentence since she wrote, “that the giants were again in the land. That means that Noah or his sons carried the DNA for these tall people, or they would not again be in the land after the flood.”
Let’s re-read that as she defined it, “that the tall people were again in the land. That means that Noah or his sons carried the DNA for these tall people, or they would not again be in the land after the flood.”
See, it’s a non-sequitur since there’s literally zero correlation between being whatever subjectively tall compared to the parochial average and anything to do with Noah or the flood.
Now, the only contextually relevant this we’re told about Rephaim is that they were tall (Deut 2) which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days. Also, FYI, Gina correlated, “Rephaim and the Emim…Zuzim” due to tallness (with the exception of the shortest person alive today, literally everyone is tall compared to someone else) and yet, note that Rephaim were a.k.a. Zamzummim or Zuzim and that Emmim and Anakim were like clans of that tribe.
Now, since tall is vague, generic, and subjective there’s no need to reference, “the DNA for these tall people” since there’s no indication any sort of special DNA was necessary for whatever height they were—above 5.0-5.3 ft.
Gina quotes, “Gen 15:18-21, ‘ 18 In that day hath Jehovah made with Abram a covenant, saying, `To thy seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Phrat, 19 with the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite, 20 and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim, 21 and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.’”
Next Gina references, “Deu. chap. 1, Moses recalled the events that led the Israelite to spend forty years in the wilderness because the spies that had been sent into the land reported in fear of the giants”—stand by—quoting:
Deu 1:28, “ whither are we going up? our brethren have melted our heart, saying, A people greater and taller than we, cities great and fenced to heaven, and also sons of Anakim — we have seen there.”
Num. 13:22, “And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)
The children of Anak were the Anakim, and they had lived in Hebron.
Num. 13:28-32,
28 only, surely the people which is dwelling in the land [is] strong; and the cities are fenced, very great; and also children of Anak we have seen there.
29 Amalek is dwelling in the land of the south, and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite is dwelling in the hill country, and the Canaanite is dwelling by the sea, and by the side of the Jordan.’
30 And Caleb stilleth the people concerning Moses, and saith, `Let us certainly go up — and we have possessed it; for we are thoroughly able for it.’
31 And the men who have gone up with him said, ‘We are not able to go up against the people, for it [is] stronger than we;’
32 and they bring out an evil account of the land which they have spied unto the sons of Israel, saying, ‘The land into which we passed over to spy it, is a land eating up its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in its midst [are] men of stature;
Well, “very tall” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as tall and giants. Interestingly, she noted, “Emim…Anakim” were, “tall people” based on Duet 2, but then took it up a notch, “Emim, or Rephaim, and Anakim were tribes of very tall people” and, “viewed as giants by the rest of mankind.” Yet, biblically contextually, “viewed as giants” means, “viewed as Rephaim” by any other name.
She notes, “The King James calls it the valley of the giants in Josh. 15:8; 18:16 where Young’s has Rephaim” which makes that point.
Besides, this was Moses relating the evil account, then quoting the reliable account, and then quoting half of the evil account. The evil account was by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked so there’s no reason to believe them and, in fact, we can’t even verify something as generic as that, “all the people whom we saw in its midst [are] men of stature,” with reference to, “Anakim…Amalek…Hittite…Jebusite…Amorite…and the Canaanite” see my article Were “all the people” in Canaan “of great height”?
Based on, “Deu 3:11, ‘for only Og king of Bashan had been left of the remnant of the Rephaim; lo, his bedstead [is] a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the sons of Ammon? nine cubits its length, and four cubits its breadth, by the cubit of a man,’” Gina notes, “Og was one of the Rephaim…if Og’s bed was 9 cubits long x 4 cubits wide, then Og had to be able to fit within that length and width…somewhere under 13.5 feet tall in order to lie down on his bed. If we use the long measure, then Og could have been as tall as 16 feet.”
Yet, that’s a non-sequitur since it’s a mere assumption that the bedstead is something on which he slept and note that she’s forced to refer to it since we’re never told his height.
The fact is that the bedstead was a ritual object so attempting to determine his height based on it is the result of various mere assumptions, see my boo, The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
And, when she writes, “Og was the last of the Rephaim, the same giants…” that biblically contextually means, “Og was the last of the Rephaim, the same Rephaim…”
She then notes that, “2:9 describes the Amorite’s height as being ‘above the cedars’ and they were as strong ‘as the oaks.’”
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. 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.
Gina wrote:
Job 26:5, “The Rephaim are formed, Beneath the waters, also their inhabitants.”
The Vulgate translates this as “Behold the giants, and those who dwell with them, groan from under the waters.”
The Septuagint has it, “Are not the giants formed from under the waters, and their neighbors?”
The Chaldee has it, “Can the trembling giants be regenerated, when they and their hosts are under the water?”
And, the King James as, “Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.”
The meaning is clearly of the state of the dead, and was referring to the wicked giants who were drowned in the great flood of Noah’s day.
It’s actually not that simple, thought it may be accurate. The issue is that the root rapha ranges in meaning from healing to dead so it could be referring to dead Nephilim or to dead Rephaim or just to some or another dead in general.
She actually notes:
Young’s translated the word “Nephilim” in only one place, and that was in Numbers 13:33. In that verse it is a clear reference to giants. Moses sent the spies into the land of Canaan to bring back a report, and they gave an account of the Nephilim, sons of Anak.
Num 13: 33, “and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes.’”
The name “Nephilim” was of the same people called the “Anakim”, sons of Anak. Young’s only has it this one time. He did not use it in Gen 6:4; where the King James has “giants”, Young’s has “fallen ones.” The best reasoning for this difference is that the word “nephilim” is from the root word “nephal,” meaning he fell.
Nephilim is the transliteration of Strong’s Heb 5303, “נְפִילִים” ; and Strong’s concordance has “Or nphil {nef-eel’}; from naphal; properly, a feller, i.e. A bully or tyrant — giant.” Source: Biblehub
Now, Num 13:33 is the evil account was by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked so there’s no reason to believe them. And that, “In that verse it is a clear reference to giants” merely means that they made up a tall-tale and 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—I’ve written some dozen research based Nephilology books.
Gina actually misrepresents Num 13 since she generically wrote, “Moses sent the spies into the land of Canaan to bring back a report, and they gave an account of the Nephilim, sons of Anak” but that’s not the case: he sent 12 but it was the 10 unreliable ones who merely asserted having seen Nephilim.
Note that, “Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim” is somewhat circular since it has it that Nephilim refers to Anakim and that Anakim come from Nephilim but that’s literally impossible since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. and now, post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they got past the flood, past God.
Also, she’s exclusively relying on non-LXX versions since that version’s version of that verse lack any reference to Anakim—just as in Deut 1 Moses related this event but lacks any reference to Nephilim: he was too practical, he was concerned about the real dangers on the ground, not about some fantasy tall-tale.
Ergo, the only reason to think that, “The name ‘Nephilim’ was of the same people called the ‘Anakim…Numbers 13:33 was discussing a tribe of giant people called by two names, Nephilim and Anakim’” is one single non-LXX sentence by unreliable guys who presented an unreliable report and were rebuked by God.
By the point that Gina states, “The giants had become bullies and wicked people most probably because their height” her reader has to work to attempt to figure out to whom she’s referring since she uses the term giants to mean more than one thing.
She then goes back to Gen 6, quoting:
Romans 8:13-14, “for if according to the flesh ye do live, ye are about to die; and if, by the Spirit, the deeds of the body ye put to death, ye shall live; 14 for as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God;
We have a clear definition of sons of God in Romans chapter 8. They are the ones who follow after and are led by God’s spirit.
Yet, that is traveling millennia into the future and into another context of another language which only results in that the ones who follow after and are led by God’s spirit were not the ones who follow after and are led by God’s spirit since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood.
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.
Thus, she asserts, “There is no other acceptable conclusion” mind you, “than that the sons of God in Gen 6:2 were the faithful men of God who unwisely chose women of the unfaithful, and wicked men who lived according to the flesh” so they didn’t follow after and are led by God’s spirit nor were faithful men of God.
She then takes aim at what was the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, 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.
She notes:
To argue otherwise, that the sons of God in Gen 6:2, and 6:4 were fallen angels is to say that sons of God are not led by the spirit of God. This is a contradiction of the scriptures! They cannot be fallen angels, led by lusts of the flesh, and at the same time be sons of God led by the spirit of God!
Genesis chap 6 was not discussing fallen angels, but fallen, wicked, earth-born men. Wicked men, wicked mankind is the subject matter of Genesis 6.
That is the point, those, “sons of God in Gen 6:2, and 6:4 were…not led by the spirit of God” in the Gen 6 affair, as I term it and does not contradict the scriptures for already elucidated reasons to include that even those led by the spirit of God aren’t sinlessly perfect. Also, they’re only called sons of God until they sin and thereafter, no longer.
As for, “Genesis chap 6 was” about exclusively about, “fallen, wicked, earth-born men…” well, Angels and Nephilim and humans are all referred to as man/men so it was a group deal: all were involved in the corruption.
Gina notes:
The King James should not have used the word “giants” in Gen 6:4, and the NIV should not have used the transliterated word “Nephilim.”
The NIV and other English translations which use “Nephilim” in Gen. 6:4 are not translating it. They should have translated it as fallen mankind so that we would have the full connotation of that word as sinful, earth-born wicked men and women! The correct translation is Young’s as “the fallen ones.”
It would seem that the King James used the word “giants” since the LXX rendered Nephilim as gigantes—yet, note two key issues: 1. that means earth-born and 2. for some reason, the LXX also renders gibbor/im and also Repha/im as such so be very mindful of context when chasing either a modern English word or an ancient Greek word around an even more ancient Hebrew Bible.
in Gen 6:4, and the NIV should not have used the transliterated word “Nephilim.”
The NIV and other English translations which use “Nephilim” in Gen. 6:4 are not translating it. They should have translated it as fallen mankind so that we would have the full connotation of that word as sinful, earth-born wicked men and women! The correct translation is Young’s as “the fallen ones.”
She notes, “The so-called Book of Enoch is a fabrication. It contradicts God’s word” indeed: it’s Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. It has Nephilim as being MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality. , See my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch”
Gina then claims, “The DNA for tall or giant people is still carried throughout the blood line of mankind. Goliath, at 6 cubits and a span, was about 9-1/2 ft tall. (1 Sam. 17:4)” yet, for some reason, she didn’t note that The Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
So, what, “DNA for tall or giant people” is being referenced?
Nephilim: no reliable physical description.
Rephaim, by any other name: taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.
Amorites: subjectively tall.
Og: no physical description.
Goliath: just shy of 7 ft.
Now, let us review some comments posted to the article:
A certain Benjamin Tyke Fenwick noted:
Noah and His sons Shem and Japeth did not carry Giant DNA. Noah’s second wife Nama did however and so did their son Ham. OG road on top of the ARK and Noah fed him and kept him alive. Good and Evil will exist util the time of the end. The parable of the “wheat and the tares” as explained by Yahusha (jesus) explains this.
That is purely un-biblical folklore from millennia after the Torah and it’s as incoherent as it is anachronistic.
He also uses the term Giant, it’s folklore that Nama was her name, Og wasn’t even born until centuries post-flood, God told us five times who survived the flood but Og’s not on any of those lists (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5), ergo, the parable has literally nothing to do with any of this.
Right on point, Gina replied, “that story of OG is a Jewish legend. It is not scripture. The Bible says that eight (8) souls were saved (1 Pet. 3:20). Og was not there” about which I will say: BOOM!!!
A certain WoundedEgo noted and asked, “Of course, Jude also apparently alludes to Testament of Moses. If we discount Jude perhaps the Scrolls of Enoch lose some of their intertextuality and thus their credibility. How married are you to the divine origin of Jude?” The premise seems to be some sort of modern day North American paranoid Evangelical concept of that no one can ever quote anything in scripture that’s not scripture which is preposterous on it’s face: the Bible quotes Satan and that’s enscripturated but his statements are certainly not trustworthy. Likewise, Jude quotes apocryphal and/or pseudepigraphic text and Paul quotes Geek poets so, what of it?
In short, Gina noted, “I believe Jude does no violation to God’s word, nor do I find any contradiction with the rest of God’s word.”
WoundedEgo also note:
“sons of God” is a standard Hebrew idiom referring to angels. It is special pleading to suggest that in this one case it refers to a Johannine or Pauline concept. It is unconvincing to imagine that Jude did not have this in mind in verse 6.
The idea that “the sons of God” going into “the daughters of men” is referring to godly men going into ungodly women is no improvement on the understanding of the text. And if it were so, to what incident was Jude referring?:
6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Do you not believe that angels left their first estate (in the sky) and mated with human women?
Those are excellent points. The one about, “godly men” who weren’t godly after all, is actually a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice: it’s called the Sethite view.
And indeed, if not the Gen 6 affair, “to what incident was Jude referring?” and I will add 2 Peter 2 since 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.
Gina replied:
…The implication of Matt. 22:30 is that the angels cannot procreate, as they are not given in marriage. But, we have to consider which angels? Remember that English is not the original language of the Bible. The word “angelos” had the meaning of a messenger or agent. Anyone that was working for / on behalf of God, carrying out a duty for God was His messenger or angel.
Jude 1:6 appears in the middle of two other examples of “human” wickedness. A jump from mankind to heavenly angels and back to mankind does not seem to me to fit with the examples. The text in vs. 5 speaks of the wickedness of the tribes of Israel whom He led out of Egypt, and the text in vs. 7 is speaking of the wickedness of mankind that were destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah. Heavenly angelic beings does not keep with the previous example, nor the following example of those wicked held for judgment.
Vs. 5 ends with a semi-colon, which indicates that vs. 6 is a continuation of vs. 5. Therefore, the “angels” of vs. 6 were of the same people He led out of Egypt in vs. 5, but were of a higher office. Young’s Literal Translation uses “messengers” in Jude 1:6 and in 2 Pet. 2:4. Messengers that left their “principality” were those He established to be a royal priesthood (Ex. 19:6), and a holy nation; but then rebelled from pride and disbelief… they left the principality / office / estate which He gave them.
No, I do not believe this verse speaks of angels in heaven. Rather it an example of the rebellion of wicked men, sandwiched between two other examples of rebellion of wicked men. I believe these were men who held a particular office, maybe of the Levitical priesthood, or some other special assignment, but then chose to disobey.
Note that Gina generically asserted the all-encompassing statement, “the” all of them, “angels cannot procreate, as they are not given in marriage” which is also fallacious since that they can’t procreate because they’re not given in marriage is a non-sequitur: procreation can happen outside the bonds of marriage.
Conversely, Jesus’ Matt. 22:30 statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven.” So, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Contextually, “which angels?” well, not “Anyone,” as in humans, since we do marry and are given in God ordained marriage.
Indeed, “Jude 1:6 appears in the middle of two other examples of ‘human’ wickedness” but the more important point is that he wasn’t writing chronologically and yet, 2 Peter 2 was and he puts the sin of Angels to pre-flood days.
Thus, Jude does write of, “Heavenly angelic beings” just not in a linear manner—interestingly, Gina had previously noted to WoundedEgo, “English translators, and English readers get carried away with ‘literal’ linear thinking. The Western mindset does not allow for the poetical and metaphorical Eastern mindset” and yet, when Jude plainly doesn’t write in a linear manner that’s used against the Angel view.
Oddly, she actually argues from a punctuation mark in one modern English version, “Vs. 5 ends with a semi-colon, which indicates that vs. 6 is a continuation of vs. 5” which, she says, means, “the ‘angels’ of vs. 6 were of the same people He led out of Egypt in vs. 5.” and yet, Jude goes on to specifically reference, “the archangel Michael” who’s no mere human.
She also wrote:
…again see Matt. 22:29-30. The implication of marriage is the only approved and sanctioned method for sexual relations. The fact that Christ said the angels in heaven are not given in marriage means that they cannot procreate. They cannot procreate whether they are in heaven, or on earth. That particular belief of fallen angels mating with earthly women is a travesty of human misunderstanding of the word of God, and is fantasy.
Indeed, “marriage is the only approved and sanctioned method for sexual relations” and that’s marriages between humans, at that, so that’s part of why the Angels are considered sinners.
And, again, there’s literally no indication, “that Christ said the angels in heaven are not given in marriage” and this time she has the reverse of the previous non-sequitur about how non-marriage equals cannot procreate. Yet, this time she invented the concept that, “They cannot procreate whether they are in heaven, or on earth.”
Well, considering that her view is a late-comer, it would seem that the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, fell into, “a travesty of human misunderstanding of the word of God, and…fantasy” because way down the line someone invented a myth based on prejudice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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