Undergoing consideration is a paper by Susan Lynn Schmidt M.B.S. M.A. which is titled The Nephilim: Satan’s Seed from Creation to the Great Tribulation and subtitled Transjordan and Golan as Their Habitation (2016 AD).
Up front, she noted, “the seed of Satan, namely the Nephilim, and Rephaim” so we shall have to see how she elucidates these personages but for now, note that she foresees that, “these ‘fallen ones’ may be loosed upon mankind during the time of the Great Tribulation.”
Schmidt wrote:
The understanding of the geography, biblical text and the cosmological significance of the area of Transjordan, and specifically “Bashan” in the Bible, give valuable understanding to what Jesus expressed:
“And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot:
They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”
I infer that she implies that, “as it was in the days of Noah” correlates to the, “may be loosed” statement I noted. Yet, how would, “days of Lot” relate?—especially when these were examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment. We will get to that.
She also notes:
God gives a Messianic prophecy against Satan of what was to come in Genesis 3:15: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”
Just as the Messiah would one day fatally destroy Satan, the text also states that Satan will have seed and try to damage or interfere with the seed of the woman.
She then asks and answers, “who are the seed of Satan?” thusly:
The Days of Noah: Genesis 6 “Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were Nephilim [Author’s direct translation] on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
I’m unsure why she specified, “Author’s direct translation” at the word Nephilim since that’s not a translation at all but is just a transliteration: merely writing the Hebrew word with English letters.
In any case, she takes the Angel view of the Genesis 6 affair, as I term and noted, “‘the sons of God’…in the Tanaach refers exclusively to angelic beings” citing Gen 6:2, 4, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, Psalm 29:1.
That view was the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days 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.
Susan Lynn Schmidt wrote:
It was the “sons of God” who had to give account to God, including Satan himself, in the first chapters of Job. These angelic beings are called sons of God because they were directly created by God Himself and worked in his presence in the heavenlies.
These beings are translated “giants” in the text, but literally they are “fallen ones” or “Nephilim” in Hebrew.
There are a few category errors here such as that, “Satan himself” is referred to as one of the, “angelic beings” but he’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14).
Also, there’s no indication that, “These beings,” referring to, “Satan himself…angelic beings” are, “translated ‘giants.’” Rather, the sons of God fathered Nephilim—for which giants isn’t a translation but is a rendering—since, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward” clearly as a result of, “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
If we designate Angels as X then we can see that the text doesn’t read, “The X were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the X came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.” Rather, personages, “Nephilim were on the earth” and contextually came about due to personages, “sons of God” who, “came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
We are then told:
These fallen ones mated with women and bore children (v.5). The product of these angelic fallen ones and their offspring are called giants, and other names, which will be seen later: Gibborim, Rephaim, Zamzumim, Emim and Anakim. These hybrid peoples could not be redeemed from sin because angels could not be redeemed.
Mistakenly turning Nephilim and sons of God into a.k.a. for the same beings, Angels, plagues the paper.
There’s no reliable (and only one very problematic sentence’s worth of unreliable) indication that, “Gibborim, Rephaim, Zamzumim, Emim and Anakim” were, “hybrid” nor that they had anything to do with Nephilim, Angels, etc. That is an assertion my Schmidt that she repeatedly repeats but never establishes: although, she makes a vague attempt.
But before continuing, note that, “Gibborim” is not a people group but is merely a descriptive term for might/mighty. As for, “Zamzumim, Emim” those are just parochial a.k.a. for Rephaim and Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe.
Thus, Zamzumim, Emim, and Anakim are all Rephaim and Gibborim is a non-issue—in terms of genealogy.
She notes, “God would destroy the inhabitants of the earth, who were genetically being corrupted by the ‘sons of God’” and, “Noah…was godly and even more important for that time, was genetically pure in his generations. This would include his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, who accompanied him on the ark and became the fathers of all peoples of the earth.” Thus, that would be the end of Nephilim (as it is in the Bible—stand by).
Yet, she continued directly with, “But this genealogical purity would not necessarily include the wives of these men. They would likely have carried some of the genetic hybridization that is seen later in the biblical text.” But why likely? After all, that implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but must have missed a genetic loophole and so the flood was much of a waste.
But note that an utterly key portion of Schmidt’s premise is a subjective, “likely.”
She goes on to note, “The fallen angels, who came to earth, were destroyed in the flood and these Nephilim have never again mated with the daughters of men since that time…But their offspring are giants after the flood.”
I wouldn’t say, “destroyed” since as per Jude and 2 Peter 2, they were incarcerated. At this point, she increasingly employs the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants.” Thus, 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 Schmidt’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those usages agree?
The answer to the last question is yes and no, actually. Yes because she recognizes that, “giants” merely translates (renders) “Nephilim” yet, no because she doesn’t stick to that but also employs it as a reference to height (which it is not in English Bibles) and also admits that it refers to, “Rephaim” and so we will have to clean up that mess as we progress.
In English Bibles, “giants” merely renders, “Nephilim” in two texts and, “Repha/im” in 98% of all others.
Now, we must focus on the one very problematic and unreliable sentence to which I referred since she wrote, “their offspring are giants after the flood” but that damages theology proper (as fallacious Nephilology inevitably does) since it has God failing, it fails to distinguish that it refers to Rephaim who have nothing to do with Nephilim, and is based on Num 13:33 which (only in non-LXX versions) has Anakim related to Nephilim (in some unelucidated and impossible way) but that was stated by unreliable guys whom God rebuked: they just told a tall-tale—see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Now, to her attempt at answering, “How did this come to pass?” which is:
After the flood, Noah and his children multiplied on the earth. Shem and Japheth were godly sons and loved God like their father, but Ham was different. Noah became drunk with wine and Ham looked on his father’s nakedness and told his brothers outside.
There is no evidence that Ham repented of his behavior and the text is ambiguous as to the nature of the act. Noah puts a curse on Ham’s youngest son Canaan, to be a servant’s servant to his brothers. It is through the line of Ham, and especially Canaan that the Biblical giants originated.
That’s from a subsection titled, “The Descendants of Ham and the Curse on Canaan.” Some of the clean up to which I referred comes at the key point, “It is through the line of Ham, and especially Canaan that the Biblical giants originated” since what she means, or should have meant, is, “It is through the line of Ham, and especially Canaan that the Biblical Rephaim originated.” And yet, that still leaves us without any correlation at all between Nephilim and Rephaim—no matter how she (mis)identifies Nephilim.
Susan Lynn Schmidt wrote:
These became the nations that God commanded Israel to utterly destroy during the conquest of Joshua. While some may think that this was a harsh, cruel measure, God was working to ensure that the Messianic line would stay intact, as well as the rest of mankind.
If by, “These” we biblically understand a reference to the 100% people group, “Rephaim” then, sure.
If by, “These” we misunderstand post-flood hybrids related pre-flood Nephilim then, no—in no way, shape, or form.
God told us why He commanded such conquering but never said a single word about Nephilim nor relation to them nor hybridization nor any such thing—see chapter, “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?
Schmidt notes:
Here are the generations of Ham (Gen.10) with yellow highlighting those of Scriptural notable mention: Ham seemed to be in disobedience with his father, and perhaps there was physical evidence already that Ham’s wife’s children were hybrids. Ham’s grandson through Cush, was Nimrod, who was a “Gibbor” (same as Gen. 6:4) and led the world to build Babel to become like God through building a tower. His name in Hebrew means “rebellious one.”
I’m quite unsure how this makes Rephaim related to Nephilim—in any way—since all we have for this key piece of the argument is going from, “likely” to, “seemed to be…perhaps” and that Nimrod’s can be rendered as, “rebellious one.”
Note how she noted, “Nimrod, who was a ‘Gibbor’ (same as Gen. 6:4)” but didn’t bother telling us that it merely means that he was mighty. Gibbor/im is used of Nephilim and Angels but also some of David’s soldiers, Boaz, God, etc.
Yet, Susan Lynn Schmidt goes on to build her case thusly, “The Philistines were descendants of Ham’s son Mizraim. They were notorious giants even up until the time of David, as the story of the battle against Goliath relates.” But, again, biblically contextually, this reads as, “The Philistines…were notorious Rephaim…”
She also notes, “During the conquest in Joshua’s day, Israel was to destroy the numerous clans of Canaanites [Josh 3:10] Many of these clans were giants” which, again, means, “Many of these clans were Rephaim.”
She wrote:
In Genesis 6, the fallen angels were called Nephilim. These were destroyed during the flood. Their DNA seemed to come through one or more of the wives of Noah’s sons and were giants. Their offspring are called Rephaim (Rafa-singular) or Rephites in the Bible. In Hebrew, the root רפא can refer to “shaded ones or spirits” or another meaning of the root can be “healing.”
This is essentially a biased word-concept fallacy: if Rephaim were, “shaded ones or spirits” then we might as well also call them, healers. One issue is that the root word rapha has that wide a range of meaning and usage but many confuse the root’s meanings and usages with the people group, the quite human tribe.
Again, it’s not the case that, “fallen angels were called Nephilim” nor that they, “were destroyed during the flood” nor that, “Their DNA seemed to come through one or more of the wives of Noah’s sons and were” whatever she means by, “giants” at this point—she appears to mean, “Rephaim” and that’s also mistaken.
Moreover:
In the context of the geographical Old Testament, Rephaim were clearly giants…of great stature and were not as our concept of giants today, who are weak, and recessive genetically. Imposing in strength and height, they were associated with violent rebellion to God.
Do you see what I meant by cleaning up: we just went from the word, “giants” merely rendering, “Rephaim” to, “Rephaim were clearly giants” in terms of, “of great stature” in one single sentence (and, of course, biblically contextually, “Rephaim were clearly giants” reads as, “Rephaim were clearly Rephaim”).
But there’s more to this sorted tale:
Rephites (Rephaim), Zuzites (Zamzummim), Emites (Emim)…giants…“The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. They were also regarded as giants, like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim…regarded as a land of giants (Heb. Rephaim); giants (Heb. Rephaim)…Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim.
Indeed, Rephaim were generally, “tall” but that’s just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as big, huge, enormous, giant, etc. And that’s all parochially subjective the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.
That text, which is Deut 2, is how we can know that, “Rephites (Rephaim), Zuzites (Zamzummim), Emites (Emim)” are just a.k.a. for Rephaim. And note another admission that, “giants” is merely, “(Heb. Rephaim)” and nothing to do with size.
Having set up what amounts to a house of cards, she reiterates, “God commanded that these clans be dispossessed and destroyed…this strategic command by God was to limit and destroy the seed of Satan.” Yes, “God commanded that these,” Rephaim, “clans be dispossessed and destroyed” but that had utterly nothing to do with, “to limit and destroy the seed of Satan.”
Schmidt unfortunately bypasses the various assumptions involved in jumping from, “Og king of Bashan…his bedstead was an iron bedstead…Nine cubits is its length and four cubits” to concluding, “making Og about thirteen feet or four meters in height.” For details, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
She then makes it to the only post-flood reference to Nephilim:
…twelve men went to spy out the land. Two of these were Joshua and Caleb, who brought back a report that it was possible to overcome the inhabitants. The others, however, expressed that they were grasshoppers in the site of the inhabitants and in their own sight.
That was vague since it was not that, “Joshua and Caleb…brought back a report that it was possible to overcome the inhabitants” but the others, “expressed that they were grasshoppers in the site of the inhabitants” but only of Nephilim—who didn’t even exist at that time, of course.
Her takeaway is, “God exerted severe judgment on these spies for bringing a bad report back to the people, because what was at stake was the preservation of human-kind.” By, “severe judgment” what is meant is rebuked to death and it had nothing to do with, “what was at stake was the preservation of human-kind” but because they were unfaithful and disloyal, the encourage the people to not trust that God would give them success, and that led to the additional 40 years of wilderness wandering.
For some odd reason, Schmidt thinks that the Num 13 narrative’s, “mention of the oversized cluster of grapes may suggest a knowledge of biological engineering on the part of the Anakim” which is incoherent.
She then quotes, “And they went up through the South and came to Hebron; Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, were there” and notes, “The LXX translates this as γίγαντας, gigantes or giants” but it does not, it has the man’s name, Anak, as Εναχ. In any case, the γίγαντας part is from v. 33 referring to the Nephilim, not the Anakim (which are not in that verse in the LXX version). And while she gets close to elucidating that the way that the word, “giants” ended up in English Bibles is due to rendering γίγαντας, this means earth-born and not, “giants” as per one of her usages, something about subjectively unusual height.
Yet, Susan Lynn Schmidt points out:
Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews [5.2.3]…reported that the bones of these Rephaim could be seen, even in his day in the first century CE: “There were, till then, left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men.”
The term, “reported” is interesting in that indeed, he merely asserted that—and for all we know, it’s because that’s what he was told. Yet, we know that Rephaim were, “tall” so what of it? Yet, Josephus was not an expert anatomist so even if he saw the bones (however many there may have been), would he be able to distinguish human or humanoid hybrid (as per Schmidt’s tall-tale) from whale or dinosaur or pachyderm, etc., bones?
She also notes, “Goliath was a giant” based on what she myopically quotes as, “six cubits and a span” which is myopic due to that it’s as per the Masoretic text which has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier good ol’ Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.—which, again, is compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
She follows that with:
Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the children of the giant (Heb. rafa)…Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant (Heb. rafa)…At Gath, there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant (Heb. rafa).
Note again that we see that, giant (Heb. rafa)” even if one of them as subjectively, “of great stature.”
This gets her back to:
God orchestrated the protection of Messiah and mankind from the seed of Satan, which was biologically transmitted through the sons of Ham and particularly through Canaan.
For which a case has still not been made—all we got is qualifying terms and watered down terminology.
Moreover:
…enormous size…These giants had many names…the giants of Transjordan were dispossessed first. Sihon and Og…The giants were called by different names such as Gibborim, Rephaim, Zamzumim, and Emim. They were of superhuman size…and had genetic features to identify them, such as extra fingers and toes…They seemed to possess wisdom from of old and knew about genetic manipulation…Rephaim, who practiced genetic modification…
Again, “enormous…giants” refers to height, is vaguely generic, and just spices up, “tall.” And note that she’s basing, “superhuman size” on Og’s bed, on a latter range for Goliath’s height, on, “tall” and on unreliable guys referring to grasshoppers.
Also, she correlates whatever, “superhuman size” means to, “genetic modification” due to what is, in reality, one single person being said to have had, “extra fingers and toes.” And that’s besides the fact that there’s zero indication that, “Rephaim…practiced genetic modification.”
She notes, “The concept of mixing together differing species, was borne out of the Nephilim” but species isn’t a biblical category rather, kinds are.
Referring to, “folklore regarding gods, titans and giants” she quotes a particular English version—surely for effect—, “Genesis 6:4, ‘There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.’”
This is then used as a springboard via which to note:
Gigantomachy, from the Greek word “gigantes,” which is the battle fought between the Giants and the Olympian gods for supremacy of the cosmos…Those in Olympus lust after the beautiful women of the earth…hybrid beings borne of these relationships, who are endowed with extraordinary strength or size.
Perhaps some such myths are based on post-Tower of Babel retelling of pre-flood days. Yet, the Titans of Greek mythology (of which there are more than one generation and anatomically vary—which she doesn’t note) were designated, “gigantes” due to that in this case, being “earth-born” refers to having been born of Gaia—the false Earth goddess whence comes the giga part of the word. And Susan Lynn Schmidt is well aware of this since she went on to write, “giants, the offspring of Gaia, mother earth.”
She quotes Jesus and comments thusly:
“I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.” [Rev. 2:12,13]
Why did the Lord describe this altar as the “throne of Satan” and “dwelling of Satan?”…because of the Gigantomachy and its relationship discussed previously to the seed of Satan, by the Nephilim and their offspring…
We still don’t know why she refers to, “the seed of Satan” when referring to (her misidentification of), “the Nephilim and their offspring.”
She also notes, “extra-Biblical sources, primarily the Books of Enoch and Jasher, which are quoted by biblical writers [Jude 14 quotes Book of Enoch, Joshua 10:12-13, 2 Sam.1:18-27 referencing Book of Jasher].” 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah—see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch. And while a Book of Jasher is noted in the Bible, that does not mean that the modern day hoaxed fraud that has been titled as such is that book.
She notes, “The Book of Enoch relates…the disobedient Watchers/Nephilim…produced giants…great stature” which has them as having been MILES tall, which is great folklore but poor reality.
Schmidt adds:
The Epic of Gilgamesh, refers to scorpion men who guarded the underworld…In Revelation 9:1-11, John the Apostle describes that when the fifth angel sounds, the bottomless pit, or abyss will be opened…Scorpionlocust men…have human heads, wings and tails of scorpions.
She jumped from, “scorpion men” to what Rev 9 has as, “the locusts were like horses prepared for battle: on their heads were what looked like crowns of gold; their faces were like human faces, their hair like women’s hair, and their teeth like lions’ teeth; they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle. They have tails and stings like scorpions” which is very much unlike, “scorpion men” when we add the parts she left out.
Well, that is about all and the paper left us with nothing upon which to even cogently assume that post-flood Rephaim had anything to do with pre-flood Nephilim even as sons of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.