The Biblehub site asks Are Nephilim fallen angels, demons, or giants? which immediately brings to my mind that I will have to keep an eye out for what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Biblehub’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
It’s noted, “The Hebrew word often transliterated as ‘Nephilim’ (נְפִילִים)…comes from a root that can suggest ‘to fall’…the label ‘Nephilim’ does not universally translate as ‘giants.’” Technically, it never translates as such since that’s a rendering.
It’s rightly noted that such linguistically came about due to that, “several English Bible translations, influenced by early sources like the Septuagint, render the word as ‘giants.’ This explains why some interpret ‘Nephilim’ primarily in terms of their physical attributes.”
This got close but trailed off: “several English Bible translations, influenced by early sources like the Septuagint, render the word as ‘giants’” due to that the Septuagint/LXX renders it as gigantes which means earth-born. Thus, it implies nothing about, “their physical attributes”—not in any language, as we shall see.
It’s noted, “Genesis 6 Setting: Before the flood…Nephilim are described as present…”
Then, “Numbers 13 Account: Much later, after the Exodus, Israel’s spies reported seeing in Canaan people described as “Nephilim” (Numbers 13:33). The verse states: “We seemed like grasshoppers in our own sight” (BSB excerpt). This parallels the earlier tradition that the Nephilim were of imposing size or stature, but it could also reflect exaggeration by the frightened spies.”
For some unknown reason, we’re directed to Num 13:33 without being told that it’s a single sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
It’s a misrepresentation to generalize the 12 generically, “Israel’s spies reported…the frightened spies” without noting that 2 were faithfully loyal and 10 were unfaithfully disloyal.
As for, “…like grasshoppers…parallels the earlier tradition that the Nephilim were of imposing size or stature” no such earlier tradition was appealed to—it would seem that Biblehub is merely assuming and asserting that the single word giants implies such a thing but it does not.
So, we might as well get to those key questions: 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.
Biblehub’s usage seems to be something about un-specifically generically vague about subjectively unusual height compared to the parochial average.
Thus, the usages do not agree.
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.
It’s noted, “certain non-canonical works like the Book of Enoch expand on the idea, describing them as offspring of angelic beings and humans” about which you can see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
We then get a succinct elucidation of, “Major Interpretations” beginning with, “Fallen Angels Theory” about which I will note that 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.
Next is, “Sethite or Godly Line Theory” which is a late comer of a view based on myth and prejudice. It invents an un-biblical wholly holy line of Sethites who were actually such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood. Likewise, it invents a wholly unholy line of Cain. Clearly, there’s no indication of any such things.
The last one is, “Demonic Spirits vs. Giant Humans” which doesn’t even make a blip on the historical radar. It’s elucidated as, “Some consider the Nephilim to be distinct from demons: demons are typically understood as disembodied evil spirits. By contrast, the Nephilim in Scripture appear embodied and described as “mighty.” They may indeed have been physically imposing—that is, giants in size and strength—without necessarily being fallen angels themselves.”
As for, “Some consider the Nephilim to be distinct from demons” well, it’s more of an issue that the only reason why only some, very, very few, people ever even imagined that Nephilim weren’t distinct from demons is that folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah says so—see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
“They may indeed have been physically imposing—that is, giants in size” but there’s literally zero reliable indication of that.
As for, “without necessarily being fallen angels themselves” that makes even less than the historical whimper on the radar—they weren’t fallen Angels, they were offspring of fallen Angel.
It’s then noted that, “‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days…’ (Genesis 6:1–4 excerpts)…suggests an unusual event that contributed to widespread wickedness, prompting the flood.”
Then Num 13:33 is misrepresented again by generically referring to, “The spies” in general, and that they merely asserted, “‘We even saw the Nephilim there…’” but it’s at least noted that, “it could also reflect the” 10 unreliable, “spies’ exaggeration out of fear or their memory of stories describing earlier Nephilim.”
It’s always problematic when an author jumps languages back and forth such as from the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word giants to the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim and then back and forth.
At this point, we’re told of, “Consistency with Other Mentions of Giants” about which it’s noted, “Passages referencing ‘giants’ or unusually large individuals” but, again, that has nothing to do with the Bible’s contents, concepts, or contexts.
Yet, going with the misusage of giants, we’re told, “Deuteronomy 2–3 (with references to people like Og, king of Bashan)” for whom we’ve no physical description. Thus, so much for, “unusually large”—with unusually and large being just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.
It’s then noted, “These may reflect large or fearsome people groups, indicating that ‘giant’ can be a descriptive term of physical stature” yet, there’s literally zero indication of that. The author doesn’t seem to realize that when whatever version is being read refers to Og as a giant it’s merely identifying him as a Repha, it’s not saying nor implying nor hinting at anything whatsoever about his size.
After referring to Og, it’s noted that giants, “does not definitively clarify all aspects of the Nephilim’s origins but does show there were historically notable individuals or clans of great size.” Yet, again, Og was a Repha, not a Nephil: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
The conclusion of the article notes:
“They appear again in Numbers 13, described by Israel’s spies as intimidating figures” but to what does appear refer? Appear as being alive at the time or appear as a word within an evil report that was written down?
If I refer to the first POTUS George Washington, does that mean he’s currently alive?
Recall that the article noted, “‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days…’ (Genesis 6:1–4 excerpts)…suggests an unusual event that contributed to widespread wickedness, prompting the flood” so if there were post-flood Nephilim—in any way, shape, or form—then God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. and post-flood Nephilologists literally have to invent un-biblical fantasy stories about how God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Another closing point is, “Their name may suggest ‘fallen ones’ or might be linked with extraordinary size and power” which is a non-sequitur: what does fallen have to do with size of any sort?
Next is, “They do not precisely equate to demons, who are commonly identified with disembodied spirits” but a qualifying term is missing: are un-commonly identified with disembodied spirits in folklore.
It’s noted, “conservative and historical Christian interpretations incline toward viewing the Nephilim as giant” which biblically contextually means, “Nephilim as Nephilim” just like, “Nephilim as literal giants” means, “Nephilim as literal 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.
Leave a Reply