Rian Nelson wrote the article Fallen Angels, Nephilim, Watchers, Giants? for the site he manages, the Book of Mormon Evidence site (April 7, 2024).
He begins by quoting Wikipedia to the effect that, “Nephilim…are mysterious beings or people in the Hebrew Bible who are large and strong; the word Nephilim is loosely translated as giants…”
I have encountered dozens upon dozens of people quoting that (often plagiarizing it) and have asked dozens upon dozens of them what makes them think that Nephilim were, “large” but zero have replied.
As for, “is loosely translated as giants” that’s a fair qualifier and yet, I’d say rendered rather than translated (however loosely). 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 Nelson’s and Wikipedia’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
Nelson’s usage is something about subjectively unusual height since he includes a photo of, “A very large stone ax,” images of old newspaper articles about large skeletons (of something), etc.
The image is from, “Annotated Book of Mormon page 459.”
For an actual consideration of such accounts, see the relevant chapter in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales—and keep in mind that thus far, the only reason we were given for thinking that Nephilim were any taller than average was one word in a Wikipedia entry and a photo of an ax.
Thus, the answer to the third key question is, “No” since the answer to the first one is that it merely renders Nephilim in two verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others—and so never even hints anything to do with any sort of size whatsoever.
The article then notes, “According to the Book of Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as ‘Nephilim’ by some scholars, or as the word ‘fallen’ by others, appears in the Book of Ezekiel 32:27.[3][4]”
This appears to be a continuation from Wikipedia and it’s tragically fallacious. It’s misleading to genetically reference, “According to the Book of Numbers” since, “13:33” is merely quoting an, “evil report” stated by ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked: they just made up a tall-tale—and an impossible one that has Nephilim somehow making it past the flood, past God, so that the flood was much of a waste and God failed.
As for, “Ezekiel 32:27” that’s just a case of the use of the root word naphal and not the Nephilim people group.
We then get another usage of the term, “giants” when Nelson quotes the churchofjesuschrist.org site which notes, “Unusually large, tall persons, apparently having great physical strength. They are mentioned both before the Flood (Gen. 6:4; Moses 8:18) and after (Num. 13:33; Deut. 2:10–11, 20; 3:11–13; 9:2; Josh. 15:8; 18:16).”
Again, wherever they got the idea of, “Unusually large, tall” it wasn’t from the English Bible’s usage. As for, “mentioned both before the Flood” well, I could mention the first US of A POTUS George Washington right now but that doesn’t mean he’s alive: likewise with the post-flood mere mention of Nephilim.
Thus, when it goes on to note, “giants of whom Goliath was one” and, “A 12-fingered, 12-toed giant” and, “giants in Palestine were also known as Anakims, Emims, and Zamzummims” we need to understand that it actually, biblically contextually, means, “Rephaim of whom Goliath was one” and, “A 12-fingered, 12-toed Repha” and, “Rephaim in Palestine were also known as Anakims, Emims, and Zamzummims.”
Nelson then notes, “I think the quotes below from members of our Church are most likely to be correct” and we’ll get to those after his comment, “Many other Christians say the Nephilim are the Fallen Angels or Spirits who had relationships with women on the earth. I am confident that spirits, or those who have not come to this earth to receive a body, cannot have sexual relationships with those who have a physical body.”
I know not how many, “Many” are but the view that, “Nephilim are the Fallen Angels” is rare: historically, the view has been that they are the offspring of the fallen Angels.
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.
As for, “…Angels or Spirits…spirits…cannot have sexual relationships with those who have a physical body” well, that’s not biblical Angelology since there’s no indication that Angels are spirits (proper). Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
A section of the article notes, “JOSEPH SMITH,” Mormonisms’s founder, “DIDN’T BELIEVE IN WATCHERS” and notes, in part:
…a strange little passage which many modern Biblical scholars say was originally intended to explain the rise of the giant race of antiquity by the union of angelic beings with human wives…two main schools of exegesis have formed. The first and most popular explains this passage as descriptive of disobedient angels (sometimes called Watchers) who descended from celestial realms and cohabitated with human women, producing a race of giants…An alternate explanation results by understanding the term “sons of God” to be the pious race descended from Seth, who sinned by marrying descendants of Cain, who would have been pagans…
Nelson notes, “The first explanation is definitely the cool one. I would have thought that Joseph Smith would have been all over fallen angels, with his emphasis on the corporeality of divine beings. But it turns out that Joseph didn’t believe in Watchers.” Oddly, not believing in Watchers logically means not believing in Angels.
Nelson further notes an elucidation of the issue via Hugh Nibley, Professor Emeritus of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University (A Strange Thing in the Land: The Return of the Book of Enoch, Part 8), from which I will pick the most relevant portions:
Seth’s son, “Enos gathered together ‘the residue of the people of God’ and with them migrated out of the country ‘and dwelt in a land of promise,’ named Cainan…In The Combat of Adam with Satan, as Migne observes, “the author depicts the descendants of Adam as divided into two separate and distinct branches: the Cainites dedicated to following Satan…and the Sethites who ‘…were faithful to the divine law and bore the name of the Sons of God.”
Long story short (and if you don’t recognize some of the questions it’s because they’re from Mormon sources and not from the Bible): apparently, Sethites who were faithful to the divine law and bore the name of the Sons of God weren’t really faithful to the divine law since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.
Nelson then notes, “In apocryphal Enoch stories we are told how humanity was led to the extremes of misconduct under the tutelage of uniquely competent masters.” 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.
He notes, “According to these traditions, these were none other than special heavenly messengers…variously designated as the Watchers, Fallen Angels, Sons of God, Nephilim, or Rephaim, and are sometimes confused with their offspring, the Giants.” He’s actually, in part, quoting someone at this point but since his citation, “307” doesn’t lead to a footnote or endnote I don’t know if it’s to Nibley or whom.
Yet, regardless, it’s incoherent to assert that the fallen sons of God/Angels/Watchers were, “variously designated” also as, “Nephilim, or Rephaim” since the Nephilim were their offspring and Rephaim have literally nothing to do with any of this—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
Nelson notes, “The Bible uses the title sons of God—were they different from the Watchers of tradition?” the answer to which is no, if the context allows for it: for example, in Job 38:7 it clearly refers to non-human beings.
Nibley wrote, “It is the Joseph Smith [version of] Enoch which gives the most convincing solution: the beings who fell were not angels but men who had become sons of God” thus, again and apparently, men who had become sons of God were terrible sinners.
Nibley also tells us that, “mortal men could qualify as ‘sons of God’…By believing and entering the covenant” thus, again and apparently, men who believed and entered the covenant were terrible sinners.
Moreover, “sons of God are those who accept and live by the law of God” thus, again and apparently, men who accept and live by the law of God were terrible sinners.
But, no worries, since, “When ‘the sons of men’ (as Enoch calls them) broke their covenant, they still insisted on that exalted title” for some unknown reason.
Thus, that, “Joseph Smith’s unique Mormon spin on the b’nei ha-Elohim [sons of God] was that they were priesthood holders, and the covenant people of the Lord, who were defiling themselves by marrying out of the covenant,” Smith’s spin on the Sethite view, is not only a late-comer of a view (very, very, very late in terms of Smith) but it’s based on myth, based on prejudice, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero). That’s mostly because a wholly holy/righteous/Godly line of Seth and wholly unholy/unrightous/ungodly line of Cain are mere and merely unevidenced fantasies.
We’re then told, “Joseph Fielding Smith later clarified the LDS interpretation of Genesis 6 when he scolded: ‘There is a prevailing doctrine in the Christian world that these sons of God were heavenly beings…This foolish notion is the result of lack of proper information…the correct information is not found in the Book of Genesis…The correct information regarding these unions is revealed in the inspired interpretation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Book of Moses…(Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 1: 136.).”
Furthermore, “The doctrine is repeated in sermons in the Journal of Discourses, such as this one by Charles W. Penrose: ‘…why they were called the ‘Sons of God.’ Those men were in the same position as the Latter-day Saints. They were heirs to the Priesthood. They were the sons of God. They had obeyed the holy covenants. They had received the word of the Lord. They were consecrated to the Almighty. But they went outside of their covenants…(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854-1886], 25: 228 – 229.)”
Interestingly, Nelson notes, “the Church still teaches that it is preferable not to marry outside of the covenant. But we’re usually not so un-PC as to suggest that marrying non-members is an abominable sin that may cause mankind to be swept off the earth…Once again, we’re seeing a shift in doctrine” and that such is, “to the point that some Latter-day Saint thinkers are again putting credence in the ‘Watcher’ theory of Genesis 6.”
Nelson then includes old newspaper articles titled, “GIANTS BONES” and, “THE GIANT SKELETON” which, again, is premature being based on one ax and one word. He also includes a reference to the article, “Giant Human Skeletons Found Buried in Mounds Across North America” which is, “By Gaia Staff” which is about as reliable as any click bait conspira-tainment.
We’re told, “With the extreme rarity of gigantism, affecting roughly three in a million, it’s surprising how often giants are spoken of in the Bible and North American folklore. David and Goliath” but I’ve no idea what giantism has to do with anyone in the Bible: including Goliath who, most reliably, was just shy of 7 ft.
Overall, the article was pretty typical modern Nephilology which is based on assumptions, assertions, watering down terminology, and mashing together data points so as to appear to connect unconnected dots.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.