The Institute for Environmental Research and Education posted an article titled Did God flood the earth because of the Nephilim? attributed to the IERE Team—the IERE’s mission statement includes, “We envision a world where everyday decisions integrate environmental facts and concerns as a matter of common sense” since, “Environmental issues have a direct effect on the financial well being of all people and organizations.”
The team rightly notes, “the presence of the Nephilim in Genesis is undeniably linked to the events leading up to the great flood…God flooded the earth because of the pervasive wickedness and corruption of humanity, of which the Nephilim were just one, albeit significant, manifestation” so that while, “The flood was a response to the totality of human depravity, not solely the existence of a specific group…God deemed it necessary to cleanse the earth” that one specific group came to a full end at the flood.
We’re told that what I term the Gen 6 affair, Genesis 6:1-4, “describes a time when ‘the sons of God’ (often interpreted as divine beings or descendants of Seth) intermarried with ‘the daughters of humans.’” Often is a subjective term and the fact is that the view is a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice. 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.
We’re told, “Some interpretations suggest they were fallen angels who rebelled against God and intermarried with human women. Others argue they were descendants of Seth, who remained faithful to God and intermarried with the descendants of Cain, who were not.” Note the implication that, actually, Sethites weren’t really faithful to God since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.
The team notes, “The New Testament refers to the events of Genesis 6, particularly in 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 1:6-7. These passages suggest that the ‘sons of God’ who sinned were indeed angelic beings…While these passages don’t explicitly mention the Nephilim.”
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.
So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
The team asks of Nephilim, “Were they simply unusually tall and strong humans?” but why ask after their height is a mysteriously inserted point at this point.
It’s noted, “The Hebrew word ‘Nephilim’ is often translated as ‘giants’” which is telling us that it’s often translated as ___________ since that only begs the questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the team’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
Bottom line is that giants isn’t a translation but is a rendering—of a rendering. Moden English Bibles that employ the term giants are rendering that from the LXX which rendered them as gigantes meaning earth-born. Yet, be aware that the LXX also, for some unknown reason(s), also rendered gibborim/might/mighty and Rephaim as gigantes. Moreover, 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.
For more linguistics details, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
Continuing, “translated as ‘giants’ or ‘fallen ones’…Some scholars suggest it comes from the Hebrew word naphal, meaning ‘to fall.’”
Now, the team makes a very, very, very typical pop-Nephilology fundamental level error when they ask and review answers to:
If the flood wiped out all humanity except Noah’s family, how could the Nephilim still exist after the flood (Numbers 13:33)?
The Bible mentions “Nephilim” existing after the flood (Numbers 13:33). This has led to several explanations:
Different Lineage: These “Nephilim” might have been descendants of a separate incident involving the “sons of God” after the flood.
Figurative Language: The term “Nephilim” in Numbers 13:33 could be used figuratively to describe unusually tall and strong individuals, regardless of their actual lineage.
Partial Flood Theory: A less common theory suggests the flood was a regional event, not a global one, allowing for the survival of some pre-flood populations.
Note the generic nature of writing in terms of, “…exist after the flood (Numbers 13:33)…in Numbers 13:33…The Bible mentions” since those are assertions followed by a citation and a citation is only telling us where to find a statement. Key hermeneutical questions to ask are: who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc.
Anyone who appeals to Num 13:33 really needs to mention that they’re relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Post-flood-Nephilologists always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus. Yet, a survival of them past the flood
contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) and any (un-biblical fantasy tall-tale) about a return of them both imply that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Then post-flood Nephilologists must invent un-biblical tall-tales about just how they made it past the flood, past God.
Recall the statement, “the presence of the Nephilim in Genesis is undeniably linked to the events leading up to the great flood…The flood was a response to the totality of” humans and Nephilim, “depravity…God deemed it necessary to cleanse the earth.” Thus, if they survived or returned then, again, God failed.
So, let’s review:
“how could the Nephilim still exist after the flood” is the wrong primarily question, the right one is, “could the Nephilim still exist after the flood” the biblical answer to which is of course not: it’s logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible.
As for, “The Bible mentions” well, we’re back to the issue of that what the, “Bible mentions” is that 10 guys whom God rebuked made up an unreliable, “evil report” so no one should believe it.
“Different Lineage” is a loophole and yet, there is no, “separate incident.”
If, “The term ‘Nephilim’ in Numbers 13:33 could be used figuratively” then why is it only used in one single post-flood verse? And note the reference to, “tall” again.
The scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
Having been told of, “tall…giants…tall” the team asks, “How does the story of the Nephilim relate to other ancient myths and legends of giants?” but, again, we’ve no indication to what they’re referring by giants: although we can guess that their usage is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).
But why correlate Nephilim to tall-giants? Num 13:33. Ergo, 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.
In the end, the article was fair enough, especially from non-specialists, and yet, could use the bit of specificity and clean up that I’m herein pointing out.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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