I was directed to The Lucifer Project during a discussion wherein someone appealed to historical evidence for Nephilim. Thus, I decided to herein review that website’s post on Nephilim and then the evidence.
The site is by a certain Jon who is described as, “the brilliant mind behind the riveting The Lucifer Project series. With a masterful blend of suspense, science fiction, and philosophical depth…a breathtaking journey into the realms of morality, technology, and the human psyche” so part of the issue is that it seems to present what are supposed to be facts which are then gleaned from so as to produce fiction.
I have found that virtually 100% of modern pop-Nephilologists inevitably end up producing fictional works. It’s clear that they do so since what they are producing as supposed biblical teaching is, in reality, what I term un-biblical neo-theo scif-fi tall-tales already so it’s not a stretch to then go into full blown admitted fiction.
Now, let’s see if The Lucifer Project falls into that category or not.
The Nephilim in the Bible section notes quotes Gen 6:1-2, 4 thusly, “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…There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were old, men of renown.”
The comment is, “angels took human women for wives, had sexual relations with them, and had children with them? And those children were mighty giants? Yup. That’s exactly what the Bible says.”
Linguistically, it’s noted, “that word translated in English as giant, is actually the Hebrew word Nephil, or more commonly, Nephilim” which is just a singular term followed by the plural male version.
It’s asserted, “It means a giant” which begs these key questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Jon’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
For some unknown reason, Jon artificially inserted that Angels, “took on physical form (the Bible is clear angels can do that) and had their way with women” but there’s actually zero indication of any such thing anywhere in the Bible (which may be why he couldn’t quote or cite anything). Rather, 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.
He notes, “angels and women copulated, producing giants” at which time you have to hold off about what that means since he hasn’t told us.
Jon then notes, “The ancient church certainly had no problem with this. The Septuagint…The Jewish historian Josephus,” etc. to which I will add that indeed, 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.”
Now, his quote of Josephus may answer the second key question for us since it includes, “giants, who had bodies so large” (vertically or horizontally—or both?). But if by, “giants” Jon refers to subjectively unusual height then the answer to the third key question is, “No.”
That’s because the answer to the first key question is that 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. Besides, we’ve no reliable physical description of them anyhow.
Jon then asked, “Remember David & Goliath? Yup, Nephilim offspring” but there’s literally zero reliable indication of that and whenever he’s referred to as a, “giant” in the version that Jon’s reading, he’s being referred to as a Repha, not a Nephil.
Yet, he argues, “The Anakims from Deuteronomy: ‘the people are greater and taller than we; the cities are great and fortified up to the heaven’ … or the Emims, ‘a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; which also were accounted giants.’ … how about Numbers, ‘and there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants.’—all of these were either Nephilim or their offspring. The Bible is full of giants and now we know where they came from” (ellipses in original).
There’s actually a lot to unpack here and we need to start at the end:
“Numbers, ‘and there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants” is a tragically misguided manner in which to refer to that statement. He cites an entire book, he quotes one sentence, and asserts, “The Bible is full of giants.” Yet, he neglected to cite that he’s quoting 13:33 and neglected to note that he’s quoting an, “evil report” and neglected to note that he’s quoting 10 unreliable guys and neglected to note that they were rebuked by God. Their mere tall-tale creates the problem of just how Nephilim got past the flood, past God, and made the flood much of a waste by a God who failed.
When Jon cites the entire book of Deuteronomy, and neglected to note that he’s quoting Moses relating the Num 13 event and that which the evil report (in non-LXX versions) incoherently correlates Nephilim with Anakim, Moses utterly ignores Nephilim and only comments on Anakim: he’s too practical, he’s concerned about the real dangers on the ground and not about some tall-tale.
It appears that Jon isn’t aware that Emim and Anakim were all Rephaim: Emim (and Zamzummim) is just an a.k.a. for Rephaim and Anakim were a clan of that tribe (see Deut 2).
As for, that Rephaim, in general, were, “tall” well, that’s just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as, “giants” and only means they were “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
And even then, note the hyperbolic nature of some of the statement within that context, “cities…fortified up to the heaven.”
Of course, the only indication that Jon gave us for supporting the assertion, “all of these were either Nephilim or their offspring” is one single (uncited and un-elucidated) sentence from an evil report (only from non-LXX versions) by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Ergo, the generic assertion, “The Bible is full of giants” only refers to Nephilim (twice) and Rephaim (98% of all other times) and never even hints at anything about size whatsoever. So to further merely assert, “now we know where they came from” is to really say that Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
But as for the how of getting past the flood, Jon wrote, “some might counter, ‘Yeah, but they would have all died in Noah’s Flood.’ That’s actually correct, and a great catch! However…” and the however is followed by, “let’s reread Genesis 6:4” again, “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were old, men of renown.”
You surely noted nothing in that verse that’s relevant. Well, Jon assures us, “Those three words, ‘and also afterward’, are clearly relating to Noah’s Flood.” No, he didn’t bother telling us why anyone should think that a verse that doesn’t say a single word about the flood is, “clearly” relating to it.
It also doesn’t tell us just how they managed, how God failed, how the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Well, it can’t mean anything about the flood since:
1) the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.
2) the ONLY post-flood reference to Nephilim is from an “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
3) God didn’t fail, He didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc.
Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
The question becomes: when were those days?
Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.
Yet, Jon merely paraphrases an un-biblical tall-tale that someone invented MILLENNIA after the Torah, “after the Flood they” Angels, “did it all over again. Yikes!” but that’s a mere assertion for which there’s zero indication. Plus, there’s no need to even invent that un-biblical story since, again, the only reason to manipulate God’s Word to that end is one single non-LXX sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Jon ends with, “So what happened to the Nephilim? Why don’t we have fossil records? How about the angels that did this … what happened to them?”
Thus, we will move on to the post Physical Evidence of Nephilim.
His first bit of evidence of Nephilim is a non-Nephil, “In South Africa today, you can visit this rock known as Goliath’s Footprint.” Of course, that’s just a name slapped on it by someone at some time. The alleged, “Footprint” is, “Ranging from 4’ to 6’ in length (depending on where you want to take your measurements).” Well, not that it matters but the Masoretic text has him 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, again, was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
Jon notes, “Normal people know this is a footprint!” but there are a few issues to consider:
1) if it’s a footprint then where are the very many likewise footprints leading to it and away from it?
2) what is natural to the rock formation is below the toes: note the smooth natural nature of the outline. The toes were clearly carved, note the sharp rough edges left behind by chiseling.
But let’s grant that it’s a footprint: of what is it? Jon merely asserts Nephilim and seals with deal with an asserted, “that’s one interesting piece of evidence.”
He then moves to, “where things get a little conspiracy’esque” including, “a treasure trove of fraudulent Nephilim stories and photos.” He examples, “an 1800’s farm where the landowner eventually fessed up to burying a fake Nephilim skeleton he had made of clay and concrete, etc (But hey, he had made a lot of money in the ruse).” I’m unaware that the term Nephilim was never used.
That aside, or so Jon tells us, he, “began finding newspaper articles that, at least on the surface, seemed legit” and provided these screenshots:
Well, I filled an entire chapter of my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales with such examples. Let’s be aware of and keep a few things in mind:
1) the one and only reason that Jon gave us for even imagining that any of that has anything to do with Nephilim is one single sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
2) fake-news isn’t new and it’s a non sequitur that merely assume that if it’s in the newspaper then it must be true. Yet, Jon wrote, “I believe these particular articles are very much the real thing” and yet, our belief or lack thereof doesn’t dictate what is or isn’t factual.
3) by definition, newspaper reports are succinct and lack follow up. Most of these are: farmer Joe said he found a skeleton but it got washed away—or some such thing. So, we have to believe the report and have to believe that farmer Joe’s non-anatomist opinion that it was a giant person is enough to conclude that it wasn’t a whale, dinosaur, pachyderm, etc.
4) those that I was able to follow up on did turn out to be such animals—and no, merely asserting, “COVERUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” isn’t enough.
5) as an example of such, “giants” note the article about, “around seven feet tall” so, NBA level. Even then one about 15 ft, “man” it’s referred to as such and measured as such based on what someone said.
6) Jon himself told us that right around this time, “a lot of money” was to be made from such assertions.
Need I go on?
But let’s grant that all of those are humanoid skeletons: of what is it? Subjectively unusually tall people have always existed.
At this point, Jon merely asserts, “Nephilim heights (most are in the 7’ to 8’ range)” with zero indication as to whence he got such a very specific range—or any at all.
At this point, Jon merely asserts, “Nephilim heights (most are in the 7’ to 8’ range)” with zero indication as to whence he got such a very specific range—or any at all.
He then elephant hurls about, “discoveries were made in France, Russia, Mexico, Ireland, or the United States to name just a few” and lobs a, “If all of these were fake” as if listing the names of countries means something.
Now, his point is, “many are buried in mounds with shells, and often they are found in strange burial positions (bound sitting upright is common). And these themes hold true whether the discoveries were made in France, Russia, Mexico, Ireland, or the United States to name just a few. If all of these were fake, it would have been quite a global effort to keep their stories the same over at least the last 200 years.”
May we not then say the same about that if all of these were real, it would have been quite a global effort to cover up their stories, and not just stories but evidence (also meaning shutting up 100% of any and every person involved in them), over at least the last 200 years. Again, “THEY,” whoever they many be (insert your favorite villain), “have that power!!!!!!!!!” isn’t enough. Jon soberly notes, “We just don’t know…I have fun speculating on this. But the reality is we just don’t know … and probably never will.”
And I still don’t know what an alleged skeleton of an alleged man who was allegedly 15 ft have to do with Nephilim that were allegedly 8-9ft.
Jon then affirms, “this personal account I stumbled onto” by an unnamed person and from an unmentioned source, “years ago…wraps everything up nicely.”
So, it’s very nice to read about a skeleton that was, “about seven feet” and whatever the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “gigantic” means—and don’t forget to arbitrarily slap the term Nephilim into it ‘cause well, why not?
Likewise, Jon tells us of, “I think it was in Oklahoma, but my memory is fuzzy” where there was an unnamed, “museum” where he saw whatever is meant by the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giant” skeleton. So, he remembered it that was based on childhood memories, he had, “moved out of state” and at some unknown time in his adulthood, “went to see that exhibit one last time. But once he got there, it was gone. He went to the curator and asked about it, but the man looked at him cross-eyed. There never had been any giant there.”
So, was it a massive coverup or a child seeing a skeleton that either was, “giant” or just remembering it that way do to his own diminutive stature, spiked with all sorts of childhood tall-tales, was it even human-oid, etc., etc., etc.?
This is how it’s done: make vaguely generic assertions based on mere assertions, use that to merely read into contextually disconnected supposed data points, and come to conclusions that are then asserted. I mean, Jon went from actually believing any and all relevant (or irrelevant) old newspaper reports to, “regions and years of all the US-based Nephilim articles” (emphasis added for emphasis).
So by merely asserting Nephilim were 8-9ft tall without a shred of justification, he can merely assert that anyone in that height range is a Nephil and that’s how the neo-Nephilim shuffle is done.
I can only pray that Jon will reconsider what he’s posting on the WORLD WIDE web for all to see.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.