The Your Truth, My Truth, His Truth site posted an article titled, “Scientific Evidence of Nephilim” by Trey Smith.
Smith begins by, “Dispelling the argument that the Sons of God are the lineage of Seth and not Fallen, Angels” with which I agree but will forego commenting upon since my focus is the Nephilim—especially the scientific evidence of them.
We are then told, “(Definition of Hero in the ancient text:)” but we are not told what ancient text is being referenced and so, not told whence comes the definition.
Yet, in any case, the definition is, “a being of godlike prowess and beneficence who often came to be honored as a divinity. (in later antiquity) an immortal being; demigod. (These Fallen Angels desired to be worshipped as God and due to their stature and abilities, mankind not only worshipped them, they sacrificed to them.).”
With that in mind, he asks, “What do Fallen Angels have to do with you? The fact of the matter is when you come to the revelation concerning these Fallen Angels/Watchers, mysteries in the Bible are revealed.” Thus, we will see what the Bible contains about them. But wait, there’s more! since he refers to, “the truth of these Fallen Angels/Watchers, in the Bible and other ancient scrolls.”
But first, he asks, “Why is it that no preachers get this message out? There are three reasons why this message has not, is not and will not be taught in churches” keeping in mind that “this message” is of his own making, his message.
“Reason One: The reason that it has not been taught in the church is that it was for a future generation. The Book of Enoch expounds on the Watchers in great detail…Although this book was not included in the English translation of the Bible, it has always remained in the Ethiopian canon.”
“The Book of Enoch,” he is actually referring to 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch (not the others, one of which asserts that Enoch wrote over 300 books) which was written millennia after the Torah, reflects great folklore but poor reality, and contradicts the Bible so much that I included a whole chapter’s worth of examples in my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
Indeed, that text “remained in the Ethiopian canon” along with other apocryphal or pseudepigraphic texts such as one that has me siding with Satan since it claims that what God created Adam, He commanded the Angels to worship Adam—go figure!?!?
“Reason Two: The church has become apostate…” it is very, very, very common for pop-Nephilologists to besmirch the church since mere Christians are viewed by them to be as enlightened than thou, nor as hip to the revelation of neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tale telling which is neo-Nephilology.
Yet, Smith is being utterly incoherent since “The church” is the body of Christ which is alive and active, always was, always will be—till kingdom come.
“Reason Three: Those who refuse to go any deeper than what they already know. They are carnal and do not operate in the spiritual realm, therefore, they do not accept the Spiritual realm of God. They argue that Genesis 6 is speaking about the sons of Seth and not Fallen Angels/Watchers but further scripture does not support their claim. Sons of God in Genesis 6 is translated Bene ha Elohim.”
Do you see what I mean about pop-Nephilolosits’ (lowercase) gnosticism? Mere Christians, “The church,” consists of, “Those who refuse to go any deeper…are carnal…do not operate in the spiritual realm…do not accept the Spiritual realm of God,” etc. which is an ironically shockingly worldly besmirchment.
In this reason, Smith goes on to claim that, “They,” a generic term which makes it easy for him to condemn en masse, “argue that Genesis 6 is speaking about the sons of Seth and not Fallen Angels/Watchers but further scripture does not support their claim. Sons of God in Genesis 6 is translated Bene ha Elohim.”
For who, “They” are, see my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?
Note also that, “Sons of God in Genesis 6 is translated Bene ha Elohim” is backwards since, rather, Bene ha Elohim is translated Sons of God in Genesis 6.
Smith then merely asserts, “The Bible states that ALL FLESH was destroyed during the flood but it also states that there were Giants both before the flood and after the flood.” I point out that this is an assertion became there is no such statement in the whole Bible—which is why he could not provide quotations nor citations.
He follows that directly with, “Only mankind was created all flesh but the Giants were hybrids that were half flesh and half offspring of spirit entities. These Giants are not considered the humans that God made but a perverted creation of the Fallen Angels.”
The article is supposed to be about Nephilim (and scientific evidence of them) but he moved the goalpost from the specific ancient Hebrew term “Nephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined modern English term “giants.”
That Angels are, “spirit entities” is also un-biblical and would seem to contradict his Angel view of Genesis 6: how could spirits physically mate with physical humans?
Trey Smith follows that direct with, “Therefore, God destroyed all flesh or the beings that He created, all except Noah and his family because NOAH WAS PERFECT IN HIS GENERATION MEANING, THAT HIS BLOODLINE HAD NOT BEEN DEFILED BY THE FALLEN ANGLES AND ONLY HIS BLOODLINE WAS PURE ENOUGH TO BRING FORTH THE MESSIAH IN A FUTURE GENERATION.
Either some giants made it through the flood or, they came through the bloodline of Noah’s son Ham father of the Canaanites.”
Of course, it was also incorrect to assert that, “The Bible states that ALL FLESH was destroyed during the flood” since, as implied here, eight people survived.
The portion that Smith wrote in all caps may be true but is a neo-Nephilological speculation.
That, “Either some giants made it through the flood or, they came through the bloodline of Noah’s son Ham father of the Canaanites” both imply that God failed: He meant to be rid of them but could not get the job done, they found loopholes that He missed, the flood was much of a waste, etc.
But why, “Either,” one of two options? That is a false dichotomy. The key question to ask is: what makes you think that any “giants” survived or returned? The answer to this is the horn-splitting third way.
Trey Smith asks, “Why would God allow the genetically corrupted seed of Fallen Watchers to exist after the flood?” which helps us discern that he is getting ahead of himself since the key question is: what makes you think that God allowed the genetically corrupted seed of Fallen Watchers to exist after the flood?
His monologuing reply is, “To prove His glory and power to His people and to teach them to trust in Him” which, as per Smith’s theory, follows after God did not prove His glory and power by showing that He was unable to get rid of them the first time He tried—and failed. Yes, post-flood-Nephilologists prefer to think that God failed and Nephilim succeeded.
Trey Smith followed up direct with, “The first time you see giants post-flood in the Bible is,” I will pause to note that I am very excited to see the second, third, and however many to which he will direct us, “in Numbers 13:27-33 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan. 30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. 31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. 32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. 33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”
He jumps from that directly to, “In the post-flood, the Bible does talk about the height of the giants and the maximum height was 150 feet. Amos 2:9 Confirms giants again in great detail so there is evidence and to clarify any confusion that was also in the days after the flood. Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath. Amos 2:9 and Numbers 13 above indicate they were most likely an average of 35 feet tall. The stature of Giants progressively diminished from the time of their first unholy conception until the time of Giants, such as Goliath.”
In manner of writing is typical of neo-pop-post-flood-Nephilologists: drop some un-contextual data points, assert viable connections between them, be vaguely generic, run off to formulate a grand theory—and besmirch anyone who disagrees along the way.
Thus, let us take it step-by-step:
Clearly, he replaced “Nephilim” with “giants” without bothering to tell us how nor why. He tells us, of when we “see giants post-flood” by appealing to “Numbers 13:27-33” but what we saw therein is that, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites were mentioned (with Anakim having already been mentioned in that narrative), then there are encouraging words by Caleb, then discouraging words from man who expose themselves to be unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, and embellishers who are specifically said to have presented an “evil report” and it is those utterly unreliable guys whom we are supposed to trust for, “giants post-flood” even when God rebuked them—to death?
Well, Trey Smith does not even bother interacting with that narrative whatsoever—which may be why he missed that what he quoted contradicted his assertions.
Within the context of “Nephilim” as “giants” he then jumps to Amos for that, “the Bible does talk about the height of the giants” but Amos was referring to Amorites, not Nephilim.
I am unaware whence Trey Smith got the very specific number, “150 feet.”
I am also unsure how a metaphor for that they were big and strong amounts to, “great detail” but I am aware the pop-Nephilologists teach that Amos was implying conducting a ratio based mathematical calculation so as to determine the height of Amorites.
Yet, no one actually takes that seriously, even those who claim that such is the case, since none of them have ever told us what the equation results in terms of the correlation between a person’s strength and the strength of an oak.
See, they ignore that part since they suffer from Gigorexia Nervosa (my term for people who are obsessed with seeing giants the just make them up where they are nowhere to be seen).
So, he asserted that his misreading of the text, “is evidence” and that a metaphor plus a tall-tale-evil-report equal, “an average of 35 feet tall.” At this point, Trey Smith made a typical, and typically fallacious, post-flood-Nephilim move which is that he began by using giants to be an a.k.a. for Nephilim then switch to a usage of giants as something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height. Thus, at this point in his tale, Goliath was a short giant (like jumbo shrimp)—even though, most reliably, he was just shy of 7 ft.
Smith then asserted, “The Book of Enoch is mentioned in Jude and Peter, the Book of Jasher is mentioned in Joshua and Samuel. The Book of Jubilees is not mentioned in the Bible by name but was also found with the Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947-1956.”
I am unaware that “The Book of Enoch is mentioned in Jude and Peter” and Smith did not bother telling us where abouts. At most, it could be said that Jude refers to Enoch as having prophesied and seems to quote that text—a statement that does not pertain to Nephilim.
It’s inaccurate to say, “the,” as in singular, “Book of Jasher is mentioned in Joshua and Samuel” since those texts mention a book of Jasher but we only have fraudulent hoaxes. Smith seems to think that just because someone published books under the title of The Book of Jasher then that automatically means that it is the very text mentioned in Joshua and Samuel (1 or 2, Smith does not elucidate).
1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch and Jubilees date from millennia after the Torah and for Jasher you have to add millennia upon millennia and none of those texts give indication that they offer us any specially unique factual data but just more tall-tales.
The biblical record of Nephilim is much too boring for neo-theo-sci-fi-Nephilologists—even when they append the evil report to it.
Thus, Trey Smith decided to focus on folkloric texts, “What does what the Watcher did beginning in the Days of Jared, when they descended on Mount Hermon, have to do with us now? It has everything to do with us now if you know anything about what the Watchers did then and how they are influencing mankind to do the very same thing on this very day.”
He quotes:
The Book of Enoch 7:1-6 1 And they took wives for themselves and everyone chose for himself one each. And they began to go into them and were promiscuous with them. And they taught them charms and spells, and they showed them the cutting of roots and trees.2 And they became pregnant and bore large giants. And their height was three thousand cubits. (Genesis 6:1-4), (Numbers 13:30-33), (Deuteronomy 2:10-12), (Deuteronomy 2:19-21), (Deuteronomy 3:11), (2 Samuel 21:16), (2 Samuel 21:18-22), (Baruch 3:24-28) 3 These devoured all the toil of men; until men were unable to sustain them. 4 And the giants turned against them in order to devour men. (Psalm 14:4), (Micah 3:3) 5 And they began to sin against birds, and against animals, and against reptiles, and against fish, and they devoured one another’s flesh, and drank the blood from it. (Jeremiah 12:4) 6 Then the Earth complained about the lawless ones. (Genesis 6:5-13)
I am unaware of what translation of that text he quoted but “cubits” is a misleading rendering since the original refers to ells. Not that it matters much since either way, that amounts to miles tall: that is great folklore but poor reality.
As for the list of citations, one of the correlates to the Genesis 6 affair but the rest has utterly nothing to do with anything—the list looks impressive but adds no weight to the folkloric assertion.
Trey Smith’s comment on that text includes, “It was not enough to genetically corrupt man but they also corrupted man and animals. They crossbred one species of animal with another and crossbred themselves with animals creating Chimeras. These Fallen Angels had knowledge far exceeding that of mankind because mankind was not supposed to have this knowledge. This forbidden knowledge was given to man and is still in practice until this very day.”
But, pray tell, whence did he get the idea that, “they also corrupted man and animals…crossbred one species of animal with another and crossbred themselves with animals”? Certainly not from the text he quoted so why make a comment that is uncontextual to the quotation and why not quote the text that is?
Being as aware of the modus operandi of pop-researchers, I assure you that Smith literally read that into the text he quoted. For some odd reason, they decided to claim something that the history of linguistics will not actually allow, they have decided that “sin” means genetic manipulation.
Indeed, they assert that, “to sin against” animals refers to genetically manipulating them. Yet, in doing so they open a window into how poorly they misinterpret texts since this one made it clear that the context is consumption, as in eating, “These devoured…devour men…devoured one another’s flesh.” But why refer to this as, “to sin”? Because that is placed in a pre-flood timeframe and pre-flood eating animals was not allowed thus, it was considered sinful.
On Trey Smith’s view of reading comprehension and narrative writing, it makes sense to write and read thusly, “These devoured…devour men…began to” genetically manipulate, “birds…animals…reptiles…fish…devoured one another’s flesh…”
That is even when he goes on to actually quote Enoch 8:1 which continues and concludes that thought with, “when mankind could no longer provide the food that these Giant offspring required, they then began to eat those who once provided their food.”
Trey Smith then goes back to employing giant to either mean Nephilim again and/or to refer to Nephilim as having been unusually tall, which he did not establish, in writing, “Nephilim/Giant/Hybrid Offspring of the Fallen Angels are found in every culture around the world” so that they, “were the builders of the large objects found around the world, such as the Pyramids, the smaller pyramids in Central America, Cambodia, and ancient temples. This is the kind of race, which makes plausible and understandable explanations of the many early megaliths, and structures, such as the ancient Egyptian Pyramids.”
Well, if they did build them, although why anyone should think so is unstated, then they are all pre-flood structures. Yet, Smith is employing a typical pop-research non sequitur which asserts that large things must have been built for and by large people.
But, he thinks it simply must be the case because, “The Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, and all ancient cultures, recorded a race of beings displaying great powers of intellect, huge size and great strength. These nearly universal records give testimony of very large beings, generally from 8 to 12 feet tall, but some as tall as thirty six feet.”
He notes, “he Sumatrans had Gilgamesh…depicted holding two lions by the leg, one in each hand. It is said he was able to take out a lion single handed, because of his size and incredible strength” but what if he was holding cubs?
He then, again, takes us away from any sort of biblical Nephilology by telling us that, “According to tradition, the Nephilim had enormous psychic abilities. They performed levitation, mind control, and remote viewing.” No, he did not bother telling us to what tradition from when or where he was appealing.
Moreover, whatever traditions Smith mashed together (he offered another paragraph’s worth of assertions about their supposed capabilities) tell us, “Where…evil spirits come from” and this time, he specifies, “the book of Enoch: ‘… and now, giants, offspring of spirit and flesh, will be called spirits on earth, and the earth shall be their dwelling. Their bodies emitted evil spirits because they were born from human women and holy Watchers.’”
Indeed, that is the Enochian folklore: for my biblical theory of who demons are, see my article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?
Trey Smith goes on to note, “Seth was the replacement of Abel, Adam and Eve’s son who Cain (son of Satan) murdered.” The incoherent statement that Cain was “son of Satan” implies that Smith holds to the utterly un-biblical serpent seed theory. Genesis 4:1 makes it clear that Adam fathered Cain with Eve. As for Smith’s theory, see my five book series Cain As Serpent Seed of Satan.
He then tells us, “Jared is the father of Enoch, who wrote the Book of Enoch, great-great grandfather of Noah” which gives us another window into his lack of discernment since he seems to think that if a book is titled with, “Enoch” then that must be the Enoch who wrote it even when no indication of any such thing existed, as far as we know, until someone merely asserted that millennia after the Torah was written.
So as to bring it all home, and make it sound relevant, Smith asks, “What is happening today?” and answers as per various subsections thusly, “Opening Portals: Science and Technology are attempting to do the exact same thing that the Watchers did…Genetic Modification in Plants, Animals, and Humans…AI and Transhumanism…Transhumanism…”
Well, those may be threats but have nothing to do with the Genesis 6 affair—unless one wants to refer to copulating, mating as genetic manipulation or some such thing.
Yet, he tells us, “keep in mind this scripture: Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. This is a future prophecy of Daniel for the Last Days…”
Smith comments:
You have to ask yourself, who is THEY. We know that THEY ARE NOT HUMAN BECAUSE THEY ARE MIXING THEMSELVES WITH THE SEED OF MAN.
The Bible says that the End Days will be as it was in the Days of Noah. In the Days of Noah, Fallen Angels had accomplished almost total genetic corruption of mankind, that is, all except for Noah and his family because Noah was found to be perfect in his generation.
This means that not only was Noah a righteous man but his bloodline had not been corrupted. It is safe to say, that in the End Days these Fallen Angels will find a way to do what they did in Noah’s Day again possibly through Transhumanism or through another way, we simply do not know for sure.
What is for sure is that we must be aware of all possibilities so we will not be deceived.
Yet, Daniel was just referring to two people groups who would do business with one another, commerce, but would not intermarry—I wrote a whole chapter just on this issue in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
Now, by being generic enough to not be specific and merely referring us to that, “The Bible says” he can then make that, “the End Days will be as it was in the Days of Noah” into whatever he wants.
And what he wants is to puff up his tall-tale thus, “In the Days of Noah, Fallen Angels had accomplished…” and enter your list of neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tale thereafter.
Yet, it was Jesus who made that statement and His statement, within His context, with His emphasis, His meaning, etc. was, “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all” (Luke 17, ESV).
Thus, it was about going about business as usual whilst being unconcerned and/or unaware of coming judgment.
But if that is not exciting enough and someone wants to but in with, “Yeah, okay, but, well, there were also Angels, Nephilim, etc., in those days” then just continue reading, “Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back.”
Thus, Jesus made the exact same point by appealing to two timeframes and since fallen Angels and Nephilim had nothing to do with Sodom then that is another way to know that such was not Jesus’ own words, context, emphasis, meaning, etc.
Trey Smith has decided that based on fallacious data points and even more fallacious pseudo connections between them, “It is safe to say, that in the End Days these Fallen Angels will find a way to do what they did in Noah’s Day again possibly through Transhumanism or through another way, we simply do not know for sure.”
Besides the Angel view, I really struggled to find even one single accurate statement in Trey Smith’s article and most certainly found none of the promise of scientific evidence of 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.
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.