The question Why was the ancient land of Canaan repopulated with giants again after they had all biblically perished in the worldwide flood? was posted to the Quora site.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Since you refer to the flood then by “giants” you must be referring to Nephilim.
Well, there’s literally zero reliable indication that Canaan had any Nephilim in it.
That would imply that they somehow got past the flood, past a god who failed and who’s flood was much of a waste.
When you read about “giants” in your modern English Bible 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.
So, that leaves the issue of Num 13:33 which is the one single sentence upon which all post-flood Nephilology is based. Yet, that’s just one unreliable sentence from one unreliable “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
A certain Steven J. Thompson replied as follows directly to the questioner, not to me:
Originally Answered: Why was the ancient land of Cannon repopulated with giants again after they had all biblically perished in the worldwide flood?
Canaan, not Cannon. At least, I hope you mean Canaan, as I know nothing whatsoever about an ancient land of Cannon.
The Bible says less about “giants” than one might presume by perusing children’s Bible stories based on the KJV.
There is no reason, other than an inexplicable translators’ choice in the Septuagint (and later translations that followed it, such as the KJV) for assuming that the Nephilim — the heroes and conquerors of legends known to the authors of Genesis — were giants. Given that the text says that they were in the word “at that time, and later” implies that they were a generic class of “great (but not necessarily good) men,” there’s no reason to identify them as a race, ethnic group, or carriers of superhuman DNA.
Isaac Asimov in an essay offered an interesting viewpoint on the description of Canaan as populated by “giants” — it wasn’t a reference to size at all, but to technological level: the Israelites were chalcolithic (using a mix of stone and bronze weapons) nomadic herders while the Canaanites were an advanced bronze age civilization with real armies. The Israelites were facing a technologically and socially more sophisticated civilization, one that they seemed to have no more chance of overcoming that grasshoppers had of defeating men.
They may even have been a little taller (better fed, perhaps?), but they weren’t “giants” in a literal sense. So you don’t have a race of giants somehow surviving the Flood; you have a recovery or reinvention of armies with sophisticated weapons and ambitious leaders to command them.
Note that I am not here defending the idea of a literal worldwide flood, or even the idea that the Israelites invaded Canaan rather than originating there; I am simply noting that this particular difficulty is overrated.
My reply to that was:
You’re on the right track but it’s playing into the word games, a word-concept fallacy that plagues pop-Nephilology, to state, “There is no reason, other than an inexplicable translators’ choice in the Septuagint (and later translations that followed it, such as the KJV) for assuming that the Nephilim — the heroes and conquerors of legends known to the authors of Genesis — were giants.”
That’s because it still begs the question: what’s the English Bible’s usage of “giants.” You got close by referring to the LXX which rendered (didn’t translate) “Nephilim” as “gigantes” which means “earth-born.” KJV, et al., then rendered the rendering as “giants.”
Thus, neither “Nephilim” nor “gigantes” nor “giants” implies anything about any sort of size whatsoever. In fact, the LXX also rendered “gibborim” and “Rephaim” as “gigantes” and, for example, “gibborim” can’t imply anything about size since it’s a mere descriptive term for “might/mighty” and is applied to humans, Angels, God, etc.
In fact, in the LXX and the English Bibles that followed it, “giants” renders “Nephilim” in only two verses and “Rephaim” in 98% of all others.
The original questioner seems to be chasing that modern English word around an ancient Hebrew Bible and is uncontextually just mashing together every text in which it’s found—and 99% of people who answered don’t even bother asking what the questioner meant by “giants” and used that term themselves also without defining it: such is the stuff of which pop-Nephilology is made, utter ignorance pepper with misinfo and disinfo which make up un-biblical tall-tales sold to Christians.
So, there may not be “reason to identify them as a race, ethnic group” if we’re talking about all “giants” which would be “Nephilim” and the utterly unrelated “Rephaim.” But note that by referring to the flood, the questioner is referring to “Nephilim” and they were a “race, ethnic group” by definition since their unique parentage is told to us in Gen 6.
As for “at that time, and later” you can’t really tell us what it implies without including THE main piece of data that you left out: “later” than when?
As for “the description of Canaan as populated by ‘giants’ — it wasn’t a reference to size at all” which description?
1) If it’s the one in Num 13:33 it does, indeed, refer to size and Nephilim and yet, that’s just from one unreliable “evil report” by 10 guys whom God rebuked.
2) It it’s references to Rephaim then the only contextually relevant thing we’re told about them is that they were “tall” which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.
Indeed, “you don’t have a race of giants [Nephilim] somehow surviving the Flood.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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