The Weird Stuff in the Bible site and podcast posted on the question How did Nephilim Return After the Flood?
The site notes:
Luke Taylor is the Editor-in-Chief of WeirdStuffInTheBible.com, as well as the host of the podcast. An ordained minister with the Assemblies of God, he graduated the School of Ministry in 2019, a multi-year training program through Berean School of the Bible/Global University. He has served as a staff pastor and worked in Christian media for nearly 20 years.
Thus, I will attribute the data to Taylor and will note upfront that such is the wrong primary question to ask since the proper one is Did Nephilim Return After the Flood?, the biblical answer to which is, well, we shall see.
He notes and quotes:
Genesis 6 tells us of a time before the flood when angelic spiritual beings called the Sons of God came down to earth and mated with human women…
Genesis 6:1-3 – 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. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
The Nephilim were the giants; human-like beings of unnatural size and strength. Biblical accounts generally have them ranging from 8 to 13 feet tall
This begs the following questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
Biblically contextually, “Nephilim were the giants” reads as, “Nephilim were the Nephilim.”
And I’m unsure why he wrote, “the” since that was the first time he mentioned giants.
We get a hint as his usage of giants in that he wrote, “of unnatural size…8 to 13 feet tall.” This seems to mean that his usage of that term doesn’t agree with the English Bibles’ usage since 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.
Note that he asserted that it’s actually, “Biblical accounts” which, “generally have them ranging from 8 to 13 feet tall” yet, 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.
Thus, we will have to see where abouts, “Biblical accounts generally have them,” Nephilim, as such.
Taylor notes, “This event…was also one of the chief purposes of the flood- to wipe out the Nephilim bloodline before it corrupted all of mankind.”
He specifies, “Noah was chosen not just for his righteous character, but because he was “perfect in his generations” (Genesis 6:9), meaning his bloodline was not corrupted by the demonic Nephilim DNA.”
Well, it wouldn’t be, “demonic Nephilim DNA” but, “angelic spiritual beings” Nephilim DNA.
Now, note how fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper since just after assuring us, “This event…was also one of the chief purposes of the flood” which was specifically, “to wipe out the Nephilim bloodline before it corrupted all of mankind” the implication is that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. since, as Taylor teaches, “after the flood…Nephilim made a stunning return.”
Yet, that was no mere assertion, he actually specified, “after the flood, Scripture clearly states that these Nephilim made a stunning return.”
So then, it’s Scripture which implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.: let us see how.
He asks, “But how? If the Nephilim perished in the flood, then why do we see more of them showing up later in the Old Testament- such as in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, or I & II Samuel?”
Let’s begin with that there’s no even one single word about Nephilim in Deuteronomy, Joshua, nor I & II Samuel and one only single sentence in Numbers.
He then reviews, “three popular theories to answer this mystery” as to just how it was that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
“#1- A Localized Flood”: 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.
Oddly, in counterarguing against that view, he noted, “a major purpose of the flood of Noah was to kill all the Nephilim. If the flood wasn’t widespread enough to kill them all, then why have a flood in the first place?” about which we can just as easily ask, “a major purpose of the flood of Noah was to kill all the Nephilim. If the flood accomplished that but then they just came right back, in some un-biblical and unelucidated manner, then why have a flood in the first place?”
“#2- Noah’s Son’s wives carried Nephilim genes” this is merely another un-biblical fantasy tall-tale about that this is what God missed, the genetic loophole.
For this view, he notes, “Dr. Laura Sanger and Ryan Pitterson” who are both pop-Nephilologists who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians.
He also wrote, “this theory also negates a major purpose for the flood: to wipe out the Nephilim bloodline. If some of Noah’s family carried those genetics with them onto the ark, then it was essentially all for nothing” about which we can repeat that and just add this to the end, “So, I will make up a different story that ends up with the same purpose defeating implications.
“#3- A Second Incursion” is merely another un-biblical fantasy.
For some reason, he moved from, “angelic spiritual beings…sons of God” to, “Sons of God or Watchers” with the latter being a Second Temple Era manner in which to refer to Malakim/Angels/sons of God.
This view asserts that they, “came down and reproduced with women once again after the flood” so that’s the loophole God missed.
Yet, Taylor wrote:
A basis for this is that Genesis 6:4 told us, “The 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.” Another translation, the KJV, says it like this: “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them,”
Those who argue thusly miss the point of the text to which they appeal since, clearly, that verse can’t even be cogently said to even imaging hinting at another post-flood incursion.
It certainly is a pop-post-flood Nephilology fallacy to merely imagine that, “afterward” refers to post-flood and yet, that very verse told us exactly to what days it’s referring, “those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them…those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.”
So when was that?
We already got our answer, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them.”
So, it was, “those days…When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” and, “afterward…after…When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them.”
It’s pointing us backward in time to when it first began and then forwards from that commencement point but that’s still all pre-flood.
They began doing it and continued doing it but the flood brought it all to a full and final halt.
Taylor notes:
The argument against this view is that we have no scriptural stories of when exactly this happened. The first transgression has Genesis 6, II Peter, Jude, and the extrabiblical Book of Enoch, to tell us about it. If the watchers tried it again, we don’t have any details about when it happened.
The fact that Genesis 6 says, “and also after that,” seems to say it did actually happen, even if we don’t know exactly when.
As for, “it did actually happen, even if we don’t know exactly when” sure we do, he just quoted it, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” and, “afterward…after.”
I will add that 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.
Taylore asks, “If the second incursion theory is correct, is there a possibility of further incursions today? Could more Nephilim be created?” the biblical answer to which is, well, we shall yet see.
In order to reply in the affirmative, Taylor taps into some hip and trendy pop-post-flood Nephilology favorites:
This is a common idea among some end times Bible prophecy teachers. As Jesus said:
Matthew 24:37 – For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
It’s likely that Jesus’s words there were simply referring to mankind being spiritually blind to its impending doom in the tribulation period. However, some take this to be a hint that the circumstances of the world just before the return of Christ will bear a resemblance to the angelic transgression of Genesis 6- including a “seed war” for the bloodline of mankind.
It’s more that likely since Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:
“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.”
But He kept speaking directly with:
“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” (Luke 17).
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.
He then notes:
Daniel 2:41-43 – 41 And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay.
The repeated use of the word “mix” implies a (forced?) merging of two dissimilar things- such as an angelic being and a human being.
Furthermore, it said they will mix in marriage, which sounds like how the Sons of God “took wives” from among the human women in Genesis 6.
This created the “unclean” demonic spirits of the New Testament (“unclean” also means an unnatural mixture of two things).
In short, Daniel was referring to two human people groups that would intermarry but not engage in commerce—I included a whole chapter on those few words in Daniel in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology. There is no context in the sentences around that not, not the paragraph surrounding them, not the entire book that allows for the pop-Nephilology misreading, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misapplication: it is a case of taking a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext.
Oddly, having counter-argued against all those options, he leaves us with an unresolved issue:
Conclusion on Nephilim after the flood
Much of this is theorizing based on the Biblical accounts, so take that for what it’s worth. Now that we have established some possibilities for where the post-flood Nephilim originated, next time we’ll look at each of the post-flood giants of the Bible.
Well, it may be that he’s drawing out the answer into multiple articles/podcasts but I will just cut to the chase.
Recall that he claimed, “The Nephilim were the giants” so consistently, “each of the post-flood giants of the Bible” can only mean, “each of the post-flood Nephilim of the Bible” all of whom would be Nephilim by definition.
Yet, his assertion that, “we see more of them [Nephilim] showing up later in the Old Testament- such as in Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, or I & II Samuel?” makes it clear that he’s committing a category error and also playing the word-swap name-game.
Again, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and I & II Samuel don’t say a single word about Nephilim so my guess is that he will merely fallaciously swap Rephaim for Nephilim and yet, Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
Numbers 13:33 is the only post-flood Nephilim reference but it’s an unreliable sentence from an unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked—see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Finally, the biblical answer is that Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Centuries post-flood, 10 unreliable guys merely asserted seeing them, they contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible and were rebuked by God.
Post-flood Nephilim are literally logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.