הַנְּפִלִ֞ים - The Nephilim

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
There are many theories as to who the Nephilim are. Unfortunately, there is no proof as to who or what they are let alone their exact identity. It is also unknown whether they were a people or a description of a type of people.

Nephilim is an anglicized word of the Hebrew word נְפִילִים. The etymology of the word is unknown and it only appears three times in two verses in the Old Testament.

"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, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" (Genesis 6:4).

"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" (Numbers 13:33).

Many translations like the King James, simply uses the word "Giants" as the English counterpart. Others have anglicized the Hebrew word as Nephilim like the NIV. Other translations, with a more paraphrase-like style have taken much liberty translating the word as “the fallen ones” (YLT) or as far as “children of the supernatural beings” (CEV).

Since there is really not much to go on, shallow theories have sprung up as to who the Nephilim were, giving birth to all sorts of weird and sometimes disturbing conclusions. One of the most popular one, based on the wording of Genesis 6:4, has advanced that the “Daughters of Men” had conceived these supernatural beings after having been impregnated by the “Sons of God”, whom it is believed to be fallen angels. Unfortunately there is no biblical basis to support this claim. The very fact that they are called “Sons of God” disqualifies the fallen angels from bearing that title. Jude verse six explains how these angels have “not kept their first estate”, which would also imply that they have also lost their "sons of God" title along their exalted position. Furthermore, if this theory was true, it would also indicate that angels have the capacity to procreate, and that there is most likely female and male genders in the angels. On top of that, in order to engage in this activity of procreation it would require them to be within the confines of marriage and that would contradict the very words of Jesus regarding marriage and angels:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30).

The identity of the "Sons of God" in this context would refer to the line of those who had remained faithful to God, i.e.: the descendants of Seth, while the "Daughters of men" would correspond to the descendants from the line of Cain.

The scriptures are silent on the identity of the Nephilim. As to why some translations favour the “giant” translation of the word might be because of its association with the “Anakim.” The Bible associates the Nephilim to the Children of Anak in Numbers 13:33. In many passages, especially in the book of Deuteronomy (1:28, 2:10-11, 21, 9:2), the Anakim are described as being chiefly and especially tall people. In Joshua 11:22, the Children of Anak are said to have been completely driven out from the land Israel and could only be found in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod. It is interesting to note that Goliath, who was considered a giant, nearing nearly ten feet tall, was born in Gath.

Are the Nephilim a race, a tribe or simply really tall people? There is no absolute answers since it has not been clearly revealed in the scriptures. We can make certain association that seems to indicate that they are taller than the average men which is probably why they were considered giants especially when considering the link with Goliath of Gath. It is very unlikely that they were something more then mere men, and as diligent Bible student, we should not lose focus on the weightier matter surrounding the events of the flood.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,932
There are many theories as to who the Nephilim are. Unfortunately, there is no proof as to who or what they are let alone their exact identity. It is also unknown whether they were a people or a description of a type of people.

Nephilim is an anglicized word of the Hebrew word נְפִילִים. The etymology of the word is unknown and it only appears three times in two verses in the Old Testament.

"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, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown" (Genesis 6:4).

"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" (Numbers 13:33).

Many translations like the King James, simply uses the word "Giants" as the English counterpart. Others have anglicized the Hebrew word as Nephilim like the NIV. Other translations, with a more paraphrase-like style have taken much liberty translating the word as “the fallen ones” (YLT) or as far as “children of the supernatural beings” (CEV).

Since there is really not much to go on, shallow theories have sprung up as to who the Nephilim were, giving birth to all sorts of weird and sometimes disturbing conclusions. One of the most popular one, based on the wording of Genesis 6:4, has advanced that the “Daughters of Men” had conceived these supernatural beings after having been impregnated by the “Sons of God”, whom it is believed to be fallen angels. Unfortunately there is no biblical basis to support this claim. The very fact that they are called “Sons of God” disqualifies the fallen angels from bearing that title. Jude verse six explains how these angels have “not kept their first estate”, which would also imply that they have also lost their "sons of God" title along their exalted position. Furthermore, if this theory was true, it would also indicate that angels have the capacity to procreate, and that there is most likely female and male genders in the angels. On top of that, in order to engage in this activity of procreation it would require them to be within the confines of marriage and that would contradict the very words of Jesus regarding marriage and angels:

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30).

The identity of the "Sons of God" in this context would refer to the line of those who had remained faithful to God, i.e.: the descendants of Seth, while the "Daughters of men" would correspond to the descendants from the line of Cain.

The scriptures are silent on the identity of the Nephilim. As to why some translations favour the “giant” translation of the word might be because of its association with the “Anakim.” The Bible associates the Nephilim to the Children of Anak in Numbers 13:33. In many passages, especially in the book of Deuteronomy (1:28, 2:10-11, 21, 9:2), the Anakim are described as being chiefly and especially tall people. In Joshua 11:22, the Children of Anak are said to have been completely driven out from the land Israel and could only be found in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod. It is interesting to note that Goliath, who was considered a giant, nearing nearly ten feet tall, was born in Gath.

Are the Nephilim a race, a tribe or simply really tall people? There is no absolute answers since it has not been clearly revealed in the scriptures. We can make certain association that seems to indicate that they are taller than the average men which is probably why they were considered giants especially when considering the link with Goliath of Gath. It is very unlikely that they were something more then mere men, and as diligent Bible student, we should not lose focus on the weightier matter surrounding the events of the flood.
I find in interesting that in all accounts they had several things in common...

1 they were really big
2 they were exceedingly evil
3 evil religions seemed to spring up wherever they occurred
4 the command to completely destroy certain cities correlated with the presence of these beings
 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
There were some really big men and women back then with double rows of teeth and six fingers and toes.

Well according to the Bible at least.

But should we not have cultural stories artifacts and skeletons of those big people ?

Yes and there are plenty... but it is top secret and so we are not supposed to know.

You actually got to investigate the internet for information.

And that's tuff for cherry picking copy pasters.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
I find in interesting that in all accounts they had several things in common...

1 they were really big
2 they were exceedingly evil
3 evil religions seemed to spring up wherever they occurred
4 the command to completely destroy certain cities correlated with the presence of these beings
It appears they, the Nephilim and Anakim, were a disobedient people but they were human beings.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
I don't know if you've read that link you've posted but its basically saying, the "sons of God" biblically means those who were/are faithful to God on this earth. 1 John 3:1 describes the “sons of God” this way: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.” In most cases in the Bible, the “sons of God” are those that have surrendered their life to Jesus Christ apart from in Job 1 where "sons of God" meant angels. But, in the case of Genesis 6, it can't be angels, or beings from other worlds. In this case, the pagan daughters of men seduced the men who followed God.

The article goes into much greater detail explaining who the "sons of God" and “daughters of men,” are biblically. Its worth a read if you've got the time.
 
Last edited:

elsbet

Superstar
Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
5,122
I don't know if you've read that link you've posted but its basically saying, the "sons of God" biblically means those who were/are faithful to God on this earth. 1 John 3:1 describes the “sons of God” this way: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.” In most cases in the Bible, the “sons of God” are those that have surrendered their life to Jesus Christ apart from in Job 1 where "sons of God" meant angels. But, in the case of Genesis 6, it can't be angels, or beings from other worlds. In this case, the pagan daughters of men seduced the men who followed God.
Not in the Old Testament.

And... there is zero evidence for the daughters of men being pagan. Plus... that would mean all women were pagan. As much as some people would like to believe that, it's just not true. :p
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,932
I don't know if you've read that link you've posted but its basically saying, the "sons of God" biblically means those who were/are faithful to God on this earth. 1 John 3:1 describes the “sons of God” this way: “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.” In most cases in the Bible, the “sons of God” are those that have surrendered their life to Jesus Christ apart from in Job 1 where "sons of God" meant angels. But, in the case of Genesis 6, it can't be angels, or beings from other worlds. In this case, the pagan daughters of men seduced the men who followed God.

The article goes into much greater detail explaining who the "sons of God" and “daughters of men,” are biblically. Its worth a read if you've got the time.
I know about the "Sethite" view as it is what I had heard for many years too. For me, especially with what is coming to light now, I would have to say that I don't accept it. The earliest statement of God's plan for redemption comes in Genesis 3:15

5b202e_9ad87258ad8f4861a13e18eee15803e7_mv2.png
Since then, Satan and his followers have been active in trying to foil it. There is a lot in the phrase "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
I know about the "Sethite" view as it is what I had heard for many years too. For me, especially with what is coming to light now, I would have to say that I don't accept it. The earliest statement of God's plan for redemption comes in Genesis 3:15

View attachment 18843
Since then, Satan and his followers have been active in trying to foil it. There is a lot in the phrase "Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."
I'm a Bible Christian. I follow what the Bible says and it is clear that angels do not procreate. I'll post the bit from the article you linked that explains why better than I can.


"“He who makes his angels spirits …” (Psalms 104:4). Angels are spirits; they are not flesh. They are all around us now, but we cannot see them. They generally remain in their spiritual form and have no physical integration in our world—they don’t go to school, get jobs, or raise families. They are here to “minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).

Even if they wanted to marry and have babies, they couldn’t; they don’t have human DNA. It would be easier for a jellyfish to marry a mountain goat than for angels to marry people. Thus, it doesn’t make practical sense to believe that our passage in Genesis refers to the marriage of angels, fallen or holy, to humans.

Angels are not born; they are created. If God wanted more angels, He wouldn’t need to marry them off to humans or other angels to reproduce. He could create them from scratch. Speaking of Lucifer, God said, “The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created" (Ezekiel 28:13, emphasis added).

Moreover, Jesus tells us plainly that angels do not marry. Marriage is a uniquely human institution, reserved for mankind. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). Mark and Luke suggest the same thing: “Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God” (Luke 20:36; some translations render it “sons of God”). Notice here that Jesus makes a distinction between angels and sons of God. They are classified separately, which means they are not the same thing."


So it is up to you to you who you believe, the word of God or your own doctrine. I choose the word of God. The Nephilim were human beings biblically, if you say anything different, its not biblical is it? God bless.
 

SnowFall

Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2018
Messages
798
I'm a Bible Christian. I follow what the Bible says and it is clear that angels do not procreate. I'll post the bit from the article you linked that explains why better than I can.


"“He who makes his angels spirits …” (Psalms 104:4). Angels are spirits; they are not flesh. They are all around us now, but we cannot see them. They generally remain in their spiritual form and have no physical integration in our world—they don’t go to school, get jobs, or raise families. They are here to “minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Hebrews 1:14).

Even if they wanted to marry and have babies, they couldn’t; they don’t have human DNA. It would be easier for a jellyfish to marry a mountain goat than for angels to marry people. Thus, it doesn’t make practical sense to believe that our passage in Genesis refers to the marriage of angels, fallen or holy, to humans.

Angels are not born; they are created. If God wanted more angels, He wouldn’t need to marry them off to humans or other angels to reproduce. He could create them from scratch. Speaking of Lucifer, God said, “The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes Was prepared for you on the day you were created" (Ezekiel 28:13, emphasis added).

Moreover, Jesus tells us plainly that angels do not marry. Marriage is a uniquely human institution, reserved for mankind. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). Mark and Luke suggest the same thing: “Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God” (Luke 20:36; some translations render it “sons of God”). Notice here that Jesus makes a distinction between angels and sons of God. They are classified separately, which means they are not the same thing."


So it is up to you to you who you believe, the word of God or your own doctrine. I choose the word of God. The Nephilim were human beings biblically, if you say anything different, its not biblical is it? God bless.
Couldn’t be that it was through sorcery that they were able to mate and thus supernatural rather than physical?
I have heard about people having sex with demons through satanic rituals, perhaps it’s the same in this case...
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
Couldn’t be that it was through sorcery that they were able to mate and thus supernatural rather than physical?
I have heard about people having sex with demons through satanic rituals, perhaps it’s the same in this case...
Its impossible. Humans cannot have sex or procreate with spirits.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
Maybe but some weird stuff can happen through sorcery
It makes me shudder to think about
No sorcery, no matter how strong is more powerful than God. Sorcery comes from Satan and he cannot create anything at all nor have power over it. He is just a created being after all. The word of God makes it clear that angels who are spirits cannot procreate. I believe God over any sorcery.

I don't understand why you are fighting the word of God? How can sorcery out do God in anything?
 
Last edited:

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
I'm a Bible Christian. I follow what the Bible says and it is clear that angels do not procreate. I'll post the bit from the article you linked that explains why better than I can.
It is clear that angels were not supposed to procreate... but some did anyway. And that is what the Bible says. Their children did not stop growing... an interesting trait they shared with reptiles and so that's why God called them the seed of the serpent.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,932
What about Jude 1:6?

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation*, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

*οἰκητήριον oikētḗrion, oy-kay-tay'-ree-on; neuter of a presumed derivative of G3611 (equivalent to G3612); a residence (literally or figuratively):—habitation, house.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,193
What about Jude 1:6?

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation*, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

*οἰκητήριον oikētḗrion, oy-kay-tay'-ree-on; neuter of a presumed derivative of G3611 (equivalent to G3612); a residence (literally or figuratively):—habitation, house.
I always have to make it clear that the Bible does not contradict itself. If it seems like it contradicts itself that means we have misunderstood something and we ought to pray to God to give us understanding and search for the truth. We know angels cannot procreate with humans no matter how hard they might try (the fallen ones). There is nothing in the Bible that gives us the slightest hint that angels procreate. The Bible teaches the contrary instead.

If we use the NKJV it makes it clear what Jude 1:6 means. "And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;"

Satan and his angels are restricted on this planet. Compared to the glory of God's presence where they used to live, can you imagine how dark this world is? When it speaks of chains of darkness, it's making a contrast from their first estate, which is the presence of God and the brilliant glory brighter than the sun.

It's not literal chains or darkness, because you can't really chain an angel. They are spiritual beings, not flesh and blood like humans. It's figurative language, but they are bound and restricted to this planet in a sense.

Sin chains and keeps us in darkness and away from God and that is true for angels too.
 
Last edited:

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
7,239
I always have to make it clear that the Bible does not contradict itself. If it seems like it contradicts itself that means we have misunderstood something and we ought to pray to God to give us understanding and search for the truth.
Yes you have misunderstood on this topic as well what is actually quite plainly stated in the Bible.

And we even have the cultural folklore artifacts and skeletons of those huge people.

Angels were not supposed to procreate with women but at one point in time some did according to the Bible. Angels are also reported there being able to eat food and kill people.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,932
Previously Unknown Philistine City Changes Scholars’ Understanding of History

12636981-1C88-4EB0-8059-6A195EB7F5B8.jpeg

Source

Archaeologists excavating at the ancient Philistine city of Gath this summer have been surprised by an unexpected discovery. As they dug down to older layers beneath the city they had thought was the primary phase of development at Gath, they began to find the remains of a much larger city just below the levels they had previously studied.

“I’ve been digging here for 23 years, and this place still manages to surprise me,” said Aren Maeir, Director of excavations at Gath, in an article in Haaretz. “All along we had this older, giant city that was hiding just a meter under the city we were digging.”

The new finds show that the city of Gath peaked in power much earlier than researchers had believed. This is consistent with evidence found in other locations that connect to the early history of Israel recorded in the Bible. Patterns of Evidence has found that many scholars have grown skeptical of the biblical account because they aren’t looking far enough back in time to recognize the matching evidence.

The ruins of Gath lie inland from the coastal city of Ashkelon about 10-15 miles. Last week we did a story on the discovery of a new site proposed by the excavators to be Ziklag. Today, the story is about Gath, which was a Philistine center next door to the proposed Ziklag site. Gath was also where the giant who David battled – Goliath, came from, and where David (when he was fleeing from Saul) stayed briefly with his 600 men before moving on to Ziklag.

And there came out from the camp of the Philistines a champion named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. – 1 Samuel 17:4

And David lived with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household … – 1 Samuel 27:3 (ESV)

The site of Gath is known today as Tel es-Safi. A tel is a mound created by subsequent layers of city that have built over the top of previous cities over the centuries. Cutting down through the layers of the tel exposes older and deeper levels as you go (the oldest coming at the bottom). According to the Haaretz article, finds at Gath range from the 5th millennium BC to a small Arab village destroyed in Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. See a previous update for news of the oldest donkey bit in Israel found at Gath.

As documented at the Tel es-safi website, Gath has been excavated for decades. The city previously thought to be the pinnacle of Gath’s development has been dated to the period known as Iron IIA, normally thought to have begun around 1,000 BC. The more recent city is believed to have existed from the 10th century (900s) BC to the late 9th century (around 830) BC. The 830 BC date is determined by a fiery destruction layer thought to have occurred during the conquest of the city by the Aramean king Hazael, which is mentioned in 2 Kings 12:17.

It is interesting to note that while scholars emphasize the Hazael event as the major destruction marker in the archaeological history of the site, the Bible actually records an ongoing series of conflicts at Gath. There were no less than five such conflicts recorded for Gath over the centuries that included King David and afterward. Hazael’s event was only number four of the five, during the reign of Judah’s 8th king, and no mention of damage is given in the Bible. The fifth event was during the reign of Judah’s 10th king (Uzziah), and the Bible mentions that he broke down the wall of Gath.

Does this indicate that scholars have their layers and dates wrong? A list of the biblical references for these events can be seen in last week’s post on Ziklag. The Bible has the most documentation about Gath in the era of Saul and David when Israel is being attacked by huge Philistine armies. This would be in the 11th century BC on the Bible’s timeline.

In any event, the Iron II level, that was well known by the excavators, featured an estimated population of 5-10,000 over the space of 125 acres. Temples, houses, and massive oil presses were found there.

“This was the largest Philistine city and probably one of the largest in the Iron Age Levant,” Maeir, who is a professor of archaeology at Bar-Ilan University, says. “Larger cities were only found outside the Levant, such as in Egypt and Mesopotamia.”

An Older City of Mammoth Proportions

As the team reached the deeper and older layer of the Iron I period this summer, they began to sense that something big was happening.

While beginning excavation at the 11th century site, “We got the feeling that perhaps this earlier phase is larger and dramatically more impressive than the city that was destroyed by Hazael.” Maeir said in an article in the Times of Israel.

They soon were unearthing unusually massive fortifications that they date to the 11th century BC.

“The fortifications were very large, built with extremely large stones,” Maeir stated. They had huge boulders and very thick walls constructed with well-built, burnt brick, which is much stronger than the sun-dried variety and rarely used in pre-Roman times.

The walls of the fortifications in the lower city are about 13 feet wide, almost twice as large as in the later period. The length of the individual stones were also markedly greater: 1-2 meters (3.2-6.5 feet) in length compared to a half meter in the Iron II city.

“Up until now we thought that the city from the Iron IIA, the one that was destroyed by Hazael, was the largest and most important period in Gath,” Maeir told Haaretz. “This year we got a different story… It’s as if the site of Gath in the early Iron Age dwarfed the later city.”

Other sites in the region from this earlier period are also revealing to researchers unexpected size and complexity, such Khirbet Qeiyafa in the valley of David and Goliath.

https://patternsofevidence.com/2019/08/02/hidden-city-emerges-from-under-biblical-gath/
 
Last edited:

Axl888

Established
Joined
Jul 29, 2019
Messages
413
Were there nephilims after the great flood? Is Goliath a nephilim? if so, could some fallen angels have mated again with the descendants of Noah?
 
Top