a few problems with the article...although i did agree with most of it
-it is an error to think that one of Noah's daughter in laws was carrying nephilim dna
Noah waited till he was 500 years old to marry a "pure" human....not 100ish like his ancestors
it was paramount about the purity....to him....
now, why should we believe that he would have allowed one of his sons to break that rule?
although we are not told HOW the giants got back on earth, they did...
i assume it was another influx like the one described in Gen6
-ham might not have been perfect, but he was not a nephilim...
seeing "noah's nakedness" means that he "saw" his mother in a sexual manner.
incest.
that is why NOAH curses his son. (not God)
sure, it's a spiritual teaching, echoing what had happened and will happen to Canaan...but to say that Ham was a Nephilim is error
the author makes unwarrented accusations against Ham and his kin, esp. Nimrod, saying he was transformed into a giant,
and also claims (as further proof of transformations) that Neb was transformed into another animal, a literal beast
which is simply not true
now, what the article misses, is the fallen angels very first attack on the lineage of Christ
that being how Satan impregnated Eve with Cain.
in Cain's lineage is where we find the lineage of the giants, not in Noah's