Nephilim: Giants of the Bible

[Bobber]

I think God just showed us enough to understand something different was happening back then......but he doesn't go into any great detail. Could it be that fallen angels had relations? Is that absolutely impossible? Not sure it would be for it seems that something genetically caused there to be giants.....why would those verses be linked together if it wasn't. I have no problem believing though that they were humans maybe kings or very influential people mating with those of less notoriety. But why would that even be mentioned. That happens does it not in every generation?

 

[BPPLEE]

I think God just showed us enough to understand something different was happening back then......but he doesn't go into any great detail. Could it be that fallen angels had relations? Is that absolutely impossible? Not sure it would be for it seems that something genetically caused there to be giants.....why would those verses be linked together if it wasn't. I have no problem believing though that they were humans maybe kings or very influential people mating with those of less notoriety. But why would that even be mentioned. That happens does it not in every generation?

And why would that affect their children?

 

[Aaron112]

 

[Aaron112]

Top 10 Real-Life Giants From History - Listverse

Giants are regular characters in fairy tales and folklore. However, there were real-life giants that once lived here on Earth. They were exceptionally

listverse.com

 

[Bobber]

And why would that affect their children?

I agree. People focus on the verse part....Sons of God....what could they be.....just humans some assert.......but they leave off what happens when they carry out this thing. Giants.

 

[Aaron112]

Giants.

Anna Haining Bates​

Photo credit: Wellcome Images
Anna Haining Bates was born in Mill Brook, Nova Scotia, in August 1846. She was just like every other child until she suddenly started growing taller. At age five, she was 142 centimeters (4’8″) and weighed over 45 kilograms (100 lb). By the time she was 22, she was 229 centimeters (7’6″) and weighed 159 kilograms (350 lb).

Bates went into show business at age 16. She often appeared with a dwarf standing beside her for greater effect. In July 1865, she was almost burned to death in a fire at Barnum’s museum. The stairs were on fire, and she was too tall to jump out the window. She was saved when employees broke the walls and lifted her out with a crane.

In 1871, she met another giant, Martin Van Buren Bates (aka the “Kentucky Giant”) who was 221 centimeters (7’3″) even though he is often said to have been 234 centimeters (7’8″). They got married and were often exhibited in circuses as “the largest married couple in the world.” Their house was oversized, with 2.6-meter-high (8.5 ft) doors and extra-large furniture.

The couple had two children, but both died at birth. The first, a girl, was 69 centimeters (27 in) tall and weighed 8 kilograms (18 lb). She died soon after birth. The other, a boy, was 76 centimeters (30 in) tall and weighed 10 kilograms (23 lb). He died 11 hours after birth. Bates herself died in 1888 at age 41.[3]

 

[Paul4JC]

The term giant can be found in the Bible to describe people of an unusual size. Og, the king of Bashan was of the people of the Rephaim who were unusually tall. His bier was nine cubits (13.1 ft; 4 m) in length and four cubits (5.8 ft; 1.8 m) in width. (Deuteronomy 3:11) Other giants mentioned in the Bible were Goliath of Gath, who was about 9.5 ft (2.9 m) tall, Ishbi-benob, Saph (Sippai); and Goliath's brother Lahmi as well as a man with six fingers on each of his hands and six toes on each of his feet. (1 Samuel 17:4-7; 2 Samuel 21:16, 18, 20; 1 Chronicles 20:4, 5)

Genesis 6:4 - The Hebrew word nephilim is plural, from the causative form of the verb naphal, meaning to fall, as found at 2 Kings 3:19; 19:7. Nephilim, then, means Fellers, or those who cause others to fall down. It is also used in a false sense at Numbers 13:33 (see below).

Scholarly interpretation varies as follows:

Some scholars believe the meaning of the word from fall indicates that the Nephilim were the fallen angels themselves who mated with human women. The Nephilim being the fallen angels.

Others believe the term "and so after that" at Genesis 6:4 indicates that the Nephilim were not the fallen angels or the mighty ones since the Nephilim "proved to be in the earth in those days" before the sons of God had sexual relations with the women. Those who interpret it this way believe the Nephilim were simply wicked men who would have been destroyed in the flood.

Considering the context, the Nephilim were not the angels themselves but the hybrid offspring of the unnatural union of angels taking the form of man and mating with human women.

I am convinced of the latter interpretation based upon the fact that in physical form the angels who forsook their natural position to become men in order to have sex with human women had their physical forms perish in the flood but would have returned in spirit form to heaven. (1 Peter 3:19-20; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6)

Some translations will move the term “and after that” to the beginning of the verse. This identifies the Nephilim with the mighty ones. For example Some Bibles translate the Hebrew hannephilim as giants and heroes from the Hebrew haggibborim. (See NIV) In the Greek Septuagint the word gigantes (giants) is used to translate both of those expressions.

Numbers 13:33 is a really cool reference to use here. It can easily be somewhat misunderstood. No one can deny the Bible’s potential for being misunderstood, but often it is misunderstood in that it is expected to reveal the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when that isn’t always the case as such. In this verse ten of the twelve sent out to survey the situation returned fearful and faithless. With Jehovah God on their side they were nevertheless afraid of the men of extraordinary size who they would come up against. They referred to them as the “Nephilim” and as “giants.” Only in this occasion are the people of Canaan referred to as “Nephilim” and only then to strike fear into the hearts of the camp. The fearful returning spies only used the term for that reason. The Nephilim perished in the flood, so the Bible is truthful in revealing this distortion but the distortion itself shouldn’t be misconstrued as truth. The Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 may be misapplied as those mentioned above in Genesis 6:4 when they in fact are not the same.

After the confusion of languages at Babel the brief account of the Nephilim seems to have inspired more than a few pagan mythologies. The confusion, at least in a modern interpretation, might be due to the term giants being thought of as mythological in the sense of the Greek deity, the Titan.

Joshua 12:4; 18:16 - Is an interesting example of the distinction between the two types of Bibles available. Many people don’t realize that the Bible version differs from the Bible translation in that the version allows for a greater or lesser degree of creative license whereas the translation typically leans towards the literal translation. The King James Version tends to be a great deal more liberal than most versions. Most Bibles read this verse as being in reference to the area of Rephaim, which in other verses is associated with people of unusual tall stature. NIV, ESV, ASV.

1 Samuel 17:4-7 - Goliath's height was six cubits and a span, which in today’s terms would be about 9.5 ft [2.9 m]. His coat of mail weighed about 125 lbs. [57 kg] and the blade of his spear weighed about 15 lbs. [6.8 kg]. His mail alone likely weighed as much or more than David himself.

Deuteronomy 2:20-21; 3:11 - These verses are similar to the verses above in that the King James Version uses the term associated with the area of Rephaim with the “land of giants” which, while not inaccurate isn’t a very literal translation. These verses differ in that they elaborate on the reference to giants. Here they are described in fuller detail.

Deuteronomy 2:10-11 - This verse indicates to me, the fallacy of the King James Version’s liberal approach to translation. The NIV reads: "The Emites used to live there - a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites." The KJV’s mention of Rephaites simply as “giants” gives us some insight into the unusually tall stature of the people in this area which the more literal translation doesn’t, but on the other hand there is something specific lost in translation; the specific mention of the Rephaites / Emites.

Many don't want to deal with such topics. You are on the correct track. You will find more answers in 1 Enoch, particularly chapters 6-8. The book is part of the Ethiopian Bible. 1 Enoch and many relevant Second Temple writings were not included in the traditional canon. 1 Peter and Jude both very clearly allude to the book.

 

[Apple Sky]

Many don't want to deal with such topics. You are on the correct track. You will find more answers in 1 Enoch, particularly chapters 6-8. The book is part of the Ethiopian Bible. 1 Enoch and many relevant Second Temple writings were not included in the traditional canon. 1 Peter and Jude both very clearly allude to the book.

Yes the book of Enoch describes these Fallen Angels very well & how these Angels were imprisoned in a place called Dudael under a mound of rocks in sheer darkness until the day of Judgement.

There were 200 in all who congregated on the top of Mount Hermon, here are names of just a few of these fallen angels;

Semyaza, Shemyaza, Semjaza, Semiaza, Samyaza, Shemhazai · Azazel, Azazyel, Azaziel · Amazarak · Armers, Armeros, Armaros · Barkayal, Baraqijal

 

[Roderick Spode]

I personally don't believe there were or are descendants of unions between human and fallen angels. The Bible doesn't specifically get into psychology, but I think it does play a big part of mythology branching from the Bible concerning giants. I think for instance the Greek gods are mythological characters influenced by the men of renown in Genesis who of course did exist.

I do think the Bible addresses human insecurity, and the references to giants play a part in that. And a lesson.

The Israelites encountered enemies who were very large like the Anakim, which instilled fear in many of them, and obviously impressed them with their size. They felt like grasshoppers, and thought they were looked upon by them the same way. Insecurity developed amongst the smaller Israelites. When the Israelites, through Joshua defeated the Anakim, these large men probably experienced a whole new level of insecurity.

When the Israelites made Saul king, they probably felt that having a tall king like Saul would impress their neighboring nations including their enemies. When it came time for a new king, it was assumed by Samuel it would be Eliab due to his appearance and height. And of course God's chosen king would be David who wasn't there at the sacrifice. And of course it was David who slew another impressive giant called Goliath, leading to probably more insecurities amongst the Philistines.

And height was probably viewed as preferential to women, just like today which creates a lot of insecurity. But Saul had obvious insecurities as well. And part of the sting of the song being sung about how many he had killed versus how many David killed, was because it was women who were singing it.

Even though the disparity in size amongst men today is apparently quite a bit less, the same insecurities exist today.

 

[Paleouss]

I personally don't believe there were or are descendants of unions between human and fallen angels.

What view do you hold regarding the "sons of God" (Genesis 6:2)?

 

[Apple Sky]

What view do you hold regarding the "sons of God" (Genesis 6:2)?

I believe 'the sons God' to be the angels,

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

 

[Paul4JC]

I believe 'the sons God' to be the angels,

Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

​

Three Bible teachers who thoroughly covered this topic.

​

The Curse of Mount Hermon (Part 1 the Nephilim) with Rob Skiba, Mike Heiser, and Chuck Missler.​

 

[Apple Sky]

Mount Hermon today

 

[Roderick Spode]

What view do you hold regarding the "sons of God" (Genesis 6:2)?

In my opinion they were kings, or people of great power. Taking into consideration the author(s) who would have had well understood the concept of rulers like the pharaohs being called sons of god. It was typical for kings to have a choice of any women they wanted, and to acquire women of lower status, or different ethnicity. Abraham understood that power when approaching the Pharaoh with his wife. King Solomon had fell for the temptation of acquiring women of different nationalities. King David fell to the temptation of acquiring a wife who was not of royalty, a wife of a soldier. The sons of god taking daughters of men may not have been evil in and of itself, anymore than the reference to marrying and being given in marriage in the N.T., which was simply an explanation of what took place before the flood. Unless of course the sons of god were from the line of Seth, but as long as it was between one man and one woman. It's possible these rulers found it healthier for their offspring to marry outside of their inner circle.

In more recent history, it was common for colonizers to acquire wives from the countries they took over. Middle Eastern sultans acquired multiple wives. White slave owners made house slaves of mulatto women. Today, western expats often acquire wives from the countries they move to, particularly Asia and Latin America. In general, power, wealth, and fame create an avenue to acquire women of preference.

I find it far more plausible than fallen angels marrying human women. I see nothing in scripture to suggest fallen angels could reproduce. The concept of deities is common in mythologies. I see it as a pagan concept.

 

[Paleouss]

In my opinion they were kings, or people of great power.

A good review of the kings view, I think anyway, is here and here and a video here. For anyone interested. My view is that the 'sons of God' were of the line of "her seed" (Gen 3:15) which is the line of Seth view. A good review of this "her seed" view can be found here <--fixed this link

I believe that the Seth view is the only natural reading of the topic within context. Any individual reading the book of Genesis that knows nothing about the issue never reads 'angels' when reading "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. They would identify the sons of God within the context in which they were reading. That context is the storyline of "thy seed" and "her seed" (Seth line), again link above.

Anyway, I'm sure one day my Lord, in the new heaven and new earth, will inform me on the things I got wrong.

Peace be to you and your family

 

[Roderick Spode]

A good review of the kings view, I think anyway, is here and here and a video here. For anyone interested. My view is that the 'sons of God' were of the line of "her seed" (Gen 3:15) which is the line of Seth view. A good review of this "her seed" view can be found here <--fixed this link

I believe that the Seth view is the only natural reading of the topic within context. Any individual reading the book of Genesis that knows nothing about the issue never reads 'angels' when reading "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4. They would identify the sons of God within the context in which they were reading. That context is the storyline of "thy seed" and "her seed" (Seth line), again link above.

Anyway, I'm sure one day my Lord, in the new heaven and new earth, will inform me on the things I got wrong.

Thanks for the links!

I definitely don't dismiss the line of Seth view. I would actually say they're the 2 most likely options even if I favor one at the moment. Either way, I think the men of renown were tyrannical as well as being seen as majestic, and a large contributor to the rampant wickedness. And could be a product of either of the 2 positions.

Peace be to you and your family

And you and yours as well. Thank you!

 

[Paul4JC]

Now notice it does not say Kings, or Sethites so why add to the text that which is not there?
Bible teacher Chuck Missler asked, “Were the daughters of Seth ugly”?

When is when?
[Gen 6:1-2 NIV] 1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. I would add, were not the daughters of men beautiful before? Why at this point, do they say that they were beautiful? Were they not before? Suddenly one day hundreds of years after creation, women became beautiful. How absurd.

The text is not to just skim over. Something major caused the sons of God to take the daughters of men. They saw more than just beauty. The real battle was of "the seed" of Gen 3:15, and how to thrawt the prophesy [And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."] once and for all. This is not just a physical matter, but spiritual. There was hesitation on Mount Herman to commit the wicked deed. Finally, they cursed themselves, in a pact, to do it. 1 Enoch6:3 And Shemihazah, their chief, said to them, “I fear that you will not want to do this deed, and I alone shall be guilty of a great sin.” 4 And they all answered him and said, “Let us all swear an oath, and let us all bind one another with a curse, that none of us turn back from this counsel until we fulfill it and do this deed.”

I'm not saying women are ugly, but many are just plain. Make-up is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Makeup is mentioned in 1 Enoch 8:1 He showed them metals of the earth and how they should work gold to fashion it suitably, and concerning silver, to fashion it for bracelets and ornaments for women. And he showed them concerning antimony and eye paint and all manner of precious stones and dyes.

I Enoch, Jubilees, and Jasher, just to name a few books, are synoptic to Genesis 6 1-4

 

[Bones49]

Now notice it does not say Kings, or Sethites so why add to the text that which is not there?
Bible teacher Chuck Missler asked, “Were the daughters of Seth ugly”?

When is when?
[Gen 6:1-2 NIV] 1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. I would add, were not the daughters of men beautiful before? Why at this point, do they say that they were beautiful? Were they not before? Suddenly one day hundreds of years after creation, women became beautiful. How absurd.

The text is not to just skim over. Something major caused the sons of God to take the daughters of men. They saw more than just beauty. The real battle was of "the seed" of Gen 3:15, and how to thrawt the prophesy [And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."] once and for all. This is not just a physical matter, but spiritual. There was hesitation on Mount Herman to commit the wicked deed. Finally, they cursed themselves, in a pact, to do it. 1 Enoch6:3 And Shemihazah, their chief, said to them, “I fear that you will not want to do this deed, and I alone shall be guilty of a great sin.” 4 And they all answered him and said, “Let us all swear an oath, and let us all bind one another with a curse, that none of us turn back from this counsel until we fulfill it and do this deed.”

I'm not saying women are ugly, but many are just plain. Make-up is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Makeup is mentioned in 1 Enoch 8:1 He showed them metals of the earth and how they should work gold to fashion it suitably, and concerning silver, to fashion it for bracelets and ornaments for women. And he showed them concerning antimony and eye paint and all manner of precious stones and dyes.

I Enoch, Jubilees, and Jasher, just to name a few books, are synoptic to Genesis 6 1-4

Now notice it doesn't say Angel's, it says son's of God, so why add to the text that which is not there?

Referring to the book of Enoch is all well and good, but it is not Scripture, so doesn't carry the same weight, right?
Also when do we believe that Enoch was written? Somewhere around 300 BC perhaps, which is quite late, so then how authoritative are we to consider this book on such things?

As I see it there are three basic references to 'sons of God' in the Bible. Those in Job, where we assume it is referring to angels. Adam is referred to the 'Son of God' in Luke 3. And as Christians, we are considered to be children of God - so we can consider that those who feared God were 'sons of God'. Since it is in the plural, then it wasn't referring to Adam. So we are left with 2 option, Angels, or God fearing men.

As I see it, the issues with these options include:
Angels: How? Angel's are spirit, not flesh and blood. We have no reason to believe this is possible?
Why? not sure if this is really why, and I guess it could be argued that 'they saw the daughters of men were beautiful' to answer this question. Are we talking about angels here, or demons? Is it legitimate to consider a demon a 'son of God'. When did Satan fall from grace? could also be a relevant question. If it was angels, was this related to Satan's fall from grace and other angels joining him. That would seem to be the only possible consideration. Both of these seem to be insurmountable difficulties with this position.

Men: Firstly, why are the called Son's of God. I actually agree with you, this reference, to me, doesn't seem to make any sense they are mere men. The idea that it is talking about ruler, in my view, might actually be the most reasonable consideration from this perspective. On the other hand, is verse 6 relevant - And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. If angels were involved, why then no mention of them here. It seems that God considered the source of the problem to be man, not angels. (similarly in verse 3, 'my spirit shall not always strive with man.'
Secondly, why did their children generally (if not exclusively) become men of renown, which are also considered to be giants. How can we make sense of all or even most of the children born to the 'Sons of God' and 'daughters of men' being giants and/or men of renown. What is happening to make their children more significant than others?

Since you have raised the issue of makeup, how do we imagine society to be in these times. It is highly likely that the average person before the flood would be considered a genius by today's standards. Also this is close to 1000 years after Adam was created, so what level of technology do we expect that they have?

 

[Paleouss]

Now notice it does not say Kings, or Sethites so why add to the text that which is not there?
Bible teacher Chuck Missler asked, “Were the daughters of Seth ugly”?

Good morning, Paul4. Hope you had a good evening last night.

I would first like to say that I know and have many close friends that see Genesis 6:2, "sons of God", as angels. The angel view is one of three legitimate views that I recognize. But of course, only one is true. I would also like to point out that this Genesis 6:1-4 issue is not a core dogmatice topic. That is, there are some doctrines that should be dogmatic. Those are one's that you cannot call yourself a christian if you don't hold them. This issue in Genesis 6:1-4 is not one of those dogmatic issues (not that we shouldn't seek truth in all doctrine). IMO

Regarding your arguments:

Now notice it does not say Kings, or Sethites so why add to the text that which is not there?

This is true. But this aurgement is not a good one, at least IMO. Because it doesn't say angels either. The text says, bə-nê hā-’ĕ-lō-hîm, which translates as "sons of God".

Bible teacher Chuck Missler asked, “Were the daughters of Seth ugly”?

This also is not a very good aurgement, again IMO. I wish Mr. Missler would stop using it. He has better aurgements than this one to use. The fact, in my view, that godly men married outside the faith because they saw the ungodly women as beautiful, suductive, and tempting is not such an outlandish thing to wrap my mind around. In fact, the "thy seed" and "her seed" view here (which is a view based on context) can reference many verses within Genesis where God forbid marriage outside of the faith after Genesis 6:1-2. Those are Genesis 24:3-4, 27:46, 28:1-3, Gen 26:34-35, Gen 34. And further referenced by Deuteronomy 17:7, Judges 3:6, Deuteronomy 7:3, Joshua 23:12, Ezra 10:2, 2 Corinthians 6:14.

IMO, all these references to not marrying outside the faith is because of what happened in Genesis 6:1-4.

The text is not to just skim over. Something major caused the sons of God to take the daughters of men.

I agree.

Something major caused the sons of God to take the daughters of men.

I agree that somthing caused the sons of God to take the daughters of men. Your use of "major" seems to be something added to the biblical text to further your aurgement. If by "major" you mean that something caused there to be less men calling upon the name of the Lord during Noah's time compared to Genesis 4:26. Then I agree. If you use the word "major" to somehow imply that this proves the angel view over any other. Then I disagree.

The real battle was of "the seed" of Gen 3:15, and how to thrawt the prophesy

This...I totally agree with. This would be a good aurgument against the kings/rulers view. But mine asserts this same thing from the beginning. The context for Genesis 6 starts in Genesis 3:15 (IMO). However, that context also includes Genesis chapter 4 & 5. I will add that this "thy seed" and "her seed" prophesy is started to be played out immediately in Genesis chapter 4. There are many references within the biblical text for this but I won't put here. But the link above will help.

This is not just a physical matter, but spiritual.

I totaly agree with this also. Nice!

There was hesitation on Mount Herman to commit the wicked deed. Finally, they cursed themselves, in a pact, to do it. 1 Enoch6:3 And Shemihazah, their chief, said to them, “I fear that you will not want to do this deed, and I alone shall be guilty of a great sin.” 4 And they all answered him and said, “Let us all swear an oath, and let us all bind one another with a curse, that none of us turn back from this counsel until we fulfill it and do this deed.”

This is were you will lose me. I do not believe that we should never take information outside the Bible to confirm what the Bible has confirmed within iteself. However, scripture supports and confirms scripture. If you would like to convince me, then you will have to limit yourself to the Bible only. At least at the beginning.

On the particular topic of the book of Enoch. The Bible is spiritually inspired, put together by spiritually led people regrarding this process. This is my belief. God, through His providence, did not want the book of Enoch in our Bible. I take the fact that it is not in our Bible as evidence that he did not want it there (I understand it is in the Etheopian version of the Bible). Because of this view I have, I am very cautious with the book of Enoch. It is not divinely inspired, in my view, so it may hold nuggets of truth but may also hold many errors and untruths. Just my view. No need for me to belabor this any longer.

I Enoch, Jubilees, and Jasher, just to name a few books, are synoptic to Genesis 6 1-4

Again, not divinely inspired. At least my view. So not something to present at the start of an argument (IMO).

I would like to put more emphasis on a part of the text you presented. The text specificly states that the "sons of God", in Genesis 6:2, "took wives" (NKJV), vayyiqḥû nāšîm. That is, they married the daughers of man. It does not say they fornicated with the daughers of man, it says they married them.

The phrase “to take wife” is an expression throughout the entire OT for the marriage relationship, union between man and woman, established by God at creation. This term “to take wife” is never applied in reference to adulty, fornication, homosexuality, sexual relations with animals, or any simple act of physical connection within the Biblical text. So if we take the view that these "sons of God" (Gen 6:2) are angels then it would be the only text within the Bible that would be a reference to marriage as some form of perverse cohabitation and mixed species procreation. This is not a winning argument by any means. Just a red flag of caution because it would be an outlier within the biblical text to say that angels married human women. Again, scripture confirms scripture.

Peice be to you and may God do a fruitful-work through you.

 

[Michael Snow]

The term giant can be found in the Bible to describe people of an unusual size. Og, the king of Bashan was of the people of the Rephaim who were unusually tall. His bier was nine cubits (13.1 ft; 4 m) in length and four cubits (5.8 ft; 1.8 m) in width. (Deuteronomy 3:11) Other giants mentioned in the Bible were Goliath of Gath, who was about 9.5 ft (2.9 m) tall, Ishbi-benob, Saph (Sippai); and Goliath's brother Lahmi as well as a man with six fingers on each of his hands and six toes on each of his feet. (1 Samuel 17:4-7; 2 Samuel 21:16, 18, 20; 1 Chronicles 20:4, 5)

Genesis 6:4 - The Hebrew word nephilim is plural, from the causative form of the verb naphal, meaning to fall, as found at 2 Kings 3:19; 19:7. Nephilim, then, means Fellers, or those who cause others to fall down. It is also used in a false sense at Numbers 13:33 (see below).

Scholarly interpretation varies as follows:

Some scholars believe the meaning of the word from fall indicates that the Nephilim were the fallen angels themselves who mated with human women. The Nephilim being the fallen angels.

Others believe the term "and so after that" at Genesis 6:4 indicates that the Nephilim were not the fallen angels or the mighty ones since the Nephilim "proved to be in the earth in those days" before the sons of God had sexual relations with the women. Those who interpret it this way believe the Nephilim were simply wicked men who would have been destroyed in the flood.

Considering the context, the Nephilim were not the angels themselves but the hybrid offspring of the unnatural union of angels taking the form of man and mating with human women.

I am convinced of the latter interpretation based upon the fact that in physical form the angels who forsook their natural position to become men in order to have sex with human women had their physical forms perish in the flood but would have returned in spirit form to heaven. (1 Peter 3:19-20; 2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6)

Some translations will move the term “and after that” to the beginning of the verse. This identifies the Nephilim with the mighty ones. For example Some Bibles translate the Hebrew hannephilim as giants and heroes from the Hebrew haggibborim. (See NIV) In the Greek Septuagint the word gigantes (giants) is used to translate both of those expressions.

Numbers 13:33 is a really cool reference to use here. It can easily be somewhat misunderstood. No one can deny the Bible’s potential for being misunderstood, but often it is misunderstood in that it is expected to reveal the whole truth, and nothing but the truth when that isn’t always the case as such. In this verse ten of the twelve sent out to survey the situation returned fearful and faithless. With Jehovah God on their side they were nevertheless afraid of the men of extraordinary size who they would come up against. They referred to them as the “Nephilim” and as “giants.” Only in this occasion are the people of Canaan referred to as “Nephilim” and only then to strike fear into the hearts of the camp. The fearful returning spies only used the term for that reason. The Nephilim perished in the flood, so the Bible is truthful in revealing this distortion but the distortion itself shouldn’t be misconstrued as truth. The Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 may be misapplied as those mentioned above in Genesis 6:4 when they in fact are not the same.

After the confusion of languages at Babel the brief account of the Nephilim seems to have inspired more than a few pagan mythologies. The confusion, at least in a modern interpretation, might be due to the term giants being thought of as mythological in the sense of the Greek deity, the Titan.

Joshua 12:4; 18:16 - Is an interesting example of the distinction between the two types of Bibles available. Many people don’t realize that the Bible version differs from the Bible translation in that the version allows for a greater or lesser degree of creative license whereas the translation typically leans towards the literal translation. The King James Version tends to be a great deal more liberal than most versions. Most Bibles read this verse as being in reference to the area of Rephaim, which in other verses is associated with people of unusual tall stature. NIV, ESV, ASV.

1 Samuel 17:4-7 - Goliath's height was six cubits and a span, which in today’s terms would be about 9.5 ft [2.9 m]. His coat of mail weighed about 125 lbs. [57 kg] and the blade of his spear weighed about 15 lbs. [6.8 kg]. His mail alone likely weighed as much or more than David himself.

Deuteronomy 2:20-21; 3:11 - These verses are similar to the verses above in that the King James Version uses the term associated with the area of Rephaim with the “land of giants” which, while not inaccurate isn’t a very literal translation. These verses differ in that they elaborate on the reference to giants. Here they are described in fuller detail.

Deuteronomy 2:10-11 - This verse indicates to me, the fallacy of the King James Version’s liberal approach to translation. The NIV reads: "The Emites used to live there - a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. Like the Anakites, they too were considered Rephaites, but the Moabites called them Emites." The KJV’s mention of Rephaites simply as “giants” gives us some insight into the unusually tall stature of the people in this area which the more literal translation doesn’t, but on the other hand there is something specific lost in translation; the specific mention of the Rephaites / Emites.

"Considering the context, the Nephilim were not the angels themselves but the hybrid offspring of the unnatural union of angels taking the form of man and mating with human women."

The masterful Old Testament scholar G. Ch. Aalders (BSC*) states, “This view is, in our judgment, untenable….it [sons of God] refers exclusively [here in Genesis Six] to the world of human beings.​

In CONTEXT, Nephilim is simply a time marker, i.e. at the time of the Nephilim...
NICOT: “…the text establishes no causal connection…the giants were present at the same time [emphasis mine] as the marriages between ‘the sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men.’” [Read that bold type again and make it clear in your mind.]
“The reference to the presence of giants is, thus, no more than a designation of time. This is indicated by the word ‘then’ or ‘at that time.’”

“Who Are the Nephilim?” Dr. Michael L. Brown

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament. a standard conservative commentary.

BSC Bible Student's Commentary