- Religion and Philosophy
Dispelling the myths about the giants in the Bible
There seems to be a great deal of writing about the giants mentioned in the Bible and how they came about. Many have written intelligent compelling arguments as each side elaborately present their research with numerous Hebrew and Greek translations. However, it has only served to bring a whole lot of heated arguments and debates in their readers.
I will not do that here. I will not use confusing words and will keep Hebrew and Greek translations in this article to a minimum. First because I want to reach my readers at all levels. Second, it is not my style of writing. And lastly, I do not speak Hebrew or Greek, so I will leave that to those who do speak those languages.
Moreover, most of the effort put forth in the translation of certain words will go over most people’s heads and will leave many readers confused. So I will try to keep it simple and not try to impress my readers with fancy words and definitions while appearing to have the corner market in this topic because I do not. What I will be doing here is to try to bring you to a place where you will stop to think about what you have been taught on this subject and rethink your beliefs. Then leave you to make a decision for yourselves after you read this.
There is nothing God wants more in His infinite wisdom, power, and love than to bring His children together without quarrels and division. Therefore, I will not debate this topic or argue with anyone on what you have been taught or believe regardless of your expertise and personal understanding on this subject because that goes beyond my purpose here. You may disagree with what I write in here, that is your right, but I will not engage in debates and will not approve comments that are unloving and disrespectful towards anyone. We can disagree peacefully or we can agree to disagree.
Now that I have made that clear, I will give you a little background on where I used to stand and it is probably where you are at the moment.
When I was first introduced to the giants of the Bible many years ago, I was taught that these giants were the offspring of fallen angels that intermarried with earthly women.
The corruption and lawlessness of these “hybrid” beings brought about the global deluge and eradication of life as it was known back then. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished except for the life of one righteous man called Noah. Noah and his family were spared the wrath of God, and were safely carried through the flood and chosen to re-populate the earth.
Back then, I never questioned that these giants were the offspring of fallen angels because it was coming from the teachers of the Bible and preachers in the pulpit. I felt they knew what they were talking about. I was just a baby Christian then, trying to learn about the Bible through someone else’s mouth.
It was not until years later when I began to question many of the things I was being taught. It was then I decided to start reading the Bible for myself and stumbled upon many things that went against all I had learned.
Since then, I have made many interesting and eye-opening discoveries. The subject of the giants was one of those discoveries. How did the belief originate that the giants of the Bible came from fallen angels? Looking further into this, I learned that this belief derived from the interpretation of the “sons of God ” mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4.
Everyone I knew said the giants were the offspring of fallen angels that cohabitated with earthly women and later corrupted the earth. Then I read that there is a theory out there stating these giants came from the sons of Adam and Eve. It says the “sons of God” came from the sons of Seth and the “daughters of men” came from the daughters of Cain. The giants were the result from the union of the sons of Seth with the daughters of Cain. However, I did not find this in the Bible.
I began to ask myself many questions and re-reading scriptures, searching for meanings in the translations of certain words and referencing verses in other books of the Bible besides Genesis. So I will begin here by posing very simple questions and brief explanations to take you to a place where you will (hopefully) question what you have learned in the past. Then decide for yourself if there may be some fallacy in what you were taught.
The sons of God in the Bible
Since the interpretation of the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2-4 started this whole theory of fallen angels and giants, we will begin here.
Who where the sons of God ? I have come to disagree with the majority opinion that the “sons of God” mentioned in Gen 6:2-4 are angels; they are not angels— not in these two verses. To illustrate my examples, I will be using the King James Version, unless otherwise stated.
If you look at Genesis 6:2-4 in different Bible versions, you will find how the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” are used. Most versions harmonize with the King James Version. However, there are a few Bible versions that would lead readers to interpret these two verses differently. Two of the Bible versions that come to mind are the New International Version (NIV) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV); however, I am sure there are more versions out there.
To illustrate my example, I will use the NIV and the Contemporary English Version to compare to the KVJ.
- The King James Version says in Genesis 6:1-4
“1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 4There 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.”
- The NIV version says in Genesis 6:1-4
“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 .” 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.“4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”
- The Contemporary English Version (CEV) says in Genesis 6:1-4
“1-2More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted.” 3 Then the LORD said, "I won't let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years." 4The children of the supernatural beings who had married these women became famous heroes and warriors. They were called Nephilim and lived on the earth at that time and even later.”
Can you see the difference between the KJV and the other two? In the NIV’s wording, it would lead the readers to believe that the “sons of God” were not human because of how the “daughters of men” are referred to as the “daughters of humans.”
Why would the interpreter of the NIV use “daughters of humans” instead of daughters of men? What else would they be? Daughters of angels? Then this would conflict with Matthew 22:30 and Luke 20:33-37. Angels do not marry and do not produce children. The main purpose of marriage in the Bible was to produce children and carry on the lineage. Jesus made it clear where angels stood in this area. There are no grey areas here.
As to “daughters of humans” in the NIV, nowhere in the Bible will you find anything indicating that daughters were anything other than human or that angels had children with women. Did the NIV interpreters use the term incorrectly? The answer is no. The NIV did not use this term incorrectly but if the reader does not understand the meaning of the “sons of God” it will mislead them to think otherwise.
In the “Contemporary English Version,” the sons of God are referred to as “supernatural beings,” which is leading the reader to believe the sons of God in Genesis 6:2-4 were angelic beings that “came down and married.” This translation is not accurate. We will see why this is incorrect as we move further on.
The term Nephilim
If you notice, the NIV and the CEV also uses the word “Nephilim” instead of giants as in the KJV (Genesis 6:4). Some scholars believe the word to be Hebrew and trace the word nephilim to the root “naphal” meaning “to fall” or “those who fall” hence comes the theory that the “sons of God” are the fallen ones. If the root naphal means “those who fall” and not giants (nephilims), then why does Numbers 13:31 mention the Anakims, as being giants? The Anakims, who were the enemies of Israel, were descendants of the nephilim. Wouldn’t this mean that the nephilim were giants? The answer is yes. Therefore, the term nephilim interpreted to mean “giants” is correct.
However, commentators like Peter Lange say the word nephilim is traced to the root “niphal” meaning “distinguished ones.” Other scholars have rejected this interpretation.
Yet, if you read articles written by Michael S. Heiser PhD, a scholar in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dr. Heiser concludes the word nephilim comes from the Aramaic noun “naphil” and in his articles Dr. Heiser explains how the word nephilim came to be correctly translated to mean giants.
The translation arguments are endless, contrasting, and confusing except to those who speak the languages.
Additionally, a large part of the confusion as to where these giants came from is due to the writings taken from the Book of Enoch, an apocryphal text not traditionally accepted in the Hebrew or Christian cannon (the Septuagint). The Book of Enoch includes many mystical and cultic beliefs of that time and many do not consider it to be inspired by the Holy Ghost.
There are few other books that were also not listed in the Christian list of Biblical cannon and although some of our early church fathers may have mentioned these books in the Bible as in Jude 1:6-7, Christians should not use this book or any of the other books taken out of the Bible to study the Holy Scriptures. It was for this very reason that in the fourth century Jude was mostly excluded from the Biblical cannon by the Christian church. It is not certain why Jude may have been quoting in part from the Book of Enoch when he wrote, but one theory is that he thought the Book of Enoch was cannon. Another theory is that Jude was quoting from the original Book of Enoch and not the compilation of writings we see today that were added later by different authors through the centuries. However, this is a whole new area of study and I will not go into it here.
As you can see out of all the confusion and different interpretations many theories have sprung and no one has arrived at a concrete answer in this area. This may be one reason many versions of the Bible leave the word “nephilim” intact.
Scripture explanation of the “sons of God”
If you are looking for answers, the best explanations are found in the Bible itself and not in other's interpretations. One just has to look for them. In the Gospel of Luke 3:21-38, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam. In Verse 38, it reads, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” Adam was referred to as the “son of God” and Adam was a man not an angel.
Let’s look at what John says about the “sons of God.” In John 1:12 the verse says “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:” Here John is telling us that those who receive Christ and believe on His name become “sons of God.”
Let’s also look at Paul’s statement about who are the “sons of God” in Romans 8:14 it says, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” No explanation is needed here. It is clear what Paul is saying in this verse.
In the NIV, the term used for the “sons of God” is the “children of God.” The “sons of God” are used interchangeably in different versions of Bibles, but are the translations wrong? Not in the NIV or the KJV examples I used. One needs to read in context to find out what the verse is saying. In these verses (John 1:12, Romans 8:14) mankind, not fallen angels, who receive Christ and are led by the Spirit of God, will be called “sons of God” or as in the NIV, “children of God.”
Who were the daughters of Men?
In 1 Corinthians 11:7, the KJV version reads “7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” What is this verse telling us? In a nutshell, man is made in the image of God and woman in the image of man. In other words, man (Adam) came from God and woman (Eve) from man.
Therefore, the “sons of God” are men and the “daughters of men” are women. The “sons of God” were NOT the fallen angels as people tend to believe in Genesis 6. Adam was created in God’s image and was a “son of God.” Eve was created from Adam and in Adam’s image (Gen 2:23). That is why women were referred to in Genesis 6 as “daughters of men.” So there you have it!
Are Angels also called the sons of God?
You may argue that in Job and other places in the Bible, the “sons of God” is referring to angels. Let us use Job as an example and read from the Book of Job,
- Job 1:6“1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
- Job 2:1 “1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
- Job 38:1-7 “ 1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 2Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? 3Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the cornerstone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
It is obvious that Job 38:7 is not speaking of mankind when God is speaking of a time when He was laying the foundations of the earth. The correct translation here for the “sons of God” in Job 38:7 is indeed angels.
The key here is to read the chapters in context and not by verse. Also, look at the other books within the Bible to arrive at an answer. You will know if God is speaking of angels or mankind by reading what is before and after the verse in question.
So, we have concluded that the “sons of God” are both, mankind and angels, and mankind are the “sons of God” because they have received Christ and are led by the Spirit of God (see Scripture explanation of the “sons of God” above). The sons of God are not the fallen angels.
Then how do we know that God is speaking of man and not angels in Genesis 6:2-4? As I said, you will need to read the whole chapter in context to find out if God is speaking of man or angels. Let’s go to Genesis 6:1-7,
- 1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. 4There 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. 5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
In Genesis 6:1-7, the chapter was speaking of man on the earth. The author of Genesis did not start to speak about “man” then skipped to angels, then went back to speaking of man, then mentions giants.
- In Verses 1 and 2, God is speaking of the same thing “men.” In Verse 2, God is explaining what is in Verse 1.
- In verse 3, God is still talking about man.
- In Verse 4, God is telling us that there were giants in those days within the same paragraph structure, and then He repeats what is in Verse 2, which we already know he was talking about men because Verse 1 already said so.
The Bible always confirms or repeats the same thing in more than one verse. It also reads from the beginning towards the end, and the end towards the beginning. It does that for clarity. God is not a God of confusion. Then Verse 4 also says “the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” This has also sparked many debates; however, it does not need to. The Bible is still talking about men and is saying these men were great men.
Then what am I trying to say here? What I am trying to say is that the giants came from “giant” human males and “giant” human females. They married and gave birth to giant children. The giants were NOT the offspring of angels or fallen angel’s cohabitating with human females.
We have already established that angels do not marry and do not produce children (Matthew 22:30, Luke 20:33-37). We have also established that the “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4 is referring to men. Once more, the giants came from giant human men and giant human women. They were giants. That is why they were great, mighty men, men of renown. The term “sons of God” used here is also used to enhance their power and prestige as Verse 4 explains.
Alright then, if the “sons of God” are not (fallen) angels in Genesis 6:2-4 and the "giants" were not the offspring of fallen angels and human females, then where did the giants originate?
In the beginning
Let’s go back to the beginning of time and work our way up. Was the universe created in six days? The Bible says that God created the earth and the universe in six days in Genesis chapter 1 and 2, and on the seventh day God ended His work and He rested.
Some say that a day was used figuratively and represented a thousand years and some say the days were literally a 24-hour period. Let us go to Genesis, Chapter 1 to find out,
- “3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”
This is simple enough. So we know now that God divided the light from the darkness, He called the light day and darkness night, and the evening and the morning were the “first day,” therefore, a day, according to the Bible, is not a thousand years but literally one day.
Now, some will argue that the earth could not be 6,000 years old. To that I say, the Bible never claimed to be 6,000 years old, but the Bible does say that God created the universe and the earth literally in six days. According to answersingenesis.org, from this "birth certificate" God gave us, we can trace the age of the earth.
Did man co-exist with dinosaurs?
The verses that follow in Genesis chapter one goes on to describe how God brought about His wonderful creation one day at a time. Now, let us fast forward a bit.
We know that God formed animals of all types. Does this include dinosaurs? Of course! We know they were around and were fascinating creatures because of their stature.
Many of these dinosaurs, as I said, were very large. For example, the Argentinosaurus measured 100-150 feet in length from head to tail and weighed approximately 100 tons. We know this because of documented archeological finds. Therefore, if animals, including dinosaurs, were created within the six days and Adam was created within the same time frame, then it is safe to say man and dinosaurs roamed the earth together at the end of the sixth day and not with millions of years apart as evolutionist claim.
Oh wait, if that was so, then dinosaurs would eat man; wouldn’t that be right? Let us go back to Genesis 1.
- “ 26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”
Now we know that God gave Adam dominion over all the animals and they were to eat from fruit-bearing trees and every green herb; this was to be their meat. Therefore, the answer to this question is, no. Dinosaurs did not eat man and man did not eat dinosaur, not while they were being obedient to God anyhow.
Alright, now that we established that dinosaurs and man walked together and they did not eat each other, let’s move on. We also know that many of the animals were very large in size, such as the dinosaur called Argentinosaurus. Because of archeological finds, we also know that not only dinosaurs were large but many species of plants were also huge in size.
The first giants
Therefore, if many dinosaurs and plant life were extremely large, would it be possible that God created Adam somewhat large in stature as well? That is, large by our standards and not God’s (do you see where I’m heading?). The bible does not say how large Adam was but we do know for certain that Adam was to have “dominion” over the animals. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, if Adam was given charge over all the animals and told to “subdue” the earth, would this not be a possibility? In man’s limited rational mind it is not possible. Now, imagine Adam as being an average 5-foot 10-inch man, by modern standards, standing next to a 120-foot in length, 100-ton dinosaur and having dominion over it. It’s pretty laughable, wouldn’t you agree?
Then if dinosaurs co-existed with man and things were extremely large back then, why have no human bones been discovered alongside these dinosaurs? Well, let’s see. I've found no mention of any discoveries by the evolutionary scientific community of any species of giant men, but does that mean that they did not exist? The Bible says they did and so does Dr. John C. Whitcom in his book titled “The Genesis Flood;” it is a book with a bit of dated scientific research, but, nonetheless, backed by creationist scientific evidence. It may be something you may want to read in your spare time.
Suppose Adam was a giant. Then Eve, who was taken from his rib (Genesis 2:22), must have been a giant as well. The male children that followed from Adam and Eve— Cain, Abel, and Seth, were born as giants. Now if you have read the Bible, you know that Cain murdered Abel. Cain was a murderer, a fugitive, and a vagabond of no good character, and as the son of Adam, he was a giant. Cain and his wife procreated and populated the earth with more giants and from what we already know of Cain, Cain and his family were probably corrupt in the eyes of God.
Seth also procreated and populated the earth and we know this because Noah descended from Seth. That would mean that Noah was a giant and so were his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Genesis 6:32) and all their wives.
You may say the Bible does not say that Noah was a giant. But let’s look back at Genesis 6:1-4. God said, “there were giants in the earth in those days and also after that.” After what? After the flood (read the whole chapter). So before the flood and after the flood there were giants. How did the giants come to be after the flood if everything that had breath in the earth ended except for Noah and his family?
The giants after the flood
Well, let’s see. We know that there were giants after the flood because the Bible mentions giants in the Old Testament in several places. In order to find their origin you would have to trace their lineage. I will provide a couple of examples in an attempt to trace their lineage.
One example I found was of Og, the King of Bashan found in Deuteronomy 3. Deuteronomy 3:11 says only Og remained of the remnant of giants,
- “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.” The KJV uses the word “giants” and the NIV and other Bible versions use “Rephaim” for giants.
According to *Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon- KJV (Strong’s number 5747), Og, was an Amorite and the remnant of a giant race called the Rephaims. Another Rephaim mentioned in the Bible is Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon (Deu 2:24).
The Rephaims can be traced as far back as Genesis 14:5. The Rephaims were one of several races of giants mentioned in the Bible. Rephaims could also refer to those who lived in Sheol. The singular form of Rephaim is Ha raphan and it is believed by many that the Rephaims are the descendants of Rapha or Raphah (1 Chr 20:6-8). Yet some scholars consider Rapha or Raphah to be an eponym (a word or name derived from the name of a person, tribe, race, or place). Therefore, the origin of the Rephaims is a bit hard to trace. It can indicate that Rapha was the father of the Rephaims, or that the Rephaims were the residents of Sheol.
However, if my interpretation is correct, and Og the king of Bashan was an Amorite, a remnant of the Rephaim (race of giants), you will find the origins of the Amorites in Genesis 10:15-16. You will also find the Amorites descended from Canaan, the son of Ham. Ham’s lineage is mentioned in Genesis 10:6-20. And Ham was the son of Noah.
Some say that Og was a 3000 year-old giant that stowed away in Noah’s Ark to explain why there were giants after the flood. That is a myth.
There were also other races of Giants mentioned in the Bible:
- Anakims or Anakites mentioned in Deuteronomy, chapters 1, 2, and 9, were also considered Rephaims (Deu 2:10)
- Emins or Emites as the Moabites called them (Gen 14: 5). They were also considered Rephaims (see Deu 2:10)
- Zamzummites or Zamzummins, as the Ammonites called them in Deu 2:20. They were also known as Zuzims, and Zuzites (Gen 14:5), and were also considered Rephaims.
- Horims or Horites (Deu 2:12)
Another example of a giant was Anak. Anak had three sons: Shesha, Ahiman, and Tamal (Num 13:22; Jos 15:14). According to Easton’s Bible Dictionary, the Anakims were a nomad race of giants descended from Arba and Arba was the father of Anak. This race of giants dwelled in the south of Palestine near Hebron, formerly known as Kiriah Arba or city of Arba (Jos 14:15). The Anakims were a Cushite tribe of the same race as the Philistines and Egyptian shepherd kings.
You will find the origins of the Cushites in Genesis 10:6, 7. You will also find the Cushites descended from Cush, the son of Ham. Ham’s lineage is mentioned in Genesis 10:6-20. And Ham was the son of Noah.
It’s difficult to pinpoint all the people’s nations and tribes in the Bible with accuracy. Most of these tribes were nomads that roamed the earth, dispersing into different lands. They established cities named after their founders and sometimes they named their children with names already used in other books of the Bible, as in the name Rapha, a descendant of Saul (1 Ch 8:37). This makes it difficult for the Bible student to trace the origins of these tribes or races with accuracy.
Highly educated scholars in the field have not been able to do so. Many of their findings continue to conflict with the Bible’s history. Since I am not a scholar and I was definitely not there to witness it all, I will not claim that my conclusion is one hundred percent accurate. I only present it as I have come to understand it and it has no bearing on the point I will make in the end.
Therefore, whether my observation on the above lineage is correct or not, it is not the point. The point that I am trying to make here is that Noah’s family had to re-populate the earth after the flood. All the nations, people, tribes, and clans that came after the flood came from Noah’s sons, including the giants. Giants do not come from average size people, so Noah and his family were giants. Noah and his family originated with Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve were the original people in God’s creation.
- Og was an Amorite, and the Amorites descended from Caanan
- Anak was a Cushite, and the Cushites descended from Cush
- Caanan and Cush were the sons of Ham and carried Ham’s genes
- Ham was the son of Noah and carried Noah’s genes
- Noah was a descendant of Seth and carried Seth’s genes
- Seth was the son of Adam and carried Adam’s genes
- Adam was the son of God, who created him with all of creation
After the flood, God shortened man’s years and evidently his size as well. How did Noah get all the dinosaurs into the ark is something I cannot answer. Maybe he did not bring them into the Ark. And then maybe he did. How? One theory is they were taken when they were very young. If the dinosaurs did come into the Ark with Noah and his family, makes one wonder about all the pyramids of Egypt and other places in the world. How were they built with only human hands and ancient tools? Were dinosaurs used to aid man? Or did the giants help build them? Sounds hard to believe but so is the belief of giants and we know there were giants because the Bible says there were giants.
Photos of giants a hoax
On a final note, I have also come across a whole lot of photos used by Christians to prove that there were giants in the Bible. I must warn you that if you are using any photos or videos of these to prove your theory of giants, then you will discredit your claim. Moreover, you will also have many evolutionists ridiculing the Christians. These photos are a hoax. Most of these photos are from genuine excavation sites that have been altered by using sophisticated computer programs to place what seem to be gigantic skeletons within the excavations. These were then entered in a photo contest and have been circulating in the internet for a few years (see http://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-skeleton.html).
We have now discovered,
- The “sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4 were men
- The “daughters of men” in Genesis 6:2-4 were women
- Angels were also the “sons of God” (Job 38:1-7)
- The Scripture’s explanation of the “sons of God” (Luke 3:38; John 1:12; Romans 8:14)
- Who were the giants “in those days” and “after” the flood
- Who were the Nephilims
- Who were the first giants
All this may sound farfetched but so does the belief that angels or fallen angels came down and had sexual intercourse with women producing a hybrid race of giants or that of the progeny of the union between extraterrestrials and humans.
Could I be wrong? That is a possibility but so can all other theories out there be wrong. Perhaps one day we will all find out the truth.
Be blessed in Jesus’ name.
* Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon- KJV (Strong’s number 5747). Link: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/owg.html