Late last year a reader asked for a post on Nephilim babies.

First, this is a preoccupation of ‘Christians’ who read outside the biblical canon.

Second, outside of two mentions of Nephilim in the Bible, there are no other.

Third, no one who wrote or compiled the Bible was trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes or hide some ‘truth’ from them.

Interestingly, the Nephilim conspiracy theory surfaced again in April 2013 on discernment sites. Below are excerpts from two posts on Herescope which debunk this absurd preoccupation.

In their post dated April 10, Pastor Anton Bosch explains the background to the Nephilim. Emphases in bold are mine:

Demons/ angels (sons of God) had illicit relationships with women (the daughters of men) and these perverted relations produced genetically mutated beings known as nephilim (giants). God then imprisoned some of the angels who did this and in order to purify the bloodline of man God brought on the Flood. Through genetic engineering these Nephilim will be resurrected, one of which will be the Antichrist. To these people, the Nephilim are also tied up with so-called extra-terrestrial forms of life.

The Nephilim are given passing mention in the Bible and only in the Old Testament:

The Hebrew word Nephilim is translated “giants” in the Old Testament. It only appears twice in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. A whole series of doctrines have been built around this word, in spite of the fact that the word only appears rarely. These doctrines on the Nephilim are based on Genesis 6:1-4.

The elaboration about the Nephilim and their babies do not come from the Bible:

It must be noted that most speculators lean very heavily on extra-biblical writings for most of their information.

And:

These speculators quote the Book of Enoch (and other apocryphal books) in support of their ideas as though they are Scripture. Yet, Enoch and the rest of the Apocrypha are not part of the Canon of Scripture for obvious reasons – they are not, and have never been regarded as inspired except by apostate churches.

Then there is the problem with taking Scripture too literally. ‘Oh, if it says “giants”, they must mean abnormally huge people’. Not necessarily.

This is Genesis 6:1-4:

Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

Look at the last sentence — ‘mighty men … men of renown’. Wouldn’t that allude to men who were in positions of temporal power, not physically oversized? Yes:

Genesis 6:4 does say that the children that were produced “were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.“Mighty men” is a term which is used 154 times in the OT and simply refers to powerful men, either physically or politically. Just like there are many mighty men today and some are men of God and others are worldly and unsaved, so there were mighty men in those days, of which Noah was one.

“Men of old” also holds no mystique, these were simply the heroes of bygone days.

“Men of renown” is also used in Numbers 16:2 and Ezekiel 23:23. These are just famous men, or well-known men. The Hebrew term literally means “men with a name” meaning they had “made a name” for themselves.

The descendants of these relationships were not monsters, mutants, or anything extraordinary. Some were ordinary people and some were powerful, some were little known and others had made a name for themselves. Genesis 6:5 (the next verse) goes on to describe these people as wicked and worthy of God’s judgment.

The word Nephilim is used differently in Genesis and Numbers:

… the translation of the word nephilim in Genesis 6:4 as “giants” is very arbitrary. There are many other possible ways this word could be translated here: Bullies, mighty ones or tyrants. At least one dictionary states that the nephilim in Genesis and in Numbers were two different peoples. Once again, we cannot build an entire doctrine on a word which we cannot translate or explain with any measure of certainty.

Genesis 6:4 is simply a description of life before the Flood and not a commentary on mysterious genetic mutant life forms.

As for the great flood, the Nephilim and Noah:

If the Flood had anything to do with anything other than man’s sinfulness, either Moses or Jesus would have said something, but both are silent about demons, angels and mutants. The Flood had nothing to do with clearing the gene pool. It was all about clearing the earth of sinful and wicked people. Even Sunday school children should be able to tell you that.

If the Flood had anything to do with God wanting to destroy the giants because they were “contaminated seed” or to purge the gene pool then, Noah and his sons should have been destroyed also. Noah and his sons carried the gene from which giants were formed. This is obvious since giants (nephilim) are born after the Flood and were present in the Land when the spies were sent to scout out the land (Numbers 13:33). These giants were descendants of Noah since all of humankind after the flood descended from Noah.

How, then, did the false teaching about Nephilim babies come to be such a talking point in certain literalist churches? An earlier article in Herescope, ‘101 Questions about the Nephilim’, explains:

Because these teachers have been esteemed for years by believers who adhere to biblical prophecy taught from a dispensational pre-millennial and pre-tribulation rapture perspective, we would note two things about the futuristic scenarios they are creating. First, many other solid Bible scholars and teachers and pastors are being influenced by this new prophetic paradigm which embraces both Scripture and mythology. And second, because these teachers are esteemed and have enjoyed the reputation of being reliable, it becomes difficult to question their prophetic presupposition—that when combined with Scripture, extra-biblical sources are reliable authenticators of the biblical text—without being derided as being divisive and unloving. So we recognize that the questions we raise may prove controversial. But nonetheless, they should be asked.

Teachings regarding the Nephilim have precedence in history. Yet we think it is time to take another look at this issue as it is currently manifesting itself. Quite possibly the reliable Bible scholars, teachers and pastors of the past never dreamed that contemporary interpretations regarding the Nephilim would leap to the extremes as they now appear to have leapt. Likewise, the Gap Theory has become a gaping chasm into which these “new prophetic paradigm” teachers are inserting their myths. Our fear is that the camel of mythology has now stuck its nose in the prophetic tent, and given the camel’s fascinating speculations, will wreck the whole tent of prophetic study from the pre-millennial and dispensational perspective. We think it’s time for some questions to be raised about the current Nephilim-prophetic construct.

There is enough content in the Bible to absorb and heed without notional believers becoming preoccupied with extra-biblical references and stories, even when put forth by previously reliable pastors and teachers.