If you like this video remember to support us on patreon or through PayPal: inspiringphilosophy.org/donate/

I’ve been a Christian my whole life and watching your videos over the past year has helped me view the Bible better as history and less like stories of superheroes. I really appreciate what you’re doing, my faith has never been stronger.

Videos that keep me up at 2am

IP, you have been a fine example to young aspiring apologists (and Christians in general) of just how important it is to do thorough and quality research. God has called you and gifted you and has used you in a very compelling way. Keep up the kingdom work!

What I find interesting is that back in polytheist times, rulers would very often refer to themselves as sons of god, denoting their special status. As Christianity started to replace all polytheism, this title would be transferred to Christ first, and then to everyone else that believed in Him. Son of God status wasn't so unique anymore and had nothing to do with power, but with love and faith. Even the poorest of the poor can now call themselves sons and daughters of God. This goes to show how God thinks. He loves us! And he will usurp all tyranny!

Well done, Mr. Jones. I disagree, and believe Heiser is correct. His divine counsel view seems to make the most sense. That said, I really enjoyed this presentation, and will certainly move forward with a more open mind.

Whether you’re right or not that was beautifully presented! You show humility and meekness to new information. You’re willingness to admit you were wrong earlier is highly respectful. Great job!!!

Thank you for all you do. I went through a period of intense doubt a few years back. It was yourself, Dr. Craig, and Frank Turek that helped pull me out of it.

Thank you. I had only ever heard 2 theories but this one makes the most sense. In general I believe that the simplest explanation is usually the most likely.

Heiser vs IP. Debate on Genesis 6. Like the comment to show we want to see it happen 😂

I agree with the supernatural interpretation like Stanhope and Heiser, but I am very happy to have this human rulers alternative. It makes the story of the Nephilim difficult to object to from multiple angles. If you reject one interpretation, you still need to confront the other.

Thank you for the thorough explanation. This has been very helpful for me. Keep up the great job!

Brilliant video, your content reminds us that the true meaning of the bible is relative to the context of the time in which it was written.

I respect you. But I don't see how the polygamous relationships just make sense with the rest of the bible. I personally think, since humans did it anyway and God's not particularly anti-life, even if illegitimate, the flood would be useless. It'd appear like an overreaction with how it's tied to our current nature. It's another reason I support the Divine Being view. Not to mention, it makes the bible cohesive to the traditions of other religions and helps explain the origins of some of their core thoughts. Alot of ancient works had discussed the genealogy of the gods. Since we know angels don't naturally reproduce in heaven, it would then make sense that those stories would orally be transmitted by the Genesis 6 event.

I'm addicted to your channel. You are amazing. I pray God blesses you immensely. Thank you for your great work

Great video IP. I think you're doing the text the most justice here.

So I think I have to side with Heiser on this one. The Nephies (making up a new nickname) seem more likely to be the offspring of supernatural beings, the Divine Council as Michael Heiser puts it. Not only does it make sense when taking the rest of the Old Testament into account, it also dovetails nicely with other religions of the area and day. It speaks of the heroes of old. Heracles was supposedly the offspring of Jupiter and a mortal woman, Alcmene. What was Heracles if not "a hero of old, man of renown." He would embody exactly what Heiser depicts if you subscribe to the Divine Council worldview. Also, this act is directly followed in Chapter 6 by God deciding to wipe out the Earth. As others in the comment section have alluded to, polygamy was not a reason to take this type of action if you consider the many people after the flood that God loved that practiced the same thing. Not to mention that you can make a case that polygamy isn't even really a "sin" in the strictest sense, but rather something that is frowned upon and not ideal. Paul says God allowed it because of men's weakness. I've never heard of God referring to any other sin in that matter.

Pe 2:2For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but threw them into the lowest hell and imprisoned them in chains of deepest darkness, holding them for judgment; If gen 6 is talking about man then 2 Peter makes no sense

I really love this series and can't wait for the future. God bless IP!

Caleb and Joshua never said there weren't giants living in Canaan. They saw the Nephilim but knew God was strong enough to conquer them. They never denied the reality that there were giants in the land....

That was really well done, great job!

"Even if Michael Heiser ever sees this video and destroys my arguments without even trying" 😂😂😂 Great video, the sethite view was never convincing to me, still agree with Heiser, but this had certainly given me the idea that the ancient king view had much more plausibility than has been granted. Keep up the great work!

This is my favorite of all your videos and I think it's because you disprove ages of unbelief by seeking this proper explanation of what happened. A great blessing.

Wow great video! Coming from someone who thinks the idea of the Nephilim explains a lot about the old world. I'm not convinced of either argument but this is the strongest anti-Nephilim video I've seen.

IP is still my favorite apologist, but I will have to agree with Michael Heiser on this. I think Heiser's view is supported by scripture, ANE literature, and pseudepigrapha. King Solomon was a polygamist king. God gave him wisdom. You would think that whatever happened in Genesis 6 would have had to been so detestable to God in order for him to send a great flood. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Why did God tolerate that? What was different at King Solomon's time for God to preserve the davidic lineage of Jesus using a polygamist King, instead of wiping him out. Maybe, I am missing something.

Love your work but I am not convinced this time around.

Brilliant work. Compelling. Especially like the interaction with Dr. Heiser's work.

Fantastic video my friend. God bless you

InspiringPhilosophy: It's crazy to me how you were among the first Christian sources to point out the truth that we live inside a simulated reality --- which opens the door wide to the supernatural/paranormal --- and yet you seem to prefer a humdrum, naturalistic explanation for everything that goes on here.

Josephus recorded that the giants bones of the nephillim were still on display in his time - a primary historical account!

Absolutely brilliant! All of Your videos are amazing, I’m very happy and thankful to see these sort of conversations being had!

YES!! I’m so happy to finally hear someone else with this interpretation that seems so obvious when you read carefully and understand the context. THANK YOU!

I'm not entirely convinced, but your argument is compelling.

"even if Heiser sees this and destroys my argument without trying..."🤣🤣🤣

Sir I got a lot of knowledge from your channel,may God bless you

Thank you for bringing me back down to earth.

Sorry kissing cousins do not create giants.

Me: The Nephilim story is about Giants and Angelic beings. Change my mind. Inspiringphilosophy: Hold my whiskey

This is well thought out and has shaken my belief system. Which is a good thing.

This is some pretty solid argument, I must say. I am hurt it brutally casts aside the comic book action kinda interpretation of angels and women making superhumans but the points are quite solid and I loved the conclusion and how the Gospel also came into it. Brilliant work.

This passage actually created me some problems. Thank you very much for explaining it.

In order to understand scripture you must understand that there are levels to every verse. The literal interpretation, the hinted interpretation, and the mystical/prophetic meaning. Blessings in Yeshua to everyone reading this!

Very informative and well thought out.

I really like your take / opinion / view / theory on genesis.6 Great video. Thx for your work / effort on this.

Excellent argument. Thanks

*NEPHILIM* (Heb. נְפִילִים), a race of giants said to have dwelt in pre-Israelite Canaan (Num. 13:33). Genesis 6:1-2 relates that the "sons of gods," i.e., divine or angelic beings, took mortal wives; verse 4 continues, "It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared [lit., were] on earth-when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. They were the heroes [Heb. gibborim] of old, the men of renown." This could mean that the Nephilim were contemporaneous, but not identical, with the offspring of divine beings and earthly women, who were called gibborim (so, e.g., Morgenstern, in HUCA 14 (1939), 85ff.). The above translation, however, follows an ancient tradition in equating the Nephilim and the gibborim as offspring of the union of *angels and mortals . In apocryphal writings of the Second Temple period this fragmentary narrative was elaborated and reinterpreted. The angels were then depicted as rebels against God: lured by the charms of women, they "fell" (Heb, nfl. נפל), defiled their heavenly purity, and introduced all manner of sinfulness to earth. Their giant offspring were wicked and violent; the Flood was occasioned by their sinfulness. (None of these ideas is in the biblical text.) Because of their evil nature, God decreed that the Nephilim should massacre one another, although according to another view most of them perished in the Flood. One version asserts that the evil spirits originally issued from the bodies of the slain giants. These giants, or their offspring, are identified as Nephilim (See I En. 6-10, 15-16; Jub. 7:21ff.). As this dualistic myth does not appear in the apocalypses of Baruch and Esdras nor in the aggadah of the talmudic period, it was apparently rejected as incompatible with Jewish monotheism. The "sons of God" are explained in the Targum to Genesis 6:4 and the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:5) as young aristocrats who married the daughters of commoners. The Targum renders both gibborim and Nephilim by gibbaraya; the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:7) lists seven names applied to giants. The Babylonian Talmud mentions the names of Shamhazzai, Uzza, and Uzziel, the leaders of the fallen *angels in Enoch , but does not say that they were angels: Yoma 67b alludes to the sins of Uzza and Uzziel; Niddah 61a states that Sihon and Og were descendants of Shamhazzai. In Deuteronomy 3:11 *Og is described as a giant, and this theme was developed to a large degree in aggadic legend. In post-talmudic literature (cf. Rashi, Yoma 67b) the long-suppressed myth came to the surface again. The Palestinian Targum gives the orthodox rendering of Genesis 6:1, but translates verse 4 as: "Shamhazzai and Uzziel fell from heaven and were on earth in those days"-identifying the Nephilim as the fallen angels rather than their children. The same identification is found in a late Midrash, which calls the fallen angels Uzza and Uzziel; another passage in the same document says the Nephilim were descendants of Cain (Aggadat Bereshit, ed. S. Buber, introd., p. 38). The Zohar (1:58a) also identifies the Nephilim with the fallen angels. The standard medieval Bible commentators generally followed the classical aggadah in rejecting the mythological interpretation and asserting that the marriages in Genesis 6 were human. Some variant opinions about the "sons of God" are offered-e.g., that their distinction was not only social, but physical and even moral, and that the offspring were called Nephilim because they "fell short" of their fathers in these respects (Nahmanides, Abrabanel). *REPHAIM* (Heb. רְפָאִים). The Rephaim are known from biblical, Ugaritic, and Phoenician sources. In the Bible two uses of the term are discernible. The first is as a gentilic (e.g., Gen. 14:5; 15:20; Deut. 2:11) referring to a people distinguished by their enormous stature. Especially singled out are Og king of Bashan (Deut. 3:11) and the powerful adversaries of David's heroes (II Sam. 21:16, 18, 20). The biblical authors trace their designation to an apparently human eponym Rapha(h) (e.g., II Sam. 21:16, 18, 20;I Chron. 20:8). The Bible's emphasis on the size and might of the Rephaim is responsible for the Septuagint's renderings gigantes and titanes as well as for gabbārē of the Peshitta and gibbarāyyā of the Targums. The Genesis Apocryphon (21:28) on the other hand prefers the noncommital rephāʾayyā. In its second use Rephaim designates "shades" or "spirits" and serves as a poetic synonym for metim (מֵתִים; Isa. 26:14; Ps. 88:11). It thus refers to the inhabitants of the netherworld (Prov. 9:18). This second meaning is also found in Phoenician sources. King Tabnit of Sidon curses any prospective despoiler of his tomb: "May there be no resting-place for you with the Rephaim" (H. Donner and W. Roellig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (KAI, 1962), 13, lines 7-8; COS II, 182), King Eshmunazar (ibid., 14, line 8; COS II, 183) employs the same formula in the plural, adding "… and may they not be buried in a grave." The chthonic aspect of the Phoenician Rephaim is made even more explicit in a neo-Punic bilingual which equates the לעל [נם] אראפאם with dis manibus sacrum KAI (ibid., 117, line 1). The Ugaritic material is most problematic because the relevant texts referring to the rpum are fragmentary and difficult to interpret. These rpum, like their Phoenician counterparts, are divine in nature, being referred to as ilnym (I AB 6:46 ff.; Pritchard, Texts, 141; COS I, 357-58), literally "divine ones?" (cf. Heb. eʾlohim, "ghost[s]," literally "divine being[s]" (I Sam. 28:13; Isa. 8:19, 21). There is, however, no clear indication that the rpum are chthonic deities. Moreover, they seem to have a military function. One of their number is referred to as a mhr, the Ugaritic term for soldier, and the rpum are described as riding in chariots. The nonliterary Ugaritic texts mention a guild of bn rpiym who presumably were a group under the patronage of the divine rpum, as has been pointed out by B. Margulies (Margalit). In addition, the Ugaritic hero Dnil is described as mt rpi which may indicate his membership in such a group. (Marguiles errs in equating this last epithet with the alleged ṣābe bilaṭi which should be read tillati and which is not restricted to Canaan.) Another Ugaritic hero, Keret, is described as belonging to the rpi arṣ-the Rephaim of the land - a term which is paralleled by the qbṣdtn, the group associated with Ditanu. The existence of a god named Rpu has long been indicated by personal names such as Abrpu (C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (1965), 311, line 10; Ditriech and Loretz, 2). This is now corroborated by the publication of a text (Ras Shamra 24. 252) that mentions rpu mlkʿlm, "Rpu the eternal king" (Dietrich and Loretz, 187), described appropriately as gṯr, "mighty" (cf. Akk. gašru). Though this text is not free of difficulties, Rpu seems to be mentioned along with the r[pi] ars possibly as their patron. If the admittedly hypothetical interpretation of the Ugaritic material is correct, the biblical tradition of Rephaim as mighty warriors can be understood. Their huge stature would contribute to their military prowess. Furthermore, the biblical eponym Rapha(h) can be considered as an undeified god Rpu, more in keeping with biblical thought.” *Acts **7:43* “Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” *Matthew **25:31* “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” *Luke **10:17**-20* 17 And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. 18 And he said unto them, *I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.* 19 Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.” [As an ex-atheist and skeptic of All this which I use to think was fantasy bull shit, I now say as a follower in Christ, His word be exalted over that of the opinions of men. Jesus knew there was an angelic rebel he labeled the adversary, the enemy, and that other angels had fell with this Satan. He made it very clear he saw him fall, clear there is a Hell/Tartarus prepared for Satan and his Angels, and spoke of Abraham’s Bosom aka Sheol identical to how it is described to Enoch.]

I take the very spiritual take on this verse, mainly because I think its important to recognize the clear distinction in 6:2 between the children of God, and the children of men.

Amen and I agree. Sound teaching that I have believed for a while now but you put it beautifully for me to understand better. God continue to bless you brother 🙏

Question: Even if the Israelite spies embellished their report about the Canaanites, they still equated the Nephilim with giants, correct?

I agree -- it is not a hill worth dying over. Still, I agree with your assessment. The logic seems sound (following the parallels and letting the passages speak for themselves). Keep up the outstanding work!! I can't wait to see the next one.

Well done. The points you have stated, make the most sense.

this absolutely blew my mind...

Amazing as always. Waiting for Genesis 7

I loved this video. Never heard your viewpoint here, but you made it make sense.

The book of Enoch sheds light on the subject and was found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

Excellent presentation!

Another great video Michael. Thank you for continuing to strengthen my faith and the validity in the Bible through your videos. They help armor me to be able to take on skeptics and defend the Bible with strong arguments and facts. I appreciate your hard work and thorough research. 💗

I can't imagine another interpretation of this, I'm sorry. Mad respect but the divine element to it, to me, makes more sense. Since I think this is reading the text without the larger context and is more of an appeal to thematics. I get where you're coming from, but the deciding factor to make is the ANE context of the Apkallu, Joshua's conquest and the Extrabiblical texts or deuterocanonical books. Books with as much ANE context to detail the fall of First Kingdom Isreal and talk about themes regarding it. Not to mention the New Testament has Jesus exorcising demons at Joshua's conquest site, which strengthens the association with 1 Enoch (the BC Enoch) stating that Nephilim spirits roam the earth. Leviticus mentions Azazel in regards to the scapegoat. Even though 1 Enoch has the wrong height for Nephilim due to it's interaction with Greek legends, when 5 foot tall humans are facing off against 8 to 9 foot tall humans, it's weird and a big deal. I know you've converted and are more "careful" in your studies. I was just born, with some skepticism, of the supernatural. I can understand the association of this thinking and racism. The racism arguments need not apply since the Nephilim as a concept aren't so much a race of people as much as a psudeo-human and it's not associated with race.

That is by far the best argument I’ve ever read/heard. I leaned towards the divine being interpretation but it still didn’t sit well. The argument you presented makes the most sense. Thank you for your effort.

This part aways confused me and felt so out of place, thanks for this 🔥🔥

Why was the polygamous ruler David considered a man after God's own heart, then?

Well done, mate

I remember once coming across a video where the host explains the exact translation of Nephilim. Apparently, when translated from ancient Hebrew to English, Nephilim means "Bully, Tyrant".

Wow! The nature of the exchanges on this page is distinctive!

Shame, but I love you Michael. I’ll have to crank out something soon to hopefully hold some healthy dialogue on the subject. Enoch answers a lot of things, helps clarify Mesopotamian texts, Annunaki, Egyptian Pantheon etc. Mayan interactions with “white serpentine humanoids” etc. but it was an interesting outlook, and one that isn’t entirely off of a few things with the different racial deviants of the Nephilim, Raphaim, Giborim, etc. (I pray strong apologists start accepting the Unseen and have faith as babes, as Jesus inspired us too)

This is awesome. The amount of research and dedication is astounding.

i love your videos and appreciate the low key amazing artist in you. gby and yours

Gotta say, love the channel.

Great video. For quite some time I've noticed parallels between Genesis 6 and the story of Lamech. Since Cain founded a city, we ought to expect his line to have influence in said city, perhaps as it's rulers, i.e. sons of God. Also note that Lamech is said to 'take' multiple wives, and beget culture heroes, who could easily be men of renown. The culture heroes stuff could very well be where the Apkallu link came from as well.

I love christology in the OT, so the last minute or so of this video gave me chills!

I honestly never even interpreted Genesis 6:3 as a judgement or punishment... I always assumed it was Him warning the sons that they will outlive the attractive human wives they're taking, kind of like the same way Elrond warns his daughter about what will happen if she stays in middle earth with Aragorn.

Thank you so much for this video I’ve never even noticed these points before and love being taught something new especially about the Bible thank you very much again

Another great video! I have to say IP, I applaud your willingness to stay as true to the text as possible even when it's the minority position amongst scholars. It's not hard to just look at the most accepted views and run with them before attempting to thoroughly understand them yourself.

a great deeper teaching and so fascinating. This is the one main topic that got me interested in apologetics.

This by far makes more sense. Cain from a wanderer to establishing a city shows that he had influence over people. Obviously it came from the fact that he was the first son of Adam and Eve. The mark Cain received also made him invincible to his foes. This inflated his ego as other humans (non-decendents of Adam and Eve from Gen:1) eventually followed his rule. Generation after generation the inflated ego corrupted the decendants of Cain (Nephlim) as power and influence grew. The Nephlim then mixed their seed with the rest of humanity with their polygamous ways. In Gen 1:26, man can have dominion over other creatures but it does not include man kind. These acts clearly show the Nephlim's attempt to dominate humanity.

Im trying to make a novel that uses all or most mythologies so your channel really helps!

"Destroys my arguments without even trying" 🤣🤣

Great video. Thanks for showing your view, but I respectfully disagree. There is other information out there that bridges the gap in Genesis 6. Why would God have to punish the angels? What did they do to displease God. If you explained why God punishes the angels, this video wouldn’t have been this long. I do understand and love your perspective though.

thanks, @InspiringPhilosophy

I love your stuff. Amazing....

Those human silhouettes are so ominous Also, the theory of 120 years being a “grace period” for humanity makes a lot of sense. Noah and his family probably headed God’s warning, while everyone else ignored it. I’m not saying that is exactly what happened, but it is an interesting idea to play with

I have a couple of questions for you......... 1. Was Gilgamesh 100% human? Goliath? King Og? 2. What (lesser) (g)ods did YHVH defeat in Egypt? For I will pass through the land of Egypt that night, and I will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the Lord. Exodus 12:12 (ESV) 3. What ancient goddess was given the title, "Queen of Heaven?" Was she human? 4. Were Chemosh, Molech and Ba'al human? 5. Who were the seven Sage's / Apkallu in ancient Sumer?

I love the background artwork. Tell your artist that they are top notch.

Thank you!!

In relation to Goliath: the bible says his spear was like a weaver's beam with a head that weighed 8lbs. What 6 or 6.5' foot man could throw a spear the size of a weaver's beam? And before someone says the weaver's beams of that time weren't as big as we would think, then why would the bible specifically mention it?

Perhaps the Sons of God were those who had become “enlightened” but by their actions, fell from grace.

My Pastor said whoever the Nephilim are they weren't on the Ark 😂

I love how there is no background music on this video - much easier to hear and concentrate on the content :)

Cant say I agree with this pastor arnold Murray and chuck missler breakdown the angelic element perfectly with scriptural backing

I want to comment on the LXX translation of the Nephilim as γίγαντες. While in greek the word does mean giant, it can also mean mighty (see Lindel and Scott). At the same time, during the Hellenistic period when the LXX was written, the word γίγαντες was also used to refer to the hoplites, the fully armored heavy infantry troops. These two details in conjunction, together with the context of the phrase, seem to point exactly to the fact that the Nephilim, were just mighty warriors, heroes of old.

There's more to it still, and i still agree with Heiser (and what seems to me the traditional and ancient view, thus giving it extra points imo), but valiant effort. And I really appreciate you asserting your case with confidence but without over-confidence. Really loving this series.

I’m not super well educated on this subject and I agree with you that it’s definitely not a hill worth dying on and either interpretation doesn’t change the overall message. Excellent video here

I disagree with you here. I’m sorry I think you interpreted this wrong.

Not in agreement ... check out Chuck Missler's detailed work on this subject matter

Finally makes sense.

Very convincing. Would you consider doing a video about rephaim? I know it's kind of an obscure reference but it has been on my mind for a while.

I love these videos. Really well done in both script and video work. Thanks a ton. My bit of input is this: the difference between Jesus' parables and Jude and Peter's (as you claim, fiction to make a theological claim) is: Jesus wasn't quoting anyone with parables. He was making up fiction to make a point. Jude and Peter are quoting other authors. You've got to prove these other writings are false or are fiction. e.g., the Book of Enoch and the Testament of Moses. Not being inspired scripture does not make them fiction. What makes Heiser's position easy to lean toward is he seems to assume these things were written because they were taken as true. In my mind, if your position is to dismiss the strong evidence of Jude and Peter on the basis of "they're using fiction" so heavily weighted with conjecture, it unravels all your objections prior. It would be better to settle for Jude and Peter are problems with your position and we just have to hold the tension until more information is understood or revealed.

When I first read those verses, i believed they were men too, then I read the majority view that they were angelic beings who took daughters of men and went along with it for a while, but I think your interpretation right.

I have one objection raised at this as I don't know Hebrew and cannot talk about all the grammatical arguments. My objection concerns 2 Peter and the use of Tartarus and that this does not mean Peter endorses all of Greek mythology. Yeah, sure, I understand that he of course doesn't endorse all of Greek mythology, but neither does Gospel writers when they uses Hades to speak of the afterlife. Neither does the Greek speaking Jews who use Hades when speaking about Sheol. Peter obviously used Tartarus because that would be familiar to his audience and rather than explain the same thing he used the word associated with the same place. And what Dr. Heiser is saying is not that we should believe that the Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels because 1 Enoch says they are, but that 1 Enoch clarifies what the Jews believed concerning the Nephilim. To them, it would be obvious that the Nephilim were giant off springs of fallen angels because of the context they lived in. What Dr. Heiser is saying is that this context is made clear to us first when we read 1 Enoch because 1 Enoch goes into greater detail while Genesis didn't feel that need since everyone at the time would get it.

As a point of interest for you, I might recommend a podcast on Spotify called The Lord of Spirits. One of their episodes is on Giants, and I think it has a certain nuance that makes things much clearer.