Shall we date nephilim

Past the flood, past God.Well, “a further eruption of Nephilim took place (Gen. 6:4)” yet, that implies that God failed and that verse doesn’t even hint at any such thing. The theory is, “The object of Satan on this occasion was to populate Canaan ahead of the ‘children of Israel’, (Gen.12:6), and so to contest for the ‘Promised Land’ (Gen. 15:15-21)” and yet, the patriarchs, et al., were told who lived in and around that land but none of them were ever told a single word about Nephilim.We then come to a section titled, “Nephilim in the Future?” regarding that, “It is conjectured by some commentators, that the effort of Satan via Nephilim is not yet finished since, apparently, God failed. Well, the only, “some” noted is, Charles Welch’s book This Prophecy which tells of such an un-biblical tall-tale such as, “He…refers to Deut. 3:1-13, which showed Og king of Bashan, king also of his own brood of giants (Deut. 3:13) where, of course, you just need to swap out the exciting English term, “giants” fill the gaps with the Hebrew Repha/im and not be left with any tall-tales to sell to Christians.Now, Lloyd then takes a little bit of a step back with, “Satan’s people (whether Nephilim or not) are prominent in the attempts to thwart Israel” but it then take a gigantic leap forward from, “whether Nephilim or not” to, “Isa. 26…refer[s] to Nephilim: In Isa. 26:14, ‘They are dead, they shall not live’; they are Rephaim (Nephilim), they shall not rise: This is the corrected translation of the A.V., which uses the word ‘deceased’, instead of Rephaim!”This is part of the name-game: just merely assert, “Rephaim (Nephilim),” which is linguistically and biologically incoherent, and you can then merely keep asserting post-flood Nephilim—and do so right after, “whether

Nephilim so we can’t even refer to, “a smaller physical scale” and the same goes for Rephaim, by any other name, since they were just subjectively, “tall.”It’s also stated, “The last verse of Zechariah,14:22, speaks rather strongly in this context, ‘and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite (Nephilim?) in the house of the Lord of Hosts’!” no, not Nephilim, of course not, that would literally be impossible.It’s then asserted, “It is implicit in Genesis, that there has been previous Creation/s” even thought, “We are given no detail on these” nor even a single mere hint. Yet, we’re told that Dr. J.R. Jochmans’ books, Old Strange Relics Ignored by Science and The Genesis 1:1 Enigma elucidate something that millennias worth of Bible scholars have somehow managed to miss—for what it’s worth.We’re told, “The Smithsonian Institute was subject to a Supreme Court action in 2014, that ruled in 2015 that documentation of the destruction of thousands of Ancient humanoid giant skeletal remains in the 1800s be ‘declassified’”: this is a merely uncritical repeating of a mere assertion from a literally parody website: see chapter, “Giant Skeletons Reported in Old Newspapers Accounts” in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.This is all part of a wild conspiracy theory about how, “The destructive actions were ‘apparently’ taken, to not conflict with the new Evolution ‘Theory’ of Charles Darwin, and others” and something about how finding, “giant” skeletons would prove the Bible—even though no one in the Bible is taller than 7.5ft.It’s then noted, “Noah and his family were free from Satan’s corruption of the Adamic seed!” which somehow tied into the Gen 6 affair. And also, “The…flood…killed all the Nephilim” which begs the question of how the Brian Lloyd manages to get them

Under consideration is the website Revelation’s Message’s article by Brian Lloyd titled Nephilim, who were they, and why?Unfortunately, upfront Lloyd asserts, “Some or all of the people named in [Gen 15] verses 18 to 21 are considered Nephilim and had to be displaced by Israel at a later date, when they took possession of those lands under the leadership of Joshua” but there’s literally zero indication of any of those assertions so we shall see how that conclusion came to be some sort of premise or primary point.It’s note that, “on occasions the term ‘angels’ are interchangeable with ‘sons’, and the original Hebrew can be either word, according to context” yet, technically, it’s not just sons benim (or banim) but bene ha Elohim or bene Elim or ben Elyon. It’s also noted, “Septuagint translates ‘angels’, (the PshittA translates ‘sons of God’ looked on the ‘daughters of human beings’, see: Ancient Aramaic Manuscripts, Pshitta O and A:). This states that the ‘sons of God’ were not human!”I’d note that Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes