How did Giants survive the Deluge?

Joshua, the Old Testament conquerer of Canaan, is well known for leading an army of Hebrews into the occupied land of Canaan.

When men are sent to reconnoitre the land they return with a report that the land was populated with giants that made them appear as grasshoppers.

Yet the whole purpose of the flood was to destroy the Nephilim and the humans they had corrupted. Only the family of Noah was spared, his three sons and their wives.

Now Canaan, because of Ham's doing, was cursed by Noah for reasons that remain obscure though I think the real reason was the stealing of the garment of Adam and handing it over to Nimrod that is just my theory, I don't think it had anything to do with Noah getting drunk and naked, Ham seeing his naked father and telling his brothers really doesn't amount to a curse worthy offense taken out on the descendants of Canaan generations later.

Even more perplexing is the re-emergance of the giant Anakim/Rephaim in Canaan after the Deluge. If Noah was not a seed of the Watchers it follows his offspring would be neither.

A Rabbinical tradition is that Og of Bashan held on to the Ark until the waters subsided, but I find that explanation lacking.

If Canaan was the seed from whom they descend it follows that one of his parents were of Nephilim seed.

And since it can't be from Noah it must be Canaans Mother, wife of Ham who begat Cush who begat another giant or Rephaim named Nimrod.

Nimrod is alleged to have married his Mother, Semiramis, who it follows was wife of Cush and going by the name a probable descendant of Sem/Shem.

Could incest have caused a gene mutation that resulted in Nimrod being born a Rephaim, a giant? Possible.

But how the hell did the land of Canaan, brother of Cush, wind up full of these giants?

I am interested in any theories.

a reply to: Malocchio

Fallen angels again "went unto the daughters of man".

We still have really tall people today, though it's really rare.


Robert Wadlow

Nearly 9ft tall when he died at 22
He showed no indication of an end to his growth even at the time of his death.
He possessed great physical strength until the last year of his life, when his strength and his health in general began to deteriorate rapidly.

Dies by an infection caused by a blister.

He was weak due to the speed at which he grew but imagine if he, like the giants of old, ate in the abundance it is said/written that they ate... He might have been insanely huge!

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: Malocchio

Fallen angels again "when unto the daughters of man".

We still have really tall people today, though it's really rare.

(coming back to show one specifically that would have kept growing had he not died early)

I find that unlikely to be honest, it's a guess, a theory but what is the evidence?

They recorded the one time it happened and nobody has ever written about it happening a second time.

I can't say you are wrong, I just don't see any evidence for it or a reason for the not mentioning it, this hypothetical second fallen Sons of God scenario would seem unlikely given the fate of the first Watchers.

Plus tall people and giants of the proportions described in Biblical and extra Biblical literature are not the same by a long shot.

originally posted by: Malocchio

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: Malocchio

Fallen angels again "when unto the daughters of man".

We still have really tall people today, though it's really rare.

(coming back to show one specifically that would have kept growing had he not died early)

I find that unlikely to be honest, it's a guess, a theory but what is the evidence?

They recorded the one time it happened and nobody has ever written about it happening a second time.

I can't say you are wrong, I just don't see any evidence for it or a reason for the not mentioning it, this hypothetical second fallen Sons of God scenario would seem unlikely given the fate of the first Watchers.

*shrugs*

You're asking for other evidence on information originally obtained from the Bible?

C'mon now...

There are no other mentions other than what you have read. Genesis says "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward".... During and after....

That is the only thing I can see that might give you a hint. The Bible gives you lessons. It doesn't always give you a full account of every detail.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Yes, but I am rather sure that a second Sons of God mating with the daughters of men scenario WOULD have been recorded.

Certainly one is free to assume that is what happened but it can't be said to be anything other than an assumption.

But I asked for theories and that is a theory so, thanks.

Maybe, just maybe......it may be a story.

You'll find good stories often lack explaination.

My theory..selective breeding. Genetic defect of giantism compounded with early breeding before death.

2nd theory. A story. Adleast the 2nd theory I have proof. They are just stealing babylonian stories anyway.

Adleast your displaying good levels of critical thinking, questioning and not blindly accepting.

originally posted by: Malocchio
a reply to: StallionDuck

Yes, but I am rather sure that a second Sons of God mating with the daughters of men scenario WOULD have been recorded.

Certainly one is free to assume that is what happened but it can't be said to be anything other than an assumption.

But I asked for theories and that is a theory so, thanks.

But it was....

THERE 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


Sorry for the caps. That's the way I copied it. Pay really close attention to that sentence. Like it does throughout Genesis, it speaks in present and future tense.

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
Maybe, just maybe......it may be a story.

You'll find good stories often lack explaination.

My theory..selective breeding. Genetic defect of giantism compounded with early breeding before death.

2nd theory. A story. Adleast the 2nd theory I have proof. They are just stealing babylonian stories anyway.

There is also the theory that the wifes of Noah's sons may have had DNA from the same. They weren't pure, only Noah and his children. If it was common for 'angel bloodlines' before the flood, I suppose it's possible that the women carried the genes. It doesn't even really mention whether or not Noah and his sons had 'angel blood' in their DNA.

I guess we couldn't rule that out either.

a reply to: StallionDuck
His point being how were the giants there afterwards if the floods wiped them out. How did they re emerge is his point.

Either they were surfing giants or the flood didn't take place.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Plus I always thought that ''and also after" read like an interpolation by someone who edited it because of the new story of Joshua.

Because it actually wasn't the Nephilim later, that term applied to the direct offspring of the Sons of God and daughters of men.

Later they were known as Anakim and Rephaim but not Nephilim. So technically it is not even true as all the Nephilim died becoming disembodied souls called demons.

I am not trying to bicker or anything, just that the Nephilim actually didn't exist after the flood.

a reply to: StallionDuck
There is just as many theory over "lost" the series.

None of which are based in fact /logic.

Only theory is (based on fact) that it was only a localised flood in that particular region. No geological proof of worldwide flood at the time.

Also the giants could have gone to the holy mountains.

Either way, all speculation and pointless, like speculating about lost.

a reply to: StallionDuck

I stand corrected on a couple of things.

Noah WAS perfect and not infected with angel dna.

Genesis 6

1. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which 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 an hundred and twenty years.
4. There 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.
5. And 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.
6. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7. And 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.
8. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

9. These are the generations of Noah: NOAH WAS A JUST MAN, AND PERFECT IN HIS GENERATIONS, and Noah walked with God.



Also, I should mention... God didn't flood the earth because of the angels or giants. It says:

5. And 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.

The fallen were punished for their deeds if you read the Book of Enoch. The flood was because of man. God didn't flood the earth again before the Hebrew wiped out the giants later on.

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: StallionDuck
His point being how were the giants there afterwards if the floods wiped them out. How did they re emerge is his point.

Either they were surfing giants or the flood didn't take place.

Precisely. And the first post flood giant was Nimrod, great grandson of Noah so it was so soon after the flood that someone on that boat must have had the ''gene."

Interestingly the Rephaim also get a mention in the Epic of Gilgamesh which is I believe the oldest existing complete myth/legend and likely source of the Noah myth.

There were no physical "giants" at all. The flood story reflects the melting of the glaciers and the rising of sea levels 12,000 years ago, probably rather suddenly, as the result of comet strike in the arctic or possibly an ice dam surrounding Hudson Bay breaking and flooding the oceans. The idea of this kind of thing happening is well-accepted by science vis-a-vis Lake Missoula in Montana though this would have been on a much larger scale. There are flood myths in many cultures. You don't need Noah and arks. That's just a local Judaic variation that makes little sense. Hundreds of thousands survived the Flood, including most species of animals. God didn't do it. That's just simplistic religion overlaying the ancient stories turned to myth.

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: StallionDuck
His point being how were the giants there afterwards if the floods wiped them out. How did they re emerge is his point.

Either they were surfing giants or the flood didn't take place.

Or.. as scripture said... In "THOSE DAYS" as in during the flood and "AFTER" as in after the flood.

Satan may have been a reason for angels to rebel but who's to say they all rebelled at once? Then... It never said that the angels that rebelled and the ones that slept with human women were the same. It only goes into more detail in the Book of Enoch.



When you read the first lines of Genesis, there is yet another example of the way this same sentence in question was written. It doesn't look added as mentioned in one of the posts above. There are a good few examples of this same 'speak' in Genesis.

a reply to: Malocchio

I'm not bickering with you bud. I'm only offering my thoughts on it. No worries.

If you speculate and only have speculations, then it is what it is. But if you take the words written and say "doesn't look right", it's also speculating so you're unraveling everything before you even begin. You're doubting even the clues so you're left with nothing. So in the end, you have nothing because you might not want to see a solution.

*Shrugs*

Interesting topic though. Just let it breathe

originally posted by: GemmyMcGemJew
a reply to: StallionDuck
There is just as many theory over "lost" the series.

None of which are based in fact /logic.

Only theory is (based on fact) that it was only a localised flood in that particular region. No geological proof of worldwide flood at the time.

Also the giants could have gone to the holy mountains.

Either way, all speculation and pointless, like speculating about lost.

I don't think it is pointless, I think it is something worthy of pondering at the least, I can think of far more pointless topics than this.

It's a giant hole in the Biblical story that has never been filled even in an Apocryphal book, other than the ridiculous Og of Bashan legend.

You are free to not speculate if you find it pointless.

originally posted by: schuyler
There were no physical "giants" at all. The flood story reflects the melting of the glaciers and the rising of sea levels 12,000 years ago, probably rather suddenly, as the result of comet strike in the arctic or possibly an ice dam surrounding Hudson Bay breaking and flooding the oceans. The idea of this kind of thing happening is well-accepted by science vis-a-vis Lake Missoula in Montana though this would have been on a much larger scale. There are flood myths in many cultures. You don't need Noah and arks. That's just a local Judaic variation that makes little sense. Hundreds of thousands survived the Flood, including most species of animals. God didn't do it. That's just simplistic religion overlaying the ancient stories turned to myth.

Yeah... Knew it wouldn't be long before one of you guys jumped in with "it didn't happen!".

Who cares. The topic isn't about whether it's a true story or not. It's based on the story and how it would have come to be.

Go play with your stuffed aliens or something and leave us to our "hypothetical" discussion, if that suits you better.

a reply to: StallionDuck

So then tell me what clue led you to think that another Watcher situation went down.

I would love to hear it.

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: schuyler
There were no physical "giants" at all. The flood story reflects the melting of the glaciers and the rising of sea levels 12,000 years ago, probably rather suddenly, as the result of comet strike in the arctic or possibly an ice dam surrounding Hudson Bay breaking and flooding the oceans. The idea of this kind of thing happening is well-accepted by science vis-a-vis Lake Missoula in Montana though this would have been on a much larger scale. There are flood myths in many cultures. You don't need Noah and arks. That's just a local Judaic variation that makes little sense. Hundreds of thousands survived the Flood, including most species of animals. God didn't do it. That's just simplistic religion overlaying the ancient stories turned to myth.

Yeah... Knew it wouldn't be long before one of you guys jumped in with "it didn't happen!".

Who cares. The topic isn't about whether it's a true story or not. It's based on the story and how it would have come to be.

Go play with your stuffed aliens or something and leave us to our "hypothetical" discussion, if that suits you better.

We definitely agree here, I also knew that would happen.

You gotta laugh.