The discussion around the Nephilim often becomes emotional and speculative. Popular culture, the Book of Enoch, and modern conspiracy narratives have deeply influenced how people interpret Genesis 6 and Numbers 13.
But what does the Torah itself say?
Not Enoch.
Not later interpretations.
Not medieval theology.
The Hebrew text.
Genesis 6:4 states:
הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם
The word Nephilim (נְפִלִים) comes from the Hebrew root:
נפל (naphal) — “to fall”
Grammatically, Nephilim is plural.
Literally: “fallen ones.”
The Torah does not define them as giants.
That is a later interpretive tradition.
The scouts reporting back from Canaan say:
וְשָׁם רָאִינוּ אֶת־הַנְּפִילִים בְּנֵי עֲנָק מִן־הַנְּפִלִים
Transliteration:
Ve’sham ra’inu et ha-Nephilim, b’nei Anak, min ha-Nephilim.
Literal reading:
“And there we saw the Nephilim — the sons of Anak — from the Nephilim.”
Important:
This is not divine narration.
This is the scouts speaking.
In the very same verse they continue:
“We were like grasshoppers in our own eyes.”
This is the language of fear and exaggeration.
The Torah does use terminology for great stature peoples:
Anak / Anakim
Rephaim
These are described as peoples of notable size.
But they are not linguistically identical to Nephilim.
Nephilim = from נפל (to fall)
Anakim = tribal designation
The Torah does not merge the terms explicitly.
Genesis 6 does not say:
• Angels cohabited with women
• Nephilim were giants
• A war happened in heaven
• Satan is present in the narrative
Those interpretations come from later traditions — especially the Book of Enoch — not the Torah text itself.
That does not invalidate Enoch as a historical source.
But it does mean we must distinguish between:
Torah text
and
Later interpretive literature.
If we claim the Torah says something it does not explicitly say, we weaken our credibility.
Serious study requires returning to:
• Original language
• Context
• Grammar
• Narrative voice
Not inherited assumptions.
Conclusion
The Torah presents the Nephilim as a mysterious group called “fallen ones.”
It does not define them as giants.
It does not explain their origin.
It does not narrate angelic cohabitation.
Those ideas belong to later interpretive traditions.
If we want truth, we must separate text from tradition.
Next Article
In the next post, we will examine:
• The “sons of God” (בני האלהים) in Genesis 6
• Whether the Torah identifies them as angels
• And how later sources shaped that interpretation
