Nephilim and Gigantopithecus blackii

For other YEC like me @PDPrice and @r_speir what do you think about Gigantopithecus blackii as Nephilim?

It fits the record. I’ll have to look at more articles.

“A missing piece of the puzzle has always focused on pin-pointing when Gigantopithecus existed,” explains Rink. “This is a primate that co-existed with humans at a time when humans were undergoing a major evolutionary change. Guangxi province in southern China, where the Gigantopithecus fossils were found, is the same region where some believe the modern human race originated.”

For everyone else, pretty cool big ape, right? :grinning:

1 Like

Dr. Sarfati questions the translation of nephilim as “giants”. In any case, if these were not found in Flood strata then they aren’t a candidate. I’ve never heard of anybody comparing Nephilim to apes, giant or otherwise.

1 Like

Oh yeah. Pretty amazing.

The finding is pretty amazing, from the Science Daily article:

A gigantic ape, measuring about 10 feet tall and weighing up to 1,200 pounds, co-existed alongside humans, a geochronologist at McMaster University has discovered. Using a high-precision absolute-dating method (techniques involving electron spin resonance and uranium series), Jack Rink, associate professor of geography and earth sciences at McMaster, has determined that Gigantopithecus blackii, the largest primate that ever lived, roamed southeast Asia for nearly a million years before the species died out 100,000 years ago.

I can’t find the original article though…

1 Like

And Sarfati has absolutely no training in Hebrew or Aramaic to make any informed opinion (and this is not the 1st time he’s spoken on issues on which he has no training).


Very unlikely to be interfertile with humans; it would be like marrying an orangutan. Gigantopithecus was in fact a sort of orangutan. Do you consider that sort of mating credible?


One doesn’t need formal training in order to be informed, or to write or discuss on a topic. This is, yet again, an argument from authority (fallacy).

You’re welcome to disagree if you wish (though you haven’t indicated you do disagree).

Seems more like an appeal to being informed, and ensuring that you trust people on the things about which they are informed.

Other than appealing to formal credentials, how would @deuteroKJ claim to know whether or not Dr. Sarfati is informed on the topic? Does he/she claim to know Dr. Sarfati personally?

It seems @deuteroKJ is familiar with Safarti’s work, and he also has more than sufficient credibility to judge the plausibility of his work in Hebrew. Perhaps other might disagree with him, of course.

I emphasize also that this has nothing to do with YEC vs TE. There certainly are YECs that have training in Hebrew about which @deuteroKJ would not say this.

Making sweeping claims about the quality of Dr Sarfati’s work interpreting Hebrew is clearly off topic. My statement was that he questioned the idea that nephilim should be translated into “giants” in English. Is somebody disagreeing with that?

Which one is it? That he translate it as giants? Or that he questions translating it as giants?

I believe @deuteroKJ takes it as giants.

Dr Sarfati has stated that “nephilim” is related to the Hebrew word “naphal” meaning ‘fall’, thus the word means “fallen ones” or “those who fall upon others”. The English word Giants comes from the LXX, not the Hebrew. Strong’s seems to agree:

Or nphil {nef-eel’}; from naphal; properly, a feller, i.e. A bully or tyrant – giant.

No attempt is made here to explain why “giant” gets thrown in the mix. Is it tradition?

For the record, I disagree with Sarfati based on my “formal training” in these languages (and textual criticism, another area Sarfati has spoken with no awareness of the discipline). You positing him is an argument from authrity, but in this case, an argument from non-authority.

Not really. Look above where I explained his reasoning. Sarfati cites, Hamilton, V.P., The Book of Genesis, Ch 1-17, p. 270, 1990. Sarfati isn’t making this statement on his own authority, either.

So you’re admitting an argument from authority. OK, gotcha. (For the record, I acknowledge many scholars assume Nephilim comes from the Hebrew n-ph-l “to fall,” though I think it’s most likely from the Aramaic nephila’ “giant.” That’s not the point. It’s that Sarfati has no specific training, so you relying on him means nothing…)


@PDPrice for the record, I am inclined more to understanding them as “fallen” too, at least in Genesis 6. Numbers 13:33 might be different. :slight_smile: .

I don’t deny the possibility of (Hebrew) “fallen ones” rather than (Aramaic) “giants” (though it would assume some odd spelling in Hebrew). Even if, one still needs to explain the Greek translation of “giants” as an early interpretation (not to mention the biblical and extra-biblical data on these creatures.)

1 Like

Is it now an argument from authority to cite a source? This is news to me.

Aramaic had replaced Hebrew as the language of the Jews as early as the 6th century BCE.
Aramaic language | Description, History, & Facts | Britannica

Your word etymology seems anachronistic; presumably an indication that you’re taking a liberal view of the dating of the book of Genesis in general. Right? Not a bandwagon I’m about to jump on by a longshot.

You’ve got an axe to grind, we get it.

Sure, but what were the spies of the ‘bad report’ talking about when they used that word, if not the same thing mentioned in Genesis 6 (This is not to assume their report of nephilim there was truthful by the way).

Well you certainly seemed to be strongly opposed to it before … strange.

Well, it could be legendary development within the culture of the Jews over time. Genesis 6 happened 4500 years ago after all.

Completely fallacious. You have no idea what you’re talking about.


I think there could be a good linguistic account if this. Perhaps @jongarvey would jump in.

His point, which makes sense to me, is that the original audience of the Genesis tradition (perhaps it was oral?) knew that there were people outside the Garden and it was taken for granted. Later on, that was forgotten, and other sorts of Interpretations seeped in. That makes sense to me.

In the case of Nephilim, I think it might have originally meant the fallen (as Hesier supposed, or as I did in the GAE), but then as memory of them was lost it also took on the meaning of giant, which is why the early Greek translations translate it this way.