Nephilim is a rare Hebrew plural noun that appears only three times in the Masoretic Text: once in Genesis 6:4 and twice in Numbers 13:33. Brown–Driver–Briggs and the Septuagint support the traditional “giants” rendering, while Strong’s connects the word with naphal, “to fall.” In context, the term identifies feared and powerful figures, but it does not settle their height, biology, exact parentage, or any post-Flood lineage.
That matters because Nephilim discussions often move faster than the evidence. Later Jewish texts such as 1 Enoch belong to reception history and may illuminate how Genesis 6 was read, but they should not be quietly folded into the Hebrew noun’s definition.
So What Does Nephilim Mean?
The Hebrew form הַנְּפִלִים is a masculine plural noun. It appears once in Genesis 6:4 and twice in Numbers 13:33.
That small data set should immediately slow us down. In English Bibles, “Nephilim” is normally a transliteration: the Hebrew term is carried into English letters. “Giants,” by contrast, is a translation choice. It tells us how translators understood the word, not that the Hebrew noun already contains a complete theory of giant origins.
Brown–Driver–Briggs, in its entry for נְפִלִים, gives the traditional gloss but also warns against overconfidence:
“נְפִלִים noun masculine plural giants, according to [Septuagint] γίγαντες … Genesis 6:4 … Numbers 13:33 … (etymology dubious; compare Aramaic נִיפְלָא, נְפִילָא Orion … all very precarious).”
BDB is doing two things at once. It preserves the ancient association with “giants,” yet it refuses to make the root question secure. That is important because much popular interpretation depends not merely on the word meaning “giants,” but on the word being confidently derived from a root meaning “fall.”
Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, Hebrew entry 5303, takes that more specific route:
“Or nphil {nef-eel’}; from naphal; properly, a feller, i.e. A bully or tyrant — giant.”
Strong’s explains why many readers connect Nephilim with “fallen ones,” “fellers,” tyrants, or violent overthrowers. But it remains one lexical proposal, not a final verdict. Read alongside BDB, it should be presented as evidence rather than used as a trump card.
Lexicons are evidence, not oracles. Strong’s is useful for seeing a possible derivation and popular line of interpretation. BDB is useful for preserving the “giants” gloss while flagging uncertainty. The safest definition keeps both kinds of evidence in view: Nephilim are a rare Hebrew masculine plural group-name, traditionally rendered “giants,” used in contexts of fear, might, and ancient renown, but the noun itself does not prove a precise etymology or a detailed biological theory.
The hard lexical data are thin compared with the detailed systems often built upon them.
The Bible Uses the Word in Only Two Contexts
Genesis 6:4
Genesis 6:4 is the first biblical occurrence. In the King James Version it reads:
Genesis 6:4, King James Version “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.”
For the word Nephilim, the interpretive pressure in Genesis 6:4 comes from proximity. The term stands beside “sons of God,” “daughters of men,” and “mighty men… men of renown.” That proximity suggests a connection, but the grammar does not resolve every relationship among those groups.
So Genesis 6:4 gives us a meaningful setting, not a diagram. The Nephilim may be identified with the offspring of the unions, overlap with the mighty men, or be a known class present in the same era. The word does not, by itself, decide between those options. What it can support is more modest: the Nephilim belong to the pre-Flood setting of ancient might and renown.
Numbers 13:33
The other setting is the spies’ report in Numbers 13. The King James Version records their words this way:
Numbers 13:33, King James Version “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”
This passage connects Nephilim language with the sons of Anak, but its speaker and rhetorical setting matter just as much. The men are not calmly writing a genealogy; they are persuading Israel not to enter the land. Their report escalates from fortified cities and formidable inhabitants to overwhelming size and finally the grasshopper image. Numbers 13:33 must therefore be read as part of the fearful spies’ argument.
The spies’ words are part of Scripture, but their evaluation should not be treated as a neutral genealogy without argument. Still, the term they reach for is revealing. “Nephilim” functions as the most terrifying label they can apply to the sons of Anak: a name associated in Israel’s memory with overwhelming, giant-like power.
Occurrences at a Glance
| Passage | Occurrences | Immediate setting | What the occurrence can support |
| Genesis 6:4 | 1 | Pre-Flood scene involving sons of God, daughters of men, and mighty men | Places Nephilim in the world of ancient might and renown; does not settle the group relationships |
| Numbers 13:33 | 2 | Fearful spies’ report about the sons of Anak in Canaan | Shows Nephilim language used for terrifying, giant-like enemies; the rhetoric must be weighed |
Outside those three Hebrew occurrences, the Bible names other giant or formidable groups, including Anakim and Rephaim, without calling them Nephilim. Any connection must be argued from context, not assumed from size alone.
Why “Giants” Is Traditional but Not Simple
The strongest reason many translations use “giants” is not modern speculation. It is the Greek translation tradition: the Septuagint renders the relevant Nephilim passages with γίγαντες (gigantes).
Gigantes can evoke figures of great size, but also primeval, earthborn, violent, or mythic powers. That makes the Septuagint’s choice significant but not mechanically precise. It supports the traditional “giants” rendering, especially when read with Numbers 13:33, but it does not give measurements, anatomy, or a complete origin story.
BDB’s “giants” gloss fits that tradition. Strong’s “feller… bully or tyrant — giant” adds a possible root-based explanation and a moral or violent flavor. The combined lexical and narrative evidence makes it reasonable to see the Nephilim as feared, mighty, giant-like figures. But “reasonable” is the key word. The evidence points in a direction; it does not remove every uncertainty.
| Witness or view | Rendering or proposal | Strength | Limit |
| Septuagint | γίγαντες / gigantes | Helps explain why “giants” became an important ancient and English rendering | Does not specify exact height, biology, or parentage |
| Brown–Driver–Briggs | “Giants,” with dubious etymology | Lexical support for the traditional gloss | Warns that derivation and related comparisons are precarious |
| Strong’s Hebrew 5303 | From naphal; feller, bully, tyrant, giant | Explains the popular “fallen/feller” line | Useful proposal, not a decisive settlement |
| Contextual synthesis | Feared, powerful, giant-like figures | Accounts for Genesis 6, Numbers 13, and the translation tradition | Cannot carry a full theory of angelic biology or post-Flood descent |
Where the Word’s Boundaries Are
Most of the biggest Nephilim questions begin where the lexical evidence ends. Who exactly are the sons of God? Are the Nephilim the direct offspring of those unions? What does “and also after that” mean in Genesis 6:4? How should Numbers 13:33 relate to the Flood? Those questions belong to exegesis of whole passages and to biblical theology, not to the noun alone.
Genesis 6 gives more than a vocabulary entry. It places Nephilim in a larger story of rebellion, corruption, judgment, and mercy. If someone argues for a supernatural “sons of God” reading, the argument has to come from the broader grammar and context of Genesis 6, supported by the wider biblical and ancient setting. It cannot be proved merely by saying “Nephilim means fallen ones.” BDB’s caution against secure etymology closes that shortcut.
Numbers 13 also resists overuse. The spies’ statement that the sons of Anak “come of the giants” may preserve a genuine tradition connecting the Anakim with Nephilim memory. It may also be fear rhetoric, invoking the worst possible name to make the conquest seem impossible. Since the report is a fearful report, it should not be treated as a clean divine genealogy without argument.
Later Jewish literature, especially 1 Enoch, develops the Genesis 6 scene into an explicit giant-offspring interpretation. That material is historically important because it shows how some later Jewish readers understood Genesis 6. But reception history is not the same thing as lexical definition. A later expansion may help explain how a tradition developed; it should not be silently imported back into the meaning of the Hebrew word Nephilim.
That boundary protects the text in both directions. It prevents over-skeptical readings from pretending the “giants” association has no ancient translation support. It also prevents over-speculative readings from turning one rare noun into a master key for angelology, demonology, human genetics, archaeology, and every later giant tradition.
What We Can Say, and What We Should Not Claim
We can speak with high confidence about the form and occurrences. Nephilim is a Hebrew masculine plural noun used once in Genesis 6:4 and twice in Numbers 13:33. We can also say that the Septuagint and BDB support the “giants” rendering, while Strong’s preserves a well-known proposal from naphal.
We can reasonably infer that the term evokes figures remembered as extraordinary, dangerous, and intimidating. Genesis 6 links the scene with mighty men and ancient renown. Numbers 13 places the word in the mouths of frightened spies describing enemies before whom they feel like grasshoppers. The Septuagint’s gigantes reinforces the giant-like and primeval associations. Still, “extraordinary” and “giant-like” are interpretive conclusions from the combined evidence, not measurements embedded in the noun.
Several questions remain debated. The etymology is not settled: Strong’s derives the word from naphal, but BDB calls the etymology “dubious” and the related comparisons “all very precarious.” The relationship among Nephilim, sons of God, daughters of men, and gibborim in Genesis 6:4 is also not resolved by grammar alone. The Numbers 13 claim about the sons of Anak must be weighed inside a fearful report rather than isolated as a neutral census record.
Other claims are speculative. The word Nephilim does not record an exact height. It does not explain a biological mechanism for offspring between heavenly beings and human women. It does not tell us how any post-Flood connection would work, whether by survival, repetition, memory, or rhetoric. Those theories may be discussed in broader models, but they should be labeled as models.
Some uses of the word should be rejected outright. Treating every Anakim, Rephaim, giant warrior, Titan, or mythic giant as Nephilim goes beyond the biblical occurrences. Using Strong’s or BDB as if either one conclusively settles the whole debate ignores the cautions in the evidence itself. Folding 1 Enoch’s entire Watcher narrative into the definition of Nephilim confuses later interpretation with the original Hebrew term.
Conclusion: A Rare Word with Clear Limits
The evidence supports a restrained definition: Nephilim refers to feared, mighty, giant-like figures in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. The word does not by itself prove exact height, hybrid biology, a complete genealogy, or a post-Flood bloodline. That lets us take the ancient “giants” tradition seriously without building more on the term than Scripture supplies. In the larger biblical story, even the most intimidating powers are secondary to God’s judgment, mercy, and redemptive purpose in Christ.
Jake Mooney is a lay researcher and the author of the novel The Descent of the Gods, with 25+ years studying Genesis 6. Chasing the Giants is where he brings Bible-first research together on the topic to help separate what we can really believe vs what is purely sensationalism.
Method note: This article draws on the two biblical passages where Nephilim appears, Brown–Driver–Briggs, Strong’s Hebrew 5303, and the Septuagint rendering, while treating later traditions as reception history rather than lexical evidence.
If you want to keep digging into Genesis 6, the Nephilim, and the Bible’s giant traditions, subscribe to the free monthly Chasing the Giants newsletter.
