Month: June 2023

It is related that psychics, etc., Elisaveta Loginova, Dora Petcova, and Dimitar Surakov, with the support of Vangeliya Pandeva Gushterova aka Baba Vanga, “and the psychotronic means that is through the reception of information in energy frequencies decoded by the brain, managed to get in touch with the entity that resides beyond the ancient corridor” referring to the 1990-1992 excavations which took place at Tsarichina, Bulgaria-Sofia.

Claiming contact with aliens, Loginova began writing in hieroglyphic-like characters—which have been speculated to have been the ancient Egyptian Demotic script and/or ancient North Chinese scripts or what some have as, “old Bulgarian texts, hieroglyphics, Arabic, Indian, Southern Chinese and Runic writings” or, “Historian Bozidar Dimitrov and Professor Dimitar of Cherov…claimed they were nothing more than beautiful scribbles.”

Therein, she claimed what was revealed to her was information regarding the, “birth of the Earth” and the location of a buried protohuman, which was an androgynous alien.

I must say that this is somewhat reminiscent of the Ridley Scott movie Prometheus—which I reviewed in my book A Worldview Review of the Alien and Predator Mythos Franchises.

Baba Vanga got onboard and claimed that the, “entity, that was anything but terrestrial” was, “an alien, the first being to arrive on our planet: physically defined as an androgynous creature neither man nor woman…part of the supreme race from which all human beings were generated.”Of course, there’s been a lot of stories about the Tsarichina excavations: from the military claiming they were seeking lost treasures to that people died from exposure to whatever was underground, etc., etc., etc.

And so, who knows who actually knows what, if anything, was found.

Reportedly, “they found some stones assembled to form a humanoid figure. It wasn’t clear whether this sort of statue was already there or had been formed during the works.”

It was, “said that a colleague tried several times to dig in a nearby area, but an invisible wall prevented him from continuing” which is a convenient claim.

Vanga conveniently claimed that, “the energy they could feel belong to the skeleton of an alien buried there thousands of years ago, a gigantic skeleton.”

Vanga, “asked the General” in charge of the excavations, “Well, what are you looking for? It is neither man nor woman, yellow monkey, why do you need it?” My main interest is my previous research on how occult literature has always, from BC days until today, peppered with the stuff of which gender (mis) identity is made: from androgyny to hermaphroditism and to what has become the LGBBTTQIIAPPRR+ movements and this story further confirms that about which I wrote in my book The Occult Roots of Postgenderism: And a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology.

Some data gleaned from the V Fringe – Aliens & Mysterie YouTube channel’s video, Underground Aliens and Beyond: Baba Vanga’s Prophecies | Cover Ups & Conspiracies | V Original

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

To date, all we have of the new SkyWatch TV DVD series is the Angels & Giants Docu-Series Trailer.

The reference to “Giants” begs these key questions:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s SkyWatch’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

Straight away, the vid refers to “six fingers, red-haired giants that were 9, 10, 12 feet tall” so their usage, at least in part, appears to be something to do with subjectively unusual height.

At least we know they’re not referring to Nephilim since we’ve no reliable physical description of them so can’t say anything backed with any data about their fingers, hair, or height.

Reference is made to that “giants” were “cannibalistic…sexually perverse, sadistic, bite your head off drink all the blood out of your body…like popping a top off a Coca-Cola” which are great creepy stories but have nothing to do with any biblical data about anyone—with the exception of general sexual perversion but then again, since we know who is being referred to as “giants” we can’t know whom to investigate.

But when biblical data is lacking in backing tall-tales, SkyWatch instantly turns to the Book of Enoch which is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah—see the book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

SkyWatch knows that even tall-tales backed by folklore isn’t enough to they add sci-fi to the mix along with (even more) mere assertions, “members of the Divine realm were allowed to come through a portal, from one dimension into our dimension…at what they call Gilgal Rephaim, which translates loosely as Wheel of the Giants.”

That it “translates loosely” as such is even an over-statement since that wouldn’t be a translation, however loose, but a rendering.

It goes back to the key questions since the “Giants” which renders “Rephaim” is merely doing that: it’s rendering “Rephaim” and is not implying anything whatsoever about subjectively unusual height.

SkyWatch then adds this to the mix “the reason why all this matters is because Bashan, which also means the Land of the Serpent” based on linguistic machinations “was the place where the giant Og reigned.”

SkyWatch is misusing the term “giant” since biblically contextually “giant Og” would be accurately rendered as “Repha Og” which is all that English Bibles are telling us when they refer to him as a “giant.”

For some reason, SkyWatch thinks something to the likes of that ancient people couldn’t really figure out how to make a circle of rocks or would not have made one for any practical purpose—or something—so they take the sci-fi up another notch by asserting “a pile of 42,000 tons of stone circles that there’s no way you can appreciate it unless you’re high up in the sky.”

It’s literally merely asserted “early Israelites identified it as the work of giant” about which we must ask at least three question: 1) to what does “early” refer? 2) what makes them assert so? 3) what’s meant by “giant”?

But we then get some clue about the answer to “3)” since directly following, it’s stated “Circle of the Giants is a better

translation of Gilgal Rephaim…could some of these wonders be the metaphorical handprints of the giants spoken of in Genesis”?

Typical of pop-Nephilology is to use the term “giants” to refer to various things and never once defining the term nor usage: watering down terminology makes it easier to wave tall-tales since unrelated data points can be claimed to be connected when actually, no such connections are cogent.

Note, for example, that we were told that Rephaim is translated as giants but now that Nephilim is translated as giants and that while Circle of the Giants is a better translation of Gilgal Rephaim it’s now Circle of the Giants being a better translation of Gilgal Nephilim.

We’re then moved from the Middle East to that “Peru this is the region where the strongest evidence for the presence of the Watchers and the Nephilim on Earth can be found” due to “the largest megalithic wall in the world” which is a conclusion based on the non sequitur that large things must have been built for and by large people.

And that is about it for the trailer of the new un-biblical-neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales docu-series trailer.

I posted this comment to the video on YouTube:

It seems that the word “giants” is being used to refer to three different things so the key questions are:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s SkyWatch’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

Incidentally, I have literally asked those question to dozens upon dozens of post-flood-giant-Nephilologists and literally zero have answered them—even though they go on and on and on and on about giants.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The discussion which follows took place due to my video Jim Jones: another Atheist mass murderer.

@alexdenton1073

Ken sorry wasn’t sure where to ask this, wondering if you will be doing a podcast or video on Squid games  ? Thank You

@comeasyouare4545

If you’re trying to disown Jim Jones lets make a comparison between What he did, and what you are doing. Let’s see he had past experience in the church. He became a cult leader because of that experience. He had a compound that was to be an expression of utopia. He milked is followers. Meaning of their money, and property.    If he was in fact an atheist his followers weren’t. Why would he be chanting: All the while, Rhodes said, Jones was telling them they would “meet in another place” and chanted, “mother, mother, mother”—”an apparent reference to his wife who lay dead not far from the altar,” according to the Post. Jones died of a gunshot wound to the head. Atheist don’t believe we’re going to meet in another place, but theist do.

@12345shushi

You seem to believe that you made a valid criticism. In reality their is no logical reasoning, connection between your premises nor any valid justification in any of your premises either. I dont think you realize that you haven’t really said anything other than bloviate words that dont cohere into anything meaningful

@comeasyouare4545

@12345shushi  Apparently I have said something that hits home. Do atheist believe in a afterlife? Atheists believe that humans do not have souls nor an afterlife. Even though it is a naturally parallel concept to atheism shared by many rational people it is not necessarily a common belief to all atheists and is no way a claim of atheism itself. So you haven’t  really said anything in response, Have you?

@12345shushi

@comeasyouare4545  what I’m saying, is that you just say stuff and they don’t really amount nor prove anything. Take for example a belief in a afterlife, whether one is a theist or an atheist, isn’t the same exact belief as the existence of God. It may be correlated, more closer to theism than atheism, but the belief and existence of the afterlife isn’t mutually exclusive to either theism or atheism definitively just like 1+1=2.

Again you just say stuff, but fail to understand that you aren’t making any real points. I could care less if Jim Jones was a theist (of whatever variety), an atheist (of whatever variety) or whatever metaphysical views he held to, actually what does matter and is relevant and proveable was that he was working with the cia

Again atheists like yourself like to say a lot of stuff without actually saying anything meaningful. I mean you just avoid Jim Jone’s own words saying that he is an atheist. Rather, as a desperate atheist apologist you respond with what you believe to be a nail in the coffin “but ummm he said weell seee eeeaaccchhh ottthhaa inn theeee aftawlifeee” without explaining how those words really help make your conclusive case.

What if he was saying those words to comfort his cult followers who they themselves were communist atheists, who followed their messaiah blindly selling everything that they had? Just because he said those words, it doesn’t really say much, just like if I were to say “it’s raining cats and dogs outside” or “I’ll remain a bachelor until my death”, or if an atheist says “you are doing God’s work” etc.

In your case, those words alone may make it seem like he was a type of theist that perhaps is somehow reconciable with communism and it’s atheistic metaphysical pressupositions, but when taking together with his other statements where he definitevly answers his metaphysical beliefs about God’s existence, it’s the case that he’s just saying words of comfort to his scared followers,

which everyone usually says without much thought, or some sort of panpsychiest atheistic belief that he msy have had, who knows, nothing conclusive on that statement, nor anything that would warrant it to be an important indicator of his personal metaphysical views.

The one who seems troubled or disturbed about this is you. I’ve seen spiritual abuses in churches, heard of disturbing cases of cultic and religious abuse from power hungrey spiritual leaders (some theists, pantheists, atheists, etc), and it doesn’t make me question whether God exists or not, all it tells me is that humans are curroptable species that seek power, who are welling to defame and pollute the sacred and capitalize on their on personal sacrilegious gains, so what?

It seems that you are having quite a difficult time in coming ino terms with the stone cold reality of the depravities and atrocities commited under atheism, I mean atheists killed and murdered more in the 20th century alone than all of the religious wars and persecutions from Christianity, Talmudism, Islam, Hinduism, etc put together from all of the other previous centuries combined.

I don’t really care about this argument in using that to prove God’s existence as that isn’t a strong relevant argument like other ones, and plus, what people call themselves as followers of says nothing about the primary sources of said religions or metaphysocal worldviews. It seems that you can’t come to terms with people believing that there doesn’t exist God, and that they are capable of doing what Jim Jones did, or worse.

@comeasyouare4545

@12345shushi  Just like what Kent, And Matt are saying [in the video] don’t amount to proving anything. Sorry I’m an atheist and don’t have the slightest belief in a god, or a afterlife. And no! ,many there did it because Jim Jones was their god. And He was telling them in his final words that they would meet again in another place. Now he might not have believed in a god, but he saw himself as god. Whether he was a atheist, or not isn’t the point. The point is that he was is own god, and his followers were no more atheist, then The Germans that followed Hitler. Those people weren’t  killed in the name of atheism. They were killed in the name of Jim Jones a self proclaimed god, not the Messiah. Of course he was an atheist to all other gods. Sort of like you are.

@kenammi355

Please don’t misunderstand: since I am NOT an Atheist then I’m not “trying to disown Jim Jones” since he self-identified as an Atheist: as the preponderance of the evidence shows.

You seem to be literally inventing reasons to purposefully avoid the preponderance of the evidence (did you additionally read the articles I linked in the info section?).

You merely assert, “If he was in fact an atheist his followers weren’t,” you fail to note that Atheists (by any other name) have had “churches” for many, many years, and you seem to be imposing upon him your subjective definition of Atheism and demands about what Atheists do or don’t believe–sounds like you’re pushing dogmatheism.

You would have to listen to a lot of his teachings in order to determine, from context, what he meant by “another place” and “mother.”

Atheists such as Michael Newdown claim that Atheism is a religion, take it up with them, please.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355  Yes! I understand that he said he was an atheist. I am not disputing that. What I’m saying is that He claimed to be god, and that he was an atheist to all other gods. sort of like what theist do when they say that theirs is the true god, and are atheist to all other gods. If you check, you’ll find this true. I’m sure you’ve heard this atheism is no more a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Theism is based in doctrine, and dogma. Atheism is a rejection of the doctrine, and dogma. It is not a different, or counter doctrine or dogma. I always think a parable is the best way to explain concepts to theist.

Once upon a time about two hundred thousand years ago. Two Hunters were sitting by a fire on a clear and star filled night. They had been contemplating the meaning of their existence. after a long pause in the discussion, one of the hunters said: I believe there has to be a meaning, and a purpose for our existence. A designer. The other hunter pondered this for a few moments, and then stood up, and said: I told you not to eat those mushrooms.

Hence your first atheist.

@JA-jx1hk

Bruh lmao I bet you feel like a genius for that silly little famous atheist hypothetical you came up with 😂 the argument is that Jim Jones himself was atheist and realized the conclusion of his atheism so he didn’t really care what he did to those people because to an atheist it doesn’t matter at the end of the day. Stay coping

@comeasyouare4545 replying to a certain, “Whiskey Shaman” who seems to have deleted their comments:

Yeah! Who says. Just how does it do that? Get back to me with evidence.

Kind of of a gigantic leap there. How about a nature process that follows un-understood processes. see natural processes are evident, magic isn’t Sorry it does prove one thing, that theist when they don’t understand something play the god of the gaps card.

Nope! what I understand is theist believe in the scientific method, until it comes into conflict with their religious beliefs. Like I said it  is a theory based on evidence. Not a theory based on magic. Again since we don’t know for a fact, and it is based on evidence. You could call it our best educated guess based on that evidence. Now magic did it, is an unfounded jumped to conclusion.

Because you are just another unknower claiming there’s a knower. without knowing. Because they don’t want to admit then don’t know, and are afraid of not knowing. See how that works.

I repeat my previous copy and paste:   Scientific Method:  a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. What did I win? You still haven’t told me what I won. Again with, or without that method either scientifically, or philosophically you can’t  prove the need of a god. I’ve always find it strange, or funny when a theist will argue with the scientific method , and then denounce it. Kind of makes you think they’re not playing with a full deck. don’t worry I thought that of you that way all a long.

Look I’m getting tired of trying to educate you. I think you’re smart enough to look that up yourself. So why not just do that, and get back to me with the point you’re trying to make.

I admit I’m ignorant , I don’t have to invent stories to believe I’m not.  Go ahead refute my lack of belief. See you can’t and you want to know  why? Because you have to prove your worldview first.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  Well but, in a manner of speaking, Atheism is auto-theistic: Atheists put themselves in the place of God in their lives—God says, “You shall have no gods besides me” and Atheists say, “I shall have no gods beside myself.” Daniel Dennett argued that even though he was an Atheist, Joseph Stalin believed in God since he was his own god.

So, I agree, “he said he was an atheist” and there’s no “disputing that.” From that follows that anything goes, including, “He claimed to be god.”

There are Atheists such as Michael Newdow who claim that Atheism is a religion and Atheists (by any other name) have had “churches,” etc. for many years.

Theism is based in doctrine, and dogma and Atheism is based in doctrine, and dogmatheism. But when you assert, “Atheism is a rejection of the doctrine, and dogma” you seem to miss that it is a doctrine and a dogma to affirm, “Atheism is a rejection of the doctrine, and dogma.”

Moreover, you merely imply that there’s something wrong with accidentally existing apes holding to doctrine, and dogma but don’t bother saying what, on your worldview.

Your metaphor fails for the same reason: wrong with accidentally existing apes believing that “there has to be a meaning, and a purpose for our existence” even if based on eating mushrooms?

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355  Sorry I don’t believe I’m god. You that believe in god are putting yourselves up as gods. You’ll have to explain how he was an atheist to himself believing he was god. What do they pray to in atheist churches, what doctrine, or dogma do the aspire to. Sorry atheism is not a religion. That something that the religious do. And I don’t recall any atheist church as you call them following any religion. I will repeat it again, maybe you missed it. Atheism is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby. Don’t try to bring us down to your level.   Oh! I see you like my parable. And I will have to side with modern man that has existed on the face of the earth for two hundred thousand years. You guys are proving devolution by the way. With every comment.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355  Now let’s get back to Kent. Where in the bible does it say that two of every kind of dinosaurs got on the ark. Is he just making that shit up, when he says it’s  the literal word of god.   Now he reject the earth is flat But the Bible clearly describes it as flat. 

1) The Earth is flat and circular.(Isaiah 40:22, Proverbs

     8:27, Genesis 10-11, Zechariah 9: 9 &10 )

2) Israel is in the centre of the Flat Earth. (Ezekiel 5:5 &

     Ezekiel 38:12 )

3) The Earth is supported by Pillars (1 Samuel 2:8,

     Psalm 75:3 , Job 9:6, Job 38: 4 – 6 )

4) The Earth sits in the Great Deep (Psalm 24:2 ,

     Psalm 136: 6 , Exodus 20: 4

 So why isn’t he taken that literally ?

That would be to much for even him. The theme park owner.

@comeasyouare4545

Whiskey Shaman Nope! I thought it would be a good change from copy and paste. You know break things up a little.  And I think my definition are spot on, even the one about theist. Unless you don’t believe in a god, or gods. While I have one thing to grant you, you’re hard headed. It must be from all that bible beating you got.

Tell them to stop hitting you in the head.

That’s my mood.

Your assumption is unfounded since you don’t understand the  epistemic standards. See I don’t know if you do, or don’t understand them. But I just like to say shit to make myself look smart (sarcasm)

I wouldn’t hold my breath You’re capable of looking your own definition up. Again with the leading questions. Get to your point, which I’m beginning to believe you don’t have one. But I do enjoy the banter, it’s good for the soul, No! No! that’s not right I don’t believe we have a soul. Maybe it’s good for the psyche would be a better choice of words. Look I’m going to have to start charging for your education if this continues.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  Please mind your manners.

That people who “believe in god are putting yourselves up as gods” is an incoherent category error (not that it matters on Atheism).

I don’t have to explain that, the Atheist missionary Daniel Dennett does and you’ll have to ask Atheists about what they do in their “churches” and you’ll have to tell the Atheist missionary Michael Newdow that Atheism is not a religion.

You oddly state, “So why isn’t he taken that literally ?” as a jump to a conclusion without a premise so I’ll leave you to work that one out. But you may want to be aware that literally refers to taking as it was intended so that genre is taken into consideration.

The phrase “every kind of dinosaurs” is likely an incoherent category error since dinosaurs would consist of one “kind.”

But when you (mistakenly) say “the Bible clearly describes it as flat” you imply he’s contradicting the Bible and that you condemn contradiction but only as yet another jump to a conclusion since you didn’t bother telling me what’s wrong with contradictions, on your worldview.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355  Yes, when you believe there is a god, and you speak for god. You are putting yourselves up as gods.

Again what is worshiped in a atheist church? The word church:  church, in Christian doctrine, the Christian religious community as a whole, or a body or organization of Christian believers.

The Greek word ekklēsia, which came to mean church, was originally applied in the Classical period to an official assembly of citizens. In the Septuagint (Greek) translation of the Old Testament (3rd–2nd century BCE), the term ekklēsia is used for the general assembly of the Jewish people, especially when gathered for a religious purpose such as hearing the Law (e.g., Deuteronomy 9:10, 18:16). In the New Testament it is used of the entire body of believing Christians throughout the world (e.g., Matthew 16:18), of the believers in a particular area (e.g., Acts 5:11), and also of the congregation meeting in a particular house—the “house-church” (e.g., Romans 16:5).

Now does the word church hold up to what artiest are doing.   Atheist churches aim to provide some features of a religious congregation – fellowship and collective enjoyment – while forgoing any belief in a deity or the supernatural.

So do you see the contradiction in the use of the word church. I would call them fellowships. But what’s in a name?

@comeasyouare4545

Now let’s get to taken it as intended. Apparently it has a very brood intension. It means what ever you want it to mean. The Bible categorizes the Bat among the “BIRDS” in the list of unclean animals. According to these verses, Bat is a “BIRD” that should be “DETESTED” and “abominated” and it is a symbol of darkness, desolation or ruin. Here again, you notice the obvious contradiction between the Bible and Science. Bat is a bird says Bible!

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  If (and that’s a big IF) I’m putting myself up as God: what’s wrong with that on Atheism?

Again, you’ll have to ask Atheists about what they do in their “churches” if you don’t like what they say and do then ask them about it.

Overall, you seem to be attempting to distract from the issue by nitpicking anything at which you can grasp: Atheism 101 tactic.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  Taken it as intended is reading comprehension 101, it refers to allowing a text to speak for itself, to tell us how to understand it, it’s the 100% exact opposite of “It means what ever you want it to mean.” But what does it matter, on Atheism, if Kent is reading a text as per whatever he wants it to mean?

Likewise with the bat bird thing: so what—on Atheism? Besides, you’re committing a basic logical error or looking at the issue anachronistically: you begin AFTER someone taxonomically decided to attempt to define what is a bird and what is a bat and how to categorize them and then you are going back in time to claim that however didn’t follow standard that didn’t exist until MILLENNIA later is wrong so you discredited yourself whilst leaving the Bible unscathed.

Besides, have you even read one single article about that issue? Did you carefully investigate the Hebrew word you have as “bird” (not modern Hebrew, but ancient Hebrew), or do any such things?

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355  Telling, and being supported is the difference between fiction, and nonfiction. I think you’re confusing churches with fellowships.  Kent shouldn’t have been teaching first grade science. He clearly doesn’t understand, or accept the scientific method.

A bat isn’t a bird period. Even in the bible which identifies different types of birds, it never just identifies them as just being able to fly. In fact there several birds that can’t fly.  

How do know what I’ve read? No! it has nothing to do with my logic. It has to do with how you spin what is actually said in the bible. The bible fails as a science book. It make several false claims about nature, and it is evident. There is no way around it.

Noah. No where in the bible does it say that two of every type of dinosaurs where on the bible. By the definition used by type. There should have been two of the bird dinosaurs, two of the walking, and two of the swimming. What about all the insects, and two of every fresh water fish. How about the microscopic plant’s and animals. and Bactria, and viruses. See they didn’t have a clue about them. They though disease was caused by evil spirits. There are literally millions, and millions of different types. What did they feed them each other. what did they eat when they landed on a desolate mountain top. How did the kangaroos get back to Australia. Hop across the water.

So No! Kent is a dinosaur theme park owner that scams young earth believers. Has he started serving his time yet for spousal abuse?

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  Perhaps “Telling, and being supported is the difference between fiction, and nonfiction” but on Atheism it matters not if one believes that fiction is actually nonfiction since there’d be no universal imperative to adhere to one and not the other.

Unsure why you refer to the scientific method—which is premised on biblical theology.

Now, I asked you three questions in the previous comment and you simply ignored them, including, “Besides, have you even read one single article about that issue? Did you carefully investigate the Hebrew word you have as ‘bird’ (not modern Hebrew, but ancient Hebrew), or do any such things?”

Your implied answer is clearly “No” which is why you know not of what you speak. Friend, you simply don’t understand the issue you seek to argue since you’ve not looked into the linguistics of it so you’re merely arguing anachronistically (not that it matters on Atheism) by referring to English words that refer to modern taxonomy.

Now, you say “The bible…make[s] several false claims about nature, and it is evident” and you apparently think it’s so evidence that you fails to evidence it which makes that a mere assertion: plus, most importantly, you don’t bother elucidating what would be wrong with that “The bible” supposedly, “make[s] several false claims about nature, and it is evident” on a worldview whereby there’s no universal imperative to reject false claims about accidental nature.

Recall that this is about what would seem to be one dinosaur “kind” but you now referred to “every type of dinosaurs” so it seems you may be attempting to move the goalpost (not that it matters on Atheism).

But then again, as you noted: the generic term “dinosaur” covers a lot of ground.

Many insects do well even if they are hibernating in mud as do seeds and why would there be fish in an ark that is floating on water?

What about

I don’t know to who you’re referring by “They” so can’t deal with “though disease was caused by evil spirits.”

One theory is that kangaroos get to Australia (why say “back”?) by walking across what may theorize was a supercontinent: Pangea.

But you have to deal with how kangaroos resulted from a series of accidents.

You imply something’s wrong with “spousal abuse” but don’t bother saying what’s wrong with one accidentally existing ape abusing another accidentally existing ape within an accidentally existing universe wherein there’s no universal imperative for one accidentally existing ape to not abuse another accidentally existing ape.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  It’s as if you literally don’t hear yourself speaking and are clearly not applying your world-view’s implications to your world-view, ironically.

I mean you begin by imply denying “there’s some universal truth” and end with, “There is no denying    this.” That’s a world-class, classic textbook case of a non-sequitur (not that it matters on Atheism) since if “there’s” no “universal truth” then we can literally deny anything we want so “There is…denying    this.”

By the way, is it a universal truth that there’s no universal truth?

The scientific method is based in the logic of philosophy premise on Biblical theology which is why it’s evidence based. Otherwise, if based on Atheism there’d be no justification for demanding/expecting evidence. That’s part of why Atheism has utterly nothing at all to do with science and science has utterly nothing at all to do with Atheism.

Since you positively affirmed, “Theism is based on an imagined unfound conclusion” you must prove it (not on Atheism, however—ironically).

When you say “religion is in conflict with the scientific method” you’re speaking generically enough to not be saying anything at all. But, FYI, in general the phrase, “religion is in conflict with the scientific method” is very well recognized as a mere late 1800s AD myth.

One reason that speaking in vague terms such as “religion” is that it covers just about what every person on the planet believes even when those various beliefs contradict each other (not that it matters on Atheism). Thus, I’ll let the 99% of other humans speak for themselves but biblical faith means coming to a conclusion based on previous knowledge: https://truefreethinker.com/what-is-faith

Now, when you go on to complain about “the universe, and everything in it was created in six days” it’s irrelevant to your world-view since on Atheism you’ve no imperative to demand adherence to reality/truth/facts so you’re just emoting.

Friend, before you deny that insects hibernate please look into it.

You also merely assert that seeds and fish were dealing with salt water when the saltiness of water seems to have come about due to sediment accumulating in water intra and post-flood—but did you actually verify that no seeds survive salt water?

But this is disinteresting since the point is that it matters not on your worldview and you’re just complaining based on subjective personal preferences du jour based on hidden assumptions.

Did you move the goalpost (not that it matters on Atheism) when offering, “Examples of inflictions caused by demons” when I noted, “I don’t know to who you’re referring by ‘They’ so can’t deal with “though disease was caused by evil spirits.”

You seem to me missing the point: yes, some times some diseases were caused by evil spirits/demons but you made a typically blanket statement since there’s zero indication in the Bible that all disease is caused by then. In fact, if doctors in the late 1800s AD would have followed the Torah, they wouldn’t have gone from dissecting corpses to delivering babies without proper cleansing in-between, etc.

So, if there are not statements about that all disease is caused by then and many, many, many texts about clinically dealing with infectious diseases such as leprosy (which included regimens of quarantining and repeated examinations) then they knew very well about micro organisms which is evidenced by their actions in dealing with them: have you ever read those portions of the Torah?

Now, if your subjective definition of Atheistic Evolution is true then, guess what, we’ve come full circle and are back to that the bed you made is that reality/truth/facts is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to do so which means all you’ve done is to emote: feel free to please forget the other portions of our already too long discussion and focus on this fact (not that facts matter on Atheism, of course).

Lastly, if countless answers to 2+2=? Have been invent throughout recorded history would that mean there’s no true answer?

By the way: you utterly ignore the questions I asked you, especially at the end, which I realize is very convenient for you but then what about the fact that you’re incapable of dealing with them due to your world-view’s fundamental level failure?

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  You seem to consistently fail to apply your world-view to your world-view, ironically (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism): you’ve no universal imperative to imply condemning (supposedly) double standards (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism) which you merely asserted (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism) nor (supposedly) moving the goalpost (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).

That which convinces you or not isn’t a standard.

Ironically, you, who must believe that reality is accidental, complain that I (supposedly) spin what I believe into a reality where it doesn’t exist (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism) and say it’s delusion when on your world-view our ability to discern reality is also accidental, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it.

I mean, do you ever actually consider and incorporate your world-view’s implications–even when they are pointed out to you time and again (and again and again) or do you hate Atheism so much you’ll keep refusing to sleep in the bed you’ve made?

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355  You have the false assumption that lack of belief in a god is based in science. It isn’t. Well before the advent of the scientific method there were non- believers.   This is evident. So while many theist see the scientific method in conflict with their religious beliefs. They don’t realize that the scientific method is based in, and on philosophy. The worldview as you call it, is a generalization of only a very small part of a worldview. Just like theist, atheist hold a wide spectrum  of political, and philosophical beliefs. So no It isn’t a worldview no more then yours is.

And your made up  explanation is just one of many.

Your birth, and your consciousness are an accident of chance. Are you claiming they are not.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  You keep on utterly ignoring the key issues and just continue skimming the surface so here are the same issues, again:

How, on your world-view, does it matter if and is it wrong that an accidentally existing ape accidentally interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions called thoughts holds to a “false assumption that” you “lack of belief in a god is based in science”?

How, on your world-view, does it matter if and is it wrong that an accidentally existing ape accidentally interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions called thoughts denies the “evident”?

How, on your world-view, does it matter if and is it wrong that an accidentally existing ape accidentally interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions called thoughts are theists who “see the scientific method in conflict with their religious beliefs” even when the scientific method was premised upon biblical theology which you term “philosophy”?

How, on your world-view, does it matter if and is it wrong that an accidentally existing ape accidentally interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions called thoughts misrepresent accidentally existing apes who are Atheists? Also, indeed, “atheist[s] hold a wide spectrum  of political, and philosophical beliefs” that are all, by definition, infected by Atheism so that Atheism is their worldview since they make decisions about such issues based on their core, based on dogmatheism.

If you deny Atheism is a world-view then you disagree with Dawkins (which is fine, I do it all the time) but if it’s not your world-view then in what area of your accidental thinking about anything and everything do you believe in God’s existence?

How, on your world-view, does it matter if and is it wrong that an accidentally existing ape accidentally interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions called thoughts so as to have “made up  explanation is just one of many.”?

How, on your world-view, does it matter if and is it wrong that an accidentally existing ape accidentally interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions called thoughts denies your mere assertion that “Your birth, and your consciousness are an accident of chance”?

How, on your world-view, does it matter if and is it wrong that an accidentally existing ape accidentally interpreting accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions called thoughts denies that “they are not”?

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  What you say is utterly irrelevant on your worldview since on your worldview there’s no universal imperatives to be logical, nor ethical, etc. Now, if Atheism is just “only one very narrow aspect of what would be considered a world view” then in what area of your thinking about anything and everything at all do you actually believe in God’s existence?

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355  My belief has nothing to do with the invented explanation of a god to explain what isn’t know. I would think that it is more honest to accept my ignorance then accept a story that is not supported other then ones imagination. I do not pretend to know to hide my fear of not knowing. I can only base my beliefs  on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm. Even you can only imagine from a materialistic vantage. Of what a spiritual would be.  Logic is the bases of philosophy, and philosophy is the bases of science, and theism is the bases of an imagined explanation, supported by the fear of not knowing.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  Indeed, I utterly agree that “My belief has nothing to do with the invented explanation of a god to explain what isn’t know.”

By you seem to be appealing to the ignorance of the gaps while I’m basing my views on what we know.

What evidence is there in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm that leads to the conclusion that you can only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm?

Now, if you want to conclude that the materialistic realm is accidental, and so is all it contains including you, your brain, your thoughts then there no universal imperative to only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm.

Thus, that’s totally self-defeating.

In fact, you refer to being “more honest” without a premise for being honest in the first place nor for avoiding basing views on “ones imagination” nor for appealing to or employing logic, philosophy, science, etc.

See, you collapsed your entire worldview.

FYI: the scientific method was premised on biblical theology and biblical theism is supported by many things including what we know.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355  So basically you just confirmed everything I said, but you made an exception for god, but not just any god the one you’re smoking. Didn’t need four paragraph to say that. And no! the scientific method is based on philosophy, You know one of the first groups to openly question the whole god claim.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  Right, so “My belief has nothing to do with the invented explanation of a god to explain what isn’t know” but about the actually existing one who is the explanation for the known.

On your worldview even seeking to know anything is a subjective personal preference du jour.

Thus, gain, “seem to be appealing to the ignorance of the gaps while I’m basing my views on what we know.”

You ignored, “What evidence is there in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm that leads to the conclusion that you can only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm?”

You ignored, “Now, if you want to conclude that the materialistic realm is accidental, and so is all it contains including you, your brain, your thoughts then there no universal imperative to only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm. Thus, that’s totally self-defeating.”

You ignored, “In fact, you refer to being ‘more honest’ without a premise for being honest in the first place nor for avoiding basing views on ‘ones imagination’ nor for appealing to or employing logic, philosophy, science, etc. See, you collapsed your entire worldview.”

And as for “the scientific method is based on philosophy,” just swapping out a word doesn’t change history: the scientific method was premised on biblical philosophy and biblical theism is supported by many things including what we know.

@comeasyouare4545

@kenammi355  What evidence? You attributing things that are known to god is not evidence of god. It is evidence of an excuse.

@kenammi355

@comeasyouare4545  Again (and again), “seem to be appealing to the ignorance of the gaps while I’m basing my views on what we know.”

You ignored, “What evidence is there in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm that leads to the conclusion that you can only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm?”

You ignored, “Now, if you want to conclude that the materialistic realm is accidental, and so is all it contains including you, your brain, your thoughts then there no universal imperative to only base your beliefs on what is evident in what is physically evident in the materialistic realm. Thus, that’s totally self-defeating.”

You ignored, “In fact, you refer to being ‘more honest’ without a premise for being honest in the first place nor for avoiding basing views on ‘ones imagination’ nor for appealing to or employing logic, philosophy, science, etc. See, you collapsed your entire worldview.”

And as for “the scientific method is based on philosophy,” just swapping out a word doesn’t change history: the scientific method was premised on biblical philosophy and biblical theism is supported by many things including what we know.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The following discussions too place in the comments section of the video titled BIGGEST Real Life Skeletons Unearthed!

@thorgot911

Nephilim are not fallen angels. They are the descendants of fallen angels who mated with mortal women.

@thebiggest4652 (who posted the video)

Noted. Thanks for the clarification!

I, @kenammi355, replied:

Appreciate your spirit of accepting correction. The next issue is that we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim so we cannot even claim they were one inch taller than average.

@rhondaclark716

No. Satan and the falling angels was cast out of heaven. They saw that the daughters of God was fair. The offspring of the giants falling angels are giants the size of cedar trees. Who couldn’t do anything more to GODS DAUGHTERS. They had sex with animals recess positive ..the offspring of the giants are the Nephillim. Half human half animals. The Nephillim can’t do anything to Gods daughters today. The woman seed in genesis 3:15, or the mother and baby dies during childbirth .

@luvontamehlo5750

Angels cannot procreate, how can they have descendants? If you mean pre-flood giants, the Bible teaches that humans were giants, it does not say humans and Angels procreated.

@kenammi355

@luvontamehlo5750  Friend, what makes you think that “Angels cannot procreate”? No, I do not mean “pre-flood giants” since I do not know what you mean by the vague, generic, subjective, and undefined English term “giants.” I mean pre-flood Nephilim. The Bible teaches that some humans were tall/of great stature (compared to Israelites, males of whom averaged 5.0-5.3 ft in those days). Job 38:7 gives us an example that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings thus, it helps us understand Gen 6 (and Jude, and 2 Peter 2).

@dorisbrinkerhoff8124

yeah thats right its a no brainer for Christians

@pattracy670

Came in UFO’S and then in human women-angel-spiritual entities who can travel about without a UFO and are ghostlike beings.⚡🤔 a a a alien.Demon-nephillum giant disembodied soul-not of angelic origin,try alien damned souls who cannot reincarnate-da da da demon. Deep state-draconian/reptillian aliens-the DEVIL horned red eyed evil alien shapeshifters.👉👽👉😈👉🤯

@kenammi355

@pattracy670  (Some) “aliens” are a cover story for demons.

@pattracy670

Aliens travel in space craft,spiritual beings wouldn’t need an a space ship now would they??-ancient aliens,Look this up-demon is a disembodied nephillum giant,ALIEN OFFSPRING cannot reinarnate so a demon is spawned.angry stuck in purgatory human/alien hybrids.a spiritual alien screwed my mom,not.

A fallen angel is an alien who does what they want-free will-so there are thousands of alien species in space travelling around-lifted  angels I would guess?? Here’s a shocker-God-lord Hatonn and jesus sananda who are ASHTAR Command aliens-jesus sananda is said to be jesus,lucifer and the antichrist who associates with the deep state reptillian aliens 👉🤯

@kenammi355

@pattracy670  Just like “ASHTAR Command” was named after the false goddess Ishatar, the claim that “aliens-jesus sananda is said to be jesus,lucifer and the antichrist” is mere New Age sci-fi Gnosticism.

@kenammi355

Ladyintheriver Castin Since the world “aliens” is as vague, generic, subjective and undefined as “giants” then sure, “aliens” can apply to many things/beings.

@pattracy670

what you think you know is not reality-SphereBeingAlliance channel to name one still not deleted.sheeple cant make sense of it.

@kenammi355

@pattracy670  Can’t make sense of what?

@pattracy670

@kenammi355 👽🛸 aliens as the ☀️✝️😈🔺️👁 GODS @ galactic federation ,human/alien ALLIANCE. SANANDA and the commanda🤘😈🤙✝️🔺️👁 the? Trickster 🔺️⚡☀️⚡🔺️

@judahscub3260

@luvontamehlo5750  Where in the Bible does it say they can’t procreate? They don’t procreate (except the fallen ones)but it does not say anywhere in the Bible that they can’t procreate.

@DanaKerr

just a bigger race of humans who got smaller over time…

@saliserbezov8592

No nephlilim are the descendants of the sons of God the “Sons of God” in this passage means the descendants of Seth the son of Adam because they kept worshiping the one true God unlike cain and his descendant males and  females  the females were known as “daughters of men” so like worldly women

@judahscub3260

@luvontamehlo5750  Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Angels can not procreate, no where at all.

@saliserbezov8592  Wrong…read Job and you will see who the REAL Sons of GOD are and what happened when they presented themselves to ABBA YAHUAH. Your “Sethite Theory “ must be from Debunked Rob Skiba. STUDY to show yourself approved

@kenammi355

@DanaKerr  That’s a level headed comment. Yet, I think that’s still granting too much: most of this stuff is just someone saying they heard someone say that they heard someone say something about what someone said, etc.

@dailydoseofviralvideos07

@kenammi355  True

@kenammi355

@DanaKerr  We cannot really discuss “Giants” until you define what you mean by it. You are implying the strictly modern usage of something unspecifically vague about subjectively unusual height. If that is what you mean then it is a non-issue: of course subjectively unusually tall people have always existed.

I wrote a chapter about “a likely coverup” in my book “Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales” and all I found was that someone heard someone say that they heard something from someone who heard someone claim something they heard from someone, etc., etc., etc. In fact, I also have a chapter therein titled, “Polydactyly or Prestidigitation?”

@federalpedo2290

Thank Noah he found favor with god

@saliserbezov8592

@judahscub3260  yes but the passage in job doesn’t necessarily point to angels for example we’re called sons of God when we accept Jesus into our life’s and give our life’s to Him

@saliserbezov8592

@itr1794  yea I agree but exactly where in the New Testament does it say that Christians in the afterlife will angels

@Astro-cn2nx

Basically like a half breed between angel and human

@kenammi355

@witness8907  I appreciate that you admit that “sons of God” can refer to Angles. As for the rest of your comment: sounds like made up stuff, I mean you have “sons of God are fallen raise [whatever that means] ,who keep,follow the Gods commandment and worship the living God” who are don’t really “follow the Gods commandment and worship the living God” since they mated with “Daughters of men are the cain descendant,cain turn away from Living God and his descendant forgot the living God and start worshiping the baal,trees,idol,sun,moon etc.” and resulted in the flood.

@witness8907

@kenammi355  : If want to know the story and truth..read whole Genesis chapter.

Instead of assuming that i am wrong or made up story.

@KeithGreenshields

@rhondaclark716  Not Satan etc. It was the watchers, a different group of angels. Research it.

@fivemjs

Correct

@KeithGreenshields

The book of Enoch tells about the Giants and how big they were. There is a misinterpretation of them being 3000 ell’s tall meaning about 1 mile. To clarify this, you will find the answer to the  mystery in the book of Enoch. I will qutoe the summary of the actual size.

“A few words should be said about the giants mentioned in the Bible (Genesis) and by Enoch. The expert Milik, who translated fragments of the Book of Enoch found in the Dea Sea Scrolls, tells us that we should understand the giants as being about 60 feet or 20 meters tall, not higher. Even this way, it sounds an absurd size”.

(Schnieders, Paul. The Books of Enoch: Complete edition: Including (1) The Ethiopian Book of Enoch, (2) The Slavonic Secrets and (3) The Hebrew Book of Enoch (p. 5). International Alliance Pro-Publishing, LLC. Kindle Edition).

@kenammi355

@KeithGreenshields  It actually outright states 3,000 ells which is more than one mile. Bottom line is that we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim.

@balzaak4803

@rhondaclark716  you confused all of that

@balzaak4803

@luvontamehlo5750  it actually says that angels had sexual relations with the daughters of man and had offspring, who were the Nephilim, they were infamous for their violent and terrifying size and nature. They were known as fellers of men because they were so horribly violent. It is believed, the Greek, Roman, and Norse Gods were actually derived from them, but no one can really know for sure

@kanlou1347

BEFORE THE FLOOD  Look at HOW BIG fossils of Plants and insects were along with other living things.  LOOK at  Hebrews Chapter 1 verse 5   ◄ Hebrews 1:5 ►

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?  ANGELS ARE NOT SONS OF GOD

Angels DO NOT HAVE A GENDER They are not Male or Female

@kenammi355

@kanlou1347  When “BEFORE THE FLOOD” we “Look at…fossils” we notice “HOW BIG” only some of them were: for example, the average size of a dinosaur being like a sheep. Hebrews 1 is telling us that no Angel is God’s son like Jesus’ one and only unique, only begotten, authoritative, etc., Son.

If “ANGELS ARE NOT SONS OF GOD” who are the sons of God in Job 38:7?

You say “Angels DO NOT HAVE A GENDER They are not Male or Female” but they are always described as looking just like human males.

@popeyesmudfosils9620

@luvontamehlo5750   there were 2 floods.

One flood befor Noahs.

@kenammi355

@kanlou1347  Only some fossils of plants and insects are subjectively bigger, some are not so you can’t just assume that everything was bigger.

I don’t base my theology, or Angelology, on one single verse so note that Hebrews chap. 1 is about that no one, including Angels, is a son of God in the same way as Jesus is THE Son of God since He’s unique, authoritative, God’s only-begotten, etc.

How are the sons of God in Job 38:7?

Angles are called man/men and are described as male.

@kenammi355

@popeyesmudfosils9620  What makes you think so?

@gillydey9764

Correct hundred percent

@theempress2731

@rhondaclark716  listen to what u said Satan and falling angels had sexwith gods daughter that make them brother and sister and evil with pure. God never said angels! He said his sons! Not every spiritual being is an angel! The Bible says the Sons of God MARRIED and had children with sons of MEN. and their children came out old and renowned.  The were NOT giants, God said Giants were already on earth before and after the angels married and bore children with human woman. Do not blasphemy God  word

@brorow6821

@kenammi355  Who is we ? They is more like it, They have plenty of reliable evidence of giant’s but that doesn’t mean they are going to tell you.

@kenammi355

@brorow6821  Please be more specific: there are circa 50 comments in this thread.

@Lee__________

@judahscub3260   👍🏼 Correct. So one must assume that angels are male.

@64fairlane305

@luvontamehlo5750  they were able to once, read the book

And that, as they say, what that since no one replied anymore.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The following is a discussion that took place due to my video Whitley Strieber “Communion” movie clips.

Matthew Mcpadden

Was thinking about this movie a week ago and “BOOM” its at the library plain as day.  Never seen it there before and that is a really off-pop movie from the 80’s.  It was weird seeing it there.  Any who.  At the beginning when they sleep the first night at the cabin it has a shot of the moon.  Not moon actually.  Moon’s.  There was a perfect pictures of two moons and the same reflection off the twin moons just below it from the camera.  Gotta tell ya.  I think I would remember something like that when I was a teenager.  Today everyone is talking about Planet X.  People have photo captures of twin suns around the world.  Now when I watch an old movie I liked as a kid it “clearly” has a shot of two moon’s side by side.  Strange times we live in.

Ken Ammi

That location depicts the cabin wherein he claims he had his first experience with the “Visitors” whom he also calls “Grays” in his meditation room so there is an occult connection.

Matthew Mcpadden

Ya, I remember.  I requested the movie “Endangered Species” from that say time period.

After I started watching communion I decided to take it back to the library.  I’m saved today and I think it was inappropriate for me to watch or have in my home so after the twin moon’s part i returned it immoderately.

Worlds getting crazy out there bubba and I’m trying to stay on my toes and right with Christ.

Sniff Heinkel

Occult connection? What occult connection? I’ve read the books and I’ve seen the movie many times. There’s nothing about the Occult and demonology in Whitley Strieber’s account. It sounds to me like you just want to inject demons into anything unexplainable.

Ken Ammi

“I felt an absolutely indescribable sense of menace. It was hell on earth to be there, and yet I couldn’t move, couldn’t cry out, couldn’t get away…Whatever was there seemed so monstrously ugly, so filthy and dark and sinister. Of course they were demons. They had to be. And they were here and I couldn’t get away”

–Whitley Strieber, “Transformation” (1988 AD ed. p. 181)

Sniff Heinkel

All that means is that he thought they were demons. It doesn’t prove they are.

Ken Ammi

That was in reply to you asserting, “There’s nothing about the Occult and demonology in Whitley Strieber’s account.” Now you know that there is. Thus, it was, after all, Strieber himself who “just want to inject demons into anything unexplainable.”

SniffHeinkel

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You were right and I was wrong. Happy?

Ken Ammi

I just thought we were discussing what Streiber said.

Well, that was the end of it as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

I suppose we will begin at the end since I encountered that Ross answered the question via a Facebook post which read, “The explanation for the post-flood Nephilim is that sons of God, distinct from those who went to the daughters of humans before the flood, went to the daughters of humans born after the flood” along with a link to the website post.

On FB I noted that the statement, “is an anti-biblical tall-tale for which there’s zero reliable biblical indication and which implies God failed: He meant to be rid of them but couldn’t get the job done, the flood was much of a waste, they found a loophole to get past the flood that God missed, etc.”

It turns out that the new FB post (new as of when I wrote this) was to a 2014 Q&A which asked Hugh Ross, in part:

Genesis 6:4 reads, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.”

If the flood of Noah wiped out all the Nephilim, then where did the Nephilim who show up after the flood come from?

If the sons of God were fallen angels and if these misbehaving angels were locked up in the abyss, as Jude 6 declares, then how could they come back to visit the daughters of humans?

If the sons of God were human men, then from whose gene pool did they come?

Is it possible that some of the pre-flood Nephilim actually survived the flood catastrophe?

My replies would have been:

“How Did the Nephilim Reappear after the Flood?” is the wrong question, the primary question should have been: Did the Nephilim Reappear after the Flood? The biblical answer to which is a definitive, full, and final, “No”—period, full stop.

Thus, “where did the Nephilim who show up after the flood come from?” nowhere since they didn’t show up after the flood.

“If the sons of God were fallen angels and if these misbehaving angels were locked up in the abyss, as Jude 6 declares, then how could they come back to visit the daughters of humans?” they didn’t.

“If the sons of God were human men, then from whose gene pool did they come?” they weren’t so it’s a non-issue.

“Is it possible that some of the pre-flood Nephilim actually survived the flood catastrophe?” no, lest God failed and you demand on contradicting the Bible five times: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

Now we get into Hugh Ross’ answers.

“Second Peter 2:5 states that all of the ungodly were wiped out in Noah’s flood. Genesis 7 in multiple verses confirms that indeed all of humanity and all soulish creatures associated with humanity, except for those on board the ark, were killed. Thus, the Nephilim did not survive the flood catastrophe.”

At least he did not have them surviving the flood.

He continues, “The explanation for the post-flood Nephilim is that sons of God, distinct from those who went to the daughters of humans before the flood, went to the daughters of humans born after the flood.”

That is a mere assertion for which there is zero data which is why he did not quote nor cite anything at all: it’s literally just his say so.

Granted, Jude and 2 Peter 2 affirm that the sinful Angels, all of them, were incarcerated. While Jude and 2 Peter 2 don’t specify when they were incarcerated, it makes sense that since the flood was when God was cleaning house, as it were, then that would have been the time. If not then, again, the flood was much of a waste since they just came right back and did it all again.

Note also that there was only a one-time sin of Angels and combining Jude and 2 Peter 2 results in that the sin was (strictly) pre-flood and sexual in nature, both of which fit the Genesis 6 affair (as I term it).

Thus, Hugh Ross has more, other, Angels sinning post-flood but there’s no in indication of any such thing no whatsoever.

Ross added, “If these sons of God were fallen angels, then these fallen angels are in addition to the ones who were locked up in the abyss as a result of their having sexual relations with human females before the flood.”

Well, that’s a big IF and, again, there’s zero indication of any such thing anywhere.

As for, “If these sons of God were fallen angels” well, the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators alike, for many, many centuries, is that they were—see my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?

A direct route is to note that as per Job 38:7, sons of God can refer to non-human beings.

Hugh Ross is so specific about his made-up scenario that he specifies, “Thus, the abyss would contain two sets of fallen angels: those who had violated human women before the flood and those who had violated human women after the flood.”

It’s technically Tartatus but abyss would be a fair enough generalization, I suppose.

He continues, “If the sons of God were human males, this interpretation would imply that God had commanded the sons of Shem and/or Japheth not to have sexual relations with the daughters of Ham and/or Canaan. The violation of this command evidently would have produced a second generation of Nephilim.”

This is another invention which he at least qualifies with, “If…were…would imply…evidently would” and with, “a second generation of,” post-flood, “Nephilim” implying God failed.

Actually, there many have been a second generation and many, many more but that would have all been strictly pre-flood.

Hugh Ross also notes, “the second appearance of the Nephilim seems much more limited than the first. Thanks to a small Hebrew nation, and especially to David and his mighty men, the few post-flood Nephilim were completely exterminated.”

In other words, mere humans managed to accomplish that which God couldn’t—at least, such is the implication.

Yet, there’s precisely zero reliable indication that anyone ever dealt with Nephilim post-flood—in any way, shape, or form.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Under consideration is Hugh Ross’ Reasons to Believe article Q&A: How Did the Nephilim Reappear after the Flood?

Hugh Ross was asked:

“If the flood of Noah wiped out all the Nephilim, then where did the Nephilim who show up after the flood come from?

If the sons of God were fallen angels and if these misbehaving angels were locked up in the abyss, as Jude 6 declares, then how could they come back to visit the daughters of humans?

If the sons of God were human men, then from whose gene pool did they come?

Is it possible that some of the pre-flood Nephilim actually survived the flood catastrophe?”

He affirms that “Nephilim did not survive the flood catastrophe” which is accurate and seals the deal—or, it should (since it does, biblically speaking).

However, Hugh Ross goes on to push for post-flood Nephilim based on pure, and unbiblical, speculations. This is rather than wondering why anyone would ever argue in favor of post-flood Nephilim in the first place.

He states, “The explanation for the post-flood Nephilim is that sons of God, distinct from those who went to the daughters of humans before the flood, went to the daughters of humans born after the flood” for which there is no biblical support whatsoever.

He adds, “If these sons of God were fallen angels, then these fallen angels are in addition to the ones who were locked up in the abyss as a result of their having sexual relations with human females before the flood” for which there is no biblical support whatsoever and, in fact, there is only a one time fall of Angels mentioned in the Bible.

Also, the logic is that “Nephilim did not survive the flood catastrophe” and “fallen angels…were locked” the implication of which his that it was all a waste and God failed since more Angels did it all again.

Hugh Ross offers this alternative, “If the sons of God were human males, this interpretation would imply that God had commanded the sons of Shem and/or Japheth not to have sexual relations with the daughters of Ham and/or Canaan. The violation of this command evidently would have produced a second generation of Nephilim” for which there is no biblical support whatsoever.

He then notes that “the second appearance of the Nephilim seems much more limited than the first. Thanks to a small Hebrew nation, and especially to David and his mighty men, the few post-flood Nephilim were completely exterminated” for which there is no biblical support whatsoever.

He ends with “In Navigating Genesis, appendix C, I include lists of all the Scripture passages mentioning ‘sons of God,’ ‘sons of men,’ ‘children of God,’ and ‘children of men.’ Those texts will help you see how the entire Bible treats this subject” but something is conspicuously missing: where is his list of Scripture passages that mention post-flood (which is almost the entire Bible) “Nephilim”?

Well, that list would consist of precisely one single citations: Numbers 13:33.

Perhaps I ought to try my hand at replying to the questions before I bring it all home.

“If the flood of Noah wiped out all the Nephilim, then where did the Nephilim who show up after the flood come from?”

There is no “If” but “since.” The other issue is that the second part of the question needs to be replied to with a question in turn: what makes you think there were post-flood Nephilim? I know, I know: Numbers 13:33—to which we shall get.

“If the sons of God were fallen angels and if these misbehaving angels were locked up in the abyss, as Jude 6 declares, then how could they come back to visit the daughters of humans?”

They did not, nor did any others ever.

“If the sons of God were human men, then from whose gene pool did they come?”

They were not human (most directly, Job 38:7 proves that “sons of God” can refer to non-humans since those “sons of God” witnessed, at least, the creation of Earth).

“Is it possible that some of the pre-flood Nephilim actually survived the flood catastrophe?”

No: they did not survive, did not return, never will, in any way, shape, or form—unless you want to imply that God failed.

So, what of Numbers 13:33? Well, that is the one single verse upon which the entire post-flood Nephilim theory is based. That there were post-flood Nephilim (against all logic and theo-logic), that they were very tall, and that Anakim were related to them is all base on one single verse.

Firstly: that verse is recording assertions made by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies who presented an “evil report” and whom God rebuked.

Secondly, they made four claims about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing: 1) that there were post-flood Nephilim, 2) that they were very tall, 3) that Anakim were related to them, 4) that all of the people of the land were “of great stature.”

Thirdly, they contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible since they affirm that Anakim, et al., were in the land but never say one single word about Nephilim, nor relation to them.

Fourthly, when Moses related that event in Deuteronomy 1:27-28 he mentions Anakim but, again, says not a word about Nephilim. Also, in the Septuagint/LXX version (which is v. 34 therein) Anakim are not mentioned.

Thus, there are multiple very serious issues with that once verse and just to pick it up without interacting with the narrative, take it as “gospel truth” and build an entire all-encompassing theory from it—which leads to the unbiblical speculation into which Hugh Ross was forced—is inappropriate hermeneutically, logically, theo-logically, and even on a basic commonsense level.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The following discussions took place due to the (fallaciously) titled video Ken Ammi, Evidence for God?

It was fallaciously titled by the host Tom Jump aka TJump since that wasn’t to be the agreed upon topic.

I posted it as Atheist TJump & Messianic Jew Ken Ammi AGREE!!!

Brian Manzolli commented:v

The amount of words Ken uses to say absolutely nothing is awe-striking. This sounds more like a conversation about planning a meeting to have a conversation about evidence for God rather than just a conversation.

 He’s like a kid who can’t swim that hosts a pool party. And all of his friends show up and hop in and he’s standing there, poolside, talking about all of the different dives he has to choose from to get in the water. And fast forward five hours later to see him still standing there talking while the last of his guests have long since left. We know you can’t swim, Ken. It’s really not that big of a deal. Some accidental apes will be jerks to you about it and that sucks. But you DID willingly enter the ape cage, to be fair.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

If you watched the video you would know that I have no idea why the video is titled as such since we never agreed to discuss that.

Now, it’s not surprising that you left a jerk comment since if you’re a Jumperian Atheist then you realized that you are literally incapable of condemning me or claiming that I did anything objectively wrong–or even that I am objectively wrong. Thus, you are stuck with a failed worldview according to which all you have are subjective personal preferences so that you have discredited yourself from any actual critique which beings us full circle to why you decided to merely emote.

Dark commented:

Objective morals and objective meaning is nonsense theist garbage. Morals for a theist is just subjective commands from God on how to behave and at the drop of a hat a God could command u to commit acts that civilised people find immoral, like i dont know, like whats in the majority of holy books including the jewish bible and meaning is always subjective since meaning in things is found by beings. This entire video u just evaded talking about your own beliefs and reasons for them but u asserted that an athiest worldview has to be nihilistic because if no God nothing matters including truth. Which is an obviously terrible argument, if u were really that dense that u couldn’t see any reason that an athiest would want to survive and know the truth then just [****]ing ask them, like for example  ask Tjump why an athiest would value truth or morals, instead of wasting everyones time by asserting that athiest have to be nihilist, but ill give u credit,  at times u were a great clown for the live chat

Rafał Łabuda commented:

Will I send you some cream for that hurting butt? It’s free…

The Time Capsule of Patrick and Asia Harris commented:

dude is cutting and pasting this same comment for everyone. Holy crap this guy is trash

Scott Withington commented:

ken, he was being a jerk but then you try and respond with a concept that is way beyond your capabilities at this point. In listening to the debate, The frustration for us listeners mostLy  lies in that you didn’t bring anything to the table

Ken Ammi reply to Dark

Let’s examine the bed you just made to see if you’ll sleep in it: “Objective morals and objective meaning is nonsense theist garbage” so it’s all subjective personal preference, right? And if it’s all subjective personal preference then you just disqualified yourself from ever condemning anything, al you can say is that you have personally, subjectively, emotively, decided to not like something.

Ken Ammi to The Time Capsule of Patrick and Asia Harris:

Have you ever tested the waters to see which of dozens and dozens of people are interested in actually engaging in a discussion? I just did and we’ll see who was just making a drive by. BTW: you appear to be incapable of counter-arguing and so are just being childish.

Ken Ammi to Scott Withington:

You’re kidding, right? I argued, up front, that 1. On Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, 2. As is our ability to discern it, 3. There’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, 4. Nor to demand/expect others adhere to it. Tom ended up agreeing with me on each point and admitted that for him it all comes down to subjective personal preferences du jour.

Dark:

incorrect, the most important of my personal preferences align with the majority of every human being on the planet, for example, not wanting suffering and  injustice.  news flash we have laws against assault and injustice because it harms peoples lives. While u just have an ancient primitive book that has a god commanding and commiting notrositys.

Cygnus Ustus:

I don’t know how you could make up any title for the video,  post-facto, and not still end up looking like a fool.

Schiwi M:

That guy is totally frustrating, the first hour was already useless

Ken Ammi to Dark:

And yet, on Atheism the most important of my personal preferences is still just a subjective personal preference and proposing an argumentum ad populum (not that it matters on Atheism) is no remedy.

 

You are jumping to conclusions, “we have laws against assault and injustice because it harms peoples lives” but you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.

 

You are jumping to conclusions in committing a genetic logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism) by stating, “have an ancient primitive book” but you don’t bother saying how or why having an ancient primitive book is problematic, on Atheism.

 

You are jumping to conclusions by merely asserting, “god commanding and commiting notrositys” but you don’t bother saying how or why that’s problematic, on Atheism—speaking of “notrositys”: do you believe that morality evolved?

Ken Ammi to Cygnus Ustus:

I know but, such is what Tom did.

Ken Ammi to Schiwi M:

Yet, what you find subjectively frustrating is not a standard. My primary points were: 1. On Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, 2. As is our ability to discern it, 3. There’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, 4. Nor to demand/expect that others adhere to it. Tom ended up agreeing with me on each point and admitted that. That’s why he took the fallback position that it all comes down to subjective personal preferences based fun du jour.

Ceasetoknow to me:

1. either being accidental has nothing to do with the impossibility of discerning truth. 2. the imperative exists for those who care about that truth and being intellectually honest, something you’ll likely never be.

Schiwi M to me:

you’re frustrating because you’re talking a lot without saying anything, you’re running in circles because you can’t agree on the most basic things.

This conversation was basically like

Tom: “The sky looks blue”

You: “What do you mean by blue?”

Tom: “The color blue”

You: “but that’s totally subjective and just made up by us humans”

[****] like that is annoying

Cygnus Ustus to me:

…and you still ended up looking like a fool.

Dark to me:

ok first of all, never in my reply did i say something is good or right because the majority says so, i said that  “the most important of my personal preferences align with the majority of every human being on the planet, for example, not wanting suffering and  injustice.” no where in that did i use an adpoplum fallacy, i was pointing out a fact and then i said  “news flash we have laws against assault and injustice because it harms peoples lives.” no where in that did i use an adpoplum which shows you dont understand the fallacy.

2nd of all you confuse me when you said “but you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.” this is a very confused statement, Athiesm has nothing to do with morality or what some ones preferences are, its just the nonbelief in deities, beings are the ones that moral endeavors matter to, and for most beings like humans, pain and unfairness is something the majority of us hate and actively make decisions to avoid them, which is why we have laws that punish those that cause these things. so stop saying things are problematic for atheism as if athiesm is a being, unless you had good evidence for a God which would be problematic for the athiest position. and for your last question, i would say morality did evolve because through out time humans  have been reasoning for how they should treat each other and i would say its gotten progressively better from the past up till now so far.

Ken Ammi to Schiwi M:

Please mind your manners.

I see that you decided to utterly run away from THE main issues.

Friend, “it’s not a problem on atheism” is a mere assertion.

Now, you merely assert I’m being intellectually dishonest but don’t bother saying what’d be wrong with that on your world-view.

Also, what subjectively annoys you is not a standard.

So, how about you focus on the main issue, the 4 points with which Tom agreed, the 4 which instantly reduced him to claiming that for him it’s all about having subjective fun based on personal preferences du jour.

Ken Ammi to Cygnus Ustus:

Are you only able to make assertions or can you elucidate?

For example, what, on your world-view, does it matter if an accidentally existing ape ended up looking like a fool?

Also, you seem to have missed that I made 4 points at the outset, Tom agreed, and it instantly reduced him to claiming that for him it’s all about having subjective fun based on personal preferences du jour.

Ken Ammi to Dark:

Friend, this is one of the very, very few (maybe the only) discussions in this comments section that is on point and interesting and for that, I thank you. 

On Atheism logical fallacies are not a problem so you don’t have to waste my time attempting to run away from the fact that you committed one. You most certainly committed an argumentum ad populum when you asserted that your subjective personal preferences “align with the majority.”

Now, whether a subjective personal preference is held by one person of the majority still means it’s just a subjective personal preference so imposing it on me is incoherent (not that incoherence matters on Atheism—nor does it matter if I’m wrong about your fallacy).

One way to look at it is that “Athiesm has nothing to do with morality” which is the problem in the first place.

Yet, of course Atheism has to do with morality and ones preferences since it’s a world-view.

But, if “its just the nonbelief in deities” then in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you accept God’s existence?

As for that you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.

You merely moved the goalpost (even if accidentally and not that it matters on Atheism) by now merely asserting, “most beings [another argumentum ad populum?] like humans, pain and unfairness is something the majority of us hate” so you you don’t bother saying how or why pain and unfairness are problematic, on Atheism nor why what the majority hates is any sort of standard.

Keep in mind that on Atheism pain and hate are the accidental byproducts of accidental bio-organic neural-reactions accidentally determined by the accidental laws of physics and as interpreted by accidentally existing apes within an accidental universe wherein there’s no universal imperative to not cause pain or be unfair—which his why you appeal to the majority in the first place.

As for “good evidence for a God” as you well known, the first step is for you to justify your demand for evidence, on your world-view (and then we can discuss your subjective idea of what is “good” evidence).

If you think that “morality” has “gotten progressively better” you must live a very cloistered life in a modern first world country.

But more importantly, if “morality did evolve,” and so is actually still evolving, then you have disqualified yourself from ever condemning anything since you can’t condemn any past actions (since what’s immoral today could have been moral back then: and visa versa, actually), nor could you really condemn anything today (since for all you know the moral zeitgeist is even now turning into a poltergeist and so what was moral now will be immoral one second later: and visa versa, actually).

But then again, you can’t ever actually condemn anything anyhow since your view is pure subjectivism—which you seek to bypass by appealing to the utter subjectivism of the majority.

Also, you hold to a world-view according to which there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes adhering to accidentally evolved morality in the first place.

Sorry for the verbosity, I will seek to be a lot more succinct next time.

Dark to me:

(MISUNDERSTANDING ADPOP SECTION) if u dont understand a fallacy then look it up, i never commited adpop, because i never said something is right because the majority says so. And morality has nothing to do with atheism and that isint a problem, atheism is purely the nonbelief in deities, it does not count as a world view because its not claiming how the world works or that god doesnt exist, its only saying that someone doesnt currently believe in a god.

(PROBLEMATIC FOR ATHEISM RAMBLE U KEEP DOING) i only said evidence of gods existence is problematic for atheism, because that would render atheism unjustifiable and i never said pain is a problem for atheism because as i believe i said before, the nonbelief in god has nothing to do with pain or morality, pain and morality are concerns for beings because alot of us feel pain and want to avoid it and want to be treated fairly, which is why we have a legal system and why we have people that dont want to cause harm to others, no matter if theres a god or not because some people have empathy for others. I as an individual have a moral code and want to avoid pain, because pain and injustice negatively impacts me and the people i care about, which again has nothing to do with my nonbelief in a god, it only has to do with my subjective goals and wants. And for my justification for evidence of god, my justification is my preference for wanting truth, becuase knowledge leads to progress and understanding, which are 2 things i prefer because they help my life.

(FOR YOUR MORALITY SECTION)  yes i live in a first world country, and i know that some other coutries have it like hell, which is irelevant to my point. And just beause morality has evolved (which i would also argue that the usage of the word “morality” is different between theist (especially abrahamic theist) and athiest because one side says we shouldn’t or should harm others because god says so and the athiest side harms or not harms others because of their individual codes and desires, but for the sake of the team im on, im a secular humanist, which at its most basic level is treating others kindly and fairly because it helps everyone thrive.) But i can still condem past, present, or future actions because they come in conflict with my moral code and ill correct myaelf because i didn’t mean to come off as someone that is a pure subjectivist, for example, if a group of people can agree that their moral code is not to harm eachother, or treat eachother unfairly like (secular humanist), then we can objectively say that some actions are to be condemned because they come in conflict with not harming or not treating eachother unfairly.

Ken Ammi to Dark:

Friend, I appreciate the detailed interaction but I won’t be able to trade essays with you henceforth (your comment was just under 500 words).

Oh, you “never said something is right because the majority says so” you only said, “my personal preferences align with the majority of every human being on the planet” even when they’re wrong—got it!

Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works” that’s follows from rejecting God so you are restricted by it to think in terms of an accidental universe, accidental life, etc.

But since you deny it’s a world-view (which means you disagree with Dawkins) in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually accept God’s existence?

That “no matter if theres a god” regarding that “alot of us feel pain and want to avoid it and want to be treated fairly” and “some people have empathy for others” ranges from fallacious to on point, ironically.

See, “if theres a god” then pain is just an accidentally existing ape’s interpretation of accidental bio-sensory neural-reactions that are accidentally determined by the accidental laws of physics. Want to avoid it would merely be an a-ethical subjective personal preference as would be wanting to be treated fairly: don’t you ever incorporate your world-view’s implications into your world-view?

Yet, you nailed it with that only “some” people have empathy for others while on Atheism one might very well conclude that if people seek to avoid pain then they’ll be easy to oppress so as to avoid pain.

You hit the Atheism nail on the head again by continuing to evidence that this is solely about subjective personal preferences (as Tom had to admit) since you write in terms of how it “impacts me and the people i care about” which you also do as a subjective personal preference, “subjective goals and wants” as you rightly put it. But, beware, if I seek to deny your subjective goals and wants well then, that would be my subjective goals and wants and may the fittest win!

Now, another lesson to learn from the implications of you worldview is that since you admit that your justification for evidence of God is your “preference for wanting truth” then, guess what, if my preference is to be unconcerned for your preference than that’s all folks!

Besides, why do you have a preference for an accident? Why prefer supposed progress and alleged understanding in an existence wherein there is no objective progress and understanding—oops, right, because this is not about that, it’s about you emoting your subjective personal preferences like telling me which ice-cream flavor you prefer (which is an utterly impotent exercise).

Your juxtaposition of Secular Humanist vs. Abrahamic theists is a false dichotomy (not that it matters on Atheism) since on that view we shouldn’t harm others because God says so and because we are called to treat others as we want to be treated, because we are to love our neighbor, etc., etc., etc.

Now, since you demand that Atheism isn’t a world-view I’m unsure how you can so confidently speak for all Atheists when you write in terms of “the athiest side…the team” but consistency is not a universal imperative on Atheism.

In any case, on Secular Humanist “is treating others kindly and fairly because it helps everyone thrive” (even though people who actually call themselves “Humanists” tend to support the brutally violent serial murder of millions of beautiful, healthy, innocent, and defenseless human babies for money) as a mere subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions).

Now, the concept of condemning is not like you’re thinking of it: you merely asserting you don’t like something. Thus, since you hold to that “morality has evolved” (past tense? When did it stop?) no, you can’t even say past actions were wrong if those past people were like you and appealed to their subjective “moral code.”

No, you don’t get objectivity via, guess what, an argumentum ad populum, “if a group of people can agree.”

Dark to me:

i disagree with alot of what you said and some of what you said is very ignorant, so if you want to voice chat on some app preferably discord ill be happy to.

jwkivy to me:

“1. On Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental,”

False. I don’t think anything is accidental. Not believing ‘god’ things exist says absolutely nothing about what that person believes about reality. Just that they don’t think a supposed ‘god’ thingy is part of it. 

“2. as is our ability to discern it,’

False again since, I don’t think anything is accidental.

“3. there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it,”

False AGAIN. Reality forces me to adhere to reality.

“4. nor to demand/expect others adhere to it.”

Reality ‘demands’ you adhere to reality, not atheists.

“And yet, on Atheism the most important of my personal preferences is still just a subjective personal preference”

Which is just a it is under theism.

“but you don’t bother saying how or why harming peoples’ lives is problematic, on Atheism.”

Because people PREFER not to be harmed. What’s your SUBJECTIVE reason that makes harming people ‘problematic’?

“Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works”

Obviously false. What a bizarre statement. If anything, it’s claiming how the world DOESN’T work.

“I appreciate the detailed interaction but I won’t be able to trade essays with you henceforth (your comment was just under 500 words).”

Ummmm, you then proceeded to ‘trade’ an essay of over 500 words. Too funny.

Thanks for the laughs. Too bad you couldn’t evidence your imaginary friend exists.

Ken Ammi to jwkivy:

It matters not if an accidental ape made “False” statements, on Atheism, right?

Also, you just typed a bunch of assertions (not that, that matters, on Atheism).

1. “I don’t think anything is accidental” isn’t an elucidation.
2. “I don’t think anything is accidental” isn’t an elucidation.
3. How is it that “Reality forces me to adhere to reality”? I thought that all of us live in reality but some of us don’t adhere to it.
4. “Reality ‘demands’ you adhere to reality, not atheists” see 3. above.

“Which is just a it is under theism” means you agree with me and is a tu quoque and is false and is contradictory since you also asserted “Reality forces me to adhere to reality.”

This time around you don’t bother saying why we ought to adhere to what people subjectively PREFER: especially when you agreed that “on Atheism the most important of my personal preferences is still just a subjective personal preference” thus, they are expressing personal subjective personal preferences and so can you if you don’t adhere to theirs.

Of course “Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works” since it begins by merely asserting “how the world DOESN’T work” and then fill that gap with subjective personal preferences.

“henceforth” as in after that one.

As for “evidence your imaginary friend exists” well, since I don’t have an imaginary friend then that’s true but, in any case, did you not listen to the discussion: step one is for you to justify your demand for evidence.

jwkivy to me:

First, AGAIN, there are no ‘accidental apes’. Second, what ‘matters’ is subjective so, a human ape making a false statement, may or may not ‘matter’ to me.

”….isn’t an elucidation.”

So? That doesn’t change the fact that your claim that ‘under atheism’ it’s all accidental, is false. 

”How is it that “Reality forces me to adhere to reality”?”

WTF? Because you can’t violate reality.

”…means you agree with me…”

Yes, I do. So what? 

”…and is a tu quoque..”

False. That doesn’t even make sense. I also notice you don’t even bother trying to deny that the same holds true ‘under theism’. So, what’s the point of you even mentioning the subjectivity that applies to both theists and atheists?

”Of course “Atheism is 100% “claiming how the world works””

False. That’s just stupid.

Also, Asking you to support your asinine claim that your imaginary friend is real, is not a ‘demand’. You’re more than welcome to not evidence your ridiculous claim. Just don’t expect me to believe your horse [****] without providing evidence.

Ken Ammi to jwkivy:

Please mind your manners.

No, it doesn’t work that way (well, it does on Atheism since you’ve no universal imperatives): you don’t get to just assert “First, AGAIN, there are no ‘accidental apes’. Second…” and just run away form your worldview.

Do you believe that humans were created via intelligent design or that we are accidentally existing (along with the universe and all it contains) or do you have a horn splitting third way or will you just assert that we’re accidentally existing but swap “accidentally” with a synonym?

Also, I didn’t ask you anything about your subjective personal preferences du jour, “may or may not ‘matter’ to me” but am asking about your worldview: how does it matter on your worldview?

So, when I note “isn’t an elucidation” and your reply is “So?” it shows that you’re literally in capable of backing your assertions which is why you merely assert in the first place. But see, I’m not one of your Atheist comrades so I will ask you about your assertions and not just elbow you in the ribs and agree.

So when you refer to my “claim that ‘under atheism’ it’s all accidental, is false” you merely assert it’s false but don’t bother saying how, why, nor why it matters on Atheism—on Atheism, not on your subjective personal preferences du jour.

How can you say “you can’t violate reality” when there are theists who, as per your worldview, are violating reality?

I’m a systematic thinker which is why I’m still waiting for you to take the very first step and am not jumping to “deny that the same holds true ‘under theism’” until we systematically get there.

“False. That’s just stupid” are mere assertions, argue against “Of course ‘Atheism is 100% ‘claiming how the world works’” or accept it as a fact (with facts being accidental on Atheism).

See what I mean about synonyms: you want to swap “demand” with “asking” so your first step is to justify asking for evidence. Please take that step, on your worldview, and we can get to the next one.

So, since you’re adamant about “providing evidence” let’s forget the rest of your assertions and focus on that: just justify it first.

jwkivy to me:

First, no. If you don’t like my ‘manners’, that’s your problem. I’m a determinist so, NOTHING is ‘accidental’ so, again, there are no ‘accidental’ apes, human apes or otherwise. ”Do you believe that humans were intelligently designed or that we are accidentally existing” False dichotomy. Everything that has happened was determined to happen. No invisible magicians required nor ‘accidents’. ”how does it matter on your worldview?” What a nonsensical question. What ‘matters’ is subjective. There is no objectively ‘mattering’.”…it shows…” No, it asks why an elucidation is needed. ”…when there are theists who, as per your worldview, are violating reality.” WTF? False. What a bizarre claim. Theists are not ‘violating reality’ just because they believe invisible magicians exist. Atheism doesn’t say jack [****] about “how the world works”. You’ve given nothing to support your asinine assertion that it does. You just cited what atheism says about how the world DOESN’T work, not how it DOES work. ”your first step is to justify asking for evidence.” WTF? I don’t even know what it means to ‘justify’ my request for evidence. I know of no evidence supporting your asinine assertion, therefore I asked for evidence. What part of that needs ‘justification’? You need to pull your head out of your magic believing [***].

​Ken Ammi​ to jwkivy:

As for your ill manner well, that you’ve no regard for others is obvious—and tragically sad and childish as well. Please mind them.

Were you determined to comport yourself as you do?

Since you’re a determinist: who did the determining?

At least you admit that on your worldview nothing objectively matters thus, nothing matters: it’s all just personal preferences du jour.

So, you assert that when someone holds to a vie​​w that violates reality they’re not violating reality—go figure: good thing there’s no universal imperative to adhere to logic on determinism.

By definition, Atheism carries baggage about how the world works in that, for example, Atheism is thought restricting and so, for example, it’s dogmatheism that God had nothing to do with it. Thus, they have to invent tales about how it just happened to have happened the way it happens all by itself.

Now, you assert, “You’ve given nothing to support your asinine assertion” but only as a jump to a conclusion so how, on your worldview, is it some sort of universal imperative to give support for a claim?

That’s the same sort of issue with you demanding evidence: you merely assert it without justification. It’s tantamount to you showing up and saying “Jump!” and demanding that I reply “How high?” yet, I’m replying “Why?”

So, you having “asked for evidence” is like you telling me about your favorite ice cream flavor: you have a subjective personal preference du jour, so what? Ergo, you need justification from your worldview lest you be dismissed as I just dismissed you.

Why, on your worldview, do I “need to” pull my head out of what you assert is my magic believing rear?

Prediction: you’re going to get increasingly emotive, increasingly childish, will prove that you’re incapable of replying to issues that are inconvenient to your worldview—and will soon just run away after a flurry of expletives.

And that was the end of those discussions.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

In view is Tim Chaffey’s article Giant Speculations (August 26, 2013 AD). He’s, “founder of Midwest Apologetics and work as the Content Manager with the Attractions Division of Answers in Genesis.”

I included him in my book, Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers and also assisted him by providing him references he had missed when writing his book about the Genesis 6 affair’s sons of God (from what I recall, I made him aware of 8 missed references and he made me aware of 2 I had missed—we realized we were working on similar books at the same time, mine is titled On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

After referring to the movie, “Jack the Giant Slayer” and referring to, “giant…giant…Giant…giant…giants…giants…giants…Giants…a giant cyclops” Chaffey notes, “The idea of monstrous giants” and references that, “The Book of Enoch is not part of the Bible, but it is quoted in the short book of Jude and its early chapters expand upon the fallen angel view of Genesis 6:1–4. According to 1 Enoch, 200 angels decided to marry women and sire children by them.”

He needs to answer these key questions:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s Chaffey’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

From his inclusion of a cyclops and 1 Enoch (Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch), we have to infer that he’s implying a usage having something to do with subjectively unusual height—1 Enoch has Nephilim having been miles tall, which is great folklore but poor reality.

That’s not the usage in English Bibles wherein giant/s merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in two verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and never even implies anything about height whatsoever.

Tim Chaffey then appeals to the Book of Jubilees which is also folklore from millennia after the Torah, see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.

He references, “man-eating giants” and appeals to, “the Old Testament book of Numbers to see an intriguing passage. Moses sent twelve spies into the Promised Land. Of these twelve, only two (Joshua and Caleb) encouraged the people to follow the Lord’s command to go out and conquer the land. The other ten spies were obviously afraid of carrying out the command. They reported the following details,” before getting to the details, it’s refreshing that a Nephilologist would actually specify the key distinction amongst the spies since virtually 100% of pop-Nephilologists speak generically in terms of the spies as a unit.

Yet, we will find that Tim Chaffey needed to be more detailed still as he, prepped us to think in terms of what was said by, “The other ten” and what, “They reported” but then quoted the first of two reports in Num 13, the original, reliable, accepted as is, report which noted:

“We went into the land where you sent us; and it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit. Nevertheless, the people who live in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large; and moreover, we saw the descendants of Anak there. Amalek is living in the land of the Negev and the Hittites and the Jebusites and the Amorites are living in the hill country, and the Canaanites are living by the sea and by the side of the Jordan.”

Chaffey then specifies, “After Caleb tried to encourage the people to be obedient the frightened spies continued” and quotes:

“So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, ‘The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.’ (Numbers 13:28–33, NASB).”

Thus, when he goes on to write, “The spies reported that they had seen giants in the land,” keep in mind that he’s referring to the bad/evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

At this point, Tim Chaffey wrote, “The Amorites were giants (Amos 2:9), as were the Anakim or sons of Anak, who were ‘part of the Nephilim.’ As I’ve explained before on this blog, the word Nephilim means ‘giants’ (it does not mean ‘fallen ones’ as is popularly claimed), and in this case it may refer to a specific race or line of giants.”

Do you discern the problem with employing the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants? Telling us that, “Amorites were giants” is telling us they were subjectively unusually tall—that is, taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Yet, he sought to be more specific by appealing to Amos 2:9 which reads, “Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, though his height was like the height of cedars” which post-flood Nephilologists literally take literally as if Amos was implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based calculation.

We know that they don’t actually take that seriously since the verse goes on to say, “And he was as strong as the oaks” which is something that 0% of such Nephilologists have calculated.

They take Amos telling us that they were big and strong as some sort of physical description. To further prove they don’t’ actually take that seriously—they just use it (or, abuse it) to build their tall-tales—0% claim that Amorites had fruits and roots sticking out of their bodies even though, after all, the text directly went on to notes, “I also destroyed his fruit above and his roots below.”

Tim Chaffey directly followed with, “as were the Anakim or sons of Anak, who were ‘part of the Nephilim’” and, “the word Nephilim means ‘giants’ (it does not mean ‘fallen ones’ as is popularly claimed), and in this case it may refer to a specific race or line of giants.”

As I elucidated in Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal, Chaffey informed us of an unreliable report by unreliable guys but still appeals to it, relies on it in fact.

As for that, “as were the Anakim” giants well, the only physical description we have of them is that they were generally, “tall” (Deut 2) which is as ague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants and so also meaning taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.

But he asserts that they were, “part of the Nephilim” based on that one single statement from a bad/evil report—a statement that’s lacking form the LXX version, by the way.

As for that, “Nephilim means ‘giants’” well, he’s implying that Nephilim means subjectively unusually tall but that’s actually one of those let the scholars fight it out situations since he’s appealing to the view of Michael Heiser who doesn’t trace Nephilim to the Hebrew root naphal but rather, to the Aramaic naphiyla which, he claims, means giant.

Of course, that only begs the question: what does giant mean? In this case, Heiser told us, “I don’t think the biblical giants were taller than unusually tall people of modern times (between 7-9 feet).”

So much for the correlation to the assertion of the ten who said that in comparison, they were as grasshoppers.

In any case, in order to assert that Nephilim were subjectively unusually tall, Tim Chaffey can only appeal to one single sentence in a bad/evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked since that’s the only physical description we have of Nephilim so that we don’t have a reliable physical description of them.

As for that, “Nephilim…may refer to a specific race or line of giants,” biblically, that would read as, “As for that, “Nephilim” does, “refer to a specific race or line of” Nephilim: they only line there ever was, pre-flood Nephilim—since that’s the only time they existed since they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

Thus, “The Amorites were,” big and strong, “the Anakim or sons of Anak,” were tall, that they, “were ‘part of the Nephilim’” is a merely and impossible assertion in non-LXX versions, we’ve no reliable data that, “Nephilim means ‘giants’” nor that it refers to, “a specific race or line of” subjectively unusually tall personages.

Yet, recall that this was all about, “man-eating giants” to which he gets with that, “It was ‘a land that devours its inhabitants.’” He ponders, “What if this phrase meant that the giants they saw in the land actually devoured the land’s inhabitants?…giants ate people…man-eating giants.”

It actually doesn’t matter since, for one, the unreliable spies straight up contradicted the original, reliable, accepted as is, report which noted, “it certainly does flow with milk and honey, and this is its fruit.”

Yet, Tim Chaffey seeks to defend guys whom God rebuked thusly:

“Some people will object to commenting on this passage as though the spies accurately described the land because it says that they gave a bad or evil report. However, the Hebrew word used here does not refer to a false report, but a true report about bad tidings or true statements made with sinister intentions. It is the same word used to describe Joseph’s report about his brothers’ bad behavior in Genesis 37:2. The text is not telling us that the spies lied. After all, neither Joshua nor Caleb attempted to refute what the spies reported. Instead, they tried to encourage the people to prepare for battle while the other spies were trying to discourage the people. So let’s assume that the giants in this land were eating people.”

Let’s not.

The report isn’t to be considered as wholly unreliable due to what it’s titled but rather, due to its contents: it consists of five mere assertions that aren’t supported by even on single verse in the entire Bible.

Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc.

That’s why Chaffey has to invent an un-biblical tall-tale about how they made it past the flood. Moreover, if that tall-tale has Nephilim surviving the flood then that contradicts the Bible five times: ​Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

As for that, “neither Joshua nor Caleb attempted to refute what the spies reported,” it wasn’t a formal moderated debate and clearly, every statement of the interaction wasn’t recorded. One way we can discern that Joshua nor Caleb did refute what the, ten, spies reported is that they never said one single word about Nephilim—ever—and that when, for example, Moses relates that event in Deut 1, he mentions the Anakim but not the Nephilim: he was being practical, he was concerned about the real dangers on the ground and not about some tall-tale.

Thus, the narrative, the immediate and greater context, beg us to recognize that, “the spies lied.”

Tim Chaffey continues directly with that, “When Joshua and the Israelites finally conquered the land approximately forty years later (c. 1400 BC), they either killed or drove out the giants…there were no more Anakim…except in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod…Goliath was from Gath (1 Samuel 17), as were a handful of other giants mentioned in 2 Samuel 21.”

This is how employing the term giants makes things very messy. Chaffey has it referring to Nephilim and to being subjectively unusually tall—tall as cedars, making humans seem like grasshoppers, etc.

Thus, with that prep, that eisegesis, in mind, one would read the just quoted statemen as, “killed or drove out the” extremely tall Nephilim, “Goliath was” an extremely tall Nephil and there were, “other” extremely tall Nephilim, “mentioned in 2 Samuel 21.”

Actually, they “drove out the” Rephaim tribe of which Anakim were a clan and of whom Goliath was one with 2 Samuel 21 referring to Rephaim—and the preponderance of the earliest data, Goliath was just shy of 7 ft.

Tim Chaffey then applies his misreadings, misunderstandings, misusages, misinterpretations, and misapplications to ponder that, “Since the Israelites attacked from the east, it seems very plausible that some of the giants who fled would have traveled west via the Mediterranean Sea. What if some of these giants settled on some of the islands in the nearby Aegean Sea? And what if these islands just happened to be the same islands that were supposedly visited by Odysseus” ergo, “man-eating giants…descendants of man-eating giants that may have been described in Numbers 13.”

At least he admits, “I realize there is quite a bit of speculation” with the qualifying term, “a bit” being a bit too mild since the whole premise is fallacious as is that which he built atop it.

Yet, post-flood-giant Nephilologists literally base their entire un-biblical theory upon one single, non—LXX version—sentence from a bad/evil report stated by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

I thought to review some of the comments posted to the article.

Someone uncontextually notes, “Something there doesn’t fit for me however, concerning the ‘sons of God’ being angels because of Jesus’ saying to the Sadducees when they tried to shame him on his teaching of the resurrection. He said in Matt 22:30 ‘… in the resurrection they are neither married nor given in marriage, but are as the angels’. This implies that angels are heavenly eunuchs with no way to procreate and thus not the ‘sons’ of Gen 6. Coupled with the fact that Jesus is referred to as the only ‘begotten’ son of God might imply that God, by creation, made other heavenly beings he called sons; the naughty sons of Gen 6. Thoughts?”

The questioner seems to have abruptly ended the quotation of Matthew since normative versions have it that Jesus specifically referred to the, “Angels of God in heaven” or at least, “Angels in heaven,” the loyal ones, which his why those who did marry are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it.

As for Jesus being the, “only begotten,” Tim Chaffey notes, “the term ‘only begotten’ does not necessarily mean that the person is the only one who was begotten” such as in, “Abraham offering up his ‘only begotten’ son, Isaac. But Abraham had another son at that time,” etc.

Jesus is the only begotten uniquely authoritative Son. Blanketly stating, “Jesus is referred to as the only ‘begotten’ son” ends up denying that Christians are sons of God.

Someone else note that Chaffey’s articles are, “doctrinally sound” but, as we saw, fallacious Nephilology leads to fallacious theology proper.

This person also noted, “I think that the position on the Nephilin you take is the one which stays true to the plain meaning of the text” which is fallacious in and of itself. Yet that person asked, “If the flood destroyed all of mankind, except for Noah and his family, how is it there were Nephilin after the flood? Did more angels take women born after the flood, or did some Nephilin survive the flood? What is your opinion?”

In reply, Chaffey is forced to good ol’ fashioned make up stuff. He wrote, “The answer to your question is found in Genesis 6:4. We are told that the Nephilim were on the earth in those days (before the Flood) and also afterward (after the Flood), whenever the sons of God came into the daughters of men…”

He was forced to artificially insert, “the Flood” since the text doesn’t reference it. In fact, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until 13 vss. later, v. 17. And by doing so, Chaffey missed that the text is telling us exactly to what days it’s referring—and it’s not the flood.

But before elucidating that, note that he added, “Most English Bibles use the word ‘when’ instead of ‘whenever.’ This leads to some ambiguity about the meaning of the verse. Were the Nephilim already on the earth when this stuff was going on?…‘whenever’…refers to actions that were repeated in the past, either at fixed intervals or occasionally. In other words, it wasn’t a one-time event, which is what most English Bibles imply with the use of ‘when’…both before and after the Flood.”

He never did bother getting to the point of just how there were post-flood Nephilim but the whenever reading does not assist him.

Let’s go with it since it matters not, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, whenever the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”

That begs the question: when were those days and when was afterward of those days—when was whenever?

Well, again, the text told us, “those days, and also afterward, whenever the sons of God came in to the daughters of man.”

As per v. 1, those days were, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive,” etc.

Thus, afterward was after they first did so. Tim Chaffey got close but then too a wrong turn by inserting words in to the text. Indeed, “In other words, it wasn’t a one-time event” since they began to do so and continued to do so yet, that’s all pre-flood: the whenever between, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” and the flood.

Such is why the only reference to post-flood Nephilim comes from an utterly unreliable source.

Chaffey went on to explain that, “the reason there were giants in the land during Moses’ day is that some of the sons of God did this again.”

By jumping from the specific ancient Hebrew term Nephilim to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants he, consciously or not, can get undiscerning English readers to chase an English word around a Hebrew Bible and think that post-flood giants are Nephilim.

Jude and 2 Peter 2 inform us that all sinful Angels were incarcerated—and there’s only a one-time sin of Angels in the Bible. They didn’t specify when they were incarcerated but since the flood was when God was cleaning house, as it were, then logically, and theo-logically, that would have been the time. And regardless, there’s literally zero indication that, “some of the sons of God did this again.” That’s just a post-flood Nephilology tall-tale that seeks to buttress the one single verse upon which they rely—that one and a manipulated second verse, Gen 6:4.

Yet, not only did he insert words into Gen 6:4, he’s emphatic, “I’ve heard people claim that the Bible never mentions angelic beings doing this after the Flood, but that’s precisely what Genesis 6:4 is telling us. Moses wrote it, and he was fully aware that there were giants on the earth in his days because of the sons of God siring children with women.”

And that, my friends, comes to us from a theologian. Others assert that a manipulated Gen 6:4 implies a survival of Nephilim past the flood but Chaffey somehow knows that it’s specifying that God wiped the slate clean but it just happened all again with more Angels doing it all again.

Someone else chimed in with that they, “Never knew that the word ‘when’ could be translated ‘whenever’. That sure clarifies the text” since Tim Chaffey got them to think it makes a difference.

That person asked, “So do you think there are still Nephilin being created today? Could these hybrid also produce offspring with women today?”

Chaffey replied, “They seemed to have been killed off during the reign of King David” even though there’s zero indication of any such a thing.

He notes, “The Bible tells us that there were giants who were born from other giants” which it does not—even if, of course, that would be the case.

He refers to that, “Anakim (who are of the Nephilim)” which, again, is based on one single non-LXX unreliable sentence. But that is how post-flood Nephilolgists literally invent Nephilim.

Even though he told a tall-tale about post-flood Angels sins but notes, “I don’t know if there are any other fallen angelic beings around that are capable of doing this…I think it’s possible that there are some demonic beings that are trying to do this again, but they may not be capable.”

Since there are not more physical fallen Angels on Earth then indeed, there are no more, “fallen angelic beings around that are capable of doing this” nor that, “demonic beings” since they are disembodied—see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

Someone else referenced, “[Kent] Hovind’s ‘photo’ of a human skeleton over ten feet tall.”

Reportedly, “The photo was taken with improper focus, and it is not a photo from the 1800s but a blurry photo of a hand-engraved illustration that was specially created to appear in a book from the 1800s, a book of unsubstantiated tales.”

Tim Chaffey noted, “creationists need to be much more careful…most have good motives” and noting much more than that.

Another person piggybacked on something Chaffey noted and added that stories/reports of people being, “abducted by aliens, having medical experiments/exams done on their reproductive organs, and their claims of seeing and/or interacting with hybrid ‘alien’/human beings have a very strong resemblance to the events of Genesis 6. Jesus did say before He came back, our world would be as it was in the days of Noah.”

Yet, that’s as abusive of Jesus’ statement as was inserting the flood into Gen 6:4. Jesus’ specific words, emphasis, context, point was:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”

Thus, He was providing examples of being unaware and/or unconcerned with coming judgment and nothing about neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales—which is what modern Nephilology has become.

That person also recommended L.A. Marzulli who sells un-biblical tall-tales for a living which is why I included him in the same book as I did Chaffey.

Another person went on and on about the, “Excellent article, Tim! In my research of this subject, your writings are by far the most professional and Scripturally sound I have found. I look forward to studying your other articles, your thesis, and your books.”

That person also appealed to, “Pausanias (the second-century AD Greek geographer)” who, “claims that in his day the sea washed out many giant human bones” and that, “one of the sons of Anax (sons of Anak?) was buried, and corpse was not less than ten cubits.”

Tim Chaffey noted, “The possible connection to Anak is obviously the most compelling for me” even though, again, there’s no real reason to correlate Anakim to, “not less than ten cubits.”

Interestingly, only at this point, Chaffey writes something he should have written at the outset, “he calls Protophanes a nothas (illegitimate), and calls him the son of Gaia (a gigantes, translated ‘giant’ and literally means born of earth).”

Indeed, the word giants ended up in some English Bibles due to following the Greek LXX which has Nephilim (but be careful, since it also has gibborim and Rephaim) as gigantes which, indeed, means earth-born.

Tim Chaffey went on to write, “Why would giants be called ‘born of earth’? Of course ‘earth’ in Greek mythology is the goddess Gaia, and according to some ancient Greeks, the gigantes were conceived when some of Uranus’ blood was spilled on the earth after his sons (the titans) castrated him. But why would giants be given a title that means ‘born of earth’? After all, aren’t we all earthborn? Could it possibly be a reference to their father(s) not being from earth and that these gigantes seemed to be supernatural, they were still born of earth?”

Well, we don’t know why the LXX was rendered as such (since that wasn’t a translation at this point) so as don’t know why three very different words with difference morphologies and different meanings were rendered as such.

He goes on to note that Pausanias, “shouldn’t be brushed aside so easily, although he (unlike Luke) probably exaggerated at times. The length of the corpse being no less than 10 cubits is greater than I would expect. I have my doubts that they could have reached these heights because of the extreme stresses that would be put on the skeletal system and many of the inner organs.”

Fascinatingly, he doesn’t seem to ponder that the ten unreliable spies were at the very, very least exaggerating. In any case, the primary issue isn’t exaggerating but is identifying. Was the second-century AD Greek geographer Pausanias such an expert anatomist that he could accurately discern the bones of whale, dinosaur, pachyderm, etc., from human/oid bones? See, “Appendix: Review of Adrienne Mayor’s The First Fossil Hunters” in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

Tim Chaffey notes, “this section of Pausanias was secondhand or thirdhand information, so it could have been greatly embellished. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the ancient giants were between 8–12 feet tall, perhaps a little more.”

Someone else commented that in, “physics class in college…we studied King Kong our professor taught us that such a huge creature would be far more fragile than agile. This limitation would also seem to apply to the Greek heroes in the ILIAD and the giants in the Bible” but that presupposed anyone in the whole Bible being anything like unto King Kong.

That person added, “I do agree with you about the tendency to exaggerate. Philostratus who wrote about the discovery of giant bones in the third century AD said Achilles was 33 feet tall! That would make Achilles well over twice as tall as anyone else said he was.”

Someone else wrote, “Frequently I am told by skeptics that the ‘stories’ in the Bible are just myths” to which I will add that, “the ‘stories’” are not, “in the Bible” but, “are just myths” made up by post-flood-giant Nephilologists.

And I will leave it at this point.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

On June 15, 2023 AD, Ken Ham posted about the Nephilim on his Facebook page.
He noted of Genesis 6:1–4 that, “this section doesn’t impinge on any major doctrines” and perhaps it shouldn’t but actually, fallacious Nephilology leads to fallacious theology proper.

He sought to, “take as straightforward an interpretation as possible without trying to complicate things” and, “It seems to me the simplest explanation is that the line of Seth (which could have been referred to as ‘sons of God’ because they were godly and called upon the name of the Lord) started marrying the line of Cain (the “daughters of men”—women who were beautiful but ungodly).”

The Sethite view is a historical late comer, it creates more problems than it solves and, as we just saw it’s based on mythology: the mythology of Sethites who were wholly godly and Cainites who were wholly ungodly. Those assertions alone utterly discredit that theory. Moreover, the Sethites were so wholly godly that they weren’t so godly after all—go figure.

Ken Ham notes, “The context of these verses is to relay the extent to which wickedness had come to prevail on the earth” and the premise is the terrible sin of the godly Sethies, or so the theory goes.

Ham notes, “We see a warning of this with the godly Israelites entering into ungodly Canaan (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:1–4, 1 Kings 11:2). In the New Testament, we are also warned in 2 Corinthians 6:14: ‘Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?’ Malachi was warning about such marriages (godly and ungodly) in Malachi chapter 2.”

It may be noted that those are from millennia after the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it.

Ken Ham quotes the comments thusly, “We read, ‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.’ (Genesis 6:4) Who were the Nephilim? Certainly, the description may imply that they were of great stature (perhaps giants in the build of their bodies), greatly feared, and were well known, presumably for extreme wickedness.”

Did you discern anything in that verse about, “great stature…giants in the build of their bodies…greatly feared…for extreme wickedness”? No? Neither did I, “well known” yes, mighty, yes, but we’re not even told why.

While we’re at it, some key questions are:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s Ken Ham’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

Well, we got Ham’s usage, “great stature…in the build of their bodies” which is not the English Bible’s usage wherein giants merely render (don’t even translate) Nephilim in two verses or the utterly unrelated Rephaim in 98% of all others—and never implying any thing about size whatsoever.

Ken Ham notes, “An interesting point concerning the Nephilim is the phrase, and also afterward. It seems this is referring to after the flood, as Nephilim are mentioned once again in Numbers 13:33…‘And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them’ (Numbers 13:33). The Nephilim in Numbers 13 were indeed giant in stature as the text indicates.”

Also afterward has nothing to do with the flood: in fact, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later, v. 17. The verse tells us to what days it’s referring, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”

The question becomes, “when” was that?

Well, verse 1-2 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”

Thus, those days were when man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them and so afterward was just after man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them.

They commenced doing it then and continued doing so yet, the flood brought it all to a full and final end.

Ken Ham didn’t bother mentioning that Numbers 13:33 is merely a sentence from an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked: they just made up a tall-tale.

Thus, since theirs is the only physical description we have of Nephilim then we’ve no reliable physical description of them and can’t assert, “great stature…in the build of their bodies…giant in stature” even from that verse since what, “the text indicates” is that it’s false.

Ken Ham argues against the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, 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 on Giants and the Nephilim) by subjectively emoting, “Personally I can’t accept as some do that wicked angels mated with humans” followed by merely asserting, “Angels don’t reproduce and don’t have human DNA.”

Well, Angles are described as looking just like human males, we were created, “a little lower” than they, and we can produce offspring with them ergo, we’re of the same basic kind—so the view is not that they had, “human DNA” but that theirs is compatible with ours.

Yet, to him, “it makes a much more logical and simpler explanation that when godly and ungodly mix in marriage” but, for some reason(s), such marriages no longer resulted in what they resulted in pre-flood.

Ham ends in a mini-sermon.

Well, with a myth, mishandling two key verses, subjectivism, and assertions: we have Ken Ham’s problematic theory.

For my previous Answers in Genesis Nephilim related articles, see:

Nephilim: Answers in Genesis – were Nephilim in the land?

Nephilim: Answers in Genesis – are Angels spiritual?

Nephilim: Answers in Genesis – Nephilim after the flood?

Nephilim: Answers in Genesis – Nephilim as “men” and on marriage

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.