Mathew stated, “the Moon is not a light” really? Ever been in a forest when the Moon’s not out and then when it’s out? But, guess what, the Sun’s also not a light. Yet, they both produce or reflect light and thus, are lights in the sky.
He said, “there’s still no coherent justified Christian response to Euthyphro’s Dilemma” really? Firstly, Euthyphro’s dilemma is really a false dichotomy. Secondly, here it is: https://truefreethinker.com/video-resolving-the-euthyphro-dilemma but I’ve a feeling Matthew will just appeal to his subjective qualifier, “coherent justified” and merely assert that, sure, it’s been responded to but not to his personal satisfaction (and, BTW, his subjective personal satisfaction isn’t a standard).
It’s ironic that someone who believes that humans are accidentally existing apes stated, “to close your eyes to everything in the world that disagrees with the Bible and just label it all evolution is an insult to the intelligence of every single one of our ancestors who fought to make the world a safer, healthier, more enlightened place.” He’s also merely asserting that safer, healthier, more enlightened are some sort of standard, some sort of universal imperative rather than, say, oppression, violence, and ignorance—survival of the fittest-style—which is also perfectly in keeping with evolution.
Matthew noted, “you don’t have to…lie for a living just to keep people paying you to tell them it’s all just the work of the Devil” followed with, get this, “live that way if you like but do so honestly” LOL and then, “if holding on to superstitions helps keep the darkness at bay that’s fine” which he is forced to say (at least he’s being consistent here) since on his worldview he actually can’t condemn the Moon being said to be a light when it’s not, nor closing our eyes, nor insulting intelligence, nor lying, etc., etc., etc. thus, he debunked his own merely asserted complains.
Such is why he can impotently emote contra “snake oil from con artists and frauds and hypocrites and charlatans and idiots and thieves” but can’t actually condemn such, on his worldview.
He refers to “this giant puzzle we call reality” yet, according to his worldview reality is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do as either.
Abe Grey replied
You can not be serious. If your statement regarding the moon and sun is indicative of your understanding of science you are in trouble. The moon is not a light in the same way as a mirror is not a light. The moon does not produce light it reflects light. There is a big difference in the two. The sun on the other hand does indeed produce light radiating constantly from every point on its surface. This light is reflected just like a mirror off of the moon producing what is call moon glow. It is of course brighter when the moon is full on a cloudless night. Then when obscured by either the clouds or the shadow of the moon.
Ken Ammi
You moved the goal post (is there anything wrong with doing that on your worldview?): about the Moon I wrote, “Ever been in a forest when the Moon’s not out and then when it’s out?” and noted that the Moon “produce[s] or reflect[s] light” and you think it’s some sort of refutation to actually just agree with me, “The moon does not produce light it reflects light” well, that’s what I said. If you want to just argue to argue please go elsewhere.
Mathew Steele chimed in with
” But, guess what, the Sun’s also not a light. Yet, they both produce or reflect light and thus, are lights in the sky.”
Nice try, but nope. A light, as in something that produces light, doesn’t qualify the moon. By your “logic” a mirror is also a light. A reflective strip on the highway is a light. I didn’t bother reading any further, this was too much of a facepalm.
Ken Ammi
Not a nice try on your part since you merely insert a subjective definition “A light, as in something that produces light” so that has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Mathew Steele
“You moved the goal post” no, you asserted that something which reflects light is therefore a light, while I pointed out that a mirror would qualify as a light by that logic. But a mirror is not a light. The sun, however, does produce light directly. It doesn’t take a genius to see the problem there.
“is there anything wrong with doing that on your worldview?)” Seeing as I didn’t move the goal post, this is a red herring and I’m not taking the bait. My worldview is ironclad. It can’t be refuted, not by anyone. You’re welcome to try, though.
“you merely insert a subjective definition”
Definitions are subjective. That’s how language works, obviously. Dictionaries just describe the way words are used subjectively by groups of people. It’s called lexicography.
“that has nothing to do with what I wrote.”
If you think so, you’re not paying attention. I’ll be delighted to deal with the rest of your post, above, but if you’re sticking to the moon being a light, there’s not much hope for a coherent discussion.
Ken Ammi
Again, if you’re in a forest at night you know the Moon is a light just like if you’re in a dark room and someone uses a mirror to reflect light into that room from a light bulb in another room then you know that mirror is a light: this is just common parlance, it’s not an ontological discussion about waves and particles.
Is there anything wrong with red herring on your worldview?
Since “Definitions are subjective” then “red herring” means that you admit I disproved your worldview.
Mathew Steele
But a mirror is not a light. It’s a mirror.
Ken Ammi
At this point the issue is that you have reading comprehension problems: that the Moon is a light to light the night is just common parlance, you seem to be demanding that a text which has no interest in elucidating the ontology of light in terms of being wave and particle must do so in order to be accurate yet, such is simply not how linguistics, hermeneutics, communication, etc. work. Thus, we can rightly say that a mirror is a light when it’s dark and it’s reflecting waves/particles since this isn’t about the law of identify, it’s about basic level communication.
Mathew Steele
If that’s what you want to believe, I’m not going to try to stop you. Enjoy.
Ken Ammi
That’s actually the one and only thing you’d said that consistent with your worldview. Please do study up on reading comprehension including hermeneutics: these will alter you to recognize common parlance vs. highly technical elucidations.
Well, that was the end of it as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Carl is described as, “a biblical scholar, minister…,” he posted an article titled Tower of Babel: Gateway to the gods which, “was recently featured in the April Edition of the Prophecy Watchers magazine” which is no surprise given it’s neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales flavor.
Joseph notes, “The Historian Josephus claims, that Nimrod, persuaded the people to ascribe their happiness to him rather than God, seeking worship for himself” and, “Nimrod desired self-preservation, whilst simultaneously distancing himself from God’s authority. The Midrash (Rabbinical writings) also describes the tower of Babel, built on tall columns designed to protect it from another divine flood.”
But I’m not terribly interested in such since there’s no indication that Josephus had any access to anything but folklore from millennia after the Torah and the Midrashim are from even later and are sermonizing homilies more than any sort of history or even strict Bible commentaries.
Thus, I will focus on my interest which is when Carl Joseph gets to discussing, “Who was Nimrod and what did he become?”
He quotes what we’re told about him, “Genesis 10:8–9 states, ‘And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord.’”
For now, note something that post-flood Nephilologists don’t like, which is that this was, “before the Lord” and proverbially, “before the Lord.”
Joseph appeals to Dr. Michael Lake who, “presents a word study of the term, ‘he began to be.’ The Hebrew word is chalal, which means to, ‘profane, defile or pollute, either sexually or genetically.’”
I’m quite unsure that Moses was employing a word to refer to genetically profane. In any case, that was a myopic statement since, for example, when Noah planted a vineyard, Joseph and Lake would have, “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard” (Gen 9:20) to read as, “Noah profane, defile or pollute, either sexually or genetically to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard”—actually, neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales-Nephilologists would love that reading.
Carl Joseph tells us, “He did so in order to become a ‘mighty one’ which is the Hebrew term gibborim. This term can mean ‘mighty, champion, chief or even giant’ in some lexicons. Could it be that Nimrod became a giant by profaning himself either sexually or genetically, in order to replicate the stature of his antediluvian forefathers?”
At this point, we must ask these hugely important questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Joseph’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those usages agree?
Typically, Nephilologists of the giants=Nephilim sort never bother with such key issues but leave it to their readers to attempt to guess to what they’re referring with any given usage and will use that word to mean various things.
So, we have a record of a regular guy, at hunter (before the Lord), who became mighty. That is somehow turned into a Gigorexia Nervosa focus on, “…giant…giant…” Gigorexia Nervosa is my term for people who are obsessed with seeing giants and just making them up where they’re nowhere to be seen.
Note the reference to, “the stature of his antediluvian forefathers” which merely asserts two things: 1) we know the stature (physical, I suppose) of antediluvians and 2) they were his apparently subjectively of unusual stature forefathers.
Carl Joseph goes on to tell us, “Dr. Lake goes on to cite, Annette Yoshiko…stating ‘the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, are always grouped together with the gibborim which are the progeny of the Watchers and human women.’ The Septuagint translation (LXX) also states that Nimrod began to become a giant, ‘Cush begat Nimrod. He was the first to be a giant on the earth’ (Gen 10:8).”
If by, “always,” Yoshiko meat one single time then, very well then.
But to what was she referring? They are not “grouped” as much as we are told that Nephilim became gibborim which is merely a descriptive term for might/mighty.
Thus, it is only is that one single case that “gibborim…are the progeny of the Watchers and human women”: others referred to as being gibbor/im are Angels, some of David’s soldiers, Boaz, God, etc.
Note that it’s actually impossible that, “The Septuagint translation…states” that since that translation is into Greek but we were quoted English: and I checked 55 English versions and none of them have, “the first to be a giant on the earth.”
What we’re told in the text is that he became a gibbor: again, became mighty.
Now, if the LXX did tell us he, “was the first to be a giant on the earth” then how could that be since, as Joseph put it, he was like unto, “the stature of his antediluvian forefathers” so he couldn’t be the first.
Also, if he, “was the first to be a giant” that only begs the key questions about what giant means.
Part of the issue is that the LXX translators/renderers, for some unknown reason, decided to render Nephilim and also gibborim and also Rephaim all as gignates which means earth-born. Rendering three very different words with very different meanings and very different morphologies all with one word was a terrible idea and leads to the sort of confusion into which Joseph and Lake and Yoshiko have fallen.
At least Carl Joseph is more specific when he asserts, “Nimrod became the first post-flood giant” but then again, he has yet to tell us what makes him think there were pre-flood giants—and yes, this is all problematic since we know not to what he’s referring since he hasn’t told us.
But he does assert, “His nefarious act, fulfilled Moses’ prophecy of giants, ‘and also after that’ (i.e., the flood-Gen 6:4).” Note that he had to artificially insert “the flood” into a text that doesn’t refer to it: in fact, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until 13 vss. later, v. 17.
Carl Joseph tells us, “Adam Clarke the famous commentator, also cites within the Syriac Targum that, ‘Nimrod was called a giant’” which, as you well know, merely begs the questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Joseph’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
What’s Yoshiko’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
What’s Clarke’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
What’s the Targum’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
What’s the English translation of the LXX’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those usages agree?
But who wants to let such fundamental issues get in the way of a good ol’ tall-tale?
Yet, or so the tale goes, “Dr. Lake then goes on to mention that, ‘Clarke claims the city of Babel and its tower, were ‘built by giants.’ This begs the question, ‘was Nimrod a mighty hunter of animals or man, seeing that he was part human and fallen angel?’”
Merely chasing references to giants still gets us nowhere—not when we’re thinking critically.
The question, “was Nimrod a mighty hunter of animals or man” is a non-issue since there’s literally zero indication that, “he was part human and fallen angel.”
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 Joseph, Lake, Yoshiko, Clarke, and all post-flood Nephilologists are forced to invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.
Carl Joseph informs us that in a sculpture Nimrod, “holds a 375-pound African lion as a mere ‘kitty cat.’ From this depiction, one could estimate Nimrod’s stature to be anywhere between 10-15 ft, not too dissimilar from other giants in the Old Testament, namely Og of Bashan (Dt 3:11), Goliath (2 Sam 21:19) and the Anakites (Dt 9:1-2).”
He’s referring to this sculpture of Gilgamesh—but, no worries, post-flood Nephilologists merely assert that Nimrod was aka Gilgamesh. But wait, that’s not all, as Joseph asserts, “Nimrod goes by many names in history, including: Ninurta, the Assyrian god of hunting, Gilgamesh…Amenhotep III…Tukulti-Ninurta…Sargon…Naram-Sin.”
Joseph does not tell us why we should take ancient sculptures literally.
He also doesn’t tell us how he knows that’s not actually a kitty cat, a cub.
He does not tell us how he knows the extremely specific weight of 375 lbs.
He tells us that, “10-15 ft” is, “not too dissimilar from other giants in the Old Testament” among whom he mentioned a man for whom we’ve no physical description, namely Og (the only physical description we get of him is from folklore from millennia after the Torah—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
He tells us that, “10-15 ft” is, “not too dissimilar from…Goliath” who most reliably, as per the preponderance of the earliest data (the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Flavius Josephus) was just shy of 7 ft./four cubits and a span (as opposed to the latter Masoretic text which has him at just shy of 10 ft./six cubits and a span.
He tells us that, “10-15 ft” is, “not too dissimilar from…Anakites” aka Anakim, about whom the only relevant data we have is that they were “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. at the time.
Carl Joseph then goes back to going from Nimrod becoming might to, “How did Nimrod become a Giant?” (for some reason capitalized, this time).
He notes, “The Bible does not explicitly mention how Nimrod became a giant” and it also, “does not explicitly,” nor implicitly, “mention that Nimrod became a giant” (since Joseph let the 375-pound cat of the bag and revealed that by giant he means 10-15 ft. and half-Angel, half-human).
Joseph then refers to, “Historical Jewish writings” and appeals to the Book of Jubilees: there’s no indication it’s a Historical writing, the genre appears to be folklore, and it’s from millennia after the Torah.
In chap 8, it states, “Canaan…found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock…it contained the teaching of the Watchers”: the term Watchers gives away it’s age since it’s a Second Temple Era aka for Malakim/Angels.
In any case, that text has God missing the writings on rock loophole. It has Nephilim being created post-flood unlike they were created pre-flood, via some sort of ritual recipe.
As Carl Joseph put it, “Did it reveal vital clues for DNA modification, and the conjuring of giants?” and he artificially inserts this folklore he spiked with sci-fi into the text of the Bible, “Could it be that Noah cursed his grandson Canaan (instead of Ham) because he eventually became aware of his discovery”? Nope.
He refers to that, “the first Watcher incursion” was, “in the days of Jared” which means he’s relying on 1 Enoch, which is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah, see the book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
Based on an unreliable and anachronistic manner of weaving a tall-tale, Joseph then speculates that perhaps his speculation results in this speculation, “Did he [Canaan] eventually share this forbidden knowledge with Nimrod, aiding him to ‘become’ a gibborim?”—FYI: it wouldn’t be, “a,” English singular, “gibborim,” Hebrew male plural rather, it should be, “a gibbor.”
Carl Joseph then appeal to the Book of Jasher which is just a modern day hoaxed fraud—see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.
Joseph then gets into issues that are of no current interest to me such as, “How tall was the Tower of Babel?…Could the Tower of Babel have been five times the height of the Empire State Building in New York City? (According to the Book of Jubilees it might)…How was the Tower of Babel destroyed?” which features another appeal to Jubilees, to Josephus who appeals to, “The Sibyl (Greek prophetess),” then to, “Jewish tradition” and the obligatory list of, “Giants, Giants, everywhere!” about anyone and everyone who ever claimed giants—as if that has anything whatsoever to do with the issue.
Carl Joseph then asks, “Did Nimrod command Giants to build other structures?” with the qualifying term other denoting that he bought the folklore.
His answer is yes, in that, “an ancient Arabic manuscript” of some sort by someone at some time about something in some genre, “describing Nimrod’s involvement in the construction of the Temple at Baalbek” but we know how it was built and I wrote of it in my book ???
Joseph reasons that, “The fact that giants are mentioned in this manuscript,” of some sort by someone at some time about something in some genre, “only fuels the speculation that Nimrod was in fact, a giant” even though he didn’t say that it refers to Nimrod as a giant.
And we will leave the tall-tale there since it has been elucidated that he gets the linguistics wrong, appeals to anything written by anyone at any time for any reason and in any genre, he inserts things in the Bible, etc., etc., etc., and the post-flood Nephilologists at Prophecy Watchers love it so.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
I will admit that my title is a bit contrived but I sought to capture three things there: I’m going to comment on the Q&A portion of a lecture by Dr. Phil Fernandes which was titled, “The History of Western Thought”—via a video posted by the Apologetics Forum of Snohomish County.
He was asked to comment on post-flood Nephilim. Given that the question was utterly un-contextual the lecture it’s a best practice to have told the questioner just that, and that they should approach you afterward to discuss.
In any case, he was asked, “…your perspective on the Nephilim after the flood. If the Nephilim were destroyed during the flood how come the giants continued?”
Dr. Phil Fernandes went directly into various theories about that but the primary answer ought to have been a question or rather, a set of them.
Note that the questioner jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants.
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 your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those usages agree?
The usage in those English Bibles which employ the term giants is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in only two verses, the other 98% of the time, it’s rendering Repha/im.
Thus, English readers should not chase an English word around a Hebrew Bible.
So, the re-written question is, If the Nephilim were destroyed during the flood how come the Nephilim continued?”
Another question ought to have been, “What makes you think that Nephilim continued post-flood?” The answer to that—after dealing with the giants linguistics issue—would have provided us the biblical answer—to which we shall get in due time.
Now, the questioner had actually added, “One theory was that the seed remained in the women that Noah’s boys married.”
I suppose I will make this statement upfront: 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.
Post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times.
Dr. Phil Fernandes replied:
“…it’s a big debate, it wasn’t a debate in ancient times. Ancient times, everybody from Philo to [Flavius] Josephus, the ancient Jews, the early church, believe this the bene ha Elohim, the
sons of God, were Angels that left their proper domain…”
Pause: indeed, that was the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, as I chronicled 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.
Now, he continued directly with that the Angels, “took on bodily form” which is certainly common tradition but it’s biblical at all.
Angles are described as looking just like human males, performing physical actions, but without any indication, ever, that such isn’t their ontology, nor that they take on bodily form, shapeshift, etc.
Moreover, “cohabited with female humans and produced the race of giants” which begs the key questions above: if he means a race of Nephilim then, sure, but if he means a race of subjectively unusually tall personages then well, see below.
Furthermore, “and it got so widespread that God flooded the Earth.” This is part of why I noted that post-flood Nephilology implies that God failed. The claim is that, “so widespread that God flooded the Earth” but they just came right back—the whole bit about the flood being much of a waste, God missing a loophole, etc. I’m not implying that Dr. Fernandes is personally implying that God failed, I’m noting that the view he’s proposing—somewhat uncritically, or so it seems to me—implies as much.
Continuing, “Augustine did hold the sons of God being just the descendants of…Seth cohabiting with the daughters of Cain. I don’t think that could be justified linguistically or historically.”
Indeed, such a view is a late-comer, it’s based on mythology, and it only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).
Now, be aware that Augustine wrote so much over such a long period of time that he views, plural, were quite nuanced.
Also, it seems to me, if I may put Augustine on the psychology chair, that the reason that he (essentially) opted for the non-majority, traditional, original view is that he converted to Christianity from Gnostic Manichaeism and sough to do away with its influences. Thus, since Mani held to the Angel view, Augustine wouldn’t.
Dr. Phil Fernandes continued, “But whatever the case, there is an alternative view there. So, I do think that there were real Nephilim before the flood: lots of different views about how there could be Nephilim after the flood. One is the view that there was a second leaving of heaven, taking on bodily form by Angelic beings. A second round of that after the flood, but it was limited primarily to the land of Israel. And when the wickedness had reached its Point that’s when why God told the Jews to go in and told them what people groups to exterminate.”
As with any and all post-flood Nephilim views, this one is un-biblical and there’s only a one-time fall of Angels in the Bible.
Also, God told us many times why He commanded such exterminations but never said one single word about Nephilim—see chapter, “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
Continuing, “Another is that one of the daughters-in-law of Noah had a little bit of that seed, uh, I, I don’t know, I, I honestly do not know.”
That one was part of the question and it’s just another un-biblical tall-tale—God must have missed the genetic loophole, etc.
Furthermore, “A third possibility, in Numbers 13:33, the second time and the only other time the word Nephilim is used, is when the spies came back with a bad report saying that we’re like grasshoppers before them the descendants of the Nephilim are there. That they could have been just, the Nephilim could have become just a term for giant humans. I don’t know.”
Be careful to pay attention that when referring to, “the spies” within the context of, “a bad report” that means we’re not dealing with, “the,” 12, “spies” who were sent to reconnoiter the land but with the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, ones who resented that report and were rebuked by God.
Since their tall-tale is the only physical description we have of Nephilim that mean that we’ve no reliable physical description of them and so can’t refer to their height. Thus, that does away with the speculation about if the word, “Nephilim could have become just a term for giant humans.”
Also, recall that Nephilim being rendered as giants is just that: a rendering, it implies nothing whatsoever about height at all.
Dr. Fernandes continued, “What I do know is, it doesn’t seem like humans can get as big as Goliath it’s, today’s warrior giants—Goliath was nine and a half feet tall, King Og of Bahsan could have been a 12-footer because it looked like his bed was 13 and a half feet tall and it’s talking about him as a Rephaim, a giant—today’s warrior giants, athletic giants who could put a whooping on you.”
I’m unsure to whom “today’s warrior giants” refers but that Goliath was 9.5 is myopically based on the Masoretic text, but the preponderance of the earliest evidence—the earlier Septuagint, the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls, and the earlier Josephus—all have him at a just why of 7 ft.
As for Og, we don’t have a physical description of him (not until folklore from millennia after the Torah) which is why appeal is made to his bed. Yet, seeking to derive his personal height from his bed is actually based on various assumptions—I will direct the interested readers to my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Yet, as for, “it’s talking about him as a Rephaim, a giant” well, biblically that reads as, “it’s talking about him as a Rephaim, a Rephaim”—more technically, a Repha or of the Rephaim.
Moreover, “So, their size is an advantage, it seems like they can only get to about seven and a half feet tall. Anything over that, they suffer from genetic diseases where a little child could beat up the eight footers that are alive today.”
I’m empathetic to his point but it seems a bit overstated since 8 ft. is just about the upper height of pro basketball players and they’re athletes.
He concluded thusly:
“And so, it seems to me like there were ancient warrior giants that could have been over eight feet tall, nine feet tall. We have skeletal, there’s a lot of evidence for them but…I did not understand it but, powerful tribes of powerful giant humans would discredit, would blow evolution right out of the water. So, the Smithsonian likes to collect these skeletons between the 1830s and 1930s in America. We had thousands of finds reported in local newspapers of skeletons over eight foot tall. Human skeletons, and the Smithsonian would come in would confiscate them—and did display them in the early 1900s.
But as evolutionary theory got more and more popular, all of a sudden, they said they had no memory of these things being there.
But, whatever, the case—I don’t know, is the short answer of the Nephilim after the flood.”
One of the first things my apologetics mentor told me was that when I don’t know, I should just say I don’t know so, I appreciate that bottom line.
I thought to note that I wrote a whole chapter in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales about such newspaper reports from the late 1800s-early 1900s and they range in levels of believability, of course. Therein, I also included an entire chapter to the Smithsonian issues and there are a lot of problem with the typical blanket statement about that.
The saddest part is that asserting that this has something to do with Nephilim the real conspiracy is overlooked: it was about racism, it was about assuming that Native savages could not have accomplished building feats which must have been done by someone else, it was about hiding away skeletons so as to not leave anything behind to which Natives could appeal as evidence of a right to certain lands, etc.
Well, overall, we have seen that there are some issues to iron out along the way—as we sharpen iron with iron—and the biblical answer to, “If the Nephilim were destroyed during the flood how come the giants [Nephilim] continued?” is: they didn’t.
They lived pre-flood, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form and then centuries post-flood some unreliable, unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers made up a tall-tale about them and God rebuked them. The rest is history or rather, the rest is folklore.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
That you do not understand Atheism or even what it means,
yet have never bothered to even look it up in a dictionary,
indicates an abject lack of interest.
Atheism is a word that relates a Single State: Non Belief in gods.
It is not a belief in nothing, that is asinine and untenable,
a moments thought would have revealed that fact.
Nothing creating nothing happens all the time
ALL day today the empty space around me has created absolutely nothing.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
As for “look it up in a dictionary,” looking it up in “a,” singular, dictionary seems to be what you have done since you miss the various definitions, and usages, and denominations/sects of Atheism: https://truefreethinker.com/atheisms-sects
Thus, there are Atheists who demand that Atheism is and means a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence.
So if “Nothing creating nothing happens all the time” in the sense of “the empty space around me has created absolutely nothing” whence came the universe?
Nev Anderson
People generally look it up in a dictionary
rather than a dozen.
There are myriads of theists pretending to be Atheists who do that.
A few exchanges and the facade crumbles, theists do NOT comprehend Atheism.
Petty, petty semantics
as a petty, petty personal insult
reveals who you are.
We cannot see where the energy and matter that forms the universe came from.
Like the magician’s rabbit,
it does NOT MEAN from magic land.
Only the ignorant assign causality to imaginary phantasms.
Ken Ammi
Good point and by generally looking it up in a, singular, dictionary rather than a dozen they give one single resource way too much authority.
I complied various definitions and most affirm that “Atheism” also means the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence: “Atheism”: what does it mean? – truefreethinker.com
Can you name one theist pretending to be Atheist?
I thank God that I can’t even imagine how you misinterpret elucidating semantic facts as a “personal insult” which you further misinterpret as that it “reveals who” I am. That actually sounds like you may want to focus on being emotive rather than ironing out facts.
Now, you say “theists do NOT comprehend Atheism…magician’s rabbit…magic land…the ignorant…imaginary phantasms” but you don’t say what’d be wrong with accidentally existing apes doing and believing that within an existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to not do and believe those things.
But I agree that “energy and matter that forms the universe” didn’t come from “imaginary phantasms.” They came from God.
The most up to date cosmology informs us that the universe is a time, space, matter continuum.
Gen 1:1 stated “In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].” How did ignorant Bronze Age goat herders know the most up to date cosmology?
Nev Anderson
The Oxford English Dictionary is THE Premier source of English Language Definitions. Rather than the profusion of purveyors of mangled language such as is prevalent in America, THE most fanatically religious nation on Earth.
Anyone or anything that labels itself as a “True Free Thinker” (or similar) empirically is nothing of the sort. What they inevitably reveal is that all they seek is confirmation for some presuppositional position.
An actual Free Thinker does not consider there to be need to advertise. Only the charlatan does.
Your god is an imaginary phantasm.
That is why you are unable to provide even a sliver of evidence for its existence.
Why every single claim made for it,
when investigated
is found to be completely fallacious.
Then there are the myriad asinine assertions attributed directly to it by your book of superstitions, lies and fallacies.
Such as:
the Earth is flat,
motionless,
set on pillars,
orbited by the sun,
under a star speckled dome,
that keeps out the waters of space,
whilst letting some in through windows,
as rain
Bronze age ignorance.
Ken Ammi
So, if I may recap your reply: you are so utterly and literally incapable of dealing with the issues that you launched a goal-post moving personal attack based on hidden assumption an peppered with mere assertions whilst being emotively childish: Atheism tactic 101.
That my “god is an imaginary phantasm” is a positive affirmation you must prove.
If you imply demanding evidence, then step one is for you to justify your demand—which should not be a big deal since you imply holding to the one true worldview.
We can also get around to your jumps to conclusions about your mistaken view of biblical cosmology.
Nev Anderson
No you may NOT.
For what you are doing is
Asserting YOUR words in place of mine.
This so as to
assert insult and accusation
that are unrelated to reality.
Thanks for confirming the religious stereotype.
Ken Ammi
I asked two questions in my previous reply, “Can you name one theist pretending to be Atheist?” and “How did ignorant Bronze Age goat herders know the most up to date cosmology?” so I’m unsure to what “No you may NOT.”
So as to not confirm the Atheist stereotype, please deal with the issues rather than launching personal attacks.
Nev Anderson
Do you think I keep lists?
It is simple EVERY TIME an “Atheist” states something that aligns with the religious STRAWMAN version of Atheism, THAT is a theist pretending.
This is NOT even close to cosmology,
it is merely ignorance and wild guesses:
the Earth is flat,
motionless,
set on pillars,
orbited by the sun,
under a star speckled dome,
that keeps out the waters of space,
whilst letting some in through windows,
as rain
There is no personal attack.
Here you are inserting YOUR WORDS as mine:
… and me calling you on it.
There IS an observation of your behaviour,
presented in THIS thread.
Where YOU assert YOUR baseless assertions
about something you not only do NOT know about,
but also
Could NEVER know about.
So,
once again the theist makes fallacious accusations
In line with a stereotype so well worn that your confirmation wasn’t required.
Ken Ammi
Well, I’m unsure how you can read the minds of Atheists but hey, I’ve heard people assert odder stuff.
I’m unsure how you can say that the universe being a time, space, matter continuum is “NOT even close to cosmology” and “merely ignorance and wild guesses” when it was correctly identified as such so many millennia ago.
“There is no personal attack”? How about “a petty, petty personal insult reveals who you are…ignorant…charlatan…asinine,” etc. so those (et al.) qualify as “based on hidden assumption an peppered with mere assertions whilst being emotively childish.”
Thus, I did no inserting of anything anywhere but if I did, you lack any premise upon which to call me on it—except by appealing to your impotent subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions).
You seem to be projecting when, based on subjective personal preferences du jour, you complain about “YOU assert YOUR baseless assertions.”
Nev Anderson
T’rolling
The assertion of things NOT SAID
to fit your need.
Be gone.
Ken Ammi
I can understand why you are desperate to run away since this discussion has evidenced that you’re incapable of defending your worldview. Yet, that’s because your worldview has failed you. And that’s because your worldview is such a failure that it actually fails before it even begins.
Nev Anderson
Atheism isn’t a world view.
That is an indication of the nonsense you assert
and you will never change.
You merely waste my time.
Ken Ammi
That is an indication of the nonsense you assert
and you will never change.
You merely waste my time.
See how easy it is to ignore issues that are inconvenient and just run away? Atheist tactic 101.
Nev Anderson
Theists persistently level the worst of their own behaviour as accusations against others.
It is YOU who is asserting the existence of a non evident, non manifesting, invisible, magical phantasm.
THAT requires determined assertion of lies and fallacy.
The Non Belief in that rubbish requires only the recognition of rationality and reality
Ken Ammi
I’m not interested in engaging you on what “Theists,” the overwhelming majority of all humans who have ever existed, “persistently level” since you’re painting with a broad brush broom.
But what, on your worldview, is wrong with theists persistently leveling the worst of their own behaviour as accusations against others?
Likewise, what’s wrong with “asserting the existence of a non evident, non manifesting, invisible, magical phantasm”?
What’s wrong with “assertion of lies and fallacy”?
You seem to imply you have to rationalize yourself to rationality and then appeal to accidental reality.
Nev Anderson
YOU continue to assert your words as mine,
I will leave you with your dishonesty.
Ken Ammi
Now you attempt to distract by claiming I’m dishonest as an excuse to run away but what, on your worldview is wrong with dishonesty and how do you know that I’m being dishonest?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe posted a video titled 28:19 RTB 101: Who Were the Nephilim? which led to the following discussion.
Jeff Spearman commented
Great explanation. Sons of God in the Old Testament are always angels. The Nephilim were the offspring of the fallen angels, who could take on human form, and human women.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
It’s not accurate to claim that “Sons of God in the Old Testament are always angels”: sometimes they are Angels and sometimes humans. I accept they’re Angels in Gen 6 but there’s no indication anywhere in he Bible that “angels…could take on human form, and human women” rather, they are always described as looking like human males which implies that is how they are ontologically. Yet, Ross’ is not such a great explanation since he teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible doesn’t.
Jeff Spearman
Yes they are always males, you’re correct. I said the nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels and human women, as Ross said. In the Old Testament the “sons of God” always refers to Angels, most often in the book of Job. In the New Testament it usually refers to believers in Christ. The book of Numbers refers to nephilim, which of course was post-flood. Goliath is believed to have been the last of these nephilim. When angels appeared to Abraham and accompanied him to Sodom, he initially thought they were men, and so did the homosexuals in Sodom, verifying that they can assume human form.
Ken Ammi
Most interesting.
I had noted that Ross “teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible doesn’t.”
Yes, “The book of Numbers refers to nephilim” but “refers to” does not equate that they were actually alive and on the ground at that time: you are basing that on actually believing an “evil report” by guys whom God rebuked.
Rather, you should accept Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5 which tell us that eight people and some animals made it past the flood.
Yes, “Goliath is believed to have been the last of these nephilim” but “believed” is one issue but the contents of the Bible is another: he is referred to as having been a Repha, not a Nephil.
Those examples don’t “verifying that they can assume human form” since they contain no indication that they were assuming human form. Rather, just take them as they are written: Angels are in human form naturally, that’s just how they look and we were made “a little lower” than then.
A certain Wberry replied
I believe this perspective. Ken Ammi is not looking at it the same way. Hopefully he will get there.
Lee Overthrow chimed in with
Hi you say that there is no were in the Bible that says that Angel can take on Human Form. Please read Genesis 19:1-11 This passage of Scripture speaks of Two Angels taking on Human Form EATING a meal with Lot and his family, the men of Sodom wanted to have Sex with them and Lot offered his Daughters, and the Angels then Blinded the men of Sodom.
Ken Ammi
Can you quote Genesis 19:1-11 where it “speaks of Two Angels taking on Human Form” or at Sodom? See, the issue is you see that in the Bible Angels are described as looking just like human males but rather than accepting that Angels look just like human males you’re inventing un-biblical claims about them.
Lee Overthrow
Explain what you mean the issue is me what issue are you on about. And don’t you believe that Two ANGELS visited Lot at SODOM and took on the appearance of men. Explain what your saying.
Ken Ammi
I’m saying that there’s not one single statement in the whole Bible about any such thing as “ANGELS…took on the appearance of men.” See, you’re reading a physical description of Angels, without any indication that such is not their natural look, but you’re denying that their natural look and are inserting an unbiblical concept about them merely taking on the appearance of men. The logical and theo-logical conclusion is that God created Angels to look like human males—a difference is that they have access to realms/dimension that we currently don’t.
Well, that ended it since no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
In this context, substance refers to what which makes up a being, humans in this case, and so refers to our fundamental construct, our ontology.
Terminology can be tricky but, in short, substance dualism, referring to two, proposes that we consist of body and spirit or of body and soul.
The substance trialism I am proposing proposes that we are body, soul, and spirit.
What the difference between soul and spirit may be is also tricky—as is where mind comes into the mix especially since some would claim no distinction between soul and spirit and claim that mind is just an a.k.a. for soul/spirit.
In any case, my proposal is actually very, very simple and can be said to be premised upon one biblical verse.
Variously, Genesis 2:7 reads thusly:
ESV: then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
KJV: And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
NASB: Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living person.
NIV: Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
God form the body and infuses into it “the breath of life” which results in “became a living soul,” “a living person,” “a living being.”
Conceptually, this appears to tell us that God caused a body to be infused with one of His (what theologians would term) communicable attributes.
God causes the body to become animated when He transfers to it something that causes it to become animated which is describes as becoming a living being, coming to life.
A basic level metaphor for what how I am reading this is that the body is like a computer’s hardware: the physical components, the aspects of it we can see and touch.
What God breathes into the body is like the spirit, the electricity without which the computer does not function.
Living soul/person/being would be like the software. Hardware plus electricity would still result in a computer that does nothing. The point of combining hardware and electricity is so that the software is given a manner whereby to manifest, to function, to be expressed, to do.
The spirit within us seems to be an impersonal force, energy. I am granting that in any langue words, phrases, terms can have more than one meaning and more than one usage.
For example, we hear of someone having “the spirit of” what have you—jealously, for example.
A spirit, proper, has no flesh and bone (Luke 24:39)—is not physical—and yet, can incarnate. Biblically, there are some spirits who are not incarnated, such as demons, and some spirits who are incarnated, such as humans.
A disincarnate spirit may perhaps be thought of as a mind without a brain and would seem to be more like a spirit and soul since it exhibits characteristics of personhood which, on my theory, are soulish.
The soul/person/being is the personal aspect of who we are, it is who we are—and may be correlateable to mind.
In the simplest of terms, just like a computer is hardware, software, and electricity (an electricity that is not intrinsic to it, by the way, but comes from without—just like God infused the body with the spirit of life), so we humans are a substance trialism of body, soul, and spirit.
This beings some emotive Atheist counters into play since some have asserted that since if the brain gets damaged and the person ceased to function as they once did (due to dying or becoming mentally challenged in some way) then that proves there are no minds but only brains.
Plugging my metaphor into this concludes in that if we smash a computer’s hardware with a baseball bat and so the computer ceases to function, then that proves that software does not exist.
Moreover, we would be dealing with a damaged enough body that the soul would no longer be able to express itself through it.
Yet, it may be possible to retrieve the software from a non-functioning computer/hardware and re-install it into a new computer. And were we have a picture of what resurrection implies (even if it is a bit sloppy since we would be dealing with repairing the damaged hardware) since God would seem to retrieve the soul/software from the damaged body/hardware, would repair the body/hardware, upload the soul/software, and reinfuse it with the spirit/electricity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 a video titled Steve Quayle:The Truth About Nephilim Giants, the following discussion took place.
A certain J Paul noted
The “sons of God ” in Genesis 6: 1- 4 are the fallen angels and fallen gods (that God had created on the very same day that HE created the Heaven and the Earth on Day 1).
Psalm 82:1, 6-7 > God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; HE judgeth among the gods…. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Matthew 24:37-38 > But as the days of Noe (Noah) were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
The reference to “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage” in above verses is not necessarily about mankind going about their daily routines but about the activities of (i) the fallen sons of God who took in marriage the daughters of men and (ii) and genetically corrupted all flesh – man, beasts etc (iii) their offspring who indulged in eating human flesh and drinking human blood until they were all wiped out in the universal flood in the days of Noah
Historic realities :
Despotic totalitarian regimes throughout history have also destroyed people and cultures, and human civilisations.
God has destroyed cities after the time of the universal flood e.g. (Sodom & Gomorah).
God’s covenant and promise after the universal flood in the days of Noah, is that (i) there will no more be a universal flood or (ii) a flood that will destroy all flesh and HE has kept HIS promise (iii) this earth and all the works thereon will end with a fire.
Scripture is clear that God will not allow transhumanism or hybrids or chimera like creatures to prosper and negate HIS plan and purpose for mankind and besides HE has appointed the time within which HE will accomplish HIS purpose.
Genesis 9:9 – 13 > And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you (Noah), and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you, “neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood”; “neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth”. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
I do set my bow (rainbow) in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth.
Read after the flood in the days of Noah – Nimrod and his attempt to build to reach heavens
Genesis 10:8 -10 > And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He … And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Genesis 11:4, 8 -9 > And they said, Go to, “let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven”; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth… So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off (gave up) to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; …
Is it reasonable to think that the dispersed from Babel might have attempted again to build structures to try & reach heaven.
It should therefore not be hard to use the logic of reason to conclude that whenever mankind is corrupted by the seed of fallen angels and/or fallen gods, God will destroy locally (not universally) through floods and consequent mud floods the hybrids that are not the “humankind” as HE will also do once and for all in the future at the end of Time.
Shalom
I, Ken Ammi, replied
In that case, He must have created the Angels (how are “‘sons of God’…fallen angels AND fallen gods?) just before the Earth since they witnessed its creation (Job 38:7).
Matthew 24:37-38 isn’t about “the activities of (i) the fallen sons of God” since in the parallel passage in Luke 17 Jesus says the same thing about the days of Lot so that it was about mankind.
What makes you think Angels, “genetically corrupted all flesh – man, beasts”? Is it due to Gen 6:11 stating, “the earth was corrupt…all flesh had corrupted their way”?
What make you think Nephilim “indulged in eating human flesh and drinking human blood”?
Or were you just summing up part of what the Bible says with part of folklore from millennia after the Torah was written?
There’s no indication that Nimrod had anything to do with the Tower.
No worries about “whenever mankind is corrupted by the seed of fallen angels and/or fallen gods” since the only Angles who did so were incarcerated (Jude and 2 Peter 2).
Shalom
J Paul
Ken Ammi – of course HE created the angels and the gods when HE created Heaven as revealed in Genesis 1: 31 to Genesis 2:2 > And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Note – the host of them refers to stars, angels, gods. e.g. Genesis 32 : 1 >
And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. And when Jacob saw them, he said, This is God’s host: …
e.g. Deuteronomy 4:19 >
And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest “the sun, and the moon, and the stars”, even all “the host of heaven”, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, …
e.g. Deuteronomy 17:3 > And hath gone and served “other gods”, and worshipped them, either “the sun, or moon, or any of the host” of heaven, which I have not commanded;
HE finished all creation at the end of the 6th day. HE knew what fallen angels and fallen gods that HE created would do and cause Man to sin and therefore the verse in Revelation 13:8 > And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”
Note : there are two ways to interpret that (1) the Lamb was slain in concept according to God’s wisdom for redeeming Believers. OR (2) since God is outside of time and space, everything is happening as part of one long day in HIS perspective. For God who is covered in light (Psalm 104:1-2 > Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: … ) there can be no nights just one continous day.
There is another verse that explains how God views things – once HIS Word is pronounced it’s done and will not return to HIM unfulfilled as declared in Isaiah 55:11 > So shall MY word be that goeth forth out of MY mouth: it shall not return unto ME void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Ken Ammi
Indeed, we agree that he created Angels before the Earth.
I had asked “how are ‘sons of God,’” both, “fallen angels and [also] fallen gods?” and who are the “gods”? It seems that the “gods” are the fallen Angels aka demons.
These are the left-over issues:
What makes you think Angels, “genetically corrupted all flesh – man, beasts”? Is it due to Gen 6:11 stating, “the earth was corrupt…all flesh had corrupted their way”?
What make you think Nephilim “indulged in eating human flesh and drinking human blood”?
Or were you just summing up part of what the Bible says with part of folklore from millennia after the Torah was written?
There’s no indication that Nimrod had anything to do with the Tower.
No worries about “whenever mankind is corrupted by the seed of fallen angels and/or fallen gods” since the only Angles who did so were incarcerated (Jude and 2 Peter 2).
Shalom!
Ken Ammi
Again, “Indeed, we agree that he created Angels before the Earth.”
Again, “I had asked ‘how are ‘sons of God,’’ both, ‘fallen angels and [also] fallen gods?’ and who are the ‘gods’? It seems that the ‘gods’ are the fallen Angels aka demons.”
Now you say, “angels and the gods…angels, gods…fallen angels and fallen gods…”
J Paul
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, also after the flood and thus were born Nephilim again.
Ken Ammi
It’s a little hard to follow what you mean since you jumped from the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined English word “giants” the specific Hebrew word “Nephilim.”
Please don’t chase an English word around a Hebrew Bible.
See when you quoted Gen 6:4 “giants” was rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” but when you refer to “Nephilim again” post-flood you’re exclusively relying on one single verse in an “evil report” no one should believe.
Other references to “giants” post-flood are to “Rephaim” not to “Nephilim.”
Now, you say “also after that” refers to the flood but why is it that they very text you quoted doesn’t refer to the flood (in fact, it’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later).
So, when you say “also after the flood and thus were born Nephilim again” there’s no reliable indication of that and you also imply that God failed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
I fail to recognize anything remotely similar to the “problem of evil” here…
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Data would be willing to suffer in exchange for certain experiences. This touches upon the (theological) problem of evil since if God has sufficient reason(s) for allowing it then it is not a problem: reason(s) such as bringing about a greater good.
jursamaj noted
If God were omnipotent (as generally asserted) then he could bring about that greater good without the evil. Anything less is no omnipotence.
If we can’t see a greater good, we can’t use it to excuse the evil we can see. That good remains hypothetical.
That Data would be willing to suffer for a good he feels outweighs the suffering has no connection to the actions of an omnipotent good. Data knows that omnipotence isn’t an option, he just weighing the options that could be available.
Spiner is speaking from a script. The words don’t really reflect what such an android would choose, but what a human thinks this android would choose. It’s incoherent, because if the android can’t feel, how could it feel it was missing something?
Ken Ammi
Friend, you began with a conclusion based on hidden assumptions so first back up and tell us how does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise?
Johnny Carcinogen chimed in thusly
I believe I must agree with some of the points laid out by others in the comments, that this does speak directly to the problem of evil. However, what you offer is something of an interesting argument, that evil exists in much the same way that we can only know and experience positive and pleasurable emotions/experiences because we have the negative and unpleasurable emotions/experiences to compare them to.
I must, as I started, disagree. If a creator being were infinitely omnipotent, then they would be to create a method for recognizing good without the existence of evil& the harm that evil does to people.
Ken Ammi
Well, I argued no such thing, actually, but noted “if God has sufficient reason(s) for allowing it then it is not a problem: reason(s) such as bringing about a greater good.”
jursamaj
One does not “adhere” to truth and logic, any more than one “adheres” to physics.
None of those issues has anything to do with the problem of evil.
If it did, your worldview would do no better.
Ken Ammi
Seems you decided to simply side-step 1), you commented on 2), and implied a doing away with 3) along the way. Well, you can attempt to not adhere to physics and may die as a result and the same could be said about logic yet, you could not adhere to logic and survive but simply be mistaken. Thus, “One does not ‘adhere’ to truth and logic, any more than one ‘adheres’ to physics” is a category error and if you do not adhere to logic then we cannot even have a discussion. You seem to not see how 1), 2) and 3) are the very foundation upon which to even have a discussion about the problems (plural, actually) of evils (plural, actually) since without answering those then there cannot even be a discussion beyond you asserting emotional statements.
jursamaj
You are mistakens (plural, actually). [👈🏼that’s a joke, in case you didn’t get it]
I did in fact comment on all 3 of your points, in that they are irrelevant to the discussion of the Problem of Evil, and that your worldview doesn’t explain them any better than mine.
Truth, logic, and physics simply are. They aren’t laws that demand adherence, as political laws do. You can choose to speed or not. You don’t “adhere” to physics when you fall, because you have no choice in the matter. You can take advantage of physics, to do things, but that isn’t adherence. Likewise with truth and logic. Ethics aren’t even involved in the Problem of Evil. The POE uses defined terms, in ways that don’t involve making ethical judgements. While truth & logic may well be foundational, we both already agree those are real, so neither of us needs to justify them.
I have no idea what you mean by “implied a doing away with 3) along the way”.
To address your actual argument, which you stated to Johnny, that God could be allowing evil to accomplish a greater good, you clearly don’t understand omnipotence. An omnipotent god could accomplish that greater good without evil. That is why all christian arguments on the POE fail.
Ken Ammi
“mistakens”? I love it and will have to remember that one.
If truth, logic and ethics are irrelevant to the discussion of the problem(s) of evil(s) (plural, actually). [👈🏼that’s NOT a joke, in case you didn’t get it] then it matters not nor can we discuss it since there is no imperative to be truthful, logical or ethical so we
can both say whatever we want however truthful or not, however logical or not, and there are no ethics holding our metaphorical feet to the fire of being truthful and logical within discussions.
For example, when you say “your worldview doesn’t explain them any better than mine” you are basing that on a hidden assumption of truth and logic.
You must be an Atheist to say “Truth, logic, and physics simply are” since that will be your ultimate reply to any meta issue: it just is.
Also, since on your worldview, “They aren’t laws that demand adherence” then you just destroyed the aforementioned ability to have discussions and hold each other accountable for the validity of our
statements.
But when you say “They aren’t laws that demand adherence, as political laws do” you seem to not have considered the “laws” of logic. For example, before humans recognized logic did the universe both exist and also not exist in the same sense at the same time?
When you fall you, by definition, adhere to physics which is why you fall in the first place: it is not about choice, it is about that it is a law acting upon you. Granted, one can be illogical and still survive (yet, in some cases they can be illogical and not survive it) but that does not make it any less a set of laws.
If “Ethics aren’t even involved in the Problem of Evil” then there is not POE as ethics is the very premise upon which the POE is based–which is why it is just an Atheist activist ruse to complain about it, of course.
That we agree that “truth & logic may well be foundational…are real,” even if they “simply are” but the problem is that on an Atheist view there is no imperative to adhere to them.
Any viable worldview would have to account for good and evil (not the pseudo-good and pseudo-evil of an Atheist worldview which makes those terms and concepts purely emotive and subjective), beautiful acts of love and horrible acts of violence, etc., etc., etc. and we find that the Biblical worldview is that God created things according to His will, there was a fall, creation will be redeemed, and then God will have accomplish that greater, ultimate, good after which there will be no more evil. This brings us back around to that God did things in the manner in which He did them and for His own reasons—and since you say that truth, logic and ethics “are irrelevant to the discussion of the Problem of Evil…aren’t laws that demand adherence” then you sawed off the branch upon which you sit.
Keep in mind that even if “all christian arguments on the POE fail” you are still not rid of the POE (even if you fall for actually taking the Atheist worldview which says, “Evil? What evil?” as a denial tactic).
jursamaj
You make a lot of unsupportable assertions, most of which are irrelevant to the POE. It’s really quite simple:
We agree that there is evil in the world.
If there is an omnipotent god, it could have accomplished any goal without evil. (By definition of “omnipotent”.)
If that omnipotent god created everything, then it created that evil. (Since everything that exists is part of that “created everything”.)
An all-loving being doesn’t intentionally create evil. (If you disagree, then we aren’t talking about the same definition of “loving”.)
The obvious conclusion is that any such omnipotent creator can’t possibly by all-loving. That is the POE. [Note that atheists don’t have to answer the POE, because the POE is specifically about how an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving god can exist in a world that has evil. Since atheists don’t claim such a being exists, there is no POE for them to answer. If you are lumping anything else into the POE, you simply don’t understand the POE.]
A note on one of your sillier assertions, that atheistic ideas of good & evil are subjective: all ideas of good & evil are subjective. If you say it comes from God, and God has a mind, then that is subjective by definition. Something that is objective is true even if no mind is around to think about it.
Ken Ammi
This is getting interestinger and interestinger.
Well, friend, we may “agree that there is evil in the world” but one man’s evil is another man’s good—as we shall see.
Regarding “If there is an omnipotent god, it could have accomplished any goal without evil” you say “By definition of ‘omnipotent'” but bypass the definition of “evil.”
In any case, omnipotence does not mean doing what you subjectively think is best. If God has a reason for having done it a certain way then that too would be omnipotence: knowing better and doing it that way.
On Atheism however, evil is even worse because the evil doer enjoys it and ultimately gets away with it and/or evil becomes a good such as when, for example, some of the most famous Atheists argue that rape played a beneficial role in human evolution—and on evolution, the death of the less fit is a beneficial good.
Thus, the P(s)OE(s) are some of the best reasons for rejecting Atheism. Moreover, Atheist cannot reject God due to the P(s)OE(s) for the very reason that an Atheist universe is one whereby there is no objective, absolute, universal evil which means the Atheist cuts off the branch on which she sits in order to voice her condemnation or evil and rejection of God.
When it comes to God creating evil the issues are that which is known as God’s perfect will vs. God’s permissive will.
This also ties in with “If that omnipotent god created everything, then it created that evil” the reply to which is that the omnipotent God did not created everything, did not created evil, “An all-loving being doesn’t intentionally create evil.”
Now, I refer to P(s)OE(s) because there is not singular problem of evil but there are multiple problems of evils. Thus, when you say “atheists don’t have to answer the POE, because the POE is specifically about how an omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving god can exist in a world that has evil” is only one aspect of it.
If an Atheist rejects God due to one of the PsOEs then, guess what, nothing has changed—and now they do not even have God to blame for it anymore.
Thus, the Atheist will they take any of the routes I noted: claim there is not absolute evil, claim that evil is or can be good, guarantee that evil just is and is un-redeemable, or whatever incoherent consoling delusion they may chose.
When you say “all ideas of good & evil are subjective” you must understand that you just utterly discredited your own arguments since you cannot even any longer claim there even exists any such thing as the POE since you have defined the E out of existence.
jursamaj
By the definition of ‘omnipotence’, an omnipotent god could have created a world with evil or a world without evil. We don’t need to define that evil, because the bible story does it for us. By God’s own standard, it created a world with evil, and by God’s own standard, evil must be avoided. Thus, by God’s own standard, it committed an evil act, and is not perfectly good. That is the Problem of Evil (not “only one aspect of it”, that’s the whole thing). Even if you could show atheism to be incoherent (which you can’t) that would not save the bible story from incoherence.
There is no point in re-addressing your other babble, when you refuse to look at the actual point.
Ken Ammi
It is 100% un-biblical that God “created a world with evil.”
Atheism is incoherent by definition: it fails before it even beings.
For example, none of what you said is the least bit coherent on Atheism since you are appealing to logic, which your worldview cannot account for, and that you should adhere to it, which your worldview cannot account for, and that others should do likewise, which your worldview cannot account for since there is no universal imperative to do so.
There are PsOEs since, for example, a person murdering another person is an evil but so is a hurricane killing a person is also an evil but they are very different.
If you reject God due to the a POE you discredit yourself from rejecting God due to the a POE since the result would be the collapse of the premise upon which you sought to discredit God in the first place.
jursamaj
Unbiblical? Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
And even if it were denied in the bible, that would just mean the was incorrect. If a god created everything that exist (besides itself) and evil exists, then necessarily that god created that evil. That the writers of the bible weren’t able to see the obvious logical consequences of their claims simply proves that the bible was not in any sense created by an omniscient & honest being.
No worldview needs to or can “account for logic”. Logic is just part of the rules humans have written down to describe the world. If the universe behaved in a different way, then logic would have different axioms. If that is simply not possible, then logic couldn’t have been other than it is, and nobody needs to account for it being the only way it can be.
As for “universal imperative”, neither atheists nor theists can really offer one. You claim to do so, but that is mere assertion.
Regarding your assertion of multiple problems of evil, that’s just childishness. That there is more than one sort of evil doesn’t constitute different problems. There is only 1 problem: that those evils exist at all at the same time as an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving creator. Anybody who doesn’t claim such a creator doesn’t need to explain the existence of evil, since there is no logical argument to show such evil to be inconsistent with anything else.
Unless you have something substantive to say, I can’t see any point revisiting this once per week, and this will be our last exchange on the matter.
Ken Ammi
Friend, I noted “It is 100% un-biblical that God ‘created a world with evil’” since we have no indication of that. We have indication of a fall after the creation. Isaiah 45:7 does not have to be taken to mean that God “created a world with evil” but that He creates it as in uses it towards His ends, “That they may know…that there is none beside me. I am the LORD…let them [ye heavens…skies…earth] bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.”
Yet, in any case: your worldview does not provide you a premise upon which to condemn anything—not God, not the Bible, not be (if I misrepresented it), etc.
Also that “god created everything that exist” is vague since, for example, we have indication that God created certain kinds of thing but did not, for example, create atomic bombs.
Every worldview needs to “account for logic” even if you state that in recognition that yours does not. Now, when you claim “Logic is just part of the rules humans have written down to describe the world” you have created, at least, three problems:
You are telling me that some accidentally existing apes have written things down but why should I care about what accidentally existing apes say?
See, 2. if such is the case then there is no absolute universal imperative to adhere to what accidentally existing apes wrote down.
And 3. you are mixing up ontology and description: that accidentally existing apes have written down descriptions of the world means that, by definition, logic exists extrinsically to accidentally existing apes—it preexisted us. You are referring to our description of that preexistent observed phenomena. Thus, on your worldview we humans are accidental, so is logic (which you admit), so is our ability to discern it, and there is no absolute universal imperative upon which to do so (which you admit).
That which you subjectively find to be “childishness” or “substantive” are not standards.
There are not only the different sorts I noted but also the emotional problem of evil, the intellectual (or logical or philosophical) problem of evil, the theological problem of evil, the Atheistic problem of evil, etc., etc., etc.
But recall that you cannot say “those evils exist at all at the same time as an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving creator” since:
On your worldview you have no premise upon which to state that not condemn it.
On your worldview “evil” is subjective and can actually be “good” (which you seem to admit).
But I see why you are desperate to claim “this will be our last exchange on the matter” since it is usually when Atheist begin to think one nanometer deeper than that to which they have become accustomed and they begin to see their worldview collapsing around them that they run away.
Ken Ammi replying to a comment by Joshua Opell that seems to have been deleted
Seems that you jumped to multiple conclusions so, let’s review:
“problem of evil”: what problem? Is there such a thing on your worldview?
“objective morality”: is not assumed, it’s evidenced (I’d opt for the term ethics, referring to the ethos).
“contradiction”: is that a problem on your worldview and if so, how so?
“if god has any reason to allow evil, then he’s not good”: so are you saying that, as far as I know, 100% of parents are not good since we allow evil to befall our kids? Also, what’s the problem with God not being “good” on your worldview?
Joshua Opell
My worldview is irrelevant to the problem because atheists don’t have to believe in such a thing in order to demonstrate a contradiction in the Christian position.
The whole point of the problem is that it shows an incompatibility with the existence of evil in the world and the god that Christians believe in.
The difference is is that parents are not omnipotent, omniscient, or morally perfect like your god is supposed to be.
Your god not being good is only a problem for you since you believe him to be good.
Ken Ammi
I’m empathetic to why you instantly threw your worldview under the bus. Yet, you need to consider how your worldview is utterly relevant since if you apply it then there’s no problem of evil, nor demonstrating a contradiction since your worldview discredits the very concept of contradictions, of condemning them, etc.
Thus, you may have an emotive subjective personal preference based on hidden assumptions about some supposedly alleged incompatibility but that’s on the level of demanding that your preferred ice-cream flavor is the best or a “My Dear Diary, today I feel…” entry.
So, rather than beginning with conclusions, begin with your worldview, apply its implications and eventually work towards what you have thus far merely asserted.
Joshua Opell
The problem of evil is only a problem for the Christian since they do believe in evil. If they also believe that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect god, then they have an inconsistency within their position. The problem of evil shows a contradiction with the position of the Christian.
If you also believe in the principle of contradiction, then you can’t escape the fact that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is completely incompatible with the existence of your god.
The problem of evil is an indirect argument. It doesn’t require the atheist to believe in evil as a concept. It assumes the existence of evil and an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being to show that the Christian worldview leads to a contradiction.
Take the analogy of a police officer allowing a crime to take place in his presence.
If a police officer witnesses that a person is about to be stabbed and does nothing to stop it, then that’s completely incompatible with him being a police officer.
The same way that it’s incompatible for a good god who is omnipotent and omniscient to allow evil and suffering.
Ken Ammi
Friend, you utterly ignored the key problem with your assertions. Thus, they are discredited by definition.
“The problem of evil is only a problem for the Christian since they do believe in evil”: indeed, which is part of why Atheism is to be utterly rejected.
But what you asserted is therefore self-defeating, since “The problem of evil is only a problem for the Christian since they do believe in evil” then, by definition, you’ve disqualified yourself from complaining about it, condemning it, etc.
Thus, you discredited your rejection of God.
But you want to play the contradiction card even though you can’t since “The problem of evil is only a problem for the Christian since they do believe in evil.”
But you merely ignored that I already noted, “‘contradiction’: is that a problem on your worldview and if so, how so?” and also, “your worldview discredits the very concept of contradictions, of condemning them, etc.” so you’re jumping to conclusions by beginning with them—and doing so without a premise, of course, based on hidden assumptions, of course.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
All the proof that ppl should need, “There were giants in the earth in those days and after”. All praise to The Most High God Yahweh
I, Ken Ammi, replied
But after what?
JiibarO commented
The proof is the Gospel; no other proof is needed.
“And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” – Luke 16:31
ADC Phenomenon commented
It’s a mutation. Jeeeeez.
Ken Ammi
It’s just a mutation that causes the genetic data to build a finger/toe to be multiplied. But unless you know the guy’s height, you can say it’s giantism.
Nikki Bridgewater @Ken Ammi
the flood
Ken Ammi @Nikki Bridgewater
Well, you’re inserting that into a text that doesn’t say that. In fact, we’re dealing with v. 4 but the flood isn’t even mentioned for the very first time until v. 17–a full 13 vss. later.
Leon Hudson @Ken Ammi
no but somethings can grow extra things like fingers toes but do not grow tall does mean he couldn’t have genes for the Giants like from the bible he just didn’t have the gene that makes you giant us active and if you are normal and have extra fingers and toes they most of the time can’t use then and they are deformed so they are removed then his works though genes from giants
Ken Ammi @Leon Hudson
I can’t know to whom you’re referring as “Giants like from the bible” since the English version you’re appealing to render (doesn’t even translate) both “Nephilim” and “Rephaim” as “giants.”
Dr. Froman @Ken Ammi
the after refers to the fact Giants hide in the earth and reemerged afterwards. The original Cannanittes were Giants. After the Exodus Moses led the Israelites to the land of Cannan to claim the Holy Land God promised them but when they arrived they did a recon of the land and found giants so large they said they felt like grasshoppers in their sight. Thus they wandered the desert for 40 more years because they didn’t want to tango with them big boys.
Its always a reference to state they are still there in the earth today.
Ken Ammi @Dr. Froman
Did the flood have anything to do with Nephilim–and if so, what?
What makes you think that “Giants hide in the earth”?
You’ll have to tell me what you mean by “Giants” since you use it to refer to Nephilim but when you say “The original Cannanittes were Giants” you must mean “Rephaim.”
At least that’s what you should mean if you’re seeking to be biblically accurate.
You’re too generic when you say, “Moses led the Israelites…they…they…and found giants” since that was merely asserted by 10 of the unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked for presenting an evil report: why do you believe them?
Their deception was the premise for why they “wandered the desert for 40 more years.”
Since “they are still there in the earth today”: where are they?
Dr. Froman @Ken Ammi
Ok 1 the Rephaim are descendants of the original Nephilim. Rephaim is the term for the later generations who weren’t as tall as the first generations and weren’t as powerful but we’re still very deadly none the less. Nephilim are just another name for giants all though that is technically debated since the translation is Fallen ones but also translates to one of great size and strength also meaning those who are tyrants. So Nephilim could basically encompass the fallen angels known as the watchers as well as their offspring the giants.
2nd The flood happened BECAUSE of the Nephilim and their horrible actions towards mankind by eating them and enslaving them but also by breeding with them mixing angelic blood with human blood along with all the other hybrid creatures created during those times which went against a fundamental law of no interbreeding of the species. Meaning humans stay humans, animals stay animals, angels stay angels etc etc. It was also a slap in the face to God and was one of the many attempts to destroy any chances of God keeping His promise to Adam and Eve about the coming of The Lamb to provide Salvation and allow a true and proper Spiritual connection with God again. Since Christ could only provide Salvation for mankind if He was true humanity and wouldn’t have worked if the Royal line was tainted with angelic DNA.
3rd I was being more basic so i didn’t have to go on this long explanation of everything that was going on since i figured you were already aware of the situation for the most part and I just wanted to answer your question of “after what?” Didn’t realize you were gonna get upset about someone just providing an explanation to what you asked.
4th The report wasn’t a lie the people found in the land of Cannan we’re descendants of Ana’k or the Anakim which are a specific group of giants and they mention how the people were huge and they felt as grasshoppers in their sight and how the cities were fortified and built to the heavens. It talks about how King Og and Bashan we’re the only ones left of Rephaim but that just means they were the tallest in the lands at that time. The further descendants were still massive people ranging from 8ft-10ft tall on average. The wandering for 40 years was due to the cowardice of the Israelites refusing to march into the land and take it and keeping their trust in God that they would be victorious in battle. Since they’ve been completely slacking in their worship of The Creator during their time in Egypt, basically forgetting about the God of their forefathers becoming weak willed spiritually is what lead to their punishment for their disregard for God’s promise on top of their already growing disdain for Moses and the God he was claiming to be serving for taking them from the comfort of Egypt. By showing utter disrespect, mistrust and disobedience towards God’s saving grace and coming gifts, they were forced to wander lost in the desert for their childish behavior and complete apathy for God’s wishes and promises.
5th There are plenty of stories from those lands and neighboring lands and well off distant lands who speak of giants being around well after the flood and how they ruled over many different civilizations for generations after and eventually we’re over thrown due to their cruel and inhumane treatment of the people they ruled over. Many of the stories mention how the few giants that survived the flood did so by hiding deep with in the Earth’s caverns and tunnels. The verse is clear and specific “There were giants ‘IN’ the Earth in those days and after….” Plenty of stories from other cultures around the world describe how the giants had set up cities underground before the flood came and continued to after it settled. Ancient folklore paints the picture where when they emerged from the Earth they are described with terms that talk as tho they were being born from the navel of the goddess that is Mother Earth. They came from out of their underground set ups and flourished again, but as they continued to breed with humans they’re offspring became shorter and shorter. Regardless they still ruled and were easily identified for being 7ft or 8ft tall in these later days still with 6 fingers and 6toes on each hand and foot and mainly having red hair and green eyes. They ruled in the Americas for generations before being overthrown and hunted but they just fled back underground where they knew they’d be safe.
6th If you don’t believe they’re still around that’s fine but that shows you don’t do your research since they’re TONS of modern day stories that speak of giants still inhabiting the mountains and the cave systems in the Earth. There’s videos of giants walking around in isolated areas caught on camera by military personnel who are on deployment or even civilians in areas like Afghanistan or Iraq, Russia, America and a few more countries. One of the most famous stories was an American special operations unit and their encounter with the Kandahar giant. There’s been videos posted of giants in the mountains where one video shows 2 that are starring and pointing at a girl filming with her phone and she’s freaking out seeing them. Another one was a guy doing digging work in the mountains and after he began hammering equipment into the rocks he starts hearing yelling and roaring coming from way down underground where he’s standing.
Whether you want to believe these stories or video footage is up to the individual but personally with ancient stories mentioning this for thousands of years ranging from the mythology of multiple cultures around the world to historical records of past countries and empires to Biblical accounts to modern day claims on top of video footage mixed with prophecy and the warnings of their return and accounts from illuminati members talking about their contact with them and future plans involving their new roles to play in the coming times of their return, i personally knew this to be true years ago and at this point its just getting more and more fun. Everyone else is entitled to their own opinion and belief that’s the beauty of God given free will but i recommend always doing through research for any and every idea or belief 1st before ever committing to anything. I hope this wasn’t too vague and generic for your liking.
Ken Ammi @Dr. Froman
I appreciate the detailed reply but henceforth, I’ll be unable to keep trading essays (since you wrote me over 1,000 words) so, I’ll be as succinct as I can be:
“Rephaim are descendants of the original Nephilim”: mere assertion.
“Nephilim are just another name for giants is jumping from a specific Hebrew term to a generic, vague, multi-usage, and undefined English one so I would need to know to what you’re referring by it.
“Nephilim” never “translates to one of great size”: that’s just a modern day error based on a few factors and isn’t a translation, it’s a (faulty) rendering.
What makes you think that “fallen angels known as the watchers” (MILLENNIA after the Torah was written) were giants/of great size?
No, “Nephilim” doesn’t encompass fallen Angels: that’s just linguistically confused.
There’s no reliable indication Nephilim were “eating them and enslaving them” nor do you say what “all the other hybrid creatures” were.
You say “The flood happened BECAUSE of the Nephilim” but that there were post-flood Nephilim so you imply that God failed.
Please don’t read into mere text: I was not upset but merely asked what you, personally, think in terms of “after what?”
You merely assert, “The report wasn’t a lie” but you then misrepresent the text various times. For example, “the people found…Anakim…giants…were huge and they felt as grasshoppers…cities were fortified and built to the heavens”:
“the people” neither found nor saw nor claimed any such thing: that was just the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked for what they said within an evil report upon whom you exclusively rely for your claims.
In the version you’re reading Anakim are mentioned and you seem to merely assert that they have something to do with Nephilim—please check the LXX of that verse. Now, even if (and that’s a gigantic IF) Anakim have something to do with Nephilim, you still can’t get all Rephaim having something to do with Nephilim from that one single verse but only the Anakim clan (not the whole tribe)
Anakim were “giants…were huge” but the only thing we’re contextually told about them is that they were “tall”—and that’s subjective to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.
You seem to be reading a version that implies “they felt as grasshoppers” referring to Anakim but most have it referring to Nephilim: in any case, since the report is unreliable there’s no reason to think anyone was so very, very tall.
“cities were fortified and built to the heavens” is not even from Num 13, it’s from Deut 1 wherein Moses is merely relating the Num 13 and both reports—which, BTW, proves they were not above employing hyperbole, of course.
Since we’ve no physical description of Og at all, what has he to do with “the tallest” but fine, let’s go with it: Anakim were “the tallest in the lands at the time” which was my point about subjectivity since that just tell us they were taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.
You merely assert, “further descendants were still massive people ranging from 8ft-10ft tall on average.”
Perhaps there are “plenty of stories,” even though you don’t cite any, “from those lands and neighboring lands and well off distant lands who speak of giants being around well after the flood” but what does that have to do with Nephilim?
Since this is about Nephilim, when you say “Many of the stories mention how the few giants that survived the flood” you’re agreeing with “stories from those lands and neighboring lands” that contradict the Bible multiple times: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5.
You seem to be exclusively basing your theory on the KJV and you’re misreading it since “‘IN’ the Earth” was just an older way of saying “on” the Earth.
But fine, let’s go with it: you asserted, “hiding deep with in the Earth’s caverns and tunnels…’IN’ the Earth…underground…they emerged…underground” so you are, yet again, implying that God failed.
But note that your multiple contradictions of the Bible are based exclusively on “‘IN’ the Earth” but “giants IN THE EARTH” and also “God saw that the wickedness of man was great IN THE EARTH” so, apparently, humans were living underground, but you seem to have pulled a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext since the KJV has God stating, “every thing that is IN THE EARTH shall die” (Gen 6:17). Now, will you abandon your theory or will you claim that God was wrong, that He failed, etc.?
You assert “7ft or 8ft tall in these later days still with 6 fingers and 6toes on each hand and foot and mainly having red hair and green eyes” but I’ve no idea what any of that has to do with Nephilim.
You assert, “They ruled in the Americas for generations before being overthrown and hunted but they just fled back underground where they knew they’d be safe” so, that must have been pre-flood and they escaped again.
Again, we’re speaking of Nephilim but you keep punting to “TONS of modern day stories that speak of giants” so you will have to clean that up.
As for “you don’t do your research,” please see these books of mine:
What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology
Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s
Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010
The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim, and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts
The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
The Pastoral Nephilim and Giants: What Do Pastors Teach and Preach?
Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A comprehensive consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.
Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales
On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including noted on giants and the Nephilim
The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon
When you tell me you believe in stories and videos, I hope you realize that “Afghanistan or Iraq, Russia, America” are not citations to specific locations but more of a way of saying I need to investigate entire countries (and “a girl…a guy…in the mountains” is not a citation). The Kandahar giant claim is just an internet hoax based on a couple of anonymous guys making vague claims about generic regions and promulgated by two very unreliable people—when it comes to these issues—LA Marzulli and Steve Quayle (the plagiarist).
Overall, if by “giants” you refer to subjectively unusual people then why would anyone ever deny that there’s always been subjectively unusual people. Yet, you seem to correlate subjectively unusual people to Nephilim which is your main assertion and an assertion is all that it is—and, again, you, consciously or not, are implying that God failed.
Raqam Son Of Manasseh
Yeah right, a woman gave birth to a giant baby that grew to be 30 feet tall. You Christians don’t know the bible. You never did and never will. So you come up with mythology and made up fantasies. The mysteries of the Holy Bible will never be revealed to you Christians.
Leon Hudson @Ken Ammi
I’m talking about the elohim the son’s of yah or the watcher angels that came and took daughter’s of man as wives for them selves and taught man heavenly things read book of Enoch tells great detail about what they taught man. The elohim which means many are the gods of other nations like Zeus hoard all of the Hindu gods ECT. The watcher angels are in a dry desert place covered and chained until judgement day in the earth bound. But the nation built ingravend imagines of the in there honor to worship them.
no the wonder the desert for 40 years because yah said and slay them for I’m with and will fight for you bit there trust in him failed when they heard how tall they were and didn’t do as yah commanded the to do. For not that the had to wonder the desert so that the younger generation would go a take it and listen better then the generation the was alive at that time. Yah let the older die I the over 18 years old and younger at that time over eighteen died off.
Ken Ammi @Leon Hudson
Sure, 1 Enoch asserts stuff, see my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.” Biblically, the sinful sons of God Angels are incarcerated in Tartarus.
When you say “slay them” who is the “them”?
Yes, they “heard how tall they were” but that was a tall tale and “they” weren’t even there.
Leon Hudson
Ken Ammi are you a Jew at all I don’t mean like ones in isreal they stolen the identity from the Jew in 70 a.d when the Jews scattered around the world. Then the Jewish Romans took everything that the Jew had and almost all of the stuff the Jew had is still hiden under the vatican City 50 miles of isreal’s things. So don’t teach my of the Jewish things at all teach the true Hebrew if not I don’t want anything to do with it.
Yes the isrealites didn’t go into the land because of the Giants there because they didn’t obey at all because they did fear the heavenly father that told them to go take it. They seen what he did to the great army of Egypt. But they didn’t trust him enough that he would deliver the land to them from the giants. So he made them wonder in the desert for forty years because of this.
Ken Ammi
I’ve no idea to whom you’re referring by the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English word “Giants” when you say “the isrealites didn’t go into the land because of the Giants…deliver the land to them from the giants.”
And that, as they say, was that since no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.