Matrix Disclosure’s article “Forbidden History – Ancient Giants – Gods and Kings”

The Matrix Disclosure site published an article titled, Forbidden History – Ancient Giants – Gods and Kings.

The article’s author wrote, “Were the fathers of our father’s giants…they were…very large in size…giant men…ancient giants.”

The first on which focus is put is Goliath, the reference to whom is prefaced by, “The Bible often involve giants: Nephilim were semi-divine beings. The King Og had an iron bed 6.7ft by 14: he would be at least 12ft tall. Goliath, the gigantic rival that King David brought down with his sling, was 9.2ft tall. In Rome about 235, they said the Thracian Maximinus Caesar had an 8.6ft skeleton.”

Let us review:

From the context, it would seem that the claim, “The Bible often involve giants” is meant to imply that unusual height is oft noted in the Bible—which, by the way, is not the usage of the vague, subjective, generic, and multi-usage modern word giants in English Bibles.

Nephilim: we have no reliable physical description of them.

Og: we have no physical description of him until folkloric tall-tales form millennia after the Torah. To merely assume that we can know his height from the size of his bed is to jump to a conclusion based on various assumptions—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Most reliably, Goliath was just shy of 7 ft.

As noted in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales, that tall-tale about Thracian Maximinus Caesar is just that: a tall-tale.

Thus, where are the giants?

Well, the article goes around the world providing examples of claims of giants and includes this chart:

nephilim-giants-chart

In my Believe It Or Not! book, I devoted an entire chapter to examining that chart, including interacting with museums, and the score is that it is 99% unreliable.

See my various books here.

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

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Nephilim in Eustace Mullins’ book “Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History”

Eustace Mullins is described in the books as having been, “kept under daily surveillance by agents of the FBI…the only person ever fired from the staff of the Library of Congress for political reasons…only writer who has had a book burned in Europe since 1945” who, “hopes to end a three-thousand-year blackout behind which the enemies of humanity have operated with impunity in carrying out their Satanic program.”

The book under succinct consideration, “is written solely with the goal of renewing our ancient culture, and of bringing it to new heights.”

Mullins wrote of, “Satan, the fallen angel” but he’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub—see my book What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology.

He wrote of the fictional, “pre-Adamic man” as, “a hybrid creature whose origins are described in ancient books” and directly thereafter wrote, “The Book of Enoch (which itself is part of an earlier Book of Noah, written about 161 B.C.)…”

Within such context (such as those of post-flood Nephilologists) be careful about the usage of the term ancient since 161 BC may be ancient to us but is still millennia after the Torah. 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from around that time—see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

In any case, it is noted that the text, “says that Samjaza (Satan), the leader of a band of two hundred angels, descended on Mt. Carmel”: it actually has then descending on Mt. Hermon.

We are told, “They had lusted after the daughters of men from afar, and now they took them for wives. These fallen angels, known as the Order of the Watchers” yet, Watchers is just a Second Temple Era aka for Malakim/Angels.

Eustace Mullins noted, “The issue of these unions was a race of giants, known as Nephilim” about which it is key to ask a few questions (as it is key to ask them of post-flood-giant Nephilologists):

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

What was Mullins’ your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

In any case, he assures us, “The Bible does not mention the Nephilim specifically by name, and Strong’s Concordance does not list them. However, Nelson’s Concordance has several listings under Nephilim.

The verses of the Bible to which it refers are Genesis 6:4, “There were giants in the earth in those days.”

The Revised Standard Version does give the name of the Nephilim, the same verse reading, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days.”

I’m unsure how it is that, “The Bible does not mention the Nephilim specifically by name” except when it does.

Strong’s #H5303 is the term nāp̄îl/nef-eel’ which is said to come from the root #H5307 nāp̄al/naw-fal’ as the primitive root.

Indeed, contextually, giants is merely rendering (not even translating) Nephilim.

Eustace Mullins went on to claim:

These giants later became known as “the sons of Anak.” In Numbers 13:33, we read, “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants.”

These giants constituted a powerful menace to other peoples. In Deuteronomy 9:2 is the complaint, “Who can stand before the children of Anak?” Nevertheless, they were finally killed or driven out. “There were none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel.” (Joshua 11:22)

What this denotes is that his entire theory about what Nephilim had to do with however he ties them into whatever he ties them is exclusively relying on one single sentence spoken by utterly unreliable, unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who presented an evil report and were rebuked by God.

Note that the Septuagint/LXX version lacks a reference to Anakim in that verse.

People who believe in post-flood Nephilim do so due to that one single verse and then use it as a hermeneutic whereby to fallaciously pull other verses from their context and into the post-flood Nephilim black hole.

Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of the via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., and then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent an un-biblical tall-tale about how they made it past the flood.

Let us answer the questions I posed above:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? It’s merely rendering Nephilim in two verses (Mullins’ “several listings” amount to two) and Rephaim in 98% of all other instances—and Nephilim and Rephaim are utterly unrelated: the former were strictly pre-flood hybrids and the latter were strictly post-flood 100% humans.

What was Mullins’ your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”? He used to it mean something unspecific about subjectively unusual height.

Do those usages agree? No.

It is not the case at all that, “These giants later became known as ‘the sons of Anak’”: Nephilim were the sons of the sons of God while the sons of Anak were the sons of Anak.

As for being subjectively unusually tall well, sure they were. They are referred to as having been, “tall” in Deut. 2 and this means taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Yes, they were notoriously infamous, “Who can stand before the children of Anak?” but we’re not even told why.

Since (in pop-researcher Gary Wayne fashion) Eustace Mullins quoted anything by anyone anywhere of any context and any genre, what he tells us about the giants is based on folklore from millennia after the Torah such as, “These early giants…had habits and lusts which horrified their neighbors. Their leader, Satan (the adversary of God), also known as Satona, was the serpent who entered into and seduce Eve,

producing the first murderer, Cain” the last part of which I debunked in my five volume set of books titled Cain As Serpent Seed of Satan.

The folklore continues thusly, “Not only were the Nephilim a menace to others, their uncontrollable hated and violence sometimes led them to attack and kill each other. They then ate their victims, introducing cannibalism to the world. According to some accounts, God slaughtered them, while the Archangel Michael imprisoned the fallen angels, the Order of the Watchers, in deep chasms in the earth” the last part of which touches upon what is found in 2 Peter chap. 2.

As with all post-flood Nephilologists, they give lip service to God’s actions to counteract but end up implying that He failed since, “Unfortunately for humanity, this was not the end of the matter. Satan, through his children, the Nephilim, and also through Cain, had now established a demonic presence on the earth.” Biblically, the flood was the end of any such, “demonic presence” when understood contextual to, “the Nephilim, and also through Cain.”

Eustace Mullins claimed, “While they were wandering in the desert, the Jewish tribes worshipped demons and monsters. They revered their mythical monsters, Leviathan, Behemoth, and Raheb, who well

may have been survivors of the tribe of giants, the Nephilim.”

Indications are that Leviathan and Behemoth were animals. The mythical aspect of Leviathan, or so it seems to me, is that once that animal kind went extinct, it became the stuff of myth and legend and was referred to metaphorically—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology.

As for Raheb/Rahab, that was a persons’ name (Jos 2:1) but also refers to a styled mythical sea creature (Job 26:12) and also a metaphoric manner whereby to besmirch Egypt (Isa 30:7).

Well, there is not much more of contextually interesting relevance to me since therefrom, he goes onto A Demonology of History book.

See my various books here.

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

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Nephilim question answered: How do normal sized women give birth to giants?

The following discussion took place due to Dr. Taylor Marshall’s video NEPHILIM in the Bible? Children of Demons? Expert explains GIANTS in Genesis and Book of Enoch

@marydd4147 asked:

How do normal sized women give birth to giants?

I, @kenammi355, replied:

They 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?

@marydd4147 replied:

I have no idea of the Bible’s use of that word. I didn’t write the book. Hence, my question.  I’ve never understood this, and nobody appears to question it. Can you explain why my vague definition is of ANY relevance?

@kenammi355:

Well, it has relevance since I can’t know to what you’re referring so had to read your sentence like this, “How do normal sized women give birth to _________?”

So, let’s go about this thusly:

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

Your usage (and the usage of 99.999999% of everyone “out there” talking about Nephilim) is something unspecified about subjectively unusual height: inches taller, feet taller, entire body lengths taller–we can’t know if the person using the word doesn’t specify.

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

It’s rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” in two verses and “Rephaim” in 98% of all others–and it never even hints at anything whatsoever to do with subjectively unusual height.

“Do those usages agree?”

Not in the least bit.

So now, let’s rephrase your question like this, “How do normal sized women give birth to subjectively unusually tall personages?”

The Biblical answer is that it’s a non-issue since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim and so can’t merely assert that they were subjectively unusually tall.

@marydd4147:

All you needed was your last sentence. Thank you.

FYI: I have asked those key question to dozens upon dozens (upon dozens [upon dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have answered them, not a single one—but they’ll go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants.”

See my various books here.

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

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

William Lucas on Deep State and Ancient Origin of the Cabal

William Lucas authored a book titled, “Deep State and Ancient Origin of the Cabal” which features an image on the cover along with the words, “The Cabal or Illuminati.”

It could really do with some consolidating since it reads like a rant. For example, for any one statement I quote, he actually repeats the statement, peppering it over and over and over and over, throughout the book.

Referring to a modern channeled book, Lucas writes, “The Urantia Book states that beings from a higher universe came took plasma from the most advanced humans and made superior bodies for those sons of God.” Let us pause here to note that by sons of God, he is referring to humans since, as he puts it (many times), “The Bible often calls men and women sons of God; see Hebrew 12:6-7.”

Well, that is being myopic and is a case of that which I term the canergois fallacy: can ergo is—since it can be the case ergo it is the case. Yet, his context was that which I term the Genesis 6 affair and so it would have been better for him to consider the Old Testament context of, for example, Job 38:7 which has sons of God as being non-human beings—as is the common usage of the term in the Old Testament (whether it is bene ha Elohim or ben Elim, etc.).

William Lucas follows with, “Lucifer rebelled, and of the 100 sons (Anunnaki) that came, 60 rebelled along with Lucifer. They were the ones that had children by humans; their descendants were known as Nephilim; their bodies were made with human DNA.”

So, he has basically just swapped sons of God/Angels with Anunnaki.

He adds that, “After they sinned, the Tree of Life was taken from them.” For one, he has sons/Anunnaki who, “rebelled along with Lucifer” but the Biblical timeline is that Lucifer rebelled and the sons rebelled later—with some level of prompting from him, sure, but not at the same time (Rev 12).

All indications are that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden before having any children, the Genesis 6 affair took place, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” (Gen 6:1) so it could not have been that, the Tree of Life was taken from them” since it had been previously been kept from being accessed by stationing two Cherubim at the entrance to the Garden so as, “to guard the way to the tree of life” (Gen 3:23) so it was a done deal by the time the sons can around.

Yet, what is that to him since he claims of Adam and Eve, “They were not the first two people on earth…it would have been impossible for them to have been the first two people on earth.”

Lucas proposes a fallacious, inaccurate, and anachronistic tale about this, “the sons of God…live indefinitely if they took the tree of life, just as Adam and Eve…After they rebelled, the tree was taken from them, and they would surely die. When the leader of this group realized they would surely die, they were ordered to start having children. Before this, they were not allowed to have children until they had ordered.”

He claims, “Genesis 6:4 says those descendants of the sons of God became men of renown. After thousands of years, they became the people that attempted to build The Tower of Babel; this is the first megalithic site recorded on earth, and they were the only ones on earth that were advanced enough to build such a site.”

Lucas notes that Gen 6:4, “emphasize the male sons of God had children by the daughters of men.” Yet, he also wrote, “I read someplace the reason because all the angels were known as female.” Well, I am as unsure as he is as to what is being referenced as, “someplace” but the fact is actually the 100% opposite: Angles are described as looking like human males.

Lucas appeals to, “Genesis 6: 4 where it says: ‘There were giants (the original word was

Nephilim the King James version) 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.’ Did you notice the giants were already here when the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men?”

No, what I noticed is that since the narrative is about the sons of God and daughters of men, their attraction, marriages, mating, and offspring, then I would not conclude that a very odd narrative indeed, merely throws in a contextually inconsequential reference to Nephilim—about whom nothing more is said.

Rather, the context of the narrative is that, “There were giants…Nephilim…in the earth in those days; and also, after that” as a result of, “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them…”

Lucas claims, “The Jews changed the story to a flood of the whole world to suit their purpose when the Babylonians captured them in B.C. 597” because, “The Hebrew priests had difficulty tracing the Jewish race back to Adam and Eve; as their task was impossible…So they falsified their history to trace Abraham to one of the surviving sons of Noah.”

He knows this because, “The Higher Beings state in The Urantia Book that the tale of Noah and the universal flood was an invention of the Hebrew priesthood during the Babylonian captivity.”

So, based on a channeled assertion, he makes an assertion, and now he can also comfortably assert post-flood Nephilim since there was no flood or the flood was local.

Yet, the flood’s scope is irrelevant to Biblical Nephilology since they either did not survive because the flood was global or because they lived in the flooded region.

Interestingly, he writes, “The contradictions between the Bible and The Urantia Book, we must do a careful analysis of the story of Noah and the Ark as told in the Bible” rather than, the contradictions between the Bible and The Urantia Book, we must do a careful analysis of the story of Noah and the Ark as told in the The Urantia Book. Thus, we see his bias: the Bible must be the problem, and it must be the problem because it contradicts a channeled text from many, many, millennia after the Torah—and because it states what he wants to hear, what will allow his grand narrative to appear cogent.

His attacks upon the Biblical text are misguided, at best, “it would have been impossible for four men

to build a boat that would carry two of every kind of animal in the world” but just like Noah, himself, is told to build it, there is no indication that only one man or three built it.

I have no idea where he gets the idea that, “a person would not have been able to see from one end of the ship to the other,” nor how that would matter.

He asks, “How could Noah and his sons procure enough food and water to last two of a kind of every animal in the world for ten months?” and subjectively informs us, “the whole story sounds ridiculous. How could the Western world believe a story like this for so many years and call themselves intelligent human beings? I know some will say that for God, all things are possible. We must stop using God to wiggle our way out of our stupidity. We must stop letting others use sorcery on us; we must be under some spell to believe some of these stories.”

This is after the very first line of his book’s, “Dedication” reads, “I dedicate this book to the spirit of God within me, and to humanity. One Corinthian 3:16: ‘Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, that the spirit of God dwelleth in you?’” So, the Bible is accurate only when he agrees with it. Also, he really needs to, “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1-6).

Part of the issue is that the typical animal (and human) reaction to cataclysmic weather (or just severe storms) is to hunker down and not be very physically active which dramatically reduces the need for what would otherwise be an average caloric allotment—this also cuts down on the level of waste that is produced. Besides, anyone undergoing such an endeavor would board smaller animals, younger ones that eat less.

Well, that was it, those jejune points are enough to opt for a tall-tale from a modern channeled text.

Yet, he also asserts, “The legend of Noah and the Ark is a story told in the third millennium B.C.E….the Epic of Gilgamesh.” Now, B.C.E. refers to Before Common Era and is just a scholarly manner whereby to refuse to even make any reference to Jesus since B.C.E.  denotes the same exact date as B.C.Before Christ.

The legend of Noah and the Ark is a story told in the third millennium B.C. because it was an actual event. Such is why ancient cultures around the world relate the same event: whether it later came to be called myth or legend, or not.

Yet, fascinatingly, William Lucas wrote, “The Urantia Book claims…When the severe floods came, only Noah’s family survived.” Thus, by besmirching the Bible in favor of that text, he ends up in the same exact place where he started and did not advance a single inch—yet, he moved back a tremendous distance by opting to besmirch the Bible.

Since, “only Noah’s family survived” then Nephilim did not.

Yet, since he appeals to any text from any time by anyone that will say what he subjectively prefers to hear. In fact, he wrote, “I have recently been studying the Emerald Tablets of Thoth—The—Atlantean, and with my knowledge of The Urantia Book, I have discovered some fantastic facts putting the pieces together for me; they are facts.”

He decides to take us in the direction of that, “From the stories found on clay tablets in Sumerian ruins, one can conclude that the Jews fabricated their history years after leaving Egypt as slaves.”

Thus, appeal to the Urantia Book for that it was, “an invention of the Hebrew priesthood during the Babylonian captivity” or the Sumerians for that, “Jews fabricated their history years after leaving Egypt as slaves”: it matter not as long as the Jews are said to be corrupt.

From that standpoint, the line of dominos collapses, “many Bible stories are made up….David and Solomon’s vast empire are just stories created by Jewish authors…a global flood is physically impossible…” and on it goes.

William Lucas asks, “If a worldwide flood destroyed all but one family in the Middle East, as reported in the Bible, how did other cultures know there was a flood? It’s reported that as many as 500 different cultures worldwide have myths and traditions of floods. How would the people know there was a flood in their region if everyone was destroyed?”

Well, it is precisely because a worldwide flood destroyed all but one family in the Middle East that other cultures know there was a flood. Post-flood, humanity lived in relative proximity until the Tower of Babel event, after which they dispersed. They took with them what was then commonly known and shared history, which later, with time and telling, came to be called myth and legend.

And he knows this because he goes on to write, “Genesis 11:8 said they scattered.”

Lucas ends that particular section with, “So says The Urantia Book.”

As he progresses, he says about those that scattered, “After thousands of years, the ones that stayed in Mesopotamia became the people of the Land of Nod, where Cain found his wife.” Yet, that is anachronistic since Cain absconding to Nod occurred quite a long time pre-Babel. Yet, he claims, “we all must realize the people of the Land of Nod, were here thousands upon thousands of years before Adam and Eve, they were the descendants of the sons of God who became the men of renown” which is just a mish-mash of timelines since, of course and again, the sons of God married and mated after Adam and Eve’s children began having children.

Also, note that he wrote, “the sons of God who became the men of renown” but he is confusing the sons of God with their Nephilim offspring who are they who became the men of renown (Gen 6:4).

But I suppose, why let chronology get in the way of a good tall-tale—especially when Lucas has a “second Garden.” At one point, he writes of when the, “Garden of Eden and Atlantis was no more.”

Moreover, “After many more years of mixing with the people in their environment, including Adam and Eve’s offspring after The Book of Enoch warned them not to” referring to a Bible contradicting folkloric text from millennia after the Torah, “They became the Aryans, the ones Hitler tried to discover” and, “The Sumerian language, though virtually lost to the world, was not Semitic; it had much in common with the so-called Aryan tongues.”

The direction in which he is going is to identify, “The Cabal or Deep State…The Cabal (Nephilim) or children of the Land of Nod.”

He notes, “Recently someone posted on FB and asked if anyone thought the Cabal could be the descendants of Nephilim. I said they were. They have been trying for thousands of years to keep their bloodline pure and hide their origin.” Well, such a concept is fallacious since they did not make it past the flood—in any way, shape, or form (lest God failed).

Interestingly, he asserts, “They are the descendants of the ones The Book of Enoch warned his people not to associate with. And they were the offspring of the sons of God of Genesis 6:4, who had children by the daughters of men, and became men of renown” the last point of which contradicts his previous error.

What is interesting is that there were no physical post-flood Nephilim in The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch) so he undermined his own tall-tale.

He relates folklore from Enoch stating of Noah that when he was born, it was noted, “this baby was as white as snow and resembling the sons of God of heaven” and something about, “This is the kind of stuff the Vatican has hidden away in their Library; they don’t want us to know” which makes me wonder how he knows that. Yet, it is always convenient to assert that lack of evidence equals evidence: since we do not have the data that is hidden away then what we merely imagine it may be, must be true.

Likewise with his assertion, “That is why The Book of Enoch was taken out of the Bible, it exposed the Nephilim.” Thus, or so goes the (il)logic: Enoch was taken out of the Bible because it exposed the Nephilim even though Nephilim are in the Bible. He noted, “I guess the Nephilim or Cabal didn’t want anyone to recognize them; the Book of Enoch Identified them” so credit goes to Enoch, not to the Bible, and he does not get a post-flood Cabal of Nephilim post-flood from either one.

Also, there is zero indication that, “The Book of Enoch was taken out of the Bible,” that is just an oft repeated myth.

Lucas continues with that, “The Nephilim invaded Europe.” Now, he circles back to, “The Urantia Book claims those sons of God…rebelled with Lucifer…attempted to build the Tower of Babel” and after, “they scattered…the ones in Mesopotamia…became the people of the Land of Nod, where Cain found his wife. And many more years of mixing with the people in their environment, including Adam and Eve’s descendants, they became the Aryans…A small group at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers maintained more of their racial integrity. They persisted for thousands of years and eventually furnished the Nodites [which Lucas interprets as Nephilim] ancestry which blended with the Adamites to find the Sumerian peoples of historic times.”

Oddly, he wrote this, “‘There were giants (or Nephilim) 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 unto them some became mighty men that were of old, men of renown.’ Please pay attention to the section where they said after the giants they went in unto the daughters of men, and those children became the men of renown.”

Well, what I paid attention to is that it states nothing about that, “giants…went in unto the daughters of men” but that the sons of God did.

He goes on to say of, “Nephilim; they were ‘Hell’ on earth. You can check the Bible to see the problems they cost the people of those times [Numbers 13:30-33] also [Deuteronomy 2:10-11].”

Yet, Num 13:32-33 is just recording an “evil report” by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked and Deut 2 does not say a single word about Nephilim, it is about Rephaim.

It is asserted that, “Nephilim…are mixed all over the world” and, “guess what we call the Nephilim descendants today, yep, Cabal or Deep State. Throughout history, they have caused havoc in the Middle East and Europe. I’d never heard of the Kazazian [sic.] Mafia until recently. Some believe they are trying to eradicate all Abrahamic religions. The only religion they want on earth is the Babylonian Talmudism, known as Luciferianism worship. The evilest people on earth. Here is additional information about them. ‘The Rothschilds are not Jews; they are in fact, Kharzas… [sic.]’”

This is based on the utterly debunked myth that claims just that: Khazar Jews are not real Jews.

William Lucas quotes, “Armageddon Apocalypse End of World Blog *** Intelligence news

update from the Human Homo-Sap” from July 11, 2017 which claims, “The Phoenicians who are the snake bloodline Nephilim descendants mentioned in the Bible” yet, of course, no such thing is even hinted at in the Bible whatsoever.

The claim is that the snake bloodline Nephilim descendants (whatever that means), “moved through Europe and became the royal families and current-day congress parliament, Hollywood celebrities, corporate leaders, billionaire bankers, media leaders, school leaders, feminist leaders, polic [sic.] leaders, intelligence agency leaders, presidents’ prime ministers, and 34 million Illuminati family members in the U.S. They are the Baal Molek abortion clinic and Baal Molek Pizza Gate spirit cooking pedophile cannibal child sacrifice ritual Nephilim descendant feminist witch race Illuminati Luciferian Satanist descendants of the Draco reptilian ‘Predator Alien’ chimera ancestors.”

Wow, that is a drink from the conspiratorial hot-button key-words firehose!

Thus far, we learned that the Nephilim cabal are, “the Kazazian Mafia…Kharzas” who are, “The evilest people on earth” about whom we are then told are, “The Nephilim from the Middle East invaded Europe thousands of years ago; they were the first white race…” and we saw the reference to the, “baby was as white as snow” Noah (so, now he was a Nephil?) and these, “Nephilim descendants are mundane materialistic beings and mostly appear to be Satanic worshipers.”

So, this really led to the Jews as literally Satanic enemies of humanity in more than one way and even if Lucas does not realize what he is saying since his data points range from valid to tall-tales and the manner whereby he connects them is even more problematic.

On his view, “The evilest people on earth” claim to be Jews but are not.

In reality, he still really is claiming that they are Jews since they really are.

Yet, overall, he is identifying them as a group of White people.

Now, there is a reason that in my book Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers, I included a chapter titled, “Nephil Kampf” and that reason is that I discerned a patter whereby post-flood Nephilim believers somehow end up claiming a form of Lucas’ all-encompassing conspiracy theory and end up claiming that we need to take up arms against them.

One of the most dangerous aspects of this is when the claim is that literally Satanic (in worship and genetics, in a manner of speaking) can be identified because these half-human serpent/demon, etc. creatures look exactly like human beings.

William Lucas ends up encouraging us, “We need to work together as evolutionary humans and bring down the descendants of the Nephilim whose been trying to keep their bloodline pure for thousands of years; there are many more of us.”

Moreover, “they have been putting themselves off as a European white race all these years. The Urantia Book called the Cro-Magnon race the blue race. People need to wake up and recognize

the real enemy. The Nephilim don’t care about anyone, but themselves and have been fighting for years to keep their bloodline pure. People, everyone, NEED TO WAKE-UP. THE CABAL KEPT ALL THIS KNOWLEDGE FROM US HUMANS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.”

Until, that is, William Lucas came around. His styled messianic complex is to the point that he wrote, “I had to share this knowledge even if it cost me my life. I believe it’s too important to keep to myself.”

Lastly, he notes, “The descendants of the Nephilim have duped us…conned many of the human races to believe those stories were nothing but myths to hide their identity. Now that myth wants to rule the world.”

Yet, within this circle of research, that there has ever been any sort of post-flood Nephilim—in any way, shape, or form—is the myth that wants to rule the world.

See my various books here.

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

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Regarding the AZ Animals site’s article Discover 8 Fantastic Beasts and Creatures Featured in the Bible

The AZ Animals site published an article titled Discover 8 Fantastic Beasts and Creatures Featured in the Bible by Andrew Wood (May 20, 2023).

First on the list are Nephilim, the section for which begins, “Does the Bible teach that real, human giants once walked the Earth?”

Since Wood instantly jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants,” that begs the questions:

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

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

Do those usages agree?

Likewise, Wood jumps from, “‘Sons of God’ are fallen angels” to “These demons.” Such jumpy writing is actually very common in pop-research circles so I’m not surprised that Wood employed it since he like is reading the pop-stuff.

Pop-researchers tend to write as per the modus operandi since it makes it easier to water everything down, fast-talk, and appear to cohere things that don’t really correlate.

Please see my book “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.

Also, see the article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

Wood tells us that sons of God/Angels/demons, “intermarried with people and produced giants.”

I discern that he’s meaning something about subjectively unusual height by giants, which is not the biblical usage, due to the next thing he wrote which is, “The Nephilim appear again in Numbers 13:33, when Israelite spies go into the land of Canaan. They report that the Nephilim were there, and went on to say, ‘We seemed like grasshoppers’ compared to them. What’s the verdict? Were they giants? Nobody knows. But they aren’t described in more detail. It seems they were not an important part of the story the writer was trying to tell.”

That “The Nephilim appear” in a verse does not mean that they were alive, on the ground, at the time: if I mention POTUS George Washington right now, that does not mean he’s alive.

Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of the via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., and then, one has to invent an un-biblical tall-tale about how they made it past the flood.

It’s sloppy writing to assert, “Israelite spies…They report” since 12 went but only the 10 unreliable ones whom God rebuked merely asserted that “the Nephilim were there” with an evil report.

Thus, “Were they” subjectively unusually tall? It’s a non-issue since it’s not an issue that “they aren’t described in more detail” but that they just made up a tall-tale so since there is the only physical description we have of them, however generic, that means that we’ve no reliable physical description of them at all.

The next section is about Angles—and we already encountered his jump from Angel to demon.

He writes, “Angels…appear and disappear from our world” which is fair enough. Wood asserts, “They can have different appearances, titles, and areas of responsibility and perform different kinds of services. Sometimes they looked just like ordinary people, and sometimes their appearance was bright, powerful, and frightening. In fact, angels usually said, ‘Don’t be afraid!’ to the people they appeared to.”

The only differing “appearances” I’m aware of Angles having is the regular human-guy look and their hey, I’m an Angel in all of their glory look.

The only differing “titles” I’m aware of them having are: Angel of the LORD, Archangel, and regular Angel.

As for differing “responsibility and perform different kinds of services” well, their titled gives us the basics: their Hebrew tiled Malakim refers to being messengers.

As for the supposed “fact” that “angels usually said, ‘Don’t be afraid!’” I believe that’s a grand total of four instance. And, it has nothing to do with “bright, powerful, and frightening” since those instances are when people thought they were alone but there was suddenly someone else right there.

We get an idea whence Wood got some of his ideas when he writes of “Roles Angels Performed in the Bible” including “Guardians: God placed an angel with a shining sword at the entrance to the Garden of Eden.” Yet, that’s a category error since that was not one Angel, it was two Cherubim. Thus, Wood committed a category (and mathematical) error that violates he law of identity.

The next subsection is about demons and Wood claims “Demons in the Bible are ‘fallen angels’” which is accurate, as per my article, in a roundabout manner.

Wood note “an angel known as Lucifer, Satan, or ‘the Devil’” but he too is a Cherub and thus, not an Angel, by definition.

He claims that Lucifer/Satan/Devil “rebelled against God and led a large number of other angels to do the same (Revelation 12:7). The Archangel Michael led an army of faithful angels to fight against them” yet, he’s mashing together two wholly different timelines.

The “large number of other angels…(Revelation 12:7)” refers to the Gen 6 affair timeline but the “fight against them” is a post-Jesus’ ascension event.

Wood rightly notes “Demons in the Bible do not take a human form independently, but instead, they possess people or animals and cause them to act in destructive ways.”

Wood has a section on Cherubim “Ezekiel describes the cherubim as each having four wings and four faces: of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. Beside each was a strange contraption: two intersecting wheels spinning within each other and moving alongside each of the cherubim. Scholars say these were the cherubim’s spirits.”

The only point of correction is that the Cherubim’s spirits were in the wheels, the Ophanim.

Wood notes, “The Bible describes a similar description of four living creatures around the throne of God, in Revelation 4:6-8…Instead of wheels, the creatures themselves are covered with eyes” but they also are in Ezekiel chap 10.

The last section we will consider is on Leviathan wherein Wood notes, “it is not clear whether this is a literal creature that actually lived, or a fictional animal used for symbolism…Isaiah 27:1…says that God would one day kill it with a great sword.

Again, the issues are “Some people think Leviathan was an actual extinct species, perhaps a prehistoric reptile…Another possibility is that the writers of the Bible used a common mythological creature as a poetic example that God is stronger than the strongest creatures.”

As I concluded in my book What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology, I think that the horn splitting third way is that this is a case of both: it was a real-life animal but once it became extinct (or whilst still living) it became the stuff of myth and legend and/or, the stuff of symbolic metaphor.

Another section focuses on the “red dragon with seven heads wearing crowns and 10 horns. He is identified as an ‘ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan” so we know that Dragon is a symbolic metaphor so that not much more need be said.

I’m leaving two sections of Wood’s article without a comment since they are even more so wholly about symbolic metaphors since they deal with “Daniel’s Prophetic Creatures” and “The Beasts of the Sea and the Earth” as per “The author of Revelation.”

See my various books here.

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

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Question: Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?

The discussion herein took place due to the Quora site question Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?

David Johnson replied

No, the Bible it technically fiction.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

How so?

Kyle Huxtable chimed in with

The flood didn’t happen as described by the Bible.

Ken Ammi

How did it happen?

Nicholas Peterman chimed in with

It was local, if it happened at all. And there was no ark.

Ken Ammi

Most interesting: where’s your proof of that?

Al Taylor chimes in with

Where’s your proof of a global flood? The person who makes the extraordinary claim (Bible believers) must provide the extrordinary evidence to support that claim.

Ken Ammi

That’s an incoherent pseudo-standard. The question was, “where’s your proof of that?”

Dead Weight chimed in with

The Burden of proof is on you if you believe there was an ark or a global flood. Trying to prove something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened is fallacious

Ken Ammi

So, three people chimed in with merely asserted positive affirmations they can’t prove and rather then having the integrity to call them out on it you seek to move the goalpost to that the burden of proof is on me?

Well, you imply that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive affirmation—which is what I’ve been implying.

You end by making a positive affirmation, “something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened” so you must prove it, right?

Also, you say “is fallacious” but how, on your world-view, do you imply condemning logical fallacies?

Dead Weight

Your obviously so lost in your nonsensical religious Make-believe you fail to see your own inability to support your claim. Religion made the claim God exist . Atheists want proof for the claim to be considered true. Still with me? Because it might get complicated ok? theist shift the burden of proof for something they made up because they don’t know the unfalsifiability fallacy. Disprove I didn’t have a thought of a turtle just now. You can’t. And yes I referred to it as made up because you have yet to provide proof for the claim that God exists so therefore its made up.

Ken Ammi

If I grant that you’re right: how is that even an issue, on your worldview according to which there’s nothing wrong with an accidentally existing ape believing such things—and, in fact, which may claim that it’s a Darwinian survival mechanism for an accidentally existing ape to believe such things.

I asked you, “So, three people chimed in with merely asserted positive affirmations they can’t prove and rather then [than] having the integrity to call them out on it you seek to move the goalpost to that the burden of proof is on me?”

You ignored that.

I noted, “Well, you imply that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive affirmation—which is what I’ve been implying.”

You ignored that.

I asked, “You end by making a positive affirmation, ‘something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened’ so you must prove it, right?”

You ignored that

I asked, “Also, you say ‘is fallacious’ but how, on your world-view, do you imply condemning logical fallacies?”

You ignored that.

If you truly have attained the one truth: how come you can’t deal with simple issues raised by an accidentally existing ape?

See, you say “Your obviously so lost in your nonsensical religious Make-believe you fail to see your own inability to support your claim” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “Religion made the claim God exist” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “Atheists want proof for the claim to be considered true” but the first step is for Atheists to justify their demand for proof (not evidence?)

You say “theist shift the burden of proof” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “something they made up” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “because they don’t know the unfalsifiability fallacy” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “you have yet to provide proof for the claim that God exists so therefore its made up” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

Dead Weight

You are so lost right now? How do you not see your own ignorance?

I asked you, “So, three people chimed in with merely asserted positive affirmations they can’t prove and rather then [than] having the integrity to call them out on it you seek to move the goalpost to that the burden of proof is on me?”

It’s not a positive assertion your literally just using words that you think will make you sound like you have any idea what your talking about. It is a refuting statement because with no proof that the Bible holds any truth means We can disregard the bibles validity with the same concept of no evidence to prove it.

I asked, “You end by making a positive affirmation, ‘something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened’ so you must prove it, right?”

No I don’t because trying to find physical evidence for Somthing that isn’t proven to be real is a logical fallacy. It’s really that simple are you a child? It’s truly a simple concept that I did answer in my last comment. And again I didn’t make a “Positive Affermation” I disregarded a claim made without evidence so we can disregard that claim without evidence to.

I asked, “Also, you say ‘is fallacious’ but how, on your world-view, do you imply condemning logical fallacies?”

This doesn’t even make sense so now I know you have no idea what your talking about. I can disregard logical fallacies because I have common sense to know that a fallacy is false argument narrative. My God did you graduate high school?

If you truly have attained the one truth: how come you can’t deal with simple issues raised by an accidentally existing ape?

Literally no one said anything about a One truth that’s just something you made up inside your head there is no one truth? To what? You haven’t made a single point of anything yet that’s what we’re waiting on for you to make a point but I don’t believe you ever had 1.

See, you say “Your obviously so lost in your nonsensical religious Make-believe you fail to see your own inability to support your claim” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview

I didnt jump to any conclusion I made an informed Observation, are you serious? It’s like trying to argue with a 7yr old. I dont need to say what’s wrong with that because most of us have common sense somthing clearly you’ve never heard before.

You say “because they don’t know the unfalsifiability fallacy” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

Your Joking right this idiocy doesn’t even deserve a response.

I Would go on but I feel like I lost braincells your obviously Delusional and lack common rational thought

Ken Ammi

Seems that Dead Weight (/profile/Dead-Weight-8) is trying to run away by not allowing replies to comments so, I will post it here:

What, on your worldview, is wrong with an accidentally existing ape being (supposedly) ignorant? See since you merely constantly jump to merely asserted conclusions you seem to give away that you realize you’ve no premise for your subjective opinions. I mean, you’re great at being a jerk—that’s been well established—but are you able to actually apply your worldview’s implications to your assertions (although, I realize that would be consistent but being consistent isn’t a universal imperative on Atheism)?

You seem to be projecting since, for example, “The flood didn’t happen as described by the Bible” and “something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened” are, by definition, positive affirmations: they’re claims to possess positive knowledge.

As for “proof that the Bible holds any truth means…no evidence to prove it,” step one is for you to justify your demand for evidence and proof and then get around why, on your worldview, ascertaining accidental truth is even an issue.

You say “trying to find physical evidence for Somthing that isn’t proven to be real is a logical fallacy” yet, you appeal to a logical fallacy without establishing how not committing such is a universal imperative, on your worldview. But if you want to run away from your positive affirmation by asserting, “trying to find physical evidence for Somthing that isn’t proven to be real is a logical fallacy” then the lesson is that you shouldn’t make positive affirmations about things you can prove.

And this is not about you implying that your (supposed) common sense is a standard and this is not about “to know that a fallacy is false argument narrative” but is about why, on your worldview, adhering to logic (which is accidental, on your worldview) is an issues in the first place: why do you imply it’s some sort of universal imperative?

Sorry, I assumed you were implying you know the truth—the “One truth”—about reality but I can agree with you that you don’t (and knowing the truth about accidental reality is not a universal imperative on your worldview anyhow so it matters not).

This is rather odd, I observed “without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview” and you complain but then you agree, “I dont need to say what’s wrong with that.”

But then, just (again) appealing to your (supposed) “common sense” fails since that’s not a standard.

Seems like you’re witnessing your worldview’s utter fundamental level failure since I’m binging up meta issues—such as “without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview”—and you just ran away with “Your Joking right this idiocy doesn’t even deserve a response…lost braincells your obviously Delusional and lack common rational thought” without, guess what, telling me what’s wrong with any of that on your worldview.

I realize that it’s more convenient and easier to just be a jerk but have you ever actually thought about your worldview’s implications?

Well, that was the end of that.

See my various books here.

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

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

When someone asked, “Do Christians believe in immortality?”

Such was a question which launched the following discussion.

Patrick Enmonsiast commented

“We don’t have any great descriptions of it.” Right, because it’s make believe! He’s just making stuff up & she’s like, 🙄!

I, Ken Ammi, replied

And if he’s making it up, does it matter on your worldview–and if so, how/why?

Patrick Enmonsiast

It absolutely matters, because I for one want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. So I’m not willing to accept claims without evidence. When authority figures, like this guy, or my fellow citizens, insist on believing things without evidence and then dare to use those beliefs to make decisions that can affect me — like the way they vote or legislate — then I think that is worth identifying and opposing.

Ken Ammi @Patrick Enmonsiast

Friend, please note that I didn’t ask if it matters to you but “does it matter ON YOUR WORLDVIEW”?

Thus, when you parrot Matt Dillahunty you expose your worldview just as he did his: it’s pure subjectivism, right? You said, “I for one want to”: not “we” nor “must” or “should” or “ought to” but that you have a subjective personal preference—again, I asked about your worldview but you replied about your preference on the level of telling me which ice cream flavor you prefer.

Thus, you can’t mix such utter subjectivism with “It absolutely matters” since you, in essence, collapsed any absolutes.

You then follow utter subjectivism by artificially inserting some sort of merely asserted universal imperative to reject, “believing things without evidence” merely as a jump to a conclusion without telling us how or why, on your worldview, we are to only believe in things based on evidence.

Have you really never thought about the implications of your worldview and actually incorporated them into your thinking and assertions?

Isovapor2112 chimed in with

All gods throughout human history are man made creations. There is zero evidence for any god ever that can be proven or reproduced. Nothing is immortal. You are here on earth. You will die. You will never come back to life in the body or spirit. There is zero evidence for the afterlife. It is all make believe. Man made delusions that modern educated humans still unfortunately believe. Cheers!!

Ken Ammi @Isovapor2112

Friend, that “All gods throughout human history are man made creations” is 1) a genetic logical fallacy and 2) a positive affirmation you must prove.

That “There is zero evidence for any god ever that can be proven or reproduced” seems to mean that you consider yourself omniscient, or something—you’re certainly more militant than Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins.

Note also that you started with a conclusion when you merely implied that basing our views on evidence is some sort of universal imperative but how is that so, on your worldview?

You then just list a bunch of mere assertions.

And you leave us with “Man made delusions that modern educated humans still unfortunately believe” without bothering to tell us what’s wrong with (alleged) “Man made delusions” in the first place: do you always just jump to conclusions which you merely assert?

Well, perhaps the question I posed are instructive even if they weren’t answered.

See my various books here.

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

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Gary Wayne on the Origins of the Giant Lion-Like Men of Moab

Under consideration is Gary Wayne’s article, Origins of the Giant Lion-Like Men of Moab.

Wayne begins by quoting the apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon 14:6, “This was how it was in ancient times, when a proud race of giants was dying away. The hope of the world escaped on such a boat under your guidance and left the world a new generation to carry on the human race.”

I could not find a Hebrew interlinear so as to check what the word is that is being rendered as giants here but in the LXX the Greek is γιγάντων/gigantes which the LXX actually uses to render Nephilim and also gibborim and also Rephaim which only causes problems since those are vastly different things:

Nephilim: strictly pre-flood hybrids.

Gibborim: a mere descriptive term meaning might/mighty.

Rephaim: strictly post-flood humans.

Gary Wayne informs us:

“Nephilim were prideful beasts filled with hubris. Hubris derives from a Greek word ‘hjubris’ meaning ‘pride, excessive behavior, dangerous overconfidence, and the refusal to stay within due bounds.’ Oddly, a group of lions forming a social unit is also called a ‘pride.’ One wonders as to the relationship between ‘pride of lions’ and Nephilim.”

Having featured Wayne in a few articles and my book Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers I can tell you that this is typical Wayne:

He quote an apocryphal Hebrew text that references a “proud race of giants” in English, he assert that “Nephilim were prideful” and “beasts” who were “filled with hubris,” he inform us that the English term hubris derives the Greek for pride, then that in English “a group of lions” is “called a ‘pride’” and then preps us for his goal since “One wonders as to the relationship between ‘pride of lions’ and Nephilim.”

Well, I know not who wonders any such a thing but biblically there is literally (or symbolically for that matter) no “relationship between ‘pride of lions’ and Nephilim” in any way, shape, or form—in any language. Yet, note that this is the same Gary Wayne who has, sadly, taking his theo-sci-fi stylings to the point of claiming that there are “Nephilim dogs.”

And so, what do lions have to do with Nephilim at all?

Interestingly, he notes/admits symbolic usages of correlations to lions, “King Richard ‘Lionheart’ Plantagenet was so-called for his exploits as a brave warrior” so that he implication is not that within his human torso resides the generic heart of a feline-lion.

Yet, Gary Wayne still asks, “Is there a hidden connection between lions, Nephilim and kingship?” Note that reference to something “hidden” which he will expose—which makes this all the more exciting.

He inform us of “Urmahlullo of Sumerian legend…warriors of ancient Babylon and Akkad…sculptures found in Germany…associated with Nergal…King Hambada of the Cedar forest (‘Epic Of Gilgamesh’)…Greek Chimera…Mithra of the Zoroastrian cult of Persia and India…Ialdoboth/ Demiurge of Gnosticism…Apedemak [of] the Meroitic of Nubia…Egyptians” which depict animals that combine various features from various animals as well as human-animal hybrids, etc. in legends, paintings, hieroglyphs, sculptures, etc.

This is typical Gary Wayne as well: around the world and back in a few sentences. Now, while there is nothing wrong with this, it can serve as elephant hurling, is usually based on watering down concepts so as to make it seem as if they correlate, and we need to track his claims to see if his conclusion is sound.

Now, since he already noted the commonsense issue of symbolic language, does he think that the legends and sculptures were literal?

Closer to the home of the biblical context about which he is to be pointing his conclusion, he writes of “Biblical Cherubim are Sphinx-like” even though they are 99% not in the least bit Sphinx-like.

A Sphinx denotes the body of a lion with the head of a man (and some speculate that it was originally the head of a lion as well that was then reworked into the head of a man.

Cherubim denoted an apparently human-like body with calf-like hoofs, four wings, and four faces: human, ox/bull, eagle/vulture, and lion.

Having only exclusively appeals to selective non-biblical references, Gary Wayne tells us “So it seems, lion-men were likely warrior-king offspring of powerful gods/ angels just like Nephlim.”

He follows this directly with “These lion-like men surface at the time of David when he and his mighty men are killing giants – Rephaim, the descendants of Nephilim.”

Note the concoction of the vague, generic, subjective, and undefined English word “giants” with the claim that Rephaim are the descendants of Nephilim which is an assertion for which there is zero biblical evidence.

I noted to Wayne that there is no such biblical thing as post-flood Nephilim and he agreed which seems to be why he invented (or, just copied from other pop-researchers) that Rephaim are descended from Nephilim—which, let us face it, merely means they are Nephilim by any other name.

He quotes, 1 Chronicles 12:8 which states, “And of the Gadites there separated themselves unto David into the hold to the wilderness men of might, [and] men of war [fit] for the battle, that could handle shield and buckler, whose faces [were like] the faces of lions, and [were] as swift as the roes upon the mountains” (brackets in Wayne’s quote).

Just keep is in mind for now—stand by.

Gary Wayne then writes, “These Gadites were ‘wilderness men’ that derive from ‘gibborim’, which can mean giant as Nephilim were described as mighty ones, gibborim, in Genesis 6:4.”

There is no biblical indication whatsoever that Gadites “derive from ‘gibborim,’” in fact, they derive from Gad—as in the Israelite tribe. Also, biblically he is saying that Gadites derive from might/mighty—whatever that would mean.

But he is claiming that gibborim “can mean giant” but since he has not bothered defining “giant” then he is telling us in can mean some unknown thing.

But fine, he is telling us “‘gibborim’, which can mean giant as Nephilim” but what does that even mean? For example, let us go with “giant”: they derive from giants but meaning what? Nephilim 2.0 referring to Rephaim?

No, they do not derive from “giants” nor Rephaim, nor Nephilim.

But note that this is all based on an basic level misreading, the text had it that they were “wilderness men of might” as in that they lived in the wilderness and were mighty—period.

One cannot viably read more into gibborim than that—lest one would also want to spin tall tales about David’s soldiers, Boaz, Angels, and God Himself since they are also referred to as gibbor/gibborim.

This is typical Gary Wayne as well: turn a very clear and very simple text into a concoction of a (mis)interpretation based on basic yet fundamental level errors.

He then has another moment of clarity when noting, “Lion in 1 Chronicles derives from Hebrew #738 ‘ariy’ meaning lion or an image of a lion and deriving from #717 in the sense of violence.” So we have two instances of admission that it can be used symbolically.

Yet, just as quickly as he is lucid, he follows directly with another concoction:

“These Gadites were men of might, mighty warriors who were as fleet of foot as gazelles, and as Titans were renowned for. They certainly seem to be lion-like Nephilim, heroes of renown; a connection I missed until recently.”

This is a how-to lesson in theo-sci-fi: myopically assert that “might” has something exclusively to do with Nephilim, note that Gadites where mighty, selectively pick one feature that can be correlated to Titans, jump to the recommendation that they “seem to be” (an appreciated qualifier, actually) “lion-like Nephilim” which is an incoherent term and toss in the last words of Genesis 6:4 for a little more Nephilim flavor.

He then tells us that “Angelic names tend to end in ‘el’ as in Gabriel” which is biblical, “or Azaziel” which is not—he could have gone with the biblical Michael as well.

With that in place, he notes, “If one adds the suffix ‘el’ to ariy one arrives at Ariel as a possible connect-the-dots as to who spawned these lion-men beasts.” How so?

Gary Wayne then tells us “lion-men surface again”—let us keep track: these “lion-men” were said to have “faces of lions” in the text—“in 2nd Samuel, where Benaiah slays two lion-men of Moab: ‘And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man, of Kabzeel, who had done many acts, he slew two lion-like men of Moab’ 2 Samuel 23:20.”

He then notes, “The ‘lionlike men’ in 2 Samuel derives from #739 ‘ariyel’” which is how he got from “ariy” to “ariyel” which he tells us gives the “meaning heroic [Nephilim mighty ones]; lionlike; and lion of God from #738 root for lion” (brackets by Wayne).

Again, note the manipulation—and I mean that in the literal sense of handling things and moving them around—ariyel, which is also a person’s name (Ezra 8:16) and an aka for Jerusalem (Isaiah 29:1-2, 7) means lion of God, but Wayne decides to tie it to Nephilim because these particular “lion-men” were “the son of a valiant man” so “meaning heroic” and that can only relate to “Nephilim mighty ones” for some odd reason.

Gary Wayne then appeals to generic “Hebrew Mysticism” which is an utterly generic pseudo-reference (that likely refers to the 1300s AD—millennia after the Old Testament was written) which “also notes an angel named Ariel meaning ‘lion of God’” as if that is relevant.

Gary Wayne then ponders, “One wonders whether a powerful angel named Ariel created a second race of ‘prideful beasts’ with lion characteristics that dwelled alongside the serpent like Nephilim created by Seraphim Watchers.”

Firstly, biblically there was only a one time fall of Angels and they were incarcerated for their troubles (Jude and 2 Peter 2) so that no, no Angel with any name created any such a thing.

Secondly, “serpent like Nephilim created by Seraphim Watchers” is a pure form of incoherence. There is zero indication that there was ever any such a thing as “serpent like Nephilim”—in fact, we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim whatsoever.

Thirdly, that Nephilim were “created by Seraphim Watchers” is biblically unknown. Now, technically that the “sons of God” of the Genesis 6 affair where “Angels” is a conclusion based on that in Job 38:7 “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings but they are not called “Angels” (Malakim, actually) there nor in Job chaps 1-2 where they come before God.

Yet, again, there is a one time fall of Angels in the Bible and Jude and 2 Peter 2 refer to “Angels” (Angelos, actually) who sinned, etc., which seals the deal.

Thus, since Angels are Angels and Seraphim are Seraphim—two different categories of being with different titles, job functions, and physical morphologies—then it was Angels and not Serpahim who created Nephilim. As for “Watchers” (the preferred hip pop-researcher term), he is picking that up from the pseudepigraphical text 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch (and/or Daniel 4) which is a Second Temple Era manner whereby to refer to “Angels” thus, “Seraphim Watchers” is a concoction of two very different things: Seraphim and Angel but, again Seraphim are not Angels and Angels are not Seraphim.

He then “wonders if this why lions are called the ‘king of beasts;’ why lions are intimately connected with imagery for royalty, flags, coats of arms along with dragons and unicorns.”

No, that is not why: it is because lions tend to be the regional top of the predatory food chain.

I find it so utterly distaste full that I am not going to post the photo but he concludes with “Is the above skull [on display at the University of Bologna] that supposedly shows the effects of the disease known as ‘Leontiasis Ossea,’ really evidence of a nephilim-lion-like hybrid?”

No, and people who suffer from such terrible maladies need love—not some theo-sci-fi spinning pop-researcher to point at them then have his audience ponder if they are a non-human hybrid.

Now, every single article I have written by Gary Wayne, as well as his book, is much like this: appealing to any and every source regardless of language or chronology, ignoring context by watering things down, appealing to mis-defined terms and concepts, being vague about conclusions, and leaving it to his readers to spike their fertile imaginations with neo tall tales.

But in the end, what did we learn about what the Bible states about such men?

Well, note that Gary Wayne ignored: sure, they had “faces of lions” but were also “as swift as the roes” but he did not bother telling us of roe Nephilim, right? You see, that they are “as swift as” indicates that the description of them is symbolic: they are like this and like that, they have fierce faces and moved swiftly—period.

They are lion-like due to their abilities, their capabilities as warriors.

Note that in discussing the “burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see” in Isaiah 13, it is described that “The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts mustereth the host of the battle” and something relevant about faces, “they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.”

Well, there you have it: now we can refer to flaming Nephilim—or, to another symbolic description of what someone’s face looks like in certain circumstances such as when they are flushed or eager for battle, in the case of the lion-like men.

I actually wrote a chapter about this issue titled, “Lion Faced Men” in my book What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology.

See it and my various books specifically about Nephilim related issues.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Atheist says “I look inside myself for belief in any gods and find none”

The following discussion took place due to a question posted to the Quora site, “Question for athiest, Why do atheists believe in atheism? Nothing creating nothing is confusing for me.”

Mike replied

Question for athiest …

Answer from one atheist …

Why do atheists believe in atheism?

“Believe” its a loaded word in the context of discussion about religion and atheism. I don’t “believe” in atheism in any sense of “faith without evidence” or based on some spiritual conviction. I have the evidence of my own experience. I look inside myself for belief in any gods and find none.

Nothing creating nothing is confusing for me.

I don’t see why, most religions (and especially Christianity) embrace the doctrine of Creatio ex nihilo – creation out of nothing. If nothing can exist without being created, then where do gods come from? And if there is a category of things that are eternal or can have simply have “always been” then I don’t see why entire universes cannot also be in that same category of things.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

If you reject God’s existence then you believe in that: unsure why Atheists complain about semantics by playing semantic games.

Also, you based your reply on only one definition of Atheism, see: https://truefreethinker.com/atheisms-sects

Indeed, “Nothing creating nothing is confusing” but such is what A LOT of Atheists demand.

Creatio ex nihilo is creation out of nothing but not from nothing, it’s creation out of nothing by someone. Thus, it has nothing to do nor does it affirm, “nothing can exist without being created” but that what was created was not created form a pre-existing something.

By definition, the Biblical God (the only one about whom I’m speaking) came from nowhere but is eternal but the entire universes possesses no such properties, no such characteristic—unless you want to deny the most up to date modern cosmology just to keep “faith” in Atheism.

Mike

If you define your god as the one thing that can avoid self-contradiction, then your argument works logically. However, you cannot demonstrate any reason why that premise should be valid.

Ken Ammi

You seem to be implying some sort of universal imperative to adhere to logic and demonstrate but how so, on Atheism?

I’d also have to know to what you’re referring by “self-contradiction.”

Mike

I don’t necessarily imply some universal imperative to adhere to logic, I just don’t know any other way to reconcile contradictions. Nor, BTW, does the Catholic Pope, who said “Truth cannot contradict truth.”

Even if these things I have pointed out are not contradictory, are you entirely comfortable with a God who tells His people to stone to death disobedient children? Doesn’t it make you flinch just a little to know that God has instructed that rape victims who do not cry out loudly enough during their assault must be stoned to death?

Ken Ammi

Well, “don’t necessarily” seems slippery: as if you might, at some point.

The issue is that if you flatly don’t “imply some universal imperative to adhere to logic,” which Atheism does not, then you’re done complaining about logical fallacies—but then again, that’d be if you subjectively care to be consistent, since there’s nothing wrong with being inconsistent on Atheism.

Why, on your worldview, even bother seeking to “reconcile contradictions” since you “don’t necessarily,” there’s part of the problem coming up already, “imply some universal imperative to adhere to logic”?

That “Truth cannot contradict truth” would be a universal imperative so, there it is again.

So, you seem to need to decide since without universal imperatives—which, BTW, you can’t just decide to assert on Atheism since it provides you none—then you can’t condemn a God who tells His people to stone to death disobedient children (and you clearly have not looked into that issue—beyond reading an Atheist talking point about it, or so it seems to me) nor about what to you are accidentally existing apes believing that and stoning smaller accidentally existing apes.

As for, “God has instructed that rape victims who do not cry out loudly enough during their assault must be stoned to death”: that is shockingly ignorant and incoherent—especially during an era of information overload. Please stop getting your theology from Atheist missionaries, since it seems that such is whence you are getting it.

But then again, on Atheism, you couldn’t condemn any of that either.

Mike

I may be ignorant, but I have read the Bible (something I apparently have over you) and I can quote it to back up my statements:

Deuteronomy 22:23 If there is a virgin pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and sleeps with her,

Deuteronomy 22:24 you must take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death–the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. So you must purge the evil from among you.

Ken Ammi

On Atheism none of that matters anyhow, right? What does it matter what an accidentally existing ape does to another accidentally existing ape in an accidental universe wherein there’s no universal imperative against accidentally existing ape doing whatever they want to other accidentally existing ape.

Your assertion was “God has instructed that rape victims who DO NOT CRY OUT LOUDLY ENOUGH during their ASSAULT must be stoned to death.”

If you read the text, which is outlining basic laws from which specific cases would be adjudicated, it offers various examples: this one is clearly about how it was a case of her consenting to it which is why “she did not cry out in the city” where she would have been heard had she needed assistance.

Mike

If you read the text and the context, women are property. The don’t get to offer or withdraw consent and more than Mary did.

Never the less, the words stand on their own. Atheists don’t need to find excuses for a God who (if you believe the Bible) expresses and enforces abhorrent moral values.

Basic laws, such as stoning to death of disobedient children and treating rape like a property crime, are how this society works.

Ken Ammi

I see you want to avoid the fact that your own worldview invalidates your emotive complaints (no surprise, actually, since being consistent isn’t a universal imperative on Atheism).

Do you mean “women are property” (not that there’d be anything wrong with that, on Atheism) like when I call my wife well, “my” wife?

“go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac…They said, ‘Let us call the young woman and ask her.’ And they called Rebekah and said to her, ‘Will you go with this man?’ She said, ‘I will go.’ So they sent away Rebekah…” (Genesis 24).

But when you say “Atheists don’t need to find excuses for a God who (if you believe the Bible) expresses and enforces abhorrent moral values” that’s where you’re 1,001% wrong unless you’re claiming Atheists are some sort of special class of people who can rain down brimstone and fire just ‘cause they subjectively feel like it du jour—which would discredit their condemnations, of course (as is the case).

As an Atheist you not only have no premise upon which to condemn “how this society works” since that was way back when, right, and you believe the “morality” “evolved” correct (and note the tens in the word evolve“ed”)?

Mike

Sorry, I missed the “tens” in the word evolve“ed” and have no idea what that means to you.

Let me be clear: I don’t have to make excuses for the repugnant values and actions of the God of the Bible and it seems to me that you are making it very clear that you find that position unsupportable, which is an indirect way of excusing those values. Do you support slavery? Are you in favour of stoning to death disobedient children? Where do you stand on genocide or infanticide?

I’m not in favour of any o those things. Nor do I have to find excuses for a God who not only does endorse those things but does so (if you believe it) in writing; clearly and explicitly.

As for when being treated more like property than people, the evidence is clear:

Exodus 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, or his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

(… or any THING than belongs to your neighbor)

Deuteronomy 22:23 If there is a virgin pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the city and sleeps with her, Deuteronomy 22:24 you must take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death–the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. So you must purge the evil from among you.

Stone to death rape victims who do not cry out? (Don’t forget that the God of the Bible is also described as “unchanging” so this is still on His list of approved things.

Ken Ammi

I was just curious since MANY Atheists have asserted to me that it evolve“ed” so I always have to ask them when it stopped evolving (and how they know that, etc.).

You seem to not be applying your worldview implications into your views (not surprising, actually, since being consistent isn’t a universal imperative on Atheism).

No, you “don’t have to make excuses for…” but you also have no premise whatsoever for condemning (allegedly) “repugnant values and actions of the God of the Bible” nor slavery nor stoning to death disobedient children nor genocide or infanticide (do you oppose abortion, BTW?) nor stoning to death rape victims who do not cry out (again, you just don’t understand what you’re reading).

See, you’re merely emoting—period, full stop—and your emotions are not a standard (especially when, on Atheism, emotions are just accidental byproducts). See, when you say “I’m not in favour of any o those things” it’s on the exact same level as if you told me which ice-cream flavor you don’t favor.

Oh, so by “being treated more like property” you mean enjoying special protections under the law.

Mike

Religions clearly evolve. Particularly Christianity. Gone are the days when Jesus’ return was going to happen within the lifetime of those present in the time-setting of the Gospels. Gone is the jealous, angry God. (Quietly set aside is the incompetent God who, despite being omniscient, fails to notice important details and who, despite being omnipotent, just can’t get things to work out the way He wants)

I’m reading the same Bible as you. And quoting it (see above) so we see the same context. I just don’t have to make up excuses for it. I keep making that point.

What is unclear about the God of the Bible’s clear and unequivocal support and endorsement of slavery? What twisted apologetics can you bring to counter the actual words of the Bible in full context?

Yes, to an extent I’m emoting. I don’t like the idea that people would worship a being who (in His own words, if you believe it) would have such repugnant values. But the facts remain because the Bible is a document and we can both refer to the same words. At least one of us doesn’t have to find some strange meaning to the words or some obscure interpretation to try and “fix” what the God character says rather than accept the face value interpretation.

If you still believe that God’s instructions and endorsements of all those values is somehow “right” then we have reached the end of our discussions.

Ken Ammi

​Your reference to “Religions” will be ignored since you’re just painting with a broad brush broom and I’m no interested in discussing every single religion there’s ever been.

You seem to assert “Religions clearly evolve” as a negative but isn’t that in keeping with your worldview?

Since, supposedly, “I’m reading the same Bible as you” I’m unsure how you’ve reached your mischaracterizations about when Jesus’ return was going to happen and a supposedly jealous, angry God…set aside,” etc. but the issue I will focus on is how any of that is even an issue on your worldview—even if accurate.

Thus, why deal with “the Bible’s clear and unequivocal support and endorsement of slavery” (wherein you’re being as generic as when you referred to “Religion”) without bothering to tell me how,​​ on your worldview, there’s something wrong with “slavery” in the first place. See, you begin with conclusions (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism) by merely asserting things and making demands.

But you hit your worldview’s nail in the head when you say “…to an extent I’m emoting. I don’t like…” but you emoting about what you don’t like is just a subjective personal preference du jour—on the level of telling me you like a certain ice cream flavor.

So, before you run away if I “still believe that God’s instructions and endorsements of all those values is somehow ‘right’” you first need to tell me what would be “wrong” with that on your worldview.

Yet, the problem is that I’m expecting logical consistence from someone holding to a worldview according to which there’s no universal imperative to be logically consistent—such is why Atheists are only ever consistently inconsistent (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).

Mike

And you, dear Ken, seem to argue that your God cannot be the moral nightmare He is described as being because (for some strange reason) atheism accepts that these values evolve and God doesn’t.

Ken Ammi

It’s fascinating to witness your constant refusal to deal with issues that are inconvenient to your worldview.

Now, by asserting “these values evolve” you’re discredited yourself from asserting

God is a “moral nightmare” since you can’t apply today’s evolved values to yesterday.

Thus, you’re discredited the excuses you have for rejecting God.

Mike

Seriously?

You think denying that moral values have remained static and never changed is some sort of faulty logic?

Ken Ammi

​I affirm moral values have NOT remain​​ned static and HAVE changed.

Well, that ended the discussion.

See my various books here.

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

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

Examples of Watered Down Nephilology

The Fools Rush in Where Angels Fear to Read blog published an article titled, The Nephilim – Could Ancient Giants Really Exist? (February 17, 2022 AD) by an unnamed author about which I can only discern this:

“About me

Gender

Female.”

The article begins with the term “Huge humanoid creatures” and the second paragraph notes, “The term hanefelim…appears for the first time in the official Pentateuch in the Book of Genesis…Then, in the Book of Numbers and Deuteronomy…and the Nefilim are found in the apocryphal book of Enoch.”

One verse in Genesis reliably refers to them, one verse in Numbers unreliably refers to them (since it merely records an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked), no mention of them exists in Deuteronomy, Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah is found in 1 Enoch.

The word huge is as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as tall, big, giant, etc. Yet, Gen contains no physical description of them, Num contains a mere tall-tale about them, Deut is a non-data point, and 1 Enoch has them as 3,000 ells tall which is miles tall, which is great folklore but poor reality—for exact calculations, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

Thus, we have no reliable physical description of then and so can only correlate them to huge due to it’s vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage nature as something to do with being subjectively unusually large—whatever that mean.

Yet, something about which I’ve oft warned happens next in the article which is, “I decided to use the name quoted in the Bible because in our culture this record has been considered a source of historical knowledge for centuries” within the context of, “all mythologies of the world.”

I don’t necessarily have problem with going cross-cultural, as it were, but the tendency is to water things down so as to give the appearance of cohesion where there may be none—such as swapping words for Nephilim which may not really refer to Nephilim and maybe even massaging those all mythologies contextual concepts so as to make them appear Nephilimic.

You see, the very next paragraph references that we ought to, “learn about the giants” and then to, “belief in giants.”

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?

Thus, the stage is set for merely appealing to any myth that refers to anyone/anything huge and giant and slapping the label Nephilim on them when, as I already noted, there’s no reliable data upon which to correlate Nephilim with huge or giant—since the article’s context is that giant refers to something about subjectively unusual height, which is not the usage of the English Bibles which employ it.

We get a typical list of, “creatures who lived in the distant past…evidence for the existence of giants was supposed to be megalithic structures, made of huge stones…references to the flood, giants, and fallen angels” and a reference to, “mythology that influenced European culture…the biblical giants who infiltrated our culture through Christianity” and mythology is all it ever was.

Thus, when it comes to, “great humanoids…the Greek titans…Atlas…Hercules and Perseus…huge beings…Ymir…a giant…Yeti…Bigfoot…Basque Bajasaduk…larger than humans…Cyclops…megalithic structures…giants…giants…giant…Purusha…giants…enormous heights…giants…Kihara…twice as tall as an ordinary man…great humanoid figures, and supernaturally grown people…giants…giant skeletons…giants…exceptionally tall…hominid giants…gigantism…Kihaora…Goliath…huge skeletons…” we must categorize such and note that if they are not the result of Angels mating with human then, by definition, they are not Nephilim.

A likewise article is Gary Lite’s The Ancient Myths of Giant which is subtitled, “The Ancient Myths of Giant Nephilim, Annunaki, Greek Gods, Angels & Flood are Possibly Real” (July 4, 2019 AD).

Gary Lite notes:

“After years of studying many different religions and myths, I am led to believe that most of what I have learned has too many similarities to one another, that one can not help and wonder if it all originates from one single source.

From the stories of the Nephilim in the bible, to the Greek Olympian Gods and Titans of Greek mythology, to the fallen Angels, known as the Watchers in the Book of Enoch, to the Annunaki from the ancient Sumerians, to the Hindu Vedas, Norse mythology, and Roman mythology.”

Lite notes, “There are many ancient myths that parallel to each other” but what, pray tell, are those parallels?

For one, “gods, angels, demons, giants, hero’s, flood deluges, and pretty much anything else that the mind can imagine” which is a bit too sweeping but, fair enough.

An example of the problems with watering down, Gary Lite again mentions, “parallel connection” in terms of, “the Greek Gods, Nephilim and the fallen angels of the Genesis account” specifies, “The Titans being the fallen angels or as the Book of Enoch calls them, the Watchers; and the Olympians being the Nephilim.” Yet, if anything, that’s precisely backward.

If there is such a correlation then, perhaps, it would be the Olympians being the fallen Angels/Watchers and the Titans being the Nephilim: that would be because it is the fallen Angels/Watchers who are otherworldly/gods and Titans/Nephilim being Earth born hybrids.

I would venture to say that any actual correlative parallels are due to that after humanity’s dispersal abroad, post-Tower of Babel, what had been commonly known and shared history when humanity lived in relative proximity, eventually came to be known as myth and legend as it was augmented at this or that point.

Gary Lite notes, “Nephilim, is the Hebrew words for giants” which begs the questions:

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?

He has a subsection titled, “The Legend of Giants” which begins by quoting the KJV for Genesis 6:1-4 which renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim as giants, and into which Lite added a parenthetical statemen in a bit of an odd place, “giants in the earth in those days; (The Nephilim) 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.”

He still hasn’t told us what he means by giants but follows directly with that, “The discussion of giants on earth goes much further and deeper” and appeals to, “[1] Enoch, in Greek mythology, and ancient Sumerian texts…stories of the Annunaki.”

Clearly, he means something unspecific to do with subjectively unusual height: which, again, isn’t the English Bible’s usage.

We get references to, “Sumerians…Watchers…Gilgamesh…the Book of Enoch…Annunaki…giants, also called Jotuns in Norse mythology…giants…the land of Jotunheim…the Gylfaginning section of the Prose Edda…Ymir…Odin…Vili and Vé…Jötunn…giants…men of great size…Nephilim…sons of Anak…giants…angels…Watchers…Greek mythology…Titans…Gaia and Uranus…Zeus and the Olympians…Tartarus…Sumer, Assyrian, Inca, Maya, Epic of Gilgamesh, Persian, Greek, India, Bolivia, South Sea Islands, American Indian…Gods or demi-Gods…hybrid humans. Part human, part god…Homer’s Odyssey…Odysseus…man-eating giants…Cyclops (Kyklopes),” etc.

Next Gary Lite states, “When Joshua and the Israelites conquered the land in 1400 BC, they either killed or drove out the giants” which is made very difficult to understand we, again, we know not to what he’s referring.

Yet, we do get hints (even though such authors shouldn’t make the readers work so hard) as he notes refers to, “Anakim” then to, “Goliath” and to, “other giants mentioned in 2 Samuel 21.”

Now, if by giants he’s referring to subjectively unusual height then yes, Anakim, of which Goliath was one, were said to have been generally, “tall” (Deut 2) and you know to what that’s subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Specifically, the preponderance of the earliest data is that Goliath was just shy of 7 ft.

Thus, whoever the, “other giants” were, they were right around these ranges.

Now, if by giants he’s referring to Rephaim, which would be the context biblical usage, then that applies to Anakim, since they were a clan of the Rephaim tribe and to Goliath since he was of that clan and tribe—and if the others are not Rephaim that it does not apply to them.

Yet, Gary Lite takes his misusage of the word giant to engage in a bit of speculative euhemerism, “Since the Israelites attacked from the east, it seems very possible that some of the giants who fled would have traveled west via the Mediterranean Sea. What if some of these giants settled on some of the islands in the nearby Aegean Sea? And what if these islands just happened to be the same islands that were supposedly visited by Odysseus during his return from the Trojan War” which is only relevant for Lite since Odysseus supposedly encountered subjectively tall personages/creatures, etc.

He then expounds on, “The Book of Enoch” whereby Nephilim were miles tall—1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah, see the book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

See my various books here.

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

You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.