Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker extras:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebook

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.