Month: December 2023

The video which set off the following discussion is titled The Giants in Kandahar Afghanistan. Did the US Army engage with the giants?

Korba Mann commented

It’s all In the old testament look around you the clues are everywhere.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Friend, may I take a guess? You are chasing the vague, generic, subjective and undefined English word “giant(s)” around a Hebrew Bible and are thusly connecting dots that the Bible never actually connects, is that correct?

Johnper replie this to me

Many huge “human” bones have been found. Wake up.

Ken Ammi

Friend, a non-worldly and non-dismissive reply would have been many huge (and you would define the vague, generic, and subjective term “huge”) “human” (and you would elucidate why you quoted that word) bones have been found (and you would have followed up with something like “and the undeniable, verifiable, evidence is specifically found ___________________________” and then you would have listed the sources). Plus, you moved the goal post.

Zhongli

That’s not reality. The Darwinists, don’t want the God of the bible to exist, so they hid it from the people with the help of the government.

Lioness Roar

The Pit opens this October 31 [shockingly that was inaccurate since that was from 2022].

Sparrow

You could be right.

LV Girl

Sorry, but what is the pit?

Ken Ammi @Zhongli

But you surely see that the problem is that you are reduced to claiming that the “they hid it from the people” only because there is no evidence so that lack of evidence counts as evidence and all you have to go by is utterly unreliable people like Steve Quayle and LA Marzulli who wave tall tales for a living.

Ken Ammi @Lioness Roar

If it does not, will you come back here on Nov 1 and apologize? [apparently not]

AsaruXIII

this story has so many plot holes lol I can’t believe people still believe in this story after all these years

Ken Ammi @Zhongli

I am unsure what any of that has to do with the video’s context but I would love to be made aware of where I can watch or hear “secret recordings of” “Catholics secretly worship satan in the Vatican.”

Zhongli

Look it up, it’s here on YouTube.

Shadowsight

Look up the mound builders and the giant skeletons uncovered in America

Korba Mann

look up Kandahar giant of Afghanistan

Jalil Good

It appears to me you are a skeptic and my fellow christians cannot or will not answer you. Let me be the first to do that if your up for it. I do christian Apologetics. I study and work with scientific and historical facts about the existence of Jesus Christ being who He said He was. I’m not to familiar with what exactly the Nephilim are but translation suggest they are fallen angels mixed with human women. Goliath was about 9 or 10 feet tall I believe I have to see again… anyways what do you believe exactly? Also I was reading a rebuttal of your in these comments please any questions given to me more sensible that what you provided

Ken Ammi @Shadowsight

Appreciate the tips (which are things into which I have already looked, some of which I included in my book “What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology“) but most of that stuff is based vague, generic claims.

Shadowsight

I grew up near a town that uncovered a mound grave. There are hundreds of newspaper clippings from late 1800s, early 1900s. A school was doing the dig but the Smithsonian stepped in. They apparently brought in their own archeologists and took what the others had done (photos, maps, documents). When the college professor called inquiring about it a few months after Smithsonian had left, there was no record indicating they had even been there. Through my own research, this is a very common thing for these digs BUT the local newspaper articles about the giant skeletons and what ever was with them (axes) are still out there and there are a few photos that lingered about as well.

cali budz

Johnper and rock faces are petrified giants

Ken Ammi @Shadowsight

Well, that there are “hundreds” is a stretch. I have a whole chapter titled “Giant Skeletons Reported in Old Newspapers Accounts” in my book “What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology” and there are many problems with this issue, the first of which is that fake-news is not new, that newspaper reports are a momentary sipped often with no follow up, some that are followed up on turn out to be various forms of pachyderm, whale or dinosaur bones, etc., etc., etc. There is also the problem that the term “giant” is vague, generic, and subjective.

Rabbit

Hes a giant yes like the ancient Philistine warriors. I’m searching for findings of nephillim. Which are 30 figures larger

Ken Ammi @cali budz

What makes you think so and what do you mean by “giants” (I can think of 5-6 definitions).

Ken Ammi @Rabbit

“He” is actually not anything since this is all based on an internet hoax. Since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim, then you cannot claim they are “30 figures larger.”

Rabbit

oh ya nearly a whole platoon vanished and the few survivors were bull[****]tin us and their commanding officers

Nephillim tried to leave us all the evidence they could in order to withstand the great flood and last to this day. You just choose to ignore it. Thats ok

you know the biggest statue on easter Island is 75 feet tall and weighs in at 170 tons? Also it was moved miles across the island from the opposite side, up and over a mountain? Wtf is capable of achieving that? Not today’s technology… Not tomorrows either. By the way, the 70 foot statue has a 20 ton hat sitting on top of it… a statue of a giant man. Wtf is all this trying to tell us? Its very simple, use your head with an open mind. Scientists have been proven wrong more than anyone. Dont let them paint the picture of reality for you. Especially when they themselves believe in god

cali budz

type it in on here. Plenty of photos

Ken Ammi @cali budz

Photos of what?

Ken Ammi @Rabbit

The whole thing in BS and that it is promulgated by Quayle and Marzulli is reason enough to doubt it.

Evidence such as what?

I have no idea why you bring up scientists and that I am wondering about such things proves that I am using my head with an open mind. Please see this video.

Colonel Slim Candy the 2nd @Zhongli

What absolute bull[***]

Adam Fehr

just google papal audience hall, weird statue of Jesus at the Vatican, and wired Vatican occult art, they have a to scale thrown there made for a giant, look around bud

Ken Ammi @Adam Fehr

Please mind your manners. Is the “them” to whom you refer “Nephilim” specifically? If so, how do you know “their bones are found on every continent” since we have no reliable physical description of them? The “book of Enoch,” really 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch contradicts the Bible, was written millennia after the Torah, and has Nephilim as being impossible tall–MILES tall. As for the personal attacks: you seem to be projecting.

I’m unsure what “scale thrown there made for a giant” means nor to what you are referring by the vague, subjective, generic, and undefined English word “giants” (I can think of a few definitions and usages). But yeah, that nuclear blast Jesus, or whatever it is, is odd to say the least.

Adam Fehr

what I’m saying is they are described as being giants, and giant humanoid looking bones have been found on every continent, every ancient civilization speaks about them, when I said a ” to scale thrown made for a giant” I meant exactly that, google Vatican thrown or thrown in st Peter’s Basilica and see for yourself, around the thrown are statues of  saints or bishops  at their actual size, the thrown is made for someone who’s like 20 feet tall, your argument is boring me, do some research

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

So, “they are described as being giants” where?

Keep in mind that there are many claims of “giant humanoid looking bones,” and your qualifying term “humanoid looking” is perfect since that is how ancient and people otherwise inexperienced in anatomy thought of them yet, subsequent research has many of them turning out to be bones of whales, pachyderm, dinosaurs, etc.

I see that another issue is that you think that humans always or often make things exclusively for the literal size of the person who is to use them but that is a simple error. You should at least consider that such a large throne was meant to emphasize grandiosity, power, etc.

See my books:

What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology

The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim, and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts

Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s

Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010

What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?

The Pastoral Nephilim and Giants: What Do Pastors Teach and Preach?

Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers

Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales

On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including noted on giants and the Nephilim

In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch

The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon

Isaiah Bakombo

Actually the Israelites were used to rid the world of the giants. In Canaan conquest

John 10:28 Jesus Christ gives eternal life.

Ken Ammi

I was referring to the specific Hebrew word/concept Nephilim so I’m unsure to what/whom you’re referring by “giants.” But due to your reference to Canaan I can tell you are actually referring to Rephaim, not Nephilim.

Isaiah Bakombo

oh very nice Are you talking about the Anakim? like King Og,

Curtis Owen

The old testament is an orgin story of a backward desert tribe, much like the orgin stories of many hundreds of other tribes. Look around the world, its obvious.

Isaiah Bakombo @Curtis Owen

the story of the Israelites is far deeper than them just being backwards, but a symbol of the state of the world and the coming Messiah as the final Lamb of God who take away the sins of the world

Misty Kimm

goodness gracious! You are something. Mind your manners?? One thing I always hated was a person who thinks they are better or smarter than everyone. I just read through all your comments and you didn’t add anything at all to the conversation.  I think you just are one of those kind of people who likes to talk down to people.  I bet you are a dream to be around.

Ken Ammi @Misty Kimm

It seems to me that a rational person would either apologize or would not do so but would just mind their manners rather than derailing the discussion to launch personal attacks. Note that my comment was based on your actual statements while you played mind-reader as if you could somehow know that my thoughts and motivations were that I am a “person who thinks they are better or smarter than everyone” (which is utterly false) and that I “talk down to people” (you seem to be subjectively emotively misinterpreting me that way but such is not my intention in the least bit). Now, do you care to discuss the issues at hand?

Alan Malcheski @Zhongli

that is almost true…  I was just talking to someone who has been fed this stuff and he is confused about satan and Lucifer, which is understandable, but they are not the same devil.  I think that this is not just confusion, it is more disinfo on top of disinfo, which is needed to make the flat earth story logical.  You believe in flat earth, correct?

Alan Malcheski @Rabbit

that seems unlikely seeing as many of the giant heads were being chiseled down into the rock so that they would be standing when they were finished.  The official story is that the statues were supposed to protect the island from intruders.  But ironically, nobody invaded because they exhausted  all the natural resources on the island and it became deserted.

Rabbit @Alan Malcheski

the largest one was carved lieing flat, 70 feet in length  240 tons

Alan Malcheski

uhm… you would have to link some kind of picture or something for me to ever believe that.  Why would anyone care how much something weighs if they have no idea what it means?

Rabbit

“El Gigante” is the name of it. 170 tons, not 240

Alan Malcheski

Lol I have the internet too, bro… I’m looking at them now.  Try just telling the truth about what you can read.

“The tallest moai erected, called Paro, was almost 10 metres (33 ft) high and weighed 82 tons; the heaviest erected was a shorter but squatter moai at Ahu …”

And all these factoids give different numbers.  Most say Paro was 3 meters, 80 tons, some say 11 meters.  That’s only 35 ft. at the most.

Alan Malcheski

This article says the statutes got buried, so I was wrong about them getting carved down into the rock.  They had to use trees to roll the statues around, that’s how they destroyed their own ecosystem before any invaders could.  So much work, such a bad idea.

Alan Malcheski

I know it’s full of occult stuff, I wrote that already.  I do not remember any giant saints around the THRONE, I do not think it is built for a giant…  I saw the Cysteine chapel, there are saints and big people on the ceiling…  I remember that there are some SMALL statues in the church, like from Michelangelo, or somebody, there’s a mother and child statue, it’s about 2 feet tall.  But the last time I researched that, it said that they change what is in there, periodically.

Alan Malcheski @Adam Fehr

the statue of David was in the Vatican when I was there, I’m pretty sure…  it was 20 years ago.  That is a huge statue.  But that was one of the only gigantic statues I saw.  And David does not have 6 fingers.   He is supposed to be a perfect human.

Zhongli @Alan Malcheski

No, I believe in a round earth. Even the bible says “The circle of the earth” I forgot where exactly is says that, but I don’t know where those people get that the earth is flat from. There are some atheists who believe in a flat earth as well.

Alan Malcheski

you could also argue that the inside of the earth could be considered to be, like, a flat surface, once you’re inside, the same as the outside seems flat.  I believe that space curvature is a real principle of physics, so I think that space curvature actually makes the earth seem flat, and it is more round than it seems to be when you’re inside space that is curving.  If space is curving, and you hold out a straight ruler, that ruler is not actually straight, it is being curved like everything else in space, but there is no way to know that.  But to believe what I believe, you have to believe that space itself is not nothing.

Alan Malcheski

I don’t think you’re ignorant.  The idea if multiple heavens and hells makes the idea of “as above so below” a little more complicated, but that’s a good translation.  People explained things in terms that they and others could understand, and we still do today.  I suppose that you don’t have to believe in flat earth to believe in nephilim, but my point is that you can’t believe in space if you believe in flat earth.  The nephilim are supposedly from…  not earth.  Flat earthers believe that they are being kept in stasis, for a holy war, like, a biblical thing.  I’m sorry to guess incorrectly.

Zhongli

I don’t even know what they believe. The nephalim are sons and daughters of fallen angels. I don’t know how they come to a “flat earth” conclusion.

Alan Malcheski

it’s a very strict, parochial way of thinking.   If nasa lies, that proves that space is fake.  If the nephilim were banished from heaven, then they must be evil.  But the giant who worked with the gov. was supposedly very intelligent and did many good things for humans.

Alan Malcheski

if you like a no holds barred debate, I recommend the debate me channel.  I do not agree with everything the guy says, that’s why it’s a good channel for me.  I am very angry with the idiot I talked to today, he likes to talk over me, and reading that you think the ufos/aliens are demons does add to my anger, but that’s ok, because this is important to me.  I personally believe in aliens, and also in what could be considered demons, but not the standard kind.  I even believe that I may have encountered some, by being in the wrong place for a long time. 

Here’s a hypothetical question:  what if space was real, and some aliens were flying along, and they fell asleep at the wheel… and somehow they ended up going, or doing the equivalent of going faster than light speed?  In some ways it seems like the speed of light maintains what can exist.  I’m not an expert, but if something tried to go too fast, it would not be able to physically exist anymore.  But… would it still exist?

Alan Malcheski

if someone went faster than the speed of light, they would literally lose the light.  I believe that the light of “god” is the light from stars, it has the full spectrum, it is genuine light.  To lose the light of stars is to lose the light of god.

You’re welcome

to make it more disturbing,  something that is traveling faster than light is impossible to see.  But then consider that all atoms spin at a constant rate.  And according to physics (not me) all matter phases in and out of existence at a constant rate, the fastest rate that anything can occur at.  Basically. 

Now, if exceeding light speed affects that rate, then it would cause the object(s) to phase in and out of existence at different rate than everything else, and at a speed where there is no way to interact with other matter, there is no friction, and therefore no way to slow down.  Ever.

What would result is the experiencing of time going backward, if my calculations are correct.  Literally walking backwards through time. 

Have you ever heard of records that had secret messages, in them, if you play them backwards?  Hehehe

Alan Malcheski

I’m sorry, you’re the one who spoke of the devil.

Zhongli

It’s pretty silly.

Alan Malcheski

you are a bible expert, why do you think people walk backwards and all that, when they worship the devil?

Alan Malcheski

time dilation is real, but it doesn’t have much effect unless something is going really fast.  It says that time slows down as you go faster.  So theoretically time would stop if you went the speed of “light in a vacuum.”

So… you’d just stop, because time would stop, right?  Maybe not.  If it gets slower and stops at light speed, what would happen past that?

you don’t actually know who allister crowley was, do you?   Or Michael Aquino.  Smh

Zhongli

I do not know them, but my salvation does not depend on if I know them or not.

Alan Malcheski

there’s another guy from that era named anton lavey.  He was very rich, an occult leader, he had tigers in his house, in random rooms of the house, just for fun.  A complete lunatic, basically.  Just making stuff up.  Maybe it was all meaningless, but tons of people thought he was some kind of powerful witch.  There was a ton of occult stuff going on in the 60s, and it did not just stop, it was not just made up, the rich weirdos at the bohemian grove did not make up the legend of Moloch….  but whatever makes sense to you, stick with that.  I don’t want to destabilise your sanity.

Alan Malcheski

yeah well some people actually do have a symbol branded on them.  You can’t say that there are fake satanists and also real satanists after you say that satanism is just made up and not real.

I didn’t come here for explanations, I came for answers, and I got them.  All I hear is you apologising for cultists.

Zhongli

I never said they don’t exist. All I said is that the rituals that they do are made up. The real rituals happen differently.

It’s more like they want to worship the devil, but they don’t know how to do it properly. And that basically gets them nowhere. Either that or they just said random things to divert people from the truth.

Alan Malcheski

Lol  you don’t make sense, I don’t want to hear more “it’s made up but it really happens but differently.”

Sounds like you do it, yourself, or something.  Bye bye

Zhongli

It’s fine.

Alan Malcheski

you need therapy

Zhongli

What happened to you? You were nice, and now you result to insults.

Gary Lee Moore

The old testament is a fairytale.

Zhongli @Gary Lee Moore

A true fairytale. XD

Jimmy Chanbers

Most idiots would rather pick up People’s Magazine instead of the Bible. Goliath wasn’t a made up man.

we are one

in the Bible you look for the word stature. In measurements many people were to described to be around 15 ft tall, in the kjv Bible

Ken Ammi @we are one

There’s not even one single person “described to be around 15 ft tall, in the kjv Bible” or any version for that matter.

haduken nator

buildings

Ken Ammi @haduken nator

I can’t stand YT comments sometimes since I can’t tell to whom you’re replying and since yours is comment #102 in this thread, I’m not crazy about opening them all just to see ;o)

WtvrCms2Mnd

Uhh, noah’s ark near ararat finally uncovered and proven by geologists following a strange rock carvings by noah, remains of chariots found under the red sea (moses splitting the sea), the rock which moses cut in half to provide water for the israelites.

Ken Ammi @WtvrCms2Mnd

I’m unsure what any of that has to do with the discussion.

BigHeadTre

ALL THE STORIES FROM THE BIBLE COME FROM THE SUMMERIAN TABLETS BUDDY SORRY

Ken Ammi @BigHeadTre

So the story of the apostle Paul making tents is from Summerian tablets? WOW!

BigHeadTre

DUDE THEY STOLE ALL THE STORIES AND JUST SWITCH THE NAMES AROUND BRO. DO YA RESEARCH!!

Ken Ammi

So yes, you’re asserting that the story of the apostle Paul making tents is from Summerian tablets so now, can you provide a citation?

Davis Poppy

Bull [****]

hairy johnson

Doesn’t the same book say the last one was killed tho?

LE64SAM IAM

This is more than 2 1/2 feet taller than Goliath was supposed to be… unrealistic.

hairy johnson

I think he’s referring to the anakites. Scripture says the Anakim was the standard other giant races such as the rephatites where measured. I don’t know the details or anything about actually how tall, but there is plenty of source material from the old testament that mentions giant’s or beings taller than the standard human. They also specify the hamites being tall as tree’s. It very well could be metaphorical, considering the hamites lived in and around Sudan and even to this day the Sudanese are the tallest people on the planet. Hams wife, was a hybrid. Her fathers line was that of the nephilim. I see your point and you’re being very critical, wanting actual definitions and stuff. It’s sort of a reach. There is TONS of hoaxes out there and in my opinion, I don’t think there is any solid evidence such as a skeleton. I doubt any government of the west would release that information. Now, even predating the Torah, there’s tons of literature pointing to there being a race of humanoid much larger than the other humans on the planet. Almost every Mesopotamian culture before Judaism mentions it, also there’s alot of evidence such as the granite tombs in the saqqara in Egypt point to it. Another thing that peaks my interest is, the Roman’s who where so against monotheism and Christianity/Judaism one day woke up and said yea, let’s worship that and rewrite our entire belief system we’ve used for 1000’s of years and use this. In their conquest, they must have found or saw something that changed their mind and it wasn’t the crucifixion.

hairy johnson @Alan Malcheski

no hard woods are native to that island. A soft wood wouldn’t have supported the weight. Maybe they carved perfect circle stones that could roll using copper or stone chisels and rocks to hit them with….

Ken Ammi

The last of the Nephilim died in the flood. The last of the Rephaim (or, the last in a certain region) was Og. And, of course, Nephilim and Rephaim are utterly unrelated. Besides, we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim and the only contextually relevant description of Rephaim we have is that some of them were subjectively “tall” compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Ken Ammi @LE64SAM IAM

Most reliably, Goliath was just shy of 7 ft. The Kandahar thing is obviously just an internet hoax.

Ken Ammi @hairy johnson

Most interesting, friend.

Anakim were a subgroup of Rephaim: like a clan of a tribe. They were subjectively “tall” compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

As for, “plenty of source material from the old testament that mentions giant’s or beings taller than the standard human” well, we are only told of two specific heights (just shy of 7 ft. and 7.5 ft.), then we get vague statements such as “tall” or “great stature,” and then metaphors such a appeals to trees, etc.

The tree thing is not about “hamites” but about Amorites and we’re clearly just being told that they were big and strong—period.

There’s zero indication that “Hams wife, was a hybrid.”

There’s zero indication that “Her fathers line was that of the nephilim.”

One of my problems with, “tons of literature pointing to there being a race of humanoid much larger than the other humans on the planet” is that time and folklore turned both Nephilim and King Og—both for whom we have zero reliable physical description—into being big, and bigger, and BIGGER with time and telling—and retelling and re-retelling.

The material out of which tombs were made have nothing to do with the size of the person laid to rest in them. In fact, a very large coffin was found in Egypt and, guess what, it didn’t contains a “giants,” it was very large because it contained three regular sized skeletons. Also, King Tut’s sarcophagus is quite a bit large than his body.

Unsure what you mean by, “Roman’s…worship that and rewrite our entire belief system” what is the “this” to which you refer?

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

The discussion ensued due to the video Phil-TX | The Flood Of Noah Is Absurd | Truth Wanted 05.11 to which Timothy Brown commented

Silliest part of the story: when it claims the whole world was covered in water, while not knowing Antarctica, Australia and the Americas exists. No reason to believe that story is true.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

So what is the point of that, on your worldview?

Timothy Brown

to make it seem larger than it was. From the writer’s perspective it could have covered everything they saw, but there’s no way they could know any of those 4 continents were also submerged.

Ken Ammi

I’m unsure what that has to do with your worldview but  the writer’s perspective was that he was inspired by He who knew those 4 continents existed if, that is, they did exist–considering the Pangea theory.

Timothy Brown

so you believe the flood happened 200 million years ago? Or are you only backing scientific claims that support your beliefs and ignoring the countless others that disagree?

Ken Ammi

I’m not interested in playing the age-game. But what, on your worldview, would wrong with an accidentally existing ape (supposedly) only backing scientific claims that support its beliefs and ignoring the countless others that disagree?

Timothy Brown

I think you are missing a few words in there, but the point is that you are cherry picking, pointing to one scientific claim that all the continents were once combined as one land mass while ignoring fossil data that contradicts there being a world wide flood. For instance, the fact that no humans existed when Pangea existed. This means there’s no way for your theory to be true, that the writer saw all of Pangea covered with water. Once again, it just seems that the writer wanted this to seem like a worldwide, important event when it was likely based on a local flood.

Ken Ammi

Well, that statement is based on the age-game: and, of course, merely asserting “200 million” is as meaningless as it sounds.

I asked “But what, on your worldview, would wrong with an accidentally existing ape (supposedly) only backing scientific claims that support its beliefs and ignoring the countless others that disagree?” but you merely ignored it and now you double-down on such stuff by asserting, “there’s no way for your theory to be true” without bothering to state why, on your worldview, holding to “true” views is some sort of universal imperative.

Timothy Brown

try reading that out loud. I think you are missing some words. “What would, in your worldview, wrong . . .” isn’t making sense.

I wouldn’t want to play the age game either if I were you. But according to geology and fossil records, Pangea split apart nearly 200 million years ago. If you don’t want to look at numbers, Pangea split apart long before T. Rex, triceratops, smilodon, mammoths and people were breathing. So you claiming the writer of Noah’s Ark story could tell that the entire super continent was covered in water is a cherry picked claim that doesn’t stand on its own two feet. If, in fact, the story took place during that time, then God split the continents after and it’s not mentioned anywhere in that story. That would be a major deal and would help support the idea that animals like koalas didn’t have to swim 100s of miles to exist in Australia. But this wasn’t written as part of the story because they didn’t know Australia existed.

Once again, my belief was this started as a story someone was telling about the god they believed and they added more fantastical elements to make it sound important. If the story was simply about a flood that busted up a whole town and a guy brought two of every animal he had with him it’s not as awe inspiring. If you are trying to impress people about your god, then you’re more likely to add drama to it. Just like the fake faith healers and the idiots talking in tongues. It’s still going on to this day. It’s also hard to think this is the one, true story when the Epic of Gilgamesh existed before it. It was likely another older myth that later got attributed to this god. I don’t know what words you want from me, but you are clearly only using science that backs your claim, while ignoring all the science that does not.

Ken Ammi

Here’s how it was supposed to read, “What would, in your worldview, [be] wrong . . .” but you seem to pull an argumentum ad grammaticum since you appealed to poor gramma in order to ignore the issue (are logical fallacies even an issue, on your worldview?).

I’d imagine that you realize that “200 million years” is an arbitrary and fantasy number—right? It’s just a way for Atheists to day “A long, long time ago…”

I wasn’t “claiming the writer of Noah’s Ark story could tell that the entire super continent was covered in water…” but merely noted, “existed if, that is, they did exist.”

See, since you ignored the key issue, when you go on about “a story someone was telling about the god they believed” you’re getting ahead of yourself and merely jumping to conclusions based on hidden assumptions.

There’s no use in chasing you down the rabbit hole when I’m still asking where you are digging in the first place.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

A discussion ensued due to the video NATIVE AMERICAN STORIES ΟF ΤHE RED ΗΑΙRED GΙΑNTS ΟF EARLY ΑΜERΙCΑ, ORIGINS & WΑRS (ABOUT & MORE).

Huskyfan1984 commented

The other part no one ever talks about is why the natives would put up a hand when greeting someone.  They held up their hand to prove they had 5 fingers and not 6 like the nephilem.  So before you got close you had to prove that by putting up one hand. We think they are saying Hi. But it has a much deeper meaning.

mittens smittens chimed in with

That’s definitely a possibility. The main point of raising your hand up to say hello is to show you are not armed with a weapon.

I, Ken Ammi, asked

What makes you think Nephilim had six digits?

PURSUIT HEMI 5.7 AWD

from Torah and Bible. King Og was described as having Six fingers per hand and same with,6 toes

Ken Ammi

Two issues:

1. Og was a Repha, not a Nephil.

2. Og was never described as having Six fingers per hand and same with,6 toes.

Steven McCoy

Wow! New to subject.

Huskyfan1984 @Ken Ammi

the Bible.

yjbaxtere

Maybe that’s where the salute comes from as well. Reveal your face under your armor, and show how many fingers you have if held hand a certain way (not like US military now).

Ken Ammi @Huskyfan1984

That’s a bit generic, wouldn’t you agree? What about the Bible? How so in the Bible? Whereabouts in the Bible? Keep in mind that my question was “What makes you think NEPHILIM had six digits?”

Ken Ammi @yjbaxtere

“that’s where” where?

Sandra Johnson @PURSUIT HEMI 5.7 AWD

Wrong, Scripture says King Og had a 13′ bed. He was taller than the average. Maybe he was 12′ tall.

Ryan Drabing @Ken Ammi

i be live Enoch books speak of them having six fingers and toes.

Jay Gee @Ken Ammi

chronicles kings

Anything about king David really if you want to know about giants

And kjv

Even though it’s constantly changing

It’s still the best

It’s scripture for reproof correction and sound doctrine

It is not the Word of God that is Jesus’s title

He is the unchanging word

People began worshipping the Bible instead of Him so he allowed to to be changed

And it’s changing constantly it’s truly paranormal

Sgt. Lincoln Osiris @Ken Ammi

Like a little child rewording someone’s answer into the same question over and over with out any rebuttal or facts of your own.

Millie Second @Ken Ammi

The Bible.

Ken Ammi @Jay Gee

Well friend, I style myself an Systematic Biblical Paranormologist and have written some nine books about Nephilology so I can tell you that if you don’t tell me what you mean by the vague, subjective, generic, and multi-usage English word “giants” I won’t understand you.

If you mean “Nephilim” the utterly nothing whatsoever about king David has anything at all to do with them.

If you mean “Rephaim” and, sure, David dealt with them.

For example, he dealt with Goliath who, most reliably, was just shy of 7 ft.

Thus, if you mean subjectively unusual height then we’re told that Anakim were subjectively “tall” compared to Israelites, males of which averaged 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Also, the reason that the word “giants” ended up in the KJV is that it’s just rendering (not even translating) the Greek LXX’s “gigantes” which was just rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” and/but also “Rephaim” and/but also “gibborim” and gigantes just means “earth-born” so that none of those words in any language even imply anything about height at all.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

Pastor Jeff Wickwire asked and answered What is the truth behind the NEPHILIM of Genesis 6? due to that, “while hosting or cohosting the national Bible question and answer call-in show called ‘To every man an answer’…many callers have heard is the teaching that the ‘sons of God’ found in Genesis 6 are fallen angels. And that they somehow morphed into flesh and blood men to have sexual intimacy with earthly women to produce a purported half man, half demon race of giants called the Nephilim.”

At this point, since he’s relating the views of others, I will just note that we ought to keep an eye out for answers to my key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

We must keep an eye out since he noted, “giants called the Nephilim” but we don’t yet know what he means—though, we can guess.

He reviews, “two views on this” and first considers the Sethite view yet, as he notes that, “in Genesis 5 (context is everything) you’ll see that the whole chapter is dedicated to tracing the lineage of Seth” he notes, “Seth was Adam and Eve’s third son” which may or may not be the case: just because Cain, Abel, and Seth are listed in a row that doesn’t necessarily mean they were the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd born since they could have been focused upon since there was something notable to say about them.

He then makes a typical Sethite view statement which is, “Seth in chapter 5 is clearly shown to be the righteous lineage, while the lineage of Cain is the wicked lineage.” That’s mythology, prejudice, and only causes more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

It’s myth because there no indication of entire righteous and entirely wicked lineages and so that’s also why it’s prejudicial. Appealing to one single sin by Cain and two by Lamech is very, very, very far from condemning an entire lineage.

The problematic part comes in when that view expects us to believe that since, as Pastor Jeff Wickwire elucidates it, “‘sons of God’ is referring to the righteous line of Seth” and the “daughters of men” were wicked Cainites then it was, for some unknown reason, exclusively male Sethites and exclusively female Cainites—and, apparently those male Sethites were so very righteous that they sinned so terribly that their sin served as the premise for the flood—go figure.

As for the, “claim that the phrase ‘sons of God’ refers to fallen angels…never in all the Word of God is the phrase ‘sons of God’ used to refer to a fallen, evil person or being” yet, he can see that, “It is always a phrase reserved for the righteous, including the angels in Job that are twice described as ‘sons of God’”: it’s actually three times but, who’s counting?

I, who hold to the sons of God in the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, view have no problem with that, “never in all the Word of God is the phrase ‘sons of God’ used to refer to a fallen, evil person or being” since such is how they Angels were referenced before they sinned and were never referred to thusly afterward.

He then wrote, “angels are spirit beings, not human. They can ‘appear’ as human, and did so several times in the Bible.” There’s no indication that Angels are, “spirit beings,” they are certainly “not human,” by definition, there’s no indication that, “They can,” merely, “‘appear’ as human” and never, “did so several times in the Bible.” Rather, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

What’s interesting, and typical of that sort of faulty premise, is that he begins with the mere assertion that, “angels are spirit beings” and then reads that unevidenced man-made tradition into texts so that he concludes, “They can ‘appear’ as human.” Yet, for example, he notes, “Two angels appearing as men visited Abraham before Sodom’s destruction” but that text, which is Gen 18-19, doesn’t say a single word about them having been spirits not merely appearing as men. See, people such as Pastor Jeff Wickwire read about Angels described as men—period, full stop—and inset into those texts something they never even imply. He’s not exegeting, he’s eisegeting.

Even worse, he wrote, “Hebrews exhorts us, ‘Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels’ (13:2). These are angels appearing as men, not actual men.” Well, Angels, and Nephilim, are referred to as man/men since they look just like human males which is why it’s possible that we might, “unwittingly entertained angels.”

Based on his faulty premise, he goes on to argue:

…since angels are spirit beings they would literally have to morph into a real flesh and blood man complete with DNA, a gene pool, spermatozoa, and sex organs to marry and produce offspring.

Remember, the golden rule of all creation is that every living thing reproduces only and exclusively “after their kind” (Genesis 1:24). So how could spirit beings produce human offspring?

Even Jesus described angels as sexless: “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”—Mark 12:25

Nowhere in all the Bible do we find an angel with the ability to create or procreate. They are created, not creators. They’re never once shown in Scripture having power to create.

They can only appear as something they’re not. As Paul warns “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”—2 Cor. 11:14

The word “transforms” means “to change in appearance,” to don a disguise. It has ZERO to do with actually becoming a different being.

It saddens me that a pastor could compound so many biblically inaccurate assertions in to such a short statement. Yet, since I have attempted to specialize in such issues, I am aware of the pitfalls of those who appear to comment on them based on common knowledge and man-made tradition—which means they’re better off not posting such things on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you.

Again, “angels are spirit beings” is a mere assertion which he employes as a faulty premise.

As for, “morph…DNA, a gene pool, spermatozoa, and sex” well, Angels are described as looking just like human males and performing physical actions and without any indication that such isn’t their ontology. Why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?

As for, “every living thing reproduces only and exclusively ‘after their kind’”: Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”

Note that he asserted, “Jesus described angels as sexless” but quoted a statement that doesn’t even hint at any such thing: many sexed humans have not married nor been given in marriage so marriage in and of itself, or lack thereof, doesn’t have anything to do with sexual organs.

We just read what Jesus said and it’s that, note the qualifying term, “angels in heaven” so, the loyal ones, “neither marry nor are given in marriage” which is why those who took it upon themselves to do so are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” in order to do so, as Jude put it.

Note that it’s only after rejecting the Angel view of Gen 6 that he can then assert, “Nowhere in all the Bible do we find an angel with the ability to create or procreate.” In fact, Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

As for that such is the case because, “They are created, not creators” that’s incoherent since humans are created and creators.

We already reviewed how, “They can only appear as something they’re not” is a mere assertion and continues to be so since the quote from Paul well firstly, Satan isn’t an Angel, he’s a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14). Secondly, it’s tricky to deal in, “change in appearance…don a disguise” and not, “becoming a different being” since Paul was referring to changing appearance as in who one appears, how one comes across, and not morphology and disguising what one is and also not morphology. What Paul actually wrote was about humans first, “such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.” Thus, this pertains to pretending to be someone, something, one is not: and Satan pretends to be a messenger, the meaning of Angel, of God but isn’t.

Next, Pastor Jeff Wickwire wrote, “the whole notion of a hybrid half man, half devil is straight out of ancient mythology.” The Angel view is just that, an Angel view and not a Devil view so it’s misrepresenting the view to invent the term, “half devil” yet, I get his hyperbolic meaning, of course. He doesn’t seem to consider that, “ancient mythology” got the notion of hybrids from the real event recorded in Gen 6—and then expanded upon and added to in this or that way post-Tower of Babel as such commonly known and shared history came, with time and telling, to be called myth and legend.

He next mischaracterizes the Angel view again as, “half man, half demon view” and tackles, “two New Testament passages are offered to support the” Angel view:

2 Peter 2:4 “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;”

And Jude 6, “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.”

His take is:

The 2 Peter verse simply describes what we already knew—one third of heaven rebelled with Lucifer and were cast to the earth under the judgment of God. You have to read into it the notion that its about fallen angels impregnating women and coming under judgment for it.

This verse says NOTHING about Noah’s time or Nephilim.

The Jude verse also tells us what we already knew—the angels that rebelled with Lucifer “didn’t keep their proper domain (their place in heaven), and left their abode (dwelling place).” They rebelled against God by leaving their rightful place in the heavenlies, NOT by morphing into a hybrid half man, half devil.

There’s no indication of, “rebelled with” but rather that, Lucifer’s fall was due to the Gen 3 event and the Angels’ fall was due to the Gen 6 event. The only correlation is that Lucifer had something to do with their fall as he’s depicted as a dragon who’s tail cast them to Earth (Rev 12).

Note that he tells us in mere passing that, “They rebelled against God by leaving their rightful place” but didn’t bother telling us what they did, only that they left.

As for, “You have to read into it the notion that its about fallen angels impregnating women and coming under judgment for it. This verse says NOTHING about Noah’s time or Nephilim” well, I already noted that Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

He then comments, “It is entirely possible that the Nephilim were simply giants through genetics. Giant people are around today. The tallest human in recorded…” Thus, let us review the key questions:

What’s Pastor Wickwire’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”? Something to do with subjectively unusual height and note that he merely asserted that Nephilim were subjectively usually tall yet, we’ve no reliable physical description of them so their height is a non-issue, an argument from silence.

As for, what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? It merely renders (doesn’t even translate), “Nephilim” in two verses or, “Rephaim” in 98% of all others.

Thus, do those two usages agree? No.

He ends by reiterating the mythical prejudicial Sethite view, “righteous line of Seth…Cain’s lineage—the ungodly lineage…righteous lineage.”

His last line is, “In summary, these are some (not all) of the reasons I struggle with the whole half man, half devil teaching of the Nephilim. Thanks for reading my ramblings!” Yet, what he ought to struggle with is that virtually every argument he posed is based on fundamental level mischaracterizations of Angelology and accepting a very problematic late-comer of a view. The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

Oh, as for exclusively male sons of God and exclusively female daughters of men: the Angel view makes sense of that since, again, Angels look just like human males.

Update: I made Pastor Wickwire aware of my article and he replied:

thanks for the hearty rebuttal! While I still find the half man, half devil view impossible on just about every level, it was interesting to see your side.

In turn, I noted:

Thank you for your consideration. I must say that it troubles me that I noted that no one holds to “half man, half devil” but you repeat that again.

In any case, who did find it possible were the overwhelming majority of the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators for virtually a millennia with hardly another blip on the radar–and when Jews and Christians agree, we should pay close attention ;o)

He replied:

I would encourage you to go to the following site and give it a read. It fully explains my beliefs on this topic:

https://www.ligonier.org/…/who-are-sons-god-genesis-6

Who Are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6?

I replied:

Appreciate the tip.

I don’t reject the Sethite view because I’m unaware of it rather, I reject it because I’m aware of it.

It’s a late-comer of a view that’s based on myth, based on prejudice, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

I included Sproul’s views in my book, “The Pastoral Nephilim And Giants: What Do Pastors Teach and Preach?”

He noted:

the Sethite view a myth? When it’s straight out of Genesis? Wow. Well, we certainly differ on this. Blessings!

I replied:

There’s literally not one single word in Genesis about an entire lineage of Sethites who were holy/righteous/Godly (and terrible sinners) nor an entire lineage of Cainites who were unholy/unrighteous/unGodly nor that exclusively male Sethies married exclusively female Cainites nor why there’d be anything wrong with those marriage–which is why the myth had to be concocted, in order to merely assert that there was something wrong with it since the holy/righteous/Godly Sethite were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood.

He commented:

wrong. The line of Seth is the lineage of faith. From their descendants Messiah was born. It was they who began to “call out on the name of the Lord” in Gen. 4:26. The Scriptures clearly present the Sethite line as the line of faith, and the Cainite line as the opposite. One of God’s clear directives to the righteous was to never intermarry with the ungodly. This was not the ONLY reason God sent judgment. But it was a sign of universal apostasy from God. Again, the notion that fallen angels copulated with earthly women is absurd on every level. and again, never in all the word of God does God call the wicked his sons. Only the righteous enjoyed that moniker. Anyway, we’re not going to agree on this. God’s best be yours!

I retorted:

But Pastor, how do you conclude “the lineage of faith” (whom, on your view, were quite faithless when it came down to it) based on that, “It was they who began to “call out on the name of the Lord” in Gen. 4:26”? What has that to do with every single individual in that entire lineage?

Likewise with Cainites: you condemn every single one of them when we can only point to one single sin of one of them and two sins of another one of them: it’s ungraceful and unjust to condemn an entire lineage based on three sins of two people.

“From their descendants Messiah was born” along with non-Sethite Gentiles.

“One of God’s clear directives to the righteous” many, many centuries post-flood, “was to never intermarry with the ungodly.”

But again, you’re also basing that on the myth and prejudice I noted.

That which is “absurd on every level” to you subjectively isn’t a standard and you just referred to the earliest church fathers as “absurd” as well as Jude and Jews before them.

And Pastor, please don’t argue just to argue or ignore arguments and reply as if they were never made since when it comes to, “never in all the word of God does God call the wicked his sons” I addressed that in the article that you read by noting, “I, who hold to the sons of God in the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, view have no problem with that, “never in all the Word of God is the phrase ‘sons of God’ used to refer to a fallen, evil person or being” since such is how they Angels were referenced before they sinned and were never referred to thusly afterward.”

Sometimes people don’t agree because one of them is mistaken.

Shalom!

 

 

See my various books here.

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

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

The following discussion took place due to LA Marzulli’s video THE WHEEL OF THE GIANTS after a certain RandomChristianMusings commented

I love your style, Mr. Marzulli. You were the first person, who happens to be a believer, that taught me about the Giants and the Nephilim. I realize you can’t answer every comment. I get it. However, I simply had to give you a big “thank you” for teaching me Biblical truths that my Pastors SHOULD HAVE taught me, but neglected to. God bless you and people like Timothy Alberino who teach those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear the truth. Shalom, my brother <3

Ken Ammi

I hate to be so blunt but it’s obvious that LA was the first person that taught you about the “Giants and the Nephilim” since that’s part of the confusion he teaches: “Giants and the Nephilim” means “Nephilim and the Nephilim” since, contextually, “Giants” in your English Bible, is just rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim.” Also, he teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible doesn’t. And why does he teach Nephilim were “Giants” (implying unusual height: another un-biblical teaching) and claims to have their skulls but can only ever show us regular sized skulls?

Murica N Cars

I beg to differ. It says clearly there were giants in those days and after, as in the context of after the flood. One of Noah’s kids married a woman that had the genetics so some of the kids had the gene as well.

Ken Ammi

No, no: I beg to differ—pretty please! ;o)

If you mean “Nephilim” then please stick to that word or this will get increasingly confusing.

Now, such is not the case since “It says clearly there were [Nephilim] in those days and after, as in the context of” “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men…” that’s what the verse actually states, that’s the verse telling you to which days it’s referring.

You say “after the flood” but the flood isn’t even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.

Lastly, due to that misunderstanding, you are forced to literally invent that “One of Noah’s kids married a woman that had the genetics so some of the kids had the gene as well” which implies that God failed, He meant to be rid of them but couldn’t get the job done, He missed that loophole.

Suzanne Hartmann

Genesis 6:4  The Nephilim   

הַנְּפִלִ֞ים (han·nə·p̄i·lîm)    Strong’s Hebrew 5303: 1) giants, the Nephilim  BOTH MEANINGS get your facts straight before you criticize please.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I literally wrote the book on such sources and resources so I understand why Strong’s (which isn’t inspired) presents that as one usage.

You should also ask why they do that, especially considering that no Hebrew etymologist would say that “Nephilim” means or even implies what you’re thinking of as “giants”–which isn’t even what English Bibles mean when they use the English word “giants.”

See my book “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.”

Also, you say “Strong’s Hebrew 5303: 1) giants…” but you then have to ask what Strong’s means by “giants,” what the usage was when that was published, etc. In other words, again, why does Strong’s even say that?

Thomas Stickle

you have read that Og, King of Bashan and Goliath lived after the Flood, correct? You also know there were more giants right?

Ken Ammi

Friend, if your English Bible employs the English word “giant” then please note that in two verse it is rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” and in the 98% of others its rendering “Rephaim” and it never, ever, implies anything about height whatsoever.

So, when you refer to Og and Goliath, please note that you’re referring to two Rephaim, neither was a Nephil—nor could they have been.

Also, I’m unsure why you include them amongst what you seem to imply were subjectively tall people since we’ve no physical description of Og whatsoever and Goliath was, most reliably, just shy of 7 ft. Yet, that brings the point about subjectively unusual height into play since sure, Goliath was tall at just shy of 7 ft. compared to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.

[By now, I wrote an entire book about Og, see The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?]

Murica N Cars

ah yes demons are the disembodied spirits of the giants. As for the other it was just a suggestion, but based on the severity of Gods punishment for the 1st infraction (chained in darkness etc etc…) I find it highly unlikely there was a 2nd incursion from fallen angels. As for God “failing@ maybe he knew it would happen like that and planned for them to get wiped out in Canaan, we just don’t really know do we?

Ken Ammi

What makes you think “demons are the disembodied spirits of the giants”?

What do you mean by “giants”?

There were not post-flood incursions of fallen Angels.

There’s no indication Nephilim “get wiped out in Canaan” and yes, we know perfectly well if we just read the Bible and ignore pop-researchers who make a living spinning neo-theo-sci-fi tall tales.

Murica N Cars

yes I had another message I submitted but felt that it came off as me being a way that I wasn’t, so I deleted it and rewrote it. As for giants, I believe that there were at least 15-18ish foot hybrid giants and due to the genetic corruption God wiped them all out with the flood.

Ken Ammi

Friend, recall that I had asked, “What makes you think ‘demons are the disembodied spirits of the giants’?”

I noted, “There were not post-flood incursions of fallen Angels.”

I also noted, “There’s no indication Nephilim ‘get wiped out in Canaan…’”

I had also asked, “What do you mean by ‘giants’?” and you replied, “As for giants, I believe that there were at least 15-18ish foot hybrid giants and due to the genetic corruption” we at least agree, “God wiped them all out with the flood.”

But be careful about defining “giants” as “at least 15-18ish foot hybrid” since:

1. The English word “giants” in English Bibles implies no such thing whatsoever, it has nothing to do with height at all.

2. The English word “giants” in English Bibles refers to “hybrid” Nephilim in Gen 6:4, reliably, and Num 13:3, unreliably (since that’s part of an evil report). But it also refers to Rephaim in 98% of all over cases but Rephaim were not hybrids.

So, as for “at least 15-18ish foot” I’ve no idea where you’re getting that:

1. We’ve no reliable description of Nephilim so you can’t know they were “at least 15-18ish foot.”

2. The only contextually relevant description of Rephaim we have is that some of them, such as the Anakim subgroup/clan, were “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Murica N Cars

interesting. I’m still looking into everything and will continue until I die. As long as you believe God sent his only Son to legally accept our sins and die for them for all mankind  the other stuff will eventually fall into place. Do you believe God sent his only Son to die for your sins?

Ken Ammi

Yes I do, thanks for asking—I’m a Messianic Jew. If you’re interested, I can cut you a deal on my various books about Nephilim and “giants” or even “Is Jesus the Messiah? A Judaism vs. Judaism Debate”: https://www.amazon.com/Ken-Ammi/e/B071NW4F4W%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

Murica N Cars

also says in Bible Amorites were tall as cedars.

“Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, Whose height was like the height of the cedars, And he was as strong as the oaks; Yet I destroyed his fruit above And his roots beneath.

Amos 2:9

Ken Ammi

So, what is the mathematical ratio based equation result of a person’s strength vs. the strength of an oak?

Murica N Cars

I would say more than a 2×4 for sure

Ken Ammi

Indeed, no one knows, no one cares, and no one thinks about it until I mention it because this is not about interacting with the text, it’s about neo-theo-sci-fi tall tales. I mean, just listen to when I brought this up to Rolon.

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.

This discussion took placed due to the video Class is in Session: Free Education for Aron Ra and Dr. Dan Stern Cardinale – Y Chromosome Noah.

I, Ken Ammi, commented

You should have had them holding up Darwin’s corpse (metaphorically, his dead theory). It’s simple: on an Atheistic-Evolutionary view, there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to believe in the Atheistic-Evolutionary view and so, nor that we’re accidentally existing apes. It’s utterly self defeating. This is the sort of thing I’ve been wanting to do a show with you about, Donny.

Tony Atkinson replied

Firstly , evolution is not atheistic. It makes no claims about whether a god exists .

Secondly , nobody disagrees that there’s  no “universal imperative “ to accept evolution . I’m not sure why  you think this defeats  whether  evolution is true or not .

Professor Neturman chimed in with

Your rambling doesn’t fit the Creationistic Worldview of Creationists discoveries in the fields of science.  Ironically Creationists can’t even argue as a whole yet make claims of superior knowledge.  Is this why they don’t believe in using the concensus of evidence?

Ken Ammi

Perhaps “evolution is not atheistic” but I specifically referred to “an Atheistic-Evolutionary view.”

“nobody disagrees that there’s  no ‘universal imperative ‘” is like a triple negative. You seem to imply that everyone agrees that there’s no universal imperative to accept evolution which means you agree with me.

I stated nothing about whether evolution is true or not (first, we’d have to define “evolution”) but only that if Atheistic-Evolution is true then there’d be no universal imperative to believe that it’s true.

Tony Atkinson

the triple negative thing . Yep. Poorly worded .

To be clear . I don’t see any reason why there would be a universal imperative to “believe “ anything .

Whether evolution is true or not is unrelated to whether any one believes it. Scientists would argue that they don’t care whether it’s true or not .  They just accept that evolution is the current best model that  explains why and how life diversified and produces novel predictions that can be tested . If it fails to make predictions or its predictions are falsified then its discarded as a model

Ken Ammi

Interestingly, going against the consensus is what has led to the greatest scientists making the greatest scientific discoveries.

Professor Neturman

I’ve been following science for over 50 years. Someone like yourself should probably just listen more and talk a lot less

Ken Ammi

Indeed, on Atheism there’s no universal imperative to believe or disbelieve anything: which brings the Atheist missionaries’ endeavors to a full and grinding halt.

There’s no use pondering “Whether evolution is true or not” until we defined “evolution.”

“evolution is the current…model” is interesting since biology is a science but evolution is a worldview philosophy.

Basically, every generation since the late 1800s has been told that “evolution” is a fact due to thus and such. Then those things get discredited. The next generation is told “evolution” is a fact due to this and that. Then those things get discredited. The next generation is told “evolution” is a fact due to what have you. Then, you guessed it.

Tony Atkinson

none of that made sense . It’s the creationists that have the problem defining evolution because (as you have demonstrated ) you don’t know what it is .

Here’s a challenge :

correctly define “evolution” in a couple of short sentences and then give me testable evidence why it isn’t happening. Saying God did it isn’t testable evidence.

Ken Ammi

So, I take it that you’re saying you’ll run away from issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and continue on as if you didn’t hit an impenetrable brick wall.

Going back to the issue: what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to provide testable evidence?

Saying time did it, matter did it, nothing did it, chance did it isn’t testable evidence.

Ken Ammi

Why, on your worldview?

Ken Ammi

Do you treat people like garbage about any other “Scientific Theory” or have you turned “evolution” into your worldview philosophy?

FYI: evolution is a belief system based on faith in accident stolen mythology.

Professor Neturman

I go by the verifiable scientific evidence.  Can you possibly form a clear and intelligent question if you choose to engage with me

Ken Ammi

Well said, it seems that you finally realize that your worldview has left you with nothing but utter subjectivism, “I go by” as a personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions).

So, the “clear and intelligent question” is why, on your worldview, should one accidentally existing ape (me) adhere to the “I go by” subjectivism a personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions) of another accidentally existing ape (you)?

Tony Atkinson

your question doesn’t make sense . What do you mean by “universal imperative “ ?

Like I said , there’s no imperative for humans to explain evolution . It occurs whether we understand it or not

Ken Ammi

Please tell me you’re joking so I can tell you it’s not funny.

Here’s what I’ve written, “on an Atheistic-Evolutionary view, there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to believe in the Atheistic-Evolutionary view…You seem to imply that everyone agrees that there’s no universal imperative to accept evolution…I stated nothing about whether evolution is true or not (first, we’d have to define “evolution”) but only that if Atheistic-Evolution is true then there’d be no universal imperative to believe that it’s true…on Atheism there’s no universal imperative to believe or disbelieve anything…There’s no use pondering ‘Whether evolution is true or not’ until we defined ‘evolution’…what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to provide testable evidence?…”

But I’m glad you agree that on Atheistic Evolution, “there’s no imperative for humans to explain evolution.”

“universal imperative” refers to an imperative that’s universal. This isn’t about that whatever on Earth you may mean when you use the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term “evolution” “occurs whether we understand it or not,” the issue is that on an Atheistic Evolutionary worldview there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to acknowledge, believe in, hold to, adhere to, admit, etc. “evolution” even if it does really occur.

Professor Neturman

YEY MORE INCOHERENT RAMBLING

Ken Ammi

Friend, your tactic is crystal clear: when you encounter issues that are inconvenient to your worldview you just ignore them by subjectively labeling them incoherent. Yet, that which you subjectively declare to be incoherent isn’t a standard. Now, what imperative is there on your worldview for accidentally existing apes to be coherent?

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

This discussion took place due to my video Baha’i Faith on Jesus – lecture by Ken Ammi since twinstar9 commented

Those who want to understand and consider the validity of the Baha’i Faith would do well to bypass a critic and read the Writings for themselves. This guy misleads intentionally.

Ken Ammi

Just so that I understand what you’re saying: Baha’i claim that they invite independent investigations, I performed one, and now you tell people to ignore my results because you say so? You merely asserted that I mislead but didn’t bother presenting even one single example. Also, you say I mislead intentionally which means you’re playing mind-reader: what makes you think that I mislead and that I mislead intentionally? Please repent.

twinstar9

Independent investigation of truth is a founding Baha’i principle. Distorting the truth, and representing in the title of the video that you understand Baha’i Writings, those are dishonest acts. You already know how you have distorted the Writings and you already know your motives. Your aims are crystal clear.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you discredit yourself again since, again, you merely assert I’m “Distorting the truth” but don’t bother saying how so, you merely assert “dishonest acts” but don’t bother saying how so (nor how you claim to know I’m being dishonest), you merely assert I “have distorted the Writings” but don’t bother saying how so, you merely assert.

See, just because you don’t like the facts I present doesn’t mean they’re not facts and you seem to be incapable of correcting anything I said which is why you merely assert.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

To the question What is a half-demon half-angel?, a certain Gary Whittenberger (“former Psychologist, retired (1979-2004)”) commented

Maybe a full human person? No, just kidding. I don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

It’s interesting that you “don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do” since your hidden assumption is that we ought to base our beliefs upon that for which there’s “good evidence” but on what premise from your worldview?

Also, you imply that there is evidence but just not “good” evidence which seems like a subjective preference—something to discuss down the line, perhaps.

Gary Whittenberger

KA1: It’s interesting that you “don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do” since your hidden assumption is that we ought to base our beliefs upon that for which there’s “good evidence” but on what premise from your worldview?

GW1: Of course, we should base our beliefs on good evidence! What are the alternatives? Base them on bad evidence? Or on no evidence at all? Which of these do you support?

KA1: Also, you imply that there is evidence but just not “good” evidence which seems like a subjective preference—something to discuss down the line, perhaps.

GW1: Good evidence is objective, clear, replicated, unequivocal, and/or produced through scientific methodology. What alternative do you suggest?

Ken Ammi

So, the “premise from your worldview” is doubling down on not having a premise, “Of course, we should” which now also means that you asserted a universal imperative, “should” so the question remains and I’ll add: what universal imperative is there, on your worldview, for demanding that we “should base our beliefs on good evidence”?

We are just a the very first step and nowhere near “What are the alternatives?”

After dealing with that, we can deal with the “down the line, perhaps” issue of that what is/counts for “Good” and “evidence” is subjective—and I’ll note that you threw in a universal imperative to adhere to the “scientific methodology” as a mere assertion.

Gary Whittenberger

KA2: So, the “premise from your worldview” is doubling down on not having a premise, “Of course, we should” which now also means that you asserted a universal imperative, “should” so the question remains and I’ll add: what universal imperative is there, on your worldview, for demanding that we “should base our beliefs on good evidence”?

GW2: I am making no demand. You may or may not choose to follow my normative proposition. If you do, you will reap good outcomes for yourself and for others. If you do not, you will reap bad outcomes for yourself and others. And so, I strongly encourage you to base your beliefs on good evidence.

GW2: I agree with this: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879), mathematician and philosopher

KA2: We are just a the very first step and nowhere near “What are the alternatives?”

GW2: I disagree. I am ready for you to present your alternatives. Why would you avoid doing that?

KA2: After dealing with that, we can deal with the “down the line, perhaps” issue of that what is/counts for “Good” and “evidence” is subjective—and I’ll note that you threw in a universal imperative to adhere to the “scientific methodology” as a mere assertion.

GW2: I am ready. Make your claims.

Ken Amm

Well friend, at least you realize that there are no universal on your worldview which is why you’ve been reduced to utter subjectivism, “You may or may not choose…If…If…I strongly encourage” which, of course, is on the level of telling me which ice-cream flavor you strongly encourage me to try.

Likewise, you “agree with Clifford but don’t bother saying why and, again, that’s like telling me you agree with him on favorite ice-cream flavors.

See, you opened yourself up to being utterly ignored and rejected since while some may be terribly concerned about your subjective personal preferences du jour—based on hidden assumptions—I’ve no reason to be, right?

Likewise with, “I am ready for you to present your alternatives” and playing the “Why would you avoid doing that?” game: you are the one who just made it crystal clear that this is exclusively about whether or not I feel like pleasing your curiosity or not.

Let that sink in, you may like, prefer, some things over others but that has zero to do with me—or anyone else you’ll ever encounter.

Gary Whittenberger

KA3: Well friend, at least you realize that there are no universal on your worldview which is why you’ve been reduced to utter subjectivism, “You may or may not choose…If…If…I strongly encourage” which, of course, is on the level of telling me which ice-cream flavor you strongly encourage me to try.

GW3: Ken, I am not your friend, so please do not call me “friend.” Let’s go back to the start. I do not believe in angels because nobody has presented good scientific evidence that they exist. If you believe in angels, then present your evidence. You haven’t done that. Instead, you seem to be implying the you don’t need to provide evidence. Why would you think so?

KA3: Likewise, you “agree with Clifford but don’t bother saying why and, again, that’s like telling me you agree with him on favorite ice-cream flavors.

GW3: No, it’s not like that at all. If any person, including you, follows Clifford’s rule, then they will have better outcomes in explanation, prediction, and control during life than if they don’t follow his rule. Therefore, his rule has objective empirical support. Do you advocate the opposite? If so, then defend your opinion.

KA3: Likewise with, “I am ready for you to present your alternatives” and playing the “Why would you avoid doing that?” game: you are the one who just made it crystal clear that this is exclusively about whether or not I feel like pleasing your curiosity or not.

GW3: You are playing the game of evading your responsibility to explain and defend your alternative views.

KA3: Let that sink in, you may like, prefer, some things over others but that has zero to do with me—or anyone else you’ll ever encounter.

GW3: Condescending remark, unhelpful and inflammatory.

Ken Ammi

You’re not my friend? We’ll have to change that.

You say “Let’s go back to the start” but you don’t seem to realize you’re starting at the conclusion. See, the start isn’t “because nobody has presented good scientific evidence” but why, on your worldview, is presenting evidence some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand evidence, for basing your views on evidence, etc.?

Thus, we’re nowhere near “you seem to be implying the you don’t need to provide evidence” but are still stuck at step number one which you can’t seem to even attempt to take.

This is systematic thinking 101.

You then just pass the buck to Clifford’s rule so the question remains and you’ve accomplished nothing. See, the issue now becomes why, on your worldview, is following Clifford’s rule some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand we follow Clifford’s rule. When you punt to “better outcomes” we then need to discuss how you determine better vs. worse and why, on your worldview, choosing the better is some sort of universal imperative.

Thus, in this case again, we’re not at the stage of “then defend your opinion” but awaiting you to do anything except beginning with conclusions.

We’re also not even close to me defending alternative views—especially since I haven’t proposed any.

It’s sad that you’re so emotive that you’re incapable of systematic critical logical thinking so that, for example, you tell me about your subjective feelings, “Condescending remark, unhelpful and inflammatory” rather than actually dealing with issues. FYI: that which you subjectively consider (allegedly) condescending, (supposedly) unhelpful and (so called) inflammatory aren’t standards.

Have you really never once thought about such issues and dealt with them?

Gary Whittenberger

KA4: You’re not my friend? We’ll have to change that.

GW4: You’re off to a bad start.

KA4: You say “Let’s go back to the start” but you don’t seem to realize you’re starting at the conclusion.

GW4: No. The start was this question: “What is a half-demon half-angel?”

KA4: See, the start isn’t “because nobody has presented good scientific evidence” but why, on your worldview, is presenting evidence some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand evidence, for basing your views on evidence, etc.?

GW4: My response to the start was “I don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do.”

GW4: My epistemological justification for requiring good evidence is that in the past when persons have required good evidence for belief, then they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world than when the have not required good evidence or required no evidence at all. What more justification do you need beyond that?

KA4: You then just pass the buck to Clifford’s rule so the question remains and you’ve accomplished nothing.

GW4: My rule is the same as Clifford’s rule. What I have accomplished is to show you that other experts agree with me, including a well-regarded philosopher and mathematician.

KA4: See, the issue now becomes why, on your worldview, is following Clifford’s rule some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand we follow Clifford’s rule.

GW4: Asked and answered.

KA4: When you punt to “better outcomes” we then need to discuss how you determine better vs. worse and why, on your worldview, choosing the better is some sort of universal imperative.

GW4: The better outcomes are in explanation, prediction, and control.

KA4: Thus, in this case again, we’re not at the stage of “then defend your opinion” but awaiting you to do anything except beginning with conclusions.

GW4: Is your favored alternative that we should require no evidence or poor evidence for forming our beliefs?

KA4: We’re also not even close to me defending alternative views—especially since I haven’t proposed any.

GW4: You have implied one of the two presented above.

KA4: It’s sad that you’re so emotive that you’re incapable of systematic critical logical thinking so that, for example, you tell me about your subjective feelings, “Condescending remark, unhelpful and inflammatory” rather than actually dealing with issues. FYI: that which you subjectively consider (allegedly) condescending, (supposedly) unhelpful and (so called) inflammatory aren’t standards.

GW4: Ad hominem. Unhelpful and inflammatory. Try to stick to the subject matters – the existence of demons and angels and epistemology.

KA4: Have you really never once thought about such issues and dealt with them?

GW4: Another ad hominem. Unhelpful and inflammatory. If you keep making such comments, then I will just ignore you. If you get back on track, then we might have a useful conversation.

Ken Ammi

“off to a bad start” really? My friend and I appreciate being corrected.

That’s not the contextual start, it was your mere assertions which you merely doubled down on.

You seem to be saying that since someone else required evidence then you will as well which is circular and begs the question. But, you do appeal to subjective terminology (beginning with conclusions again) such as, “good…better…good” but how do you even define such concepts on your worldview? That’s the part you sidestepped.

Likewise with Clifford’s rule: I noted you “just pass the buck to” it and you merely doubled down on that which is circular and begs the question (does circularity and question begging even matter on your worldview?). And on top of that, you pull an argument from authority: since “other experts” (“other” besides yourself?) then it must be okay.

You then merely sidestepped “why, on your worldview, is following Clifford’s rule some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand we follow Clifford’s rule.”

See, since you seem to have literally never considered your worldview’s implications and so have never applied them to your worldview then you think that questions such as “Is your favored alternative…” are even cogent when they’re not: you’re merely presupposing where I’m headed but you’re simply mistaken. Thus, this is not a case of “You have implied…” but rather, you have inferred (and incorrectly so).

Please read an academic definition of “Ad hominem” (wait, do ad hominems matter on your worldview?) since I committed no such thing. Also, the subject matters include your jumps to conclusion based on that other people have jumped to conclusions so it must be okay with a dose of subjective terminology such as “good” and “better.”

But that you’ll ignore me because you’re unused to being critical of your own assertion is an Atheist 101 tactic.

Gary Whittenberger

KA5: You seem to be saying that since someone else required evidence then you will as well which is circular and begs the question.

GW5: False. For all claims of which I am skeptical, I ask for evidence. Nothing wrong with that.

KA5: But, you do appeal to subjective terminology (beginning with conclusions again) such as, “good…better…good” but how do you even define such concepts on your worldview? That’s the part you sidestepped.

GW5: Since you don’t accept the requirement of evidence, I am not going to discuss what is “good evidence” with you.

KA5: Likewise with Clifford’s rule: I noted you “just pass the buck to” it and you merely doubled down on that which is circular and begs the question (does circularity and question begging even matter on your worldview?). And on top of that, you pull an argument from authority: since “other experts” (“other” besides yourself?) then it must be okay.

GW5: Clifford and I agree. Nothing wrong with citing him. If you do not accept the requirement of evidence, then you are living in the Dark Ages and there is no value in us continuing this conversation.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re going in circles (is that any sort of problem on your worldview?) since the issue is upon what premise from your worldview you “ask for evidence” and your reply now is, “I ask for evidence.”

You then, yet again, merely assert, “the requirement of evidence” about which you’ve merely punted so you’ve not demonstrated any requirement at all.

I’m empathetic why you’re “not going to discuss what is ‘good evidence’” since that issue alone exposes two fundamentals failures of your worldview.

Likewise with Clifford’s rule about which you merely say, “Clifford and I agree” so then perhaps the question should be upon what premise of Clifford’s worldview Clifford based the rule.

FYI: “Dark Ages” is a myth. But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with someone, “living in the Dark Ages”?

You have very strong opinions about issues that you seem to have never thought about before—at least not critically, skeptically, rationally, logically, systematically, etc.

Gary Whittenberger:

KA6: Friend, you’re going in circles (is that any sort of problem on your worldview?) since the issue is upon what premise from your worldview you “ask for evidence” and your reply now is, “I ask for evidence.”

GW6: I am not your friend, so don’t call me “friend.” You are ignoring an important part of my reply which was this: “My epistemological justification for requiring good evidence is that in the past when persons have required good evidence for belief, then they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world than when they have not required good evidence or required no evidence at all. What more justification do you need beyond that?”

KA6: I’m empathetic why you’re “not going to discuss what is ‘good evidence’” since that issue alone exposes two fundamentals failures of your worldview.

GW6: Because you do not accept the requirement of evidence, there is no point in debating you on the issue of “good evidence.” Your rocket doesn’t even get off the ground.

KA6: Likewise with Clifford’s rule about which you merely say, “Clifford and I agree” so then perhaps the question should be upon what premise of Clifford’s worldview Clifford based the rule.

GW6: I told you and you rejected it.

KA6: You have very strong opinions about issues that you seem to have never thought about before—at least not critically, skeptically, rationally, logically, systematically, etc.

GW6: False. You just disagree with my “strong opinions” and then claim that they are unfounded. Your rocket has exploded on the ground. You are going to get nowhere without embracing principles of evidence. Your epistemology is bankrupt.

Ken Ammi:

Let’s cut to the chase then: we’re going to get nowhere without embracing principles of evidence then do what I’ve been begging you to do time and again, simply justify demanding evidence, on your worldview.

All you’ve done is to double down on asserting that since other people have demanded evidence then you also demand it.

Or that “they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world” but you don’t seem to understand that on your worldview there’s no such thing as “better” since there’re no standard of well, anything. There’s no universal imperative to do well, anything at all.

Such is why, or so it seems to me, you qualified your statement with, “My epistemological justification” but I didn’t ask you about you, I asked about your worldview, not your subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions which you seem to want to avoid like the plague).

Gary Whittenberger

KA6: Let’s cut to the chase then: we’re going to get nowhere without embracing principles of evidence then do what I’ve been begging you to do time and again, simply justify demanding evidence, on your worldview.

GW6: Beg all you want. I’m not going to waste my time justifying the need for evidence.

KA6: All you’ve done is to double down on asserting that since other people have demanded evidence then you also demand it.

GW6: I will triple down on the demand.

KA6: Or that “they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world” but you don’t seem to understand that on your worldview there’s no such thing as “better” since there’re no standard of well, anything. There’s no universal imperative to do well, anything at all.

GW6: I totally disagree with you on this point. Obviously we are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree.

KA6: Such is why, or so it seems to me, you qualified your statement with, “My epistemological justification” but I didn’t ask you about you, I asked about your worldview, not your subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions which you seem to want to avoid like the plague).

GW6: Your resistance to evidence is irrational. If you’d like to embrace the need for evidence, then we can talk more about angels and demons which were the original topics.

Ken Ammi

Are you missing the point on purpose by this point?

We are not discussing “the need for evidence,” we’re discussing you demanding evidence without justification—and that you do so because you’re worldview is such an utter fundamental level failure that you’re literally incapable of justifying demanding evidence on, or from, your worldview, which is why you just keep punting to other people.

And indeed, you just keep demanding without a premise which is why you will always begin with merely jumped to conclusions.

It’s fascinating that I point out the fact that, “on your worldview there’s no such thing as ‘better’…” and since you’re incapable of counterarguing, you just run away with a mere, “I totally disagree with you on this point” but can’t even say why.

Thus, that this is about me resisting evidence is what’s irrational since you either still can’t wrap your mind around a subject with which you’re clearly unfamiliar (but about which you have very strong assertions) or you are so shocked by your worldview’s utter failure that you want to play a game of denial.

During your practice, did you ever deal with a person’s problems by going back to the problems’ roots? Because that’s all I’m asking.

Yet, you seem to be the patient who says, “I don’t care about the roots, I want you to deal with and fix now, now!”

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

AISH styles itself, “the largest Jewish learning site” and published an article by Dovid Rosenfeld tiled, “Nephilim – Giants in the Torah” (May 6, 2022). Coming from a Jewish, Hebrew, perspective—as both Rosenfeld and I do—I looked forward to more than the typical pop-research based neo-theo-sci-fi about Nephilim.

Sadly, from the very first sentence we have problems since Rosenfeld employs the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English word “giants” (which was also used in the title) without bothering to define it. Thus, we have to guess to what he is referring—which turned out to be something unspecific about subjectively unusual height—and also face that he doesn’t seem to know what the English word “giants” is doing, is meaning, in certain English Bibles—stand by.

The key question that set the article off was, “The Torah talks about giants in Biblical times – in the times of Noah, Moses, and King David. What are their origins and what happened to them?” This alone tells us that confusion is being caused by exclusively reading certain English Bibles since the “giants” of Noah’s time and the “giants” of Moses’ and David’s times are in no way the same personages—stand by.

We’re told, “The Aish Rabbi Replies” and Dovid Rosenfeld is described as being the author of, “a riveting, fast-paced fantasy novel” which, as is the case with many pop-researchers who write pop-Nephilology, speaks volumes since the line between their supposed biblical Nephilology and their fiction is simply indistinguishable: both are very exciting, but both are very unbiblical.

Rosefeld notes, “Giants are mentioned many times in the Torah, primarily in the antediluvian world (before the Flood)” which means that by “many times” he must mean only once since that is exactly how many times “giants” are referenced “in the antediluvian world (before the Flood).”

Oddly, he referred to “giants” but when he quoted Genesis 6:4, as “adapted from ArtScroll Stone Chumash translation,” thusly, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days – and also afterward when the sons of the powerful ones would consort with the daughters of man, who would bear to them. They were the mighty who, from old, were men of devastation.”

Odder still, he prefaced the quote thusly, “Genesis 6:4 records that when man began straying from God” but that’s not what the text states, it states, as per the Jewish Publication Society’s (JPS) version, “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose.”

Perhaps it is implied, it certainly was inferred, that it was, “when man began straying from God” but let us be careful about what the text actually provides as a premise.

In any case, after telling us about “giants…giants…giants,” etc., he notes, “‘Nephilim’ literally means fallen ones. Most commentators follow the opinion in the Midrash that ‘the sons of the powerful ones’ (bnei ha′elohim) actually refer to the sons of the judges and noblemen.”

Now, “the opinion in the Midrash” is just that, an opinion, and an opinion that came about millennia after the Torah was written and within a Midrash which means that opinion is a sermonizing homily—not a Bible commentary in any traditional sense of the term.

It is also unelucidated what was (then, chronologically) wrong with (exclusively male) judges of nobles marrying women. Dovid Rosenfeld has it that they, “‘fell’ from their appropriate spiritual level” yet, there is nothing in the Torah about any such class/status issues—especially when it comes to marriage.

He then notes, “There is, however, an opinion in the Midrash that they were actually fallen (but not rebellious) angels – who begat a race of physical giants” which is utterly unsubstantiated—unless, that is, someone for some odd reason wants to believe some utterly unreliable guys who are said to have presented an “evil report” and were rebuked by God, Rosenfeld does believe them and bases his Nephilology on them.

Note that Gen 6 does not physical describe them at all, so those who call them “giants” in terms of height must exclusively rely on Num 13:33 and so must rely on guys who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible—to just mention a couple of problems with their mere assertions (I will mention another as we progress).

Now, I do hear from King James only proponents that since the KJV has “giants” then that is all we need to know. Yet, there are at least two issues with which to deal: 1. “giants” is still a vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term and one cannot simply suppose what it must mean and 2. jumping from a reference to “giants” to concluding they were unusually tall is committing the word-concept fallacy.

Rosenfeld continues, “it is clear that the Nephilim were physically superior to common man. The above verse describes them as ‘mighty’” which is incoherent since there are plenty of mighty (gibbor/im) people in the Bible who were not physically superior to common man, such as Boaz (Ruth 2:1).

Dovid Rosenfeld then appeals to that in, “Numbers 13:33 the Spies claim that they felt like grasshoppers before the Nephilim,” claim indeed, as such is all that it was: it was a fear-mongering, scare-tactic tall tale on the level of, “Don’t go in the woods!”

Rosenfeld asks and answers, “What happened to these giants? Presumably, most were wiped out during the Flood.” Well, that “most,” not all, “were wiped out during the Flood” contradicts Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

He tells us, “Indeed, their wicked presence was one of the main reasons God saw fit to destroy the earth” but he actually does not tell us how any Nephilim somehow made it past the flood (a view which implies that God failed)—stand by.

Yet, based exclusively on Num 13:33—one of the evil report’s assertions—he declares, “many remained afterwards.”

He continues with, “Tribes of giants are mentioned several times in connection to the conquest of the Land of Israel” and mistakenly notes, “the Spies describe themselves as feeling like grasshoppers in their presence” but even that’s incorrect: that was not “the Spies,” in toto, since there were 12 spies but that was asserted by 10 of them: the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory embellishing, and rebuked ones.

Dovid Rosenfeld has jumped from the vague English word “giants,” to the specific Hebrew word “Nephilim,” and next tells us, “Torah itself attests to three giants (‘sons of the giant [anak]’)…Moses…describes them as: A great and lofty people, children of giants, that you knew and of whom you have heard: ‘Who can stand up against the children of the giant?’ (Deut. 9:2, Art. trans.).”

He does not seem to realize that he moved from Nephilim to Anakim (a subgroup/clan of Rephaim). The brackets in the quotation are in the original (either Rosefeld’s or Art. trans’) and shows that, this time around, “giants” is not rendering (not even translating) Nephilim but is rendering Anak/im.

Thus, forget what he has been implying by giants, this is about sons of Anak, the Anakim, about children of Anakim. He does, at this point, not even bother telling us the one actual contextually relevant thing we are told about them which is that they were “tall”: subjective to being compared with the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft. tall.

Dovid Rosenfeld then notes, “There were several other tribes of giants (or near-giants)…the Eimim (lit., ‘fearful ones’ – Deut. 2:10) and the Zamzumim (v. 20). These nations were described as ‘great, numerous, and tall – as the giants’ (vv. 11 and 21)…Most notably, however, were the Refa′im tribes…”

This is actually incoherent since he clearly does not seem to realize that Eimim and Zamzumim are just regional a.k.a.s for Refa′im/Rephaim and that some of them are being compared to the Anakim clan, “tall – as the,” with “giants” merely rendering Anakim.

Now, I had noted that he actually doesn’t bother telling us how any Nephilim somehow made it past the flood yet, he next comes to that, “How did these giants survive the Flood?”

But wait, by “these giants,” he was referring to Rephaim who are not the “giants” who would have survived the flood, that would have been Nephilim. Yet, he may think they are but only by two extensions: if (and that’s a big IF) he actually believes the evil report (which he, sadly, does) and takes what it states about Anakim and (somehow, for some odd and unknown reason) applies a tall tale about Anakim to all Rephaim.

In any case, “One possible explanation could be based on the opinion in the Talmud and Midrash that the Flood did not reach the Land of Israel (see Zevachim 113a, Bereishis Rabbah 33:6; see also Rashi to Niddah 61a).” I already offered some facts about Midrashim and now, be aware that by Talmud (he does not tell us he is referring to the Talmud Bavli/Babylonian Talmud rather than the Talmud Yerushalmi/Jerusalem Talmud) we are dealing with a concoction of oral traditions, interpretations of such, rules, laws, folklore, etc., etc., etc. that was put into writing 300-500 years AD—millennia after the Torah.

In any case, the scope of the flood is utterly irrelevant to Nephilology since they either did not survive because the flood was global or because they lived in the flooded region—see my book Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local, Vol I: A Historical Survey of Views from BC to AD

Yet, just as with the opinions, plural, of the Midrash—which conflicted—“This, however, is inconsistent with the Talmud there that although the water itself did not reach Israel, its inhabitants died from the water’s burning heat. Other commentators also suggest that…water spread from other locations, drowning the inhabitants.”

He notes, “Some suggest that even so, giants such as Og were powerful enough to withstand the indirect effects of the Flood – see Maharsha to Niddah 61a.” Firstly, “giants such as” biblically reads as, “Rephaim such as.” Secondly, Og did not live until millennia after the flood and it is only Babylonian Talmudic (and Midrash) folklore which places him at the time of the flood.

Dovid Rosenfeld adds, “Another possibility is based on two other passages in the Talmud. Talmud Niddah 61a states that Og and Sihon were brothers, grandsons of one of the fallen angels” at which point we can stop to note that this is just adding folklore to folklore.

In fact, that Sihon was a “giants,” as Dovid Rosenfeld misuses that term, is even less certain than that Og was one—we actually have no physical description of Og (not until millennia after the fact, in fact). Biblically, Sihon would have been a “giant” if he was a Repha.

In any case, “Sihon and Og were thus two surviving giants from the antediluvian era, who possibly begat and ruled over races of giant humans, somewhere near their size.” Yet, we have no indication of 1. “races of giant humans” nor of anyone 2. “somewhere near their size” because 1a. there is only one race, the human race, 1b. those “races” were Rephaim humans, 1c. we are only given two specific heights in the Bible and vague terminology such as “tall,” and 2a. since we do not know either of their sizes/heights we cannot rightly refer to their size nor compare anyone to their unknown size—stand by.

Rosenfeld tells us, “in spite of their size, the Biblical giants were not great warriors” since they are “defeated in battle by lesser humans” about which he directs us to, “Genesis 14:5, Deuteronomy 2:21 and Rashi to Numbers 21:27.”

Genesis 14:5, JPS, reads, “And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim”: note that nothing is denoted about height whatsoever, this is just about a.k.a.s for Rephaim (again, only some of whom were subjectively “tall”) being defeated.

Deuteronomy 2:21 is a text we already encountered and which elucidates what I just noted, “a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead.”

Numbers 21:27 reads, “Wherefore they that speak in parables say: Come ye to Heshbon! Let the city of Sihon be built and established!,” about which, as per the M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann (London, 1929-1934 AD) version of Rashi (an acrostic for Rabbi Shlomo/Solomon ben Yitzchaki/Isaac, 1040-1105 AD), “על כן (more lit., about this) — about this war which Sihon waged against Moab, יאמרו המשלים THEY THAT SPEAK IN PARABLES SAY — One of these was Balaam of whom it is said, (Numbers 23:7), ‘And he took up his parable.’ המשלים THEY THAT SPEAK IN PARABLES — The plural המשלים refers to Balaam and his father Beor (see Rashi on Numbers 24:3). They said — באו חשבון ‘COME TO HESHBON,’ — For Sihon had been unable to capture it, and he went and hired Balaam to curse it, and this is the meaning of what Balak said, (Numbers 22:6) ‘For I know (by what has already happened) that whomsoever thou blessest is blessed, [and whomsoever thou cursest is cursed]’ (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 24). תבנה ותכונן IT WILL BE BUILT UP AND ESTABLISHED, [SIHON’S CITY] — Heshbon will be rebuilt under Sihon’s name to be his city.”

I know not why Rosenfeld noted this comment.

In any case, he concludes, “Perhaps they relied on their massive size and never bothered studying the art of war” yet did so prior to demonstrating that any of them were of even of subjectively “massive” size.

He then ponders, “What happened to the giants who remained after the Flood?” about which I must note, again, that if he is referring to Nephilim then nothing happened to the after the flood since they did not remain and if to Rephaim, by any other name, then they were slowly widdled down.

Dovid Rosenfeld refers to that, “both the Torah and the Spies attested to” that “What remained were the giants in Israel proper” yet, the Torah attests that “the [10] Spies” were utterly unreliable—and no one can appeal to anything except their evil report for any indication of post-flood Nephilim in any way, shape, or form.

Or, perhaps, they are forced to exclusively rely on them for a premise upon which to weave tall tales—as Rosenfeld has done—via which they erroneously pull other text into the mix that mix about as well as olive oil and water.

He notes, “We have no record of Joshua and the Israelites fighting giants” but, again, if he means Nephilim then of course not since they did not exist at the time and if Rephaim then of course there are records of him doing just that (Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16 have him active at the Valley of the Rephaim) but if he means unusual size then no, no record of that either.

Rosenfeld then tells us of other “giants” by quoting Amos 2:9, “And I destroyed the Emorite [aka Amorites] from before them – whose height was like the height of cedar trees and who was mighty as oaks – and I destroyed his fruit from above and his roots from below.”

I can only imagine that only someone suffering from that which I term Gigorexia Nervosa (an obsessive desire to see giants and making them up where they are nowhere to be seen) would assume that Amos is implying a mathematical one-to-one ratio-based comparison when he told us that they were big and strong.

In fact, I’ve encountered many pop-researchers who infer that a mathematical one-to-one ratio-based was being implied but none of them ever bother elucidating what the mathematical one-to-one ratio-based results are when comparing the strength of a person versus the strength of an oak.

An example comes from a discussion with my acquaintance Eric Rolon (actor and Bible researcher), I pointed this out since he was arguing in this direction and this is the key portion of the interaction—from the video Eric Rolon & Ken Ammi sharpening iron with iron on Nephilology:

Ammi: I found strange is that you quoted us statistics about cedars, why didn’t you talk to us about oaks…if you—I’m gonna say, “for some odd reason”—think that Amos was implying to us that we should conduct a ratio-based mathematical calculation correlating the height of cedars to the height of the Amorites: where’s the calculation correlating their strength to the strength of an oak? That’s what I want to see.

Rolon: I’m not saying that he’s giving us a mathematical calculation which we should then use to then infer the height. What I’m saying here is when Amos says they’re as tall as cedars, the statement he’s making right there is that they are not subjectively tall but objectively tall, and not just objectively tall but powerful, taller than anybody else that they’ve seen.

Ammi: Oh yeah, of course, that’s a given, that’s a given [because sure, why not, let them be the tallest: that still does not tell us how tall they were]. So, the way I would put it is this: I think it’s obvious Amos was telling us that they’re big and strong, that’s just obvious. To then, if somebody, as many people do, take a step to literally measuring cedars and saying “There you go, now we know how tall they were,” that to me is unwarranted.

Nobody would imagine any such thing unless they were suffering from what I call Gigorexia Nervosa, which is, they want to construct people that were very unusually tall instead of just the common sense reading, “Oh yeah, these guys were big and strong.”

Rolon: …these guys were humongous.

Ammi: So, that’s why I started by asking for the calculations on the strength of an oak.

Rolon: I don’t know those numbers on the top of my head.

Ammi: But see…you will have to end up claiming that they are thus and such strong because of oak is thus and such strong [cross talk].

Rolon: I don’t have to get into the to the strength of them, I can just say that they were tall as that because Amos says [cross talk].

Ammi: Wait a minute, hold on, hold on, you’re taking every word as it’s written and that’s what is written: they are as strong as oaks. So, at some point you will have to face the calculation and figure out, “Hey, I know that they were this strong because I know that oaks at that time were this strong.” You’re going to have to do that.

Rolon: Okay, then I can go ahead and do that.

Ammi: Right, exactly, but I’m saying there’s a reason why nobody’s bothered doing that: because they don’t care about that, they just want to tell people about [cross talk].

Rolon: I care about it because I think Aamos said [cross talk]

Ammi: All I’m saying is that you’re not interested enough to have done that until I pointed it out. And I’m just telling you nobody has because all they care about is making people tall. They don’t care about their actual description.

Rolon: When I see them [him] say, “A people great and tall,” I assume that when he’s saying “great” he’s either talking about their physical size or, he’s talking about the number of them or, he’s talking about both.

Ammi: Right, right.

Rolon: And it dawns on me now that I saw “cedar” when I read that, I didn’t see “oak” but now you can you can bet your [posterior] I’m going to be looking up how strong this is.

Ammi: This is just a caution, I’m just cautioning, because what you just said is incredibly important: you didn’t even notice 50% of what Amos told you about them because your focus is so much on looking for giants that you didn’t literally even see half a full 50% of the description.

Dovid Rosenfeld notes, “giants…were wiped by some of God’s smallest

agents – the hornets” with reference to “And also the hornets will the Lord your God send among them, until the remaining ones and the hidden ones are destroyed before you (Deut. 7:20)” and, “the main targets of the hornets were the giants…God thus spared the Jews much of the rigors of battle – especially against the giants – using insects…with their defeat ended the saga of angel-bred giants dwelling among man.”

Well, there are no indications of Nephilim—“angel-bred giants”—ever dealing with insects and especially not post-flood. And the premise promises more than it can deliver since Deut 7 is generic in referring to a variety of plural, “nations.”

We now come to a key point I have been peppering all along as he asks, “Just how tall were the

giants?” He merely asserts, “the Torah records them as mating with humans” so he must be referring to Nephilim (half-human). Yet, there is no indication in the Torah that they mated with humans—even though they surely did so. His conclusion is, “so they couldn’t have been that huge” which is fair enough.

Yet, in the same breath he notes, “they were always being defeated in battle,” which means he has jumped context to Rephaim now.

He follows that with, “the spies [again, ten of them] described themselves as feeling like grasshoppers before them (Numbers 13:33),” so he has jumped context again, back to Nephilim (even if only imaginary ones).

For some unstated reason, he has arbitrarily decided, “that is actually a perfectly accurate description of the complete helplessness a person would feel standing before a warrior 10 feet tall”—no, he does not tell us why 10 and not 9 or 11 or 8 or 12, etc.

Rosenfeld notes, “In terms of specific dimensions, there is a single verse which is highly significant,” and yet, the one to which he appeals provides us nothing specific about height, and there are actually two that do, but he does not reference them.

The one he chose is Deuteronomy 3:11 which tells us about the size of King Og of Bashan’s “bed” but not a word—ever, anywhere—about his personal size.

In short, there are many problems with merely assuming that we can take the size of his “bed” and calculate his personal height. Rosenfeld has decided that, “Og’s bed was 13.5 feet long and 6 wide. Assuming a person’s bed is about a foot longer then he is, Og would have been 12-13 feet tall – broadly built as well.” We’ve no reason to think that such an equation applies to an ancient sovereign living the lifestyles of the rich and (in)famous—his cultural context differs from ours.

Yet, the key issue is that a “bed” of such dimensions was found in the Etemenanki ziggurat and it was not meant to be slept upon, it is a ritual object upon which the supposed gods and alleged goddesses mate.

Rosenfeld notes that “the Talmud (Brachos 54b) describes Og…as a sky-scraping giant who held up a mountain,” etc., which is part of why in my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory, I noted how in such folklore, “giants” got taller and taller and taller by the telling.

Dovid Rosenfeld notes what I have noted, “We would tend to view such a Talmudic tale as nonliteral but intended to teach deeper messages (as the Midrash is often meant to be understood allegorically…” but adds, “the Talmud there (54a) rules that a person must recite a blessing upon seeing the location in which Og held up the mountain and was defeated…So there is definitely a strain of thought that Og was a much larger giant” but whence came that strain or, more particularly, when?—surely millennia after the Torah.

He concludes by “noting that there are also a few later giants mentioned in King David’s time – specifically four brothers, the most famous of whom was Goliath,” at which point we must pause: he is, again, swapping the word “Rephaim” for “giants” and the fact is that we have no physical description whatsoever for the four —at least he noted, “They were not purported to have descended from angels,” although if he chased down the trail of his own tall tale telling he would conclude that they, somehow, were since Goliath and family were of the Anakim clan of the Rephaim tribe and according to his evil report based assertion, they were, somehow, related to Nephilim.

As for Goliath, he is only one of two people in the entire Bible for whom we are given a specific height and yet, there is a textual issue with which to deal (the other specified height is, “an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high” (1 Chronicles 11:23): circa 7.5 ft.).

Rosenfeld tells us, exclusively, “Goliath himself was described as ‘six cubits and a span’ (I Samuel 17:4) making him nearly 10 feet tall.” Yet, he needed to add a qualifying term thusly, “Goliath himself was described as ‘six cubits and a span’ within the Masoretic family of manuscripts for I Samuel 17:4.

That is because the earlier Septuagint/LXX, and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSam), and the earlier Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 6:9) have him at four cubits and a span: just shy of 7 ft.

Incidentally, the LXX version’s evil report, Num 13:32-33, contains no reference to Anakim thus, one cannot even get just Anakim related to Nephilim from the LXX.

Rosenfeld also notes, “Madon,” a name he seems to have picked up from much latter sources, “was described as having six fingers and six toes…We could possibly view them as sufferers of some kind of genetic mutation or of gigantism.”

Now, the text just has him as “a champion” who was “born to the” Repha, Goliath (2 Samuel 21:20)—“was described as having six fingers and six toes…We could possibly view them as sufferers of some kind of genetic mutation or of gigantism.”

Moreover, this is reminiscent of why in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It Or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales, I included a chapter titled, “Polydactyly or Prestidigitation?” since to jump from one single person having extra digits to that “them,” plural, were, “sufferers of some kind of genetic mutation” is a bit of a stretch and it is a gigantic stretch to correlate one many with extra digits to “gigantism”—at least Rosenfeld offered the qualifier, “could possibly.”

Thus, overall, I really struggled to find even one single statement in this article that was accurate and, sadly, encountered much which is the stuff of which neo-Nephilology is made: very exciting but very erroneous.

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.

This is actually a discussion that took place due to the video The Nephilim and Alien Connection | Josh Peck | TSR 293.

dolores lopez commented

Enoch 1 goes into the Nephelim in detail.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Just be careful since that book contradicts the Bible, a lot, and has Nephilim being an impossibly–tall tale folkloric–15 or more MILES tall.

BiscuitPuncher noted

Yes, always be careful but Jesus and the disciples did quote from first Enoch. The other Enoch books do not have the same flow as the first and would hight recommend just staying away from those.

Ken Ammi

Paul quotes Greek poets.

Tracy Stevens noted

Thanks brother. I’ll check it out

BiscuitPuncher

I am aware of this as well, but I believe he is quoting the Greek poets and pagan philosophers, but not in support of what they had to say, context is everything! He was exposing errors and connecting ideas / contrasting.

Ken Ammi

Friend, that’s actually the exact opposite of the case. Paul wrote, “he is actually not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’ as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ Being then God’s offspring…”

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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