Month: January 2024

The following discussion was due to the Hugh Ross Reasons To Believe video 28:19 RTB 101: Who Were the Nephilim?

I, Ken Ammi, commented

It is actually not accurate that “this subject” of Nephilim “pops up again and again as you look at other books of Scripture”: they are mentioned a grand total of two times (one reliably in Gen 6 and one unreliably, since it relates an “evil report” in Num 13).

Also no, it does not say in “in Genesis 6[:4] that they were present before the flood and after the flood”: the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verse later.

By that “evidentially” it also happened after the flood means that he recognizes that there is no scriptural description of such.

To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking: there is no indication whatsoever, except for the rebuked “evil report,” that Anakim have anything to do with Nephilim: Anakim are a subgroup of Rephaim and they are all regular humans.

There is no indication whatsoever that “King David King David’s mighty men wiped out the last so than the Nephilim”: this is what happens when you violate category distinctions and take it upon yourself to read “Nephilim” where that word (and that concept) does not appear.

Gen 6 is the only reliable description we have of them and it provides no physical description. Also, he is only opting for the high range of possibilities for Goliath’s height (he was a Repha) which is based on Greek manuscripts while Hebrew ones, plus Dead Sea Scrolls, plus Josephus have him at just shy of 7 ft. We have no physical description of Og (another Repha) and his bed fits the exact dimensions of a ritual bed, not one upon which he slept, where the male and female gods supposedly copulated.

There is no indication that “they,” plural” had “birth defects like six fingers and six toes”: that is only stated about one single person (another Repha).

That they are “all evil” is something else that is unknown: again, Gen 6 being the only reliable reference has them as being mighty and of renown, that is all.

The last of the Nephilim died in the flood so they could not have been “a threat to the emerging Hebrew nation” and there is no indication whatsoever that “God set up…a procedure where they could be eliminated from the human race”: God tells us many, many, many times why He is commanding such things and never states one single word about Nephilim nor relation to them nor any such thing.

It is unknown that “these individuals were tall and able to carry a minimum, in terms of Goliath, 250 pounds of weaponry and armor into battle”: since Goliath is said to have had someone helping him with his armor and also, you can watch any strongman/powerlifting competitions and see guys that are right around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.

That “there’s something non-human about these sons of God” is accurate: that is the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christian alike for centuries. In Job 38:7 the “sons of God” witnessed, at the very least, the creation of the Earth.

Taylor J. replied

If the nephalim of gen 6 aren’t divine beings, then I’m unsure what is being referenced in Jude 1:6. Also a sidenote, 1 Peter 3:19 seems to be talking about the watchers being imprisoned who are the divine beings who fathered the nephilim

M C chimed in with

To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking

I’m not sure I follow Ken. 

You referenced – Numbers 13:32-33 (ESV)

“So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report(dibbâh) of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

The word “dibbâh” doesn’t make it untrue it makes it not a good report. That’s consistent with it’s scriptural use elsewhere.

“The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander(dibbâh) is a fool.” Prov 10:18

“For I hear many whispering(dibbâh). Terror is on every side! ” Jer 20:10

“and you became the talk and evil gossip(dibbâh) of the people,” Ezek 36:3

So the sons of Anak the Anakim were Nephilim that’s what the passage says.

Deu 2:10

“(The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.”

Deu 2:19

“And when you approach the territory of the people of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.’ (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there—but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim—”

The Anakim (who come from the Nephilim) are accounted Raphaim , the Moabite name for Raphaim is Emim and the Ammonite name is Zamzummim

Not sure why you think that’s people inventing anything.  They appear to be words used in different cultures to mean the same thing.

Ken Ammi @M C

Indeed, I am the one noting that “To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking.”

The Numbers 13:32-33 issue is not the word dibbâh, is not how the report is labeled. The issue is that the report contains five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing—it contradicts the original report and embellishes it as well.

Friend, “that’s what the passage says” is much too vague. What is the narrative of the passage, what is the context of the passage, who does the passage quote, why did those whom it quotes say such things, what was the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc. are key questions.

In order to just say “that’s what the passage says” you would have to merely pick up one uncontextual statement, run with it, and build all-encompassing theories upon it since what “the passage says” are five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and which contradicts other, reliable, passages.

Note that the texts you quoted state nothing about Nephilim, you are just inserting the concept of “Anakim (who come from the Nephilim).” Thus, when you say “They appear to be words used in different cultures to mean the same thing” you seem to miss that “Nephilim” are nowhere in that whole mix. In fact, we are told that the Anakim are named after a man named Anak—which is why they’re aka “the sons of Anak”—and not that they were fathered by Angels nor by Nephilim.

Indeed, “Nephilim/Giants occur when/whenever Sons of God have children with women” which was only pre-flood.

M C

you are just inserting the concept of “Anakim (who come from the Nephilim)

I didn’t insert anything. In Numbers 13:33 the scripture says …

English “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim”

Hebrew ” w šām rʾh ʾēṯ hǎ nep̄î·lîm bēn ʿǎnāq min hǎ nep̄î·lîm “

it contradicts the original report and embellishes it as well.

Numbers 13:22 They went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron. Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak , were there.

Numbers 13:28 However, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there

Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim

What contradiction ? in all three references to the people who dwelled in the land we are told the Anakim dwelt there.

Adding more detail to a statement doesn’t make it untrue.

Bass were there.

We saw bass there.

We saw fish , bass (who are fish)

Nephilim” are nowhere in that whole mix the sons of Anak—and not that they were fathered by Angels nor by Nephilim

Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm

gigas / nephilim occur when sons of God have children with women.

Hebrew – “ēṯ hǎ nep̄î·lîm bēn ʿǎnāq ” the Nephilim the sons of Anak

Greek – “kai ekei oraō o gigas” there we saw the giants

But we don’t need the hebrew statement “the nephilim the sons of Anak” to tie Rephaim to Nephilim if you use the Septuagint.

2 Kings 22:22 “And these four were born descendants of the gigas in Gath, the rapha , a household. And they fell by David’s hand and by his servant’s hand.

1 Chronicles 20:8  “This Rapha was born in Gath. All four were *gigas*, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

The Rapha (plural Raphaim) are Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim) ….

Duet 2:10 Formerly the Emim dwelled in it, a great and mighty and strong people, like the Anakim. Just as the Anakim, these also should be considered Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.

Emim , Anakim are Repahim …. Gigas(Nephilim)

Ken Ammi

Friend, to write in terms of “In Numbers 13:33 the scripture says” is far too generic: the questions to ask is what is being said, who said it, what is the content of the statement, what is the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc.

You were commenting on Deu 2:19 and wrote, “The Anakim (who come from the Nephilim)” which is when what “you quoted state nothing about Nephilim, you are just inserting the concept of ‘Anakim (who come from the Nephilim).’”

You are asking me to actually believe one of the five assertions made by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers within an “evil report” and whom God ends up rebuking. Their assertion about post-flood Nephilim, that Anakim are related to them (not in the LXX however) and that Nephilim were very tall are three of the assertions they made about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing. How can you believe them?

The contradiction is that the original report affirmed that the land flows with milk and honey (something stated circa 20 times in the Bible) but the ten rebuked spies assert it “eateth up the inhabitants thereof.”

Oddly, you say “‘Nephilim’ are nowhere in that whole mix after having quoted (the odd English rendering), “there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim” so they are in the mix of the “evil report” though not in the real-life on the ground at the time mix. So, are you reading that as that “we saw the Nephilim” does not mean “we saw the Nephilim” but rather, “we saw the Nephilim” but only as an a.k.a. for “the sons of Anak”? Because if so then you still have Anakim “who come from the Nephilim” so they would be the offspring of the offspring of those fathered by Angels even though you say “nor by Nephilim.”

From the “evil report” on which you are relying, you would not even be able to “tie Rephaim to Nephilim” since that’s about Anakim and they were a Rephaim subgroup so you still can’t assert all Rephaim are tied in to or with Nephilim.

Now, it is mistaken to say “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas / nephilim occur when sons of God have children with women” since the LXX (which typically as gigantes and gigantos rather than gigas but they are related terms, in any case) also renders (not even translates) “Nephilim” as gigantes/gigantos/gigas but also renders “Rephaim” as such and also renders “gibborim” as such as Rephaim did not “occur when sons of God have children with women” and neither did gibborim “occur when sons of God have children with women” since gibbor is merely a descriptive term that means might/mighty.

This is why your argument about 2 Kings 22:22 fails. This is also why there’s no way for you to substantiate the assertion, “Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim).”

M C

evil report

There’s no evil report ..the hebrew word “dibbah” never means evil ..

The comment “who come from the nephilim” wasn’t part of the report, it appears in () in the English rendering because the hebrew grammar shows it to be a comment appended by the scholars who copied the masoretic manuscripts.

All of the reports from all of the spies show that the Son’s of Anak where in the land.

Numbers 13:22 “the descendants of Anak , were there.”

Numbers 13:28 “And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there”

Numbers 13:33 “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak”

Moses said …

“Only do not rebel against the LORD. And do not fear the people of the land, for they are bread for us. Their protection is removed from them, and the LORD is with us; do not fear them.”

Does any part of that statement say you were lying the people aren’t big and strong or that the Anakim weren’t there ? They were rebuked for not believing God would deliver the land to them in the face of the Ankim being present.

The comment entry about the Anakim being nephilim is there in the manuscript, you can choose to believe it or not.

M C

Now, it is mistaken to say Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas occur when sons of God have children

It’s not a mistake at all… I cited the Greek and Hebrew Lemma equivalents..

Do you understand what a lemma is ? It’s the recorded base word… the dictionary word that others are formed around.

The written manuscript (in hebrew or greek) contain the word surrounded in grammar that morphs the words,they can appear slightly differently as a result but they mean the same thing.

For Example.

English Lemma break = break, breaks, broke, broken and breaking in written forms.

that guy broke my bike, I saw him do it  or  I saw that guy break my bike

It means the same thing … the bike was broken !!   broke, broken, break .. are the same effective word that’s called word morphology.

Genesis 6:4 (LXX) “Now giants(hoi gigantes/ho gigas) were upon the land in those days, and after that, whenever the sons of God visited the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants (hoi gigantes/ho gigas)who were from long ago, the people of renown.”

Genesis 6:4 (ESV) “The Nephilim(nep̄i·lîmʹ/nep̄î·lîm) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Manuscript transliterated  – Hebrew “nep̄i·lîmʹ” is Greek “hoi gigantes”

Lemma transliterated – Hebrew “nep̄î·lîm” is Greek “ho gigas” 

This is also why there’s no way for you to substantiate the assertion Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim)

So in Greek(LXX) lemma-gigas  occur whenever the sons of God father children with the daughters of men.

So in Hebrew(ESV) lemma-nep̄î·lîm occur whenever the sons of God father children with the daughters of men.

Looks pretty simple to substantiate.  Scripture tells you clear as day.  Greek-gigas and Hebrew-nep̄î·lîm  occur when the sons of God father Children with the daughters of Men.

M C

Their assertion about post-flood Nephilim, that Anakim are related to them (not in the LXX however)

“ho gigas” are everwhere in LXX.. (there’s another 10 passages if you’d like)

“ho gigas” only occur through one behaviour as noted in Gen 6:4

Genesis LXX 14:5 “In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and massacred the giants lemma-gigas who were in Ashtaroth Carnaim, and strong nations together with them, and the Emim who were in the city Shaveh,”

Genesis ESV 14:5 “In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim lemma-rep̄ā·ʾîm in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim,”

So the scholars writing in Hebrew use “rep̄ā·ʾîm” to indicate who was defeathed where as the in the Greek they use “gigas”

Numbers LXX 13:34 “And there we have seen the giants lemma-gigas , and we were, compared to them, like locusts; and surely we appeared likewise before them.”

Numbber ESV 13:33 “And there we saw the Nephilim lemma-nep̄î·lîm (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

In Greek the “gigas” make the people look as locusts, in Hebrew the “nep̄î·lîm” make them look like locusts, only in Hebrew you have a comment that the anakim are “nep̄î·lîm”.

Deut 1:28 (ESV) “Where are we going up? Our brothers have made our hearts melt, saying, “The people are greater and taller than we. The cities are great and fortified up to heaven. And besides, we have seen the sons of the Anakim there.”

Deut 1:28 (LXX) “Where are we going?’ Our brothers disturbed our heart, saying, ‘There is a great and numerous nation, stronger than you, and great and walled cities as far as heaven. But we also saw sons of the giants lemma-gigas in that place.’

Hebrew sons of Anak, Greek sons of the giants.

Ken Ammi

What the report is called is not as relevant as that it contains falsehoods.

Your reading of v. 33 proves one falsehood since it has it that “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak” and we know that Nephilim were not sons of Anak but sons of the sons of God.

Indeed, that Anakim were in the land is well attested, but that Nephilim were in the land it not, nor that Anakim are related to Nephilim in any way, not that there were post-flood Nephilim (by any other name).

Thus, this is not about “you can choose to believe it or not” since the one and only reason for believing it would be one single verse spoken by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies within a dibbah report, who make 4-5 assertions that are utterly unknown in the whole rest of the Bible, who also contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshuah, God, and the rest of the Bible and whom God rebukes: why believe them?

You wrote, “Now, it is mistaken to say Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas occur when sons of God have children It’s not a mistake at all” so you say it is and then it’s not. In any case, it is erroneous to say “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm” exclusively since that would be ignoring the other two major renderings with gigas (gigantes/gigantos) in the LXX which are for “Rephaim” and “gibbor/gibborim.”

Thus, indeed, “Greek-gigas and Hebrew-nep̄î·lîm occur when the sons of God father Children with the daughters of Men” (which is only in Gen 6:4) but Greek-gigas and Hebrew-Rephaim or gibbor(im) must be taken into account as well and prove that gigas implies nothing about height.

Such is why when you say “‘ho gigas’ are everwhere in LXX” you need to incorporate that beyond Num 13:33 those are references to Repahim, not Nephilim. So no, “rep̄ā·ʾîm” are not “different to gigas” since “gigas” is just rendering rep̄ā·ʾîm in that case but not in all cases. You might be committing a word-concept fallacy whereby you may think that whenever a word appears it always means the same thing.

Thus, it is not that in Num 13:33 “nep̄î·lîm” are “different” “to” “gigas” but they are different gigas.

Now, when you say “Sons of Anak in one translation , gigas in another” you are missing the fact that the case is “Nephilim in one translation , gigas in another” since in the LXX Nephilim are gigantes/gigantos (or gigas) while the Anakim are typically “Ενακιμ” not “γίγαντας”—and note that Anakim are not mention in the LXX’s Num 13:33.

M C

What the report is called is not as relevant as that it contains falsehoods

Ken I’ll say this as nice as possible, no where in sripture does it say the report was false, Moses , Joshua and Caleb didn’t call it a lie

they rebuked the people for failing to believe God would deliver them into the land if it was his will.

If Moses who wrote the Torah thought it was a lie he would have said so .. I believe Moses and the written word of God.

it is erroneous to say “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm 

In Genesis 6:4 In the LXX the Lemma in Greek is “Gigas” for the offspring of the sons of god and daughters of men.

In Genesis 6:4 in the Hebrew the lemma in Hebrew is “nep̄î·lîm” for the offspring of the sons of god and daughters of men.

Both the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts show Greek – “gigas” and Hebrew “nep̄î·lîm” are offspring of the same union.

Please explain how that simple concept is erroneous ?

Ill explain a lemma in languages again

A Lemma is the the dictionary word that others are formed around.

1)It is the word’s meaning.

2)The other variants of the word (with the same meaning) are written differently at times to support the grammar , tense and sentence structure etc.

Here is an example in English.

The word Break is the lemma..

Break = break, breaks, broke, broken and breaking in written forms.

Here is an example in a sentence ..

that guy broke my bike, I saw him do it  or I saw that guy break my bike * or *my bike is broken, I saw that guy do it

Three forms of the same word .. effectively means the same thing.

gigas = gigas, gigantes, gigantos

It’s why the translators from greek to English translate the word to Giant(s).. because that’s how languages work.

prove that gigas implies nothing about height

Genesis 6:4 LXX “Now giants (lemma-gigas, manuscript-gigantes) were upon the land in those days, and after that, whenever the sons of God visited the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants(lemma-gigas, manuscript-gigantes) who were from long ago, the people of renown.

1 Chron 20:8 LXX “This Rapha was born in Gath. All four were giants(lemma-gigas, manuscript-gigantes), and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

Since you don’t understand what a lemma is . I found a passage for you with the same written manuscript word…gigantes

So you have gigantes after the flood being born .. you know what they are the union of and David and his men slew them .

Enough for you Ken or is the LXX now untrustworthy and untrue ?

Ken Ammi

Friend, it does not work that way: we don’t need to only accepted that something is false if someone has called it “false.” I noted, “it contains falsehoods.” And you can’t demand that “If Moses who wrote the Torah thought it was a lie he would have said so” since you can’t impose a subjective standard onto an author.

They make five assertions (or four, if we exclude the gloss) so these would have to be backed by something besides their one single verse in order to be accepted:

1) “it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof”: contradicts the original report and circa 20 other texts.

2) “all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature”: embellishes the original report and while we know that some Rephaim, such as Anakim, were subjectively “tall” there’s no indication that Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites were all “of a” subjectively “great stature.”

3) “we saw the giants [Nephilim]”: we are told circa five times that eight people and some animals survived so they did not, nor is there indication that they returned so they could not have been there and also embellishes the original report—wherein Nephilim were not mentioned when the groups whom they saw were listed.

4) “giants [Nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [Nephilim]”: this includes the gloss (as opposed to “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak”) and I am including it just in case someone else is interested in that bit, Anakim come from Anak who comes from Abrba with no indication that they are related to Nephilim nor indication of how that could even be a possibility.

5) “we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight”: this is the only thing we get that is even close to a physical description of Nephilim. In short, pun intended, “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak” is simply incoherent.

Thus, “they rebuked the people for failing to believe God would deliver them into the land” which is the motivation for them concocting a fear-mongering scare-tactic “don’t go in the woods” tall tale.

“Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm” is erroneous because it is myopic. As I already elucidated, you need to write that as “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm AND ALSO Rephaim AND ALSO gibborim” and Rephaim and gibborim are not “offspring of the same union” as that which resulted in Nephilim.

Now, perhaps we could say that gigas, gigantes, gigantos  “effectively means the same thing” in that it “means” earth-born but the usage is very different: Nephilim, Repahim, gibborim are very different.

“the translators from greek to English translate the word to Giant(s)” only in the case of Nephilim and Rephaim, thankfully they dropped doing so for gibborim.

“prove that gigas implies nothing about height” sure: it means earth-born and we have no physical description of Nephilim so can’t just assume that referring to them as such implies any such a thing and, again, some Rephaim were tall but there’s no reason to think that “Repha” or “Repahim” or “gigas” or “gigantes” or “gigantos” implies any such thing as referring to one of their physical features. Now, “prove that gigas implies” something “about height.”

Indeed, “Genesis 6:4…No mention of height there” and an unreliable one in Num 13:33 so we have none.

As for “when you see ‘gigas’ you know then how they were created”: this is just a simple error and contradicts how any and all languages are used. There are no linguistics whereby a word can and must only ever mean one single thing any time that it is used.

For example, you are asserting that anyone who is gibbor was created via “sons of God visited the daughters of humans” so you just asserted that God Himself was created via “sons of God visited the daughters of humans.”

M C

this is just a simple error and contradicts how any and all languages are used

It’s not a simple error Ken its comprehension 101. You seem to struggle understanding what nouns , adjectives , adverbs , lemmas etc are and how word morphology works. Let’s use an English example.

Let’s say we are reading a history book about talking about ancient Egpyt.  You have the following paragraph.

Mules(noun) were about in those days, and also afterward, when male donkeys mated with female horses and they had offspring. These were the hardy(adjective) equidae of that time,  equidae of reknown.

You can comprehend from the passage that

-Mules were about ancient Egypt and also afterward.

-Mules are the offspring male donkey’s mate with female horses, they occur when this happens.

-They are Hardy  equine animals.

-they were well known for being hardy.

Reading the same book we read that all the mules and donkeys were destroyed by a fire except but some horses escaped.

We also read

In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and stole(verb) the mules(noun) that  were in Ashtaroth Carnaim

You can comprehend from the two passages that…

-Horses escaped Ancient egypt but we know no male donkeys

-If there were mules in Ashtaroth Carnaim then male donkeys must have come from somewhere at some time.

Let’s replace donkey with Son’s of God , female horses with daughters of men and mules with gigas…

It’s not tough to comprehend where mules  come from here in the example so it shouldn’t be tough to comprehend were gigas come from….

M C

For example, you are asserting that anyone who is gibbor was created via sons of God visited the daughters of humans so you just asserted that God Himself was created via sons of God visited the daughters of humans

I asserted no such thing .  You really struggle with junior school english … Nouns and Adjectives … again.

In Hebrew the word “gibbor” (the singular form of gibborim) can be used two ways.

As an adjective – mighty, brave

As a noun –  a mighty warrior, a brave man 

The grammar that surrounds the use of the word determines if it’s a noun or adjective.

The Hebrew to English translation of Genesis 6:4 is

“These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. “

This sentence structure shows you it’s a noun here.  It also shows you they were the might men of a specific time period … of old.

When God is called gibbor it’s being used as an adjective … God is mighty or the mighty God.

M C

Now, perhaps we could say that gigas, gigantes, gigantos – effectively means the same as in that it means earth-born but the usage is very different

gigas it means earth-born – now prove that gigas implies something about height

The septuagint didn’t invent the word gigas, gigantes or gigantos .. they existed in Greek a long time before it was used in the Septuagint.

The words are recorded  Greek mythological works , homers poetic works (750bc) and other works around the same time – gigas (singular) gigantes (plural) were a race of great strength and aggression, though not necessarily of great size.

In Greek mythology the gigantes were born from the goddess Gaia (who was goddess of the Earth). The greek word there is “gegenes”

Nephilim using the laws of hebrew word morphology had to come from the Word “naphil” it  is of Aramaic origin it’s also found in the talmud and the midrash.

Again the two words mean the same thing …Giant

I never said Gigas had anything to do with height …. you keep adding that.

Ken Ammi

I’d hate to think that we’ve talking past each other due to miscommunications since this has been a fascinating discussion for which I thank you.

I utterly despise debating metaphors so will break it down to that what we don’t have in the Bible is that “some…escaped” the flood (if such is what you implied in the metaphor). Rather, we have the exact opposite (a handful of times at that).

We simply have no reliable reference to Nephilim after the flood.

Again, when you are reading of post-flood gigas in reliable texts, you are reading about Rephaim who are utterly unrelated to Nephilim.

Thus, to assert that gigas are gigas and all gigas are the same is an example of “a simple error and contradicts how any and all languages are used.”

For example, humans are called “men” and Angels are called “men” and Nephilim are called “men” but that does no mean that those three sort of “men” are categorically of the same origin.

It seems that you are fixated on semantics while I am pointing out that you are basing your views on assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all—and you can’t get around that fact by parsing grammar (nor by nitpicking someone for whom English is a second language).

And if you are not arguing in favor of post-flood Nephilim after all then this has been a waste of time since that was the main point was making initially (along with the issue of height).

The point about gibborim is that the word, noun or adjectives, tell us nothing about the origin of the person being described as such but only about one of their characteristics.

Thus, Nephilim were “might men of a specific time period” and while others who are described as “might men” were not.

I’m unsure why you went into the history of the words gigas, gigantes or gigantos. Speaking of grammar, it was difficult to discern if you were claing that “the two words” that “mean the same thing” were “gegenes” or “naphil” or “Nephilim and “naphil” (FYI: naphal is the proposed Hebrew root, naphiyla is the proposed Aramaic root).

In any case, to say “the two words mean the same thing …Giant” only begs the question of what you mean by “Giant” and I can only discern that you mean “earth-born.”

Now, that, “lemma…can appear slightly differently as a result but they mean the same thing” does not seem to be the case. That “The written manuscript (in hebrew or greek) contain the word surrounded in grammar that morphs the words” is not just about morphology but about that context determines the meaning.

Thus, it is not the case that “they can appear slightly differently as a result but they mean the same thing” since the surrounding grammar, the context, and not etymology, is what defines the word. That is why in the LXX gigas/gigantes/gigantos is used in three different ways and those three ways do not “mean the same thing.”

M C

I don’t think we are talking past each other I can see how the example I did might prompt that question.   I do appreciate your position of context and what it might mean etc.

We are both debating about nephilim or giants existing post flood, I’m pretty sure we aren’t arguing about how they were created pre flood.

I don’t think any Nephilim/Giants created before the flood escaped.    The Greek “whenever” or hebrew “when” with the grammar  don’t clarify if it was single incident or multiple at multiple times. I think your position is it didn’t happen and mine is that the possibility exists that it did , thats what I was trying to show in the mule eg.

We agree on the same points for Gibborim. It’s a description of Characteristics the Nephilim before the flood had and a host of other people after the flood that weren’t Nephilim.

I take your point that you believe the rest of the bible doesn’t seem to know anything about it , I’m guess I’m arguing that is does and by the use of the grammar and words and the consistency of God’s action towards those linked to the nephilim/giant offspring show that there is an unfolding backdrop to the conquest of the promised land.  I think that’s really the debate we are having.

I’ll post another reply with the words conversation so this doesn’t go on forever

Ken Ammi

Since I never know what YT is doing with comments, I’ll just note that I see the comment that ends with “I’ll post another reply with the words conversation so this doesn’t go on forever” but only got the follow up via an email notification, I don’t see that follow up comment here—oi vey.

No, not “nephilim or giants existing post flood” since the only post-flood “giants” are Rephaim, not Nephilim. Thus, this would be about “how they” Nephilim “were created pre flood” but not Rephaim.

Agreed, “I don’t think any Nephilim/Giants created before the flood escaped.”

I can elucidate if you prefer but as for whenever/when v. 4 tells us to what it refers (the days and after) which is based on v. 1 and has nothing to do with the flood, which is not mentioned for the very first time until v. 17. Thus, the “multiple times” did occur but where all pre-flood.

Yes, agree on gibborim.

Nephilim came to a full and final end at the flood—end of biblical story. Thus, no one post-flood is a Nephil nor related to them. As for “God’s action towards those linked to the nephilim/giant offspring…” 1) again, none of them were “linked to the nephilim/giant offspring” and 2) have you read the various times God Himself elucidated why He commanded such doing regarding the “conquest of the promised land”?

We may be getting into the area of word/concept fallacies. For example, imagine that a word MEANS 15 ft. tall, that still would not mean that 15 ft. tall is how it’s being USED at any given time. For example, I’ve been called a “giant” many, many, many times and I’m an unimpressive 6 ft. even (in the modern day USA).

Thus, when you say, “Greek gigas = was the root for giant. Gigantes comes from Gigas” that linguistic, semantic, etymological fact does not necessarily tell us how it’s being USED in any given case: only the context does that.

Also, “Greek gigas = was the root for giant. Gigantes comes from Gigas” and you noted gigas/gigantes comes from “‘gegenes’ = Earthborn – children of the Goddess Gaia and a human” but we can’t then conclude that Gen 6 is telling us that Nephilim were “children of the Goddess Gaia and a human” (and in Greek myth the gegenes/gigas/gigantes/Titans were children of Gaia and Uranus so when you say “Gigas…were the offspring of the Titans and humans” it may be due to differing Greek mythologies).

Indeed, “Size wasn’t attached to the gigas specifically in Greek” but “gigantes” does “mean earthborn.”

The J. Edward Wright Endowed Professor of Judaic Studies, who is J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. himself, and who is the Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants.”

Again, “arguing ‘Giant’ the union of ‘gods’ and humans” is only the case with Nephilim (as “Giants”) nor with Rephaim (as “Giants”—wow, I’m SO sick of the term “Giants”!). Thus, that “This Rapha was born in Gath. All four were giants(gigantes)” does not correlate that Rapha with “Genesis 6:4…gigantes as the pure form of the word used for such a union.” And Isaiah 13:3 and 14:9, “I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones [gibbor] for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness….Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead [rephaim/γίγαντες] for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.”

Interestingly, dead/rephaim as chief ones touches upon the Ugaritic literature which had recently deceased kings and heroes as kings and heroes but after kings and heroes had been dead for a while, they were then referred to as rephaim.

M C

Thanks Ken, I don’t think we will ever 100% agree on the details but I really do appreciate the time taken to respond and present your point and the learnings for me around them, you haven’t wasted your time responding.   I think our common ground is that the offspring of the sons of God and women weren’t just men and that they are now gone 🙂  God bless.

Ken Ammi

I likewise appreciate the interaction and yes, we can agree on that much.

Mark Tester chimed in with

Just a clarification: Hugh’s point about Goliath being able to lift 250 lbs of armor isn’t a statement about people in general not being able to lift that much weight. He’s connecting that to what we know about really tall humans. When people start getting above 8ft, they have a lot more trouble just carrying themselves around, much less themselves plus a bunch of armor. If Goliath was 7 ft instead of 9 ft (and human), it wouldn’t be as remarkable (though i doubt he would be very maneuverable or have any stamina with that much weight).

Ken Ammi

Frankly, his height is irrelevant, I mean what does it have to do with anything: it certainly has utterly zero to do with Nephilim.

So, again, there’s zero indication Goliath lifted 250 lbs and a 7 ft tall Goliath would have no problem lifting that much.

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 placed due to the video Did the Giant Bloodlines of Genesis 6 survive? Are there hybrids today? Dr. Michael Heiser to which I, Ken Ammi, commented

As helpful as Dr. Heiser is regarding such issues, one of his failures is that he merely picks up Num 13:33 and runs with it but that is an “evil report” the speakers of which were rebuked by God. The entire theory of 1) post-flood Nephilim, 2) that anyone, such as Anakim, are related to them post-flood, and 3) that they were very, very tall is literally base on one single verse.

 

Jean replied

I’ll take his credentials over yours…thanks.

 

Jason LeVeck chimed in with

Remember, Dr. Heiser is an expert in the Hebrew language and studies the bible from that standard and also other “gold” standard biblical languages. KJV is an absolute butchery, i’d say even a form of heresy. Hebrew and English don’t translate very well and often times comparing a Hebraic verse and English verse, a person finds they say two disparate things, if the actual meaning is not totally lost all together.

 

Ken Ammi @Jean

So, are you claiming that he is omniscient and infallible or something?

 

C lightning replied to Jason LeVeck

i can agree the KJV is weak… lets remember Christ spoke Aramaic, so we should learn from that language… translating from Greek, to Hebrew, to old English to Modern English is ridiculous

 

Gruuvin1 Ken Ammi

your logic is ridiculous. You ignore other evidence of giants, and you think because someone trusts you less than Heiser because of his credentials that somehow calls him infallible?

 

Ken Ammi

Sorry, I don’t understand: I didn’t say one single word about whatever you mean by “giants.” Also, I’m unsure what you mean by “somehow calls him infallible?,” I just asked a question.

 

Gruuvin1

read your own posts, dude! You mentioned infallible and very very tall (look up what giant means). Sorry man… You are a silly troll, you type nonsense you won’t own. For that, you won’t get another response from me.

 

Ken Ammi

So, apparently, you’re incapable of actually discussing these issues—sharpening iron with iron—and since you appear to be worldly and may even put a man, Dr. Heiser, on a pedestal, you will just be a jerk and run away—how very sad, please repent.

 

Gruuvin1

troll on, fool.

 

Ken Ammi

Are you a Christian? If so, please repent.

 

 

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 placed due to the video GIANTS of Zambujeiro!!

 

Terry Sigmon commented

I have followed you for years from the first Watchers till Watchers 10 and other seminars. When you and Steve Quayle get together it’s like a double shot of information. Thank you L.A. for all you do. God bless you my friend.

 

I, Ken Ammi, replied

When LA and Steve Quayle get together it’s like a double shot of mis-information

 

dooglitas asked

Exactly what “misinformation”? Can you prove it is misinformation?

 

Kathie Rouse chimed in with

Isn’t it odd that Steve Quayle apparently doesn’t believe dispensation, because he doesn’t believe there will be a pre-Tribulation Rapture? In fact, he doesn’t think there will be a Rapture at all! But L.A. believes there will be the pre-Tribulation Rapture. I don’t see how two men with opposing views like this can get along well together.

 

dooglitas

They probably just avoid discussing those issues. I don’t think they spend a lot of time together.

 

cogit8able noted

The rapture is not very well defined in scripture. What little there is indicates only one second coming .Satan would just love to divide us all on this topic but it’s not worth fighting over Jesus comes when Jesus comes. And we don’t get to know the day or the hour so so right in scripture.Matthew 24 would indicate they were going to suffer some tribulation. So I think that rules out a pre-TRIB rapture.

 

Ken Ammi @dooglitas

Sure I can, I’ve written some nine books about these issues. How about we start simply: LA asserts Nephilim were “giants” (even Gary Wayne admitted he doesn’t know how big they were–only after I asked him), and he claims he has their skulls, but he can only ever show us regular sized skulls. Now, why is that?

 

Ken Ammi also @dooglitas

This week I seem to be getting a lot of YT notifications of comments that I can’t find when I click on the link in my email so, just in case, I’ll reply to what I saw in the email:

I simply noted and asked, “LA asserts Nephilim were ‘giants’ (even Gary Wayne admitted he doesn’t know how big they were–only after I asked him), and he claims he has their skulls, but he can only ever show us regular sized skulls. Now, why is that?”

Rather than replying, you assert “you have not shown that anything that LA or Steve have said is misinformation, much less that everything they say is misinformation” but that’s the discussion we were having before you ignore it.

Now, you say that, “AS for nephilim being giants, the Bible gives actual sizes of King Og and Goliath”:

1. Both of them were Rephaim, not Nephilim.

2. The Bible never gives actual size of King Og.

3. Most reliably, based on the preponderance of the earliest texts, Goliath was just shy of 7 ft.

When you say, “They were giants” you don’t seem to mean what English Bibles mean when they use the generic, vague, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined modern English word “giants.”

Sure, in a way, “The book of Enoch describes them more thoroughly” but that text:

1. Is from millennia after the Torah was written.

2. Has them being MILES tall—which is great folklore but poor reality.

3. Contradicts the Bible so much that I included an entire chapter’s worth of examples in my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch”: https://www.amazon.com/Ken-Ammi/e/B071NW4F4W%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

4. Thus, we have no RELIABLE physical description of them.

Since you mixed Nephilim with Rephaim and “giants” then when you refer to, “evidence that these beings have existed” I’m unsure to whom you’re referring.

Please stop being worldly, and let’s sharpen iron with iron.

 

dooglitas

It is a fact that YT has been shadow-banning comments. That is the reason you get notifications but can’t see them in the comment section. I have seen this too. They never say why they are hiding the comments. They just do it. In this case I would guess it is because we are discussing the issue of giants. This is just another example of the ever-increasing push to censor free speech on the Internet.

Regarding my silence on part of your comment, I was not sure exactly what your point was, so I did not respond. As I take another look I understand better. Your statement that LA “asserts” that the nephilim are giants is misleading. Yes, he does state that SOME of the nephilim were giants, but if you follow his channel, you will find that he states that not all of them were giants. The skulls that he shows are interesting because they have definite non-human characteristics, such as the increased cranial capacity, the long, conical shape of some, a wider distance between the eye sockets than humans have, significantly larger eye orbits than humans, unusual (nonhuman) placement of the foramen magnum, etc. He has had various experts look at these skulls, and they have all agreed that there are significant deviations from normal human skulls. He has stated that it is HIS OPINION that these skulls are of nephilim origin.

    As for your last comment, your arguments seem impressive on the surface, but they contain several logical fallacies and errors.

1. Your distinction between “rephaim” and “nephilim” is a distinction without a difference. They are two words used to describe the same entities.

      In Numbers 13:33 we see that the Israeliets “saw the giants (Heb: nephilim), the sons of Anak. In Deut 2:11 we see another tribe mentioned. It is said that they were “known as giants (Heb: “raphaim”), AS THE ANAKIM (i.e., sons of Anak). In these two passages we see the group called Anakim, or sons of Anak, called both raphaim and nephilim. In both passages, many English translations translate both terms as “giants.” The two words simply refer to different characteristics of these beings.

2. The fact that the Bible never gives an actual size for King Og is not really relevant. It does give the dimensions of his bed, which is approximately 15 feet long. The mention of the bed is obviously for the purpose of demonstrating the man’s size. The statement that it was made of iron further accentuates his massiveness.

3. The height discrepancy between the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls is a subject of much debate and is a complex issue. However, it is important to note that King Saul is described as being a man of exceptional height, being taller than all the men of Israel by more than a head. We don’t know what his height was, but if we assume that tallest Israelite was, say, six feet tall, that would make Saul close to 7 feet tall, which is remarkable. As tall as Saul was, it is apparent that Goliath was significantly bigger than Saul, as Saul was “greatly afraid” of this being. Goliath’s coat of mail weighed about 128 pounds, and just the head of his spear weighed nearly 17 pounds. It would be extremely difficult for even an exceptionally strong human to walk around, much less wage war, in a suit of chain mail that weighed so much, and wielding a spear with a 17-pound head would be nearly impossible for any human being. All these facts together would strongly suggest that the textual variant stating that Goliath was only 4 cubits and a span is likely the one in error.

Regarding your arguments concerning the book of Enoch, you make several misleading points.

1. The writing date of the Book of Enoch cannot be determined. We do not have enough historical or textual evidence to date it accurately. It is believed by many scholars that the book has additions to it which were not part of the original text. There is no really good reason to assume that the book was not originally written by Enoch during his lifetime before the flood. Your statement that it was written “millennia after the Torah was written” is unsubstantiated. It is an opinion.

2. The statement about the nephilim being described as “miles tall” is, first of all, somewhat of an exaggeration. In the Ethiopic text, it does give an enormous height, but it is not “miles tall,” but rather somewhat less than ONE mile tall. However, that passage in the Greek text from the Dead Sea Scrolls lacks that statement about their height and only says that they were exceptionally big.

3. Your claim that the Book of Enoch is full of contradictions to the Bible is, I think, an exaggeration, and it is also irrelevant. I have tried to research the issue of alleged “contradictions” between Enoch and the Bible, and I could find very little to support that claim.  I found one source which gives a litany of alleged “contradictions,” but when I examined each claim, they were either the result of misinterpretations of the Enochian text or exaggerations.

    That being said, it is really an irrelevant point, since supposed contradictions to the Bible are only significant in the argument as to the canonicity of the Book of Enoch. I have not claimed it is, or should be, a canonical biblical writing, only as a historical reference, and the fact of it’s dealing with the issue at hand.

4. It is not exactly true that we have no description of them. We are told that many of them (if not all) had six fingers and six toes on each hand and foot, and while there is no exact height given, it is obvious from various texts in both Enoch and the Bible that they were of exceptional height and massiveness. The Israelites stated that “we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” You can say that this is hyperbole, but there is no real reason to assume that. The Israelites were indeed terrified of these beings. If they were only tall humans, it is not likely that they would elicit such a degree of terror. Many preachers have assumed that the reaction of the Israelites was simply one of cowardice and not based on a very real threat of extraordinary form. The problem was not that they were cowards. The problem was that they were lacking faith in God’s power to defeat these enemies. The issue was faith, not cowardice.

     All that being said, there is a vast amount of evidence from extrabiblical sources that indicates the existence of these “giants.” And to be clear, when I say “giants,” I am talking about beings who are of a height that is beyond that of human beings, some of which are of enormous size. There is no standard height for them. They varied greatly. In the time before the flood it is likely that they were much bigger than the giants that existed after the flood. Here are some of the evidences:

1. Legends of exceptionally large giants exist in virtually every culture of humanity. Most of the Native American tribes have many stories of giants who were of immense size, not only height but also massiveness. They were usually described as having red hair and having six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot and having double rows of teeth. They were also described as being cannibals, regularly consuming normal human beings for food.

2. There have been well over 1000 American news stories in the past of gigantic skeletons being discovered, often in mounds of the so-called “mound builders.” In every case, those bones were eventually confiscated either by some govt agents or someone from the Smithsonian Institute. Some of these news storied were accompanied by photos. There have been such finds in many places around the world with the same story of confiscation, often by officers representing the Vatican. This is particularly true in Sardinia, where thousands of these bones have been unearthed, and for which there are numerous eyewitnesses.

3. There have been more modern sightings of such beings and some interesting videos showing such beings usually on tops of mountains or hills.

4. There are numerous examples of enormous human-like footprints preserved in sedimentary rocks in various places around the world, including the US, India, and South Africa. There are also some hand prints of extreme size in sedimentary rocks.

5. There are many petroglyphs and other drawings and paintings around the world depicting humanoid beings of exceptional height.

Since you have written so many books on this topic, I doubt that any amount of evidence would ever change your mind. You have a great deal of investment in your unbelief in the existence of giants. So I suppose it was, in the end, a waste of my time to even respond to your comment. But I did respond anyway. In the end, there is no really good reason to doubt the existence of these beings. Such skepticism is more a result of a naturalistic/materialistic/evolutionary worldview than a result of actual evidence or the lack thereof.

 

Ken Ammi

That he claims to know that ANY Nephilim were “giants” is problematic enough: even Gary Wayne admitted he doesn’t know how big they were when I asked him about it.

The skulls MAY show non-human characteristics but since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim, we can’t claim that those are their skulls thus, indeed, it’s just “HIS OPINION” and nothing more whatsoever.

Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids so that’s the world of a difference.

But note how you seek to abscond from those facts: you reply exclusively on one single verse, stated within an evil report, by utterly unreliable guys, whom God rebuked. And you appealed to one verse about Anakim, not all Rephaim. Also, you appealed to a verse that doesn’t even mention Anakim in the LXX.

You assert, “In Numbers 13:33 we see that the Israeliets ‘saw the giants…’” but that’s not in the verse. Rather, 10 unreliable guys merely asserted that they saw them, and the Israelites believed them.

Those guys made up a tall tale about “Nephilim.” You then jump to Deut 2 which is about “Rephaim” so you already changed contexts.

For some strange reason, you seem to want a very tall Og but your logic is flawed since you ignore the cultural and historical and archeological context: you can’t just say “The mention of the bed is obviously for the purpose of demonstrating the man’s size” since you can’t know that, what your bed size says about your personal size has nothing to do with the bed of an ancient king living in luxury, and a bed of such dimensions was found at the Etemenanki ziggurat and it wasn’t slept on but was a ritual object upon which supposed gods and alleged goddesses mate.

You say “We don’t know what his [Saul’s] height was” which is true but we know the average Israelite male was 5.0-5.3 ft in those days.

Since you’re fixated on tall tales, you subjectively say, “it is apparent that Goliath was significantly bigger than Saul, as Saul was ‘greatly afraid’”—and you dehumanize him as a “being”—but you say that only due to ignoring the text: the issue was that he was a “champion”: a trained, experienced, and successful warrior.

As for what you claim to know he couldn’t do: he had a guy helping him and strong humans who are around 6 ft. can lift 1,000 lbs.—just search for strongman or weight-lifting competitions. Besides, regular guy Benaiah successfully wielded a spear just like Goliath’s in hand-to-hand combat (2 Samuel 23:21).

We can attempt to ascertain when 1 Enoch was written by when it first appears—with zero reference to it from anyone at any time prior. Thus, when all indications are that “it was written ‘millennia after the Torah was written’” we should assume that  “it was written ‘millennia after the Torah was written’” until it can be shows otherwise: note that there are 33 “lost books” mentioned in the Bible and 1 Enoch isn’t one of them.

Miles tall is accurate in terms of what the text states when you calculate the 3,000 ells. I published the calculations in my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch” which is where I included a whole chapter’s worth of examples of how it contradicts the Bible.

I never said, “we have no description of” Nephilim rather, I said, we have no reliable description of them. Yet, when you refer to “many of them (if not all) had six fingers and six toes”: you are confusing Rephaim with Nephilim but even then, there’s no indication of “many” but of only one single Repha—period.

Again, you say, “The Israelites stated that ‘we were in our own sight as grasshoppers…’” but that was the utterly unreliable guys on whom you rely 100%–even though they contradicted Moses, Joshua, Caleb, God, and the rest of the whole Bible.

As for “beings who are of a height that is beyond that of human beings” well, that’s a different issues altogether: my point is just that you can’t assert that those were Nephilim nor related to Nephilim. Thus, when you refer to my (supposed) “unbelief in the existence of giants” I challenge you do quote me even one single time expressing any such unbelief in any of my books, articles, videos, interviews, debates, etc., etc., etc.

Thus, when you list your “evidences,” those examples are irrelevant—and also very subjective, generic, etc. For example, Native American are likely relating cultural memories of encountering Vikings: tall, White, red haired, etc.

Thus, this has nothing to do with “Since you have written so many books on this topic, I doubt that any amount of evidence would ever change” my mind since I’ve discussed these very same issues with literally hundreds of people and they make the same basic level errors as you do.

Please understand that your entire post-flood Nephilology is literally based on one single—VERY problematic—verse.

But since you have looked into this and argued it so much, I doubt that any amount of evidence would ever change your mind. You have a great deal of investment in your tall tales. So I suppose it was, in the end, a waste of my time to even respond to your comment. But I did respond anyway. In the end, there is really good reason to accurately represent God’s word. Such lack of engaging His word as inspired and preserved is more a result of a naturalistic/materialistic/evolutionary worldview than a result of actual evidence or the lack thereof.

 

dooglitas

Ken Ammi You say: “That he claims to know that ANY Nephilim were “giants” is problematic enough: even Gary Wayne admitted he doesn’t know how big they were when I asked him about it.” I have no idea why it is “problematic.” Only to you perhaps. And I have no idea why Gary Wayne is important in this conversation. What he admitted or didn’t admit is irrelevant. Also, not knowing HOW big they were does not mean they were not giants. Certainly they were not all the same height. So how big they were varied. The Rephaim are only mentioned in a post-flood context in the Bible. However, you are incorrect that the nephiim were “strictly” pre-flood hybrids. I don’t think you read my comment or the scriptures I gave you. The Anakim were referred to as both rephaim AND nephilim. In Numbers 13:33, the Anakim were called NEPHLIM. In Deut. 2:11 the Anakim were called rephaim. The same post-flood people were referred to by BOTH the name “rephaim” AND “nephilim.” Your statement on this fact is erroneous. It is difficult to take the rest of your “arguments” seriously. I’m not going to respond to the rest of your comment. It is obvious that you are determined to stick to your point no matter what anyone says. Like I said, the fact that you have written books on this precludes the possibility of anyone ever changing your mind. You can deny it, but that is the truth. I have no idea why you are skeptical about this. Your arguments are all dismissive and without any real logical validity. You simply don’t want to accept the reality of giants and that’s it. Perhaps if you met one and it thrust you through with it’s stave you would believe–oh, wait, you would be dead. So, even then you wouldn’t believe it. My whole original point was to argue against your baseless accusation that L.A. Marzulli and Steve Quayle were dispensing “misinformation.” Just because you are a skeptic and disbelieve in giants having existed does not make them dispensers of “misinformation.” Just because you don’t agree with something, that does not make it “misinformation.” You state: “But since you have looked into this and argued it so much, I doubt that any amount of evidence would ever change your mind. You have a great deal of investment in your tall tales.” I have nothing invested in this topic other than time. I have not written books that I sell and make money on. So, no, I do not have any kind of significant “investment’ in the topic. I just happen to believe in God’s word as true. Calling them “tall tales” is not a valid argument. It is a fallacious one. Ridicule is not a logically valid argument. it is a fallacious one. Good day. Believe what you want—or don’t believe it. I don’t care. I just don’t like the way you smear other people’s reputations with false accusations. Just because you disagree with LA Marzulli doesn’t give you the right to impugn his character.

 

Ken Ammi

Well, it’s problematic to refer to someone’s height when you don’t know their height.

Indeed, “not knowing HOW big they were does not mean they were not giants” but not knowing how big they were means we need not bother discussing their height at all since it’s a missing data point: why not speak of them in terms of being little people instead?

Now, you say “how big they were varied” but how do you know that at all?

Friend, the one and only reason why you think there were post-flood Nephilim (by any other name) and that they were (somehow) related to Anakim and that they were very, very tall (even if just some of them) is due to one single sentence in an evil report spoken by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked. I’ll side with God, why do you believe the guys whom He rebuked. That’s part of why you have no other options when attempting to get Nephilim past the flood (which implies that God failed). I also noted that you’re not doing to get Anakim (and therefore no Rephaim) related to Nephilim in the LXX.

It is obvious that you are determined to stick to your point no matter what anyone says. Like I said, the fact that you have argued this precludes the possibility of anyone ever changing your mind. You can deny it, but that is the truth. I have no idea why you are skeptical about this. Your arguments are all dismissive and without any real logical validity.

But you’re not even engaging what I stated since I specifically noted, “when you refer to my (supposed) ‘unbelief in the existence of giants’ I challenge you do quote me even one single time expressing any such unbelief in any of my books, articles, videos, interviews, debates, etc., etc., etc.” but rather than doing that, you just double down by writing, “You simply don’t want to accept the reality of giants and that’s it…you are a skeptic and disbelieve in giants having existed”

I have proved time and again—in comments, articles, videos, and books, that L.A. Marzulli and Steve Quayle were dispensing “misinformation” and just because you bought into their un-biblical tall tales doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

Now, since I call them tall tales and give plenty of argumentation based on facts backed by evidence that such is the case, then categorizing that as ridicule or smear is just worldly.

It’s sad that you’re so very worldly that you don’t even want to accept that you keep making accusations against me that I already proved where inaccurate—please repent.

 

dooglitas

Like I said, I am wasting my time. You are obviously determined to stick to your guns. As I said, you have a lot of baggage behind your opinion. Saying you have proven “in comments, articles, videos, and books” that Steve Quayle and LA Marzullli are dispensing misinformation is a meaningless comment. You have certainly not proven it in this thread, and I have not read all you have written to validate what you have said. You have given no specific references where I could go to see your alleged proof. I doubt you have spent more than 10 minutes reading or listening to either one of those men.

   You state: “It’s sad that you’re so very worldly that you don’t even want to accept that you keep making accusations against me that I already proved where inaccurate—please repent.”

     This is the height of self-righteousness. Perhaps you should repent.

 

Ken Ammi

I’m unsure why you’re being so very, very worldly and dismissive—except, perhaps, that you now realize that after years of listening to the pop-researchers, they have left you unable to deal with the actual facts.

You twice asserted that I made a certain claim, I asked for evidence, you have none. And you think it’s “the height of self-righteousness” to ask you to repent when you’re caught making false accusations: friend, please step away from the theo-sci-fi and focus on your walk with the LORD.

You are obviously determined to stick to your guns. As I said, you have a lot of baggage behind your opinion.

You also seem to want to fool yourself, I noted they both teach post-flood Nephilim but the Bible doesn’t and all you, or they, can do is appeal to one single verse spoken by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

You then take it upon yourself you “doubt you have spent more than 10 minutes reading or listening to either one of those men” when I literally wrote a book critiquing them after a tremendous amount of time of considering their assertions—see my book “Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers: A comprehensive consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.”

That’s how I discovered that Quayle is a plagiarist, by the way.

 

 

 

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.

 

Mark Moore posted a video on his YouTube channel, “EARLY GENESIS, THE REVEALED COSMOLOGY” titled, The “Sons of God” are NOT Angels or Spirit Beings.

His premise is to, “show you from the scriptures why this teaching that Angels are also the sons of God,” such as in the Gensis 6 affair, as I term it, “and that God has this heavenly family of divine beings and then there’s this earthly family that are also his sons: why that teaching is mistaken.”

He sets the stage by noting, “I can see why people would see…certain things in the Old Testament that point that way” and in order to cut off that fact from the get-go, he merely asserts, “the Jews of Jesus’ day and, and beyond, were confused by it” and further asserts, “they brought some ideas with them, I believe, from, from Babylon, from the captivity, and those ideas influenced the way they

saw things and the church mostly didn’t mess with that during its early history.”

This, that part of it was based on a subjective, “I believe.” Interestingly, considering that Daniel became, “ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (Dan 2:48) then why not believe that it was the Pagan Babylonians who got it from the Jews—and/or from the actual events themselves as they would have trickled down to them?

Mark Moore then states what I take to be a combo tactic: scare-tactic, genetic logical fallacy, and being vaguely generic This comes in the form of, “these old Jewish ideas that, frankly, were held by the factions of Jews that did not accept Jesus as Messiah.”

1)      I term reference to, “old…ideas” an argumentum ad chronologicum since how long ago an idea was proposed doesn’t tell us anything about their accuracy.

2)      That an idea was held by, “Jews that did not accept Jesus as Messiah” is a genetic logical fallacy since who held it doesn’t tell us anything about its accuracy: ought we reject monotheism since, after all, “Jews that did not accept Jesus as Messiah” held to it?

3)      It obviously should not scare us to accept a view held by, “Jews that did not accept Jesus as Messiah.”

He notes, “in the church fortunately we have the New Testament to illuminate the Old Testament,” to which I will add and visa versa.

He begins his actual argument thusly:

I want to start with Hebrews. And you will see, and then we’ll go through the New Testament verses, and you’ll see that well, gee, there’s a conflict between what the New Testament says about Angels and their role and who the sons of God are and what this teaching tells me that these Old Testament verses seem to say and you’ll understand that there’s, there’s a paradox there and then we’re going to go through and try to resolve the paradox.

That strikes me as a misguided way to state what in linguistics terms would be noting that in any language, a word, phrase, term, etc. can refer to more than one thing and that ultimately, context determines meaning in any given usage.

Now, he notes:

I’m going to ask you to do something I’m afraid that’s, that’s a little difficult: I’m going to show a long passage on the screen, two long passages, and I’m going to do a voiceover so you will not have anybody here as a video, a talking head, but you’ll see the scriptures and we’re not going to flip from verse to verse with a bunch of narrative in between that tries to connect to things that that may or not may or may not really be connected.

But rather, we’re going to take you through the writer’s thought processes as he goes through a long passage of scripture.

And so, I would ask you to bear with me as we go through that process be like the Bereans who are more noble to study these things and see if they are so.

Now, I quoted that time wasting qualifier to point out that he starts reading thusly:

Let’s start with Hebrews, thank you, Hebrews chapter one starting with the fifth verse, “For unto which of the Angels said He at any time, ‘Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee’?

And again, “I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son.”

The writer of Hebrews is quoting the Old Testament throughout this passage, he quotes the eighth Psalm, he quotes various Old Testament passages, and he’s asking his audience a rhetorical question…

I quoted the time waster just to show that he didn’t stick to his own rules, he interrupted the narrative within seconds in order to add, “a bunch of narrative in between that tries to connect to things that that may or not may or may not really be connected.”

In any case, Mark Moore continues thusly, “He’s basically challenged them, showing them the superiority of Christ to the Angels, saying that He is the Son: they are not. That’s really the whole point of Hebrews chapter 1.” See, he told you what to think about it rather than continuing to read. Well, of course Christ is superior to Angels: no one claims otherwise. The whole point of Heb 1 is not, “they are not” but rather, “they are not in the same way that Christ is.”

He is unique and uniquely authoritative so that God never told His Angels that they are His sons like unto how Christ is His only begotten Son—more on this to come.

Moore notes:

…in chapter 2 he expands that superiority to us…if it was obvious from the Old Testament that God was calling Angels his sons it would sort of ruin the point of this question…Job 38 he’s saying they’re the sons…but the writer of Hebrews is acting like no that’s not what they believed.

Let’s keep reading, “and again, when he brings in the first begotten into the world He saith, ‘Let all the Angels of God worship Him’ and of the Angels He saith, ‘Who maketh His Angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.’”

He’s quoting all Old Testament verses here showing that Angels in the Old Testament had a lower station than the Son that that’s the whole point…

Again, that’s a non-issue.

As an important sidenote, he notes, “they’re ministering spirits” as he had quoted the one version he’s using but many versions rightly have it that they’re winds rather than spirits. Many people literally base their Angelology on that one word. And many versions have winds not due to flipping a coin but due to linguistic reasons, due to the demands of the Psalm’s context, and due to that Angels are described as looking just like human males and performing physical actions and without any indication that such isn’t their ontology.

Mark Moore continues with, “they’re a flame of fire but they are not the Son who is to be worshipped…he’s saying the Son has one position and these Angels have another, lower position…the Son is above the Angels,” etc., etc., etc.

He seems to be committing a category error as if the word son can only mean one thing, can only be defined in one way, can only be used to refer to one thing which isn’t the case no matter the language: ben, bar, son, etc.

Yet, he goes on and on and on to make this non-point time and again so we will fast forward—at this point, we may want to ponder if he denies that Christians are sons of God when, after all, Christ is God’s only begotten Son. If that reasoning fails, then so does denying that Angels are God’s sons: which they are by definition since they are God’s created beings.

He emphasizes:

…there is a distinction between the sons and the Angels and that is what this is saying they are ministering spirits they are sent forth to minister…Angels are greater and mightier in power than we are at this time but yet and we are made lower than them at this time…

At this point, he seems to be doing general Angelology so we will move on to when he gets back to the specific sons of God issue, which is with, “the people that are teaching you that God has this heavenly family of sons and they’re spirit beings and He has this earthly family of sons and they’re people:

they are not teaching you what the New Testament says about Angels and the sons of God.”

Well, speaking for myself: I don’t fall into such false dichotomies whereby sons of God can only ever only mean, “God has this heavenly family of sons” which Moore misidentifies as, “spirit beings,” or can only every only mean, “what the New Testament says” since both are the case given the contexts in which they are found.

Mark Moore then focuses on, “where Jesus is given a scenario” wherein, “‘a man takes a wife he dies his brother takes the wife the brother dies there’s another brother he takes the wife then he dies and goes on and on and they say in the resurrection whose wife will she be?,’ and Jesus says in all three

places [the synoptics] nobody’s, they’re not going to marry they’re not going to be given in marriage in the kingdom world to come, they will be like the Angels and some of might think well if we’re like the Angels then it feeds into” the Angel view of sons of God in certain contexts.

He elucidates, “Of the three [synoptic] passages, Luke is the one that makes this clear…chapter 20 verse 36” for which the KJV, which I will quote since he’s reading it, has, “Neither can they [“they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead”] die any more: for they are equal unto the Angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.” Oh, so then: being equal to Angels in being children/sons of God.

Moore even admits, “I have the it inter-linear, the Greek, English words below it…the King James translation…has children of God in it and children of the resurrection, the Greek word there is routinely translated son, that’s what it should be here son of God.”

Yet, that fact is inconvenient to his view so he goes on about, “if you translate it with the correct punctuation…it’s clear that being as like the Angels means being like the Angels in respect of: death does not apply to you anymore” and so, in short, he just ignores the point Jesus made, which Luke quoted, that makes the exact opposite point than Moore’s view makes and so he declares that humans being, “sons of God it is not connected to being like the Angels being

the sons of God, is not connected” even though we just saw that it is directly connected.

So, he plays the versioning and original languages card to abscond from what we just verified, “not every translation…I wanted to show you the Greek…the punctuation,” etc. and punctuation which, by the way, Greek manuscripts don’t have.

He then comments again on his perception that, “the New Testament has a very different view of what the sons of God is

than is being taught in the church today but the church is drawing from the Old Testament.”

This is just another case of a false dichotomy since the church is teaching both due to drawing from both and also drawing contextual distinctions. Meanwhile, Mark Moore expects us to believe that one phrase can only ever only mean one thing regardless of the context or historical understanding of it and so he must force sons of God only mean one single thing regardless of what he has to do to accomplish his eisegetical goal.

Time and again he urges us to move away from the Old Testament and only focus on the New: yet, why would we have to do that if sons of God only ever meant only one thing? He references that, “some of these teachers are when they make these claims and they spin this narrative” about that sons of God means (at least) two things and that such teachers rely on, “some things that maybe some Jewish people believed in the first century” and follows directly with some of his opt repeated scare-tactics, “Well, those were the bad guys, those are the guys who didn’t get it, those are the guys who were wrong, those are the guys who opposed Christ.” This is another logical fallacy since being bad, not getting it, and opposing Christ doesn’t necessarily mean that they were wrong about one of the usages of the term sons of God.

Rather, Mark Moore argues, “we want to listen to the apostles and we want to listen to the New Testament and what it has to say about Angels” and we did just that, especially in the case of Jude and 2 Peter 2 who set the time of their sin to pre-flood days and correlated it to sexual since which, again, fits the Genesis 6 affair.

And yet, during moments of clarity, he admits, “The book of job is the linchpin, is the key, because all the other references to the sons of God they’re ambiguous, they could be referring to people or they could be referring to Angels.” And so, he must find ways to get around the statements in Job.

But before getting to Job, he throws in another scare tactic, “sons of God are mentioned…only a few early in the bible, except for out of the mouth of the Pagan king in [the book of] Daniel. He says, “I see one that looks like a son of God,’ but that that is a Pagan talking…Pagans had a different view of the sons of God” and yet, the king rightly identified a distinction, and he was well on his way to accepting Daniel’s God—to whatever degree. In any case, most Christians seem to think that it wasn’t an Angel anyway but what is typically (and paradoxically if not incoherently) termed a pre-incarnate incarnation of Jesus.

He gets to that:

Job has the phrase sons of God in it three times where they seem to be spirit beings or Angels and in particular Job 38 verse 7. It is unequivocal that is talking about a scene before mankind, before humanity, and it says the sons of God there. And so what, what is going on with Job if Angels are not the sons of God, then why does Job have a several places which says sons of God that seem to be talking about Angels, and in one place unambiguously must be.

Maybe, maybe Genesis and Psalms and all those other places, maybe the use of sons of God is ambiguous but they take what is said in Job and they say see sons of God are Angels and then they shoehorn that view into all these other places in the Old Testament.

Well, appealing to an unambiguous usage to assist in understanding others isn’t shoehorning, it’s appealing to the greater context (in conjunction with the immediate context).

Now, Mark Moore argues that there are, “two problems with Job: one of them is…” now, it seems that whenever he is about to make a weak point, he prefaces it and follows it with a scare tactic which serves as an emotional distraction from remaining focused on the facts (I don’t claim this is a purposeful tactic since I can’t read his mind but it’s certainly his modus operandi—consciously or not).

In this case, it’s not about reading Job but about, first, “the Masoretic Text, that’s the one that’s in most of our western bibles, it was compiled from the 7th to the 10th centuries by Rabbis who are hostile to Christianity” which, again, doesn’t necessarily mean that we can ergo conclude that they manipulated Job 38:7 for whatever hostile reason.

Rather, behold, “for the first thousand years of the church we use the Septuagint and that is the Greek version of the Old Testament” and yet, some would argue that the Jews who translated it were influenced by Greek culture and mythology. Yet, that’s just another side of the scare tactic coin.

Mark Moore’s point is that Job 38:7 of the Septuagint has, “Angelos” for what the Hebrew has as ben Elohim and is commonly in English as sons of God. Moore doesn’t seem to consider that the translators of the Septuagint understood so very clearly that sons of God can refer to Angels that they just cut to the chase and rendered ben Elohim as Angelos.

Rather, he argues (in a looping circle) that the Septuagint was employed:

…for about the first 800 years or so: it’s still used by the Eastern Orthodox…do not agree the Masoretic Text, the one that is in most of our bibles now was not the Old Testament of the Christian church for the first seven or eight centuries or so it still is not the text used for the Old Testament in Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches they use the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of some Hebrew documents that we no longer have and but it was old the Septuagint…the Old Testament, the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the church for the first eight centuries and still is for the Eastern Church, we have the Masoretic Text but it was made much later by Rabbis who were hostile to Christians and after enough time had passed where they understood what needed to be fiddled with…

And that’s all within a paragraph or two with some of it repeating what he had just finished stating moments prior.

His take-way point is, “if the Septuagint disagrees with the Masoretic text” then you must go Septuagint because and not think, “where the Masoretic Text says sons of God…you would think, ‘Oh my goodness, that Pagan king of Daniel was right the sons of god must be Angels because there were no humans around at this time.’ Not so fast, the Septuagint doesn’t say sons of God, it says Angels…”

To make a very long and very complicated issue short: his argument is that the Septuagint manuscripts are older than the Masoretic so we must go with it. This is very complicated due to various reasons I’m not going to get into since it would required an entire essay of its own: the time of the translation of the Septuagint to the time of its earliest manuscripts, the time of the compilation (key point) of the Masoretic versus the date of the manuscripts which were used to compile it, etc., etc., etc.

Mark Moore concludes, “that whole [Angel view] doctrine is just, it’s probably what a lot of the Jews of the period believed but they were the bad guys, they were the ones who didn’t get it, they were the ones who were wrong, we do not need to take our cues on what to believe from them, we need to take it from the apostles and from the New Testament”—which is not a re-quotation of his earlier statement, it’s just the tail end of the scare tactic.

He follows that up by continuing an earlier loop which he couples with a scare-tactic:

…the text is disputed Job reads differently if you read the Septuagint versus the Masoretic Text…there’s one holy spirit inspiring the whole bible but Job, according to Job itself, was a man of the East: he was not part of the Hebrew tradition, he was not a part of the Exodus from Israel [I think he meant to Israel], he was not a part of the stream of Abraham and the call his calling out from her from Mesopotamia, he was not a part of the conquest and the books the five books of Moses, he’s a different cultural stream and we know God called Abraham out of that cultural stream.

They had they had messed things up, their ideas about God were not right, He did not want them to stay among them, He called Abraham out, and they had a different idea about who the sons of God.

Were I’ve already said it, I’ve already mentioned it, the Pagan king in Daniel referred to a son of God as a divine being because that’s what they believed the sons of God were.

When the Jews went into captivity, they picked up some of these ideas and took them out with them the people in the East believed this stuff because they had Pagan practices…

Mark Moore seems to have overlooked at least one key point: the Book of Job doesn’t have that scary Eastern guy Job stating what’s recorded in 38:7 rather, those are words that are quoted from a statement by God, “the Lord answered Job…”

Mark Moore notes, “my point is the Pagans believed that gods could have children” but doesn’t seem to consider that, again, they may have gotten such beliefs from the real events recorded in Gen 6.

Yet, he goes as far as declaring, “Job has a lot of terminology” from, “a different tradition…a man of the East…even if the original text in job did say sons of God it doesn’t have to mean what sons of God meant in the rest of the bible because Job is from a unique literary stream…different literary streams.”

And that was part of his closing statement.

Thus, all of this came down to: sons of God are never Angels because the Septuagint has Angelos in Job and it has a different usage in the New Testament and you should be scared of any other reading or view.

 

 

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 was a team article by Jodie Bishop, Scott Walton of Disciples of YHWH in Christ and, and Ken Ammi, with an introduction by Don Veinot from the Midwest Christian Outreach and it was originally posted here.

Some Atheists propose arguments that they believe demonstrate that God does not exist. Yet, those tend to fixate on one particular view of God, namely monotheism. Thus, even if they were successful, which they are not, that does nothing to demonstrate some sort of god or gods do not exist.

Perhaps the Mormon gods exist or perhaps the Hindu view that everything that exists is god is true. So in reality, the best they can do is to argue for Agnosticism (which is akin to “weak Atheism”).

Yet, even when they argue against a monotheistic God, some of their arguments do not hold against Trinitarian-monotheism—which is the view from which this article is written biblical Christian theology. Thus, we will not defending generic “religion” nor vague “theism” but only biblical theology.

Oddly enough, they have to draw from biblical theology in order to attempt to argue their case. In other words, they must beg, borrow, and steal from the very view against which they are arguing and so they end up sawing off (or attempting to do so) the very branch upon which they sit.

The “10 Logical Proofs” undergoing examination were proposed within a video titled “God Does Not Exist 10 Logical Proofs” by the Crunch YouTube channel.

Note that the assertion is not that evidence is provided but rather, proofs and that is it not against belief in God but definitively positively affirms that “God Does Not Exist.”

Now, the title refers to “proof” but the intro refers to “evidence, “In case you deny the existence of the Almighty and somehow lack evidence to support your side, we have you covered.”

Moreover, it is asserted that the “10 logical reasons” (a change from the title’s reference to “10 logical proofs”) “will shake some believers!”

One thing that haunts the entire video (and all of Atheism, in fact) is that it is premised on logical but this is not really a premise, actually, but a merely jumped to conclusion with which they are beginning.

On Atheism, logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there is no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do so either: this alone utterly collapses any and all Atheist missionaries endeavors.

On Atheism, there is no universal imperative for accidentally and temporarily existing apes to only hold to facts, based on truth, based on reality, mitigated by logic within an existence wherein facts, truth, reality, logic, and apes are all accidental-period, full stop.

Also, the video refers to “Using EVIDENCE” and “Using LOGIC” and while Atheists can use logic, that is merely a subjective personal preference (based on hidden assumptions that should be exposed). Likewise with evidence or proof: they may subjectively assert that we ought to based our view on evidence and proof but, again, that is a mere preference on the level of demanding that their favorite ice-cream flavor truly is the one that everyone should prefer. They must begin by first justifying a demand for evidence or proof via a premise form their worldview.

Proof/reason #10 “Poorly Designed Universe”:

This is elucidated thusly, “Don’t the theists say that God is perfect and the creator of the Universe? Well then why did he design the universe and his babies in such poor fashion?”

Unsure what is meant by “his babies”—humanity, perhaps. The assertion of God having “design[ed] the universe and his babies in such poor fashion” merely presupposes that such is the claim when, it is not. We affirm that God is perfect and the creator yet, this does not require the creation to be perfect (only God). The Bible teaches that the creation is fallen (Gen 3) so that “Disease and malfunction” were not created by God but are a result of the fall—and are redeemable, which they are not on Atheism.

Now, even if it something is poorly designed, it is still designed which requires a designer, God in this case.

Engineers construct “parts that are designed to ware out” such as brake pads: we do not (or should not) examine worn brake pads and conclude they were not designed, we recognize that waring is their purpose (to the point that the metal a few layers in is of a different sort so that they cause that horrible grinding sound that alerts us to that they need replacing).

This objection is flawed since it is evidence for God’s existence and not his non-existence. This amounts to a fallacy of false refutation (ignoratio elenchi).

#9 “God of the Gaps”:

Elucidation, “could you explain the idea of God of gaps that is your argument of his existence? You somehow prove God’s existence by pointing out phenomenon that science can’t explain and hence they are facilitated by God.”

This is not a biblical claim. Rather, all that science can explain and cannot explain argues for God’s existence. The premise for the scientific method. A rational being created a rational creation and populated it with rational creatures who could rationally discern it.

When considering creation we do not argue that we do not know ergo, God, but rather, we base our views on what we do know.

For example, the universe’s various functions (including biological functions) are based on preexisting information, the only known source of information is mind, so that this mind is what we call “God.” Thus, this is not based on gaps but on observation.

Thus, the existence of science is evidence for God’s existence.

#9 is a straw–man argument—a straw-God argument actually.

#8 “Inconsistency of Religions”:

Claim, “The reason we all have different views of him is that he does not exist.”

This one is utterly myopic since, for example, “different views of” God result from various sources such as that some are  misled by false teachers, are rebellious and do not want to submit to God, etc.

Thus, this one did not consider anthropology, particularly biblical anthropology which has us as fallen and naturally rebellious.

We affirm that biblical theology, in part, due to truths from evidence, logic, and arguments (which are like proofs).

#8 is tantamount to arguing that since there are literally an infinity of possible answers to 2+2= ergo, 4 is not the only one right answer.

It is like arguing that many gods are claimed ergo, no gods exist. By definition God would be the ultimate being and by further definition there can only be one ultimate ergo, there is a God and only one God (who that is would be another issue).

If witnesses to an armed robbery have differences in their testimony to the police does that mean there was no robbery?

Consider The Titanic witnesses: some said it sank whole, others that it split. If we take this as a logical argument it is a non sequitur since that people have different views of God only proves that people have different views of God not that God does not exist.

#7 “Creation of the World”:

Claim, “one widely accepted trait of the Almighty is that it is he who created the entire universe some 6,000 years ago. That being said, it should be evident that nothing on the planet is older than this time frame.”

Some believers do not conclude that biblical theology affirms a young Earth creation timeline. Many accept the age of the universe is around 14 billion years and do not find it in conflict with their faith or the Bible.

Thus, this would be more about (one particular) view of the Bible, not about God’s existence.

Again, all of these will go back to that they have no premise: what does it matter if some accidentally and temporarily existing apes have a mistaken view of the age of the universe or the Earth within a universe wherein adhering to reality based truthful facts is not a universal imperative?

This is another straw-man since it is a supposed “widely accepted trait” but not a proof of God and even if science proved the universe to be 14 billion years old, it would not follow necessarily that God does not exist (non sequitur) since the age of the earth—young or old—does not disprove the existence of God. If one claims to be 6 years-old but is actually older, does that mean they do not exist?

#6 “Existence of Evil in the World”:

Claim, “When believers say that there is a God, a power which is noble and good then do they forget the existence of evil in the world? Be logical, when God loves us so dearly then why does he allow evil to exist?”

Just as with logic, this merely presupposes what is “evil,” that is it to be avoided, condemned, etc. Of course we do not forget the existence of evil rather, we say evil evidence for God. How so? Because it is only by God, who is the standard of good, that we know what is evil—a standard which Atheists lack.

God uses the evil that does exist to bring about good (salvation). The crucifixion of Christ was the most evil deed ever. Yet, it made salvation available to all who will trust in Jesus—by grace, through faith. That is the greatest good for us and demonstrates God’s love for us.

This was a false, pseudo, refutation since the existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of God so that this was another non sequitur.

Now, if someone converts to Atheism they will find that “evil” still exists-and now they do not even have God to blame for it anymore. God’s existence implies that evil is redeemable, in a manner of speaking.

On Atheism evil, pain, and suffering are for nothing-except that the evildoer gets to enjoy themselves and transcendently gets away with it. Yet, it is not quite the case that on Atheism evil, pain, and suffering are for nothing since it gets plugged into Atheistic evolution which has it assisting in ridding us of the less fit so that it benefits evolution.

Thus, Atheism makes evil, pain, and suffering even worse and so evil, pain, and suffering are some of the best reasons for rejecting Atheism-and Atheistic evolution.

You see, there are various problem-s or evil-s and Atheism has its own problem of evil-even if some Atheists are informed enough to reply with “What is this ‘evil’ you speak of?!?!”

Darwin despised that one insect would lay eggs within the body of another and that the hatchlings would eat their way out of the host body. Well, guess what, that still happened regardless of his views on God.

Moreover, Atheists will first complain that God does nothing about evil and will then complain about what He does about it (judgments, hell, etc.).

A personal example from Ken is that I LOVE my kids and, for example, stood by doing nothing about it when one of them was stabbed even though I could have put my years of martial arts training towards preventing it. That’s right folks: when one of them was a newborn I allowed a nurse to stab his little, sensitive, foot with a needle since his blood sugar levels had to be checked.

I, his essentially omnipotent father, allowed that pain and suffering because I knew better. As an experiment, when he was 1.5 years old I explained that to him, he wiggled a bit and walked away. Of course, he had no idea what I was talking about much, I suspect, like when Job demanded to know “Why, why, why!” and God began with “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?”

#5 “Morality needs no religion”:

Claim, “Looking at the behavior of a believer and an atheist, you’d see that there is little to no difference in their morality.”

Riotously, “that there is little to no difference in their morality” would imply a common standard, not a common result of accidents.

Technically, “morality” as referring to the “mores” which merely describes whatever people happen to do vs. “ethics” as referring to the “ethos” which actually prescribes what people ought to do-this is an “is” vs. “ought” issue.

Yet, that can get semantic since some term what was just defined as ethics/ethos as “universal” or “objective” or “absolute” “morality.”

Thus, this is not just about labels but about recognizing two levels: disagreement and agreement. People disagree on the mores since they are situational, subjective, intrinsic, tentative, etc. but agree on the ethos since it is universal, objective, extrinsic, absolute, etc. Such is why everyone (regardless of chronology, geography, or theology-or, lack thereof) have agreed on the ethos.

We do not claim that God or Christian faith is required for one to behave in a kind, loving way since we were all created in God’s image and come front-loaded with His communicable attributes so that we contain His ethos.

But God, who is all-loving, is the standard by which we judge behaviors as good or evil. Thus, God grounds the existence of ethical obligations and duties. Yet, people still have a God-given freedom to act in an unethical manner whether they accept God or reject Him.

Atheists lack a ground for ethics so that, for example, if a priest molests a child, we all agree it is wrong (even the priest, who would first seek to justify his actions to himself: making evil good in his own mind). But we have a standard by which to judge it as evil. Also, we do not claim, nor does the Bible teach, that being a biblical makes one ethically perfect. As it has been said: Christians are not sinless but they should sin less.

Consider that just because U.S. citizens commit murder does not mean that murder is not illegal in the U.S.

Now, in the U.S. abortion is legal murder and the ethos is evident in that pro-abortionists have spent years arguing that it really is not since they know that it is. Like the priest, they had to talk themselves into believing that they overcame that hurdle since the ethos placed that hurdle in their way.

That people, whether believers or unbelievers, are free to act in either good ways or evil ways proves freedom of action, not existence or non-existence of God.

It also proves that ethics exists (as an objective fact) since Atheists also acknowledge good and evil.

Thus, ethics is evidence for God not against God (false refutation) and to argue that bible believers commit evil acts ergo, God does not exist is a compounding of a non sequitur and a straw man.

#4 “Religion Runs in families”:

Claim, “Religion runs in family. If we ask you about your religion, there is a 99% chance that you follow the religion of your family because that is what you have been taught…

The mere scenario of tightly bound family religion questions the truth in it because you can analyze facts but not fables. It can also be seen as a belief sustained by social pressure or even threats!”

Again, “questions the truth in it” within a propose existence wherein adhering to truth is not a universal imperative. This is also a genetic logical fallacy since it seeks to discredit by attacking the source and even if belief is sustained by social pressure and by threats it does not follow necessarily that God does not exist.

If our parents taught us to count does that invalidate mathematics?

While it may be a tu quoque, it is, “also true of atheists”: or “some” Atheists just like it is true of “some” religious people but not of others.

This touches upon that Atheist literally think that they are more evolved than thou, they may have been raised in religious homes but have found the one true truth: praised be nothing!

The Bible does not teach blind ignorance but to test all things, to look for evidence, to seek out wisdom and knowledge, to speak the truth in love, and encourage all people to examine the evidence and use logic and critical thinking to decide.

Thus, many of us have examined the evidence and have faith in Jesus because of the evidence (biblically, “faith” refers to coming to a conclusion based on prior knowledge).

#3 “No evidence of existence”:

Claim, “Largely saying there is not much evidence to prove the existence of God. Well if God is there, then why is there no proof of him being there?”

Step one is for Atheists to justify their demand for evidence or proof—after which comes complex issues of what actually does count as evidence, upon what Atheist premise can it be examined, accepted, rejected, etc., etc., etc.

Note that, just like Bertrand Russell (and Richard Dawkins who parroted him), the video admits that there is evidence of or for God but that there is—subjectively—“not enough” based on his personal preferences that are based on hidden assumptions.

Note that this one jumps from referring to “evidence” to referring to “proof” and admits evidence (even if subjectively “not much”) but positively affirms (without evidence) that there is no proof.

#3 denotes ignorance of centuries of thinking regarding God and the natural world. Some Atheists say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so why does that not apply to God (even if we momentarily grant absence of evidence)?

By that logic just because you have not found any evidence for God compelling, it does not mean He does not exist. It is not a PROOF. And then there is the issue of evidence versus whether one subjectively finds such evidence compelling or not.

Now, bible believers have provided evidence and proofs of God for centuries: for example, various cosmological arguments (Kalam, Leibnizian, etc.), design arguments, ethical arguments, ontological arguments, etc.

The video admits to design (however poor) and ethics, which supports these arguments in favor of God’s existence. These arguments take as evidence, the universe and things found within it: design, information, order, purpose, ethics and duties, and so on.

In other words, all of reality is evidence for God’s existence because of the specific nature of this particular universe—while on Atheism, reality is accidental.

 

Parroting Carl Sagan, some Atheists assert that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet, there is no standard of extraordinariness so this is just another subjective exercise to allow the Atheist to merely wave their hand and slap any and all evidence away with a mere, “Not extraordinary enough!”

By the way, would not extraordinary design require an extraordinary designer?

#2 “Common Consent”:

Claim, “One of the major reasons for believing in the existence of the supreme power is that most people believe it. Is it even logical to say that since a phenomenon is accepted by the majority, it must be true? We doubt that!”

Most people agreeing that the sky is blue may not ultimately mean that it really is blue but is a safe enough bet. In other words, the argumentum ad populum does not guarantee that the populum have a faulty view but only that accepting a view merely based on the populum is what is or may be problematic.

Just as with logic and evidence, the statement here ends with “We doubt that!” but that which “We” doubt or do not doubts is not a standard, it is merely an emotively subjective declaration.

While we are at it, should we doubt something just because the populum agrees on it? Surely millions of people have claimed experiences with God (miracles, visitations, etc.) and unless each of those have been examined then one can only conclude that ALL of those people were mistaken -delusional, deceptive, ignorant, misunderstanding-if we presuppose that God does not exist. Ergo, that would be arguing in a circle.

The Bible does not say that we ought to believe in God because of majority opinion nor have any of the best biblical theologians have made this argument. Rather, the Bible says that God’s existence can be seen from the evidence found in the natural world (Psa. 19) and even some of God’s power and attributes can be known by us from the nature of the creation, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Rom 1:20).

This was a straw man since it is not an argument made by Bible believers, or even most theistic religions. Even if one can find some theists who argue that God exists because most people believe he exists, it does not follow that God does not exist (non sequitur). It is also a hasty generalization to apply it to all theisms generally.

#1 “No Growth in Religion”:

Claim, “a decade ago there had been so many things that we had no knowledge about but are now a part of our life. That’s how we have evolved and our knowledge about science but can we apply the same thing to God? We guess not because we are still stuck with beliefs and ‘facts’ that have been in circulation for centuries.”

Atheism has utterly nothing to do with science and science has utterly nothing to do with Atheism.

This one is what I term an argumentum ad chronologicum: “have been in circulation for centuries” ergo, false.

2+2=4 has been circulated for centuries so does the mere passage of time demand that we reject it?

We are “stuck” with the same facts about God because God has revealed Himself finally and completely in the person of Jesus Christ who is God in the Flesh.

As aforementioned, God is also revealed in the natural world and God is revealed in the text of the Bible, the canon of which has been closed for two millennia.

While these basic facts about God have not changed, our understanding has increased as more and more theology students have earned their PhDs and done research and written books, archaeology has revealed more and more about the cultures that produced the Bible which also gives us insights into the deeper meaning of the biblical text—even though God’s word has always been perspicuous.

In fact, on a biblical worldview, all advancements in scientific knowledge deepen our understanding of the natural world which is God’s creation. Most of the modern scientists were Bible believers seeking to better understand God’s creation. So the growth of scientific knowledge has also contributed to growth in our knowledge of God.

Now, this was another strange argument since if our knowledge of God does not increase, it does not necessarily follow that God does not exist (another non sequitur).

Likewise, has there been growth in our knowledge of atheism? If not, does that make atheism false? The basic facts of logic have not shown any growth since they were described by the Greek philosophers over two millennia ago.

We still use modus ponens and modus tollens and say “Socrates is a man.” If there has been no growth in logic, if we have been stuck with the same facts and beliefs about basic logic for millennia, does that mean logic is false? Obviously not. Rather this video is using faulty logic.

PS:

Claim, “What do you believe in; science or God?”

The question, “What do you believe in; science or God?” seems to derive from the imminent philosopher from the movie “Nacho Libre,” the guy who stole day old “cheeeeps” from orphans, who said, “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science” which is a text-book classic world class case of a false dichotomy.

We believe in God and “believe” in science. The study of the natural world is the study of God’s creation: the search for causes and the ability to make that search is evidence for God who is the explanation for the origin of the universe and of life, for the laws of physics, and of logic, the uncanny applicability of mathematics to the natural world, the fact of ethical duties and obligations which atheists also recognize, why there is something rather than nothing, etc.

These evidence God, God is the uncaused first cause: as even those same Greek philosophers understood when they spoke of the unmoved mover.

God created chronology, linear time, whereby effect follows from cause—linear time, boy oh boy I tell ya’: it’s just one thing after another!

Summary:

Grade F on knowledge of biblical theology and attempted employment of logic.

We agree that all claims should be evaluated by evidence and logic, as we have done in this article.

Not one of the 10 points is logically sound and commit formal and informal logical fallacies such as non sequiturs, false refutations, hasty generalizations, straw men/straw God, etc.

The 10 statements failed to provide logical arguments or evidence or proof that God does not exist.

Also employed were flawed tactic common to Atheists such as attacking “religion” rather than any specific rational description of a religion such as biblical theology. Also, if any flaw is found in any one religion, all religion is thereby rejected. And hasty generalization.

Moreover, we encountered two startling admissions for an Atheist to make namely, that the universe is designed and the existence of objective good and evil.

 

 

 

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 the video, Days of Noah 33: The giant Nephilim – King Og of Bashan.

I, Ken Ammi, commented:

Friend, there are at least five things wrong with the statement “Days of Noah 33: The giant Nephilim – King Og of Bashan”:

1) It is fallacious to refer to the “Days of Noah” within the context of Nephilim since Jesus’ reference to the days of Noah is clearly just about people going about as business as usual while being unaware of coming judgement. And you can know that by reading the whole statement Jesus made and also the one He made in Luke 17 about how “it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”

2) If you are referring to “giant Nephilim” because some English versions render the word “Nephilim” as “giants” so you are really saying “Nephilim Nephilim.”

3) But, if you are employing the un-defined subjective term giants to imply something about unusual height then such does not apply to Nephilim since we have no reliable physical description of them. Also, “giant” only implies something about unusual height as of modern times since the root of Nephilim—whether the Hebrew naphal, Aramaic naphiyla, or even Greek gigas (gigantes)—do not imply anything about unusual height.

4) “…Nephilim – King Og of Bashan” is erroneous since he was a Repha, not a Nephil.

5) Nor could Og have been a Nephilim since post-flood Nephilim is not a biblical teaching.

The video maker, who goes by the pseudonym The Protoevangelium and the days of Noah, replied:

Appreciate your input. I will provide my responses according to your numbers:

1) I agree with your synopsis of the days of Noah and the days of Lot in luke 17…however, I think there is deeper symbolism.  Jesus was clearly aware of the genetic contamination before the flood, so for Him to refer to that era makes one wonder if He hasn’t concealed some deeper meaning…as He commonly did.   I believe that He May have been giving a clue to the fact that there was dna corruption before the flood and there will be again when He returns.  That’s my opinion.

2) the term “giant nephilim” May be redundant but it’s an eye catching title for those who do not know that nephilim are giants.  By the way, I am not a Hebrew scholar and have never claimed to be.

3)I’m not sure how to answer this one?  Even though we don’t know their exact sizes I believe there is enough evidence to suggest the nephilim were hybrid giants.

4)I believe that the raphaim are a type of nephilim as are the zanzummim, and the emims, and the anakims etc…their were many different giant Canaanite tribes which were all related…and in my opinion all fall under the generic category as “nephilim”.

5) I disagree that postflood nephilim is not a biblical concept.    I believe that the Canaanite tribes that reference people like Og who was a “remnant of the giants” means that he was genetically related to the giants before the flood.   This is why genesis 6 says there were nephilim on the earth…and also after that when the sons of god came into the daughters of men.  “And also After that” meaning after that time period which was the era of the flood.

Ken Ammi:

Much obliged, friend. I am pleased that you admit–;o)—that the only manner whereby to derive anything from Jesus specific points about the days of Noah and Lot within His own context is to “think there is deeper symbolism.”

But you bypassed the days of Lot when you write “Jesus was clearly aware of the genetic contamination before the flood, so for Him to refer to that era…” but you cannot build a case of that since, again, he also referenced the days of Lot and did so for the very same reason, within the very same context: unawareness and/or lack of concern for a coming judgment.

Did the flood have anything to do with Nephilim?

I also agree that terms such as “giant nephilim” are mere click-bait. But you first note that is “May be redundant” (actually, it is redundant) but then refer to “those who do not know that nephilim are giants” but again, you just wrote “those who do not know that nephilim are nephilim” or if not: what do you mean by the vague, generic, subjective, and un-defined English term “giants”?

We have no reliable physical description of Nephilim whatsoever so we not only “don’t know their exact sizes,” we do not even know if they were even one inch taller than average.

You “believe” Raphaim are a type of Nephilim but why? There is no such reliable statement in the entire Bible.

You are close but not close enough: Rephaim, Zanzummim, Emim, and Anakim are not Nephilim tribes rather, Zanzummim, Emim, and Anakim are Rephaim tribes. You may not realize it but you are quite right when you write of them being “giant Canaanite tribes” since biblically, when you use the term “giant” within that context, you are really saying “Rephaim Canaanite tribes” which is accurate.

Again, when you write of “Og who was a ‘remnant of the giants’ means that he was genetically related to the giants before the flood” you must keep in mind that the term giant there is Repha and until you can demonstrate that Repahim are related to Nephilim you cannot refer to him as being a Nephil.

Lastly, you say “on the earth…and also after that when the sons of god came into the daughters of men. ‘And also After that’ meaning after that time period which was the era of the flood” but why only quote those four words and stop only to add a commentary “which was the era of the flood” rather than just quoting the text referring to the flood?

Because it does not. That is v. 4 and the flood is not even mentioned until the very first time until v. 17. Yet, v. 4 tells you exactly to what days it is referring and that was “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” and when was that? Well, v. 1 tells us “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them”—which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children started having children. Yet, in any case, that is still all pre-flood.

A certain Jason Eachus chimed in with:

All of this should be taught in all Christian churches ….

The truth must be available.

Ken Ammi:

If I may, all of this should be BIBLICALLY and ACCURATELY taught in all Christian churches.

A certain Shane Barnabi chimed in with:

Noah was a giant and had the bloodline,of the Anunnaki/Elohim…FRAGMENT OF THE BOOK OF NOAH

(CVI-CVII.)

CHAPTER CVI.

1. And after some days my son Methuselah took a wife for his son Lamech, and she became

p. 151

pregnant by him and bore a son. 2. And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose, and the hair of his head †and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful†. And when he opened his eyes, he lighted up the whole house like the sun, and the whole house was very bright. 3. And thereupon he arose in the hands of the midwife, opened his mouth, and †conversed with† the Lord of righteousness. 4. And his father Lamech was afraid of him and fled, and came to his father Methuselah. 5. And he said unto him: ‘I have begotten a strange son, diverse from and unlike man, and resembling the sons of the God of heaven; and his nature is different and he is not like us, and his eyes are as the rays of the sun, and his countenance is glorious. 6. And it seems to me that he is not sprung from me but from the angels, and I fear that in his days a wonder may be wrought on the earth. 7. And now, my father, I am here to petition thee and implore thee that thou mayest go to Enoch, our father, and learn from him the truth, for his dwelling-place is amongst the angels.’ 8. And when Methuselah heard the words of his son, he came to me to the ends of the earth; for he had heard that I was there, and he cried aloud, and I heard his voice and I came to him. And 1 said unto him: ‘Behold, here am I, my son,

Makes me think this is true because,they chose Noah as the soul survivor of the seed…I’m just adding this,not because I believe it, but because it’s a possibility, right now there is no definitive proof of anything…but maybe if we all share our thoughts and research maybe we can figure it out.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, I am aware that down through the years many people wrote tall tales: what of it?

The Protoevangelium and the days of Noah:

I did read this once a few years back.  It definitely brought confusion because I felt that the evidence including the Bible pointed to Noah being a pure adamite and NOT of the nephilim seed… which is why God spared Noah.  This would contradict that which raises questions of its authenticity? But ultimately you are right in that… there is much that we still do not fully know.

Ken Ammi

In short, any and all concepts of post-flood Nephilim contradict the Bible.

A certain John H Baldwin chimed in with:

The Nephilim were the race of Giants that were on earth before the flood. The Repha were the race of giants that were conceived in the cities of the plains after the flood. That was the reason why Yahshua gave the two examples. The Nephilim in ” Days of Noah” was the reason for the flood.

The Repha in the days of Lot was the reason for the destruction of the cities of the plains. Sodom and Gomorrah were two of the four cities destroyed. Zoar the fifth city that Lot and his two daughters ran to was spared from destruction because Lot was afraid to go to the Mountains because he knew the Repha was living there.

The reason the two angels were sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plains had nothing to do with Lot, it had to do with destroying the Repha living there before they could consolidate another race of giants on earth as had been done before the flood. That is why Yahshua mentioned both examples, one before and one after the flood. One in the time of Noah and one in the time of Lot.

If the two Angel had not destroyed the cities of the plains, the Rapha living in the land of Canaan would have been too numerous in the earth for the Hebrew Israelite to deal with and defeat. Thus, altering Yah’s plan to settle the Nation of Israel in the land of Canaan which he had promised to the seed of Abraham.

The people living in the land of Israel now are not the seed of Abraham. They are descendants of Gomer, who was the son of Japheth Genesis 10:3. Although they say they Jews, they are not, Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. They are gentiles, Jewish converts, descendants of Japheth, living in the tents of Shem, Genesis 9:25-27.

The real Jews of the tribe of Judah are still in the land of their captivity. Where they have been enslaved, oppressed, and are still scattered among the gentile nations, Leviticus 26:33.

Ken Ammi:

Be aware that when you refer to both Nephilim and Rephaim as giants (whatever that means) you are using a word that was taken from the Greek LXX but those two very different words cannot mean the same thing and they do not: “giants” is not a translation but a sloppy rendering.

Indeed, Nephilim lived before the flood, Rephaim lived after the flood–and there is no relation between them.

There is no indication that Rephaim were the reason for the destruction of the cities of the plains nor indication that Lot was afraid to go to the Mountains because he knew the Rephaim was there.

But when you say “The reason the two angels were sent to destroy…had to do with destroying the Repha” then they failed since Rephaim lived long after that event.

There is also no indication that Rephaim sought to “consolidate another race of giants on earth as had been done before the flood.”

Thus, since Nephilim and Rephaim have utterly nothing to do with each other, it is not why “Yahshua mentioned both examples”: He is very clear that His reason, His context, was examples of judgments whilst those to be judge where unaware.

John H Baldwin:

You know, some people have no clue what they’re saying and in their ignorance, they tend to make fools of themselves, like you’re doing. During their visit with Abraham, the three men warned him that God’s judgment was about to fall upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20–21; 19:12–13)

Luke 17:28-30

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. These passages are telling you that the same circumstances that occurred in the days of Noah reoccurred in the days of Lot. If you do not understand what happened to cause the flood in Noah’s day then how would you be expected to understand why the four cities of the plains were destroyed or why Lot was afraid to run to the mountains preferring to go to the fifth and the smaller City of Zoar instead. I know it never crossed your mind what the two incidences had in common. That is why you are ignorant and void of understanding.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, I am unsure why you decided to go full blown worldly: if you cannot handle such discussions in a graceful manner then please cease from replying let you fall into the condemnation of “whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22). You also play mind-reader which is putting yourself in the place of God—please repent.

Fortunately, Jesus Himself told us what the two incidences had in common: He specifically offered them both as example of people being unaware of coming judgment.

John H Baldwin:

The wicked are always offended by the truth, that is why Yahshua, was stoned and hung on a tree. The people of his day just like today are offended by the truth because the truth does not fit their traditions. If the truth offends you then so be that.

Ken Ammi:

I have no idea what you are talking about, friend, I am discussing these issues and if you do not like being corrected then maybe stop posting online.

John H Baldwin:

LOL don’t you think I know that you have no idea what I am talking about. It is way over your head.

Ken Ammi:

I am unsure why you are being a worldly jerk but feel free to check out the many books I have written about these issues, I will be glad to cut you a deal on the price: https://truefreethinker.com/no-end-books-publications

John H Baldwin:

LOL. If you’re unsure, maybe it’s because I am not the jerk.

Ken Ammi:

But the evidence is that it is you stating things such as “you have no idea what I am talking about. It is way over your head.”

John H Baldwin:

And you still don’t, it still is but keep selling those books.

Ken Ammi:

Unsure what you mean about book. But if you have read any on these subjects then please substantiate your claims rather than playing the gnostic who knows the truth but keeps it secret.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, that ended it since no one replied anymore.

Why oh why is it that I get treated the worse by Atheists and post-flood Nephilim believers (perhaps because both of them are believing in falsehoods).

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Undergoing review is the article “EXPLAINED: ‘There Were Giants In The Earth In Those Days…’,” We Love Trump, January 30, 202, written by a certain “noah” (sic.)—about whom we can know nothing since his “PROFILE” merely reads, “Base Name[:] noah” and, “Name[:] Noah.”

The focus of the review will be the segments that specifically pertain to the subject title’s reference to “Giants.”Now, noah begins by quoting Gen 6:4 thusly, “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.”Note that the subject pertains to, “Giants” but the quotations pertain to, “Nephilim”: more on this to come. Thus, we may conclude that by the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word, “Giants,” noah is referring exclusively to, “Nephilim.”Yet, we will come to find that he actually uses that English word to refer to various things. And since he does not elucidate what he means by it in most usages, he leaves it to the reader to attempt to discern his meaning.He rightly notes, “Nephilim = hybrid creations of Angels mating with humans” and, “Sons of God = very clearly defined in the Bible by the doctrine of first usage (and elsewhere) as Angels.”Now, that sets the stage for the Angel view which was the original, traditional, and majority view of the Genesis 6 affair (as I term it) amongst the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators—for many, many, many centuries: 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.Now, consider this compilation of statements by noah:…as you get a little deeper into the Old Testament you’re going to get to all the stories about God telling the people of Israel to go into neighboring cities and wipe them all out!…why did God instruct Israel to kill all the other groups of people?Because their genetics had become corrupted from Genesis 6:4…that’s in your Bible folks…how do you explain that?…How do you explain that?…One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God’s instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a “gene pool problem” from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty…God orders Israel to kill everyone in one of these giant tribes.At this point, I will a begin criticizing since he claims about his article, “it’s going to suddenly connect a lot of dots.” Yet, some of the data points are valid, most are not, and the manner whereby he connects them is (purposefully or not—that is not for me to say) by watering down the data so as to force-fit it together into a grand narrative.His proposed elucidation is, “The way you explain that question goes directly back to Genesis 6:4.”He notes, “Genesis 6:4 tells you flat out that when Angels mated with Humans they created Giants….’Mighty Men’…..Nephilim!” (sic. and ellipses in original): note that in this usage, “Giants” is merely rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim.” He further notes, “From that point forward, you have Giants all throughout the Old Testament…How do you think they got there?…they appear everywhere after that point.” So as to continue tracking his usage of, “Giants,” keep in mind that what he just told us is, “From that point forward, you have” Nephilim, “all throughout the Old Testament…How do you think” Nephilim, “got there?…” Nephilim, “appear everywhere after that point.”Yet, from that point forward, you have Nephilim in only one single verse in the entire rest of the Bible (Num 13:33).He goes on to specify, “The Old Testament constantly talks about races of Giants…the Anakim, the Rephaim, and many others. Remember Goliath? He wasn’t just tall like Shaq, he was a Nephalim [sic.] descendent.”This is one of the problems with employing the word, “Giants” and it causes many people to chase a vague modern English word around an specific ancient Hebrew Bible.He has been using, “Giants” to mean, “Nephilim” but is now shifting to referring to a wholly other people group. Firstly, it is inaccurate to refer to plural, “races of Giants” and then listing, “the Anakim, the Rephaim” since Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe.Secondly, Goliath was an Anakite Repha, not a Nephil, nor could he have been since they did not make it past the flood—more on this to come, a lot more.Thirdly, since Rephaim were 100% human then, again, they were not a race of Nephilim and the only way they were a race is that they were of the human race.Now, note that in seeking to describe these, “races of Giants,” noah writes, “You have the famous David vs. Goliath, and Goliath was a Giant. You have Og of Bashan who was believed to be anywhere from 9 -18 feet tall.”Thus, he has shifted his usage of the word, “Giants” yet again, as having something to do with unusual height. Yet, that is not in the least bit the English Bibles’ usage of, “Giants.”Those Bibles that employ it are merely rendering (not even translating) the Septuagint’s/LXX’s rendering (not even translating) of, “Nephilim” as, “gigantes” which merely means, “earth-born”—yet, be mindful that the LXX made a mess of things by also rendering, “gibborim” and also, “Rephaim” as, “gigantes” thus, reading within context is key, as always.Now, the Masoretic Text has Goliath at six cubits and a span/just shy of 10 ft. but the earlier LXX and earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at four cubits and a span/just shy of 7 ft.As for Og, we have no physical description of him at all (not until mere folklore from millennia after his time)—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?But we should ask what unusual height has to do with Nephilim in the first place, especially since the word, “Giants” implies nothing about height whatsoever in English Bibles? We shall come to that as well.He claims, “2 Samuel 21:20 tells you they were even genetically different — they had six fingers and six toes (Gee, kind of like 666?)” no, rather like 6666. He quotes, “20 Then there was another battle at Gath, where there was a giant who loved to fight. He had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. 21 He defied the Israelites, and Jonathan, the son of David’s brother Shammah, killed him.”But this is the aforementioned, what I will term, chasing an English word around a Hebrew Bible: this was about a Repha, the word he quoted as, “giant” is actually the word Repha.Now, it is interesting that noah went on to, “show you what AI (Artificial Intelligence) thinks about the topic. You may have heard about the new AI Tool called ChatGPT that was released to the public….I asked it who the Nephilim were.”Here is what, “It told me…Genesis 6:4 is a verse from the Bible that tells the story of how humans and angels had children together…The Nephilim were a group of giants who were very strong and powerful. They were also known as the ‘sons of God,’ because they were believed to be the offspring of angels and humans…God decided to send a great flood to cleanse the earth…” Firstly, the AI claimed, “Nephilim…were also known as the ‘sons of God’” but there is no indication of that at all.Secondly, note very carefully that the AI claimed, “God decided to send a great flood to cleanse the earth…”Keep that in mind as we consider that noah went on to write:I’ll let Dr. Chuck Missler (a true ‘giant’ in his own right and a wonderful teacher and scholar) explain…[“]Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah?…the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord’s predictions regarding His Second Coming…fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human…Jesus prophesied, ‘As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,’…”Firstly, Jesus’ statements about the days of Noah has nothing to do with Nephilology. In Luke 17:26-30 we see that He contextualizes His meaning and emphasis thusly:Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.Thus, He provided examples of unawareness or lack of concern of coming judgment.Secondly, note that Missler stated, “the unique events leading to the Flood…fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human” into which you can put a pin for the moment, as with the AI’s statement.Now, noah tells us, “Together Skiba and Missler are the best on this topic…Trey Smith…All telling you the EXACT same story.” Indeed, they are telling you the EXACT same story and that story is just that: a story, an un-, non-, and anti-biblical tall-tale and for the same reason—to which we shall come.For a review of Missler’s and Skiba’s views (RIP for both), see my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.Incidentally, in that book I chronicle how their shared, “story” came to be and the line of those pop-researchers who promulgate it—adding more and more of what I term neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales along the way.We come to the main point when noah notes, “these peculiar unions in Genesis 6:4 which seems to be cited as a primary cause for the Flood…It was this unnatural procreation and the resulting abnormal creatures that were designated as a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.”Thus, noah notes that Nephilim were, “a primary cause for the Flood…a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood.”The AI notes, “God decided to send a great flood to cleanse the earth…”Missler notes, “the unique events leading to the Flood…fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human.”Yet, noah (and Missler and Skiba and Smith, et al.) go on to claim, “The strange offspring also continued after the flood.”So, Nephilim were, “a primary cause for the Flood…a principal reason for the judgment of the Flood…God decided to send a great flood to cleanse the earth…the unique events leading to the Flood…fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human” and yet, “The strange offspring also continued after the flood.”Clearly, to claim post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them but could not get the job done, the flood was much of a waste, He missed a loophole whereby they survived or just came right back (and now one needs to literally invent a story about how they survived or came back).But noah argues his point by following directly with this (partial) quotation of Gen 6:4(a), “There were Nephilim in the earth in those days, and also after that…” This begs the question: after when? Since he did not include the rest of the thought, the rest of the verse, then it is quite simple to merely imply an answer of, “the flood.”Yet, the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later (v. 17). And, actually, he began the article by quoting the entire verse, “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.”Thus, the verse is telling us exactly to what days it is referring, “those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them” which as per v. 1 was, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” since that was when, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives…”Thus, “those days” were when they first did so and, “after that” means just that: thereafter. They began doing so as per the v. 1 timeline and continued doing so and yet, that is all pre-flood. Lest God failed, the flood brought it all to a full and final end.Yet, noah further argues, “the presence of the subsequent ‘giants’ in the land of Canaan.” Yet, by writing in such a manner he is making it difficult for his audience—and making it easy to plot out an all-encompassing theory and yet, one based on vagaries.Since he has referred to Nephilim, and Rephaim, et al., including unusual height as, “giants” then we need to narrow him down to that he, at this point, is referring to Nephilim.So, he got post-flood Nephilim from a segmented misreading, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misapplication of Gen 6:4 and further claims, “It’s in Genesis 6:4 when the Bible says the Sons of God came and had children with the Daughters of Men and they became Giant…The Sons of God are angels (fallen angels), the daughters of men are human women, they produced children and as you can imagine the hybrid beings were huge….giants!…The Bible calls them Giants or Nephilim” [the ellipses at, “huge….giants!” was in the original].It is tricky to dissect that Genesis 6:4 says Nephilim, “became Giant” so we will go about it in three ways:If he is claiming that it states that they became unusually tall well, there is no indication of that—especially not in Gen 6:4 since, again, the word he is reading in English as “Giants” is merely rendering, “Nephilim”, and Nephilim did not need to become Nephilim since they were Nephilim by ontological definition: one does not need to become what one is already.He is reading into the Hebrew and is actually misreading it since he is clearly appealing to, “the same became” portion of the verse which states that they became, “gibborim” meaning, “mighty.” Thus, the verse does not say they became whatever word noah thinks is the source of what he writes as, “Giants” but it is a mere descriptive term for “might.”One could, I suppose, claim that the LXX’s Gen 6:4 has it that Nephilim, “became Giant” since it would read as that they became, “gigantes.” But, again, “gigantes” implies nothing about height and the oddity in the LXX is actually doing what I just touched upon: due to its odd multi-usage of gigantes, it has it that the Gigantes became gigantes.Note that noah asserts that Nephilim were, “huge….giants!” but, again (and again) that, “The Bible calls them Giants or Nephilim” is just mashing together a vague modern word, the usage of which we have elucidated, along with a specific ancient Hebrew word. And incidentally, concluding that they were unusually tall based on the word, “giants” is a word-concept fallacy.Lastly, what of, “God telling the people of Israel to go into neighboring cities and wipe them all out!…God instruct Israel to kill all the other groups of people…God’s instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land…God orders Israel to kill everyone in one of these giant tribes”?Recall that noah’s answer was, “Because their genetics had become corrupted from Genesis 6:4…that’s in your Bible folks…a ‘gene pool problem’ from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al.”Yet, by now we can see that his answer is invalid and for various reasons. Thus, “how do you explain that?…How do you explain that?” I do not explain it: God did so.He told us various times why He commanded such things and never once said a single word about Nephilim (nor relation to them).It pertained to unethical practices for which He oft gave those cultures centuries of which to repent—I cover this in detail in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?: A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.So, noah seems to seek to defend God against charges of being unethical but anyone who has a handle on the data will see that he is mistaken and so his attempts to defend will only make matters worse. ________________________________________________ Addendum: I thought to note some of the comments posted to the article which shows that it is quite easy to tell an exciting tall-tale which those unconversant with the facts will cheer on—again, at the price of implying that God failed (faulty Nephilology effects theology proper). Keith James commented, “Noah, In my view , the best article you have ever published Bravo.” mtice commented, “…I think you nailed it on the Nephilim.” JCluvsTrump commented, “And so, to sum up, this proves that Joe Biden is a direct descendant of Lucifer.”Given the context of the website, it is difficult to discern whether that is a sarcastic joke or is deadly serious. Robert Trump commented, “…In my opinion the nephlim are still here along with the greys and reptilians.” zonablue commented, “Actually makes sense.” Sami Rath commented, “Well researched discussion, Noah. Of course, as you said, ALL of this information is (clearly) explicated in the scriptures. Good presentation of this. I think you should get it published in book format.” ThePast commented, “Have you ever watched a 30 minute for some information and at the end is a 20 second segment with what you needed? Ever watch an entire movie base on a 15 second piece of information? It’s amazing how scholar wanna be’s can take one verse and turn into a 60 page scenario or a full movie? One verse from Genesis has provided new interpretations for every noun written. The Nephilim now have a lengthy history base on speculation and personal beliefs. The real answer can be found in any reputable bible dictionary.” Interesting, point. Let us note that all interpretations are not created equal. As for, “bible dictionary” well, as you saw, I wrote the book: I literally wrote the book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010. 2ndOrion commented, “The word ‘Nephilim’ Was left out of the King James Version of the Bible. What version of the Bible is that word in?” Not that it matters but the answer is: ASV, AMP, CSB, CJB, ERV, EHV, ESV, EXB, GW, HCSB, ICB, ISV, LSB, LEB, MEV, NOG, NABRE, NASB, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NLT, NRSVA, OJB, RSV, TLV, and WEB. Opinionated & FED-UP commented, “Hmm, you’re right. In the search, they say these verses are “related” to NEPHILIM – but the word NEPHILIM itself has been redacted.” Well, “redacted” seems like a hyperbolic manner whereby to refer to: just followed the LXX. For some odd reason, this person then just posted a lot of verse citations such as Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33, Genesis 6:1-22, Genesis 6:1-4, Jude 1:6, Genesis 6:1-8, Numbers 13:30-33, Genesis 6:1-7, Numbers 13:31-33, Jude 1:6-7, 2 Peter 2:4, 2 Samuel 21:20, etc., etc., etc., which left me confused about what the point was supposed to be. 2ndOrion commented, “Oh, Google says it is in the Hebrew Bible.” herbloke commented, “Gargle? Almost everything they show us biased.”That is a socio-political statement which is a styled goalpost moving fallacy. 2ndOrion commented, “…Regards to those Giants. Did they make their own Ark to get through the Flood? Nothing is said of any of them getting on the Ark. Did the Original People of Australia also make their own Ark? They seem to have their own separate history.”Well, if anyone besides Noah made their own Ark and survived the flood then God failed and also, that would contradict the Bible five times: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5. mtice commented, “‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—whenever the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, who bore them children.’ This happened before the flood, and also after it. There is a spiritual war going on. Isn’t it interesting that after the flood, giants appeared in the land of Canaan, exactly where God promised Abram where they would settle. If they hadn’t wiped out the giants and all the corrupt DNA, there would not have been a pure bloodline for the coming Christ.” We well know that all of that is mistaken, and a rewrite would be, “If” God, “hadn’t wiped out the” Nephilim, “and all the corrupt DNA” via the flood, “there would not have been a pure bloodline for the coming Christ.” herbloke commented, “Wasn’t there stories of ships dumping large bones in the early 1900s?” Well, “stories”? Who knows but what does it matter since, “large” is as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as “giants” (or “tall,” “big,” “huge,” etc.) and since, again, we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then we cannot correlate “large bones” to them.    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. 

During an interview titled, “Pastor Carl Gallups discusses his book Masquerade: Prepare for the Greatest Con Job in History” with my buddy William Ramsey, Gallups stated the following:

In a Synagogue there in Capernaum, He [Jesus] goes down to the seaside to teach that evening, and He tells seven parables about the kingdom.

And the first four are all explicit warnings that in the last days, all through church history, see, the church hadn’t even been born yet, but Jesus was telling these parables as prophecy.

He even explains it to His disciples as prophecy, and he’s telling them: in the last days Satan is going to overwhelm the church, he is going to implant himself in it, he’s going to implant his doctrine, he’s even going to have human puppet, people that are in places of high authority that will work to bring the kingdom of the church work down.

That’s what those parables are about and I show the readers that not only in my connection of scriptures but, again, all of these scholars that have seen it for ages.

But today’s church just doesn’t preach it, brother, it doesn’t fit the American church style, the western church style of, you know, everything’s lovely, you know, prosperity, corporate America style churches, um, you know, that’s, and so I’m trying to help the church wake up and see what is really happening.

I have appreciated a lot of Gallups discussions about cultural issues and such. Sadly, I also featured him in my book Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. III: Considering the Claims of Various Promulgators of this Theory because he went 99% in the direction of promulgating that utterly unbiblical theory.

I reached out to Gallups via his website, quoted that statement, and noted/asked:

I can only imagine that it was a misstatement since Jesus not only never said nor implies any such thing but actually taught the exact opposite, “…upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18), et al.

Can someone ask and confirm whether it was just a misstatement or not?

Someone replied as follows:

Even though I did not hear the interview, I can assure you Pastor Carl is very aware that the true church will never be defeated by Satan and his entourage of demons.

If you follow Pastor Carl, you might also understand, from his teaching and writing, that many buildings with a church sign out front are far from the church Jesus referred to as He made this promise to Peter.  There is the true church of Jesus Christ and there is the institution.

Thank you for asking for clarification.

I replied thusly, in turn:

I’m glad to hear that and appreciate the elucidation.

To hear what he said, go to the video and scroll to 15:26 into the interview.

I can only pray that the person actually discussed it with Gallups since if it was a simple misstatement, it was a significant one and he should be made aware of it.

Thus, there’s nothing in the entire Bible about that Jesus saying that “Satan is going to overwhelm the church” ever nor “implant himself in it” but, if anything, will manipulate events so as to oppose the church in establishing a one world religion, etc.

Thus, “today’s church” is the same church as has always been the church—the “true church” as the replying put it.

Yet, the American “church” style, the western “church” style, some “buildings with a church sign” that are not “the church Jesus referred to” are a different issue.

Now, part of the issue was a misuse of the word “church” (which is actually very common) and a seemingly Ameri(Western)-centric view of the “church” such as “American church style, the western church style.”

The church, proper, is the body of Christ and so it has been, is, and will be active, loyal, pure, etc.

In any case, here’s the interview and you can scroll to the time noted above for the statement.

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 .

UPDATE: by now I have published my book, Did the Nephilim Look Like Clowns?: A Review of Paul Stobbs’ Theory

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This sounds hilariously stupid

—Paul Stobbs

I am leading with that quote from the concocter of the theory that Nephilim looked like clowns and/or clowns look like Nephilim, because that something may subjectively appear hilarious and stupid to us that does not necessarily mean it is not true. Many true ideas seem outlandish at when first proposed and are considered stupid and are laughed out of polite society, shall we say?

Such is what Paul Stobbs stated on the Go Fund Me page wherein he seeks donations for publishing a book. Therein, he notes:

I’m also the guy who started a very bizarre theory taking the conspiracy world by storm right now…

What we know to be a “clown” with all its colourful and wacky characteristics is a caricature emulation of sinister beings from the ancient past. These are the infamous giants and genetic abominations of the antediluvian age, the Nephilim. Along with all the chimaera hybrids these beings created during their reign, we now call the spirits of these long-dead monsters, Demons.

In their disembodied form, they look like Jesters…

Now I know what you’re thinking…This sounds hilariously stupid. I would think the same thing too if I wasn’t the one having to write the book. But I think if you give me a chance, I can convince you that this theory is terrifyingly true…

I have compared the aesthetics of folk traditions throughout the many cultures…I also explore the spiritual as we read first-hand accounts of people who have traversed the spiritual realm through the use of powerful psychoactive compounds. Through trip reports, we read of disturbing encounters…

Before reviewing these statements, we should be careful about considering the source, which is Stobbs, since from where someone is coming in terms of how they end up making the claims they make is important but we must be careful to not turn their background into an ad hominem nor genetic fallacy.

I am somewhat uniquely qualified to review Stobbs’ claims in the I have familiarized myself with over two millennia’s worth of relevant data when it comes to Nephilim (data with which I wrote my dozen, or so, Nephilology books), have done some conspiracy sleuthing, and have researched the history of clowns (specifically for my book A Worldview Review of Stephen King’s “It”: The Mystical, Mysterious, and Metaphysical in the Novel, Miniseries, and Movies).

Stobbs’ YouTube channel is called Understanding Conspiracy and he has noted, “I kind of realized everything is pointing towards that being the ultimate truth and why we even have a conspiracy…I’ve been in this conspiracy realm for a few years and I’ve been flirting with the idea of just taking that dive because you learn about conspiracy theories.” Conspiracy theorists, more like conspiracy researchers, tend to end up concocting conspiracies of their own and conspiracy could refer to something actual or a mere theory—and theories could be accurate or not be so.

Couple conspiracy sleuthing with the following, as told by Stobbs himself:

I was very much into the whole using psychedelics to explore consciousness type of thing…coming out of the new age psychedelic realm, I had taken a lot of heavy psychedelics, DMT, Salvia, LSD, mushroom, all of that stuff…psychedelics…I’d done a lot of psychedelics…I had to burn every single receptor in my brain out through endless uses of psychedelics and things like MDMA and cocaine and alcohol. I was frazzled. I was done…smoking cannabis…a cannabis addiction…psychedelic addictions, the uppers, all that type of thing…

What, it seems we must ask, happens when you combine a human chemistry set with conspiracy theories?

Well, he does note, “I had left that psychedelic life behind and after I gave myself forward Christ” and I certainly believe in the healing power of Jesus. Yet, there are no records of anyone being 100% healed this side of heaven in terms of physical ailments, emotional ailments, cognitive ailments, etc., etc., etc.

One issue is that Paul Stobbs has put that world behind him yet, he uses it as a styled hermeneutic whereby to elucidate his experiences and theory:

…entity people encounter when they take psychedelics…

I kept getting attacked with nightmares, visions, vivid dreams and psychedelic nightmare is dreams and sleep paralysis, things like that…

I was in my living room…and suddenly I was paralyzed…and the room started to spin in that very DMT-ish psychedelic mandala effect type of way which I was familiar with. And then darkness started seeping from the corners of all my vision. And it felt like I was dying…

I felt like my, my, my soul or spirit was being torn from my body and I was in the process of just dying. My brain was shutting down…

I had a dream or a nightmare where I was encountered by this strange Hatman entity. And that man is a is a figure seen by thousands of people with many testimonies all over the Earth…scaring people, especially during sleep paralysis.

And I had this vivid dream where he, after being offered tea by some dead relatives of mine and drinking the tea…in the dream, this vision of another time, another dream I had where I was in some kind of weird hellish landscape festival type place…this Hatman figure coming towards me and he is psychedelic to look at he had multiple and ribbons just flying off behind in like Morris dances in England or the Maypole dancers, you know, a very pagan-ish looking ribbon-ish, garb and dress.

But with this top this purple top hat and this purple thing, and he had a cane as well, very much like a ringmaster of a circus that it was very much like that in a way. And he was coming at me and I ran for my life in the dream. He caught up with me and I was adamant I was about to die again…

I had, you know, these psychedelic attacks, I would call them…
Every culture…have this tradition of, I dress like something to be purposely possessed by it. And they gain things from this, you know, the tribe, usually the shaman is the one that’s supposed to lead this would be the one that gets possessed, you know, the ancient shaman cultures, and they can do this and make it easier by taking things like extreme psychedelics and drugs to make the process easier, you know, but the aim is they get possessed by it…

David Bowie, who had his alter Ziggy Stardust, which was a white-skinned psychedelic colored fractal pattern wearing costume, the red-haired monster…
Charles Dibdin was the Freemason, along with his son Thomas Dibdin, who owned these theatres. So he was a Freemason. He was well into the entertainment industry…basically like an Illuminati music industry mogul of the time…theatre…he was orchestrating…And he did a costume change, which basically turned the boring, servant-white outfit of a clown into a multicolored psychedelic, fractal, [what sounded like] folk-trician looking thing…

Nephilim may have had similar features…the multicolored clothing of clown, where’s the psychedelic fractal pattern, polka dot clothing…

If you look at a snake or lizards, they are so colorful and psychedelic…chameleons…are the most psychedelic creatures next to birds…Nephilim would have had…multicolored fractal psychedelic looking monster thing… psychedelic creatures… (emphasis added for emphasis).

No, I am not drawing a correlation to Stobbs’ current state of mind but will quote G.K. Chesterton’s statement about, “A madman” which is that such a person, “is not someone who has lost his reason but someone who has lost everything but his reason.” The correlation I propose is not that Stobbs is a madman but that a typical pitfall in conspiracy theorizing is to latch onto one idea and plug that rubric into all things—even when one has to force-fit it.

For example, he can now consult any culture around the world wherein a certain character or shaman, witch, etc., wears a hat, can water it all down, and can assert, “Hatman…seen by thousands of people with many testimonies all over the Earth.” And, of course, since ringmasters sometimes wear hats then that somehow has something to do with Nephilim since circuses feature clowns. Sometimes, a hat is just a hat. Likewise, “psychedelics…psychedelic…psychedelic…psychedelic…psychedelic…psychedelics…psychedelic…psychedelic…psychedelic…psychedelic… psychedelic… psychedelic” must pertain to Nephilim.

Now, as for, “a very bizarre theory taking the conspiracy world by storm right now” well, I am not aware of that but there are those bottom of the barrel circles wherein it has become the stuff of copy and paste.

The Nuclear Medicine Men show had Paul Stobbs on as a guest on an episode titled Freemasonic Nephilim Clowns, the info section for which notes, “Have you ever wondered if the ‘Heroes of old’ or ‘Men of renown’ were clowns? I hadn’t either, but after coming across the work of todays guest Paul Stobbs, I’m pretty convinced. From ancient accounts of ‘clowns’ to the modern day equivalent, created by the infamous Freemasons.”[1]

Then you also get those who have plummeted through the bottom of the incoherence barrel and post things such as by a Facebook/Meta page named Clay Lee is with Mary Weeks-Jimenez based on Stobbs’ claims:

C LOW N

OWL (moloch)

C OW (moloch)

OW N

CLONE (the E is the W laid on its side)[2]

Now, since Paul Stobbs refers to, “characteristics” of Nephilim, he must clearly elucidate whence he gets a physical description of them since without such, he would have nothing to say on the matter.

Also, note that his reference to, “giants” begs these key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

As for, “Nephilim…we now call the spirits of these long-dead monsters, Demons. In their disembodied form, they look like Jesters” well, there are at least two major issues:

1) That dead Nephilim are demons, by any other name (such as unclean spirits) is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah: for a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?[3]

2) That a disembodied entity can have a, “form” and therefore, “look like” something is an incoherent category error since being disembodied implies no form nor look, by definition.

Now, the quotes about his background in heavy drug usage came from Paul Stobbs’ interview with a certain Amy who is the hostess of the Eyes on the Right podcast and it is therefrom that I will provide the following quotations, the episode is titled Demonic Clowns and the Spiritual Realm.[4]

On the podcast page, Amy is described thusly, “a Christian Counselor and Coach…an educator, counselor, and Bible teacher, who has extensive research on the Illuminati, secret societies, pagan religions, Hollywood, symbolism, and truths that are purposely hidden…time spent with survivors and mind control de-programmers.”

I have provided as much background as I could in order to make the following critique fair from the get-go since I did not merely state, “This sounds hilariously stupid” and left it at that.

Stobbs notes, “this kind of goes back to around the 2016 clown sightings. This was the pivotal moment for me, which kind of led me to begin going down this train of thought…I just noticed that the clown was suddenly everywhere. With the 2016 clown sightings around October…” I will chime in to say that sure, around Halloween time people were dressing up like clowns and were putting out all sort of actually ridiculously produced videos of panning a camera at a clow who would stare at them menacingly and might even chase them.

But for Paul Stobbs, this was the unveiling a major and true conspiracy—and I know that conspiracy theorists will be thrilled when I employ terminology such as that this was the revelation of the method, the externalization of the hierarchy:

And I was very much, want to look at symbols and signs. I like to decode symbols and find symbols and meanings in things they were trying to put out towards as immediate, let’s say. And I noticed, I just noticed that the clown was suddenly everywhere. With the 2016 clown sightings around October, I think it was a similar time of year now, to be honest.

And the media was pointing the camera at all these clowns everywhere, which were scaring people, just kind of looking mesmerizingly in their outfits, standing on street corners with balloons, you know, some of them have claimed to have had knives and were attacking people.
And the media just made such a hype over it. It’s like, I couldn’t help but just feel if the media is pointing the camera at them, then I think they want us to see this for some reason…

very much coming out of the new age psychedelic realm, I had taken a lot of heavy psychedelics, DMT, Salvia, LSD, mushroom, all of that stuff…

the media make such a big deal about the clown…The media just doesn’t point the camera at stuff.

Now, let us get right down the specific claims about Nephilim and clowns—note that the he also references jesters, “the archetype of the jester is there to make you not take life so seriously and to go against the narrative of the norms in society…The jester was just seen as a projected symbol of the collective conscious…these are like projections of a collective humanity of something. These are actually real conscious separate entities from us with an agenda.”

He references, “all the biblical research, the research into the origins of demons with the Nephilim and the disembodied spirits and all this type of stuff” and that, “after I quits all the, this is after I had left that psychedelic life behind and after I gave myself forward Christ…This is when I started to get heavily attacked” demonically speaking.

He then relates this key experience:

I kind of piece it all together, but it all kind of amalgamated in one final random vision I had around the 2015 period. And again, I was kind of just in bed. I wasn’t quite asleep, but I was kind of in that torpor going to sleep stage and then suddenly out of nowhere. And this wasn’t like a dream. It wasn’t like a flash. I was in the DMT realm, which I was very familiar with…

I was looking up at this enormous giant that was kind of melded into the realm in some weird mecha-biomechanical way. It was very bizarre to look at and it had a black and white, striped skin.

And it had the face of a pointed viper like jester clown thing with a huge wide purple smile and these big glowing golden purplish weird looking eyes. And its head was shaped like a jester’s hat.

It’s not that it was wearing jester’s clothing or wearing a hat. It was physically shaped like that. Its skull was shaped that way.
And I’m looking up at this thing and it’s enormous. It must be 60 to 80, 100 feet tall…And it’s so large that I can see vehicles flying around it that look like they were manned by an individual like a helicopter.
Let’s say a one-man helicopter, let’s say, but they were made of gold and kind of wisping around kind of like the UFO phenomena we see with the orbs here. You know, it’s things like this were all over it.

So, there you have a compounding of hallucinogenic DMT realm experience coupled with a vision of a large being with a jester hat-like head (which are very un-clown-like but he will refer to whatever is convenient at any given time) and something to do with helicopters/UFO phenomena orbs.

This led to, “kind of had this, the compulsion to just piece things together” so he hit the interwebs and, “basically just typed in, ‘clowns, Nephilim, DMT,’ I just kind of mashed stuff together” which led him to, “a parody video of conspiracy theorists” which was:

…making fun of us, basically, pretending to be a conspiracy
theorist talking about the Nephilim. And they did it in that very over the top, overdramatic history channel style voice, like the Nephilim of the past. What were they? Were they giants?
So that kind of voice, you know, and he was having these silly images coming up as he was speaking. And he describes the Nephilim and he’s like, you know, the Nephilim have white skin and red hair. And you know, they were cannibalistic in nature. And then he says there’s only one explanation for what these beings were.

They were interdimensional killer clowns from out of space.

To Stobbs, a vision of a large being with a jester-like head—and all that came with—coupled with a mocking parody video that referenced the sci-fi movie Killer Clowns From Out Of Space were the key which revealed itself to him.

That led to, “writing the book on the thing with a 41-episode series, just showing that what we call the clown in the West is a purposely designed symbol, which is a caricatured image of what the Nephilim used to look like in the ancient past. And it was crafted a specific reason that those in the West could dress like the Nephilim in order to be possessed by them with ease publicly without people realizing it.”

Now, my ultimate conclusion is that Paul Stobbs has been ruined by modern Nephilology—which is un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales. This is because he notes, “if you look at all folk traditions around the world, they follow this ancient practice of dressing like the ancestor spirits to be possessed by them” about which he goes on for some time.

If I could recommend anything to Stobbs, I would recommend putting this Nephilim clown/clown Nephilim theory away and focus on cross-cultural practices, in terms of anthropology, pertaining to emulating ancestor spirits/gods/demons, by any other name, since that is a very interesting field of research and he could gain a lot of legitimate notoriety by elucidating such things from a biblical perspective.

Yet, due to his bias, he conducts that research by employing a certain modus operandi. You see, in between all of those experiences, Stobbs, “was looking into things like the works of like Gary Wayne, Rob Skiba, Michael Heiser, all the big names, and they were giving me this information about biblical history that I just had never really considered before about the giants, the Nephilim are the reasons for the flood, for example, in the wars, you know, after the flood in the lands of Canaan, it all kind of made sense of a lot of things very quickly for me.”
Within the realm of Nephilology, names such as Gary Wayne, Rob Skiba, Michael Heiser are a trifecta of giant red flags. To begin with, those three teach/taught (since Skiba and Heiser passed away) post-flood Nephilim but that is not a biblical doctrine.

Wayne and Skiba are/were pop-researchers who made/make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians. Heiser was a credentialed academic scholar but that does not mean that he was infallible and this was an area of weakness in his claims—although, ironically, it is that for which he was most well-known, at least on the popular level.

I have personally learned from those three men but that did not blind me to their shortcomings. I featured Wayne and Skiba in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.and Heiser in my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?–besides having written many articles about them and having debated Wayne.

Note a key feature of most post-flood Nephilology: Nephilim were (at least in part) the reasons for the flood yet, they were also found, “after the flood in the lands of Canaan” thus, God meant to be rid of them via the flood but failed, He must have missed a loophole that Stobbs figured out (although he does not elucidate what that might be), the flood was much of a waste, etc.

It is quite evident that from Heiser, Stobbs picked up the assertion that dead Nephilim are demons/unclean spirits. From Wayne, he clearly picked up fallacious Angelology—as we shall see.

Gary Wayne’s modus operandi is to refer to anything, written by anyone, at any time, in any place, of any genre, for any reason, watering it all down, and giving the impression of formulating a grand narrative—a vast conspiracy.

Stobbs is much like that in terms of that his multi-cultural sleuthing consists of only picking out those bits of data that he can water down and fit his premise. For example, he could have researched multi-cultural views and practices regarding little people. Thereby, he could have concluded that Nephilim were little people and rituals possess people with their spirits, etc.

Yet, due to the fallacious influence of Wayne and Skiba, we get the answer to the second key question which is what is Stobbs’ usage of, “giant” and so we get the answer to the third question: he means something vague about subjectively usual height and that does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage. That is because the answer to the first question is that in such Bibles, “giants” is merely rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” in two texts and, “Repha/im” in 98% of all others—and never even implies any sort of hint to anything to do with height whatsoever.

From all three, he got the un-biblical assertion that even though, “Nephilim are the reasons for the flood” God must have failed, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste since they either somehow survived the flood or somehow returned (depending on who is spinning the tall-tale) to that, “the wars…after the flood” involved Nephilim, even though there is not a single reliable bit of data in favor of that assertion.

Now, Paul Stobbs notes, “my work is an anthropological study going through all these societies and basically finding that what they call their ancestor spirits are the Nephilim or demons.” Some of the data points that he biasedly cherry picks from his multi-cultural research are that the personages involved in rituals, “dressed like them”:

…they like to dress is pale white skin, some kind of red head dress where they had feathers or reeds, they would poke it up, make up on themselves, wild tassels, multicolored frills and masks with big wide grins.
They dressed like clowns to be possessed by the ancestor spirits, which are the creators of their civilization in the ancient past, the Nephilim kings and rulers, which they equate to being their gods, their ancestors…
You start looking into other cultures and stuff and what this represents. So they’re so you’re saying they’re kind of conjuring up these. Nephilim, these spirits, these demons by dressing like this…you dress like something to allow it in is basically the predominant belief for most folk traditional cultures all around the earth…

You go to every single continent, it’s every single country. And you’ll find that every country has a folk tradition. And it’s the oldest traditions, you know, the ancient rooted stuff. And you’ll find that these go back as far as even before the flood in some cases, they are word of mouth orally passed down, never changed traditions, you know, and we’re talking about going back to times which are post an ante-diluvian where there were monsters around, there were giants around, you know, these, these are the oldest.

Besides denoting his modus operandi, we got specifics about, “ancestor spirits…creators of their civilization in the ancient past…Nephilim, these spirits, these demons…monsters…giants” and we can know that due to pre-flood events which came down to us via, “word of mouth orally passed down, never changed traditions.”

I am unsure how he can be certain about, “never changed” and he is appealing to multi-cultural claims and to folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah which tell tales of monsters and giants.

Not surprisingly, he follows directing by nothing, “Gary Wayne laid out on his own book, the Genesis 6 Conspiracy, basically far better than I ever can.” So, we have a case of watering down by Wayne watered down even more by Stobbs’ watering down.

Furthermore, Paul Stobbs specifies:

…these things became the kings and rulers of the land very quickly, just by virtue of being extremely tall and imposing…giant…builders of the ancient systems and cultures, including the megalithic structures, all this type of thing…It’s explained by basically just giants, you know, so these were the king, which basically answered to the fallen angels.

Every culture… have this tradition of, I dress like something to be purposely possessed by it…dress like extremely hairy, sharp tooth, horned wild beasts with clubs and they’re like giants…dress like monsters…

Do you see what I mean by the watering down effect? Now you can claim that anything to do with jesters and clowns and subjectively unusual height and extremely hairy and sharp teeth and horned wild beasts and clubs and monsters are Nephilim related and so can be consumed by the overarching theory. We already saw that David Bowie got roped into this due to, “his alter ego…was a white-skinned psychedelic colored fractal pattern wearing costume, the red-haired monster.”

Now, the way to get Nephilim involvement in megalithic structures is to begin with the argument from silence that they were subjectively unusually tall and then follow that mere assertion with the assertion that such size gave them the ability to handle very large stones, etc. Yet, that is really just a non sequitur that concludes that large things must have been built for and by large people.

Interestingly, after decades of asserting Nephilim were giants (by which he means very, very, very tall) it merely took me asking Gary Wayne one little question for him to admit he does not know how big they were. He stated, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.). And then, he went on to say he will keep asserting they were giants: what sense does it make to refer to the height of someone who’s height you don’t know? For this unfolding, see my debate with Wayne.[5]

…if there’s a smile on my face

It’s only there trying to fool the public…

—The Tears Of A Clown” song by Smokey Robinson and The Miracles

Moreover, Paul Stobbs noted:

…they were on the Earth, making sure that the people either worshipped them, worshipped the pantheon of gods or worshipped the sun or worshipped anything but the creator, basically…

They are accredited by most modern folk traditions as the builders of their civilizations, you know, their ancestor spirits…

That’s just our language, mistranslation, kind of understanding what they really mean. They mean the Nephilim. They mean the ancient spirits, the ancient ones, you know what I mean?

Stobbs then focuses on Freemasonry:

Freemasons who invented the clown…created a costume, which the public would think is just a bit of fun for the kids. But what it really is a copy of a lot of these costumes are found in these folk traditions. And I do believe they’ve kind of amalgamated together from the traveling, you know, the traveling men, the Freemasons, they are the very worldly…
I think around the 1800s, the traveling Freemasons took pieces from all of these folk traditional cultures, their costumes and made a clown out of it. They kind of mashed it all together, you know. And again, pale white skin red hair is the most common description of any modern encounter people have had with them…

…a Freemason lodge is the only one allowed to wear a top hat…all circuses, the original circuses, but run by Freemasons every last one of them…created by Freemason affiliated companies…

…that’s the base for a clown, you know, and they worked from there basically added other features on it as like a stereotypical cartoonish caricature…[Freemasonic] Shriners, they, every Shriner has a clown sect, you know, and they have to be a Shriner…they have, under the mask of charity…doing it for the kids for our children’s hospitals, you know, but it’s kind of are you though, when we understand now that, you know, you venerate the Nephilim work with the Nephilim, you’re basically the physical foot soldiers for the spirit realm…the clown is the perfect costume for that because it is, like I said, a copy of all these other folk tradition of examples of demonic ancestor worship…

Now, when it comes down to it: we have no reliable biblical physical description of Nephilim and so can only guess as to whether any other culture has accurate descriptions or not. Stobbs notes, “Lovelock Cave in America, for example, they, it has these stories of ancient [Native American] tribes, you know, fighting against cannibalistic pace in red hair giants, who they ran into a cave.”

But what is the reason to think that such had anything to do with Nephilim? Exclusively, the rendering into English of that this pertained to, “giants” coupled with the mere assertions that Nephilim were giants. In other words, a faulty premise that is then used to collect anything and everything anyone anywhere has said about giants and forcing it into a grand narrative. There is no indication Nephilim were cannibals nor white skinned nor red haired.

Stobbs continued thusly:

…just where a clown actually comes from…the first clowns weren’t like we know them today. They were more to just performers within traveling troops, theater groups. They were there to bring a bit of levity to a pretty bleak existence…street performers…they were kind of mimics…would mine people…lavish colorful, weird looking back flipping buffoons…court jesters…the very first proto clown character called Harley Quinn…traveling artists…stock characters…improvised performances…you find in the French tradition going into the North to Teutonic traditions, they have…a tall, hairy beast man with a club who had a band of roaming demons…they had this myth of this, this tall demonic, Nephilim creature with demons following him everywhere…

Harley Quinn was kind of based on the wild man…Hermes…had wings on his feet type of thing…this staff with snakes going up it and he had this magic wand…So, Harley Quinn…is literally a representation of ancient Greek gods mixed with demonic giants. That’s literally what Harley Quinn is…dressed in a black mask covered in fur with ugly nose and big wide wild eyes like the wild man…He was that demonic character…a demon through and through. Harley Quinn is a representation of a Nephilim…

…where the British clown, kind of in the 1800s, there was a performer called Joseph Grimaldi, and he was just insane…he just brought clowns to life…Charles Dibdin was the Freemason, along with his son Thomas Dibdin…did a costume change, which basically turned the boring, servant-white outfit of a clown into a multicoloured psychedelic, fractal, [what sounded like] folk-trician looking thing. He made a switch then. And Joseph Grimaldi…want[ed] to create the multicoloured face patterns…one Freemason just comes along, finds an idol who’s worshipped by the public and makes him dress like a demon…
So, a basis of a clown is white skin red hair. The most common descriptor of every Nephilim everywhere outside and within biblical theology.

Now, we have come to a very specific data point that is very, very easy to prove: Paul Stobbs merely needs to provide quotations and citations, “within biblical theology” (whatever he may mean by that: such as in the Bible itself or within commentaries thereupon or theology—not proper, of course, by Nephilologists perhaps) wherein, “white skin red hair” are, “The most common descriptor of every Nephilim” anywhere, actually.

Now, at this point I will note that due to his theory, Stobbs is either the greatest biblical scholar and multi-cultural anthropologist in history or he is mistaken. Again, he could turn himself into quite the multi-cultural anthropologist (as long as he divests himself of his biases) but as we have seen and will see all the more as we progress, he is mistaken.

As for, “white skin red hair. The most common descriptor of every Nephilim everywhere…within biblical theology”: I am unaware of any such statement by anyone in all of human history prior to the rise of the modern pop-Nephilologists.

As for, “white skin red hair. The most common descriptor of every Nephilim everywhere outside…biblical theology”: I can only imagine that he is referring to the following—and surely, some combination of these:

1) Some elongated skulls found in Peru feature remnants of red hair.

What elongated skulls have to do with Nephilim is the stuff of which un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales are made since, again, we have no known reliable physical description of Nephilim.

For example, LA Marzulli is one of the pop-Nephilologists who claims that Nephilim were giants and claims that he has some of their skulls (the Peruvian ones) yet, he can only ever show us regular sized skulls.

2) Some oral traditions form Native Americans that were put into writing centuries and even millennia after they were first told tell of interacting with white skinned, red-haired giants.

What white skin, red hair, and subjectively unusual height have to do with Nephilim is the stuff of which un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales are made since, again, we have no known reliable physical description of Nephilim.

It is more likely that Native American are relating cultural memories of interacting with Vikings.

3) Any reference to any subjectively unusually tall character with pale skin and red hair from anywhere on Earth and in history is watered down and pooled together into an identification of Nephilim.

We now get to the most specific statements from Paul Stobbs regarding why he think that Nephilim=clowns and clowns=Nephilim—most specific, beyond visions and watered down correlations. He notes that white skin, red hair, and subjectively unusual height are, “a trait picked up likely from the mixing of fallen Angels with humans” which is something for which there is literally zero indication.

Yet, he argues this point, “It seems to just be a strange side effect of having fiery red hair mixed with a porcelain white glistening, pearlescent style skin.” But, “It seems” to whom and based on what? The answer seems to be that it seems to him and it is because those mere assertions serve as key assertions which serve as premised for his theory.
He notes, “It just seems to be some kind of marker of mating with a fiery serpent, which is what the Seraphim described as flying fiery serpents.” Now we have the subjective, “It just seems” with a solid data point, “Seraphim described as flying fiery serpents.” Now, this is one of the fallacies into which Stobbs fell by relying on Gary Wayne. Thus, they both hold to fallacious Angelology which commits category errors that violate the law of identity.

This is because he spoke of, “mixing of fallen Angels with humans” but now of, “mating with a fiery serpent, which is what the Seraphim described as flying fiery serpents.” Thus, he jumped from Angels to Seraphim but those are two different categories of being evidence by at least three identifying distinctions: 1) they have different job titles, 2) they have different job functions, and 3) they exhibit different anatomical morphologies.

In short, Angels are Angels, Seraphim are Seraphim and no amount of man-made tradition from centuries and millennia after the Tanakh which merely asserts that Seraphim are a kind of Angel will change this—in fact, why not merely assert that Angels are a kind of Seraphim?

But as for, “Seraphim described as flying fiery serpents” it is tragic that he is making such statements on the world wide, mind you, web since anyone can debunk that assertion within seconds. We only have one biblical statement about Seraphim and therein, they are described thusly when Isaiah (chapter 6) noted:

I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne…Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew…Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”

Firstly, are there, “flying…serpents” no, and that some flatten their bodies in order to glide from off of trees does not equate flight any more than flying squirls actually fly. If you think that serpents and squirrels who do that actually fly then please ask a bird who migrates for thousand of miles about what it means to fly.

Thus, do serpents have wings (especially six of them) as Seraphim do? No.

Do serpents have faces as Seraphim do? Yes.

Do serpents have feet as Seraphim do? No.

Do serpents have hands as Seraphim do? No.

Do serpents speak as Seraphim do? No—and if you are thinking about the serpent in the Garden of Eden well, that was about the Cherub, Satan and Cherubim are yet another category of being distinct from Angels and Seraphim for the same three key points.

Thus, the only correlation between serpents and Seraphim is that both have faces and that is not enough upon which to declare, “Seraphim described as flying fiery serpents.” Yet, it is worse than all of this because this, again, is based on Wayne’s tall-tales and actually, based on a very, very basic linguistics error.

Wayne reads Numbers 21, which states, “Then the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died” and tells us that, “serpents” is translating the Hebrew seraph which is the root of Seraphim. Yet, he is looking at the wrong word, and it is as simple as that, this is what the text actually states, “Then the Lord sent fiery [seraph] serpents [nachash] among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died.”

The fiery part is seraph, not the serpent part. Also, just as with imaging subjectively unusual height based on reading the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word giants, likewise imagining serpentine based on serpent is a word-concept fallacy since, as in any language, a word can be used in more than one way.

Thus, even if Seraphim are called, “serpents” the actual description of them will not allow us to merely assert that they had serpent-like features.

As to why the term used of them correlates to fiery, I have a whole section about that in my book What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology. Some hints are that the only text about them has them interacting with the heavenly fiery altar—I termed them keepers of the eternal flame, for flair.

…Don’t you love the farce

My fault, I fear

I thought that you’d want what I want

Sorry my dear

But where are the clowns

Send in the clowns

Don’t bother they’re here…

—“Send In the Clowns” song by Stephen Sondheim

Paul Stobbs went on to say, “So, I think that’s where the red hair mixes into it. But that’s the base of a clown white skin red hair…A clown, for example, would have a wide exaggerated red smile. Okay, that’s a copy of the serpentine features of the Nephilim who also would have had wider than normal mouths, which could open like a snake, like a serpent.”

Well, we know that is a non-issue since his premises and conclusion are faulty. Yet, note how one can continue building upon fallacy, “Snakes can dislocate their jaws, for example, to eat their prey. And that big wide grin is a serpent trait. It’s humans mixed with snake, you end up with wide elongated, exaggerated features like a wide mouth.”

He adds, “And the Nephilim skulls that were found in the 1800s were said to have double rolls of teeth. They had longer than average wide smiles. Because of this, it’s a serpent trait that they had picked up. So that’s why the clown often is depicted with a wide painted on smile.” He is referring to excavations at Lovelock Cave but is merely layering an assertion that it was Nephilim skulls atop it. And is it, “were said” or is recorded in verifiable excavation reports?

Moreover, “the crosses on the eyes or the line going down, the eye is a common trait you’ll find. And that represents a reptilian slit of an eye pupil. That’s a reptilian trait, again, just mixed into the clown makeup as a metaphor, as a symbol, as a concept. If it’s not the reptilian slit, you’ll find that they paint an incredibly high brow ridge all the way up the forehead to two upside down use just above the eyes, you know, they make it look really round and large.” This too is just made up stuff piled atop falsities.

Some whereabouts, he also came up with that, “they color it in blue. Now if you do that and then close your eyes, it looks like you have giant glowing blue eyes. Again, another net for them traits. They were the glowing ones” which is something else for which there is no indication. This, incidentally, is what happens when modern Nephilologists are exclusively invited onto platforms wherein they have an platform via which to make any claims they want in a completely unchallenged manner and are interviewed by hosts who are not even equipped enough, data-wise, to even know what probing questions to ask.

He continued, “They were said to have larger than normal bulbous glowing eyes” about which a probing question would have been, “‘were said’ by whom?” Yet, he continues by building a bottomless pit of assertions thusly, “clown makeup is just a mimic of that again mixed with the big wide serpentine grin…a lot of clowns were skull caps, which elongate the skull, make it look longer than usual, make it like they have a cone head or a pin head or the skulls that are found in these mounds have elongated features”: mounds which he merely asserts contained Nephilim skulls.

I realize that this is very repetitive—repetitively erroneous—but it is important to note how he pushes a narrative until some people who are unfamiliar with the data conclude, “I’m pretty convinced.” He notes, “they did have stretched out long features like a snake and like a serpent. That’s just a consequence of mixing humans with snakes, you know, and the exaggerated size of the forehead in clown makeup with the hair on the sides is to mimic this trait once again, a net of them traits.” So, he jumped from Angels to Seraphim and now straight to, “humans with snakes.”

But he then moves from serpents/snakes to any reptilian that will served the purpose of his grand narrative, “clowns wear rough around the neck ruffles. It’s a really common thing that circular Victorian style ruffle…what it actually is a reptilian frill. It’s a trait, once again, of lizards…I think the reptilian creatures of the Nephilim may have had similar features. And it’s just another, a wink, wink, nod, nod to reptile features.”

Furthermore, Paul Stobbs claims, “the multicolored clothing of clown, where’s the psychedelic fractal pattern, polka dot clothing. That’s just serpent skin. That’s the pattern that’s serpent would have. If you look at a snake or lizards, they are so colorful and psychedelic…chameleons can change color consistently.”

But that is not all as he notes that chameleons, “are the most psychedelic creatures next to birds, which again, they may have had bird-like features too, the Nephilim. They are the product of feathered fiery serpents. What is an Angel, but a creature with wings like a bird, some would say, you know, it’s a, I think the Nephilim would have had avian like reptilian like features kind of all mashed together in this weird feathery serpent like multicolored fractal psychedelic looking monster thing.”

Key questions are who are the, “some” who, “would say” that, why, and based on what? Also, it is not accurate that Angels have winds—Seraphim and Cherubim do, but not Angels: Angels are always described as looking like human males.

Meanwhile, Amy is just taking it in, “My mouth is like, oh my gosh, it’s just dropped open” since she is not equipped to discern whether what he is saying is modern day folklore of his own making or in any way verifiably accurate.

To her, “I’m like, piecing all these things together” and asks, “But what about the red nose?”
Paul Stobbs noted, “I used to just think it was maybe a reference to the cannibalistic nature, the blood drinking nature of these things” even though we have no indication that they were cannibals.

He noted, “I looked into it and if we know the Nephilim had really, really pale skin on the face, they might have had multicolored skin everywhere else, but the white face is a really common factor with the odd pattern on there, maybe.” Key question: looked where?

But, he came up with this assertion:

…the white skinned facial features seems to be, and I looked into it and there’s this thing called the curse of the Celts…Northern really pale Northern European people suffer from this the most, which is why it’s called the curse of the Celts, but it’s basically extreme rosacea.
It’s the point where you really white skin, but you get red blotches everywhere, kind of like red polka dots if you think about it. All over your skin and on your cheeks and on your nose and on your forehead and on your face, and it’s just really horribly red. It gets blistery, it gets that bad.
And it can come with other problems like having high iron in the blood and developing something called [what sounded like] hemopro [it is called hemochromatosis] if you don’t process it properly.
But it kind of comes with this curse of the Celts thing. But one other major side effect of extreme rosacea, which only incredibly pale people get is that your nose can start to grow and become incredibly bulbous and full of pus and bright red, like a clown nose. And it’s called a rhino fiber…

I discovered that.

Now, once you have certain utterly manufactured assertions in place, you can, as we have already seen, then pull anything that is even remotely related into the narrative’s black hole, for example (this quotes combined both Amy and Stobbs speaking):

…celebrities, like kind of Hollywood entertainment, they have something that a lot of celebrities participate in and it’s called the Red Nose Day. And it’s all for children…I always thought there was something weird about that…like the Shriners, you’ve got the Red Nose.

You’ve got also think about like Pennywise, right [Stephen King’s a.k.a. It character]? It was all about stealing the children.
And another tie in that I thought was really interesting was John Wayne Gacy. Have you heard of him, the serial killer, the killer clown?…there’s a lot of killers in the world who have dressed like clowns…

…within the last month or so, Doja Cat came out with these pictures and she was making the clown face. Like she had all the clowns, she pulled her, you know, kind of like the Joker from Batman, right? Where she pulls her mouth out and she looks like a clown…

Do you see how simple it is to latch onto a hermeneutic and turn it into a worldview? This reminds me of another modern Nephilologists, LA Marzulli, who decided that the Bigfoot and UFO phenomena pertain to his ministry’s focus: Nephilology. See, if you based your ministry on Nephilology then you will not have the sort of output that staying alive online demands. But now, he can consume all things Bigfoot and UFO by merely slapping the (click-bait) term Nephilim on it all and have plenty more tall-tales to weave.

Paul Stobbs has done this with Angelology, and Seraphology (though he thinks both are one-in-the-same), demonology, clownology, jesterology, multi-cultural anthropology, zoology, celebrity culture, etc., etc., etc.—it’s all under the big top, hurry, hurry, step right up, there’s an assertion born every minute!

Lastly, I will note that Amy and Stobbs made various references to coulrophobia, which is just subjective, and turn that into a styled primitive instinct as to why the theory must be correct, we are afraid of clowns because they represent Nephilim, “terrified of clowns, had no idea why I just terrified. Like I never had an experience where, you know, someone dressed up as a clown and scared me…a clown…they’re terrifying…as terrifying as clowns and demons are.”

Yet, clowns are frightening to some and at some years of age, due to being other. They are also world beloved for being exciting, lovable, funny, creative, etc.

Now that the average North American looks like a carnival sideshow freak it is hard to realize this but unusual looking people always draw attention. Clowns dress unlike the normal average person, they have painted faces, tend to display very bright colors of hair, makeup and costumes, and do unexpected things. That is as attention getting as it is bizarre and thus, frightening to some due to the nature of our general expectation of normalcy rather than some sort of unconscious recognition of that they are displaying features that have literally not one single thing to do with Nephilim.

Modern pop-Nephilology is a literal clown show and modern pop-Nephilologists (and some scholarly ones) come across as clowns and are to be taken just as seriously as clowns not due to that, “This sounds hilariously stupid” but because their assertions can be demonstrated to be the fallacious stuff of which tall-tales are made.

______________________________________________________

After writing and even after posting this, I realized that I had a very, very short exchange with Paul (since he only replied once) in the comments section of his video The NEPHILIM Looked Like CLOWNS – 1 – 2016 Clown Sightings

I noted:

You made a key point but it seems to have been unconscious: You refer to “that clowns as we know them today and I’ve always known them to look or in fact copies of the Nephilim” which is literally impossible since we’ve no reliable physical description of them, and then refer to “the Nephilim that we talked conspiratorial [it appears that a YT glitch messed up the end part]

Paul as “UnderstandingConspiracy” aka “@uconspiracy” replied:

There are native tribes in North America who have described fighting pale skin red haired giants. However as the series progresses you will see that the theory moulds into a more indepth comparison of clowns to demons (the spirits of dead nephilim) and the psychedelic visual aesthetics of disembodied spirits experienced and described for millenia

I noted:

Well, I don’t consider what native tribes in North America assert as being literal and infallible truth.

It seems to me that they are expressing cultural memories of interacting with Vikings.

But since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then we can’t correlate them to “pale skin” nor “red haired” nor “giants” (if you imply the strictly modern usage of that term).

That demons are spirits of dead Nephilim is folklore from MILLENNIA after the Torah was written.

And that was the end of the stalled discussion.

See my various books here.

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

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

---

[1] “Freemasonic Nephilim Clowns,” NuclearMedicineMen: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2210061/13695064-15-paul-stobbs-freemasonic-nephilim-clowns?t=0

[2] Post by the Facebook/Meta page named Clay Lee is with Mary Weeks-Jimenez: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid02ZuwofPEWXgkxr7dDsWcb8gCcPbY1vakD2SDFtrFr5GLQEeEzk8RpbMvDwhc3tD8pl&id=100079941476229&__cft__[0]=AZWQReMLSN8SbgGxT5jmZRLLds_D1aa2B9d34Oa4j-StwjC_bZy5PV0uFhGFZCSMU-mHP0CEzul3O6TGndrx6R95a54lsZYyyZvWqoruDplqUXKfH_0SyJxtIPVsT5sxuoqcVCAtgni7wmgK3sQM2u04&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

[3] Ken Ammi, “Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?,” Midwest Christian Outreach: https://midwestoutreach.org/2019/10/03/demons-ex-machina-what-are-demons

[4] “Demonic Clowns and the Spiritual Realm,” Eyes on the Right: https://podbay.fm/p/eyes-on-the-right-podcast/e/1698653640

[5] “Gary Wayne & Ken Ammi debate Nephilim & Giants,” Ken Ammi YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9anYMrOJg4

In his video, Gary Wayne on The Serpent Seed | Part 1: Gen. 4 | The Christian Contrarian Ep. 33, Wayne note upfront:

I’m somewhat agnostic as to whether or not Cain is the offspring of Adam and Eve or, as many assert, the offspring…of Satan and Eve.

But I lean heavily to the literal application as the offspring of Adam and Eve and I leave a small door open, it’s not really a big deal to me which way it actually is because I think things kind of work out.

But I actually think that the serpent seed is probably fulfilled—that’s in Genesis 3:15, by the way—with the giants and the Seraphim Angels, who are the Watchers, who produce the serpent offspring that look just like the Seraphim fiery serpent Angels.

That fulfill, that fits better, for me, in terms of my approach to the Bible.

There’s a lot to unpack already.

I’m unsure how someone could only be “somewhat agnostic” and “lean heavily” since Gen 4:1 is crystal clear, “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.’” In his video The Serpent Seed: Part 2 | Gen. 3 and the Tree | The Christian Contrarian Ep. 34, he states, “I’m not necessarily against the concept of Cain being the offspring of Satan and Eve.”

Having written a five book series contra the serpent see theory—see Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan—I know that such straightforward statements, with nothing to contradict them, are not enough for people who desperately want to support a theory which has been historically virtually unknown.

I note this because, for example, the Angel view of the Gen 6 affair was the original, traditional and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christians alike—see my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?—but the serpent seed theory is such a minority view, among anyone, that it hardly deserves a mention (I only wrote so much on it due to how the internet seems to make non-issues into, for some, a shibboleth: a litmus test.

Now, since Wayne suffers from Gigorexia Nervosa, he somehow ties something about which he’s “somewhat agnostic” into what he terms “giants.”

Now, for Cain to be Satan’s son we need a way for Satan to impregnate Eve—and, BTW, by serpent seed theorists logic (or, illogic—and ill-theo-logic) Adam also had sex with Satan since they symbolize eating the fruit of the forbidden tree as having sex and well, Adam also ate of it.

Wayne makes, at least, three errors at this point: he has the Gen 6 affair as involving “Seraphim Angels, who are the Watchers…fiery serpent Angels.” In the video The Serpent Seed: Part 2, he refers to, “Seraphim Angels which were serpent-faced Angels who are the Watchers in Genesis 6 and who produced giants Nephilim that looked just like them” which is a 99% inaccurate statement.

In fact, the one and only biblical text about Seraphim is Isa 6 which has it that “Each had six wings: with two he covered his face” so I’m unsure how Gary Wayne knows what their faces look like. Also, Angels don’t have wings but Seraphim (and Cherubim) do. Besides, we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim whatsoever and especially not their faces so I’m also unsure how Wayne knows what they looked like—well, I do: he waters down terminology, correlates the biblical concept of Nephilim to hybrid creatures referenced by Pagan cultures, and then actually incorporates Pagan teachings into what is supposed to be his biblical theology.

For some strange and un-elucidated reason, in his Nachash and Satan | Serpent Seed Part 3 | The Christian Contrarian Ep. 35 video, Gary Wayne argues that “Seraphim were recorded in Isaiah 6, six winged angels and that would give him a serpent type of form with the serpent face as seraph is defined”: I’ve no idea how having six wings equates having “a serpent type of form.”

In his video WHAT Did CAIN Do?! Gary Wayne: The Way of Cain: Serpent Seed Pt. 4 | Christian Contrarian Ep. 37, he actually stated, “in Isaiah 6, that’s where you get the Seraphim angels which are six winged fiery serpent-faced Angels” but that ranges from erroneous to confused.

Watchers is just a hip and trendy manner whereby to refer to Angles which came about during the Second Temple Era: millennia after the Torah was written.

There’s no such thing as “Seraphim Angels: that’s just a category error, it’s a mashing together of two different categories of being. Seraphim are Seraphim and Angels are Angels: they have different job titles, different job functions, and look different from one another—see my books What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology and What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology.

Moreover, there’s no such thing as “fiery serpent Angels” and Seraphim are also not serpentine.

Besides, Satan is neither a Seraph nor an Angel nor serpentine: he’s a Cherub (Eze 28:14)—yet another category of being with a different job title, function, and look than Seraphim or Angels.

In the Nachash and Satan video, he noted, “we also learned in Ezekiel 28:13 that this anointed Cherub was in Eden, not necessarily in his Seraphic form but he was in Eden: maybe he was in his Seraphic form we don’t know, but he’s both Cherubim high priest and he’s also Seraphim.” This is just an incoherent series of category errors since he’s asserting that a Seraph has a serpentine form but can only change into a Cherub—or visa versa.

He followed directly with that this, “all makes sense as you as we look at Isaiah 6, and Satan would have had many titles.” Yet, that implies he’s committing a word-concept fallacy and also: he’s never called an Angel and never called a Seraph.

I realize that some will demand that Satan is serpentine due to what they read in English as the “serpent” in the garden yet, I deal with that in my book What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology, the issue with which, in part, is that Rev 12:9 and 20:2 refer to, “the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan.” Thus, he’s symbolically called various things.

Yet, in his video The Serpent Seed: Part 2, Wayne stated, “Revelation 12 describes Satan as a serpent and a dragon which is the Seraphim Angel” which makes his claim even more incoherent.

In his video Nachash and Satan, he states, “Satan is a serpent, as described in Revelation 12” with which there are a lot of problem since he was speaking too generically.

The Gen 6 affair pertained to Angels who look just like human males. Seraphim and Cherubim don’t look just like human males and so, apparently, couldn’t mate with humans even if they wanted to.

BTW: we’re only about one minute into Gary Wayne’s video—which, sadly, speaks volumes about his approach to the Bible.

Incidentally, he goes on to note that he wants to “help other people, hopefully, to have an approach where you can test not only what I say, what I believe, but what others say” and so, that’s what we’re doing herein.

He notes that he uses, “a literal approach as opposed to the allegorical approach which is a Gnostic way of approaching scripture: that everything is an allegory and there’s hidden meanings.”

I really do hate to have to say this but the exact opposite seems to be the case on many issues, such as Nephilim and “giants”—which he and I debated—referring to serpentine Seraphim Angels, etc.

Most ironically, he stated, “I also like to take the Hebrew meanings and take the English back to Hebrew” since he admitted that he doesn’t know how big Nephilim and Og were but will still insist on calling them giants—even though in Gen 6 giants is merely rendering (not even translating) Nephilim which implies nothing about height whatsoever—just as Og is referred to as a Repha, which some also render (don’t translate) as giant even though that also implies nothing about height whatsoever—see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010, since I can hear what some of you are thinking.

Gary Wayne goes on to state:

We are going to move into Genesis 4 and to look at one of the arguments that people will use to talk about Cain in a way that suggests that he’s not part of the lineage of Seth, that there are two separate lineages which suggests that Cain is the offspring of Satan and Eve as they like to conclude…they will say that that makes sense because of Targum, commentaries, and the Targum was created while Judah, the Southern Kingdom, was in exile in Babylon…

Specifically, that’s when Targumim began to be created and they continued to be created until circa the 600s AD. Also, Targumim actually range from being translations to being paraphrases—some lose enough to, perhaps, he called commentaries but that’s a stretch: it’s just that some, such as Pseudo-Jonathan (from the late 600s AD) contain so much Rabbinic folklore that it can’t be referred to as a strict translation in any sense of the word.

Now, Wayne having referred to Targum, singular, will cause problems since we know not to which one he’s referring. Thus, when he says, “using the Targum” and especially, “this Targum” and “that Targum” which “clearly says…” then his audience will have a hard time tracking down the one to which he’s referring.

In any case, he notes that the one he’s reading has it that, “Cain was the offspring of Satan and Eve” which, by definition, means that such was an assertion from millennia after the Torah was written—regardless of to which one he’s referring.

I will cut to the chase and note that serpent seed theorists will argue that Cain isn’t Adam’s son since he is not mentioned in Gen 5’s “book of the generations of Adam.” There are, at least, two simple issues here:

1. Genealogies, particularly biblical ones, aren’t necessarily forensic lists of every single person in a genealogy. Rather, they tend to focus on a desired end: meaning that they include the relevant people that lead to relevant people—such as Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in this case.

2. If one argues that Cain’s not Adam’s son because he’s not in Gen 5 then, guess what, Abel also wasn’t Adam’s son since he’s also not listed therein. Now, one may argue that Abel’s not therein because he, himself, didn’t have children. Yet, that’s the point, is it not, he’s not listed for a reason, and there’s no indication that reason is that he’s not Adam’s son. Likewise, Cain absconded from Adam and Eve and began his own lineage plus, again, that didn’t serve the purposes of tracing from Adam and Eve to Noah, et al.

Wayne focuses on the terminology in Gen 4 and since I did that in my books I’ll leave the interested reader to those. In short, Gary Wayne notes, “In Genesis 4…Cain is the offspring of Adam and Eve and there’s no mention about Satan anywhere in there.”

 

 

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.