January 2024 – Page 3 – TrueFreeThinker

The Original Trinitarian Metaethical Theory for Objective Morality

Under consideration is the question: what is the best premise upon which to build well, what to term it is that with which we shall begin.

This article follows the outline of my opening statement from when I debated an Atheist in 2010.

Two key technical definitions:

Morals/morality refers to the mores which merely describes whatever it just so happens that people are doing. Thus, morality is subjective, tentative, situational, intrinsic, relative, etc.

Ethics refers to the ethos which prescribe that which people should/ought to do. Thus, ethics are objective, absolute, universal, extrinsic, etc.

Now, this is not just about semantics since some term what I defined as ethics/ethos as absolute or universal or objective morality. What this is about is discerning the distinctions between morals vs. ethics: even if you call them 1 vs. 2 or A vs. B or any other terminology.

An example of the distinction is the recent downing of statues. Why was a statue of person X erected in the first place? Because person X was viewed as heroic by a certain segment of the populace. Why was the statue downed? Because person X was viewed as villainous by a certain segment of the populace.

This denotes disagreement on the level of morality.

Yet, do you discern the ethical agreement which manifests even in the face of moral disagreement?

Both sides agree that heroism is to be praised but villainy is to be condemned.

The disagreement is on who is heroic and who is villainous.

Thus, a technical consideration of moral and ethical issues deals with ontology (the origins of such), epistemology (our discernment of such), and imperatives (the issue of prescribed actions). My reference to premise above denotes dealing with ontology hereinafter.

Human history denotes disagreement on the moral level but agreement on the ethical level.

In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates proposes a dilemma that calls into question the premise of theistic ethics (paraphrasing it in common parlance):

1. Is something good because God proclaims it?

2. Or, does God proclaim it because it is good?

The points of the dilemma are:

1. Is something good merely because God proclaims it? In which case, goodness is arbitrary and God could interchange good and evil at a whim.

2. Is there something separate from God to which God adheres; does God have to act according to an ethical standard which is outside of Himself? In which case, God is not all sufficient and obeys a higher standard.

Let us survey our options and see which concept best provides an ethos.

Nature:

All claims to naturally evolving ethics can be logically disregarded since—as commonsensical or true as they may be—while there may be actions which help to ensure survival, since nature is not an ethical agent there is no natural ethical imperative.

We could feed the poor or eat them.

Also, note that if survival is the goal, it is one based on personal preference or rather, an inward drive actually based on an accident of evolution since the desire to drive is as accidental as life itself and the universe itself—and there is no imperatives to adhere to accidents.

Semantic Morality:

Ethics can be immediately grounded in human dictates but not ultimately. Humans can make epistemic statements about morality but not provide an ontological premise since—as this view presupposes the above under “Nature”—there is no objective, extrinsic ethical imperative. Thus, humans can, without recourse to God, declare certain actions ethical or unethical, even claiming that these are absolutes, but these are ultimately ungrounded assertions; it is merely semantic, intonated morality.

We concoct useful and survival assisting concepts but these do not amount to ethical imperatives. Also, this ethic is impotent, being established by humans who can only deal out justice if the evildoer is caught—its justice is restricted. On this view, ethics are based on majority rule; the fittest as it were. Justice in Nazi Germany differed from the Allied Forces’.

An aside: let us grant that the above (“Nature” and “Semantic Morality”) are valid and let us call these, for the sake of economy of words, “the naturalistic view.” Let us now pose the Aeuthyphro Dilemma:

1. Is something good because a naturalist proclaims it to be good?

2. Or, does a naturalist proclaim something to be good because it is good?

Does a naturalist determine what is good? In that case, what was unethical yesterday, is ethical today and may again be unethical tomorrow and thus, this is arbitrary and robs us of the ability to condemn anything since the moment we condemn one action and declare another virtuous they may be shifting like so much quicksand.

What, pray tell, happens when the moral zeitgeist turns into a poltergeist?

Or, are naturalists adhering to something outside themselves? They are, and this implies an ethical imperative which implies an ethical law, which implies an ethical law giver, administrator and adjudicator.

Now, to theologies:

Dualism:

Generally, two coeternal gods (two separate and distinct beings) consisting of a “good” god and an “evil” god. This is truly arbitrary as the subjective goodness of the one is measured against the subjective evil of the other and visa versa. In fact, both can claim to be good and that the other one is evil and there would be no way to determine who is whom.

Strict Monotheism:

Envisaged is one single eternal being, one person, perfectly united, not in the least bit divided. Perhaps such a God lacked companionship/relationship and had to create someone with whom to enjoy that which it lacked.

Being alone in eternity, relationship is not a part of its nature, character or being. Thus, when this god creates beings it does not seek personal relations with them and thus, arbitrarily concocts ethics for them. Such a god is capricious as it is not bound by relationship and since ethics is not intrinsic to its nature, ethical actions by this god are not guaranteed.

Pantheons, Polytheism and Henotheism:

These groups of gods are generally conceived of as having been created by one or two previously existing gods. Whether the many gods are eternal or created by others, they enjoyed relationships with each other. Yet, being distinct beings and persons, they are not famous for conducting ethical relationships with each other but are infamous for quarreling.

In the view of many gods who were created by other gods; the ancient gods somehow established an ethical law which is then external to the subsequent gods and is a law to which these gods are subservient.

Since they could enjoy relationships with other paranormal beings they were not generally interested in relationships with humans. They considered humans to be play things—they manipulate our fates or take human form to fornicate with us but there is little, if anything, in the way of ethical relationships.

Pantheism, Panentheism:

Essentially, this view postulates that god is the creator and creation. Thus, on this view god’s creations are, in reality, extensions of god. Therefore, on pantheism or panentheism ethics amounts to god dictating to god how god should treat god. God is the director, the actor and audience—and the critic.

Trinitarianism:

In the Bible we are dealing with Trinitarian monotheism, a triune being: one God, one being, and yet, three “persons” (a being who exhibits characteristics of personhood) each is God, each is eternal, each is distinct and yet, each is the one God. One coeternal, coexisting, coequal being consisting of three “persons.”

This God is not alone in eternity, is not in relation to separate eternal beings and is in relationship to separate persons. Since each member of the Trinity is eternal, each has enjoyed eternal relationships. This God is not lacking in relationship. God enjoys a relationship that is both unified in purpose and diverse amongst the persons.

Resolving the Euthyphro Dilemma:

Ethics are based upon the Triune God’s nature. God’s nature is relational and benevolent, eternal and free from conflict. God enjoys relationships and encourages His creation to enjoy likewise relationships. Life consists of enjoying relationships with humans grounded upon the enjoyment of an eternal relationship with God.

The relationship among the Godhead is truly dynamic as it is enjoyed by three persons and also conflict free since God is one.

Thus, the Triune God neither adhere to external, nor constructs arbitrary, ethics since they are an aspect of His very nature and has been such eternally.

This is the ultimate ontology of the ethos.

Epistemologically, the ethos is inwardly discerned as it is administered by our consciousness (when properly functioning) as well as being revealed in God’s Word, the Bible.

In terms of imperatives, reality is not an accident, truth is not accidental, truth personified in the person of Jesus and so we are called to adhere to the ethos—and forgiveness is offered through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection for when we fail.

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 Learn Religions site on Giants in the Bible: Who Were the Nephilim?

The Learn Religions site posted an article by Mary Fairchild that is titled, Giants in the Bible: Who Were the Nephilim? and subtitled, “Who Were the Nephilim Giants of the Bible? Bible scholars debate the true origin of Nephilim” (December 08, 2019 AD).

The article begins with, “Nephilim may have been giants in the Bible, or they may have been something much more sinister” and quotes from the New Living Translation which has it that, “In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times. The comment and quote beg the key questions:

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

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

Do those usages agree?

We’re told, “the word Nephilites or Nephilim, which some Bible scholars translate as ‘giants.’ Others, however, believe it is related to the Hebrew word ‘naphal,’ meaning ‘to fall.’”

Note that, “In those days, and for some time after” is taken to mean, “Giants in the Bible Before and After the Flood” since, “In Genesis 6:4, the mention comes before The Flood. Another mention of Nephilim occurs in Numbers 13:32-33, after the Flood” but, in typical fashion, no crucial distinction is made between a “mention” vs. actually being alive, on the ground at the time—if I now mention that I just saw former POTUS George Washington that does not mean that I did just see him.

For some reason, Mary Fairchild first quoted the NLT but then the NIV to the effect that, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

Yet, she is more faithful to the text’s actual statements that may in noting that, “Moses sent 12 spies…Only Joshua and Caleb believed Israel could conquer the land. The other ten spies did not trust in God to give the Israelites victory” and it was the ten unreliable guys who presented the evil report that is merely quoted in Num 13:32-33, guys whom God rebuked.

She notes, “These men the spies saw could have been giants, but they could not have been part human and part demonic beings. All those would have died in the Flood. Besides, the cowardly spies gave a distorted report. They may have used the word Nephilim simply to arouse fear.” Which, besides the questionable word giants, is on point—yet, the only reason to think that any of them were giants is the unreliable guys themselves.

Yet, we begin to get a better idea of what she mean by it since she continued thusly, “Giants certainly existed in Canaan after the Flood. The descendants of Anak (Anakim, Anakites)…a giant from Gath…Goliath…nine-foot-tall…Nowhere in that account does it imply Goliath was semi-divine.”

Now, the only physical description we get of Anakim (a clan of the Rephaim tribe) is that they were “tall” (Deut 2) which is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants.

In this case, it’s subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. Also, the height Mary Fairchild gave us for Goliath is myopic: she’s appealing to the Masoretic Text but the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.

At this point, there’s an insert in the article that states, “Nimrod, who tried to build the Tower of Babel, is portrayed as a giant” but all we are told about whence came those assertions is a painting from “Artist Gustave Doré (circa 1890)” and there is no indication that Nimrod was a giant nor that he had anything to do with that Tower.

She then turns to, “sons of God” whom, she says, “is interpreted by some scholars to mean fallen angels or demons; however, there is no concrete evidence in the text to support that view” and yet, that was the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators alike starting in BC days—see 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.

Since as per Job 38:7, as a direct example, that term can refer to non-human beings then that’s applicable to Angels.

The immediate context (“in the text”) clearly distinguishes between sons of God and daughters of men and the greater context allows for understanding that Angels are being referenced. Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined place the one-time sin of Angels to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin.

Mary Fairchild went on to say, “it seems far-fetched that God would have created angels to make it possible for them to mate with human beings, producing a hybrid species. Jesus Christ made this revealing remark about angels: ‘For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.’ (Matthew 22:30, NIV) Christ’s statement implies that angels (including fallen angels) do not procreate at all.”

What, “seems far-fetched” to her is subjective and she missed Jesus’ very specifically qualified statement.

It is as far-fetched as that God would put a forbidden tree in the garden. And Jesus was speaking of, “angels of God in heaven”: the loyal ones, which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” as Jude put it.

Thus, it was not a blanket statement about, “angels (including fallen angels) do not procreate at all.”

She decided to assert that a late-comer view is, “A more likely theory” which is that sons of God were Sethites and daughters of men were, “from the wicked line of Cain.” Yet, that idea is based on myths about, for example as she had it, some supposed entire, “wicked line” and some supposed entire holy line.

A throw away other idea is, “kings and royalty…rulers (‘sons of God’) took any beautiful women they wanted” but why that (or the Sethite view for that matter) would server as a premise for the flood is left unstated.

Mary Fairchild then goes back to discussing, “Tall men were extremely rare in ancient times” yet, she’s still to establish why subjectively unusual height is any sort of issue to even discuss.

She tells us, “The word ‘giant’ is not used in the Bible, but the Rephaim or Rephaites…Emites…were all reputed to be exceptionally tall” but, of course, “exceptionally tall” is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as just tall and giants.

She refers to, “giants like Goliath” and goes on to discuss, “gigantism or acromegaly” which, “leads to excessive growth” which, “may account for entire tribes or groups of people in biblical times reaching extraordinary height” even though the most extraordinary height we got was just shy of 7 ft.—or, 9 ft. as per her myopia.

And well, she left it like that so, I rate her article as maybe 40% accurate.

See my various books here.

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.

Atheist David Smalley Won’t sleep in the Bed He Made and Runs Away

Firstly, I still think that the concept of that “I want to be a comedian that only tells inside joke” is pure comedy gold!!!

David Smalley asked some preliminary questions such as “What is a messianic Jew?” and “Why do you think most Jews do not accept that?” and “What is it about the story of Jesus that is believable to you…?”

At one point, I noted, “you’re making that difficult for me to answer because all your hidden assumptions are just jumping out all over me…”

He assured me that we would get to that but first, “What is it about the story just on your own as you were raised Jewish what is it about the story or what was it about the story of Jesus that that seemed believable to you…?”

After some elucidation by me, he noted, “…my question to you was what is it about Jesus that is believable” and he took it that my reply was what he put as that (partially paraphrasing me), “You responded with, ‘I didn’t know any Christians and then I met Christians’ and then you started telling me about people who believed…‘people that I really respected who also believed this thing’…people that you liked or admired also believed in Jesus.”

At this point he asked whether that “was that perhaps a catalyst for you to start believing that maybe it’s possible that this guy really rose from the dead even though you know physically we don’t believe that to be possible well not really and partly because.” Thus, he asked me about whether meeting such people (plural) was a catalyst.

I spoke about that it was not people (plural) but one person (singular) and what that had to do with my journey. Now, David Smalley chimed in with, “Kenny, I want to try, I want to try one more time, like really directly man, like really directly here, help me out here, and this is, I want to have a direct conversation with you and people don’t want to hear these side off stories about all these other things that like they tune in for a very specific conversation what is it about this particular Jew who died and then came back to life and then literally floated to heaven that that made you say ‘Yeah, that sounds reasonable.’”

I replied, “I’ll just remind you that’s where we started but then you asked me about the people so that’s why I talked about them” (playing off of his plural them).

What ended up happening is that the more we spoke the more he was actually arguing with me and so I turned my focus to that he had no premise upon which to argue with me and he became increasingly emotive, increasingly incoherent, and eventually just ran away when he abruptly ended the interview.

At one point I noted, “What you appear to be doing is holding me to standards of logic and that you haven’t established yet. They’re just assertions at this point, hidden assumptions.”

Now, I was a guest on his show and noted more than once that he did not seem to like it when I was taking him outside of his comfort zone, beyond his safe-space, since I was attempting to get him to deal with issues unlike in the manner in which he has clearly become accustomed.

In short, his modus operandi, which he made quite clear, is that he was in charge, he had the big microphone, he was louder, thus, I had to jump through his hoops—and I played along a bit and interrupted whenever I could about his mere jumps to asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions.

For example, I noted, “you said, ‘In reality, that doesn’t hold’ so then your hidden assumption is that adhering to reality is some sort of universal imperative and I’m curious as to why you think that.”

He rhetorically asked, “Are you now advocating for us not adhering to reality? Is that where we are in this conversation?”

I noted, “I’m asking you why you are asking me to adhere to reality as some sort of universal imperative.”

His reply was typically Atheistic, “I can’t even believe you’re saying that you’re, you’re asking me to defend, hold on, you’re asking me to defend why I think adhering to reality is the intellectually honest thing to do? Have I reached that point in my career well I’m now having to defend basic reality.”

That’s a diversionary tactic but I would imagine it came about from the fact that he’s never considered the implications of his worldview at such a fundamental, meta, level. Humanity has long pondered reality, the greatest philosophers who ever lived pondered it yet, it seems to be beneath David Smalley.

Now, another interesting thing is that I kept asking him whether on his worldview thus and such was the case. He would reply by taking offense that I was telling him what his worldview was rather than asking him. I would have to remind him that I had actually asked a question (in most cases, form what I recall).

Conversely, he kept simply assuming I held to divine command theory without asking me but I actually reject that theory.

Now, the last segment of the show is hidden behind pay/donation walls on David Smalley’s Patron site thus, I will just get to the bottom line of why he ended up running away when he abruptly ended the discussion.

He became increasingly emotive, increasingly incoherent, and was clearly incapable of handling having his worldview exposed for the fundamental level failure which it is.

He noted, “I saw that you gave a talk, I didn’t see the talk, I want to know what you mean that, and your post actually said ‘the Bible should be part of education—hear that Atheists?’ so I want to find out what that is.”

So, he merely read the title of a video that I posted and admitted, “I didn’t see the talk.”

I read part of what I stated in the video which ended with, “an Atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible and other sacred books out of our education.”

Well, of course, he took umbrage at the very thought of the Bible—yes, the Bible!!!—being part of education (meaning in public schools). I noted that the statement had been about literature and so of course the Bible can be taught in public schools as literature. He asked if that also went for other religious texts and I had to remind him that I had just finished affirming, “the Bible and other sacred books.”

He was concerned that some teacher who believes in the Bible may attempt to go beyond teaching it as mere literature, etc. I told him that the same actually holds for any subject: what about, for example, a teacher who is supposed to be teaching science but ends up teaching Atheist evolution as the worldview-philosophy which it is (or, American history with a Leftist bias, etc.).

I ended up noting that public schools basically teach the Atheist Catechism since all subjects are taught without regard to God: God had nothing to do with history, nor science, nor anything.

Well, David Smalley took affront at the very concept of me using the term Atheist Catechism and noted that he is sick and tired of Christians “pretending to be nice” but then making such statements.

I noted that he was playing mind-reader since he cannot know my thought or motivations so he actually cannot know (lest I reveal it to him) that I was just “pretending” to be nice—I actually was being nice.

So as to not belabor the point, I noted to him that the whole statement I had made within the video was not my own but that I had actually been quoting Richard Dawkins. Indeed, Atheist high-priest Richard Dawkins wrote, “an Atheistic world-view provides no justification for cutting the Bible and other sacred books out of our education.”

Having had no idea of what I/Dawkins had stated in my video, David Smalley instantly asserted that Dawkins does not believe that. Well, I was just quoting Dawkins and Smalley seemed to be engaged in some form of denialism as a psychological Band-Aid—or, something.

He then decided to proclaim that I took Dawkins out of context. Now, unless he has memorized the book The God Delusion (and I had not even told him whence I was quoting Dawkins so unless he has memorized everything Dawkins has ever said/written) then I am not confident that David Smalley could, within mere seconds, go from having no clue that I was actually just quoting Dawkins to instantly knowing that I took him out of context—another form of denialism as a psychological Band-Aid, perhaps.

I had to explain to him that something is not out of context just because he declares, asserts, it to be so. Rather, something is out of context when the original context is considered and shown to not match the context in which it was placed.

So, yeah, by this point he was clearly emotive and incoherent. What brought it to an end is that he literally absconded into fantasy world. No kidding, he began literally fantasizing about how he just knows that when the interview is posted, people (imaginary people) would be in disbelief at my statements and even Christians (more imaginary people) would comment that they are embarrassed of me—on and on he went.

Do you discern the fascinating psychology going on here? He was utterly incapable of dealing with reality (which is accidental, on his worldview) and so engaged in what fiction authors term world-building. He was fantasizing about how everyone would agree with him and would put me down. He did not have to keep attempting to argue since in his imaginary realm, he was victorious.

I had to burst his fantasy bubble and point out that he was, yet again, playing mind-reader since he was just imagining what people would say in the future and well, that moment of clarity was much too much for him to handle so it was over as he ended the interview abruptly and retreated into his fantasy-land.

Another psychologically fascinating move was that he then ran off to Twitter to appeal to his yes-men-fan-boys when he tweeted, “I’m done respecting your stupid beliefs. We are not the same. If you worship a God who condones slavery, you are not moral. This is not just a difference of opinion. One of us lives in reality, and the other is delusional & immoral. I’m tired of pretending you’re normal. Grow up.”

Thus, he was vague enough to not alert his audience to what, to whom, he was referring and just gave them enough to make it easy for them to agree with him on principle—the lesson, of course, being, “I’m done respecting your stupid beliefs.”

Now, if you listen to our discussion, you will see that he is actually ignoring the fact that on his worldview, he cannot condemn slavery, nor not being moral, nor not adhering to reality, nor being delusional and immoral, etc.

See how it works? He cannot defend his worldview so constructed an imaginary realm in which he does not have to. He has implemented the only successful tactic of the New Atheist movement: replace engaging in reasoned discourse with being a childish jerk.

One last point that touches heavily upon the utter failure of his appeal to his Twitter audience.

At one point he went full blown elephant hurling (making so many statements that I could not possibly address them all) and noted, “If you look back throughout the bible, Ken, you’ll see that there were multiple times where people were just slaughtered…kill the nursing infants…”

I noted, “Do you see what I mean about Atheists only ever being consistently inconsistent? You just finished explaining to me that human morality evolved to the point that now we’re concerned with human flourishing. But now you’re artificially going back in time and using today’s morality to condemn the past. You can’t do that, on your worldview. All you can say is, ‘Oh gosh, you know, it’s too bad from our perspective today with this, the zeitgeist and everything, we can, you know, say that wasn’t very nice.’ But we can’t apply that back in time, that’s artificial.”

You got it, right? He (pseudo) condemned killing nursing infants way, way, way back before killing nursing infants was actually immoral.

Now, David Smalley retweeted a statement made to him by a certain John (@Johnmika76) stating, “If we could take a poll of babies in the womb I wonder what it would say?”

Smalley replied, “You just ran right into the point. Fetuses do not think, decide, retain memory, experience struggles, regrets, or have goals. They are a parasite on the female body and it’s her choice to allow it to continue. Why? Because she DOES experience all the things it doesn’t.”

I replied, “You moved the goalpost: was it on purpose or accidentally?”

He did not reply in turn. John referred to “babies” but Smalley decided to move the goalpost (not that there is anything wrong with that, on Atheism) to “Fetuses.”

John’s point was clearly speculative and spoke to the utter cowardice of abortionists who brutally violently serial murder millions of beautiful, healthy, innocent, and defenseless human babies (and “baby” is what a loving expectant mother calls her baby even when she first finds out she is pregnant: even if the baby is only a few days old, is only a couple of cells).

Smalley’s reply was his typical modus operandi: he merely asserted that it is perfectly acceptable to brutally violently serial murder millions of fetuses due to his merely asserted pseudo standard that they, “do not think, decide, retain memory, experience struggles, regrets, or have goals.”

He, who is a former fetus himself, actually dehumanized “babies” by referring to them by a Latinized medical term “Fetuses” and “parasite.”

FYI: the term fetus covers eighth week after fertilization until birth—during which time they most certainly experience struggles, think, retain memory, maybe even decide, etc.

Now, the point here is tricky since we are dealing with nursing infants vs. fetuses but it goes to show that he has no problem with brutally violently serial murdering millions of fetuses (for money) but once they are one second older than a fetus, when they are nursing infants (with infancy beginning at birth), then it is wrong to brutally violently serial murder millions of them (for money), which denotes the utterly arbitrary nature of his assertions.

Thus, he only pseudo condemns killing nursing infants but approves of murdering babies who are even one single minute younger than an infant—the ol‘ magical birth canal which somehow transforms a parasite into a baby.

Thus, the whole interview was mostly about me just exposing David Smalley’s failed worldview and he becoming increasingly incapable of dealing with it.

See my various books here.

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.

See Rob Skiba’s BIBLICAL answer — to Nephilim Giants

Uncharacteristically, I didn’t jot down the name of the vid under which the following discussion ensued but I did jot the URL yet, “This video isn’t available anymore” so, there’s that.

In any case, a certain R B commented

See Rob Skiba’s BIBLICAL answer

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Skiba’s un-BIBLICAL answer implies that God failed since He wanted to be rid of them, sent the flood, but missed the genetic loophole.

R B

Not at all. What is written in the Bible cannot and is not un biblical, And it Clearly shows genetic lineage which would be watered down over time and was then eradicated by the Israelites.

We have no disagreement not sure what you were talking about

Ken Ammi

Of course, “Skiba’s un-BIBLICAL answer implies that God failed since He wanted to be rid of them, sent the flood, but missed the genetic loophole.” That Nephilim “genetic lineage…would be watered down over time” isn’t biblical and neither is that it “was then eradicated by the Israelites.” That’s the sort of stuff that Rob made up or, rather, parroted.

R B

The Bible says what it says, so pay attention – all flesh was corrupted except Noah and his wife/mother of his children and his children. However, Noah’s daughter-in-law’s we’re not his offspring, they would fall under all flesh. God did not fail, and the children of Israel wiped out the rest of the Nephilim after the flood. Heiser teaches the Bible teaches the earth is flat under a dome and not moving, which is correct, and then rejects its teachings. You’re welcome

Ken Ammi

Friend, the Bible does not say “all flesh was corrupted except Noah and his wife/mother of his children and his children.”

Now, you’re inventing a loophole to get Nephilim through the flood—implying that God missed that loophole—based on one single sentence in an evil report stated by unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Thus, there’s no need to invent such theories.

Now, you say “the children of Israel wiped out the rest of the Nephilim after the flood” but there’s no indication of that at all since, again, you’re also basing that on an evil report stated by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

You will ultimately find out that the entire theory of post-flood Nephilim, and all that comes with, is based on that one single sentence.

R B

Yes the Bible does say all flesh was corrupted except Noah and his generations, therefore his wife would not be corrupted if her children were not corrupted. Furthermore, basing something on a single sentence from the Bible not contradicted anywhere else in the Bible is just fine. No invention of anything needed we simply have the word of God which says exactly what I said it says. If you don’t want to believe that, you don’t have to.

Ken Ammi

But see, you’re beginning by actually believing and promulgating an evil report by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked and you are then inventing ways for them to be right.

This isn’t in the least bit “basing something on a single sentence from the Bible not contradicted anywhere else in the Bible” since many, many, many times the patriarchs, Moses, etc., etc., etc. were told about the peoples who lives around the land and in the land and no one who’s reliable—including God Himself—never said one single word about Nephilim, ever.

Even then original, reliable, taken as is, report in Num 13 mentions them even though it lists the people groups that were encountered.

We simply have the word of God which says exactly what I said it says. If you don’t want to believe that, you should.

R B

the Bible does mention the NEPHILIM. So wrong on that. Start there and educate yourself further.

Ken Ammi

Well, since I wrote some nine [circa a dozen by now] books on Nephilology then I’m aware “the Bible does mention the NEPHILIM” but I’m unsure why you wrote that.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming. One of those books features Skiba, 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.

See my various books here.

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 Witness’ Adam Phillips on “Shocking Discoveries: Unearthed Evidence Proves Existence Of Giants In The Bible! You Won’t Believe What Archaeologists Have Found”

Undergoing review is the article by Adam Phillips which is titled Shocking Discoveries: Unearthed Evidence Proves Existence Of Giants In The Bible! You Won’t Believe What Archaeologists Have Found which was posted on his site The Witness.

The first 300 words are just meant to excite the audience yet, some qualifying terms to note from therein are, “giants mentioned in the Bible…larger-than-life figures…giants in the Bible…biblical giants…giants mentioned in the Bible…biblical giants…giants in the Bible…Giants in the Bible…biblical giants…larger-than-life figures…giants…Giants in the Bible…giants in the Bible…larger-than-life figures…”

Now, in eleven usages of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants,” not counting the title, we didn’t get a definition but perhaps just a hint due to the reference to what’s actually an equally vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word which is “larger.”

Thus, the key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

We shall see if we get any replies in the article which is supposed to be about such an issue. And well, we get a reply to the second question straight away as he begins by noting, “In the Bible, giants” and refers to, “Goliath, a giant from the land of the Philistines, was an imposing figure who stood about nine feet tall.” Well, we have a few problems already:

1) The answer to the third question is clearly, “No” since the English Bible’s usage has utterly nothing whatsoever to do with height at all.

2) Biblically contextually, the answer to the first question in this case is that, “Goliath, a giant from the land of the Philistines” really means, “Goliath, a Repha from the land of the Philistines.” “Giants” in English Bibles merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in two texts and “Repha/im” in 98% of all others—and thus, never even hints about anything to do with height whatsoever. See my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.

That Goliath was, “about nine feet tall” is myopic since that’s as per the Masoretic but the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus, which is the preponderance of the earliest data, all have him at four cubits and a span, just shy of 7 ft.—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

He continued directly with that, “Another mention of giants is in the book of Genesis, where it talks about a group of beings called the Nephilim. Some interpret these Nephilim as giants, while others believe they were the offspring of the fallen angels and human women.” Given his mis-usage of the word, “giants” there’s zero indication in Genesis about the height of Nephilim.

Also, since he misuses the term, “giants” then I can only assume that, “Some interpret these Nephilim as,” subjectively unusually tall and that’s true but that’s false: it’s true that, “Some” (somebodies) mis-interpret them as subjectively unusually tall but we’ve no relevant reliable data upon which to actually conclude that they were. It’s also a false dichotomy to say that some think them giants while others think they were offspring of the fallen Angels and human women since both could be the case.

He then focuses of, “evidence for the existence of giants” which is a biblical non-issue since the tallest person recorded in the Bible as 7.5ft (1 Chronicles 11:23: unless you accept the Masoretic for the unique Goliath).

He notes, “megalithic sites in Stonehenge and the ancient city of Petra” but it appears to be a case of the non sequitur that concludes that large things must have been built for and by large people.

Now, since the largest person he’s noted thus far was supposedly, “about nine feet tall” then going on about such sites plus, “other ancient texts from different cultures that mention giants…larger in stature…giants mentioned in the Bible…giants mentioned in the Bible…historical or archaeological evidence to support their existence” is getting far ahead of himself: far ahead of the data. He may have spiked his article at the outset (and along the way) with excitement to be able to write vaguely in terms of data.

In the case of, “historical or archaeological evidence” he mentions, “Goliath: One of the most well-known giants in the Bible is Goliath” so we’re back to a point being made based on one misused English word and a myopic view of his height.

Next up is, “Nephilim…While there isn’t physical evidence of their existence, there are ancient texts like the Book of Enoch that mention them, adding to the intrigue around this topic.” I’m unsure of what use is that they were mentioned in Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.” See my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

Thereafter he mentions, “Giant structures” which are irrelevant to the data he has presented—one single person who may, perhaps, possibly have been, “about nine feet tall.”

He also notes, “Folklore and mythology” and notes, “we don’t have concrete evidence like giant skeletons or artifacts.”

Tragically, he attempts to fill the ginormous hole in his very premise and argumentation by stating, “Christianity, like any faith, is based on belief and trust in the wisdom of God’s Word, which includes the stories of these giants.” So, he read the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants,” he merely imagined what it must mean, he referred to one single guy who may have been, “about nine feet tall,” and now tells you to believe in, “giants” because that’s the word he read in the Bible he’s reading.

He then reviews, “The Story of David and Goliath” which is a mini-sermon and thus, irrelevant to my focus of seeking to ascertain if he’s accurately handling the linguistics and thus, God’s word.

Yet, I will offer some corrections since he wrote, “Goliath, the giant warrior…Goliath, a giant Philistine warrior” which really means, “Goliath, the Rephaim warrior…Goliath, a Repha Philistine warrior.”

Next up is, “The Book of Enoch and the Nephilim” about which he wrote, “According to the Book of Enoch, these Nephilim were giants who roamed the earth before the great flood. They were known for their immense size and strength” and that was it, he then instantly moved on to, “Archaeological findings have uncovered ancient texts that also mention giants.”

Well, “the Book of Enoch” (he doesn’t seem to be aware that there are more then one book of Enoch and one claims that he wrote over 300 books so an accurate citation would be 1 Enoch or Ethiopic Enoch, in this case) has Nephilim having been MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality. See my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

He writes, “there have been discoveries of massive skeletal remains that could be evidence of giants!” but doesn’t bother citing anything nor telling us what massive means not whether they were human/humanoid.

Then, “giant beings…we don’t have concrete scientific proof of these giants” but that’s okay since, “as Christians, we can look at stories like the Nephilim and the giants mentioned in the Bible” even though he merely asserted that Nephilim were subjectively unusually tall, he misused the word giants and only offered Goliath’s taller range—and he has repetitively looped to those points time and again.

Next comes, “giants…Goliath…Ancient Cultures and Legends of Giants…giants as mighty and formidable creatures…giants…having tremendous strength…giants…giants…tall and powerful…giants…giants…giants…giants” and then moves on to, “Scientific Explanations and Skepticism” which is not even worth considering since he’s still and only functioning on a faulty premise. Yet, I will note another tragic appeal to, “faith sometimes rests on matters that transcend logical explanations. The Bible urges us to have faith and trust in God, even in the face of questions and doubts. The stories of giants, like many other stories in the Bible, invite us to explore the mysteries of the world and to deepen our relationship with God” even though he’s literally just weaving un-biblical tall-tales.

His conclusion notes, guess what and whom, “mention of giants in the Bible…giants like Goliath and the Nephilim…Goliath…Nephilim.”

Thus, I can’t help but point out that Adam Phillips posted a 99% data-free puff piece based on a faulty premise which is a theory he constructed on misreading one English word.

See my various books here.

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.

Bill Nye “The Atheist Guy” on “overwhelming evidence” that “proves there is no afterlife”

Sebastian Kettley wrote an article titled Life after death: Bill Nye says ‘overwhelming evidence’ proves there is no afterlife for the UK’s Express site.

Note from the outset that as an Atheist, Bill Nye can only demand, appeal to, and insist that we should base out views on evidence or proof as a subjectively emotive personal preference du jour based on hidden assumptions.

Thus, anything he has to say must be categorized at the “My dear diary, today I feel…” level of him telling us which ice-cream flavor he favors.

In part the article juggles that “most of the world’s religions claim to know the answer” and that “Scientifically, there is very little evidence” and that “some people claim to have caught a glimpse of the afterlife, having gone through so-called near-death experiences (NDEs).”

Bill Nye discussed the issue with, among other things, Transhumanism promulgator Michio Kaku, fellow Atheist activist Michael Shermer, and “former pastor” Rob Bell.

Kettley notes that as per Bill Nye:

…most people imagine life after death involves our spirits taking on an idealised version of ourselves from our past.

However, Mr Nye argued this is highly improbable because most people tend to die at an old age, making it unusual for the spirit to not resemble us at the moment of our death.

And most of the article merely reiterates this point with Kettley and Nye alternately stating, “it would be terrific if he could carry on living in the same physical state he was in when he was 23-years-old…But…the body ages and loses its capabilities…grandmother was ‘brilliant’ but…‘faded away’ with age…grandparents and parents who are not as sharp, certainly not as athletically capable or physically capable as they were when they were younger,” etc.

But as per Bill Nye, “the evidence for why I don’t believe in an afterlife” is, drum roll please, that “watching ourselves die is to me, overwhelming evidence that there is no life after death.”

Note what I noted about subjectivism, “to me” and also touches upon the subjective nature of evidence since that is “overwhelming,” mind you, “evidence” to him.

Also, it is a non-sequitur to jump from that we are “watching ourselves die” to that “there is no life after death.” In fact, the concept of “life after death” follows from that we are “watching ourselves die” since, of course, life after death comes after life, after this Earthly life is over, after we watched ourselves die.

But for him, there “doesn’t seem to be any reason to think that when you die, you go back to your optimum age at your optimum athletic ability in your optimum intellectual sharpness.”

But there is a reason granting biblical theology: God created us in His image, we underwent a fall, this fall caused the entropy that causes us to waste away yet, we can be redeemed.

We are not told at what age Adam and Eve were created but they were made with the instant ability to be cognitive and active: to know and to do.

Jesus gave His life at circa 33 yr. old. Thus, it would seem that there is an optimum age at which we would be resurrected: so that, for example, those who died as babies will not be resurrected as babies, those who died as decrepit elderly would not be resurrected as such, those who burned to death, who lost limbs, etc., etc., etc. will be resurrected to fit the temple of perfection after which they were made.

Bill Nye is quoted as stating, “Evolution, if it were an entity, doesn’t really care about you, man” which is a great point: Atheistic evolution, if it were an entity, only cares about survival in the here and now and, guess what, on Atheistic evolution the instinct to survive is as accidental as life itself.

He is also quoted as saying, “You had your kids, your genes are passed on and you expire.”

And then you wonder why so many Atheist women complain about being sexually harassed at Atheist get-togethers: they’re hanging out with males who actually believe that “You had your kids, your genes are passed on and you expire” and oh, by the way, there are not absolute ethics, no transcendent accountability or judgment, etc.

In short, I had it pegged from the get go and my conclusion was verified by his statements. He asserted myopic pseudo standards which are subjectively enough for him.

See my various books here.

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.

Documentary JEDP Hypothesis/Theory, and Nephilim

Herein is a combo consideration of the effect that the Documentary Hypothesis a.k.a. the JEDP Theory has on Nephilology. I will be considering two examples, one from Jaeyoung Jeon and the other from Deane Galbraith.

Jaeyoung Jeon wrote, “The Scout Narrative (Numbers 13) as a Territorial Claim in the Persian Period,” JBL, 139, no. 2 (2020): 255–274.

Jeon writes in terms of the Documentary Hypothesis a.k.a. the JEDP Theory so that, on his view with that (pseudo) hermeneutic, “The narrative of the scouts in Num 13–14…has three different versions, by priestly, nonpriestly, and Deuteronomistic scribes.” The hypothesis/theory has some merit in that the Torah contains more than the writings of Moses himself, but it has been taken much too far with claims that we can determine that have of a verse belongs in a different strand than the other half.

For example, not the utter specificity of Jeon writing, “the scout narrative in Num 13–14 can be separated into two major strands: the nonpriestly strand (13:17b–20, 22–24, 27, 28, 30, 31; 14:1b, 4, [11–25], 39–45) and the priestly strand (13:1–17a, 21, 25, 26, 32, 33; 14:1a, 2–3, 5–10, 26–38).”

I often ponder if scholars are still appealing to such a hypothesis/theory because they are simply not just reading text for what they state.

For example, Jeon writes:

“In this [nonpriestly] strand, the scouts reach no farther than the Valley of Eshcol and bring fruits collected from there with the report of the fertility of the land as well as the military superiority of the peoples of the land…Moses dispatches twelve scouts…They bring only a negative report that it is a land that swallows its people.”

Yet, this fails to distinguish that which Numbers 13 does distinguish which is that indeed, “Moses dispatches twelve scouts” but it was not the twelve who “bring only a negative report that it is a land that swallows its people” since that was stated with a subsequent “evil report” by ten of them (sans Caleb and Joshua) which followed the original report.

He also has it that “The nonpriestly strand of the scout narrative in Num 13–14…Caleb’s speech to the people abruptly intervenes, without any introduction of the person of Caleb, and breaks the logical sequence of events.” Yet, it seems that what he may mean by “introduction” may be subjective since, in fact, 13:6 specified not only from what he pertained but whose son he was, “from the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh.”

Jeon notes, “Caleb quiets the people (העם את כלב ויהס) in Num 13:30; the people’s rebellious complaints appear only in Num 14:1–4” but this is a pseudo-standard imposition upon the author to the effect that any narrative is to include any and all details.

In Numbers 13 it is enough to say that “Caleb quiets the people” as implying that they—itinerate wilderness tent dwellers—would be facing five “strong” nations populating large fortified cities. Numbers 14 provides their specific complaints.

Lastly, despite the fact that his paper literally dissects verses, I found it odd that he wrote in terms of that “The people of the land in verse 28 are either generally designated as a ‘mighty people’ (גדול עם) or specified as the sons of giants (ענקים בני), which reflects the language of Num 13:28.”

To refer to ענקים בני, which is bene Anakim as sons of giants is virtually incoherent since no English version has Anakim as giants. And if someone were to argue that they were giants because they were described as being “tall” then they would be making an anachronistic error in that something about unusual height is not what the old usage of giants was.

The vague, subjective, generic, and multi-usage English word giant comes from the Greek gigantes (sometimes gigas) that means “earth-born” and implies nothing about height at all.

For unknown reasons, the Septuagint/LXX rendered (not even translated) Nephilim and also Rephaim and also gibborim all as gigantes—and it is never a good idea to render more than one word (especially such different words with such different meanings) with only one word—but never Anakim (although I grant that Anakim are a Rephaim subgroups but yet, the issue of rendering the word Anakim as such still stands).

Deane Galbraith (University of Otago) wrote, “Interpellation, not Interpolation: Reconsidering Textual Disunity in Numbers 13–14 as Variant Articulations of a Single Ideology,” The Bible & Critical Theory, Vol 10, No. 1, 2014.

Galbraith references, “Source–and redaction–critical approaches…indicative of multiple sources, redactional layers, supplements, or interpolations within the text” and that a “dominant diachronic ‘solution’ involves dividing Numbers 13–14 into two major compositional layers, sometimes adding an incomplete third layer” such as “the Yahwist, ‘J’, or Jehovist, ‘JE’, in the classical documentary hypothesis.”

It seems that commonsense solutions are often bypassed (perhaps because they would not make for journal papers) in favor of elaborate elucidations that result in puzzle-piece mozaics.

For example, Galbraith writes, “Was it Moses who sent the spies (13:1–3, 16–20, 30; 14:11–19, 36, 39, 41–43, 44) or Moses and Aaron (13:26; 14:2, 5, 26)? Did Yahweh command the spy expedition (Num 13:1– 2) or was it the idea of the people (Deut 1:22)?”

Even without looking at the texts (which I most certainly have done) one can discern the simple solution that if Moses and Aaron sent them out then Moses sent them: it is a pseudo-standard that implies that an author must always include any and all details in any and all narrative.

Likewise with whether it was Yahweh’s idea or the peoples: as with various other issues, such as having an Israelite king, God commands and/or allows that which the people want even if it was not His perfect will but His permissive will. Thus, a commonsense solution is that it was their idea and then He commanded it—granting that this may be an argument from silence.

Galbraith also asks, “who were the inhabitants of the land? Giants called Anakim and their offspring (Num 13:22, 28b; 33)? Or ordinary humans?”

He actually never defined what he means by giants within his paper—unless one counts referring to Anakim as such counts as a definition. Yet, if such is viewed as a definition then it would be sadly lacking since that word is and has been a multi-purpose term.

Biblically viewing it, in a commonsensical manner, Anakim are ordinary humans so there is no “Or” about it: that was a false dichotomy.

Now, “Giants called Anakim” biblically means “Rephaim called Anakim” which is quite accurate—again, since Anakim are a Rephaim subgroup, and Rephaim were all ordinary humans.

Now, if by “Giants called Anakim” he means something vague about being unusually tall then, sure Anakim were “tall” (Deuteronomy 2:10) but, of course, that is subjective to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.

Yet, Galbraith write that “The majority of the spies bring back a negative report concerning the prospects for conquering the land, even claiming that terrible giants live there” so that it was “a story about the fear of giants.”

Certainly, it was proverbially/rhetorically asked, “Who can stand before the sons of Anak?” (Deuteronomy 9:2) but just because they were infamously formidable does not mean that they were other than ordinary humans.

Yet, his characterization seems to stem from, as he cited it, “(Num 13:22, 28b; 33)” which reads, “They went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron. Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, were there. (Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)…And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there…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.”

Yet, this is correlating part of the narrative with part of the original report with part of the evil report.

Indeed, the narrative notes that “the descendants of Anak” were said to live in Hebron.

The original report has it that they “saw the descendants of Anak there” which is a verse that continues by noting that they also saw Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites.

The evil report has it that “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.” These assertions are utterly unsupported by even one other single verse in the whole entire Bible.

Thus, Galbraith mashed together a reliable narrative, a reliable report and a report stated my unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies whom God rebuked.

He does go on to touch upon about this last point, “the spies surreptitiously spread an evil rumour among ‘the sons of Israel’ (Num 13:32–33), their act contrasts with Joshua and Caleb’s open and public address before ‘the whole assembly of the sons of Israel’ (14:7).”

Note that these “the spies” refers to ten of the twelve. As for the supposed problem, I must not be scholarly enough to comprehend the contrast between “the sons of Israel” and “the whole assembly of the sons of Israel.”

Galbraith notes, “in Num 14:9, Caleb directly counters the spies’ rumour that the land eats its inhabitants (13:32) with a claim that the people of the land will be lahmenu [lehem] (‘our food’), one military metaphor countered with another.”

This also touches upon one of the spies contradiction since the original report had it that, “the land…floweth with milk and honey” (13:27, as does 14:8) but the ten claimed that it was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof” (13:32).

Galbraith also notes, “Numbers 13–14 makes use of the motif of the autochthonous [indigenous] giant, which is almost certainly influenced by Hellenic traditions, and which appears elsewhere only in late supplements (eg. Deut 1–3). Moreover, the giant motif also notably increases in Jewish pseudepigraphic and apocalyptic literature from the third century BCE onwards.”

Well, motifs such as Nephilim notably increase millennia after the Torah was written, the era of pseudepigraphic and apocalyptic texts but keep in mind that by giants he is specifically referring to Anakim which seems to denote one of the problems with employing an English word that should be ignored or else defined with each usage.

Thus, I am unaware of any influence that Hellenic traditions would have on increasing supposed references to Anakim.

I am certain that he has switched his usage of giants from Anakim to something vague about unusual height in this case but, he did not elucidate as much.

FYI: “BCE” is an anti-Christian scholarly manner whereby to refer to “BC.”

See my various books here.

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.

Intro to TJ Steadman’s book “Answers to Giant Questions”

TJ Steadman elucidated the purpose of his book, Answers to Giant Questions: How Understanding the Biblical Nephilim, as being, in large part, to answer questions such as:

Why did the God of the Old Testament flood the entire earth?

How did the giants reappear after the Flood?

Did God really command the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites?

Did Jesus show awareness of, or interact with, the giants at all?

What did Jesus mean when He mentioned the “days of Noah?”

And how does this knowledge help me as a Christian today?

Sadly, in replying to these questions, he often causes many more problems than he solves. Many of those problems are faulty conclusions based on faulty premises. Some of them are created when he claims that a certain word or a certain word’s root means one thing and one thing only or is used in one way and one way only, when such is not the case.

Or, when he realizes that one word/root means more than one thing and misapplies it by being myopic—or seeking to buttress a point. And when he employs generic terminology, such as using the vaguely subjective and undefined English term giants to mean many different things—and leaving it to the readers to guess what he means by it at any given time.

He has noted that “I don’t buy into the modern ‘science fiction view’ of ancient texts. There are no ancient inscriptions that really depict ancient aliens, UFO’s and all that kind of thing.” Yet, he does seem to buy into, and perpetuate, the modern (that which I term) un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales of ancient texts wherein “giants” are peppered everywhere you look and if you do not see one, you just invent one.

It also seems to me that he may have crossed a certain line. God’s word has always been perspicuous. Now, when we learn about what historically contextual Pagans wrote it may help us by adding to the cultural and grammatical context. Yet, as I noted to him during out debate: when the Bible plays off of Pagan cultural and/or literature, it does so, so as to set it straight but not to incorporate it into biblical theology. It seems that he fills gaps, or supposed gaps, in the Bible by actually incorporating Paganism (even if he does not consciously mean to do so).

For example, he argues that “once Nimrod had drawn on their power to invoke the spirits of the dead Nephilim giants from the Flood, the Anuna-gods had an army that would do their bidding” and that Nimrod “was little more than a tool in the hands of a greater, darker power. The Leviathan” and that “The astrology of the ancient world strengthens” that view that Nimrod “the giant, pursued the ancient pre-Flood spirits, becoming joined with one of them; one associated with the Light-bringer, Satan,” etc.—see my article “TJ Steadman on the rise and fall and rise of Nimrod aka Enmerkar, Giant, Nephil, Repha, Assyrian, Rahab, Leviathan.”

At that point, we may be dealing with a fascinating and exciting story but one that is clearly not biblical.

Lastly, I actually find it more comfortable to critique his teaching—since I consider it sharpening iron with iron (although I always say that when we seek to sharpening iron with iron someone tends to get cut) and I want others to do the same with me (unlike some Nephilim related teaches who utterly refuse to engage anyone who disagrees with them, which I know from experience)—than I do critiquing him as an author.

He writes very well. He has clearly done a tremendous amount of research. His book is written in a conversation style which I dislike but I know other like a lot. But one thing I do recommend is that he needs to add an index to the book because for researchers such as myself, not having one makes it very difficult.

For example, he is writing about “Nimrod” but then claims he is aka “Enmerkar” and is also aka “The Assyrian” but then that “The Assyrian” is not actually Nimrod but is a spirit that empowers Nimrod which is also aka “Rahab,” is tied in with “Leviathan” and that Nimrod was a “Giant” and a “Nephil” 2.0 which are aka “Rephaim.”

Now, attempting to track all of that is not only confusing due to his conversation style: the style of let me mention A then remember I mentioned A, well now I am saying more about it thus, B and then going back to B, now let me bring up C, etc., etc., etc. so that without an index it is very difficult to retrace his steps and actually see how he connects such things/terms/concepts and, especially, if he does so viably or not.

Such is part of why I am writing a serious of articles based on his book which I did not do before our debate so that I did not, in a manner of speaking, poison the well.

TJ Steadman also wrote:

The purpose of this book is to help readers of the Bible to better understand the accounts of giants in the Scriptures, in light of the cultural context in which the Bible was written, and as a result, to be able to apply this understanding to everyday Christian life and witness.

As we progress through the book, we will take in glimpses of the ancient Israelite worldview. We will look at the beliefs of the enemy nations that provided the impetus for the preservation of God’s message. We will attempt to grasp the supernatural world obscured by our “enlightened” culture, which is obsessed with science and insists on finding science fiction wherever science fails to find any fact.

The cultural context of both the Scripture writer and his intended audience must never be overlooked. For this reason, you will come across references to ancient Mesopotamian ideas, later rabbinical thought, classical Greek mythology and 2nd Temple Period Jewish literature, etc. Rest assured, the doctrines presented do not rely in the slightest upon anything you cannot find in your own Bible if you are careful enough in your study of it.

As I will be all but forced to note time and again during my articles, there is no way we can “apply” “the accounts of giants in the Scriptures” “to everyday Christian life and witness” since he uses the term giants to mean many things and does not define that which he means it at any and certainly not every given instance.

I appreciate his concept of grasping “the supernatural world obscured by our ‘enlightened” actually, en-dark-ened culture—capiche? That is part of why I have written so much about such issues, including my books What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities?: A Styled Paranormology and The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon.

Again, yes, “The cultural context of both the Scripture writer and his intended audience must never be overlooked” and “references to ancient Mesopotamian ideas, later rabbinical thought, classical Greek mythology and 2nd Temple Period Jewish literature” are for informational purposes only and his “Rest assured” claim is suspect.

He also notes:

The first section of the book is dedicated to an explanation of just what the Bible means when it talks about giants. We will set the scene by exploring what the Bible says about how they came to exist and what they were really like.

We will see something of their influence on the ancient world and what happened to them at the time of the Great Flood of Noah’s day.

This will lead us into a discussion in Section II about the mysterious reemergence of giants after the Flood, where we will weigh up some of the theories about how that came about. This section will certainly make for interesting (and sometimes humorous) reading.

Section III will explore some of the major themes about good and evil, and their literary origins, in order to see how they contributed to the shape of Biblical theology. We will start to recognize just how important it is that we are aware of what was going through the minds of Biblical authors. We will learn about both the good and evil forces at work invisibly behind the scenes. In so doing we will explore just how it could be possible that the giants were able to reappear after the Deluge and the purpose behind their activities.

In the fourth section, we will look at some Biblical history and how the giants after the Flood were dealt with. We will be examining various Biblical accounts and relevant literature from the wider ancient Near Eastern context.

This will draw out some of the more interesting and theologically significant messages that are regularly overlooked in your average church setting.

The first section of the book makes it clear that he is essentially taking a typical (and typically erroneous) view of “what the Bible means when it talks about giants” not only by employing that terms to mean many different things but by taking a typical a pop-post-flood-Nephilim view—even when he denied believing in post-flood Nephilim but then telling us there were post-flood Nephilim in the form of demons and in the form of Nephilim 2.0 as Rephaim.

For example, a more fundamental question than “How did the giants reappear after the Flood?” would have been “Did the giants reappear after the Flood?”

Yet, he insists on claiming a “mysterious reemergence of giants after the Flood” and, again, “how the giants after the Flood were dealt with” rather than “were there giants after the Flood to deal with?”

Note that it is exciting to claim to have uncovered “interesting and theologically significant messages that are regularly overlooked in your average church setting” but it may not be a case of having “overlooked” but rather, of having looked and realized that personages such as TJ Steadman are, au fond, not teaching biblical doctrine but a correlation of such with Pagan theology.

He also noted:

Presented here is what I believe to be possibly the most in-depth yet concise exposition of the Biblical giants, focusing particularly on their origins and also on the work of Christ in dealing with them, compiled from Biblical texts.

To demonstrate the sufficiency of canonical Scripture in these matters, as in all others, there is a multitude of quotes directly from your Bible.

See what I mean, this is good PR marketing but with statements such as “the work of Christ in dealing with them” we can instantly know that we are not in for an actual Bible study but something else.

Lastly, I wanted to quote him thusly:

The serpent watched as Cain and Abel offered sacrifices to God. He saw how Cain did what was right in his own eyes rather than obedience to what God required. And he figured that Cain was his man. So, he prompted Cain to kill [technically, murder] Abel. And that would be the end of the “seed of the woman.”

But Eve had another son, and the serpent realized he was going to have to rethink his strategy. There would always be more humans as long as they could reproduce – a thing that the angels (or sons of God) do not do in heaven. How then would the serpent have his way upon the earth?

But there is a distinction to be made before we go further. Whoever the “seed of the serpent” is, it isn’t human. Because the prophecy doesn’t say that one “seed of the woman” will be at enmity with another “seed of the woman.” It says that one is of Eve, and one is of the serpent. They cannot be the same kind because they do not share a common origin.

Perhaps I keyed in on this due to having written a five-volume set of books contra the serpent seed of Satan theory but both Cain and Able were genetically of the seed of the woman yet, their actions showed that Cain was, in this case, functionally “of the wicked one” as John ends up putting it—and I am writing this portion just in case.

Thus, the “seed of the serpent” is, or rather are, human since the distinction is not genetic but based on actions.

It is about those who perform Godly actions versus those who do not: which is great biblical news since those who do not can always repent.

Ultimately, these seed are personified as Jesus and Satan.

See my various books here.

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.

If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Discussing the SPECIAL INTERVIEW WITH TIM ALBERINO!!

The discussion was due to the video SPECIAL INTERVIEW WITH TIM ALBERINO!!

The Clever Conquistador commented

These two men have both opened my eyes too how the Bible was truly meant to be understood. LA taught me so much about what amd how the enemy works to destroy this world.

Enpsychlodelica noted

Really ? So that means throw up the goat horns for everything great yeshua had to offer right? Obviously that statement is subjective you’re only looking for what you want it seems.

Turkey Creek Jack Johnson added

Oh yea?

Jennifer Hall chimed replied to Enpsychlodelica thusly

🤣 you win tryhard of the century award

I, Ken Ammi, chimed in thusly

How so, he teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible doesn’t.

Sharon Metzner

yes it absolutely does

Ken Ammi

Friend, a helpful reply would have been followed by whereabouts? Before you quote one single verse in support (which is all anyone has) please interact with the text.

lr whit

GENESIS 6:4 and NUMBERS 13:33

Ken Ammi

Neither of those teach post-flood Nephilim: Gen 6:4 states no such thing, Num 13:33 is part of an “evil report” the speakers of which were rebuked by God. So, is the claim that God meant to be rid of Nephilim via the flood but failed?

Roxana Obrien

post flood Joshua killed giant goliath with one stone

Ken Ammi

Friend:

1. That was David, not Joshua.

2. I’ve been referring to the specific Hebrew term and concept “Nephilim” but you referred to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined English word “giant” so I’m unsure what you mean.

3. Goliath was a Repha, not a Nephil.

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.