March 2024 – TrueFreeThinker

Review discussion of Joe LoMusio’s paper Exegetical Notes on Genesis 6 1-4

The following discussion took place since I was invited to review Joe LoMusio’s paper Exegetical Notes on Genesis 6:1-4, he is the Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Haven University, California’s Graduate School of Theology.

Mondo Gonzales chimed in to make LoMusio about one of his papers and I ended up writing a review of it: A review of Mondo Gonzales’ paper, “A Brief Survey of the Pre-flood and Post-flood Origins of the Nephilim.”

At the time, I replied, “Mondo, you wrote of, ‘Moses writing that there were Nephilim before and after the flood (Genesis 6:4; cf. Numbers 13:33)’ but he did not write any such thing.” Yet, He didn’t reply.

Earlon Carsley wrote:

Ken, I would appreciate a more complete elaboration of your rejection of Mondo’s thesis. His article seems to be very reasonable in its logic and thorough in its treatment of the relevant texts. His conclusion is quite well supported, it seems to me:

“The Biblical theological evidence shows that Nephilim/Rephaim/Anakim tribes still remained to be fully exterminated. They reappear in the text of Scripture centuries later in the time of David. Goliath was from Gath, one of the cities mentioned in Joshua 11:22 where some Anakim remained. The Bible gives the final summary that David and his servants eliminated the rest of Nephilim/Anakim tribes (1 Samuel 17:4, 7; 2 Samuel 21:16-22; 1 Chronicles 20:4-8).

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Most interesting.

In terms of the Angel view: I don’t rejection of Mondo’s thesis in the least bit and have, in fact, taken and defended the same view in circa nine of my books.

Yet, there is no reliable indication that “Nephilim…tribes still remained to be fully exterminated” but only that “Rephaim/Anakim tribes still remained to be fully.”

Now, saying “They reappear” is incoherent since only Nephilim could have re-appeared (but they didn’t) since Rephaim/Anakim also could not have since they were not around before they were around, of course. They appeared, not re-appeared.

Goliath was a Gathite, Philisting, Anakim, Rephaim: nothing to do with Nephilim.

Now, you specify “Nephilim/Anakim tribes (1 Samuel 17:4, 7; 2 Samuel 21:16-22; 1 Chronicles 20:4-8)” but none of those texts states a single word about Nephilim.

Earlon Carsley:

Mondo points out that Moses identified the “giants” seen by the spies in the Land of Canaan as Nephilim (Numbers 13:32-33). In that text Moses also identifies the descendants of Anak with these Nephilim. A substantial part of Mondo’s thesis is that Moses wrote the “sons of God” account in Genesis 6:1-4 with his own contemporary experience in mind. Hence it makes sense for Moses to state that the Nephilim were in the earth both before the Flood “and also afterward” (Gen. 6:4).

I believe his point is that Moses viewed both the Nephilim of Genesis 6 and those of Numbers 13 as beings having the same nature – not necessarily related by descent but having similar origins in illicit angelic/human relations. Would you see that as a possibility?

Ken Ammi:

Appreciate the continued interaction.

Moses did not such thing: he merely told us that 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers presented an “evil report,” for which God rebuked them, wherein they, not Moses, “identified the ‘giants’ seen by the spies in the Land of Canaan as Nephilim” which, BTW, is a phrase that biblically would read, “identified the ‘Nephilim’ seen by the spies in the Land of Canaan as Nephilim.”

Likewise, Moses never “identifies the descendants of Anak with these Nephilim” that was the 10, again. And many scholars claim that portion is a gloss since it’s utterly missing from the LXX for that verse.

Moses never wrote, “that the Nephilim were in the earth both before the Flood ‘and also afterward.’”

Thus, there’s zero indication that “Moses viewed both the Nephilim of Genesis 6 and those of Numbers 13 as beings having the same nature” since the ones recorded in Gen 6 were alive, on the ground, at the timeline of the record but the ones merely referenced in Num 13:33’s evil report weren’t.

There’s also zero indication of post-flood “illicit angelic/human relations.”

Thus, no: I would not see that as a possibility.

Earlon Carsley:

I also appreciate your willingness to interact on this question, Ken. Concerning Numbers 13:33, I agree it is possible to see the spies’ report of Nephilim in Canaan as being a false report and hence not necessarily endorsed by Moses in the text. However the statement that the descendants of Anak came from Nephilim cannot reasonably be seen as coming from the spies themselves. Clearly it was either Moses who provides this parenthetical bit of information or else it was a later scribal gloss as you suggest. This passage by itself then leaves us with no certainty on the matter.

But your adamance that “Moses never wrote” that the Nephilim were in the earth both before and after the Flood requires more explanation. Mondo provides a very detailed grammatical analysis of this verse (Gen. 6:4) which is quite convincing to me. Additionally he notes that most scholars recognize that the demonstrative “those” in line 1 (of verse 4) along with the complex preposition “also afterward” is a reference to the days both before and after the Flood.

Please explain why you are so certain that this analysis is erroneous. I’m sure you agree it isn’t enough to simply assert that something is wrong without clearly explaining why. Thanks very much.

Ken Ammi:

The narrative of Num 13 screams utter tall tale at 13:32-33, as does the whole entire rest of the Bible, and when Moses relates that events in Deut 1 he utterly ignores Nephilim but mentions Anakim: he’s too concerned with the realities on the ground to bother reiterating made up stuff.

“the statement that the descendants of Anak came from Nephilim cannot reasonably be seen as coming from the spies themselves” but seems to be a gloss: it’s utterly missing form the LXX.

As for “Nephilim were in the earth both before and after the Flood…(Gen. 6:4)”: I just posted a review of his paper. Since he uncontextually accepts 13:33 as factual, he runs with it, applies it, and then uses it to (mis) read Gen 6:4, see here.

Earlon Carsley:

You may be right, Ken. I’ll read your review. Thanks.

Geoffrey Tolle chimed in with:

Ken Ammi, “The narrative of Num 13 scream utter tall tale at 13:32-22”. I can’t disagree with you, there, however, there are other elements of the story that I think point in a direction beyond tall tale. Two points in the story that I’ve seen very few people comment on are:

A) Num 13:32 “The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eats up the inhabitants thereof”
B) Num 13:33 “And there we saw the giants… and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

In a stalled work that I have been working on, I propose reading the OT (especially) through the light of what we, now, classify as shamanism. An common aspect of shamanism is the sky journey, where the participant’s spirit travels across (usually) the spirit world. This is exactly what we see in many of the prophet (not prophetic) visions. Given the wide variance of what these men told from the reality of Canaan, I propose that they were on a sky journey. Note the surrealistic aspects of the 40 days of exploration (tur): Giant grapes (possibly associated with the vine of immortality); a people-eating land; and people who they perceived as giant just as they perceived themselves as giants. Such phantasmagorical imagery is not unheard of in dreams and trance states.

Thus, I suggest that this was not a real journey but a spiritual (note: 40-day) one which would mean that the Anakim and cities that they encountered were other-worldly much as was the Nineveh through which Jonah wandered and preached. A tall-tale, yes, but one that would have been understood very differently by the people hearing the story in the early years of its existence.

Ken Ammi:

Fascinating “sky journey” theory—like Muhammad’s upon a winged horse

Yet, I’d appeal to the mundane nature of the narrative: combining both reports, the original and the evil, they’re about spying out “the land,” describing its features, its produce, its peoples, its cities, and what they saw therein—its features, its produce, its peoples, its cities. After all, it was an “evil report about THE LAND.”

As for “wide variance,” recall that the 10 originally agree that the issue was strong/stronger but that only after seeing themselves backed into a corner did they present an “evil report which is their statement that varied.

So, you refer to “the reality of Canaan” but that’s just the issue: every indication—logical, theo-logical, textual, etc.—is that they didn’t relay reality. This is why the key features of post-flood Nephilim theorizing—that post-flood Nephilim existed, that Anakim were related to them, that they were very, very tall—is literally based on one single, very problematic, verse.

There’s no indication of “Giant grapes” at all.

Recall that “a people-eating land” contradicts the original report—and circa 20 other texts.

So, I suppose we’d have to conclude that unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, emebllishers who were specified to present an evil report—a spiritual vision one not—whom God rebuked are to be considered reliable mystics and yet, what they claimed is still utterly unreliable.

There’s also no reason to think that “the Anakim and cities that they encountered were other-worldly” nor was Nineveh, since they then have instance after instance of actual on the ground, real-life, battles with Anakim—et al.

Geoffrey Tolle:

Thanks for the reference to your critiques. I have some issuof es my own problems with Heiser’s “scholarship” (mentioned in my Amazon reviews of some of his books). I’ll have to see what yours are.

Colen Poeppelmeyer:

Heiser’s work is what launched me into this kind of research. One should use his work as part of research. I have found so many papers, white papers as well as thesis papers that have confirmed many items. Like I said there a pattern of evidence pointing to the Nephilim and Watchers. Exploring the Temple writings is a great help as well.

Geoffrey Tolle:

Colen, Heiser has been insightful but I don’t rely on him for anything. A book that isn’t directly about the Nephilim, Rephaim, etc. but, rather, about Royal Judaism (Saul, David, Solomon) instead of Temple Judaism (the editors of the OT) is “the Older Testament” by Margaret Barker. It’s a very dense read but it will provide you many, many insights into obscure parts of the OT that you never knew existed including some of the many times that the meaning of words in the OT are simply uncertain or unknown.

Ken Ammi:

Gents, I would doubt that anyone in Nephilology related fields would dismiss Heiser out of hand yet, he’s not omniscient nor infallible.

FYI: I included Heiser in my book “The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants.” [also see my articles Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy and Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”]

Geoffrey Tolle:

A point that most commentators miss, in these passages, is the discontinuity between many of the lines.

The marriage context of 1-2 seems to have nothing to do with the spirit context of 3. The introduction of Nephilim in 4 seems to have no necessary connection with 1-2, 3 or even 4b or c. And, to move just outside this selection, 5 (wickedness of man) has no necessary connection to 4 (men of reknown). This strongly suggests that this passage is a grouping of originally disconnected line connected, by the editor, within an anti-angelic context later given much more unified context in “Enoch”.

I point this out because many of the conclusions proposed for understanding this passage are based on assuming that these lines originally occurred together. Separated, we have:

1) (1-2) The mingling of the divine (sons of god) with the mundane (daughters of earth).

2) (3) Yahoweh declaring a lifespan for men.

3) (4a) Introduction of the Nephilim.

4) (4b + c) Mingling of the divine and mundane with the birth of men of reknown.

5) (5) Intro to the wickedness of men.

Topic 2 appears to be completely disconnected from the other topics. This may have been included to highlight a conflict in the source of holy men in the ancient world. Although it is explicitly about reducing men’s lifespans by removing the ruach, it seems implicitly about the conflict between the Ruach Yahoweh and ruach from other ‘elohim.

Topics 1 and 4 do seem to be connected and seem to, originally, have been explaining how the semi-divine men of the world (Gilgamesh, Herakles, Samson, Saul, possibly Nimrod) came from. Note that there is absolutely nothing in these lines assigning any negative quality to these “hybrids”. Indeed, the term ha-shem (“of name”) was used, much later, as a title for God. Thus, there is also nothing to connect these men to the later “wickedness of man”.

In this context, topic 3, the Nephilim, stands out as disconnected. There must, however, have been an understanding of Nephilim that was understood by the editor. That is probably embedded in the phrase ba-‘eretz (“in earth”) which probably implies these were a people linked to the shaddim (earth or underworld gods).

Although we can more easily speak of later understandings of the beings mentioned in this passage, it is worth considering possible variant understandings of the original editor and even the underlying texts from which the editor took these lines.

Ken Ammi:

It seems to me that, by definition, the introduction of Nephilim in 4 seems to have utter connection with 2 which has connection to 1.

Also, wickedness of man would seem to relate to any and all men, of renown or not.

Since Gen 6:4 is the one and only reliable biblical reference to Nephilim then it’s tempting to agree that, “there is absolutely nothing in these lines assigning any negative quality to these ‘hybrids’” yet, with the exception I just noted, that they are actually connected to the later “wickedness of man” by (chronological and linguistic) definition.

I’m unsure that ba-‘eretz specifically implies “in” (as in “inside of” as in the underworld).

Geoffrey Tolle:

Ken, I don’t disagree that a connection can be made between the lines. I am simply pointing out that we may see the connections because the editors combined the source lines with that intent. The abrupt jumps between topics certainly suggests a significant possibility of a fusion of disconnected material or a loss of connecting material. It should, therefore, be considered when extrapolating from the passage. Small pertubations in the understanding of the original material can lead to extremely different conclusions about the nature of the original material. The divine, royal, and sethian interpretations presented in this paper are a good example of this.

And I agree that interpreting ba-‘eretz as a subterranian reference is only a possibility but, with so little other information on the Nephilim, different interpretations of the translation of the preposition “ba-” must remain in consideration.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, good point about the “Small pertubations.” Biblical Nephilology is quite simple: they lived pre-flood, were parented by sons of God and daughters of men, for some reason they became mighty and well known, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form—period.

FYI: I just posted a review of Mondo’s paper.

Ginger Hayes:

Hi Joe LoMusio.

I happen to love studying Gen. 1-6 with all its complexities. I also have followed Dr. Heiser for several years. Your paper states the arguments well. Thank you for mentioning the ancient texts. I am curious about your take on the phrase “In those days.”

Blessings!

Joe LoMusio:

Genesis 6:1-4 just may be the most controversial text in the entire Bible. Who were the “sons of God,” the “daughters of men,” and the “Nephilim”? And was the Flood brought about because of them?

Robert B Lewis:

If I want to investigate some matter in the Hebrew Bible, I consult the Hebrew Bible. If I cannot unearth anything of value from that effort, I consult the ancient pre-biblical texts from Ugarit or lower Mesopotamia. Otherwise, I consult (when I can) the PhD with no religious ax to grind. I see that LoMusio has indeed quoted some very esteemed scholars to make his case; I’m not certain that all of them agree with LoMusio’s larger point, however, that these sons of God were angels, and he might have noted this.

The writers of the New Testament, and the later Church Fathers, were not in the business of biblical exegesis, rather, they were in the business of building their religion; in order to do so, they would necessarily need to perform their own version of eisegesis, a charge that LoMusio has leveled at modern exegesists. The fact is, that neither the word angels, nor the phrase angelic beings, can be found in Genes9s 6:4. Nor is there any support anywhere in the Hebrew Bible for angels capable of sex, in heaven or outside it. If the authors Genesis 6:4 had meant angels, why didn’t they just say angels?

That LoMusio chooses to concentrate his study on the meaning of the phrase “daughters of men” is unique to say the least, but not so helpful I’m afraid. One might better contemplate the word “divine”, since in terms of ancient pre-israelite religion, there were several categories of divine beings, including the deified kings in the various city states of the ancient Near East – in particular, the deified kings Ugarit.

It’s ironic that this section of Genesis is considered to be a snippet of ancient pagan myth, when in my estimation, Genesis 6:4 represents one of the least mythical parts of the primeval history; and seems to recount quite sucsinctly what looked like history to the Israelite scribes, i.e., kings (Nephilim, sons of God, warriors off old, men of renown; all the same category), who, according to the Sumerian Kings List, were on the Earth in those days, before and after the flood. The parsimony of Occam’s razor applies here.

KJ Soze:

Thank you for you paper, Joe. I think there is also a 4th view which is a hybrid of Merideth Kline’s divine kingship and Sons of God as angels. This is a demonic view of fallen angels who are joined with the physical realm through sex rituals such as sacred marriage rites. There remains occult rituals to this day that are used to contact the spiritual realm for greater power. The 4th view depicts “non-physical” intercourse of humans and angels.

The resulting offspring are mighty men such as Nimrod who was a mighty man, but still a man, not a hybrid demi-god. Also, we need to consider Numbers 13 with the sons of Anak as men, even though as giant stature. The leaders of clans and tribes in the ancient near east were often considered as sons of god, perhaps because of the rituals they performed as priest-kings.

Pharaoh was the son of Horus, Alexander was the son of Zeus, etc. They were not “physical” sons but sons in a spiritual sense to claim divine kingship. In other cases, in order to claim greater control over land regions and peoples, kings took for themselves multiple wives from many tribes. In any case, whether angels physically mated or indirectly mated through humans, it was a relationship between humanity and angels that caused judgment based upon this unholy union.

Joe LoMusio:

Hey KJ… Yes, thank you, and in fact I read your paper “Who are the Sons of God in Genesis? (Humanity’s Relationship to the Spirit Realm of Fallen Angels), and found it to be very well done, and I gained personal insight from it.

This is a provocative topic that solicits responses that are all over the map. But that’s what makes this site a great platform; one in which we all get to share our views and research and interact with one another. Thanks for your comments.

Ken Ammi:

Replies to those in this thread-segment:

Robert B. Lewis,

If I may: I discern an imbalance in your implication of placing trust in “the ancient pre-biblical texts from Ugarit or lower Mesopotamia” and “Phd with no religious ax to grind” (who’s that?) vs. “New Testament, and the later Church Fathers.”

This also touches upon that you seem to suppose you can know the motivations of various personages.

As is common to any and all languages, in terms of reading comprehensions skills and hermeneutics, “word angels, nor the phrase angelic beings” need not be “found in Genes9s [sic.] 6:4” for it to be speaking of just that.

It seems that you can only state, “Nor is there any support anywhere in the Hebrew Bible for angels capable of sex, in heaven or outside it” only after denying that such is precisely what Gen 6 is telling us.

Also, why would the Hebrew Bible say more about a done deal? When we plug Jude and 2 Peter 2 into this, we learn that the Angelos that sinned were incarcerated so, again, it was a done deal.

Asking about why “the authors Genesis 6:4…didn’t they just say angels” goes back to linguistics, reading comprehension, hermeneutics, etc. There’s no reason to restrict an author to using only those words we want to see post hoc. All languages offer many manners wherein to refer to any given thing.

Contextually, why “contemplate the word ‘divine’, since” it doesn’t appear in the text in question.

Biblically, there’s no reliable indication of post-flood Nephilim.

KJ Soze,

Referring to “a demonic view of fallen angels” creates a category error of sorts (this can actually get very technical, see: https://midwestoutreach.org/2019/10/03/demons-ex-machina-what-are-demons).

Actual sex rituals would have to be between physical beings, such as humans and Angels, but not between one physical party and one spirit one such as demons. So, I empathize why you had to refer to “‘non-physical’ intercourse of humans and angels,” whatever that means, but again, by definition intercourse of humans and Angel would be physical.

Now, Nimrod has nothing to do with any sort of intercourse between humans and Angels nor demons.

Numbers 13’s reference to what you have as “sons of Anak as men, even though as giant stature” is just part of an unreliable “evil report” that no one should believe.

Joe LoMusio,

FYI: I’ve written nine [circa a dozen by now] books on such issues.

Jonathan Poletti,

No, that was the Holy Spirit. Jude is most direct about it, or so it seems to me, by likening the sin of Angels to those of Sodom and Gomorrah. 2 Peter 2 chronologically places their sin to pre-flood days, which fits the Gen 6 timeline.

Meanwhile, Creig Marlowe noted:

Joe,

Think my previous reply was in the wrong place. Anyway I only mention Eek 28 and Isa 14 because they are always used by those who promote the sons of God as angels view. You did not to your credit.

Ken Ammi:

Those two texts are not about an Angel, but about a Cherub, see my elucidation here.

Colen Poeppelmeyer chimed in thusly:

There are many aspects in ones view of Gen. 6. There is a pattern of evidence found in the scriptures regarding the Watchers (fallen ones (angels), the giants and so forth. One needs to read Ps 82, Deut. 32 as well as other places. At times one must look at the 2nd Temple Writings, the Pseudepigrapha Writings, as well as the Book of Enoch. Do not be afraid to study these books. After all Enoch mentioned twice in the NT (2 Pet and Jude). I find what was written to be very helpful in understanding on the Jewish belief system regarding these beings. A couple of additional books may help” The Unseen Realm, by Michael Heiser and God at War by Gregory A Boyd. There is more to this subject as it is all through the Bible. Enjoy the research, as I am still studying about it.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, see my book “The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.”

Heiser tends to create more problems than he solves: for example, see my two critiques of his views in my profile [the two I included above].

Edmund Lazzari:

There are many people here who have said many things. I just want to highlight several things I noted in my thesis chapter https://www.academia.edu/43930637/Bene_ha_Elohim_in_Genesis_6_1_4_MA_Thesis_Ch_1_ (please forgive the introductory style) that seem to be missing here, which is a good overview of scholarship, if missing a few contemporary perspectives. I am inclined to the Sethite position, though I consider the angelic position to be a plausible one for the reading of the text.

These approaches make no mention of the Greek bias that shifts interpretational probabilities. Septuagint manuscripts sometimes had οι αγγελοι (“angels”) replacing בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ (“sons of God”) and οι γιγαντες (“giants”) replacing הַגִּ בִּרִ֛ים (“the gibborim/the mighty ones”). Those early Christians who had υιοι του θεου (“sons of God”) in their text overwhelmingly choose the Sethite interpretation (only Tertullian is excepted) and those who have οι αγγελοι choose the angelic position. οι γιγαντες (“giants”) rather than הַגִּ בִּרִ֛ים (“the gibborim/the mighty ones”) massively changes the interpretation, especially if you read הַנְפִלִִ֞ים (“the Nephilim”) as incidental to the passage.
The Greek bias continues in assuming that divine beings intermarrying with human beings is common in non-Greek Ancient Near Eastern Mythology. There are only three possible candidates in non-Greek Ancient Near Eastern mythology: Gilgamesh, Egyptian “god’s wives,” and the Ugaritic “Dawn and Dusk,” only the latter of which has an unambiguous divine being marrying human beings, noted for its strangeness. Gods just don’t do that in ANE mythology like they do in the Greco-Roman tradition.
An important point in favor of this interpretation is that the construction בנ with a noun can denote membership in a category, even ontologically (Holladay Concise Aramaic Lexicon (Brill 1988), 42) However, outside of the construction בנ־האלוהים , both Solomon and the people of Israel are called sons of THE LORD in 2 Sam 7:14 and Deut 14:1, respectively, without necessarily entailing ontological membership in divinity.
Read contextually, the narrative of Genesis shows the line of Seth and the line of Cain in roughly equal populations by the end of Gen 5. At Gen 6:5 and the undisputed start of the flood narrative, suddenly only eight righteous people are left on the face of the earth. Contextually, Gen 6:1-4 is the explanation for how everyone got so wicked. Coupled with the borrowing of language from the Atrahasis myth, where a flood wipes out a third of humanity after “humanity spreads on the face of the earth” and the continuity of vocabulary, it makes linguistic sense to read Gen 6:1-4 as a part of the larger Gen 6:1-7 introduction to the flood. What could the line of Seth have done to be so wicked? Contra your (LoMusio’s) point, intermarriage between the righteous and the wicked almost inevitably leads to the worship of false Gods in the narrative of the Hebrew Bible. Marrying people the narrative already knows are wicked is the most elegant way of accounting for the narrative change and respecting the integration of the passage to what follows.
Obviously the biggest problem is the different use of הָֽאָדָָ֔ם (“ha-Adam/humanity”) in verse 1 than in verse 2. This, however, is mitigated by similar points where the Hebrew Bible sets apart a subgroup in contrast to a group that it is a part of. Judges 20:3 contrasts the sons of Benjamin to all the tribes of Israel and Jeremiah 32:20 contrasts the Israel with all of humanity. Similar imprecise use of groups as a Semiticism occur in Judg. 16.7; 1 Sam. 13.6, and Ps. 73.5 and most strikingly in Gen 6 when all of humanity is called wicked (verses 5 and 12) but Noah is excluded, despite being a part of humanity (verse 8)! Since this is right after our passage, it is fair to use it to interpret the preceding four verses.

For more details (and citations), see my thesis chapter, but I think these are the relevant lacking points from this approach. Again, I see that the angelic interpretation is a reasonable one, but you give rather short shrift to the Sethite position, which deserves more consideration than these scholars give it.

Geoffrey Tolle:

In your examples of ancient middle eastern divine children, don’t forget to include Cain (possibly – “I have gotten a man from Yahoweh. Gen 4:1), Samson, Isaac, and, of course, Jesus.

Robert B Lewis:

Ken Ammi, there is no “imbalance” in my choice between the 1st century Christian writers of the New Testament, and the original Israelite writers of Genesis 6:4. What you see as an imbalance, is simply a critical choice on my part. I do not trust that Christians of that time were simpatico with the ancient scribes on this issue; I am under no obligation to suspend my skepticism of Christian apologetics.

In fact, as scientists, we under a true obligation to be skeptical of all view points, even those we might agree with. And there are quite a few PhDs with a religious ax to grind, do you really need me to tell you that? They’re all over youtube.

As far as “understanding the motives of various personages”, I think it’s pretty clear what the motives of the New Testament authors were: salvation. That’s not the business we are working on here, is it? If the word “angels” is not in the text of Genesis 6:4, why would you assume that the text meant sex with angels and daughters of Men? The text is telling us nothing of the sort. It relates of sexual relations with “sons of God”, i.e. deified kings, who in terms of various ancient Near Eastern religious thought (Ugarit etc.), were understood to be sons of El; no angels need mentioning at all.

No doubt you would direct me to Job 38:7, but Psalm 82:6-7 seems more apt here, and leads me to ask: do angels die “like one of the princes”? Do you believe these sons of God are angels because of Jude or 2nd Peter?

These books have long been outed as pseudoepigraphs, not written by Peter or Jude, and you seem to be asking me to be “fair and balanced” toward texts which themselves seem anything but.

Ken Ammi:

Most interesting.

I didn’t imply an imbalance between “the 1st century Christian writers of the New Testament, and the original Israelite writers of Genesis 6:4” but, as I put it, “an imbalance in your implication of placing trust in ‘the ancient pre-biblical texts from Ugarit or lower Mesopotamia’ and ‘Phd with no religious ax to grind’ (who’s that?) vs. ‘New Testament, and the later Church Fathers.’”

Oddly, you note, “there are quite a few PhDs WITH A religious ax to grind” but I commented about “Phd WITH NO religious ax to grind” and merely asked, “who’s that?”

I meant that you accredit one side and discredit the other seemingly based on bias or prejudice—plus a touch of mind-reading.

In what field are you a scientist? Also, have you a premise form your worldview for assuming that skepticism is some sort of universal imperative?

Now, “why would you assume that the text meant sex with angels and daughters of Men?”: Job 38, Psalm 82 (“die ‘like one of the princes’” seems like losing their position, power, etc.), Jude, 2 Peter 2 (“outed as pseudoepigraphs, not written by Peter or Jude” is just a genetic logical fallacy—do those matter on your worldview?), the majority of the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators, etc.

You say, “‘sons of God’, i.e. deified kings” so I suppose I’ll ask: if the words “deified kings” is not in the text of Genesis 6:4, why would you assume that the text meant sex with deified kings and daughters of Men?

Robert B Lewis:

Why would I place more trust in the earlier, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts? Because they were written earlier and without all the “modern” religious concerns. Yes, they had their own religious concerns, but those shouldn’t interfere with our understanding of them much, and can and have been used quite effectively by lots of scientists for decades, to shed more light on the canonical Hebrew Bible.

As for PhD’s, sorry about the misunderstanding, but yes, there will be a number of PhD’s with and without religious axes to grind; I simply prefer the ones who do not have said axes. And it’s because of this alone, if for no other reason, that we scientists and scholars of the Bible (you included), especially, must take a skeptics view of scripture by default; unless what one is doing is avowedly not science, in which case, do as you please.

And no, I am not “crediting” or “discrediting” based upon prejudice, but upon, as stated, critical and thoughtful deliberation. How is that mind reading? By the way, isn’t playing “armchair psychologist” with Augustine, sort of prestidigitatious in its own right?

As for Psalm 82, no, Psalm 82 is quite explicit. They die….”like one of the princes”. Period. No wiggle room, unless everything is just willy nilly symbolic whenever you need it to be; in which case, I suppose any conclusion is possible. I think it’s interesting, the word “princes” here. It’s almost as if Psalm 82 is talking about royalty.

On Jude and 2nd Peter, yes, “gospels” written in bad faith, matter to my world view, since I always try as best I can to base my scientific conclusions on the best (and most honest) evidence possible. And yes, genetic logical fallacies matter to my world view as well. That these texts are pseudepigraphic in character, however, is no genetic logical fallacy, it’s contemporary scholarly consensus. You accept what you claim is early Jewish and Christian consensus. But is that true? And even if that were true, does that make these early sources right? Is there any danger of a genetic logical fallacy here?

You say “sons of God”, i.e. “angels” so I suppose I’ll ask again: if the word “angels” is not in the text of 6:4, why would you assume that the text meant sex with angels?

Ken Ammi:

I’m empathetic with wanting to assert that earlier is better by definition but well, they were written earlier and/but also with their own “ancient” religious concerns.

As for PhD’s, no worries but just be careful because if you show me an unbiased person, I’ll show you a corpse.

I’m unsure why anyone “must,” as a universal imperative, “take a skeptics view of scripture by default” nor why we do so or would be changed with “avowedly not” doing “science”—it seems you’re using that term to mean any sort of investigation or something.

I only referred to crediting/discrediting and mind reading since you seemed to claim to know private motivations.

My armchairing Augustine is based on knowing that one individual enough to seemingly be able to know why he was doing what he did.

You did likewise but with “the ancient pre-biblical texts from Ugarit or lower Mesopotamia” and “New Testament, and the later Church Fathers,” some of which pertains to utterly unknown personages.

But I’d wonder if there’d be an issue, on your worldview, if I was being hypocritical.

As for Psalm 82, I’m just applying the real-life, on the ground repercussions since, for example, it could have said they would die like your average Joe but specified princes—that’s all. And if we must discuss how ontologically incarnated Angels could “die” well, all we could do is speculate.

Keep in mind that in Daniel, the Archangel Michael is referred to as a “prince.” Yet, I do hold to that behind human sovereigns are spiritual sovereigns so that at time both are being addressed simultaneously or interchangeably.

Now, I asked about your worldview and you refer to that “‘gospels’ written in bad faith,” which is just an assertion, “matter to my world view” but you then make a subjective statement, “I always try…” which is not about your worldview but about your personal preferences du jour (based on hidden assumptions).

Of, perhaps you can elucidate how your worldview provides a premise for you to “base my scientific conclusions on the best (and most honest) evidence possible” as a universal imperative.

So you say, “genetic logical fallacies matter to my world view as well” but don’t say how nor why.

Dismissing their contents due to labeling them “pseudepigraphic in character,” based on an argument ad populum or not, is a genetic logical fallacy.

Indeed, I noted the early Jewish and Christian consensus which doesn’t necessarily prove anything but that there was a consensus. Thus, such is why I argue from the texts for the Angel view.

You ask again but you didn’t answer your own question and I already answered you.

Shalom!

Creig Marlowe:

Since Elohim is plural the translation could be “sons of the gods” and possibly refer to followers of idols (polytheists). You give no proof that the author of Genesis 6 had any knowledge of fallen angels. And a text like Isa 14 or Eek 28 has nothing to do with Satan. Intercourse between humans and spirit beings has always belonged to mythology.

Joe LoMusio:

Thanks Creig for your feedback. Your point on the literal translation of the plural of the phrase “Sons of God” is well-taken. The proof of the author of Genesis 6 may have been self-evident, and regarding your reference to Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, I never once brought them up. Not sure why you did? One further comment is you might have missed my point towards the end of the paper that mythology may have borrowed from this story (rather than the other way around), especially given the antiquity of it. Indeed, as Larkin suggests, this is where pagan mythology may have originated their stories, and of course, adding to and elaborating to fit their ever-expanding pantheons. It is an interesting idea.

Ken Ammi:

“could be” being the qualifying term.

As for Isa 14 or Ezek 28, please see this article.

Intercourse between humans and Angles does not equate intercourse between humans and spirit beings since Angles are not spirit beings.

LoMusio makes a good point which I would put as that after the Tower of Babel event what had been commonly known and shared history was spread around the world and eventually came to be called myth and legend.

Geoffrey Tolle:

Mr. Marlowe, I’m not sure how you intended the phrase “has always belonged to mythology”. I feel that it is more appropriate to say “has always belonged to religions”. There are myths that are not explicitly religious (though they may be spiritual) but many myth are religious beliefs from religions not your own.

Derek P Gilbert:

This is a fascinating topic that touches on all of Christian theology. The Nephilim, and the demon spirits that proceeded from them, influenced the pagan neighbors of Israel across the Mediterranean, from the Amorites to the Romans. Amar Annus showed in his 1999 paper “Were There Greek Rephaim?” that the demigod heroes venerated in Greece and Rome were the Rephaim of the Amorites and Canaanites. Even the name “Titan” derives from the Amorites–the Tidanu/Ditanu tribe mentioned in Ugaritic and Sumerian texts. By the time of the judges in Israel, they were believed to be an underworld assembly linked to the Rephaim. A temple to the “council of the ” is mentioned in Ugarit.

The main issue with the Nephilim is not that they were exceptionally large, it’s that the neighbors of Israel venerated them, and drew the Hebrews into that cult of the dead. See Psalm 106:28–the sin on the plains of Moab that provoked God to send a deadly plague was not just the worship of Baal Peor, a name which meant something like “lord of the opening to the netherworld,” it was that the cult involved eating sacrifices offered to the dead.

Sharon and I focus on this in our book ‘Veneration.’ References to a cult of the dead are scattered throughout the Bible. The Rephaim Texts of Ugarit describe a necromancy rite that summons these “warriors of Baal” to the threshing-floor or tabernacle of El, the summit of Mount Hermon, where “the blessing of the name of El” would “revivify” the heroes. It seems unlikely that their arrival at the threshing-floors at dawn of the third day (KTU1.22:ii:21–25) is a coincidence. It gives new meaning to 1 Corinthians 15–the fallen realm wants the resurrection that has been promised to us and bought for us by Jesus Christ.

Ken Ammi:

Most interesting.

Yet, all indications are that the assertion that, “demon spirits that proceeded from” Nephilim is just folklore from millennia after the Torah was written.

For a Biblical view of who/what demons are, see “Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?”

In noting, “the neighbors of Israel venerated them, and drew the Hebrews into that cult of the dead” you seem to be confusing Nephilim with (one of the usages of) rephaim.

Derek P. Gilbert:

Rephaim were venerated by the pagan Amorites as a sort of intermediate tier in the cosmological order between humanity and the great gods. At Ugarit, they were linked to the “council of the Ditanu,” who were believed to be the ancestral kings of several Amorite royal houses including that of Hammurabi of Babylon.

Isaiah describes the Rephaim as “leaders of the earth” and “kings of the nations.” Ezekiel refers to them as “chiefs of the gibborim.” The familiarity of Peter and Jude with 1 Enoch suggests that they held a favorable view of that text and its explanation of the origin of demons (which was shared by Hesiod, although the ancient Greeks had a much higher opinion of “daimones”). The “Travelers” of Ezekel 39:11 are probably the Rephaim, as that was an epithet of those spirits in one of the Ugaritic Rephaim texts (KTU 1.22 again).

That is at least circumstantial evidence that the Rephaim and Nephilim are the same group of disembodied spirits–demons–and that was the consensus belief among the early church until the time of Augustine.

Ken Ammi:

Recall that I noted “you seem to be confusing Nephilim with (one of the usages of) [the plural root word] rephaim.”

Yes, “Rephaim were venerated by the pagan…” but contextually, the Ugaritic sources inform us that recently deceased kings and heroes were referred to as such: kings and heroes. Yet, when they had been deal for a while, they were referred to as Rephaim. They were once living 100% humans who were later called by a different term—and the Pagan mythology was that they could be summoned.

Peter and Jude may (possibly) have “held a favorable view of that text and its explanation of the origin of demons” but such is never stated anywhere in the whole Bible. Yet, as you saw: I have constructed a Bible based theory about who/what they are.

If I really, really, really push it then perhaps maybe sort of, “Rephaim and Nephilim are the same group of disembodied spirits” but when alive, they had utterly nothing to do with each other, had no connection, no correlation at all in any way, shape, or form.

Also, I literally wrote the book but am unaware that “Rephaim and Nephilim are the same group of disembodied spirits–demons…was the consensus belief among the early church until the time of Augustine.”

See “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” and “What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities?: A Styled Paranormology” and “What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?: A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.”

Creig Marlowe:

Exegesis has to include the cultural context. In a case like cherub in Eek 28 what is in view is the sphinx of the king that guarded an entrance to the garden of his palace. Such statues with the body of a lion or bull and wings with the head/face of the king are well documented in the ANE. The original audience would never have come away from the text thinking about Satan, only the King of Tyre.

Colin Hamer:

Hi Creig,

But the audience of Ezek 28 will have understood that Ezekiel was referencing events in Eden (as he says) and thus might well have connected the cherub/king of Tyre to the serpent. John Ronning states (others say similar): “The figure of a supernatural serpent, or dragon, who is at enmity with God, was well known to the Hebrews and used without hesitation or introduction.” John L. Ronning, ‘The Curse on the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics’ (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1997), 141. Furthermore gentile nations (e.g. Tyre) were thought to be ruled by other gods, thus Deut 32:8-9. And certainly Egypt – Pharaoh wore a serpent on his headgear. Ezek 25-32 seeTyre and Egypt on a par.

Edwin Stok:

In my humble opinion the Biblical Nephilim narration touches the foundation of our perception of all Biblical text, because it urges us to take a stand in a very fundamental discussion :

Should we take Biblical text literally ? Or is it open to different interpretations -depending on if it suits our intentions- ?

Can one state that the Laws of Moses should not to be taken literally ? Are we free to put aside the First and Second Commandments if the content doesn’t suit us ? Can anyone state that the words of the Prophets should not be taken literally ? Ought we not take the teachings of Jeshua of Nazareth literally ?

It is my humble opinion that there is no way of not taking the Law (of Moses) and the Prophets literally.

I am just a layman on Church history and documentation. Plus I am not a native English speaker -thus making errors in choice of words and grammar. So, for me this is a balancing act. I consider it wrong to read anything else in the Bible texts than what is written. Even the term “Fallen Angels” is already a step aside from “Sons of God”.

The hard part is perhaps not that there were multiple Sons of God in Biblical History (although the Christian Creeds, whether Protestant, Caltholic, Baptist, or else, are telling us that there is only one Son of God), but accepting that Biblical History only tells of Evil offspring of the Sons of God.

No mentioning of Good offspring of Divine creatures, but only evil ones. It brings to memory 2 Bible texts :

1 Sam 15:2-3 “Go and destroy Amalek. Kill everything and everyone; Man and women, children and baby’s.”

Josh. 6:17 “The whole city of Jericho and all that is in the city is for the Lord and has to be killed”.

Really ? Killing defenseless baby’s and children as an order of a mercyful and righteous God ? What moral value is left ? It contradicts one of the Laws of Moses : “Thou shall not kill”.

What is mankind worth if it spills innocent blood and even says it was a directive of God ? What is the moral value of a God who orders to spill innocent blood and leave no child or baby alive ?

My point is this : Perhaps we should not at all be surprised if the Sons of God had an evil offspring. At the same time, we should be grateful that God restored the balance after this offspring.

As it is repeated in every (kind of) war, at the end evil powers are defeated and mankind gets (again) a new start. And that closes my comments ;

Violence, bad genes and bloody disbalances are of all times, unfortunately. Not only Biblical history, but all of mankind’s history is full of it. It does not set aside my beginning argument :

The Bible, the Prophets and the Law are to be taken literally.

Ken Ammi:

1 Sam 15:2-3 and Josh. 6:17 have nothing to do with evil offspring of “Divine creatures.”

Categorically, there’s no commandment against killing but only against murdering.

Victor Hill:

It should be noted that some of the early church fathers (c AD 100‒400) made use of the writings of the Book of Enoch, either on a par with the Scriptures (marked with an *) or at the very least a suitable source of quotations, namely:

Justin Martyr*, born c AD 100 ‒ died c 165;
Tatian*, born c AD 110 ‒ died c 180;
Irenaeus of Lyons, born c AD 140 ‒ died c 202;
Clement of Alexandria*, born c AD 150 ‒ died c 215;
Quintus Tertullian*, born c AD 155 ‒ died c 220;
Origen, born c AD 184 ‒ died 254;
Lucius Lactantius, born c AD 250 ‒ died c 320;
Commodianus, lived c AD 250;
Minucius Felix, died c AD 250;
Methodius of Olympus/Philippi, died AD 311; and
Ambrose of Milan, born c AD 340 ‒ died 397.

The popularity of the Book of Enoch among the church fathers was chiefly due to its use in supportive arguments (polemics) with the pagan Greeks and gave tentative support for Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah/Christ with the Hebrews.

It is interesting to note that the Ancient Greeks had similar stories, whether these derived from Babylonian or Hebrew influence is uncertain, but the parallels are certainly interesting to note, for example:

Azazel, a demon leader, became Prometheus;
Shemihazah, a demon leader, became Kronos, the king of the Titans;
Enoch, the netherworld trekker, became Orpheus;
giants (i.e., Nephilim), the people of renown, became gigantes, the demigod heroes (and after death the dactyls, e.g., daimon, i.e., demons);
Nimrod, the king of Babylon, became Apollo;
fallen watchers, the angels who sinned became Titans; and
Yahweh, God the Father, was replaced by Zeus (Satan), the father of the (pagan) gods.

Later this affinity with Greek mythology and its doubtful authenticity would be used to criti-cise 1 Enoch which led to its later fall from grace within the church and subsequent rejection and obscurity.

The usage of 1 Enoch was opposed by Jewish teachers who believed that the giants were famous people such as rulers or judges, and this view was upheld by rabbis:

Simeon ben Yochai, born c AD 100 – died c 160;
Shlomo Yitzshaki, born AD 1040 ‒ died 1105; and
Moshe ben Nachman, born AD 1194 ‒ died c 1270.

The usage of 1 Enoch was opposed by later church fathers who believed that the sons of God were the descendants of Seth (Sethites) and the daughters of men were the descendants of Cain (Cainites) producing halfcast (e.g., mongrel, bastard, half-breed) offspring and corrupt-ed people’s beliefs (their heresies), an idea that was proposed by Sextus Julius Africanus (born c AD 180 – died c 250), and this view was upheld by:

Hilary of Poitiers, born c AD 300 – died c 368;
Philastrius of Brescia, born c AD 330 – died c 397;
Jerome of Stridonium, born AD 347 – died 420; and
Augustine of Hippo, born AD 354 – died 420.

Refer: Book Enoch Victor Hill in Academia.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, see my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

And “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?”

Barnabas Yisa:

In answering any questions that arises from Gen 6:1-4, I suggest that the starting point should be the questions viz: Apart from Adam and Eve did God create other living beings before the earth was created and are these beings granted access to humans: Are beings created by God apart from humans made to procreate through sexual process either endogenously or exogenously; and finally what was the nomenclature humans give to their leaders before the flood? Also should Gen. 6:1-4 be literally interpreted? If one can answer these questions honestly, then it may be understandable how to interpret the verses in reference.

benth castberg:

Gen 1:1

In the beginning

God created

the heaven

and the earth.

Job 38:

4 Where were you

when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone—

7 while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels shouted for joy?

Matt 11:

Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

🙂

Ken Ammi:

The other verifiable living beings God create before the earth was created were “sons of God” and “morning stars” who witnessed the creation of the Earth, see Job 38:7 (as Benth noted and wherein the LXX has as sons of God/bene Elohim as Angelos)—perhaps Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim.

It would appear that Angels were not “created by God…to procreate through sexual process” but they did so nevertheless.

Unsure about the nomenclature question.

There’s no reason to not take Gen. 6:1-4 as literal.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, “the most ancient view…is the angelic/semi-divine interpretation”: pardon the pseudo-spam but I chronicled this fact in my book “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?”

Indeed also, “the Sethite view gained acceptance mostly from the time of Augustine around the fourth-fifth century A.D.”: and if I may play armchair psychologist with Augustine, he converted to Christianity from Manichaeism and sought to divest himself off vestiges of it. Thus, since Mani held to the Angel view, Augustine rejected it.

One question to pose to the Sethite view is: why exclusively male Sethites and exclusively female Cainites?

The Angel view elucidates why exclusively male sons of God since, “we should understand that all angels are ‘male.’”

It was noted, “Jesus says that angels do not marry, but doesn’t say they cannot marry”: indeed and yet, we need not even go in that direction since His statements were specifically about the loyal, “Angels of God in heaven.” Such is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first” estate, as Jude put it.

This brings us to “the normal order of procreation, ‘everything after its own kind,’ is just that—normal. And what we are reading in Genesis 6 is clearly NOT normal!”: here I would argue that humans and Angels are of the same “kind.”

Angels look just like human males—without any indication that such is not their ontology, no indication they take on bodies, etc.

We were created “a little lower than the” מֵאֱלֹהִים / ἀγγέλους (Psalm 8:5).

And, granting the Angel view (backed most directly by 2 Peter 2 and Jude) we can produce viable offspring.

We’re of the same kind but they were not to mate with us—much like I’m the same kind with every woman on the planet but am not to mate with any except my wife.

Indeed, “both humans and the angels [and Nephilim] were punished”: and the term man/men covers them all since they are all referred to as such.

“Heiser sees the term however originating in Aramaic, from the term for ‘giants,’ which, of course, coincides with the Septuagint translation of gigantes”: yet, that begs the question “What does the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English term ‘giants’ mean?”

Gigantes means “earth-born” (born of Gaia).

Heiser is using “giants” to refer to (subjectively) unusual height and/but to no one taller than circa 8 ft., which is in keeping with very, very few biblical references to height.

On the other hand, J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. (Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona) notes, “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.”

franns diletta maceda:

Dear Joe,

Thanks for the invite.

Here’s a hasty and short observation – I agree the contrast between ‘daughters of men’ and ‘sons of God’ provides strong suggestion of sexual activities between human females and fallen angels. This raises an interesting inquiry when i read’ It raises again the worst fears expressed at the close of Gen 3 (‘the man

has become like one of us. . . and now he might . . . eat, and live forever’) but in the new shape of gross physical contact between the sons of God and the beautiful daughters of humans. On the face of it, the human race could now be immune from mortality’

This suggest the tree of life (which many Christian analysts and regular believers believe as a symbol/gift of eternal life for accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior) was not the only source of immortality for humankind, which appears strongly inconsistent with the basic biblical truth that the God-man Jesus is the only author of eternal life.

Or the immortality conferred by the tree of life is different qualitatively from the immortality of the spawns between women and fallen angels, preserving the same conclusion of sexual congress between divine and n0n-divine beings

Second I do not understand how Coxen came to the suggestion of immortality of the products between women and angels.

A plain and simple reading of the text clearly does not imply any form or state of immortality , ‘3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide

in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.’

The text suggests these Nephilim can live beyond 120 years but not immortal and God limited them to 120 years.

Though French woman Jeanne Calment holds the longest documented human lifespan at 122 years so the view Noah build the ark for about 120 years simultaneously warning his wicked neighbors of the first rain for 120 years, is preferable and consistent God always tells the truth – the 120 years in Gen 6 is not about the limit of human lifespan.

Looking forward for more of your contributions

God bless your work

God bless your loved ones even more,

Franns Diletta

Creig Marlowe

see “Gen 6:1-4 as a Chiasm,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology 30:1 (2016): 129-44. Also in Other Voices in Old Testament Interpretation

Joseph Biddulph

First, we must acknowledge that this is by no means the only difficult passage in the Scriptures! They abound – in fact, some things appear to be scandalous. Without this difficulty, however, we might gloss over the text and not wrestle with it like wrestling Jacob, and I think that this wrestling becomes a valuable part of Scripture study – we are not required to find a complete, water-tight conclusion, any more than we can fully grasp the details of the Book of Job. See how the discussion makes us look closely at the Hebrew and grapple with the meanings of words! Would we do this if these difficulties were not there to challenge us?

The other element is mythology. Some commentators try to eliminate dragons, the Lamia, satyrs, Leviathan as neither hippo nor crocodile, etc. from the Scripture texts, but anyone with an understanding of the principles of heraldry will see the emblematic or heraldic significance here. If a dragon can symbolise everything inspiring it means to be Welsh, can’t a Scriptural dragon symbolise or indicate a similar truth or phenomenon?

If “symbolise” is the right word here?

Which brings us on to poetry – creative literature, if you prefer. I am working through a commentary on Proverbs which so far has not once stated that the proverbs are in metrical form in the Hebrew. The proverbs of many nations are often deeply literary – one might almost say, untranslatable. I have a book of Tamil proverbs (with “translation”) that indicates this. Just as the poetry of Robert Browning can be musical without us grasping the full meaning, so the Hebrew poetry can live outside semantics pure and simple: some of the effect is aesthetic. This aesthetic experience is defined in some Sanskrit sources as RASA, and exists independently from “what it’s supposed to mean”. Hebrew poetry achieves this in part through a very subtle system of sound harmonies – not simply alliteration and assonance, but much more – that I have dubbed the Hebrew Cynghanedd, after a similar if distinct system in Welsh. Another way of achieving it is through word pictures – the heraldry aspect – presenting to us vivid images which can be interpreted either in a number of different ways, or in many ways all at the same time. The Nephilim – even the word is pure music – may be seen as representing one of these?? (Please dismiss this thought if unacceptable!)

If therefore we attempt to juggle with these ideas without having a complete faith system to, so to speak, put Scripture in its place, we can run into the literalism and insistence on a narrow interpretation as found by many 19th century commentators. Once we see that Scripture is the LITERATURE of the Faith, we can be more tolerant of these difficulties, and enjoy them for themselves, knowing that the Almighty One whose Book this is has a relationship with us more immediate than this, and that the authentic teachers he has raised up for us can be trusted, in our search for Himself. To call Scripture literature is not to belittle it: it is to infuse it with another element on top of whatever else it is supposed to be. We are not only allowed to read carefully, we are also allowed to SING, and if wine gladdens men’s hearts, then we can feel free to be inebriated by the beauty of the utterance at the same time!

This may all be just a lot of rubbish, so please disregard as appropriate. Happy Scripture Reading, everybody!

Joseph Biddulph, Pontypridd

Victor Hill

In the Old Testament the term ‘sons of God’ is only used to refer to angels. It is not until the New Testament that Christians are referred to as ‘sons of God’, bore there is no ambiguity regarding its usage in Genesis.

And that brought the discussion to an end.

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.

Atheist notes “some common types” of Atheists

The statement by the Atheist came about due to the following discussion to the question, “Do atheists separate themselves from other atheists in their forms of atheism as far as motive is concerned?” that was posted to the Quora site.

A certain, “Francis, Raised as a Christian, experimented, and ended an atheist” replied:

Atheists are no more one unified body who believe the same thing than Christians are. There are, however, some common types.

Most atheists just want to be left alone and get on with our lives without being hassled by people claiming to be on a mission from god. We don’t particularly care about the nuances of why we don’t believe.

Some atheists think that theology is one of the best parlour games ever invented. We enjoy teasing out the differences between atheists and agnostics even if they don’t actually mean much.

Some atheists reject and oppose the specific religion they grew up in. Nietzche, for example, was a “Catholic Atheist”; he was an atheist – but agreed with the Catholic church on just about everything other than the existence of God (which is pretty big, admittedly) and where Catholic philosophy says “The world would be this way without God” Nietzche agreed and said that’s how the world is.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

I’d say that one thing that unifies Atheists is that Atheism is primarily an anti-Christian support group. They have two main denominations and various sects—based on certain commonalities, of course. Likewise, the three main Christian groups—Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism—all agree on the Nicene Creed, as an example of across the board agreement on main issues.

I’m unsure to what research study you are referring for your assertion about what “Most atheists…want” but the activist ones are utterly obsessed with hassling people by comporting themselves as Atheist missionaries.

Now, of course, that “The world would be this way without God” is utterly incoherent since without God there would be not world.

Francis:

I’m unsure what research study you are referring to – but I’ve yet to be woken up by an atheist knocking on my door to share the good news that there is no god. I’ve yet to be yelled at by an atheist street stall or atheist street preacher. I’ve yet to see an atheist tell people they deserve to be tortured forever because of their beliefs.

In my experience even the most ardent “activist atheists” are no more obsessed with hassling people than your average run of the mill church going Christian. I would be interested to see your evidence of the existence of atheist street stalls and atheist street preachers – or atheists going on tour to spread the word.

Ken Ammi

No worries, you referenced that which, “Most atheists…want” but that was just a wild guess—I’m sure I generalize from time to time as well and also, like you, based on my personal experiences.

Fascinatingly, you admit that (at least some) Atheists assert, “that there is no god” so that is one of the denominations of Atheism—the one that makes positive affirmations that are unproven.

But oh, I’ve been yelled at by Atheist cyber preacher plenty of times—my website it saturated with examples of my discussion with them.

I see your point about “tortured forever” since Atheists set the serial and mass murdering world’s record in mere decades and opted to believe that they were not transcendently accountable. They enjoyed doing that they did and simply got away with it—this is part of why evil, pain, and suffering are some of the best reasons for rejecting Atheism.

Now, I don’t mind setting all of that aside so as to just deal with the issue of that on Atheism truth/reality/facts are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand/expect others to do so either ergo, why get bent out of shape if, say, someone misrepresents Atheism or believes in things that are even demonstrably untrue/unreal/un-factual?

Francis

You aren’t Humpty-Dumpty. Words don’t mean what you want them to just because you pay them extra.

1: Atheism does not have denominations with a non-trivial size. (You could argue the Satanic Temple and a couple of other tiny organisations). A denomination isn’t just a belief, it’s an organised group.

2: You have not been yelled at by atheists on your website unless they’ve uploaded an audio file. Words have meanings. You might have been flamed for all the arrant nonsense. I’m talking about yelled at in real life. How many times have you seen an atheist on the street corner with a microphone, amplifier, and speaker? Because for me it’s never. While it happened almost every week from a Christian down my high street.

2b: They aren’t “atheist cyber preachers” unless you want to count every single Christian who ever tweeted anything about Christianity even if they would never have the nerve to do it fave to face as a preacher which is … an unusual definition of words.

3: Hitler professed to be a Roman Catholic (what he was in his heart isn’t very relevant) and the Wehrmacht had “Gott mit uns” on their belt buckles. The continual either ignorant or dishonest attempts by Christians to deny what the Nazis believed and professed to believe is tedious.

4: Torture forever is the doctrine of hell. Most Christians openly worship a being who set up and rules a system where people are tortured forever. And Christian writers and preachers at least as far back as Tertullian and continuing through Aquinas into the present day have openly claimed that one of the greatest pleasures of heaven will be watching the suffering of the damned in hell. If evil, pain, and suffering are a reason to reject atheism it is because large branches of Christianity embrace all three and call them good.

5: Atheism is where you get if you actually think that facts matter. Which is a big part of why the overwhelming majority of those who honestly and passionately study the world and the way the physical world works for a living (scientists) are atheists.

But as you say there is no universal imperative to adhere to the observable facts of the world – which is why not everyone is an atheist. There is also no universal imperative to have conversations on Quora and if you keep ignoring the observable facts you may be blocked.

Ken Ammi

Indeed, words don’t mean what you want and the history of Atheism informs us of various meanings and usages.

So, if “Atheism does not have denominations” then since you positively affirm God’s non-existence then you must prove it.

Pretending to know the private details of my life is utterly embarrassing as I have, in fact, been yelled at in person, in real-life (and you may be aware that one can YELL VIA TYPING just like that or like this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

So please, don’t waste time pretending to know what you could not possibly know (no wonder you’re an Atheist) and playing mind reader such as when you refer to my “arrant” nonsense as if you can read my mind, heart, motivations, feelings, etc.

It is also fascinating how utterly myopic and subjective you are that if you have not experienced it then no one must have either.

No, “atheist cyber preachers” does not refer to “Christian who ever tweeted anything about Christianity”: that is utterly incoherent.

What does it matter if “Hitler professed to be a Roman Catholic”? Also, are you saying that if I wear a National Rodeo Association belt buckle then that means I’m a bull rider?

But friend, you are only constantly merely jumping to asserted conclusions since, for example, you write, “worship a being who set up and rules a system where people are tortured forever” but don’t bother elucidating why you seem to imply that something is wrong with that—on your worldview.

As for “evil, pain, and suffering are a reason to reject atheism it is because large branches of Christianity embrace all three and call them good” that’s merely a tu quoque logical fallacy (not that logical fallacies matter on Atheism).

The scientific method is premise on biblical theology.

The point about “if you actually think that facts matter” is part of what I’m getting at since on Atheism facts are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, not to demand that others do so. Thus, you just dug your own grave.

And you actually admit that with “there is no universal imperative to adhere to the observable facts of the world” so you just obliterated everything you have written.

But then you contradict your own moment of clarity by writing about that you will run away and censor me (block me) if I (allegedly) “keep ignoring the observable facts” so you are now speaking incoherently and are contradicting your own worldview which is cognitively dissident (not that being cognitively dissident matters on Atheism).

Well, that ended it since Francis never replied again—and I do find that Atheists generally don’t when they get too close to exposing their hidden assumptions which turn out to be a bottomless pit of subjective assertions.

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.

Rev. Dr. Andrew Davison on alien theology

Theologians at the Center for Theological Inquiry (CTI) in Princeton, New Jersey, are working with NASA on the issue of how alien life fits into theology—the first issue, of course, of which is to define what we mean by, to what or who, we refer as aliens.

Rev. Dr. Andrew Davison—religious scholar at University of Cambridge who holds a doctorate in biochemistry from Oxford—is about to publish a book on the subject (so I have not read it, as of yet) to be titled Astrobiology and Christian Doctrine.

One theory tackled is how Adam’s fall into since, which would seem to affect the entire universe, would have effected aliens and what it means about htier salvation.

He thinks, “‘most significant question’ is how theologians would respond to the notion ‘of there having been many incarnations [of Christ]’ in the universe.”

NGOs (non-government organizations) have a very long history of investigating such issues but towards what end?

“In 2014, NASA awarded CTI a $1.1 million grant to study worshippers’ interest in and openness to scientific inquiry called the Societal Implications of Astrobiology study.” But why are a bunch of engineers and bureaucrats interested in such a thing?

My suspicion was laid out in my previous post Alien UFOs: will the ultimate revelation be the ultimate deception?—also, see Report on the CIA’s report on the “CIA’s Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90” and Are the Vatican’s aliens the universal saviors?

This, or so it seems to me, is about the Societal Implications of Astrobiology in terms of what can be made of it. In other words, how society can be changed via claims about astrobiology which, by definition is the study of nothing or, the possible study of possible life—out there, somewhere.

In my book Fifty Shades of Gray Aliens, for example, I included a chapter titled “Ancient (Atheist) Aliens” to elucidate how as the evidence of the universe’s fine-tuning continues to mount, Atheists (whose thoughts are restricted, by definition, by their world-view) are so desperate that they have been theorizing that the designer—since extraordinary fine-tuning requires an extraordinary fine-tuner—is indeed an intelligence but it is an alien intelligence from another planet—which, of course, merely pushed the question of biogenesis back one step and thus, answers nothing (BTW: I also included a chapter titled, “Ancient Aliens and Satanic Gnosticism”).

“Research published in 2017 found that people with a strong desire to find meaning, but a low adherence to a particular religion, are more likely to believe aliens exist — indicating that faith in either theory may come from the same human impulse.”

“With NASA’s support, CTI’s director Will Storrar said they’d hoped to see ‘serious scholarship being published in books and journals.’”

Overall, just keep in mind that alien consists of a-lie-n.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Source: Hannah Sparks, “NASA hired 24 theologians to study human reaction to aliens: new book,” New York Post, December 27, 2021.

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.

TJ Steadman on Num 13:33—the mother of all Nephilim texts

TJ Steadman, with whom I had a debate/discussion, wrote, “By examining the Scriptures, we are able to get a good idea of the size of the Nephilim. The account in Numbers tells of immense size.” Note that the Book of Numbers record post-flood events.

In another article, I noted that TJ Steadman sometimes wants his cake, wants to eat it, and does not want to get fat.
Well, we have another such occasion in the case of the mother of all Nephilim texts—the mother of the mere two we have in the Bible: Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 (so, they are not really even texts but verses), the latter is not commenting upon the former even though it is obviously related.

During our debate, he stated, “what I’m really saying here is not that I’m arguing that there are Nephilim after the flood” and in his book “At the end of the Flood narrative…the Nephilim have all died.”

Numbers records a mere claim of post-flood Nephilim, a claim for which the unreliable speakers were rebuked—my opening statement for the debate was focused on this point alone.

So, if and since “At the end of the Flood narrative…the Nephilim have all died” and he is “not…arguing that there are Nephilim after the flood” then, pray tell, how could we “get a good idea of the size of the Nephilim” “By examining the Scriptures” since the only reliable Nephilim verse, Gen 6:4, does not provide any sort of physical description and the unreliable one, Num 13:33 well, we will have to see, since there were no Nephilim post-flood but there also were—or, something.
Actually, TJ Steadman does, in fact, believe in two forms of post-flood Nephilim: 1) Nephilim in spirit form as demons (since he believes pseudepigraphical folklore from millennia after the Torah was written), and 2) Nephilim 2.0 in the form of Rephaim (which is utterly unbiblical for a number of reasons).

But still, the unreliable speakers recorded in Num 13:33 refer to “Nephilim” not to Rephaim (except that they also refer Anakim who are a Rephaim subgroup)—and they refer to Nephilim being alive and well, on the ground at that time, etc.
Yet, TJ Steadman also, sort of, denies (and also agrees with) this—as we shall see.

One last note before really digging in: TJ Steadman, who I really would like to see become a friend of the sort with whom I can keep sharpening iron with iron, suffers from a condition I will herein coin as Gigorexia Nervosa which is the obsessing desire to see giants everywhere (and invent them if they are nowhere to be seen)—the same condition afflicts the people I featured in my book Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers.

TJ Steadman wrote, “It is well attested historically that the average fully grown Israelite man of those days stood not much taller than 5 feet 3 inches, or approximately 160cm. Therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude that anyone considered a giant on the basis of physical comparison would have been upwards of six feet tall as a starting point, from the point of view of the Israelites.”

Close, but the well attested historical average ranges from 5.0-5.3—and that is the average for males who tend to be taller than females on average.
In any case, it is close enough but the problem is that such stuff is so subjective: “giant” is a subjective term, “tall” is likewise, as is “average,” and I can attest to you that in modern day North America at 6 ft even (another inch with my shoes on) I have been called a giant many, many, many times.

TJ Steadman wrote:

By examining the Scriptures, we are able to get a good idea of the size of the Nephilim. The account in Numbers tells of immense size – the Israelite spies appeared to be grasshoppers by comparison, and not just from their own point of view!
Even allowing for hyperbole on the part of the spies, this is a significant difference in size. We’re not talking about a few inches.

Incidentally, the LXX renders the last two verses slightly differently to illustrate this point:

Numbers 13:33-34 (NETS) “And they brought about consternation for the land that they had spied out, to the sons of Israel, saying, “The land that we passed through to spy it out – it is a land that devours those who live upon it. All the people that we saw in it are very tall men, and we have seen the giants there, and we were before them like grasshoppers – indeed even so we were before them.”

The LXX translation is most notable here for plainly affirming the great size of the giants over and above the size of the natural human inhabitants of the land, who were also tall men. So, it reveals that where the Canaanites were taller than Israelites, the giants were taller still.

Part of the issue is when we speak in terms of, for example, “the Scriptures…The account in” so that we are thinking about a text we automatically think of as being “God’s Word,” which the Bible is, without thinking about who said it, why they said it, how it was received, etc. For example, “the Bible says” and “Moses wrote” and “God inspired” the recording of statements by Satan and while we should believe that he stated them, we should not believe the statements.

Thus, “Numbers tells of immense size” or even “the Israelite spies appeared to be…” is not specific enough since TJ Steadman is really referring to ten of the twelve spies: the ten who proved themselves to be unfaithful, disloyal, self-contradictory, embellishers, who made four claims about which the rest of the Bible knows nothing, who also contradicted Caleb, Joshua, Moses, God and the whole rest of the Bible, and were rebuked for what they said.

Thus, it is not just a matter of “allowing for hyperbole.” Yet, I agree that “this is a significant difference in size. We’re not talking about a few inches” but difference of more than a few inches in real life, or in unreliable people’s mere assertions?

It is fascinating that he quotes the LXX since, did you notice it?, it lacks reference to Anakim so that based on it, it cannot be claimed that Anakim are related to Nephilim.
Note also that TJ Steadman is staking the deck, as it were, by baiting and switching the verse’s reference to “Nephilim” and opting to tell us about “giants.”

No version, not even the LXX, plainly or vaguely affirms a supposed “great size of the giants.” He just thinks this because he thinks that the Greek word(s) “gigantes” or “gigas” implies something about size (some vaguely unspecific something) which is not the case: those terms mean “earth-born.”
Thus, there is no indication that “Canaanites were taller than Israelites, the giants were taller still” but only that some Rephaim, such as the Anakim, were “tall” or “of great stature” (since there is no such word as “giant” in the Hebrew Bible—and yes, tall, great stature, and giant are all subjective terms).

TJ Steadman also wrote:

But the most significant contribution that the LXX makes to our understanding here is the removal of ambiguity about perspective. Whereas the MT versions tell us that the Israelites “were grasshoppers in [their] own sight,” the LXX simply repeats for emphasis that the spies were seen as such by the giants.

This removes the possibility of interpreting the size of the giants as an exaggeration based on fearful self-doubt. Instead, it affirms that the Israelites were viewed as physically insignificant by comparison, in the eyes and minds of the giants themselves.

“But the ten spies were lying!” This is a common objection, but it struggles to gain traction against the Biblical consensus. The phrase “evil report” sounds like a deliberate deception until we consider the original text. The word dibbah is used, which is always negative, usually meaning “unfavorable report” or “infamy.”
The text does not require dishonesty or falsehood. It just means it wasn’t good. The spies didn’t like what they saw, and they freely expressed their disappointment and hopelessness. That’s okay. It’s not a sin to be discouraged. They weren’t lying.

He is still focused on the statement rather than on the prior question which is that if it is reliable—which is 100% is not for many reasons.

So, sure, it is emphasized that Israelites and Nephilim saw the situation as such but so what? If was not true then it matters not.

By the way, if we are going to use a comparison to grasshoppers as a means whereby to determine how tall Nephilim were then we have also figured out how tall God is.
Indeed, after all, in the LXX has Isaiah 40:22 as that “It is he” God, “that comprehends the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants in it are as grasshoppers.”

As for the claim that “But the ten spies were lying!” as “a common objection” that supposedly “struggles to gain traction” especially up “against the Biblical consensus,” during our debate he repeated the “phrase ‘evil report’ sounds like…” argument but I shortcut it by denying that I think it is a deception because it is called evil or bad but because of its contents and, actually, due to the Biblical consensus which knows of no such thing, beyond that one verse, of that 1) all the inhabitants of the land were of great height, that 2) there were post-flood Nephilim, that 3) Anakim are related to them, and that 4) Nephilim were very tall.
For those four claims one must rely exclusively on one single verse—and a verse recording statements by utterly unreliable people whom God rebuked.

True, “The text does not require dishonesty or falsehood” but while it does not require dishonesty or falsehood, it at the very least implies it in many ways.
As for that “it wasn’t good” due to that “The” ten, by the way, “spies didn’t like what they saw” so that it was called evil/bad due to that “they freely expressed their disappointment and hopelessness” and they were “discouraged” well, as I noted during the debate: disappointment, hopelessness, and discouragement were expressed by the ten before we are told they presented an evil/bad report and only thereafter are we told of that report.
Thus, it was not evil/bad for those reasons (even if it was premised upon them) but due to its contents.

TJ Steadman also noted:

Genesis and Numbers both make it clear that these giants had great strength, which means that they could not have been like the occasional “giant” people we see today. Modern “giants” are usually tall and thin, or people sufferring from a condition like gigantism, which renders the individual weak, lame and short-lived.

Such people are rare, and they do not breed more of the same – it is a freak condition that occurs randomly and spontaneously. The Israelite spies reported seeing no less than five nations of giant people inhabiting the land, who were both tall and strong.

Regarding both Genesis and Numbers making it clear that these Nephilim, by the way, had great strength: Gen 6:4 notes that Nephilim became “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” which tells us nothing about strength—and certainly nothing about height. As far as Num 13:33, he is commonsensically inferring that with great height comes great strength.

Note the claim that “The Israelite spies” only ten of them “reported seeing no less than five nations of giant people inhabiting the land, who were both tall and strong” but this is part of the embellishment.
The contextually relevant portions of the Num 13 narrative consists of the original accepted as is report, the interaction between Caleb (with whom Joshua sided) and the other ten spies), and the evil/bad report.
The original/as is report notes that the peoples are “strong.” During the interaction, the ten then reaffirm that they are “strong.” Yet, within their evil/bad report they suddenly claim that they are all “of great stature.”
Thus, TJ Steadman is just mashing everything together into a sentence that is meant to buttress his point—spiked by the term “giant.”

He also writes:

Amos 2:9 is noteworthy because Yahweh Himself speaks of the Amorites and says that they were as tall as cedar trees and strong as oaks. Cedars are often used as a metaphor for gods. Even allowing for hyperbole, it is clear as in the situation in Numbers 13, that these men were enormous and strong:

Amos 2:9 “Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.”

I have been over this text way too many times so here are the bare bones: the term “enormous” is subjective but yes, the point is that they were big (another subjective term) and strong just like when Moses later relates the Num 13 events and in Deut 1:28 were he has it that “our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven.”

Now, whether he is speaking of the first, second, or third heavens: those are some very, very, tall, tall, enormous walls. Rather, this is the stuff of which ANE hyperbole is made—just as is the description of the Tower of Babel “let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven” (Gen 11:4).

TJ Steadman then mentions the most well-known “giant”:

Goliath of Gath is arguably the best-known giant and stood roughly nine feet nine inches or 2.97 meters high according to the Masoretic Text.
Lesser-known giants include Goliath’s brothers Ishbibenob, Saph (also called Sippai) and Lahmi, together with an unnamed giant who is recorded as having six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot. These five were sons of a giant father…

Note that the massive size of their weapons (a three-hundred-shekel spearhead equates to 3.4 kilograms or 7.5 pounds) implies that there must have been enormous strength required to use them. Goliath’s spearhead weighed twice as much. How effectively could any modern man use a spear with a head weighing 15 pounds?

The father of these five brothers is referred to as “the giant” in many versions; in others, he is called “Rapha.” Some believe it is a proper name, others say it is a tribal name or line of descent, but most commonly it is believed to be simply a descriptor of his giant size.

It is commonly said that the Nephilim had six digits on each hand and foot, but that seems not to be the case, given that in this passage only one of the brothers was considered worthy of note as such. In fact, the point can be made that this particular giant was so unusual that his name was not even recorded.

TJ Steaman is well aware that the Masoretic Text is in the minority since the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, Flavius Josephus, and other manuscripts have him as being just shy of 7 ft.
Good point about “six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot” since many claim that such is a “Nephilim trait” yet, it is only stated about one single person and he was not a Nephil but was a Repha. TJ Steadman is one of the few (sort of) post-flood Nephilim believers who gets this.

“How effectively could any modern man use a spear with a head weighing 15 pounds?” I know not but I do not know that an average 5.0-5.3 used it just fine, thank you very much. The only other specific reference to height in the Bible is “an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high” who, just like Goliath had “a spear like a weaver’s beam.” Note that Benaiah “plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and slew him with his own spear” (1 Chronicles 11:23). Thus, valiant and yet, regular guy Benaiah used wielded it successfully in hand-to-hand combat.
As for the weaponry: Goliath had help since he had “one bearing a shield went before him” which implies an armor bearer who assisted with the equipment. Also, you can watch strong-man or power-lifting competitions wherein guys who are right about 6 ft lift 1,000 lbs.

As to “the giant” “is called ‘Rapha’” well, he is not just “called” that, he was a Repha with “the giant” being a problematic rendering, a pseudo-translation—Repha (Or, Rapha) is 100% a “tribal name or line of descent” and never a “descriptor of his giant size.”

TJ Steadman then wrote:

Some argue that perhaps all people of ancient times were bigger than modern man. If that were the case, the writers of the Old Testament would have thought nothing of the size of the men described and would not have bothered to make any contrast with other men as though they were any different.
It is obvious that where the Scripture describes giants it does not speak of them as ordinary men. The giants were real, and they were spectacular.

Were they 450-foot monsters like the book of 1 Enoch would have us believe? Even the 36-foot giants imagined in Internet conspiracy theory videos are too much for any realistic and well-grounded Bible believer. Most Bible versions quote Goliath’s height at six cubits and a span.

I do not know who “Some” are but I see no reliable evidence for that “all people of ancient times were bigger than modern man.”
Yet, I also do not see that “the writers of the Old Testament” make much of a contrast: again, they call some people “tall” or “of great stature” and neither of the merely to specific heights mentioned in the whole Bible—which one would imagine were specifically specified due to being so unusual—even make it to 8 ft (which is just like modern day pro basketball players since none of them quite make it to 8 ft).

Analyzing the sentence, “It is obvious that where the Scripture describes giants it does not speak of them as ordinary men. The giants were real, and they were spectacular” we must biblically read it as that “It is obvious that where the Scripture describes giants” meaning what Nephilim or Rephaim or gibborim or a reference to height (inches taller, feet taller, entire body lengths taller) or that Nephilim or Rephaim or gibborim were taller than average (by however much) which would be an utterly generic claim “it” most certainly “does…speak of them as ordinary men” since Rephaim are 100% human, gibborim merely means might/mighty, and we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim.
Thus, that “The giants were real, and they were spectacular” is generic enough to be a meaningless statement.

1 Enoch aka Ethiopic Enoch actually states “three thousand ells is their height” (7:2) and while it is thought that an ell ranges from 27-45 inches this rage results in then being 81,000-135,000 ft. or 15.3-25.6 mi. (yes, miles) tall (see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch). As for the “Internet conspiracy theory videos,” how do I just know he is referring to Rob Skiba and those who parrot him?

To the statement I just commented upon, he attached this footnote:

It is commonly assumed that in units of length, the traditional cubit of 18 inches or 45cm would have been in used during the time of the Kings; however some argue the Greek LXX most likely employs the royal Egyptian cubit because it was translated as a means of preserving the Scripture in the common language of its time for an Egyptian audience, which it is argued would necessitate an attempt at approximate unit conversion.

The LXX takes similar liberties elsewhere, updating place names for the benefit of its contemporary readership, so the idea of units of measure also being updated is not implausible. The royal Egyptian cubit equals roughly 52.4cm or 20.62 inches, and the span is half a cubit, 26.2cm or 10.31 inches. The unit is based on the measurement of a typical forearm, from elbow to fingertip.

This would make the typical Israelite cubit (based on the average male Israelite stature of 5’3″) more like 16″ or 40cm, and the span 8″ or 20cm. The date of the events does not necessarily indicate any certainty of the measure in use because of the fact that the date of authorship (and any later redaction or editing) may have influenced the measurement actually preserved in the record.

It certainly is likely that the LXX is using longer cubits which, of course, means that we should be less impressed by its sizes—but what sizes, the size of the only two people’s heights specified therein? The LXX still has Goliath at just shy of 7 ft—which yes, would be quite tall compared to 5.0-5.3 ft.

TJ Steadman wrote:

But that was not the last that Israel would see of the Amalekites. As the Israelites approached the Promised Land, they sent spies ahead of them; this was not a good move because they had not been directed to do so by Yahweh.

And in that same vein, the failures of Israel began to multiply. The spies brought a mostly fearful and faithless report back on account of the understandably genuine concerns that there were giants in the land equipped.

Actually, Num 13 begins with “And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel.”

Overall, this was an issue of that “The” ten” spies brought a mostly fearful and faithless” evil/bad “report back on account of the understandably genuine concerns that” as the original/as is report had it, “the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled” which led to a fear-mongering scare-tact tall tale of the “Don’t go in the woods” sort when thy took it up a notch seeing themselves being up against the wall.

Lastly, beyond any and all of this, during out debate TJ Steadman argued that it was a redactor who, millennia later during the Babylonian exile, inserted the Aramaic term naphiyla into Num 13:33—even though there is no textual evidence of that—so that we know not what the ten spies actually stated which ends up discrediting his entire case—beyond all of the other reasons I noted for discrediting 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.

Real Truth Speaker answers The Nephilim: Did They Exist and Where Did They Come From?

Undergoing review is the article The Nephilim: Did They Exist and Where Did They Come From? by the Real Truth Speaker site.

It is noted, “Many Christians do not believe that the Nephilim were fallen angel offspring because they do not believe that being a hybrid is possible” yet, I am unsure how accurate that is since we all know of various animal hybrids.

Yet, the point is made that Jesus is both God and human, Cherubim have the faces of four bio-organisms (see Ezekiel chaps. 1 and 10), Seraphim have human features such as hands and/but also wings, etc.

Also noted is that, “Many non-believers doubt the existence of the Nephilim and feel that they were simply tall people with overexaggerated heights.” Well, many non-believers and many believers as well. Yet, what “tall people with overexaggerated heights” has to do with Nephilim was not elucidated.

There is also this likewise abrupt sentence, “With Stella Immanuel being attacked for referencing the Nephilim by the term ‘demon sperm’, I felt like I needed to touch on this topic.” I know not who that is nor who was/were the attacker/s but “demon sperm” is a contradiction in terms since, by definition, demons are spirits but sperm is a physical organism thus, demons cannot have/produce sperm.

The following point is argued:

The term “sons of God” is widely debated. Many people simply attribute this to men, yet this term appears in the Bible in other places. These following Bible verses prove that they were angels.

Job 1:6 “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.”

Job 2:1 “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord.”

Job 38:7 “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

These verses are talking about things in heaven, which shows that they can’t be earthly men. They also presented themselves before God along with satan, which is clearly something going on in the spirit realm. Putting Genesis and Job together paints the picture that a certain group of angels married women and had children with them, who became the Nephilim (giants).

I wouldn’t go as far as concluding that Job identifies them as Angels—even though I do think that such is the case—only because he does not identify them as such—yet, in the Septuagint/LXX for those vss. the term Angelos is employed—but most directly from 38:7 we can discern that they are not human since they witnessed the creation of the Earth, at the very least—which the article’s author oddly left out.

As for “Nephilim (giants)” well, it appears to be a way to identify they who are being referenced as per their Hebrew title and an English term into which some have rendered it (not even translated it) so that biblically, “Nephilim (giants)” reads as “Nephilim (Nephilim).” The term giants in some English Bibles is merely rendering Nephilim in two vss. and Repha/im in 98% of all other usages: the usage is not as a descriptor, it implies nothing about height at all.

We are also told, “The Book of Enoch Tells Everything In Detail” with reference to 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch, “The book of Enoch is the most reliable non-canonized biblical book. The Book of Enoch is even quoted and referenced to in the Bible in books such as Jude and 2 Peter.” I am unsure Peter quotes it but in any case, Paul quotes Greek poets, Satan is oft quoted, etc. This text dates from millennia after the Torah, contradicts the Bible a lot, and has Nephilim having been miles tall which is great folklore but poor reality—see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

The subsection about 1 Enoch, which is non-biblical, is followed by subsection, “Non-Biblical Evidence of the Nephilim” which notes, “Now that we’ve clearly established that the Bible and Enoch said that angels had children with women, who became giants, I want to provide non-Biblical evidence for this claim for those who do not believe that the Bible is 100% reliable. I have decided to use pictures to illustrate my claim.”

Now, the vague, subjective, generic, and multi-usage modern English word giants is being misread and misused. Moreover, no attempt was even made at arguing in favor of biblical evidence for giant Nephilim and the 1 Enoch assertions are just folkloric tall-tales.

Now, basing the assertion of Nephilim being giants on zero reliable data points, we are told that such is enough to mount a defense of the Bible, “the Bible is 100% reliable” which is followed by illustrative illustrations.

nephilim-giants-1

About this generic reference to “Abnormal Skulls” the statement is made, “These skulls are not normal human skulls” but nothing more. Especially not why we should think that such are Nephilim skulls. Moreover, note that those who assert that Nephilim were giants and that we have their skulls—such as LA Marzulli—can only ever show us regular sized skulls.

nephilim-giants-2

About a reference to Giraffes being “14-20 Feet Tall” we are told, “The person in the hieroglyph is in comparable height to a giraffe” but this is myopic. Firstly, it is uncertain—and certainly not elucidated—why we should take such ancient paintings literally. Secondly, a key missing data point is how old that Giraffe is: why exclusively presuppose and imply that it’s a full grown animal rather than a baby?

nephilim-giants-3

The image demands that the upper three are “Nephilim & Nephilim Descendants” but we are not told how Angels (who look like humans) and humans (who look like humans because they are humans) would result in offspring who are not altogether quite human-looking. In any case, we have the same issue with these as above and the only comment on this one was, “There is a clear difference.”

nephilim-giants-4

About this, we are told, “This is likely how the Egyptian pyramids were built” but we have the same literalistic issue as above. For example, there is no consideration that hoi polloi may have been depicted as much smaller than the kings, pharaohs, gods, etc. in order to show their dominance. Also, it is merely asserted that the illustration of someone carrying a square something must have been a rock block of the size in the photo. And, of course, if this had anything to do with Nephilim then the Giza pyramids must have been built pre-flood since Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

nephilim-giants-5

This illustration is from a Trey Smith video and his Nephilology isn’t biblical. The comment is, “Drastically different skulls” but, again, nothing about: what of it?

nephilim-giants-6

Unfortunately, the only comment on this was, “No words needed” but, again, no words at all have been offered for any of these mere assertions—merely repeating one person’s assertions is just that.

nephilim-giants-7

The comment made here is, “No normal human has a 47-inch femur, nor do they need a 10 ft tall ax.” Well, that is not a femur, that is a sculpture of a femur crafted by Joe Taylor, the man in the photo: see this video wherein he explains it in his own word.

As for “No normal human…need[s] a 10 ft tall ax” again, we are supposed to take those literally even though human history provides a very long series of evidences that humans love to depict thing in a scale that is much larger or much smaller than that which is being represented: such is why, for example, you can travel to Paris and purchase a very small replica of the Eiffel Tower. We have done so for emphasis, for ceremony, for artistic license, for gifts, etc.

The last subsection emphatically insists, “The Nephilim Will Return” but then states, “It is also possible that the Nephilim will return.” It reads:

These creatures were half-human, half-demonic-fallen-angel. There is both Biblical and non-Biblical proof they exist. The Bible is once again proven right, yet we have people trying to prove the Bible inaccurate with things such as the Smithsonian lie. The Bible always will prevail.

It is also possible that the Nephilim will return Matthew 24:37-39 says “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

The Nephilim were on the earth during the days of Noah, and they were part of the reason God sent the flood. The earth completely parallels the wickedness going on during the days of Noah, yet it is missing one key detail. The Nephilim returning makes it exactly as it was during the days of Noah.

The most likely occurrence is that the fallen angels return back to earth, but under the name of “aliens”. It can be claimed that they were “aliens from outer space”, but we believers know that they are fallen angels. If they return, it makes it highly possible that the Nephilim return. Do not fear them, rather trust in God, and know that these are signs that the return of Jesus is coming closer.

[Addendum: I am updating this since I reached out to the author in terms of sharpening iron with iron and received a reply stating, in part, “I am in error for definitively saying that ‘the Nephilim will return’ and will edit the article. I do believe that part of the end times deception will involve ‘aliens’, and that the government being more open about the topic is no coincidence. Only time will tell if my hypothesis was correct.”]

The problem with such statements made within the context of, “The Bible is once again proven right…The Bible always will prevail” is that the assertions are not right so what does that say about the Bible? Well, nothing since the arguments we’re biblical. Yet, it is self-defeating to employ fallacious assertions towards seeking to defend the Bible since by doing so, one is merely pouring fuel over the fires of unbelief.

I can only imagine that the passing reference to, “the Smithsonian lie” is in reference to the theory that they swoop in, collect giant skeletons, and do away with them. I have encountered dozens upon dozens (upon dozens [upon dozens]) of people who assert as much and have asked dozens upon dozens (upon dozens [upon dozens]) of them for evidence. All they can ever tell me is that they heard someone say that someone said they heard someone say something that someone said that they heard from someone who said, etc., etc., etc. See an entire chapter just on the Smithsonian theory in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It Or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

As for, “as the days of Noah” well, I had to write an entire chapter about that as well as among neo-pop-Nephilologists, that is one of the most abused and misused texts. In short, Jesus said the very same things about the days of Lot (see Luke 7) and His words, His point, His emphasis, His context was the same in both cases: examples of being unaware and/or unconcerned about coming judgment.

Besides, any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed and the flood was much of a waste: He meant to be rid of them but failed, missed loopholes, etc.

Thus, overall, we find that, sadly, Real Truth Speaker did not speak much truth at all within this article.

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.

Marcos Reyna answers What Does The Bible Say About Nephilim?

Under consideration is Marcos Reyna’s article What Does The Bible Say About Nephilim: Reyna is identified as, “a Christian author and speaker…dedicated to helping create disciples of Christ…A trained theologian and devotee of spiritual writing…”

Since he begins by referring to, “Nephilim, giants who lived before and during the time of the great flood” we will have to keep an eye out for the answers to the following key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

We need to discern, hopefully via a direct definition by him, if by “Nephilim, giants” he’s providing an a.k.a. or is implying something. As for, “before and during the time of the great flood” fair enough since they certainly didn’t liver thereafter.

He notes, “The Bible does not explicitly state who the Nephilim were, though some have speculated the Nephilim were descendants of the fallen angels or ancient gods. Others believe the Nephilim to be a race of people who were large and powerful, a cross between humans and an ancient race.”

Since those are based on, “some have speculated” and, “Others believe” we will leave that be. Yet, as for, “The Bible does not explicitly state” well, they were the offspring of sons of God and daughters of men and Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).

Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

Marcos Reyna notes, “The Bible does not provide much information on what the Nephilim looked like, how they lived, or what happened to them after the great flood.” Now, it’s tricky to write in styled reification fallacy terms such as, “the Bible does not provide” since it’s a matter of whereabouts in the Bible certain data points are and there were abouts lets us discern who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc.

In this case, reliably, “The Bible does not provide” any, “information on what the Nephilim looked like” but centuries post-flood, long after the last of them died in the flood, some unreliable guys presented an, “evil report” about them and were rebuked by God. Thus, we don’t have any reliable biblical physical description of them. As for, “how they lived” fair enough since we are only told they were well known and mighty. And as for, “what happened to them after the great flood” well, their bodies were covered by a lotta sediment and/or eaten by sea animals and/or insects, etc.

Reyna notes, “some,” unnamed, unnumbered, and uncited, “scholars believe that the tribe of Anak mentioned in the Bible as descendants of Nephilim survived the flood and continued to exist as a separate race.” Well then, those some are exclusively basing that exclusively upon one single sentence in only non-LXX versions of the “evil report” and thus, they create the gigantic problem of how it is that God failed when He sought to be rid of Nephilim, He must have missed the, “Nephilim survived the flood” loophole—which contradicts the Bible five times”—and the flood was much of a waste.

He notes, “Nephilim were powerful and formidable people in their time, and they played an important role in biblical history” history up until the flood—period, full stop.

Reyna has a very repetitive manner of working through his article such as some statement I have already quoted followed by, “The Bible does not provide any explicit explanation of the nature and origin of the Nephilim…Some scholars have suggested…The Bible does not go in-depth into who they were or how they came to be…Some biblical scholars theorize…Some biblical researchers believe……the Bible does not provide a clear description of who they were,” etc.

He does note, “their physical appearance is unknown since there is no clear illustration of them in the Bible” which is a refreshing factoid to note.

Now, Marcos Reyne asserts, “The Nephilim are mentioned in several passages in the Bible” but that is only the case if, “several” means two: reliably in Gen 6:4 and unreliably in Num 13:33—period, full stop.

He then circles to that, “In Numbers 13:33, the Nephilim are mentioned as the fathers of the Anakim people and the descendants of the ancient race of giants” so that this is another hint at that by, “giants” he appears to be referring to subjectively unusual height. Yet, he referred to Nephilim as such, had no reliable data upon which to do so, and admitted as much, “their physical appearance is unknown.” As for Anakim, the only relevant thing we are told about them is that they were, “tall” (see Deut 2) but that term is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as, “giants” and it’s subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.

Reyna also asserts, “Deuteronomy 2:20-21 suggests that the Nephilim were part of a larger group of nations” but there is no such suggestion since they are not mentioned nor even hinted at in those verses: he appears to be confusing Rephaim with Nephilim but Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Thus, when he notes, “Other passages indicate that the Nephilim were hostile to Israel” the only viable candidate is the, “evil report” so that’s invalid.

Frankly, I get a feeling that this article was spat out by AI since it’s very, very, very repetitive as well as vaguely generic. We then circle to the, “what happened to the Nephilim after the great flood” issue and are told, “The only hint given is in Genesis 6:4, which states that the Nephilim were still present ‘also afterward’” and while Reyna and/or AI don’t get around to telling us, “afterwards” of when, we get a typical, “Some scholars have suggested that the tribe of Anak mentioned in the Bible could be the descendants of the Nephilim…the possibility that the Nephilim survived the flood. Additionally, there are some theories,” etc.

Reyna tells us, “Ultimately, we may never know the ultimate fate of the Nephilim as the Bible does not provide explicit answers” but it does: they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form, and centuries later ten unreliable guys made up a tall-tale about them and were rebuked by God.

Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper. Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood. This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times.

I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales and also, 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. which are among by dozen, or so, Nephilology books.

He also refers to, “their…size…their powerful size…their size” but recall that he had previously told us, “The Bible does not provide…information on what the Nephilim looked like” and went on to write, “it does not provide much information on…what they looked like.”

He then notes, “The Nephilim are also often mentioned in other spiritual texts, such as the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees” about which you can see my books In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch and The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.

We are also told, “Many,” unnumbered, unnamed, and uncited, “people believe the Nephilim were the precursors to modern day giants” about which I will say: whatever that means. He also notes, “Legends of the Nephilim also exist in many cultures, from the Middle East and Europe to South and Central America, creating a common narrative about the mysterious ancient people.” But we must be very cautious about going cross-cultural, as it were, since it’s all to easy to water down terminology—such as referring to, “giants”—so as to (purposefully or not) give the appearance of correlation where there is none—such merely asserting that Nephilim were “giants” ergo, all “giants” were Nephilim.

So, when Marcos Reyna notes, “it is difficult to separate fact from fiction when it comes to the Nephilim” it really isn’t if we just remain logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically consistent.

We are also told, “The Nephilim have been mentioned in other books of the Bible, such as Ezekiel and Deuteronomy” but no specific citations are provided and such isn’t the case in any case.

In the name of sharpening iron with iron (which tends to result in someone getting cut) this is the sort of article that needed to be much less repetitive and that should have been published after a lot more factchecking.

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 answers “Do you believe Nephilim ever existed? If yes, why?”

Do you believe Nephilim ever existed? If yes, why? was a question posted to the Quora site.

Nick James replied:

No, of course not. There is no physical evidence that they or anything like them ever existed. They are just another part of the collection of made up mythological stories that constitute the bible, carefully constructed to frighten and awe people who had no way of testing such things. Even today, some believe this stuff. Such is the result of manipulation and 2,000 years of brainwashing and social engineering.

I, Ken Ammi, noted

Your hidden assumption is something about a universal imperative to adhere to “physical evidence” that must be tested but you don’t bother saying how so nor why on your world-view. Also, you positively affirm “mythological stories” so you must prove it. You also imply condemning supposed “mythological stories…to frighten and awe people…brainwashing and social engineering” but only as an impotent assertion.

Nick James

To be sure, physical evidence may provide proof. There is no physical evidence for nephilim, only some indistinct muttering in the bible. Archaeologists have never found them. They are just another made up thing in the bible, like Noah and Adam and Eve.

I cite ‘mythological stories’ as a category, not positively affirm them.

Ken Ammi

Well, I’m unsure how having your hidden assumption it pointed to you along with that “you don’t bother saying how so nor why on your world-view” as well as you’re your implied condemning “but only as an impotent assertion” is remedied by doubling down on your subjective assertion of “indistinct muttering in the bible.”

Now, you may say “I cite ‘mythological stories’ as a category, not positively affirm them” but you did just positively affirm “They are just another made up thing in the bible, like Noah and Adam and Eve.”

As for “There is no physical evidence for Nephilim…Archaeologists have never found them” and they likely never will since the last of them drowned in a flood that fundamentally changed the face of the Earth and buried them under who knows how many feet if not miles of debris, mud, sediments, etc.

Nick James

So, your god not only told you all about nephilim in his users’ guide book but also destroyed all the evidence of them, while taking huge care to lay down geological fossils going back about 700 million years? Odd how geologists don’t have any problem finding those other fossils.

Can you even get creationists to swallow such weak stories?

Ken Ammi

What, on your worldview, does any of this matter anyhow?

I said, “likely never will” but for all either one of us knows, Nephilim have been found and are on display at museums.

Nick James

What fantasy are you running with? No Nephilim have ever been found. There are no museum displays of Nephilim. All the picture of them are via Photoshop. These things are just an invention for a bible story. You know what invention means? Not real. Imaginary. Fake.

You disagree? Please supply links that do not include a creationist site or religious fantasies.

Ken Ammi

On your worldview there’s nothing wrong with accidentally existing apes running with fantasy, right?

I would tend to agree that “No Nephilim have ever been found” just like no common ancestor has ever been found.

Indeed, “There are no museum displays of Nephilim. All the picture of them are via Photoshop” so, what of it?

Now, you positive affirmed, “These things are just an invention…Not real. Imaginary. Fake” so you must prove it.

It’s also fascinating that you’re so biased and prejudice that you refuse links to “a creationist site.” But just read Genesis 6:4 in the most well attested text on antiquity: the Bible.

Nick James

Ken, my dear. Your earlier post suggested there might be Nephilim on display in museums and such. I call bullshit on that possibility. A Google search brings no meaningful hint of any Nephilim, ever, anywhere. These things do not and never did exist. Without some proof, they are just religious fantasy or storytelling. And no, some quote from the user’s guide is not proof.

Your statement “On your worldview there’s nothing wrong with accidentally existing apes running with fantasy, right? “ is word salad.

No common ancestors? There are common ancestor apes in the geological and biological record. I think you need to upgrade your sources on such things and try to understand what the science is telling you. of existanceHaving common ancestors explains why humans and chimpanzees have 98.8% identical DNA. You may find this illuminating. Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor – Wikipedia

Ken Ammi

Just now

Please mind your manners.

“These things do not and never did exist” is a positive affirmation you must prove.

My point was simple: since we’ve no reliable physical description of them, we may be looking at their skeletons and not even know it.

Step one is for you to justify demanding proof (not evidence?).

You imply there’s something wrong with (supposed) “religious fantasy” and (alleged) “storytelling” but what, how, and why on your worldview?

“word salad” is Atheist-speak for: I’m incapable of dealing with this inconvenient fact so I’ll ignore it.

I think you need to upgrade your sources on such things and try to understand what the science is telling you since we’ve no evidence of a common ancestor (but it seems you don’t know what that term means so please look it up). Speaking of upgrading your sources on such things and try to understand what the science is telling you (that’s a reification fallacy, BTW—not that it matters on Atheism) the “98.8% identical DNA” isn’t only outdated, it’s irrelevant (especially on Atheism).

Nick James

What are you going on about, Ken? You have a bunch of biblical claims for which there is zero supporting evidence. Then you go on calling me out about your unsupported religious claims. Finally, you throw in some unrelated stuff about undefined ‘verifiable facts’. You need to plan what you are going on about, rather than shouting about ‘positive affirmation you must prove’. Nobody is going to prove any of this stuff – you are running on empty, staggering along on ‘belief’ and decades of grooming. It never happened.

Ken Ammi

It’s as if you’re not following the discussion but are just multiplying-down on making positive affirmations without proof. See, if “Nobody is going to prove any of this stuff” then the issue is easy to resolve: stop making positive affirmations you can’t prove.

Meanwhile, you refer to “supporting evidence” but ignore that I noted, “Step one is for you to justify demanding proof (not evidence?).”

Nick James

You seem to have overlooked the fact that most biblical claims have no supporting evidence and those amenable to scientific investigation are shown to be made up fluff. That is ok for bronze age desert goat herders, but not for anybody with an educated mind.

Noah’s flood and Nephilim are most certainly in the category of ‘made up stories’ with well understood motives – it is marketing, baby! That certain religionists try to fob them off as real is simply delusional or insulting, depending on how precious you are.

Ken Ammi

Okay, you’re clearly just a bot, not a serious person, or someone whose literally been ruined by Atheism.

Besides all of the stuff you conveniently sidestepped, I noted, “Meanwhile, you refer to ‘supporting evidence’ but ignore that I noted, ‘Step one is for you to justify demanding proof (not evidence?)’” and you plow ahead as if nothing happened. You double, triple, or whatever you count is now of simply asserting, “no supporting evidence.”

Are you so very afraid of your own collapsed worldview that you literally refuse to deal with it?

I can’t blame you but recommend you get a new worldview since you clearly hate yours.

So, here we go again:

“most biblical claims have no supporting evidence”: so you admit that some do.

“have no supporting evidence”: which is you subjectively painting with a broad brush broom.

“no supporting evidence”: the providing of which is not a universal imperative on your worldview.

“amenable to scientific investigation”: an incoherent category error since we’re dealing in history, not scient.

“shown to be made up fluff”: which even if true, matters not on your worldview.

“bronze age desert goat herders”: genetic logical fallacy.

“not for anybody with an educated mind”: prejudicial and also chronological snobbery.

“the category of ‘made up stories’”: which matter not on your worldview even if true and also a positive affirmation you haven’t proved.

“motives – it is marketing”: incoherent.

“fob them off as real is simply delusional or insulting”: which is even more incoherent since what’s “real” is accidental on your worldview and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it nor to be not be “delusional” and what you find subjectively “insulting” isn’t a standard.

Okay, are you getting the picture of how failed your worldview is that you can’t even write a cogent sentence that’s not saturated with fallacies?

Nick James

Oh Ken! You really are mainlining on the Kool-Aid! You have repeatedly spouted about things, but you, and your religion, has provided zero proof of anything you have claimed. (And no, getting a mention in the bible is not ‘proof’.) All you have is assertion and ‘belief’, which is pretty pathetic way to live a life. Sorry, but you are still not making any progress in getting your head out of this obsession.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re literally incapable of dealing with the issues or your uber fallacies so you’re employing the Atheist 101 tactic of attempting to distract from these facts by doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc., etc., etc., on jumping to conclusions by making demands without a premise.

So, to simplify things, again, upon what premise, from your worldview (which is supposed to be the one true one—even though it implies that truth is accidental) do you demand proof (not evidence?)?

And, ironically, keep in mind that this has been about you making positive affirmations without proof.

Nick James

The existence of Nephilim and Noah are extraordinary claims, but I am not making it. From the tone of your comment, you support the idea. Therefore it falls on you to provide evidence to support it. I am merely positively stating that no factual proof for them has been found. The idea is only believed by people who regard the bible as explicitly accurate and who also have the gullibility rating of the average 7 year old.

Ken Ammi

So, you’re going to run away from baring the BoP by merely parroting yet another Atheist 101 talking point?

Let’s try this “The existence of Nephilim and Noah are extraordinary claims”: there is no standard of extraordinariness so this is just a way for Atheists to appeal to subjectivism (what else do Atheists do?).

Also, you didn’t close the loop, it’s not a complete thought, “The existence of Nephilim and Noah are extraordinary claims” and, so, therefore—what? You don’t bother saying.

You then commit a tu quoque logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism) since you made a positive affirmation you can’t prove but rather than learning your lesson, taking it back, and not making more positive affirmations you can’t prove, you just say, “it falls on you to provide evidence to support it.”

But note that you also jumped to that merely asserted conclusion without a premise and based on hidden assumptions since, on Atheism, it’s not in the least bit the case that anything falls of anyone to do anything.

You also imply we’re to base our views on “evidence” and then “proof” as another mere assertion.

Actually, the idea is believed by many people of many cultures based on their own history, myth, legend, scripture, etc.

You’re also clearly childishly prejudice since you positively assert (without proof) that it’s only believed by people who, “have the gullibility rating of the average 7 year old” but then again, that’s another merely emotive assertion.

You really need to stop parroting Atheist talking points and actually thing about what you’re asserting. A critical thinking consultant could catch theses things before you keep discrediting yourself by posting them so have someone who knows how to think systematically and consistently edit before you post. As it is, I keep performing this service for you post hoc and you seem to refuse to learn from it.

Nick James

Ken – I am so impressed! You have a new pet phrase: ‘yet another Atheist 101 talking point’. Well, not so new. I’ve seen you use it at least 3 times now on other threads. Did even you get fed up of ‘positive assertion’? Oh, not quite, you just used it again.

Bottom line, old son. is that YOU have zero evidence of any of this stuff. You simply repeat the same tired religious assertions. Now, if I were to repeatedly trot out entire paragraphs earnestly telling everybody that unicorns or My Little Pony were real, I would be asked for proof, laughed at and fingers pointed at me. You seem to think that because your topic is religious that you get a free pass to tell such tales with no proof other than an old religious marketing book. Sorry, it does not work like that. Consider yourself laughed at; even though I am too polite to point my finger.

Ken Ammi

Oddly, I got a notification of a reply from you but don’t see it herein. Thus, I’ll just reply thusly.

So, you are still running away from your incapability of backing your assertions and this time by appealing to how many times I used a phrase: your integrity has plummeted below zero, friend.

Let’s try it this way—again—you merely assert as a jump to a conclusion based on hidden assumption, “YOU have zero evidence” but haven’t yet told me, not matter how many times I ask, how your worldview provides you a premise for implying that presenting evidence is a universal imperative.

See, we are not anywhere even near the realm of, “because your topic is religious that you get a free pass” since you utterly refuse to take the very first step in getting us to the point of discussing that.

It’s very, very simple: justify your demand for evidence, on your worldview.

Nick James

No Ken, that only happens to you. That people keep ignoring you may be a sign of something. Look it up in your magic book.

Sure there are flood stories all over the world. Humanity builds communities right next to water. Rivers flood. Stories! No magic required.

What they do not do is flood higher than the highest mountain. That is Everest, now and in the “time of Noah”. There has been no world-wide genocide by a god that threw a hissy fit. It is just an old Sumerian story plagiarised by Hebrew scribes in 600 BC to support a shiny new Israel. The Christians swallowed this ‘creative history’ and included it in the bible. Talk about a superb BS exercise.

Ken Ammi

Friend, that’s literally incoherent: how could it only happen to me when I have witnessed him doing it time and time (and time and time) again and his Atheist comrades have as little integrity as he does so they don’t call him on it and actually attack those who do call him on it. Thus, you discredited yourself again.

You seem to comfort yourself by playing a game of imagining some unformed thought about, “Humanity builds communities right next to water. Rivers flood. Stories!” which ignores the commonalities in those records and how they are about more than river level floods.

Also, you speak anachronistically when you imagine that “highest mountain…is Everest” since Everest is not eternal and so it came to be at some time and need not have existed pre-flood.

Now, you seem to be quite keen on making half-thought based assertion, since you never come to conclusions, so I will ask: you assert, “There has been no world-wide genocide by a god that threw a hissy fit. It is just an old Sumerian story plagiarised by Hebrew scribes in 600 BC to support a shiny new Israel. The Christians swallowed this ‘creative history’ and included it in the bible. Talk about a superb BS exercise” but you don’t bother saying what of it even if such is the case?

What is your worldview’s premise for merely implying condemning such things?

Nick James

Ken – so nice to hear from you! Did you have a good holiday?

I take it you are consuming ‘social drugs’? Your first and second paragraphs make no sense.

Your creationist ignorance is showing. Everest was around at the time Noah was building his imaginary boat, although nobody around the Middle East would have been aware of it – just as they did not know the Americas and Australia had unique animals that needed rescuing.. Science knows this, and knows that plate tectonic movement has raised it up by about 300 ft since then. It has been rising for roughly 50 million years – some while after the dinosaurs were destroyed.

Your fourth paragraph is simply that you are not paying attention to what I wrote. Start from the idea that Noah never happened and try again.

Your fifth paragraph? I’ll put it down to poor proof reading by you.

Ken Ammi

Passive aggressive much?

Seems like you didn’t understand by first sentence due to your literal ignorance. See, you attempted to comment on something of which you are literally unaware. I am the one how is the witness. But, of course, on your worldview it doesn’t matter if I make sense or not, am accurate or not, etc. That’s a point you keep running away from—very, very quickly.

You also seem to be ignorant of the various ancient records of more than local river floods which is why you decided to merely assert, “make no sense.” But, of course, on your worldview it doesn’t matter if I make sense or not, am accurate or not, etc. That’s a point you keep running away from—very, very quickly.

I realize that you think that you can pinpoint when things happened even if you assert it was hundreds of thousands or miiiiiiiiillions of years ago but I’m too skeptical. What we now call Everest gives indication of once having been submerged.

But again, on your worldview there’s literally nothing wrong with, “ignorance…imaginary boat…they did not know,” etc. but you clearly despise your worldview so much that you don’t bother applying your worldview’s implications to your worldview.

Not that it matters on your worldview, but “Science knows” is a reification fallacy.

So, in my fourth paragraph I asked a question but you decide to run away. You “Start from the idea that Noah never happened” which is a positive affirmation without proof—that’s been an issue all along.

My fifth paragraph was also a question, away from which you also ran.

I can’t really blame you since you seem to realize that your worldview is a collapsed failure: which is why you abandon it every single time you reply.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming—well, except for a hit and turn comment by Wayne Fiddler

And another one who doesn’t understand Burden of proof.

Its not whoever makes any claim whatsoever has to be able to prove that claim. Its when one makes an extraordinary claim, one must provide evidence for such a thing.

The Nephilim for example, claiming those aren’t real is not extraordinary. There’s no evidence such a thing every existed, just an extraordinary claim from an old book with no evidence to back said claim. Absense of evidence where one would expect evidence is evidence of absense.

Literally all but one of your points your demanding proof for are of an unproven extraordinary claim the bible makes.

Nephilim existing- Unproven bible claim.

Them being the bad guys/monsters in the book- Literally what they are.

A spirit realm existing- Unproven Bible claim

Noah’s Flood never happened- Literal fact, China has historical records of the time, they were not underwater. Neither were several other groups from around the world (like Egypt).

Silly- Thats fair.

Nasty and Scary this god fellow is- Well, he commited genocide in the book on several occasions, so, I really don’t see how thats inaccurate. He’s wiped out humanity, sends people to be tortured eternally for not loving him enough. He is nasty and scary, and it blows my mind you think hes the Good guy of the story.

Zero Biological or Geological evidence to support any of it- Umm, the worldview that uses facts and data, not the one that treats a 2,000 year old book written by goat herders that thought Lightning meant a man in the sky was angry at them as literal gospel?

Ken Ammi

Friend, before I get to your list of Atheist 101 talking points du jour: please re-read the discussion.

Nick positively affirmed, “The Nephilim are just an imaginary…‘Noah’s flood’ never happened…” thus, since he made a positive affirmation, the BoP is on him.

So, post a comment telling him that he’s “And another one who doesn’t understand Burden of proof” or, remain as you are and prove that you’re absolute zero integrity.

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.

Sleep paralysis in the Bible

That which follows is really a chapter sample from my book What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities: A Styled Paranormology.

The term sleep paralysis has been applied in order to, generally, denote experiencing what has been variously defined as a waking sleep that is, being mentally alert and yet unable to move (or able to only make slight movements such as eyes and mouth; able to speak).

Sleep paralysis has a very, very long history and thus many attempts have been made to explain it. In fact, so long is its history that we find various references to it within the Bible.

In our modern day sleep paralysis is a common occurrence amongst people experiencing various sorts of encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens and those experiencing various sorts of encounters with deceased humans, ascended masters, spirit guides, etc. as is the case amongst psychics and/or mediums; spirit channelers.

Of course, some would, rightly correlate these as being experiences with the same beings; that is, beings who pretend to be extra-terrestrial aliens and also pretend to be deceased humans and also pretend to be ascended masters and spirit guides.

In such a case, biblically speaking, we are dealing with beings that pretend to be that which they are not in order to put forth certain agendas which are inevitably un-, non- and anti-biblical. Thus, we can understand who this is by quoting 2nd Corinthians 11:14 which notes that “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” Thus, his minions appear to do the same.

As we consider biblical references to sleep paralysis we will note that the manner whereby satan goes about doing things, his modus operandi, is to emulate YHVH in a corrupting manner. In other words, he attempts to do that which YHVH does but backwards, upside down and inside out.

The first reference to sleep paralysis occurs in Genesis, the book of beginnings, at 2:21-22:

“And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

Essentially, Adam was anesthetized to prepare him for surgery; in our terminology.

Next, in Genesis chapter 15 we find a much more familiar instance of sleep paralysis as it involves a frightening experience even though it was a godly one:

“And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him…And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces [of sacrificed animals]. In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram…”

Thus, Abram (later named Abraham) had a deep sleep fall upon him and yet, YHVH spoke to him. In this case, YHVH was making a promise, a covenant with Himself, and so Abram was incapacitated, as it were, so as to not interfere—presumably.

Following upon the concept of incapacitation, note that in 1st Samuel 26:11-12 David was able to abscond with “the spear and the cruse of water from Saul’s bolster” unseen and unnoticed Saul’s men “were all asleep; because a deep sleep from the LORD was fallen upon them.” Isaiah 29:10 makes a similar point:

“For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.”

The book of Job makes various references to “deep sleep” for example in chapter 4:

“Now a thing was secretly brought to me, and mine ear received a little thereof. In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, fear came upon me, and trembling, which made all my bones to shake.

Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,

Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth? They are destroyed from morning to evening: they perish for ever without any regarding it. Doth not their excellency which is in them go away? They die, even without wisdom. “

When it comes to the book of Job one must be very careful about context as this was stated by Eliphaz the Temanite and there many other statements within the book made by the friends of Job whom YHVH rebukes. Thus, whether this really happened or not (perhaps Eliphaz made it up) and whether the vision was godly or not (as YHVH does rebuke him in the end) is a question to be posed.

Indeed, he is right that mortal man will not be more just or pure than YHVH. But Job’s friends tend to fall into the area of misinformation; they make good points along the way but draw faulty conclusions.

Job chapter 33 notes:

“For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not. In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, that he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.

He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword. He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain: So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat. His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out.

Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers. If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness: Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom.

His flesh shall be fresher than a child’s: he shall return to the days of his youth: He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness. He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not; He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.

Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man, to bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living. Mark well, O Job, hearken unto me: hold thy peace, and I will speak.”

That what is being referenced is “when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed” may be a merely a reference to sleep (not necessarily paralysis) and yet, that is when “he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction.” The menacing aspects of sleep paralysis seem to be referenced in the statement that “He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain.” And yet, YHVH is not doing this for malicious motives but, “these things worketh God oftentimes with man, to bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living.”

Yet, overall, the last verse quoted makes it clear that it is not Job who states these things but rather Job is being spoken to. The speaker is Elihu the son of Barachel who spoke because “against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God” as it was the friends who perceived that Job “was righteous in his own eyes.” Thus, Elihu let Job have it and also let the others have it as “Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.”

As for receiving messages from YHVH in our dreams “In a dream, in a vision of the night” when “he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction” keep in mind that while this is most certainly not impossible, the Bible also notes the following in Jeremiah 29:8, “For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed.” Thus, we may cause ourselves to dream certain dreams and so, as with any supposed message from YHVH, dreams must be judged according to that which the Bible already states.

Thus, overall and again, we must be careful with the info.

Daniel relates a sleep related experience in chapter 8:

“In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.”

There is no reference to sleep in this portion but the chapter continues thusly:

“And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright.”

Thus, the man was speaking with Daniel even as Daniel was in a deep sleep and the man set Daniel upright (whilst asleep?).

Then, in chapter 10, Daniel writes:

“In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision…I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel; Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man…And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves.

Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength. Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground. And, behold, an hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands.”

In this case, Daniel alone saw the vision while the others experienced great quaking, as in a fearful reaction, for some reason (maybe nothing more than something to make them run away so that Daniel would not be disturbed from receiving the message within the vision).

Daniel found himself growing very tired, heard the man’s and then fell into a deep sleep. Again he was set upright (whilst asleep?).

Therefore, it appears that YHVH causes various versions of sleep paralysis for various reasons. In turn, satan and his comrades appear to do the same and yet, for very different reasons.

Some, such as the self-professed possessed professor Jeffrey Kripal (my review of the book here) and punk rocker and comic book extraordinaire Grant Morrison tell of their real life story of becoming, sleep paralysis related, possessed beings whilst participating in Hindu rituals in India (see video here and here for both of their stories). Morrison may not have been asleep but Kripal actually uses the term “sleep paralysis” as he engaged in sexual union with the Hindu false goddess Kali.

Encounters with extra-terrestrial aliens are often accompanied by abduction experiences of various sorts which include sleep paralysis-like experiences during the midst of various scientific-like examinations and experimentations. There are also stories of aliens using sleep paralysis-like states in order to indoctrinate via the showing of video-like images, telepathic messages, etc.

Experiencing with the deceased, ascended masters, spirit guides, etc. likewise are often accompanies by night-time sleep paralysis related experiences as these beings impart messages, do “energy work,” etc.

During the middle ages we have many reports of male and female beings who causes sleep paralysis in order to sexual violate people. These became known as Incubus and Succubus.

The Bardo Thodol / the Tibetan Book of the Dead may have some things to say on this topic. For example,

III: Here beginneth has a section titled, “The Root Verses of the Six Bardos”—bardos literally means intermediate state, transitional state, in-between state, liminal state, etc. (liminal pertains to conscious awareness)—section 2 of which states:

“O now, when the Dream Bardo upon me is dawning! Abandoning the inordinate corpse-like sleeping of the sleep of stupidity, may the consciousness undistractedly be kept in its natural state; Grasping the [true nature of] dreams, [may I] train [myself] in the Clear Light of Miraculous Transformation: Acting not like the brutes in slothfulness, may the blending of the practicing of the sleep [state] and actual [or waking] experience be highly valued [by me].” (brackets in original)

Then in Book I, Part I, “The Bardo of the Moments of Death” it is stated:

“If the expiration is about to cease, turn the dying one over…If the person dying be disposed to sleep, or if the sleeping state advances, that should be arrested…At this moment, the first [glimpsing] of the Bardo of the Clear Light of Reality, which is the Infallible Mind of the Dharma-Kaya, is experienced by all sentient beings…

‘…I know this Bardo, and, mastering the Great Body of Union in Bardo, will appear in whatever [shape] will benefit [all beings] whomsoever: I will serve all sentient beings, infinite in number as are the limits of the sky.’”

In all of this, the Tibetan Book of the Dead has its own context and yet, its references to sleep may be relevant.

According to the Qur’an Allah essentially abducts us while we sleep as per Surah 39:42,

“It is Allah that takes the ‘Nafs’ (of men) at death [nafs is the self, psyche, ego or soul]; and those that die not (He takes) during their sleep: those on whom He has passed the decree of death, He keeps back (from returning to life), but the rest He sends (to their bodies) for a term appointed. Verily in this are Signs for those who reflect.”

Thus, while we sleep, Allah takes our self/psyche/ego/soul and returns it upon waking.

And there are many references to sleep paralysis and sleep paralysis related phenomenon throughout history.

Sources:

Stop Sleep Paralysis

Science Cannot Explain Sleep Paralysis which provides the video found here.

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.

HEATED!!!!!!!! discussion on “Is there any recent appearance of Nephilims in 2023?”

The following (unnecessarily) HEATED!!!!!!!! Discussion took place after a certain Joe Jackson (who claims, “Studied Theology at University of Cambridge”) replied thusly to the Quora site question Is there any recent appearance of Nephilims in 2023.

His erudite elucidation was, “at the basketball thats about it.. the word is just giants… there is no special thing about them.” Okay not off to a great start but sometimes there’s hope. Yet, this is a tragic example of someone utterly destroying whatever witness he may have had and crashing and burning in a most exemplary manner—all in the name of protecting man-made traditions: he went from attempted Bible defender to childishly abusive jerk.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

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

Do those two usages agree?

Joe Jackson

As my last answer inferred, Giants are tall people. which agrees with scripture.

Ken Ammi

Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens and dozens) of people who go on and on (and on) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.

Elucidation would have assisted since, for example, I now have to ask what makes you assert that Nephilim were “tall”?

I know that Rephaim were “tall” but what about Nephilim—and please, please, don’t direct me to one single sentence from an “evil report” spoken by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

Also, linguistically, the English Bible’s usage of “giants” has nothing to do with any sort of height—again, linguistically speaking.

Joe Jackson

zero have replied? or zero have agreed in their reply? seems a question that MANY want to answer not not answer.’

The general understanding of the word Nephilim is giants, most scholars of any faith agree with this as far as I am aware.

What ‘evil report’ are you talking of?

What ‘unreliable guys whom God rebuked?

Not sure what you are talking about there.

Regardless of ‘height’ The story of the Nephilim is NOT about Angels period, especially ‘fallen Angels’ that are not even a thing.

Having said that scripture describes the Nephilim as tall there is no doubt of that.

To me it is more important about knowing that it is believing men marrying unbelieving women.. not what the false cults claim that is nowhere to be found in scripture.

Ken Ammi

“zero have replied” again and still.

I’m unsure how it could be a case of, “or zero have agreed in their reply?” since they are just questions.

It denotes to me what I already know very, very, very well: modern Nephilology consists of un-biblical tall-tales and the people who assist pop-researchers to make a living by selling such tall-tales to them are shockingly ignorant—to the level of not even being aware of the relevant linguistics 101.

Now, you wrote, “The general understanding of the word Nephilim is giants” and you previously noted, “Giants are tall people.”

Now, are you aware that this means that the answer to the third question is, “No”? And, do you know why it’s, “No”?

As for, “most scholars” well, I wrote the book on that, I literally wrote the books on it, “The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?” and “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010” and “Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s” to name just three of my dozen, or so, Nephilology books.

Now, if you are familiar enough with Nephilology to comment about it on the WORLD WIDE web then you’ll know that the second reference to them comes from an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so no one should believe them (Num 13, the last few verses and then onto chap 14).

Now, when you inform yourself on biblical Nephilology you’ll see how the mere assertion (lacking quotations and citations), “scripture describes the Nephilim as tall there is no doubt of that” is tragically misguided.

If, “The story of the Nephilim is NOT about Angels period” but is about, “believing men marrying unbelieving women” which is very, very odd:

1) why exclusively believing males and exclusively unbelieving females?

2) just how believing were those males that they sinned so terribly?

3) why did mere mixed marriages amongst mere humans—which have been happening ever since the flood—result in a flood?

As for, “‘fallen Angels’…are not even a thing” except very specifically as per Jude, 2 Peter 2, and Revelation.

I know not to what “cults” you’re referring?

Joe Jackson

then you’ll know that the second reference to them comes from an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so no one should believe them (Num 13, the last few verses and then onto chap 14).

It was an ‘evil report’ in that they were not trusting God that the land was Good… and they needed to explore to see if it was how it was described and not Trusting God. As for people being rebuked cannot be trusted 1. Everyone is rebuked so nobody can be trusted then. 2. This does not change the hebrew meaning of the word nephilim regardless of the story or going on in the story. Nephilim is nephilim regardless…

So if it means tall people it means tall people if it means men of reknown it means that. The people may have been rebuked, but that is no evidence they lied about seeing Nephilim (it is the word used). They believed they couldn’t beat others in war… they were wrong.. They had no FAITH in themselves.

BUT lets go with your opinion on it.. Lets say they LIED about the opposition being nephilim as in GIANTS because of their fear of failure and no faith in Gods power to overcome ANY enemy. (which all those enemies feared the Israelites in reality.they just didn’t know or believe that). But lets say they went back and lied that they couldn’t beat this army …. The fact they described this army as tall (they were grasshoppers in their site) meaning they were ‘claiming at least ‘ that they were Tall and powerful, unbeatable in their minds at least (not Gods), So if they are saying this reasonable excuse to avoid conflict.. That still means the word nephilim was accepted as giants… the hearer would have connected .. Grasshopper talk that they were small compared to the enemy. Nephiilim.

So the argument that they were not to be trusted as you claim. Doesn’t negate the meaning of the word to be Giant.. and infact the way the hearer would have understood it is to have fear from that word meaning Giant. What would the point of going back and lying saying they were midgets we better not attack?. This story is about ‘lack of faith and trust in God’ context is key.

If, “The story of the Nephilim is NOT about Angels period” but is about, “believing men marrying unbelieving women” which is very, very odd:

1) why exclusively believing males and exclusively unbelieving females?

As I stated earlier some of the things you answered shows your not up with Christianity/Bible connection, the fact you say ‘which is very, very odd’, would only be odd to somebody that is ignorant of what is going on in the topic. The belief I mentioned regarding the sons of God and daughters of men are well known and ALL true Christians believe this.. (again your idea of what YOU think is Christian doctrine is far from the truth.. The many denominations of religion out there claiming Christianity might agree with your definition of it.. But that doesn’t help your case at all if you think it does…

Why believing males and unbelieving females? Because that is what it is about obviously.

Where does it say it is Aliens, or Angels. It doesn’t and it cannot be as scripture goes totally against these silly ideas. Aliens have no evidence of any kind, unless one calls these endless blurry photos in todays world of camera phones with great clarity ability, of specs in the sky that people claim are aliens.. Its embarrassing. And Angels cannot marry the bible is clear on that.so no more needed to debunk them as the ones in the story.

Sons of God throughout the bible is consistant as believers of God. (saints) Jesus was called the son of God.. Other believers were called sons of God, all future believers are called sons of God.

Note: Jesus was also called the son of MAN… representing his humanity of course. His mothers (sinful) flesh humanity. Sin representing flesh, flesh representing sin. Daughters of men (HUMAN UNBELIEVERS) in this case as the story goes. Daughters are women are they not… Sons of God (sons are men are they not)

God was against believers and non believers being together.. Sort of still is. Ultimately it came to the floods destruction. So why ‘exclusively’ believing males.. Because it says SONS(males) of God (believers)… why exclusively unbelieving women….. Wash and repeat… Because DAUGHTERS (women) of (MEN) flesh sin humanity (the opposite of God).

2) just how believing were those males that they sinned so terribly?

How so?

3) why did mere mixed marriages amongst mere humans—which have been happening ever since the flood—result in a flood?

It resulted in a flood eventually because the world became evil and untolerable. Women had and still do have the influence to a child in a normal home situation. She is with the child most of the time giving her heavy influence.. In this case ungodly influence that normal Godly homes would not have had at all.

This results obviously in generations of unbelievers growing out of control..

It is not much different today. That is why the world is almost at the same point it was then. It is almost time this system of things stopped.. It’s a different world now but its just as corrupt in different new age ways I don’t (or shouldn’t) have to list the obvious tyranny of the govts, WHO, EU, WEF, UN etc etc

As for, “‘fallen Angels’…are not even a thing” except very specifically as per Jude, 2 Peter 2, and Revelation.

Jude is quoting Peter and quoting the Book of Enoch

Jude and Peter wrote to combat the false teachings of the Jewish myths of the Book of Enoch.

Revelation you have not given any full verse (which would be helpful not just a verse reference but the whole verse as you view it in full would be helpful. Regardless Revelation is a book of symbology so most people that need to fit spooky things in like trinitarians get that wrong and can’t even understand the first verse let alone what is inside it… if one can’t get past the beginning how can they continue at all.

I know not to what “cults” you’re referring?

Mostly the trinitarian cults and Jehovahs Witness’s etc… they are the biggest culprits against Christianity . I thought that would have been obvious to one who studied Christianity, especially one who studied the Bible..

Ok firstly, If you have written a heap of books on this topic (seems like a waste of time to me but each to their own) then you obviously have a bias on your beliefs on the topic and because your beliefs are out to the whole world, there is no chance they would change no matter what I or anyone said, as you have made money I presume on your opinion on the topic and it would be embarrassing and a moral dilemma to have taken that money and then admit you were wrong, and there is a ‘pride’ factor in all of that too clearly.

But anyway I know that this is futile but I’ll answer your questions just the same as best I can, But you have already noted that my beliefs on it are nothing like the beliefs of others on it.. Others you would probably call ‘Christians or believers’ and by your questions back It would appear that you have not understood some of what I am talking about.. And that’s ok too. So let me explain for the readers watching.

You state… Now, are you aware that this means that the answer to the third question is, “No”? And, do you know why it’s, “No”?

I would have thought the third answer would have been YES… the 3rd question being…” The usage of the English bible’s GIANTS and My usage of the word GIANTS are they the same?….. That would be YES. Not no.

They are both tall people. Another usage by other scholars is giants as in position, which I don’t disagree with either and another is ‘fallen’ which I don’t disagree with either… but although I don’t care 2 hoots if they were tall or not (as its not a big deal to my overall faith or belief system), I think that the term nephilim is what ALL the biblical scholars bar none that I know of, believe it is.. Tall people. That is what Jewish people believe the word means too, so they should know the language better than I, if not the story.

NEPHILIM (Heb. נְפִילִים), a race of giants said to have dwelt in pre-Israelite Canaan.

As for, “most scholars” well, I wrote the book on that

I meant of course Biblical scholars and Jewish language scholars not Authors of non belief, so called Aliens and demons etc

The list of books you named for example have no meaning to me.. What you believe is an ‘expert’ in a field that you are debating against, would not be one to my belief in Christianity at all.. Your commentaries you have debated against in your books (without reading them) I would strongly assume that they would not agree with Christianity as I believe it or even close. Meaning that what YOU think is Christianity from whoever told you or what you have read about it via the already debating thought process you would have needed while reading it, would certainly have made you come to a totally different outcome to what ANY of the Abrahamic Faiths would really be and really believe… So in other words you would be trying to debunk people and beliefs that have nothing to do with those Faiths in reality and nothing to do with my beliefs and especially true Christianity. Or other words again. You would be debunking myths that you think are Christian teaching that simply are not.. So even though we would not agree on the outcome I might agree with you that they are as nuts as I probably would think you are on the topic. Not much offense given. If you know what I mean.

Now, if you are familiar enough with Nephilology to comment about it on the WORLD WIDE web then you’ll know that

To this I would say right back at you infact. If you are familiar enough with Bible to comment on it on the WWW than you’ll know that…….. So ditto on that.. And I feel the same way..

As you don’t believe I know much about Nephilology I don’t believe you know much about Christianity. I think where we will disagree on this one.. Is that I can and WILL admit I don’t know much about Nephilology because there isn’t much in scripture to know other than the Hebrew word which appears by all reports from those in the know to mean GIANTS.. Which are TALL people. (but again I don’t care less if it does or doesn’t, it effects nothing in my life and is a waste of time really)

I’ll answer the bible part of it in a following post.

Ken Ammi

I’m unsure I’ll be able to keep trading essays.

Friend, you appear to not have researched the evil report: “not trusting God” was the premise for false claims. They made five assertions which are unbacked by even one single verse in the entire Bible and they contradicted Moses, Cabel, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible: please see my, “Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal” https://www.academia.edu/85893647/Chapter_sample_On_the_Post_Flood_Nephilim_Proposal_by_Ken_Ammi

BTW: now you have to invent a non-biblical tall-tale about how Nephilim made it past the flood.

I’ve no idea what you mean by “Everyone is rebuked” but as for, “This does not change the hebrew meaning of the word nephilim” why would it? Also, what is the meaning? You note, “if it means tall people” but it doesn’t and “men of renown” but it doesn’t and “nephilim as in GIANTS” but that only begs the key questions you ignored.

Also, they didn’t describe any “army” but as for, “the word nephilim was accepted as giants” I have to assume you’re referring to subjectively unusual height (which means your usage doesn’t agree with the English Bible’s usage) then “accepted” by whom and when? And, BTW, if Nephilim were accepted as giants then there’d be no reason to say Nephilim are subjectively unusually tall: that’d be redundant like saying ice accepted as being is cold and then saying ice is cold.

But you’re speaking in the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage terms when you refer to giant or tall or small.

You’re also just inventing, “the hearer would have understood it is to have fear from that word meaning Giant.”

Please keep your shockingly unrighteous mere assertion, “your not up with Christianity/Bible connection” to yourself since you literally have no idea what you’re talking about so stop being ungracefully worldly please and repent.

It is a demonstrable fact that I literally proved that what you put as, “The belief I mentioned regarding the sons of God and daughters of men are well known and ALL true Christians believe this” is just a late-comer of a view. The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

So, you basically shockingly unrighteously and ungracefully just merely asserted that the earliest Christians commentators, for centuries, weren’t, “true Christians” and, “far from the truth” and you just condemned them all to eternal hell on a subject that doesn’t even qualify as secondary. Shame on you, please repent.

As for, “Why” exclusively “believing males” and, exclusively, “unbelieving females? Because that is what it is about obviously” just because you proclaim it obvious doesn’t elucidate why “believing” males were terrible sinners nor why not one single believing female married an unbelieving male nor why not one single unbelieving male married a believing female. The Angel view makes perfect sense of why there was that exclusivity amongst the sexes: because Angels look just like human males.

It’s linguistically incoherent and a failure in basic level reading comprehension and faulty hermeneutics to ask, “Where does it say it is Aliens, or Angels.” You can discuss Aliens with someone else, I will just point out that in any language in history, there’s more than one way to say the same thing.

Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).

What you’re arguing is like saying that a certain text doesn’t refer to “God” since it refers to the “LORD” or “The Most High” or the “Almighty,” etc., etc., etc.

There are no rules that only one single word can ever be used to refer to any one single thing.

You merely asserted, “Angels cannot marry the bible is clear” so that’s instantly dismissible and also, the Bible doesn’t state any such thing. Be careful about just making things up just to defend your man-made tradition.

But you don’t seem to understand that the question “why?” isn’t about that the text refers to “sons” and “daughters” but about “why” it does so. Again, your late-comer made up man-made view can’t deal wih that question but mine does.

Same goes for, “just how believing were those males that they sinned so terribly?”: you didn’t deal with that at all, you merely preached a mini-sermon.

You also didn’t bother with, “‘fallen Angels’…are not even a thing” except very specifically as per Jude, 2 Peter 2, and Revelation” but merely asserted, “Jude is quoting Peter and quoting the Book of Enoch[.] Jude and Peter wrote to combat the false teachings of the Jewish myths of the Book of Enoch” and moved on. I’m unaware of 2 Peter 2 and so what if they both quoted it? Paul quotes Greek poets and the portions he quoted were accurate.

As for, “Revelation you have not given any full verse” check Rev 12. As for, “Revelation is a book of symbology” that doesn’t mean that it’s all symbolic, the symbols have actual truth as referents, and you can’t reject what is inconvenient to you by merely asserting, “symbology.”

As for cults, you seem to be saying that, “trinitarian cults [whatever that means] and Jehovahs Witness’s” are “against Christianity” because they oppose your man-made view about “believing men marrying unbelieving women” so, again, shame on you: there are much more important reasons for rejecting and correcting JWs.

Again, you are so utterly ungraceful, unrighteous, and worldly so please note that you have written a heap of comments on this topic then you obviously have a bias on your beliefs on the topic and because your beliefs are out to the whole world, there is no chance they would change no matter what I or anyone said but when you accuse me of holding to the view I hold due to, “you have made money” then you need to focus on the data based facts of this issue and stop discrediting yourself by the sort of trash that it occurs to you to pound into your keyboard—please, please repent.

This should be the easy part: the third one is, “Do those two usages agree?” So, “The usage of the English bible’s GIANTS and My usage of the word GIANTS are they the same?….. That would be YES” it’s no. And you’re confusing the linguistic usage of words with to what they refer: those are different categories.

Since you don’t know the answer to the second question then you assert, “They are both tall people” but that’s not accurate.

You also assert, “the term nephilim is what ALL the biblical scholars bar none that I know of, believe it is.. Tall people” but you need to look beyond the ones you myopically “know of.” Friend, I wrote the book on this—I literally wrote the book on the linguistics, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010” and throw this one into the mix, “The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?”

As for, “That is what Jewish people believe” well, this Jew is not only telling you otherwise, I proved otherwise—even if centuries and millennia after the Torah, some of us came up with wild folklore: like 1 Enoch that has them being MILES tall, great folklore, poor reality.

As for your literally prejudice comments about my books which you haven’t read: you gotta be kidding me, you merely literally invented a bunch of trash out of pure ignorance: please repent, please.

I’m disinterested in your wanting to argue just to argue such as the case with your throw away rant about, “To this I would say right back at you infact. If you are familiar enough with Bible to comment on it on the WWW than you’ll know that…….. So ditto on that.. And I feel the same way” my comment was about, “you’ll know that the second reference to them comes from an, ‘evil report’ by unreliable guys whom God rebuked” so it was not a shot as your childish one was.

I don’t just believe you don’t know much about Nephilology, I base that view of the evidence. You merely assert that I don’t know much about Christianity based on prejudice and ignorance since we haven’t even discussed Christianity.

And in the end, you admit that you don’t care if you’re right or wrong in your mere assertions so then, don’t waste our time by pushing a man-made tradition onto the WORLD WIDE web along with proof that you aren’t even aware of the linguistics involved.

Shalom!

Joe Jackson

You say you are unable to trade essays yet write one back before you inevitably run from lack of ability to answer or defend your weak position.

Researched the ‘evil report’ what is that? Is that one of your books or something? You can’t use YOUR OWN books as a proof against what I’m saying..the only source you can quote is scripture to defend it.

I don’t have to invent anything to get Nephilim past the flood which they are, Tall people are all over the world, Wrestlers, Basketballers, Ever heard of Robert Wadlow? Are you even trying to be serious now? They would have come from one of the wives genealogies from the flood… are you that out of touch with how things work. However did you get a publisher.. or did you self publish..i would assume the latter.

Your waffle about me describing Nephilm as tall people is redundant.. yes to most people I wouldn’t need to say the obvious..But you do not understand the meaning of Nephilim… or Giants…. So I have to explain things to you in a way I would to a 5yo.

But even that escaped you. Thus proving my whole point of why I have to spoon feed you things I normally don’t have to even to the most skeptic.. they understand me while not agreeing with me but at least they understand me… You can’t seem to grasp English maybe its your second language and your books are translated.. I’m still baffled how you got a publisher.

You’re also just inventing, “the hearer would have understood it is to have fear from that word meaning Giant.”

You obviously did not read the scripture… the hearers clearly knew what GIANTS were to fear them.. how can one fear what they have no idea of? Seriously you have no comprehension skills at all.

Ok conintuing on. More trying to advertise your book.. quoting YOUR badly written btw nonsense to try and prove a point.. You cannot quote yourself as evidence PMSL..

So any of your quoting your own nonsense literature I will skip,.. its too stupid to bother.. do you really think I would read your book when you make no sense in a chat and can’t even defend your opinons with evidence here?

What you call a Christian is opposite to what Christians call a Christian because you are NOT a Christian so your so called ‘commentators’ comments mean ZERO to me or God. Of course those you claim were Christians are not and are naturally condemned to the grave eternally. That is Gods will have it out with him when you meet, don’t whine to the messenger

The story says SONS OF GOD (males) and DAUGHTERS of men, (women) What is wrong with you? It’s doesn’t say Sons of men.. it doesn’t say daughters of God. I didn’t mention any variants because that is not what the scriptures are talking about… I deal with THE SCRIPTURES AT HAND not what you want them to say.

As for the Angel view’ as you call it… Angels CANNOT MARRY as I showed you previously with SCRIPTURE not opinion which is all you use.

So ANGELS are eliminated from any possibility. The story says the SONS OF GOD MARRIED….. Angels cannot MARRY.. END OF STORY END OF YOUR RIDICULOUS CLAIM

Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).

Who is denying that ‘sons of God’ can be angels? Not me..

Believers are called ‘sons of God’ all throughout the bible too. What is your point?

Angels means messengers you realise?

You lie through your teeth every touch of your keyboard. Read it and weep……..

34And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, 36for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sonsg of the resurrection.

Evidently it is YOU who is making things up deliberately to fit your Antichristian belief

2 Peter 2 is about Korah’s rebellion You should know that if you have debatied this in books you should know that this is NOT Celestial Angels but Terrestrial Angels. Stop being so deliberately disingenuous

What you’re arguing is like saying that a certain text doesn’t refer to “God” since it refers to the “LORD” or “The Most High” or the “Almighty,” etc., etc., etc.

Yet more nonsense from you. False accusing is all you seem to be capable of with no evidence at all. Firstly there is no capitals in scripture lord, Lord, LORD is determined by the Hebrew/Greek words not YOUR desires that suit you. The word ‘god/God/GOD means nothing in scripture.. these words should be left as their original meanings not YOUR interpretation of words like ELOHIM OR ELOAH etc. Do you even know any HEBREW/GREEK

But you don’t seem to understand that the question “why?” isn’t about that the text refers to “sons” and “daughters” but about “why” it does so

What are you talking about now? It is totally about WHO. You are claiming the sons of God there that MARRY.. are Celestial fallen Angels. Which the bible NEVER even infers as true.. and as I just showed you AGAIN with SCRIPTURE not opinion as you only use. That ANGELS CANNOT MARRY. You deny that verse continually

Why? Because they saw the women attractive AS IT SAYS IN SCRIPTURE.. not your opinion… see how it works.. I go by SCRIPTURE you make up stories to fit your already brainwashed theory you have been coached into believing by obvious simpletons that have absolutely NO IDEA of bible at all.

You also didn’t bother with, “‘fallen Angels’

There are no ‘fallen Angels’ to deal with anywhere in scripture.. the 2peter passage you are talking about I have told you relates to Korah’s story that you would know.. Tartarus is mentioned once in scripture in THAT VERSE.. Greeks believed it to be an underworld place of the dead awaiting punishment… These dead Angels (messengers) are humans that rebelled and were sent to the deepest depths by God. So how can dead people awaiting judgement be as you believe ‘fallen angels’ are and get around bugging people. You refuse context as well as logic and common sense all to fit your ridiculous fear story.

The book of enoch is nothing but mythology it has nothing to do with scripture.

As for Revelation I did mention you lie again.

I said if you can’t get past v1 which you clearly cannot. How could you understand past that. Your story of fallen Angels is at creation times .. Rev 1.1 clearly states it is a book of FUTURE EVENTS from its authorship in 96AD (things that must shortly COME TO PASS) Come to pass means future from that writing date.. NOT PAST… there is nothing in Revelation talking about prior to that.. it is also SYMBOLIC… Rev 12 is about Constantine and when your false doctrines started.. the church v state. But you probably believe its literally a red dragon and that there are beasts with 7 heads etc. you are ridiculous

So now you don’t know what a cult is? And you wonder why you can’t be taken serious at all.

These cults I mentioned are against Christianity because of their heresy nothing to do with what I believe. The bible decides what I believe.. not some brainwashed cults like trinitarians and JW’s. Again you show nothing but your opinion

Ok what’s next. Waffle waffle.. whining about me calling you out that you make money off your heretical teachings, waffle waffle , trying to enforce power on me by commanding I repent as if you are worthy to tell me what to do when you are antichrist spirit as spoken of by John. Waffle waffle waffle, more hurt feelings because I call you out on your books seriously you can’t even word things well, and your comprehension ability is like that of a 7yo.. WHO IS YOUR PUBLISHER? Surely you self publish no credible publisher would touch anyone with such bad writing skills and I say ‘skills’ in the way you are taking it.

Since you don’t know the answer to the second question then you assert, “They are both tall people” but that’s not accurate.

I showed you the verse (grasshoppers) that proved there were tall people LITERALLY.. and explained it so a child could understand it.. how that story backs up that even if they lied as you assume with ZERO EVIDENCE again. That doesn’t change the fact that they knew of TALL PEOPLE.. or they wouldn’t have connected the grasshopper reference at all. Are you that uneducated on how language works.. seriously again your publisher should be ashamed.

Friend, I wrote the book on this

Good grief are you so full of yourself that you do not understand that you CANNOT REFERENCE your own books in this debate… Any fool can write a book.. I’ve written books myself, You are not as important as you think you are. And from reading your avoidance..accusations, assumptions, lack of comprehension of the simplest forms of English etc etc etc..the list goes on… I can tell you now.. I wouldn’t believe a single word in one of your books… because I can see how dishonest you are and how self promoting you are to your own imagination that is is not only cringeworthy to the max.. it is downright embarrassing. You have no clue on the topic so YOUR BOOKS would be the polar opposite of the facts on the topic… so it matters not you wrote a book on the topic.. I could too and it would be totally opposite.. so what? Wrote THE book on it? As if you think you are the only one that has on this topic and that its correct. Too funny dude.

Since you don’t know the answer to the second question then you assert, “They are both tall people” but that’s not accurate.

I answered every question you just don’t understand them because of your limited knowledge of the topic and the bible. I don’t even know what you are talking about here. And you probably don’t either.

Whats next.. oh more self promoting your nonsense books.. pay for a tv ad and get it over with already.

As for, “That is what Jewish people believe” well, this Jew is not only telling you otherwise

Whoa whoa whoa.. hang on … so you are claiming to be from the tribe of Judah now?

If you are Jewish you would know all those stories yet you know none of them.. You wouldn’t understand or believe NT stuff anyway yet you seem to claim you do..

I don’t believe you are from the TRIBE OF JUDAH at all… more BS from you.

You merely assert that I don’t know much about Christianity based on prejudice and ignorance since we haven’t even discussed Christianity.

We are talking Christiainity.. what are you even on about now… I only talk Christianity based on here. I know you don’t know anything about Christianity by every word and the fact you don’t know anything OT either. You do realise Christianity is based on OT and NT.. and you cannot have Christianity without both… See this is your ignorance and lack of knowledge in scripture pouring out for all to see once again.

Clearly you are so full of yourself and self importance and think you are some sort of celebrity or famous author (maybe you are a J.K.Rowlings wannabe, sure write similar stuff only she can actually string a legible sentence together for one calling themselves an author. But obviously you think because you have written some dud books that you should be considered highly or of importance.. but the fact you have written books and are so ignorant to most things is even that much more embarrassing for you really.. and I think deep down you know that’s true.. but I already hear angry disagreeance to those facts.

And in true YOU style you consolidate all I have said about you by ending on another LIE.

I never said I don’t care if I’M wrong or right. I strive for being correct and if I find Im incorrect I will admit it and correct it.. YOU however are the opposite infact you show me that I am correct.. The things you have said I have looked for clarifiacation in scripture and there has been NOTHING even close.. and in doing so have found or re found the EVIDENCE against your claims time and time again from SCRIPTURE which I have shown you some of. The rest you would reject and your epics don’t allow for the amount of correcting so many of your errors.. to be frank one line from you I could write 2 pages off the top of my head of biblical errors without even touching a bible, but 1 you would deny it because it goes against your agenda and money making books (assuming people buy them, Im sure there are plenty of sheep gullible enough). And 2. You don’t have the intellect to understand scripture at all.. you truly don’t.. you consider yourself educated.. I see a dunce honestly.. you are as biblically bankrupt as one could be.

Don’t waste ‘OUR’ time.. are you a Siamese twin now? Please tell me there is not another of you.

This is the time where you run for the hills because you know this topic is way above your paygrade.. You live in mythology and antichristian nonsense as your daily bread. Go buy a copy of where’s wally and try and find him.. that’s the best you can probably manage.

Ken Ammi

Friend, your modus operandi informs me as to why you hold to man-made views and refuse correction. I mean, you noted “You say you are unable to trade essays yet write one” but what I wrote, in modern day plain English is, “I’m unsure I’ll be able to keep trading essays.

And it’s literally incoherent to refer to my “essay” and following it “you inevitably run” when I provided an essay’s worth of lack of running. So, keep your many, many, many instances of being an ungraceful worldly jerk to yourself and that will significantly shrink the number of words you post.

You actually ask “…‘evil report’ what is that? Is that one of your books or something?” AFTER I noted, “an ‘evil report’ spoken by unreliable guys whom God rebuked” and then, “Now, if you are familiar enough with Nephilology to comment about it on the WORLD WIDE web then you’ll know that the second reference to them comes from an, ‘evil report’ by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so no one should believe them (Num 13, the last few verses and then onto chap 14).” Friend, that evil report is literally 50% of the Bible’s references to Nephilim so if you are unaware of that, unaware of 50% of the data, I’m unsure why your posting about it on the WORLD WIDE web for all to see.

It’s as if you’re not even interacting with facts, you say, “I don’t have to invent anything to get Nephilim past the flood which they are, Tall people are all over the world” but that has utterly zero to do with Nephilim, you only merely assert some correlation because you actually believe unreliable guys whom God rebuked, you side with them rather than with God, you appeal to them as if they are infallible.

If I “do not understand the meaning of Nephilim… or Giants” how come I wrote the book on that? It’s titled “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010”? But you’re projecting.

Now, since you insist on continuing to employ the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” you make it very hard to know to what, to whom, you’re referring—and then you complain “at least they understand me… You can’t seem to grasp English.”

So, let’s work on your assertion “the hearers” feared when they were told about various people groups that were “strong” and “stronger.” It is only AFTER that, that the unreliable guys on whom you rely invented the tall-tale that you believe. This is why it’s important to familiarize yourself with 100% of the relevant data and not just 50%.

You’re so utterly saturated with anger and hatred that you emote but have no idea what you’re talking about: I never once quoted any of my books but you complain, “More trying to advertise your book.. quoting YOUR badly written btw nonsense…your quoting your own nonsense literature.”

Now you’re also condemning me to eternal hell? Friend, you have clearly established a cult wherein you’re the god and prophet: a false god and a false prophet. Just because you’re saturated with hatred and anger doesn’t make you right. You just condemned thousands upon thousands of Christians to eternal hell based on an issue that’s not even secondary: what does your pastor think about that?

You also don’t seem to understand that there’s no such thing as “your so called ‘commentators’” but actual commentators and they lived millennia before I did so how are they mine?

Again, you’re so angry and hateful that you seem to have lost the ability to comprehend simple questions since you’re only interested in being a worldly ungraceful jerk.

The question was why exclusively believing males and, exclusively unbelieving females? Indeed, “SONS OF GOD (males) and DAUGHTERS of men, (women)” so the question is why? Again, the Angel view answers that question biblically, while you merely spew out incoherent anger.

You then merely assert “Angels CANNOT MARRY as I showed you previously with SCRIPTURE” but I proved to you that you actually manipulated Jesus’ words and, in your typical MO, missed the key qualifying data. Thus, you’re simply mistaken and demonstrably so.

Now, since “‘sons of God’ can be angels?” then that helps us to understand how and why Jude and 2 Peter 2 place the sin of Angels to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin.

You then call me a liar as a mere assertion so please don’t play mind-reader since you’re not good at it.

I don’t base my doctrine, in this case Angelology, on one single verse like you do. Thus, note that in the one single text you quoted we’re told “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage” but the fallen Angels aren’t worthy so, while the worthy “cannot die anymore” the fallen Angles can since they will be subject to the second death since hell was created for them and the Devil.

Here are the texts you ignored “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30) and “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25). Thus, we now get a better idea of what Jesus was saying and the point about “worthy”: this was about the loyal “angels in heaven….angels in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it.

Well, yes, 2 Peter 2 mentioned Korah’s rebellion (and you conveniently ignored Jude) but you manipulated that whole chapter by ignoring that it’s not only about that. Why does Peter place that rebellion chronologically to before Noah’s days—aka, pre-flood?

When it came to, “What you’re arguing is like saying that a certain text doesn’t refer to ‘God’ since it refers to the ‘LORD’ or ‘The Most High’ or the ‘Almighty,’ etc., etc., etc.” again, you’re so hatefully angry that you ignored the point and moved the goalpost.

Now, when you loop back to the strict male female distinction, you again fail to answer why but you seem to be merely asserting without evidence that there were zero attractive sons of God.

You then merely asserted, “There are no ‘fallen Angels’ to deal with anywhere in scripture” and for some reason looped back to only one single point in 2 Peter 2 which you pretended is the whole chapter. Yet, as one example, in Rev 12 you have a war in heaven involving some of Satan’s Angels: or will you merely assert that humans somehow made it to heaven to fight against loyal Angels?

You also manipulated the concept of Tartarus since it’s the place for the Titans, etc. and not just a generic “place of” all “the dead awaiting punishment.”

“‘fallen angels’…get around bugging people” since their bodies are in Tartarus but their spirits roam the Earth as demons, by any other name. See my article “Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons” for a biblical view.

It’s incoherent to merely assert, “Rev 1.1 clearly states it is a book of FUTURE EVENTS from its authorship in 96AD” as if that mean that the narrative isn’t allowed to build a narrative via history or mention anything from prior to 96AD: that’s not how hermeneutics, basic reading comprehension is done. Besides, you’re using that to ignore the statements in Rev 12: do you reject that the child mentioned there is Jesus? If you accept that it is then well, he was born prior to 96AD so there goes your myopic theory.

Okay then, since “These cults I mentioned are against Christianity because of their heresy nothing to do with what I believe” then they’re a non-issue to our discussion.

Indeed you “showed…the verse (grasshoppers)” which you merely assert “proved there were tall people LITERALLY” but that’s not about “tall people” in general but about Nephilim in particular and, again, you believe guys whom God rebuked: I believe the God who rebuked them.

Again, “you CANNOT REFERENCE your own books in this debate” is an incoherent pseudo-standard and I will leave you to the rest of your hatefully angry incoherent rant.

I am Jewish and have familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of “all those stories” which is part of how I know that you’re holding to man-made tall-tales.

If you “strive for being correct” then change your views since I’ve proved time and again that you have to manipulate little bits of data in order to put forth your man-made views. Meanwhile, I keep providing you biblically verifiable data—which you, in turn, either conveniently ignore or manipulate.

I look forward to hearing about what your pastor thinks of you condemning thousands of Christians to eternal damnation and what makes you think that you’re a skilled mind reader.

Shalom and please repent—please!

Joe Jackson

Friend, your modus operandi informs me as to why you hold to man-made views and refuse correction. “I’m unsure I’ll be able to keep trading essays.

YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO CORRECT ME AND HAVE NO TRUTH TO CORRECT ME WITH

YOU CLAIM YOU WON’T BE TRADING ESSAYS YET KEEP WRITING THEM

IF YOU THINK I’M GOING TO RESPOND SHORT ANSWERS TO YOUR RIDICULOUS NOVELS, THINK AGAIN. I WILL BE ANSWERING EVERY POINT THAT IS INCORRECT.. AND THAT REQUIRES ME WRITING LONG POSTS BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH TO CORRECT.

ungraceful worldly jerk to yourself and that will significantly shrink the number of words you post.

NO YOU ARE THE JERK AND A LYING ONE AT THAT. AS STATED THE REASON MY POSTS ARE SO LONG IS I HAVE SO MUCH TO CORRECT FROM YOUR WAFFLING NOVEL ANSWERS. AND BECAUSE YOUR INABILITY TO SET OUT A RESPONSE IN A MANNER THAT IS EASILY READABLE IN QUESTION ANSWER RETORT.. TRY DOING HOW I DO SO IT MAKES SENSE WHO IS SAYING WHAT TO THE OTHER READERS. I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE HAD ANY BOOKS PUBLISHED YOUR PUBLISHER EITHER HASN’T READ YOUR STUFF FULLY, OR HAS TO DO A MOUNTAIN OF EDITING AND CORRECTING OR YOU SELF PUBLISH YOUR OWN DOGS BREAKFAST OF WRITING.

Friend, that evil report is literally 50% of the Bible’s references to Nephilim so if you are unaware of that, unaware of 50% of the data, I’m unsure why your posting about it on the WORLD WIDE web for all to see.

I HAD TO DELETE MOST OF THIS REPETITIVE PARAGRAPH YOU KEEP REHASHING OVER AND OVER. WITH NO WHO SAID WHAT IN IT TO BE FOUND. AND YOU WROTE YOUR NOT YOU’RE AND YOU ARE AN AUTHOR.. NORMALLY I DON’T CARE ABOUT TYPOS AND GRAMMAR..BUT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AN AUTHOR AND ARE TAKING MONEY FROM GULLIBLE PEOPLE UNDER THAT FRONT.

AS FOR YOUR 50% WHATEVER, AGAIN YOU JUST GIVE OPINIONS WITH NO FACTS. THE NEPHILIM ARE CONSIDERED GIANTS BY ALL SCHOLARS OF ALL FAITHS. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ON PLANET EARTH THAT DISAGREES WITH THE WORD MEANING AND CONTEXT OF THE STORY.. TRY HARDER .. LIE LESS.

YOU DENY TALL PEOPLE EXIST TODAY PAST THE FLOOD… NOT ME… I HAVE SEEN GIANTS AT BASKETBALL GAMES.. AND IN GENERAL PUBLIC AND KNOW SOME PERSONALLY. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE YOUR SOLO MEANING OF THE WORD DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING TO THE REALITY OF THE MATTER. GOD REBUKING THE SPIES MEANS NOTHING.. I HAVE EXPLAINED MANY TIMES TO YOU HOW THE FACT THE OTHERS UNDERSTOOD THE TERM GRASSHOPPERS MEANS THEY KNEW THE CONTEXT WAS ABOUT GIANTS.. WHETHER THEY LIED OR NOT… DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT LOGIC AT ALL? YOU HAVE ZERO.

ANYONE CAN WRITE A BOOK ON ANYTHING IT DOESN’T MAKE THEM AN EXPERT OR EVEN KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT THE TOPIC THEY WRITE ABOUT.. YOU KEEP CLAIMING BECAUSE YOU WROTE A BOOK ON SOMETHING YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IN A BIBLICAL SENSE AT ALL.. THAT YOU ARE SOME LEADING EXPERT.. YOU ARE A DOLT ON THE TOPIC.. ITS THAT SIMPLE. YOU ARE JUST PROMOTING A BOOK OF FABLE EVERY CHANCE YOU GET. NOTHING MORE.

YOU DON’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND ENGLISH..THAT IS FACT TOO.. IT MUST BE YOUR 2ND LANGUAGE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GRASP SIMPLE COMPREHENSION OF THE LANGUAGE AT ALL.. ITS LIKE TALKING TO A MONKEY.

FOR THE 5TH TIME AT LEAST… IT MATTERS NOT IF THE SPIES WERE LYING (LIKE YOU DO).. WHAT THEY SAID WAS UNDERSTOOD… IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT THE HEARER KNOWING WHAT GIANTS WERE… ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE… YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE ‘UNRELIABILITY’ OF THE SPIES, BUT THAT IS 100% IRRELEVANT, AND YOU ARE PROJECTING. THE STORY CLEARLY SHOWS THE WORD GIANTS WAS UNDERSTOOD TO THE HEARER EVEN IF THE SPIES NEVER SAW GIANTS AT ALL. SERIOUSLY THIS IS PRIMARY SCHOOL LEVEL THINKING.. DID YOU GO TO HIGH SCHOOL AT ALL

NOW YOU TAKE YOUR LYING TO A NEW LEVEL.. YOU HAVE BEEN PROMOTING YOUR BOOKS NAMING THEM THIS WHOLE BACK AND FORTH YOU DID AGAIN IN THIS VERY CHAT ABOVE… YOU MUST HAVE SOME SERIOUS LYING ISSUES THAT NEED PROFESSIONAL HELP AND THAT IS A FACT LIKE IT OR NOT. THEN YOU CLAIM (VEER) THAT I AM FULL OF ANGER.. WHILE YOU RANT AND RAVE AND SPIT YOUR DUMMY OUT IF PEOPLE DON’T TAKE YOUR UTTER NONSENSE AND DELUSION SERIOUSLY. I’M NOT ANGRY.. I’M JUST TELLING IT HOW IT IS.. PEOPLE WHO HAVE ISSUES HATE TRUTH BEING TOLD ABOUT THEM AND ALWAYS RESORT TO THE OLD ‘YOUR HURTING MY FEELINGS..YOU ARE ANGRY ROUTINE… DUDE THAT CRAP WON’T WORK HERE.. YOU AREN’T TALKING TO YOUR WIFE NOW.

AND MORE PROJECTING AND VEERING TO AVOID THE TOPIC AT HAND AS USUAL

MORE HURT FEELING ANGER BACK AT BECAUSE I DON’T FALL FOR YOUR CON JOB.

I’M NOT THE ONE CONDEMNING YOU TO HELL.. YOU ARE.. ITS YOU WHO CHOOSES THAT PATH.. DON’T BLAME ME FOR YOUR ISSUES. AS FOR THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIANS.. ALL CHRISTIANS GO TO HELL BECAUSE IT IS THE GRAVE… EVERYONE GOES TO HELL.. (IF YOU KNEW SOME HEBREW/GREEK AND BIBLE… YOU WOULD KNOW THAT.. BUT YOU HAVE NO CLUE PERIOD).

NO TRUE CHRISTIAN IS GOING TO STAY THERE ETERNALLY LIKE YOU THOUGH.. AND I NEVER SAID THEY WOULD.. MORE LIES ON YOUR PART.

You also don’t seem to understand that there’s no such thing as “your so called ‘commentators’” but actual commentators and they lived millennia before I did so how are they mine?

WHAT COMMENTATORS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Again, you’re so angry and hateful that you seem to have lost the ability to comprehend simple questions since you’re only interested in being a worldly ungraceful jerk.

MORE VEERING VIA WAY OF NAME CALLING AND BLAME, AND HURT FEELINGS.. SEEMS ALL YOU CAN DO IS DODGE AND VEER.

SONS OF GOD (males) and DAUGHTERS of men, (women)” so the question is why? Again, the Angel view answers that question biblically, while you merely spew out incoherent anger.

THE ANGEL VIEW I DEBUNKED FROM SCRIPTURE… not like you do WITH YOUR OPINIONS. ANGELS CANNOT MARRY

proved to you that you actually manipulated Jesus’ words and, in your typical MO, missed the key qualifying data. Thus, you’re simply mistaken and demonstrably so.

NO.. YOU GAVE OPINION THAT DID NOT MATCH WITH THE SCRIPTURE I GAVE PROVING ANGELS CANNOT MARRY. YOU CAN’T JUST CLAIM A SCRIPTURE IS A LIE WITH YOUR OPINON.

Jude and 2 Peter 2 place the sin of Angels to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin.

AS I SHOWED YOU IN SCRIPTURE.. 2 PETER 2 IS TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE BEFORE THE FLOOD WHO WERE TAKEN TO TARTARUS. YOUR OPINION AGAIN DOES NOT TRUMP SCRIPTURE

You then call me a liar as a mere assertion so please don’t play mind-reader since you’re not good at it.

I CALLED YOU A LIAR BECAUSE YOU LIE.. NO OTHER REASON.

YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR OPINION OVERRIDES SCRIPTURE.. YOU LIE

YOU LIE AGAIN… AND DELIBERATELY SO TO PUSH YOUR AGENDA

JESUS WAS ASKED ABOUT WHO MARRIES WHO IN THE KINDGOM, HE ANSWERED BY SAYING NOBODY (HUMANS ASKING) WILL MARRY IN THE KINGDOM AS THEY WILL BE LIKE THE ANGELS (CELESTIAL) WHO CAN NOT AND DO NOT MARRY.

SO GET THE CONTEXT.. THIS IS JESUS ANSWERING HUMANS IF THEY WILL MARRY AND JESUS ANSWERING THEM THAT NO THEY WON’T JUST LIKE THE ANGELS DON’T AND HAVE NEVER.

YOUR DISHONESTY SHOWS EVER DECEIPTFUL ATTEMPT TO PUT YOUR ANTICHRISTIAN BELIEFS INTO THE SCRIPTURES TRYING TO CONVINCE THE READER YOU ARE THE ONE BEING HONEST WHEN ITS CLEARLY SHOWING YOU HAVE NOTHING HONEST ABOUT YOU.. YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO SELL YOUR BOOKS FOR PROFIT AND DON’T KNOW THE BIBLE TO DEFEND YOUR NONSENSE.. AND YOU RELY ON PEOPLE BEING UNAWARE OF SCRIPTURE TO PEDDLE YOUR WARES. THIS IS WHY YOU DEBATE ME SO HARD BECAUSE YOU KNOW IM EXPOSING YOUR SCAM AND THE READER WILL SEE YOUR AGENDA.. ITS ALL ABOUT $$$$$$$$ FOR YOU.. AND NOTHING ELSE.

AND THERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR POISON..

ANYBODY READING THE WHOLE PASSAGE WILL SEE YOUR DISHONESTY NOW.. IT IS 100% CLEAR THIS PASSAGE IN CONTEXT IS TALKING ABOUT JESUS TELLING HIS FOLLOWERS THAT IN THE RESURRECTION TO THE NEW KINGDOM AND ETERNAL LIFE, THEY WILL NOT MARRY JUST LIKE THE ANGELS (ALL ANGELS EVER) HAVE NOT MARRIED.. THERE IS NO MARRIAGE IN ETERNITY. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT AND MESSAGE OF WHAT WAS ASKED AND TRUTHFULLY ANSWERED BY JESUS

YOUR NONSENSE ADDITION AND CLAIMING ITS TALKING ABOUT GOOD AND BAD ANGELS IS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN IN THAT PASSAGES WORDS, CONTEXT OR ALLUSION. YOU ARE PEDDLING YOUR BAD ANGEL WARES FOR PROFIT NOTHING MORE.

I DID NOT IGNORE JUDE AT ALL.. I ANSWER YOU IN GREAT DETAIL BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND BIBLE PERIOD..SO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU LIKE YOU ARE 5. MOST PEOPLE KNOW THESE STORIES, YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THEM.. IF I WAS TO DUMB IT DOWN MORE FOR YOU THEN IT WOULD MEAN MY POSTS WOULD BE MUCH LONGER STILL. ALREADY ITS LIKE SPOON FEEDING A BABY WITH A NUMB TONGUE.

MORE VEER AND WEAVING AND CRYING TO AVOID FACTS, COME ON BUTTERCUP, DEBATE THE TOPIC DON’T TURN INTO A BLUE HAIRED SJW AGAIN.

Now, when you loop back to the strict male female distinction, you again fail to answer why but you seem to be merely asserting without evidence that there were zero attractive sons of God.

ARE YOU FOR REAL? SERIOUSLY? ARE YOU THAT THICK?

THE BIBLE SAYS SONS OF GOD.. THAT MEANS THE BIBLE IS TALKING ABOUT MALES… SIMPLE AS THAT

THE BIBLE SAYS DAUGHTERS OF MEN… THAT MEANS THE BIBLE IS TALKING ABOUT FEMALES IN THAT LINE….. SIMPLE AS THAT

MAYBE YOU ARE ONE OF THESE BIOLOGY DENYING GENDERFREAKS WHO THINK YOU CAN JUST IDENTIFY AS THE OPPOSITE GENDER. AND THAT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME AT ALL.. NOT AT ALL.

BUT I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT CRAP, SONS MEANS MEN.. DAUGHERS MEANS WOMEN.. SIMPLE AS THAT.. AND YOUR SIDESTEPPING ON THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.

I DIDN’T FAIL TO ANSWER ANYTHING, I ANSWER IN DETAIL THAT A BABY WOULD UNDERSTAND BUT THAT GOES OVER YOUR HEAD BECAUSE YOU HAVE YOUR AGENDA AND MONEY TO WORRY ABOUT.

I NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT ATTRACTIVE SONS OF GOD.. THE STORY ISN’T ABOUT THE SONS ATRACTIVENESS ITS ABOUT THE WOMENS… THE BELIEVERS SAW THE UNBELIEVING WOMEN WERE HOT.. DOES THAT MAKE MORE SENSE TO YOU.. I DOUBT IT. ARE YOU GAY?

You then merely asserted, “There are no ‘fallen Angels’ to deal with anywhere in scripture” . Yet, as one example, in Rev 12 you have a war in heaven involving some of Satan’s Angels: or will you merely assert that humans somehow made it to heaven to fight against loyal Angels?

NOT ASSERTION.. FACT.

2PETER TALKING ABOUT MEN (KORA) AS THE FALLEN MESSENGERS IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT MENTIONS THE BAD RENDERING THAT SOME BIBLES USE TO REFER TO FALLEN HUMAN BELIEVERS (NOT CELESTIAL ANGELS)

NO OTHER VERSE MENTIONS ANY SUCH NONSENSE OF ANGELS FALLING FROM GRACE EVER

YOUR REV 12 VERSE IS ABOUT AS I TOLD YOU.. CONSTANTINE AND STATE V CHURCH.. IT IS ‘SYMBOLIC’ AS I MENTIONED REGARDING YOU NOT GETTING PAST REV 1.1

AND THAT IS ALSO WHY I SAID YOU WOULDN’T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE REV 1.1 SAYS IT IS ‘’FUTURISTIC’’ AS I SHOWED. MEANING YOUR ‘FALLEN ANGEL’ NONSENSE YOU CLAIM HAPPENED AT CREATION… COULD NOT BE THE REV 12 STORY, BECAUSE THE REV 12 STORY HAPPENED AFTER 96AD WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN THAT IT WOULD BE SYMBOLISING THINGS ‘’’’TO COME TO PASSS’’’ (FUTURE) NOT PAST AS YOU CLAIM.

You also manipulated the concept of Tartarus since it’s the place for the Titans, etc. and not just a generic “place of” all “the dead awaiting punishment.”

NO I NEER.. TARTARUS IS ONLY USED ONE TIME IN SCRIPTURE.. IT IS THE DEEPEST DEPTHS OF THE EARTH. WHICH WAS STILL THE GRAVE FOR KORAH. READ THAT STORY IN CONTEXT TO SEE WHAT HE WENT TO THE DEEPEST DEPTHS NOT JUST A NORMAL GRAVE.

BUT A GRAVE ALL THE SAME.. HE WAS DEAD AS A DOOR NAIL LIKE EVERYONE IN THE GRAVE (HELL/SHEOL/HADES) ALL SAME PLACE.

TITANS ARE NOT IN THE BIBLE.. THAT IS MORE MYTHOLOGY YOU BELIEVE IN.

MORE ADVERTISING OF YOUR BS BOOKS… I WOULDN’T READ YOUR CRAP IF YOU PAID ME MILLIONS… I TRULY WOULDN’T. YOU CAN’T EVEN UNDERSTAND ENGLISH OR WRITE IT PROPERLY, AND HAVE NO COMPREHENSION ABILITY WHATSOEVER YET KEEP PEDDLING YOUR BOOKS WHILE CLAIMING YOU NEVER DO.. WHAT A LIAR

NOTHING IN YOUR ABOVE COMMENT IS BIBLICAL.. ITS ALL SCARE RUBBISH. THIS IS WHAT YOU RELY ON.. FEAR TO MAKE MONEY.. JUST LIKE THE CHURCHES DO YOU ARE NO BETTER.

It’s incoherent to merely assert, “Rev 1.1 clearly states it is a book of FUTURE EVENTS from its authorship in 96AD

NO.. IT IS EXACTLY WHAT REV 1:1 STATES.. EXACTLY

SIGNED (MEANS SYMBOLISED) ITS NOT LITERAL…

COME TO PASS (MEANS IN THE FUTURE)

The BOOK OF REV STATES EMPHATICALLY THAT ALL WITHIN ITS COVERS IS FUTURISTIC AND SYMBOLISED

SHOW ME A 7 HEADED DRAGON? OR FOSSILS OF SUCH

YOUR STORY OF FALLEN ANGELS AT CREATION ARE NOT ONLY NONSENSE AND LIES THEY CANNOT EVER BE SAID TO BE IN THE BOOK OF REV AS CREATION WAS CLEARLY BEFORE THE FIRST CENTURY

YOU ARE THE BIGGEST LIAR EVER.. NO DOUBT.

Besides, you’re using that to ignore the statements in Rev 12: do you reject that the child mentioned there is Jesus? If you accept that it is then well, he was born prior to 96AD so there goes your myopic theory.

NO I ANSWERED IN DETAIL ENOUGH RE REV 12. AND NOTHING YOU CLAIM IS IN IT IS WRITTEN ANYWHERE AT ALL. YOU ARE JUST LYING MORE AND MORE ABOUT THAT.

YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS SYMBOLIC SO THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO PROVE A LITERAL 7 HEADED DRAGON BEFORE REV CAN CONTINUE.. ITS ABOUT POLITICAL WAR ON EARTH CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST, BUT THAT IS WAY OVER YOUR HEAD.

Again, “you CANNOT REFERENCE your own books in this debate” is an incoherent pseudo-standard and I will leave you to the rest of your hatefully angry incoherent rant.

THE AUDACITY THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN USE YOUR RIDICULOUS BOOKS TO DEBATE ME ON SCRIPTURE IS PROPOSTEROUS. THAT IS LIKE USING BIBLE TO DEBATE A MUSLIM OR THE KORAN TO DEBATE AN EVOLUTIONIST. I ALREADY KNOW YOUR WAY OF THINKING SO WHY WOULD I ACCEPT ANYTHING YOUR BOOK HAS TO OFFER..IF YOU CAN’T DEBATE WITHOUT TRYING TO MAKE SOME MORE DOLLARS PEDDLING YOUR BOOK.. THAT JUST SHOWS YOU LOST LONG AGO.. WHICH YOU DID YOU JUST CAN’T HANDLE THAT FACT. YOUR TITANIC HAS SUNK..YOU CAN LET GO NOW.. NOBODY BELIEVES YOU WILL FLOAT BACK UP TO THE TOP ALIVE.

I am Jewish and have familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of “all those stories” which is part of how I know that you’re holding to man-made tall-tales.

YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW THE OLD TESTAMENT SO JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE JEWISH BLOODLINES (NOT THAT I BELIEVE THAT AS YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHICH TRIBE YOU ARE FROM) HAHA. TICK TICK….. (SHLTTTSI). YOU QUOTE THE NT MORE THAN THE OLD BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU HAVE NO CLUE ON IT.. YOU DON’T KNOW ANY HEBREW MEANINGS AT ALL.

YOU ARE A FAKE AND FRAUD. AND YOU KNOW I KNOW IT.

YOU CAN CALL IT ‘MAN MADE’ VIEWS ALL YOU LIKE.. BUT ANYONE WATCHING THIS.. . IS SEEING I AM THE ONLY ONE CLAIMING SCRIPTURE (GODS WORD) WHILE YOU ARE ONLY EVER QUOTING YOUR OPINON (MAN MADE WORDS .. SO IT IS YOU WHO LIE AGAIN AND TWIST TRUTH.

Meanwhile, I keep providing you biblically verifiable data—

THEN YOU LIE BY CLAIMING ‘’YOU’’ ARE THE ONE PROVIDING BIBLE.. WHILE NEVER DOING THAT.

I look forward to hearing about what your pastor thinks of you condemning thousands of Christians to eternal damnation and what makes you think that you’re a skilled mind reader.

UNLIKE YOU I DON’T HAVE AN INDOCTRINATOR. BUT DO TELL ME WHAT YOUR RABBI THINKS OF YOUR NOT KNOWING ANYTHING FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. DO YOU TELL HIM YOU LIE ABOUT YOUR CLAIM OF ME CONDEMNING THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIANS TO ETERNAL DAMNATION WHEN I HAVE NOT CONDEMNED ANY TO THIS IMAGINARY PLACE THAT ANY RABBI WOULD KNOW DOESN’T EXIST.

Shalom and please repent—please!

ENDING ON A DISHONEST VIRTUE SIGNAL IS SO YOU.

Ken Ammi

Joe says, “YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO CORRECT ME.”

Timothy, “be ready in season and out of season; correct, rebuke, and exhort” (2 Timothy 4:2).

BTW: I “HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO CORRECT” you but you do have, “AUTHORITY TO CORRECT” me: I’m unsure how that’s cogent.

You, once again, merely asserted that I lied but you’re just being a worldly ungraceful jerk: you invented the assertion that I lied, I didn’t lie.

“50% WHATEVER” perfectly put, you were unaware of the “evil report” until I pointed it out to you so that means you were missing 50% of the Biblical data about an issue on which you were commenting—and you don’t seem to care, your focus is being very angry and hateful: please repent.

It’s fascinating that you complain about verbosity but you keep making the same blunders and so I have to keep pointing them out again. When you say, “NEPHILIM ARE CONSIDERED GIANTS” that contextually biblically means, “NEPHILIM ARE CONSIDERED NEPHILIM.”

I literally wrote the book on the issue of the linguistics so I’m very aware that you aren’t familiar with the relevant data.

Since you’re under the misconception that Nephilim were “tall” by definition (and that, what, all tall people in history are Nephilim?) you misread the Bible so that “TALL PEOPLE EXIST TODAY PAST THE FLOOD” must mean that Nephilim made it past the flood: of course, you’re contradicting the Bible five times when you assert that. But that incoherent assertion still doesn’t tell me how it is that God failed, how you figured out a loophole that God missed, etc.

Again, you argue just to argue and waste out time since I already told you that of course, “OTHERS UNDERSTOOD THE TERM GRASSHOPPERS MEANS THEY KNEW THE CONTEXT WAS ABOUT GIANTS”: that was because they fell for the deception. The 10 spies merely asserted that they saw that and, “OTHERS” merely believed them.

Please stop filling your essays with stuff that you first make up and then complain about, it’s you who wrote, “SOME LEADING EXPERT” but I never did so, please argue against yourself on your own time.

And note that since you ranted against your own fantasy, you, once again, failed to deal with the issue I raised: that’s what happens when you pound your all-caps and bold keyboard out of hateful anger—please repent.

Same with, “since you insist on continuing to employ the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’ you make it very hard to know to what, to whom, you’re referring—and then you complain ‘at least they understand me… You can’t seem to grasp English’”: you ignored the issue, once again.

Now, you are the one misunderstanding the issue since you seem to have forgotten the context due to being utterly desperate to argue about anything and everything. This was not about the fact that, “WHAT THEY SAID WAS UNDERSTOOD” but about that what was said and understood wasn’t true. Also, you say, “THE WORD GIANTS WAS UNDERSTOOD” but you don’t seem to realize that biblically, that reads this way, “THE WORD ***Nephilim*** WAS UNDERSTOOD.”

I noted, “I never once quoted any of my books” and rather than accepting that demonstrable fact, you spew even more hateful anger, “YOU HAVE BEEN PROMOTING” but what you call, “PROMOTING” isn’t quoting. So, maybe your hateful anger about not comprehending English was just another case of you projecting.

You seem to be tragically unaware that no cogent person in the history of Christianity would even imagine condemning someone to eternal damnation for the reasons (excuses) that you use. You say I’m condemning myself to hell but there’s not a single word in the entire Bible nor cogent Christian theologizing (or, soteriology) about anyone ever being hell bound due to an issue that isn’t even secondary. The problem is that you are clearly saturated with hateful anger—and refuse biblical correction—which is why no cogent Christian in the past two millennia agrees with you: please repent.

As for, “ALL CHRISTIANS GO TO HELL BECAUSE IT IS THE GRAVE” well, I wrote an entire book just about that so I kwon you’re simply and demonstrably mistaken. The word that you read as, “hell” in your English Bible is actually usage to render (not even translate) various Hebrew and Greek words and so, “GRAVE” is you being myopic. Please see my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Heaven and Hell?: A Styled Superumology and Infernology.”

As for, “WHAT COMMENTATORS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?” the ones you condemned to hell, the aforementioned, “original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days.”

You once again abuse Jesus’s words and now you’re doing it willfully, already having been corrected multiple times so please repent since I asked you, “so the question is why?” and you merely invent, “ANGELS CANNOT MARRY.” As for, “YOU GAVE OPINION THAT DID NOT MATCH WITH THE SCRIPTURE I GAVE PROVING ANGELS CANNOT MARRY” I’m unsure how quoting, Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 are opinions but, again, you based your views on one single verse.

Joe, “PEOPLE BEFORE THE FLOOD WHO WERE TAKEN TO TARTARUS.”

Peter, “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into” Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4).

Again, merely asserting that I lied doesn’t mean that I lied: it just means that you’re literally ignorant and prejudice. See, I have proved time and again that you’re mistaken but I can’t merely assert that you lie because well, how could I even know that?

You then, once again, invent a fantasy which upsets you, “YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR OPINION OVERRIDES SCRIPTURE.. YOU LIE” so, once again, please keep your fantasies to yourself.

You then manipulated Jesus again by asserting, “JESUS…ANSWERED BY SAYING NOBODY (HUMANS ASKING) WILL MARRY IN THE KINGDOM” but, as I already told you and you actually quoted but ignored, “JESUS…ANSWERED BY SAYING,” “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead.” Ergo, “fallen Angels aren’t worthy so, while the worthy ‘cannot die anymore’ the fallen Angles can since they will be subject to the second death since hell was created for them and the Devil.” So, again, you’re manipulating Jesus’ very specific statement about loyal Angels to apply to all Angles at all times. Thus, you invented that it’s about “(ALL ANGELS EVER)” over against Jesus’ words.

As for, “ITS ALL ABOUT $$$$$$$$ FOR YOU.. AND NOTHING ELSE” you’re a really, really bad mind reader—please repent.

When you reply to the fact that, “you manipulated that whole chapter by ignoring that it’s not only about that” and “Why does Peter place that rebellion chronologically to before Noah’s days—aka, pre-flood?” merely by ranting, “I DID NOT IGNORE JUDE AT ALL.. I ANSWER YOU IN GREAT DETAIL…” you leave things at that, “you manipulated that whole chapter by ignoring that it’s not only about that” and ignored, “Why does Peter place that rebellion chronologically to before Noah’s days—aka, pre-flood?”

Sadly, your anger led you to also miss and thus ignore that, “When it came to, ‘What you’re arguing is like saying that a certain text doesn’t refer to ‘God’ since it refers to the ‘LORD’ or ‘The Most High’ or the ‘Almighty,’ etc., etc., etc.’” and, ironically, I finished that sentence with the same statement I had to repeat just now, “again, you’re so hatefully angry that you ignored the point and moved the goalpost.”

Likewise, I noted, “you again,” mind you, “fail to answer why but you seem to be merely asserting without evidence that there were zero attractive sons of God” and yet again point out a non-issue, “BIBLE SAYS SONS OF GOD.. THAT MEANS THE BIBLE IS TALKING ABOUT MALES…DAUGHTERS OF MEN… THAT MEANS THE BIBLE IS TALKING ABOUT FEMALES” so that you, once again, ignore the point. But, you did assert that there weren’t any beautiful Sethites so there’s that at least—even if you had to invent that to butters your man-made tradition. Again, on the Angel view, I don’t have to invent stuff, I can just point out biblically verifiable facts.

Fascinatingly, when it comes to, “You then merely asserted, ‘There are no ‘fallen Angels’ to deal with anywhere in scripture’” along with my reference to, “one example, in Rev 12…” you, again, myopically fixate on your eisegesis that out of everything that is in 2 Peter, “Angels” must only exclusively refer to, “MEN (KORA)” which is a mere assertion, of course.

Likewise, merely asserted is your assertion, “IT IS ‘SYMBOLIC’” which you think gives you an out via which to ignore biblically verifiable facts that are inconvenient to your tradition. Interestingly, your demand that, “REV 1.1 SAYS IT IS ‘FUTURISTIC’” and ergo, the whole entire rest of the book can only refer to the future is debunked a mere 3 verses later but the usage of the word, “was” which is past tense—which refers to the past and not the future—same with verse 8 and 9, etc.

When it comes to Tartarus, you appear to be desperate to apply hermeneutics which would have you apply cultural and grammatical contexts via which to understand that hapax legomenon. Thus, when we reject your tradition and apply what Peter (and Jude) were telling us, we can understand it better than as per a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice, and that only creates more problems than it solves (more than zero).

I thought you were projecting when you complain about my books since, again, you complained that I quoted them but I never did and then I referred you to an, “article” but you moved the goalpost, again, to complain about, “MORE ADVERTISING OF YOUR BS BOOKS.” Please dispel some of your hateful anger before writing since you’re discrediting yourself by missing simple facts. So, I made a biblically backed statement, directed you to an elucidation of it, but you merely bypass it via merely asserting, “WHAT A LIAR NOTHING IN YOUR ABOVE COMMENT IS BIBLICAL.. ITS ALL SCARE RUBBISH” thus, you continue discrediting yourself.

Why would anyone show you a, “7 HEADED DRAGON” when that’s symbolic of kings/kingdoms/nations. Just because some statements in Rev are symbolic doesn’t mean that all of them are: no one should have to tell you that. Or, do you believe that John is symbolic as is Jesus who gave him the revelation—and, of course, the revelation was also symbolic, right? No.

I asked, “in Rev 12: do you reject that the child mentioned there is Jesus?” and noted, “If you accept that it is then well, he was born prior to 96AD so there goes your myopic theory” but since that collapses your tradition you merely asserted, “REV 12. AND NOTHING YOU CLAIM IS IN IT IS WRITTEN ANYWHERE AT ALL” but when you make such incoherent assertions it only takes a little quote to debunk you:

I stated, “the child mentioned there.”

Rev 12 notes, “her child…a male child…her child…the male child.”

Ergo, that debunks, “NOTHING YOU CLAIM IS IN IT IS WRITTEN ANYWHERE AT ALL.”

If you actually assuage your hatefully ungraceful worldly anger long enough to think cogently, you’ll note that I haven’t even used my books to debate you but made biblically verifiable statements and then referenced my books as for additional and more detailed data. And yet, the fact still remains that merely asserting the pseudo-standard, “you CANNOT REFERENCE your own books in this debate” is incoherent.

It’s equally incoherent, a non-sequitur, to make up the imaginary fantasy that since I, allegedly, “DON’T EVEN KNOW THE OLD TESTAMENT” then, I can’t, “HAVE JEWISH BLOODLINES” and my people have suffered enough through the millennia without someone as grotesquely hate filled and unrepentant as you laughing at us because we, like you, don’t have a full genealogy.

You also merely asserted, “YOU DON’T KNOW ANY HEBREW MEANINGS AT ALL” which is tragically embarrassing, prejudice, and instantly debunkable: I mean, you do realize that when you’re so filled with hatred that you make preposterously generic statements, it only takes one single word to debunk you—just as I did with Rev’s reference to, “was.” So, for example, it goes a little something like this: I point out that I literally wrote an entire book about the linguistics, you ignore that verifiable fact and then merely assert, “YOU DON’T KNOW ANY HEBREW MEANINGS AT ALL.” Again (and again and again [and again and again]): you’re so utterly saturated with hateful anger than it’s almost as if you don’t even know what you’re writing. I know who I man in Christ so I can take your hateful anger and urge you do repent but please, please, please, (please [please]) don’t comment to unbelievers online since you will do more harm than good: all harm, no good.

Now, I noted, “I look forward to hearing about what your pastor thinks” but you moved the goalpost, one of your MOs, to, “INDOCTRINATOR.” So, it appears as if you’re not a member of a local body of believers and that explains ***a lot*** such as why you’re so utterly hateful and unaccountable to anyone. Thus, you violate the New Testament wherein pastors are gifted by God Himself. Please join a local body of believers in praise, worship, Bible reading, studying, hearing sermons, fellowshipping, and repent.

Tragically, you’re so utterly ungraceful, worldly, hate filled, and angry that I tell you this in brotherly love, “Shalom and please repent—please!” and you spit in my face again (and again [and again]) so, please repent.

Joe Jackson

I AM USING BOLD CAPITALS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO DISTINGUISH YOU FROM ME IN TEXT SO HOPE YOU DON’T GET ALL OFFENDED CLAIMING IT IS YELLING LIKE SOME FOOLS DO ON HERE. AND BECAUSE ITS BEEN A WHILE SINCE YOU LAST REPLIED AND I HAVE HAD MANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS.. I HAVE TO TRY AND REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING AND TRY AND WORK OUT WHOS SAYING WHAT, (HENCE MY CAPTIALS FOR FUTURE REF)

PS.. TRY REMEMBER THIS ISN’T ONE OF YOUR BORING NOVELS SO KEEP THE ANSWERS SMALL SO I CAN. NO NEED TO KEEP REPEATING AS YOU DO.

Timothy, “be ready in season and out of season; correct, rebuke, and exhort” (2 Timothy 4:2).

PAUL WROTE THAT TO YOU PERSONALLY DID HE? NO HE DIDN’T.. PAUL WROTE IT TO TIMOTHY NOT YOU. SO NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO PUT YOURSELF AS IF YOU ARE AN APOSTLE.. YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO ANYONE LET ALONE ME.

You, once again, merely asserted that I lied but you’re just being a worldly ungraceful jerk: you invented the assertion that I lied, I didn’t lie.

NO IDEA NOW WHAT THAT IS ALL ABOUT. IM NOT ANGRY.. I DON’T GET ANGRY.

NEPHILIM ARE CONSIDERED GIANT MEN BY ALL SCHOLARS…. YOU ARE NOT A SCHOLAR SO JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH ALL SCHOLARS DOESN’T MEAN MUCH DOES IT.

I literally wrote the book on the issue of the linguistics so I’m very aware that you aren’t familiar with the relevant data.

YOUR BOOKS MEAN NOTHING, WRITING A BOOK DOES NOT MAKE ANYBODY AN EXPERT.. I CAN WRITE A BOOK ON NEPHILIM TOO AND IT WOULD BE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF YOURS… SO HOW WOULD THAT MAKE ‘YOU’ AN EXPERT WHEN OTHER BOOKS DISAGREE WITH YOUR ‘OPINION’ AND THAT IS ALL YOU HAVE.. ‘OPINIONS’

I HAVE NO MISCONCEPTION ..JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT NEPHILIM MEANS ISN’T MY MISCONCEPTION.ITS YOUR IGNORANCE.

GIANTS ARE HERE TODAY AS THEY WERE PRE FLOOD..ARE YOU BLIND? TURN ON THE BASKETBALL DUDE. THEY CLEARLY CAME FROM THE ARK 8, WHY WOULD YOU THINK THEY DIDN’T AMAZES ME… ARE YOU THAT IGNORANT OF GENETICS?

CONTRADICT THE BIBLE 5 TIMES? WTH ARE YOU ON ABOUT NOW? GOD DIDN’T MISS ANYTHING MATE.. YOU HAVE… 100%

GOOD GRIEF IT’S LIKE TALKING TO A 4YO, ‘THE FACT THAT ‘’OTHERS KNEW’’’ WHAT GIANTS WERE.. PROVES THERE ‘’’WERE GIANTS’’’ OR ELSE HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHAT THE SPIES WERE EVEN TALKING ABOUT.. EVEN IF THEY WERE LYING? THIS ISN’T ROCKET SCIENCE LOGIC HERE.

NO IDEA WHAT THAT’S ABOUT.. IM CERTAINLY NOT READING BACK TO FIND OUT

SO YOU ARE ANOTHER THAT IS OFFENDED BY CAPS LOCK THINKING ITS YELLING… WOW… WHY ARE NON BELIEVERS SO OFFENDED AT THE STUPIDEST THINGS.

LOST AGAIN WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.. MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE KEPT DEBATING WHILE I REMEMBERED WHAT YOU ARE ON ABOUT. ARE YOUR BOOKS THIS MEMORABLE WHEN READ?

AND ALL SCHOLARS AGREE NEPHILIM IS GIANTS (FALLEN ONES) BUT TALL PEOPLE NONE THE LESS AS PROVEN BY THE GRASSHOPPER STORY.

YOU POSTED LINKS TO YOUR BOOKS MANY TIMES.. GO LOOK A THIS CHAT LOG.

HELL IS THE GRAVE WE ALL GO THERE BUD. GET OVER IT.

AS FOR HATEFFUL ANGER.. THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION BECAUSE YOU ARE OFFENDED BY FACTS.. ALL SJW’S SHOW THIS TRAIT YOU ARE NO EXCEPTION. THE FACT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT CAPS LOCK BEING ANGER AND YELLING SHOWS YOUR OFFENSE AT THE MOST RIDICULOUS WOKE THINGS. AGAIN.. YOU CANNOT CORRECT ME REGARDING SCRIPTURE BECAUSE YOU SHOW NO SCRIPTURE TO CORRECT ME.. YOUR OPNIONS AGAINST CHRISITIANTYS TRUTH IS NOT CORRECTION.. IT IS JUST NONSENSE.

As for, “ALL CHRISTIANS GO TO HELL BECAUSE IT IS THE GRAVE” well, I wrote an entire book just about that so I kwon you’re simply and demonstrably mistaken. The word that you read as, “hell” in your English Bible is actually usage to render (not even translate) various Hebrew and Greek words and so, “GRAVE” is you being myopic. Please see my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Heaven and Hell?: A Styled Superumology and Infernology.”

THE ABOVE UNDERLINED IS NOT YOU PROMOTING YOUR BOOK YET AGAIN.. ???

LIKE YOU JUST CLAIMED YOU HAVE NOT DONE? THE LIES CONTINUE.

HELL IS THE GRAVE IN GREEK AND HEBREW… GREEK HADIES IS ‘GRAVE’ ….. HEBREW SHEOL IS ‘GRAVE’.. THEY BOTH MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING… COVERING PLACE,PIT,GRAVE.

YOUR COMPLETE LACK OF BIBLICAL KNOWLEDGE WAS NOTED EARLY ON IN THE CHAT. REINFORCED CONTINUALLY. Why would ANYONE read your beliefs on what you don’t even understand. WE WILL GO TO THE BIBLE FOR THE CORRECT MEANING OF WORDS AND CONTEXT THANKS…

PS.. I KNOW YOU ARE DESPERATE FOR SALES OF YOUR SILLY BOOKS BUT I WILL NOT BE BUYING.. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE ME BY YOUR JUNK

SO YOU STILL CANT STATE? I SEE

INVENT??? THIS IS SCRIPTURE.. HAVE A GOOD READ NOW

Matthew 22:29-30: “29 Jesus replied, ‘Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures, and you don’t know the power of God. 30 For when the dead rise, THEY WILL NEITHER MARRY nor be given in marriage. IN THIS RESPECT they will be like the angels in heaven.'”

Joe, “PEOPLE BEFORE THE FLOOD WHO WERE TAKEN TO TARTARUS.”

Peter, “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into” Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4).

ONCE AGAIN…. 2 Peter 2:4 REFERS TO THE STORY OF KORAH, A REBELLION AGAINST MOSES’ LEADERSHIP, AS RECORDED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IN NUMBERS 16.

TARTARUS IS ONLY MENTIONED THIS ONE TIME

SEEMS EVERYTHING YOU SAY I HAVE SCRIPTURES TO PROVE YOU WRONG.. WHILE YOU ONLY EVER USE YOUR OPINION… SEEMS YOU ARE LYING TO ME… AND ANYONE READING THAT IS HONEST.

Ergo, “fallen Angels aren’t worthy so, while the worthy ‘cannot die anymore’ the fallen Angles can since they will be subject to the second death since hell was created for them and the Devil.”

THERE IS NO FALLEN ANGELS IN THE BIBLE.. I HAVE PROVEN THAT MANY TIMES.

So, again, you’re manipulating Jesus’ very specific statement about loyal Angels to apply to all Angles at all times. Thus, you invented that it’s about “(ALL ANGELS EVER)” over against Jesus’ words.

ALL ANGELS ARE LOYAL, THERE IS NOTHING IN BIBLE SAYING OTHERWISE..SUGGESTING IT IS CLAIMING GOD IS A FAILURE

As for, “ITS ALL ABOUT $$$$$$$$ FOR YOU.. AND NOTHING ELSE” you’re a really, really bad mind reader—please repent.

YOU KEEP PLUGGING YOUR BOOK AND WANTING ME TO BUY IT… YOU ARE ALL ABOUT THE DOLLAR

When you reply to the fact that, “you manipulated that whole chapter BLABLABLA

NO IDEA WHAT THAT RANT IS .. FORGOT.. YOU HAVE TO REMIND ME ..ITS HARD TO WORK OUT THEY WAY YOU POST THINGS

AGAIN NO IDEA ..ITS BEEN TOO LONG.. REMIND ME… YHVH IS THE ALMIGHTY IF THAT HELPS

I NEVER MENTIONED SETH AT ALL DID I? IF SO SHOW ME WHERE?

AND THE RELEVANCE TO YOUR SO CALLED ‘POIN’T………….. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT DAUGHERS ARE ‘FEMALE’ AND SONS ARE ‘MALE’???? WHAT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS SIMPLICITY..? ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE TRANS BELIEVERS?

THE STORY IS SIMPLE… BELIEVING MEN MARRIED UNBELIEVING WOMEN, THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANGELS OR ALIENS ANYWHERE.. YOU ARE THE ONE INVENTING NONSENSE TO FIT YOUR NARATIVE.

I DIDN’T MERELY ASSERT THERE ARE NO FALLEN ANGELS, I STATED THAT WELL KNOWN BIBLE FACT.

I NEVER SAID ALL ANGELS ARE MEN.. ANGELS MEANS MESSENGERS.. THEY ARE MEN AND CELESTIAL ANGELS TOO SOMETIMES. YOUR LIES KEEP GOING DON’T THEY. REV 12 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANGELS PERIOD.

YOU JUST QUOTE YOUR OPINION AS IF IT IS TO BE BELIEVED WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE

AGAIN, ITS SCRIPTURE I CAN’T BE CREDITED FOR THAT FACT. REV 1.1 ‘SIGNED’ MEANS SYMBOLISED LIKEWISE ‘THINGS TO ‘’SHORTLY’’ COME TO PASS’’ IS OBVIOUSLY FUTURE FROM THE TIME OF ITS WRITING.

AND THIS IS TOO FUNNY THAT YOU QUOTE ‘GOD’ BEING BEFORE 96AD.. HILLARIOUS

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, (OF COURSE GOD WAS BEFORE THE 1ST CENTURY..THAT DOESN’T MEAN THE EVENTS OF REVELATION ARE BEFORE THEN.. ARE YOU INSANE OR TRULY UNEDUCATED.

SO THE PREVIOUS VERSE SAYING ‘’PROPHECY’ MUST MEAN BY YOUR LOGIC THAT THEY PROPHECIED THINGS THEY ALREADY KNEW ABOUT FROM THE PAST pmsl..

3Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this PROPHECY

AS FOR V8 AND 9… YOU ARE SO DECEITFUL.. YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT THIS IS AN INTRODUCTION BEFORE THE ACTUAL ‘’REVELATION’’ IS TOLD.. AND THAT V 8 IS AGAIN TALKING ABOUT GOD AND V 9 IS JUST JOHN TELLING WHERE HE WAS WHEN THE REVELATION WAS GIVEN TO HIM.. YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REVELATION THAT HASN’T BEEN GIVEN YET… AND V1 SLAMS IT HOME BUT YOUR BLATANT AND ‘VERY DELIBERATE’ DISHONESTY IS VERY CLEAR FOR ALL TO SEE.

TARTARUS IS THE GRAVE (HELL) IT’S WHERE KORAH WENT WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF 2PETER2.

AS FOR YOUR REVELATION NONSENSE Revelation 12 can be seen as a symbolic representation of the conflict between the early Christian community (often symbolized as the woman) and the powers of the Roman Empire (often symbolized as the dragon). This perspective emphasizes the historical and political context of the early church rather than a literal depiction of a cosmic battle involving fallen angels

ANYBODY READING THIS CHAT CAN SEE YOU HAVE PUSHED YOUR BOOKS AND TRIED GETTING ME TO BUY AND READ THEM FROM THE START..YOU HAVE AGAIN IN THIS VERY POST… YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR THAT IS FOR SURE. WHICH YOU WILL WHINE IS MY ANGER TALKING.. BECAUSE YOU GET OFFENDED BY FACTS AND CLAIM ANYTHING YOU HATE HEARING IS ANGER.

Why would anyone show you a, “7 HEADED DRAGON” when that’s symbolic of kings/kingdoms/nations.

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT INTERPRETATION? SO YOU CHERRYPICK WHEN ITS SYMBOLIC AND WHEN ITS NOT.. THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS ALL LITERAL

I asked, “in Rev 12: do you reject that the child mentioned there is Jesus?” and noted, “If you accept that it is then well, he was born prior to 96AD so there goes your myopic theory”

WHAT RIDICULOUS NONSENSE LOL.. THE PRELUDE BEFORE THE REVELATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REVELATION.. AND JESUS BEING RESURECTED AND ALIVE STILL EVEN NOW… IS STILL IN THE FUTURE FROM 96 AD… YOU ARE SO BLATANTLY UNEDUCATED IN THIS TOPIC

Rev 12 notes, “her child…a male child…her child…the male child.”

SO WHAT?

Ergo, that debunks, “NOTHING YOU CLAIM IS IN IT IS WRITTEN ANYWHERE AT ALL.”

WHAT HAVE YOU CLAIMED ? FALLEN ANGELS.. BUT NONE TO BE SEEN.. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING YOU ARE ON ABOUT.

YOUR BOOKS YOU KEEP PUMPING LIKE A LATE NIGHT AD FOR BLUNT KNIVES (AND ORDER NOW AND YOU WILL GET A FREE POTATO PEELER) HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FACTS AND SCRIPTURE.. THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO THIS DEBATE BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST YOUR OPINION.. YOU ARE SPINNING ENOUGH OF THAT WITHOUT BRINGING YOUR BOOKS THAT WILL JUST DO MORE OF THE SAME NONSENSE…SO ENOUGH WITH PROMOTING YOUR STUPID BOOKS.. YOU SOUND LIKE PRINCE HARRY, PATHETIC AND CRINGY

YOU ARE THE CHAMPION OF NON-SEQUITUR.. THAT’S ALL YOU DO.

WHAT IS YOUR JEW RANT ABOUT NOW? YOU GO OFF LIKE A PORK CHOP AT EVERYTHING YOU ARE SO TRIGGERED BY EVERYTHING. TOO MUCH EMOTION NOT ENOUGH BRAIN CELLS. STICK TO THE TOPIC AND STOP CRYING ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ALL THE TIME… I DON’T GIVE TWO HOOTS ABOUT YOUR BLOODLINE WHAT MADE YOU THINK I WAS INTERESTED?

I DEBUNKED YOU ON THAT.. IN 2 SECONDS FLAT BTW… AND THERE YOU GO AGAIN WITH YOUR CRIES OF ‘HATE HATE HATE’ WHENEVER SOMEONE CALLS YOU OUT ON YOUR UTTER NONSENSE AND HERESY. YOU CAN KEEP CHANTING ‘HATE’ LIKE A BABY ALL DAY LONG WHEN I CALL YOU OUT IF YOU LIKE.. CORRECTING YOUR BS IS NOT HATE.. ITS JUST CORRECTING YOUR BS..THATS ALL.. BUT IF YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT YOURSELF CALLING SOMEONE ELSE HATEFUL JUST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOUR UTTER MADNESS AND RIDICULOUS OPINIONS THAT DON’T MATCH ANY SCRIPTURE WHATSOEVER… KNOCK YOURSELF OUT DUDE.. CRY A RIVER IF IT MAKES YOU NOT BURN DOWN A CHURCH OR WHATEVER YOUR MOB ARE DOING THESE DAYS THAT PROTEST SO MUCH.

So, for example, it goes a little something like this: I point out that I LITERALLY WROTE AN ENTIRE BOOK ABOUT THE LINGUISTICS,

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ (NAAA YOUR NOT PROMOTING YOUR BOOK EVERY 2 MINS AT ALL. ARE YA.. NAAAAAA…) YOU ARE HILLARIOUS

you’re so utterly saturated with hateful anger

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ MORE CRYING . BOOHOO.. JUST HAVE ONE GOOD HOWL AND WIPE YOUR TEARS WITH THE PAGES OF YOUR BOOK AND MAKE THEM USEFULL.. THEN WHEN YOU ARE SETTLED DOWN.. HAVE ANOTHER WHINE…

so I can take your hateful anger

TAKE 256

and urge you do repent but please, please, please, (please [please]) don’t comment to unbelievers online since you will do more harm than good: all harm, no good.

YOU ARE AN SOLID UNBELIEVER AND YOUR OK WITH ME COMMENTING TO YOU THOUGH

I DIDN’T MOVE ANY GOALPOSTS AT ALL THAT’S YOUR OPINION AGAIN..AND WRONG AGAIN.

I AM A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

SORT OF GOES AGAINST YOUR FALSE ASSUMPTION.. YET AGAIN.

such as why you’re so utterly hateful and unaccountable to anyone.

AHHH THE OLD HATE WORD AGAIN… TAKE 249 YAWNNNN

WHEN YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT RESORT TO REPETITIVE WHINES TO DODGE AND WEAVE.

Thus, you violate the New Testament wherein pastors are gifted by God Himself.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS IN THE BIBLE?

AND EVIDENCE I AM VIOLATING WHATEVER YOU CLAIM I AM

Tragically, you’re so utterly ungraceful, worldly, hate filled, and angry

MORE DEFLECTION AND DODGING… TISSUE?

that I tell you this in brotherly love, “Shalom and please repent—please!” and you spit in my face again (and again [and again]) so, please repent.

IM NOT JEWISH..SO WHY THE SHALOM? AND YOU ARE NOT MY BROTHER IN ANY FORM YOU ARE ANTICHRIST IN REGARDS OF RELIGION..

NOW I KNOW THAT FACT WILL BE RECEIVED WITH YET ANOTHER CRY OF ‘HATE/ANGER’ WAHH WAHH WAHHH…. BUT SO BE IT.. IM NOT GOING TO STOP ANSWERING FACTS JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN’T DEAL IN FACTS, TRUTH, REALITY, AND LOGIC.

BUY A BIBLE, STUDY IT.. AND LEARN ABOUT CHRISTIANITY ,, GET BACK WHEN YOU HAVE A CLUE ON AT LEAST ONE BIT OF THE BIBLE.. SURELY YOU CAN AFFORD A BIBLE WITH ALL THE BOOKS YOU HAVE BEGGED PEOPLE TO BUY CONSTANTLY .. YOU KNOW YOU COULD ALWAYS JUST GET BIBLE HUB OR SIMILAR FOR ‘’’’’FREE’’’’ I GUESS WHEN YOUR BOOKS DON’T SELL BECAUSE THEY ARE FULL OF NONSENSE.. A FREE BIBLE WOULD BE PERFECT FOR YOU…. START AT ‘Google’ AND GO FROM THERE….. THAT A BOY

Ken Ammi

You may want to opt for actually writing cogent sentences rather than parsing and making your comments increasingly more verbose.

Wow, if you’re not angry then I would hate to see you angry. I wish you were angry cause if this is you on normal then well, I’ll leave it at that.

We’re back to that the more you write the more it’s clear that you may possibly have some reading comprehension issues since I’ve explained a few times about the “50% WHATEVER” and you still, have, “NO IDEA NOW WHAT THAT IS ALL ABOUT” which, actually also, again, shows your lack of familiarity with biblical Nephilology.

It doesn’t matter that you can type out the English words, “NEPHILIM ARE CONSIDERED GIANT MEN BY ALL SCHOLARS” since that still begs the question of what that means, why they assert that, etc. and, BTW, see my book, “The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?”

Again, please stop making up stuff and then arguing with yourself on my time, you’re still ranting about, “A BOOK DOES NOT MAKE ANYBODY AN EXPERT” so please keep that fantasy to yourself since I never even hinted at any such thing.

It’s tragic that you don’t know what “Nephilim” means, even though I have made you aware of the facts, but you engage in projection, “YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT NEPHILIM MEANS.” You don’t want to give upon your man-made tradition regardless of that I’ve alerted you to literally millennia’s worth of relevant data.

When you say, “GIANTS ARE HERE TODAY AS THEY WERE PRE FLOOD” you prove that you simply do not understand the issues—even though I’ve elucidated them to you. But fine, let’s play your game: “GIANTS,” as per your misusage of that term, “ARE HERE TODAY AS THEY WERE PRE FLOOD” which as per your misusage means that subjectively tall people giants are here today as they were pre flood which is something that no one in history has denied so, again, stop making up stuff and then arguing about with yourself.

Likewise, subjectively unusually tall people, “CAME FROM THE ARK 8” is another non-issue.

Indeed, “GOD DIDN’T MISS ANYTHING” but, “YOU HAVE” since you have Nephilim surviving the flood which, “CONTRADICT[s] THE BIBLE 5 TIMES.”

Let’s try it this way: please insert a Hebrew word into, “‘’OTHERS KNEW’’’ WHAT GIANTS WERE” like this, “‘’OTHERS KNEW’’’ WHAT _______ WERE” and if you insert, “Nephilim” then that will prove even more that you don’t know the linguistics involved, ignore resources that could help you actually understand the linguistics—and purposeful ignorance is no longer mere ignorance.

Plus, you’re still relying on unreliable guys whom God rebuked: I rely on the God who rebuked them.

And it’s no wonder you prefer to ignore millennia’s worth of relevant data since you flat out admitted, “NO IDEA WHAT THAT’S ABOUT.. IM CERTAINLY NOT READING BACK TO FIND OUT”—purposeful ignorance is no longer mere ignorance.

You still don’t even understand that when you purposefully refuse to stop using vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English words even when you’re told that doing so makes it hard to understand then it’s hard to understand you and then you complain that you’re not being understood. I get a feeling that you rely on the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” since actually dealing with linguistic facts would prove your man-made tradition is false.

When you merely assert, “AS PROVEN BY THE GRASSHOPPER STORY” you neglected to note what I just noted which is that you really mean: as proven by exclusively appealing to an “evil report” by relying on unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

Again, you appear to have reading comprehension issues and difficulty discerning the difference between words and selecting correct words. I noted, “I noted, “I never once quoted any of my books’ and rather than accepting that demonstrable fact, you spew even more hateful anger, ‘YOU HAVE BEEN PROMOTING’ but what you call, ‘PROMOTING’ isn’t quoting. So, maybe your hateful anger about not comprehending English was just another case of you projecting.”

Now, rather than having some integrity and consulting a dictionary and replying with, “Oops, sorry, you’re right: I accused you falsely since you never quoted your book” you discredit yourself even more by, “YOU POSTED LINKS TO YOUR BOOKS MANY TIMES.” So, let me just re-explain is: a quote differs from a promotion and a quote differs from links.

You also refuse correction on the linguistic facts about, “HELL IS THE GRAVE” so you just keep making false assertions about that.

Nope, I don’t merely interpret, “HATEFFUL ANGER” but base that conclusion on that you’re an ungracefully worldly jerk.

Oh, you want a list of the, “earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days”? Let me know if you are serious since I don’t want to provide you facts just to have you utterly ignore them: as is your modus operandi.

You also refuse correction on the facts of Jesus’ teaching about the issue of the lack of marriage of Angels in heaven.

You also merely obsessively fixate on, “THE STORY OF KORAH” but I already proved to you that your only obsessively fixating and being myopic—plus misreading, misinterpreting, misunderstanding, and misapplying.

At least you backed away from calling me a liar time and time again, without evidence, to that, “SEEMS YOU ARE LYING TO ME” so it’s very simple: I’m not.

“THERE” are “FALLEN ANGELS IN THE BIBLE.. I HAVE PROVEN THAT MANY TIMES.”

You’re still a really, really bad mind reader—please repent. Just because you’re a malicious pessimist doesn’t mean that you are a good mind reader, it only meant that you’re a malicious pessimist.

It’s fascinating that now you’re conveniently ignoring issues that are devastating to your man-made tradition by claiming your memory failed you and you’re too lazy to simply read.

You’re playing off of the mythical and prejudice Sethite theory but fine, forget it: you are still literally incapable of elucidating why it was only strictly males on one side of the equation and only exclusively females on the other but I can and I did.

So, it’s not about your simplistic manipulation that, “DAUGHERS ARE ‘FEMALE’ AND SONS ARE ‘MALE’” but about that all, “DAUGHERS” of men, “ARE ‘FEMALE’ AND SONS” of God, “ARE ‘MALE’”: see how you have to keep on manipulating God’s word just to attempt to defend your man-made tradition?

Oh, I see that you’re back to maliciously ignorantly prejudicially merely asserting that I’m lying again: well, your MO is to be maliciously ignorantly prejudiced so it’s no surprise, it’s just dissipating and please repent.

It’s also fascinating that Rev 12 is so utterly devastating to your tradition that you conveniently merely assert, “REV 12 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANGELS PERIOD” and, “YOU JUST QUOTE YOUR OPINION AS IF IT IS TO BE BELIEVED WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF SCRIPTURE” well, Rev 12 notes, “Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back…the great dragon was thrown down…and his angels were thrown down with him.”

It’s fascinating that I can keep pointing you to facts in Rev 1 but you conveniently ignore God’s word just to protect a man-made tradition.

So now both “HELL” and “TARTARUS” are both “THE GRAVE”? Again, your just unfamiliar with the relevant data and someone who wrote an entire book just about that is well aware of that.

You then merely assert that I’m a “PATHOLOGICAL LIAR” which is disgusting but is well within your hatefully angry nature and yet, that repulsive accusation is actually based on your basic lack of ability to understand a what a reference to a source is.

Then I make a valid point about a, “7 HEADED DRAGON” but you’re so enrages that you have to find something to fight about so when you say, “THOUGHT YOU SAID IT WAS ALL LITERAL” you thought wrong: again, you invent stuff and then argue with your inventions so, please keep me out of your schizophrenic arguments.

So, in order to run away, very quickly, from the proven fact that Rev 12 refers to past events, you refer to that, “THE PRELUDE BEFORE THE REVELATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REVELATION” which is a non-issue so you’re making up stuff again, and then you admit that it was about, “JESUS BEING” born, “RESURECTED” and ascended are, “STILL IN THE FUTURE FROM 96 AD” so you don’t know basic chronology so, FYI, Jesus was not born, resurrected, and ascended after 96AD but rather, before.

Are you just a hate filled angry anti-Semite? You appear to not even be able to imagine how disgustingly repulsive you are when you wrote, “JEW RANT…GO OFF LIKE A PORK CHOP” I would say that you should be deeply, deeply ashamed of yourself but in order to have shame you have to have integrity and you clearly have zero of that. In order to pretend that your defending God’s word—when you’re really just manipulating and ignoring God’s word in order to defend a man-mad tradition—you have literally lost any witness you may have had and have discredited yourself.

I noted, “it only takes one single word to debunk you—just as I did with Rev’s reference to, ‘was’” and did more of it as per Rev 12 and you’re so incapable of replying cogently that you go off on yet another hatefully angry malicious and ignorant rant.

Since you are whatever is meant by, “A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST” then, again, “I look forward to hearing about what your pastor thinks” and don’t move the goalpost this time. Now, just like you are very, very forceful about your assertions but didn’t know about the “evil report” you ask, “WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS IN THE BIBLE?” about, “the New Testament wherein pastors are gifted by God Himself” so here it is, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” (Eph 4:11).

Tragically, you’re so utterly ungraceful, worldly, hate filled, and angry that I pray peace upon you and you double down on spitting in my face: again, you should repent but you appear to be too addicted to hateful anger.

Again, please don’t ever, ever make comments to an unbeliever—online or in real life.

Joe Jackson

Wow, if you’re not angry

BOO HOO seriously you whine like a baby.

NO IDEA WHAT YOUR 50% IS.. SOUNDS LIKE MORE VEERING

BTW, see my book, “The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?”

MORE PUSHING YOUR OWN BOOK WHILE CLAIMING YOU NEVER DO RIGHT… GOT IT

Again, please stop making up stuff and then arguing with yourself on my time, you’re still ranting about, “A BOOK DOES NOT MAKE ANYBODY AN EXPERT”

IT DOESN’T AS MUCH AS YOU THINK IT DOES

It’s tragic that you don’t know what “Nephilim” means,

IT MEANS WHAT ALL SCHOLARS CLAIM IT IS..AND WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS IT IS …. GIANTS

tall people giants are here today as they were pre flood which is something that no one in history has denied

THERE YOU GO.. NOW YOU’RE GETTING IT..

Likewise, subjectively unusually tall people, “CAME FROM THE ARK 8”

THERE YOU GO NOW YOU’RE GETTING IT

Indeed, “GOD DIDN’T MISS ANYTHING” but, “YOU HAVE” since you have Nephilim surviving the flood which, “CONTRADICT[s] THE BIBLE 5 TIMES.”

NEPHILIM DID SURVIVE THE FLOOD YOU JUST AGREED WITH THAT. YOU ARE SO CONFUSED

Let’s try it this way: please insert a Hebrew word into, “‘’OTHERS KNEW’’’ WHAT GIANTS WERE” like this, “‘’OTHERS KNEW’’’ WHAT _NEPHILIM______ WERE”

SO EASY.. GOT ANY HARD ONES?

Plus, you’re still relying on unreliable guys whom God rebuked: I rely on the God who rebuked them.

NO.. THE GUYS THEY TOLD CLEARLY KNEW WHAT GIANTS WERE. SO DON’T EVEN HAVE TO RELY ON THE SPIES.. IT DOESN’T EVEN MATTER IF THEY LIED…. THE GUYS THEY TOLD KNEW WHAT GIANTS WERE………………… YOU ARE A BIT SLOW ON THE UPTAKE AREN’T YOU.

“NO IDEA WHAT THAT’S ABOUT.. IM CERTAINLY NOT READING BACK TO FIND OUT

MAYBE IF YOU CONCENTRATED AND STOPPED THE REPETITIVE BOOK PEDDLING YOU MIGHT KEEP UP WITH THE TOPIC AND UNDERSTAND.. THEN YOU COULD MAKE SOME SENSE..ITS LIKE SPOON FEEDING A MONKEY

it’s hard to understand you .

I CAN’T DUMB IT DOWN ANYMORE FOR YOU.. I’M NOT THAT GOOD.

I get a feeling that you rely on the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” since actually dealing with linguistic facts would prove your man-made tradition is false.

YOU KEEP REPEATING ‘MAN MADE TRADITION’ LIKE I GOT THIS FROM SOMEBODY IN PARTICULAR.. DO TELL WHO INSTEAD OF SKIRTING AROUND THE ASUMPTION… AND JUST BECAUSE YOU AREN’T SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND SIMPLE ENGLISH.. DON’T GET ALL UPSET AT ME… EDUCATE YOURSELF INSTEAD

YOU KEEP BEING DISENGENOUS OF COURSE BY REPEATING AGAIN.. THE SAME OLD LINES. ESPECIALLY REGARDING THE SPIES NOT BEING TRUSTED.. YET CAN’T COMPREHEND THAT THE HEARERS ‘KNEW’ WHAT GIANTS WERE. THIS IS BLATANT VEERING WHEN BEATEN.. AGAIN AND AGAIN. VERY EMBARRASSING FOR YOU

“I noted, “I never once quoted any of my books’ and rather than accepting that demonstrable fact, you spew even more hateful anger,

MORE REPEATS.. GROUNDHOG DAY STUFF AGAIN. MORE CLAIMING YOU DON’T PUSH YOUR BOOKS WHILE CONTINUING TO.. (YOU DID AT THE START OF THIS POST AS YOU HAVE EVERY OTHER POST) YET KEEP DENYING IT.. ARE YOU OFF YOUR MEDS AGAIN? THEN YOU FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE USUAL CRIES OF ‘HATEFUL ANGER’ BLA BLA BLA… ZNOREZZZZZZZ

“YOU POSTED LINKS TO YOUR BOOKS MANY TIMES.” So, let me just re-explain is: a quote differs from a promotion and a quote differs from links.

YOU DO ‘PROMOTE’ YOUR SILLY BOOKS EVERY POST MANY TIMES.. THAT IS FACTS ALL CAN SEE WHEN READING THESE CRAZY RESPONSES YOU GIVE.

QUOTING LINKS TO YOUR BOOK ‘IS’ PROMOTING TOO BTW.. GOOD TRY THOUGH

You also refuse correction on the linguistic facts about, “HELL IS THE GRAVE” so you just keep making false assertions about that.

HELL IS THE GRAVE… SO YOU CANNOT CORRECT ME OR ANYONE ON THAT.. YOU ARE JUST FLAT OUT WRONG YET AGAIN

HELL IS SHEOL,HADES,GRAVE (COVERING PLACE, PIT, GRAVE) AS PROVEN BY SCRIPTURE AND MY SHOWING SCRIPTURE .. UNLIKE YOU YELLING YOUR OPINON AS IF IT TRUMPS SCRIPTURE.

Nope, I don’t merely interpret, “HATEFFUL ANGER” but base that conclusion on that you’re an ungracefully worldly jerk.

SO YOU KEEP CLAIMING AD-NAUSEUM… ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ VEERS THAT’S ALL YOU ARE DOING.

I don’t want to provide you facts

NO [****] SHERLOCK…

You also refuse correction on the facts of Jesus’ teaching about the issue of the lack of marriage of Angels in heaven.

I SHOWED YOU SCRIPTURE OVER YOUR OPINION (AGAIN) THAT SHOWED ANGELS CANNOT MARRY.. ITS CLEAR AND OBVIOUS.. BUT NOT TO THE HEATHEN LIKE YOU

You also merely obsessively fixate on, “THE STORY OF KORAH” but I already proved

NOTHING.. YOU PROVE NOTHING… YOU DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND PARABLE

At least you backed away from calling me a liar time and time again, without evidence, to that, “SEEMS YOU ARE LYING TO ME” so it’s very simple: I’m not.

YOU ARE LYING.. I’VE NEVER THOUGHT OTHERWISE ..YOU TYPE AND PRESTO THERE IS LIES

“there” are “fallen angels in the bible.. i have proven that many times.”

YOU HAVEN’T PROVEN ANYTHING PERIOD, BESIDES HOW BUTTHURT YOU ARE WHEN YOU GET OWNED WITH SCRIPTURAL FACTS.

You’re still a really, really bad mind

BOO HOO AGAIN

It’s fascinating that now you’re conveniently ignoring issues that are devastating to your man-made tradition by claiming your memory failed you and you’re too lazy to simply read.

I’M NOT THE ONE IGNORING AS THE CHAT SHOWS… YOU ARE BAD AT THIS AREN’T YOU

why it was only strictly males on one side of the equation and only exclusively females on the other but I can and I did.

YOU STILL DON’T GET IT BUT THAT’S HARDLY SUPRISING

SONS ARE MALE.. DAUGHTERS ARE FEMALE.. NEWSFLASH: THERE ARE ONLY ‘2’ GENDERS.

“DAUGHERS ARE ‘FEMALE’ AND SONS ARE ‘MALE’” but about that all, “DAUGHERS” of men, “ARE ‘FEMALE’ AND SONS” of God, “ARE ‘MALE’”: see how you have to keep on manipulating God’s word just to attempt to defend your man-made tradition?

DID YOU EVER GO TO SCHOOL PERIOD? I HAVE QUOTED SCRIPTURE.. YOU ARE ADDING ‘YOUR OPINION’ TO THE SCRIPTURE… ITS CLEAR, THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY… THERE ARE NO SUPERNATURAL BEINGS PRESENT IN THE STORY.. YOUR ‘’MAN MADE’’ DOCTRINE YOU FELL FOR AND ADHERE TO TELLS YOU THAT.. NOT SCRIPTURE

I’m lying again:

CORRECT… AT LAST

Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back…the great dragon was thrown down…and his angels were thrown down with him.”

SO AN ANGEL AND A DRAGON WERE HAVING A FIGHT HEY? AND THAT DOESN’T SOUND INSANE AT ALL DOES IT.

I SHOWED YOU REV 1:1.. EXPLAINED IT SO A SIMPLETON LIKE YOURSELF COULD UNDERSTAND IT YET YOU STILL TRY AND CLAIM THIS DRAGON IS A LITERAL BEING.. DO YOU HAVE SOME FOSSILS OR A LIVE CAGED ONE TO SHOW AS EVIDENCE.. PERHAPS YOU HAVE TAKEN ONE TO SCHOOL FOR SHOW AND TELL

It’s fascinating that I can keep pointing you to facts in Rev 1 but you conveniently ignore God’s word just to protect a man-made tradition.

DID YOU SAY MAN MADE TRADITION FOR THE 1000TH TIME.. ARE YOU GETTING PAID EACH MENTION? SEEMS ITS CLEAR THAT IT IS ‘YOU’ WHO HOLDS TO MAN MADE TRADITIONS.. THAT IS ALL YOU ARE SHOWING.

So now both “HELL” and “TARTARUS” are both “THE GRAVE”? Again, your just unfamiliar with the relevant data and someone who wrote an entire book just about that is well aware of that.

BOOK PROMOTION NUMBER 3056

YES HELL AND TARTARUS ARE THE GRAVE.. AS SCRIPTURE SAYS CLEARLY. AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU… AGAINST YOUR ‘OPINION’ ONCE MORE

You then merely assert that I’m a “PATHOLOGICAL LIAR”

YES BECAUSE ITS 100% TRUE.. UNDENIABLE

which is disgusting but is well within your hatefully angry nature

AHUH.. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

SO MICHAEL IS PUNCHING ON WITH A ONE HEADED LITERAL DRAGON BUT YOU DRAW THE LINE AT A 7 HEADED DRAGON… OKAYYYYYY ‘NURSEEEEE’’

So, in order to run away, very quickly, from the proven fact that Rev 12 refers to past events,

I TAUGHT YOU HOW TIME WORKS… REV 1. THINGS TO ‘SHORTLY COME’ MEANS ‘FUTURE’ (FROM THE DATE IT WAS WRITTEN) NOT PAST… PLS TRY HARDER

, Jesus was not born, resurrected, and ascended after 96AD but rather, before.

EXACTLY.. WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ‘THINGS TO SHORTLY COME TO PASS’…. OR SYMBOLOGY… CHRIST LITERALLY WAS BORN, LITERALLY ROSE AND LITERALLY ASCENDED

Are you just a hate filled angry anti-Semite?

REPEAT HATE/ANGER LINE NUMBER 300634

ANTI-SEMITE ? SO YOU RUN OUT OF INSULTS SO NOW TRY THE ANTI SEMITE STUFF… A NEW LOW FOR EVEN YOU

WHERE HAVE I EVEN IMPLIED I’M ANTI SEMITE… NOT THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS OBVIOUSLY

You appear to not even be able to imagine how disgustingly repulsive you are when you wrote, “JEW RANT…GO OFF LIKE A PORK CHOP” I would say that you should be deeply, deeply ashamed

WELL SEEMS INFACT ‘’YOU’’ ARE THE ONE THAT SHOULD BE ASHAMED FOR EVEN CONNECTING WHAT I HAD NO INTENTION OF CONNECTING UNTIL READING IT BACK.. RE PORK CHOP..

MY MIND DIDN’T GO TO JEWS AND PORK , BUT CLEARLY YOURS DID….

MY WORDING OF PORK CHOP IS A WELL KNOWN SAYING WHERE I LIVE… ‘GOING OFF LIKE A PORK CHOP’’ IS WHEN SOMEBODY HAS A BIG RANT LIKE YOU DO… GOING OFF AS IN (ROTTEN MEAT GOING OFF) LIKE ‘HES GONE OFF LIKE A PRAWN IN THE SUN’ GONE OFF LIKE A PORK CHOP… SAME THING…..

BUT GOOD TRY AND THANKS FOR SHOWING HOW ANTI SEMETIC ‘’YOU ARE’’

man-mad tradition—

MAN MADE TRADITION LINE NUMBER 50069

cogently that you go off on yet another hatefully angry malicious and ignorant rant.

USE OF WORD COGENTLY # 5069 AND HATEFUL/ANGRY # 40489

Since you are whatever is meant by, “A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST”

YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT A CHURCH IS NOW? OR WHO CHRIST IS? OR WHAT A MEMBER IS? OK NO SURPRISE AGAIN.

you ask, “WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS IN THE BIBLE?” about, “the New Testament wherein pastors are gifted by God Himself” so here it is, “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers” (Eph 4:11).

YOU DO REALISE PASTORS ARE NOT A JEWISH THING RIGHT? AND ITS MOST PROBABLE THAT MOST OF THE EARLY CHRSITIAN CHURCH LEADERS LIKE AT EPHESIS WERE JEWISH CHRISTIANS. STILL YOUR RANT ABOUT PASTORS IS PECULIAR TO THE TOPIC.

YEAH WE GOT THAT 5039 REPEATS BACK…. MR BROKEN RECORD OF INSIGNIFICANCE.

YOU KNOW YOU TALK SO MUCH WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING AT ALL WORTHY.

REPEATING THE SAME THING OVER DOESN’T BEGIN TO MAKE IT CORRECT.. INFACT THE MORE YOU REPEAT YOURSELF THE SILLIER YOU LOOK. TRY AND POST SOBER, SEE IF THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE…

NOW….. HAVE YOU GOT SOMETHING THAT ISN’T

REPETITIVE
SELF PROMOTING BOOKWISE
WHINING AND SOOKING LIKE A LITTLE GIRL
DID I MENTION REPETITIVE
OPINION ONLY
FULL OF LIES

ANYTHING? SERIOUSLY DO TRY HARDER.. YOU JUST AREN’T GIVING ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT .. YOUR OPINION MEANS NOTHING WHEN I QUOTE BIBLE DISPROVING YOUR OPINION… DO TRY AND HAVE A CLUE BEFORE YOU POST AGAIN.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re a picture perfect example of a man-made religion of your own made in your own image.

You made false assertions and were called on them.

You instantly became repulsively ungracefully worldly and hatefully angry.

You were caught manipulating God’s word time and again.

You utterly refused correction about that.

You are not accountable to anyone since you reject God’s order for the church.

Ergo, you think that what you say goes because thus saith Joe and, again, Joe is unaccountable to anyone.

So, let’s go with one example, “you ask, ‘WHERE DOES IT SAY THIS IN THE BIBLE?’ about, ‘the New Testament wherein pastors are gifted by God Himself’” and I showed you were, “so here it is, ‘And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers’ (Eph 4:11).”

But that verified example of God revealed truth is so inconvenient to you that you threw God’s Holy Word away in favor of your man-made tradition: which, as I have pointed out time and again, is what you do time and again.

You have proved that you’re not interested in context but still, the context was, “THE NEW TESTAMENT wherein pastors are gifted by God Himself” (which you reject) and so you say, “YOU DO REALISE PASTORS ARE NOT A JEWISH THING RIGHT?” which is 100% irrelevant since this was about the New Testament and the church.

You then admit that you’re just using a mere guess to reject God’s Holy Word, “AND ITS MOST PROBABLE THAT MOST OF THE EARLY CHRSITIAN CHURCH LEADERS LIKE AT EPHESIS WERE JEWISH CHRISTIANS” which is 100% irrelevant even though it’s accurate since it you said nothing about how some of those Jewish Christians were appointed by God to be pastors (which you reject).

And after saying nothing but merely emoting a guess, you leave it with, “STILL YOUR RANT ABOUT PASTORS IS PECULIAR TO THE TOPIC” which is 100% irrelevant since I was curious as to what your pastor thought about your vile ways and you ended up discrediting yourself even more by, especially now, admitting that you flatly reject God’s word based on some incoherent sidestepping.

See, when someone is teaching falsehoods, I just let them have their say and they will debunk themselves.

So, you want to keep protecting a man-made tradition but it’s more important that you get yourself under the shepherding of a pastor and other sheep who can fellowship with you and also hold you accountable.

Joe Jackson

Friend, you’re a picture perfect example of a man-made religion of your own made in your own image.

HANG ON WHO ARE YOU AGAIN.. ARE YOU THIS SUPPOSED AUTHOR WHO IS ALWAYS PROMOTING HIS BOOK 5 TIMES A POST?

You made false assertions and were called on them.

I’VE NOT BEEN CALLED ON ANYTHING… YOU ARE THE REPETITIVE GUY RIGHT?

You instantly became repulsively ungracefully worldly and hatefully angry.

OH YEAH,, THAT’S YOU… THE REPETITIVE GUY.. SAME INSULTS AND BOOK PROMOTIONS ..THATS ALL I GET FROM YOU.. MAYBE KEEP A FLOW INSTEAD OF RUNNING FOR WEEKS GETTING SOME MORE INDOCTRINATION FROM YOUR LEADERS.

You were caught manipulating God’s word time and again.

YET YOU CAN’T SHOW WHERE.. BUT YOU LOT ARE ALL THE SAME IN ACCUSING WITHOUT EVIDENCE….THAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR DEBATE EVERY TIME… SHALLOW.

You utterly refused correction about that.

CORRECTION FROM WHO? ARE YOU GOD? YOU ARE VERY VERY INSIGNIFICANT TO ME AND LIFE IN GENERAL.. BUT YOU THINK YOU ARE SOMETHING IMPORTANT THAT IS WHY YOU SELF PROMOTE AND SELF LOVE ALL THE TIME.

You are not accountable to anyone since you reject God’s order for the church.

I’M NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO YOU… BUT SINCE I HAVE MADE YOU AWARE OF SCRIPTURE AND THE GOSPEL …. ‘’YOU’’ NOW WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE AT JUDGEMENT.. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT… BUT IT WONT HELP YOU ESCAPE HELL.

Ergo, you think that what you say goes because thus saith Joe and, again, Joe is unaccountable to anyone.

I ‘KNOW’ WHAT I SAY GOES…BECAUSE IT MATCHES WHAT GOD SAYS GOES. BUT YOU CAN TRY TWIST THAT AS YOU LOT DO… AGAIN. WHEN YOU HAVE NO DEBATE IN YOU.. YOU FALL BACK ON FALSE ACCUSATIONS. ITS NOTHING NEW FOR YOUR MOB.

SEE HERE IS A PRIME EXAMPLE.. YOU NEED TO STOP RUNNING FROM MY REPLIES THAT I DO ANSWER… AND RETORT FASTER..

YOUR POSTS MEAN LITTLE WHEN YOU TAKE SO LONG TO GET AN ANSWER FROM YOUR LEADERS..BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEY TAKE SO LONG TO INDOCTRINATE YOU.. (OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE A SLOW LEARNER WITH THEM TOO)

WHERE IT SAYS EXACTLY ‘WHAT’? IN THE BIBLE? HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO REMEMBER AFTER ALL THIS TIME? (CLEARLY THAT IS YOUR PLAN)

I ANSWERED IN DETAIL ABOUT PASTORS.. THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.. YOU REALLY DON’T KNOW WHAT CHRISTIANS BELIEVE OR EVEN ARE DO YOU.

NO I DON’T THROW AWAY ANY VERSE.. THAT’S YOUR JOB

ITS NOT IRRELEVANT AT ALL.. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS WRITTEN IN THE NT DOES ‘’NOT’’ MEAN ITS TO DO WITH CHRISTIANS. YOU TRULY THINK JESUS WAS A CHRISTIAN DON’T YOU…

JESUS WAS A JEW TALKING TO JEWS AVOIDING GENTILES AS HE TOLD HIS APOSTLES TO DO ALSO. NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO TELL US THAT GENTILE CHRISTIANS HAVE TO DO WHAT JEWS WERE ORDERED TO DO.. SEE YOU CLEARLY THINK JESUS WAS A JEW..AND THAT CHRISTIANS ARE JEWS.. YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT..AND EVERY POST YOU DO PROVES THAT 100%

YOU THINK EVERYTHING IN THE NT IS FOR CHRISTIANS.. YOU THINK NT = CHRISTIANS AND OT=JEWS.. OH WE ARE LAUGHING..

AGAIN YOU DON’T COMPREHEND ENGLISH YET CLAIM TO BE AN AUTHOR.. (WE ARE LAUGHING AGAIN)

YOU THINK EVERYTHING I SAY IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE AT ALL. THAT IS WHY YOU THINK MY WORDS AND ANSWERS ARE IRRELEVANT, YOU ARE IGNORANT OF SCRIPTURE..OF HISTORY, OF CUSTOMS, OF LANGUAGE, OF PARABLE, OF SYMBOL, OF TIME, OF BASICALLY EVERYTHING NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND SCRIPTURE YOU ARE 100% INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING .. END OF STORY

WHO IS TALKING TO WHO IN SCRIPTURE IS TOTALLY RELEVANT.. YOU JUST CANT CLAIM ITS FOR PEOPLE OF 2024. SO EVERY LETTER FROM EVERY PERSON IN HISTORY IS ADDRESSED TO ‘’YOU’’ PERSONALLY IS IT? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING.

YOU NEED TO SEE WHO THE AUTHOR IS, WHO IT IS TOO, THE TIME..THE CUSTOMS THE REASON.. THE PURPOSE, THE POINT..ETC ETC ETC.. YET YOU JUST THINK SOME OLD GUY FROM 50AD OR WHATEVER WAS SENDING YOU A PERSONAL LETTER DETAILING WHAT ‘’YOU’’ SHOULD DO IN 2024…

NO WONDER YOU TAKE SO LONG TO REPLY TO MY CORRECTIONS OF YOUR NONSENSE

A PASTOR IS A SPIRITUAL MINISTER, WHAT SIGNIFICANCE THAT HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING IS STILL A MYSTERY YOU WONT DEFINE OF COURSE.

WHAT DO PASTORS HAVE TO DO WITH GIANT PEOPLE THAT ARE CLEARLY EVIDENCED FROM SCRIPTURE AS NEPHILIM LIKE ALL BELIEF SYSTEMS AGREE ON BAR YOU???????????????????

JUST ANOTHER VEER BECAUSE YOU ARE BEATEN LIKE AN EGG.

See, when someone is teaching falsehoods, I just let them have their say and they will debunk themselves.

YOU SEEM TO HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH YOU THEN.. THAT MAKES SENSE

I DOUBT ANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED, I’M THE ONE DEBUNKING YOUR CRAZY NEPHILIM MYTHOLOGY AND SETTING YOU STRAIGHT WITH BIBLICAL FACTS ABOUT GIANTS…

LEAVE THE DEBUNKING TO ME.. YOU ARE REALLY BAD AT IT

WE GET IT.. YOU THINK BELIEF IN BIBLE AND GOD IS A MAN MADE RELIGION.. YOU ARE ON REPEAT AGAIN… WE GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT

WE JUST HAPPEN TO 100% DISAGREE ON THAT.. AND WHEN I SAY ‘WE’ I MEAN POPULATION EARTH (minus some illogical atheists/evolutionists, but they are as crazy as you so again.. insignificant to life itself)

INTERESTING YOU WANT ME TO FIND A PASTOR YET YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE WORD MEANS. (YOU DO HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH WORD MEANINGS DON’T YOU.. A ‘LOT’ OF TROUBLE)

TELL ME WHICH ‘’PASTOR’’ WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ‘FOLLOW’ (AGAIN YOU LOVE TO FOLLOW LIKE A SHEEP WITH YOUR WHACKY RELIGION BEING THE EVIDENCE THERE)

SO WHO DO YOU RECOMMEND MY ‘PASTOR’ BE….

TRY AND GIVE NAMES THIS TIME.. I KNOW YOU HATE GIVING SCRIPTURE..AND HATE GIVING EVIDENCE OF ‘’ANY’’ KIND TO ANYTHING YOU http://CLAIM….SO BE A GOOD BOY THIS TIME AND GIVE ME SOME NAMES OF WHO SHOULD BE MY ‘PASTOR’ SO I CAN BECOME A GOOD SHEEPLE JUST LIKE YOU.. HEY.

Ken Ammi

It’s tragically sad witnessing you destroying whatever witness you might ever have had and discrediting yourself in such a hurry—please repent.

I pointed out that I have noted to you how you manipulate God’s word and that I’m starting to see why you do that: you appear to be experiencing reading comprehension problems and maybe cognitive issues.

And I have given you examples of such time and again.

This time around, it’s no different, I noted, “a man-made religion of your own made in your own image” and you move the goal post to, “AUTHOR WHO IS ALWAYS PROMOTING HIS BOOK.”

That’s literally incoherent.

That’s the sort of thing that makes it important for you to stop rejecting God’s word by refusing to be pastored and in fellowship in a local congregation: they really could help you understand how to comport yourself and how to actually think through issues rather than increasingly raging.

Joe Jackson

That’s your pathetic response.. MORE VEERING..

You know you can’t answer the questions and just go on a rant about your assumptions based on the fact you can’t answer a thing you claim that obviously destroys your little golden books you so badly write if going by your replies shows.

Still got a shot even in this post in big large letters of mentioning your book in your twisted way.. but you never let a reply go past without doing that as we have seen each and every post.

You can’t even answer what a ‘pastor’ is because you have no clue. You just assume i don’t have this thing you don’t know the meaning of. Where did i say any such thing?

Seems it is definitely you with all the anger and rage that you deflect to others who disagree with your nonsense,.. You sound like a blue haired democrat extreme left wing nutter hellbent on making everybody in the world agree with your fantasies..

You failed yet again to show how Christiainity is a man made religion? what is your religion..you are the only one on planet Earth that does not believe that Nephilim are Giants.. Even though the bible is clear on that and EVERYONE believes that bar ‘you’.

Why don’t you try putting a case forward from scripture (that we know you hate) to defend your crazy position. You can’t even say what you think nephilim are.. you are too embarrassed to and no wonder.

All you have done is cry that nephilim are not Giants..while never giving any evidence, even when I show evidence 100% that they are. You can’t even explain how giants are still here today, you must think Andre the Giant mummy was a fallen Angel or demon or whatever the hell you think nephilim are that you are too embarrassed to say.

You don’t even understand that if somebody understands what another says, then that hearer knows about the thing the speaker is talking about.. you think because the spies were in your belief untrustworthy that that somehow means every word they ever spoke must have been lies… every single time. you cannot prove they were lying about the giants….. and you don’t even understand that even if they did.. it doesnt change the fact the hearer understood what giants were from previous encounters or knowledge.. or else they would have said.. ‘huh what do you mean don’t go that way there are giants.. what are giants’…. but did they.? no… you just assume everyone in the bible is a liar and everyone is as stupid as you back then.

it takes you so long to post because you hope people reading forget the nonsense you say..that is why you avoided everything again.. hoping time will help you get away with your utter nonsnese… no.. anyone reading can see you have no clue about much at all.

Ken Ammi

Have you ever had discussion with Atheists online?

I ask because you act exactly like a stereotypical Atheist does—and you refuse to be accountable as well. The more it’s proved to you that you know not of what you speak, the more ungraceful, worldly, and hatefully angry you become until you have zero witness left—if, that is, you ever had any.

Please repent.

Joe Jackson

Hey you forgot to advertise your book.. what a slip up.

but you didn’t forget to repeat yourself again and do the old ‘hate/anger’ routine did you… zzzzzzz

So you are still asking around to find somebody somewhere on planet Earth that can help you out with your Nephilim are giants dilemma i see… well keep asking around maybe one day someone will believe the same as you on it.. .but here is a tip for you.. don’t hold your breathe. it seems you will ALWAYS be alone in your belief on Nephilim..

Clearly NOBODY ever has believed like you on it.

So now I’m like an atheist.. here is a funfact for you…

Atheists do NOT believe in a god

I (Christian) DO..

see the difference there… get somebody to explain that Atheists are pretty much the opposite of Christians..

you have soo much to learn.. maybe spend less time writing silly science fiction worst sellers and do some study… google study ..oh that’s right you don’t understand google. Well you are in a pickle aren’t you.

To be you.. bit sucky isn’t it?

Ken Ammi

Please repent and find a good local church with which to fellowship.

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

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.

SkyWatch’s “THE FINAL NEPHILIM–PART ONE: COMING SOON ‘WITH HORDES OF GIANTS’”

The editor of the propaganda machine called SkyWatch wrote an article titled THE FINAL NEPHILIM–PART ONE: COMING SOON “WITH HORDES OF GIANTS”

The Ed tells us, “prophecy expert Gary Stearman,” who asserts that Adam and Eve were not naked pre-fall, said, “The gates of Hell are opening! Dark forces are expanding their assault on mankind. Many have talked about the ‘end times,’ the ‘last days,’ or the ‘latter days.’ There has been an ongoing debate about whether humanity has finally reached this long-awaited era. Though many have not yet realized it, we have entered that period.”

Of course we have entered that period, we entered it two millennia ago: the author of Hebrews (1:2) wrote of, “these last days.”

Now, Stearman is one of the pop-researchers who literally makes his living from selling neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales which is why his statements are so emotively engaging—he also teaches that Adam and Eve were not naked pre-fall.

The next paragraph has him stating, “traditionalists” who, “cling to time-honored beliefs of the normal Christian life. Those who plant their faith in physical reality have no trouble believing in the basic tenets of the gospel, coupled with the need for dedication, prayer, and love in action” have, “over the centuries…settled upon a sterilized Scripture that dares not speak of multidimensional worlds that animate the Bible’s ancient narratives. The levels of the underworld and the realms between mankind and the heavens above have become closed doors, rejected as ancient and fanciful fictions.”

Yet, this is a styled case of projection since what Stearman and other pop-researchers do is to swing so literally wildly in the other direction that they turn a biblical consideration of the, “multidimensional worlds…levels of the underworld and the realms between,” which is my specialty, into the cesspool of misinfo and disinfo which it has become.

I have attempted to specialize in that which I term Systematic Biblical Paranormology while they PR market exhibiting their Gigorexia Nervosa (my term for people obsessed with seeing giants and who just make them up where they are nowhere to be seen).

Yet, no worries, all will be exposed since, “in the light of new observations and experiences, those portals are being forced open. Just as prophesied, the ‘paranormal’ is rapidly becoming the ‘normal.’”

But what is new?

…artificial intelligence is on the verge of surpassing human perception and thought. High technology threatens to enslave the unwary…opening doors that have been sealed for millennia…hidden societies that have long kept their intimate secrets have perceived that the time has arrived to reveal their covert connections…the “singularity” will arrive…twisting the memories of such a computer toward the dark side…the occult interdimensional worlds of evil principalities and powers are quickly becoming visible…dark denizens of the supernatural…penetrating the barrier…a union with the same dark powers that had dominated mankind before the Flood…

At is at this last point that we get to the subject issue, “FINAL NEPHILIM” and whatever “HORDES OF GIANTS” is supposed to reference.

Apparently, “before the Flood. Their passageway into eternity, better called a ‘gate’…is man’s eternal dream of power, in a union with the supernatural…the ‘gates of Hell’…the reality of the ancient penetrations and breeches between Heaven and Earth”—I am unsure how the gates of Hell penetrate and breech between Heaven and Earth but, I must be a traditionalist and so not enlightened enough to understand that category error.

We then get more, “examples of these paranormal incursions…portals into this world…global control…The dark side believes that its time has come.”

This was all to get us excited about that, “Those who read the Bible will recognize exactly what this means” so if you do not know what it means then, by Steadman’s default, you do not read the Bible.

But the point is, and I am quoting as is, “those who read [THE FINAL NEPHILIM] will be mentally and spiritually prepared for the astonishing changes that are soon to come” (brackets in original).

So, thus far, this has been a PR marketing campaign for Ryan Pitterson’s latest book, along with an embedded video wherein he, “Details How While Many Have Portrayed Antichrist To Be A Charismatic, Military Genius, He Will Actually Be Something FAR MORE SINISTER–THE FINAL NEPHILIM!” which, of course, implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them but missed a loophole whereby they return.

Antichrist To Be A Charismatic, Military Genius, He Will Actually Be Something FAR MORE SINISTER–THE FINAL NEPHILIM!”

The Ed. then tells us, “Likewise, By Dr. Michael Lake hints” and quotes him thusly:

Something is coming…beyond the edge of tomorrow…unveiling…primeval history and arcane knowledge…in both ancient Hebrew writings and in the mythology of distant cultures…full manifestation…

He too takes a pop-shot, “Many in the church…have slowly fallen asleep” and so Stearman, Lake, et al., are here to enlighten us all.

Lake continues thusly:

…this darkness approaches…geopolitical and financial spheres of influence…hatred and debauchery…universal uneasiness has some in the darkest chambers of esoteric societies seething in breathless anticipation…

But all is not lost:

…the Holy Spirit is…wiping decades of sleep from their eyes…awakened saints…to accurately discern the prophetic times and the seasons.

This is a form of gnosticism whereby only the truly enlightened ones can discern that the tall-tales of pop-Nephilologists are true. The beneficial byproduct for those selling such products is that if you disagree it’s just because you’re not enlightened enough and are really disagreeing with the Holy Spirit.

We then get a typical pop-researcher’s list of watered down category errors regarding, “What terrifying thing is just on the edge of tomorrow”—to get you all nice and paranoid so in even more of a need for their products—“the Shining Ones. To the Sumerian people, they were the Annunaki. To the Greeks, they were the Titans. The Book of Enoch calls this ancient evil the Watchers. And the Hebrews knew them as the Bene Elohim of Genesis 6.”

Generally, Annunaki are considered to be extra-terrestrials, Titans (at least the first generation, as per Greek myths) were born on Earth, Watchers is just a Second Temple Era a.k.a. for Angels, and Bene (ha) Elohim is just another a.k.a. for Angels.

Thus, only the last two are of the same category since they are one in the same.

And, well, we end with that, “These architects of chaos and disobedience will cause the whole world to run into the arms of the Antichrist!” but, fear not since, “In the midst of the unfolding of these preparatory end-time events enter internationally acclaimed remnant researcher, Dr. Thomas Horn and his SkyWatch TV Team to offer yet again a series…” here’s how to order!

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.