Month: April 2024

The video undergoing review is Exposing the Nephilim by Kevin Zadai, who “is known as the man who went to heaven and back, so he knows that heaven is for real.” In the video, he refers to “what’s going on in the spirit realm and that is about what happened in Genesis chapter six.” He assures us, “the Lord has released me to share some things tonight that I don’t normally share.”

He notes that he will “talk about the Nephilim and the giants” so we will see what he means by those terms.

For some reason, he asserts that “Jesus told me that the tree was in the garden because man was so close to God that he would start to think he was God” yet, he is referring to the forbidden tree and because of it, it is Satan who said, “in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods” (Genesis 3:5).

In any case, Kevin Zadai claims that “the Angels I saw, that left their abode [referring to a statement in Jude], they came down and influence[d, it] says ‘the Nephilim were on the earth in those days.” But he says, “So, we have the Nephilim, the fallen ones, coming down on the Earth and then you have them influencing the sons of God to do something that they were not supposed to do. So, you have Nephilim, if you read the scripture correctly, you have Nephilim, you have sons of God, and you have daughters of men: there are three different parties, three different entities.”

Yes, those are three but even though the word “Nephilim” means “fallen ones” (or to fall, to cause to fall, etc.) there is no indication of their “coming down on the Earth” and certainly not that they were “influencing the sons of God” who were their dads, “to do something that they were not supposed to do” which was to mate with the daughters of men, which is what resulted in the birth of Nephilim. He has the Nephilim cart before the sons of God horse.

Kevin Zadai also stated, “you cannot…say that an Angel can do what people say they do because they cannot. They, we, are like when we go to heaven we are like the Angels which are not given in marriage with, there is no marriage in heaven. Jesus said you’ll be like the Angels okay, so, you won’t be married, you won’t be given a marriage, there’s no reproduction because you’re going to be just like the Angels, Jesus has already said this.”

Note that Jesus was specifically speaking of the “Angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30) so the loyal ones who are with Him, not all Angels, and the ones who did marry are considered sinners since they “left their first estate” as Jude put it (to which I alluded to above).

He rightly notes, “the Angels that left their abode are chained now, [2] Peter [2 and Jude] says they’re chained right now okay, so they were incarcerated right now” yet, he adds, “they are not the demons, the demons are part of the hybrid race that God destroyed through the flood.”

The latter part is based on pseudepigraphic text, namely Jubilees and 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch (which contradicts the Bible, a lot) which means they date to millennia after the Torah was written and so he is appealing to folkloric assertions. For a biblical theory of who demons are, see my article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?

To Kevin Zadai, “God won because when Jesus came in the flesh, it was through the lineage that was not infiltrated by a hybrid race or the tainted blood.” It is not a biblical teaching that the Genesis 6 affair was motivated by attempting to corrupt genetics so that Jesus could not be born but it is not a bad speculation.

Now, he goes on to repeat a passing reference to “giants and the

Nephilim” and goes on to say, “Joshua brought Israel in” to the land, “they had to go up the whole, way north, destroying city after city taking them over and killing all the giants and that was, and that was, that was the command of God.”

Well, I am unsure to whom he is referring as “giants.”

Kevin Zadai notes, “it says: as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be from the Son coming to, the son of man, I think what would be helpful is to know what’s going on. Now, if we’re in, if we are close to the second coming of the Lord, right?, if that is going on then what is happening today, that would parallel what would have been happening during the days of Noah…back in the days of Noah, that’s right, yeah, so we’re at a place where these evil spirits have stayed hidden and they’re cloaked in disinformation so nobody understands what’s going on because they don’t understand that evil spirits.”

Well, Jesus was very specific in that He said, “as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all” and he followed up by making the same point yet, regarding other days, “Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed” (Luke 17:26-30).
Thus, the point was examples of lack of awareness and/or concern about coming judgment and nothing to do with Angles or Nephilim—or whoever “giants” are.

Kevin Zadai goes on to state, “David…had to go out and extinguish all of the hybrids, all the giants” which “David did…with Goliath when he slew him. David had picked up “five stones” since “there were four others that were part of the family of Goliath…they would probably come after him as soon as he killed Goliath so he had five stones because there were four other giants.”

Note that we finally get some semblance of a definition since he refer to “hybrids…giants” and the only hybrids of which we know are Nephilim. Yet, he had told us of “the hybrid race that God destroyed through the flood.” So if, and since, He destroyed them: how were they around during Moses’ and David’s time? That is a fundamental level contradiction. Also, if “God destroyed through the flood” but they somehow managed to return then that implies that God failed.

Moreover, he correlates “hybrids…giants” with Goliath but there is no indication whatsoever that Goliath was a hybrid and as for giant well, biblically when that English word is used of him it is merely rendering the term “Repha,” not “Nephil,” which implies nothing about size whatsoever—FYI: most reliably, he was just shy of 7 ft. (as per the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Flavius Josephus).

So, he referred to Nephilim and giants as if they referred to two different things, and then spoke of hybrids as giants (and/or visa versa), and referred to a Repha as giant. This denotes the ubiquitous problem with using the English word giant without bothering to define it and using it to mean and refer to various different things.

Again, Nephilim—whom he has not as “and” giants but aka giants—where “the hybrid race that God destroyed through the flood” yet, he goes on to reiterate their return since, or so he asserts, he refers to when “the nation of Israel when they came back to the promised land” (actually just “came” the first time, not “came back”), “the Bible says these Nephilim were there, not only now but afterward as well.”

Making statements such as “the Bible says” are also ubiquitous when dealing with such issues and since it is too vaguely generic as the key questions are: what is being said, who said it, what was the reaction to it, etc.

By that Nephilim “were there, not only now but afterward as well” is clearly based on Genesis 6:4 which reads that Nephilim “were in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” so when were “those days”? It was “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” so when was that? Verses 1-2 told us, “it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives.”

Thus, “after that” was simply after “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” which was “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” so they began doing it in “those days” and continued “after that” yet, that is all still pre-flood—especially since “men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” could be as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children.

Yet, in any case, the narrative’s flow is direct in that it was all pre-flood, Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5 all affirm that eight people and some animals survived the flood so that Nephilim did not, and there are no references to any sort of return of Nephilim—ever and not in any way, shape, or form.

Yet, or so Kevin Zadai tells us, “the Bible says” in “Numbers chapter 13:33, the Nephilim, Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 2, I mean Rephaim, Zamzim, Anakim…all of these terms that were associated with these giants were, these people who were not normal people, that there’s something going on here with genetic alteration.”

Firstly, Numbers 13:33 is an unreliable “evil report” by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing guys whom God rebuked so we should not believe them and also why “the Bible says” is not good enough as what “the Bible says” is that these guys were unreliable—to say the least.

Secondly, as for Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 2, I mean Rephaim, Zamzim, Anakim…all of these terms that were associated with these giants” well, two key features utterly missing from Genesis 14 and Deuteronomy 2 are any mention of or correlation to Nephilim and certainly no indication that “these people who were not normal people, that there’s something going on here with genetic alteration.” The only hope he has is to tell us a tall tale about how Anakim are referred to as having been “tall” but that is utterly subjective: in this case, to the average male Israelite who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Thirdly, “all of these terms” were not “associated with these giants” with “these giants” being Nephilim but rather, “all of these terms,” namely Rephaim, Zamzim (or, Zamzumim), and Anakim, “were associated with” each other since Anakim were a Rephaim subgroup and Zamzumim is merely an aka for Rephaim.

Overall, Kevin Zadai would do well to not reply on asserting he “went to heaven and back” and that “the Lord has released” him “to share some things” but need to do some good ol’ fashioned Bible study complete with some linguistics considerations and systematic theology.

For more details, see my relevant books.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

Rian Nelson wrote the article Fallen Angels, Nephilim, Watchers, Giants? for the site he manages, the Book of Mormon Evidence site (April 7, 2024).

He begins by quoting Wikipedia to the effect that, “Nephilim…are mysterious beings or people in the Hebrew Bible who are large and strong; the word Nephilim is loosely translated as giants…”

I have encountered dozens upon dozens of people quoting that (often plagiarizing it) and have asked dozens upon dozens of them what makes them think that Nephilim were, “large” but zero have replied.

As for, “is loosely translated as giants” that’s a fair qualifier and yet, I’d say rendered rather than translated (however loosely). 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 Nelson’s and Wikipedia’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

Nelson’s usage is something about subjectively unusual height since he includes a photo of, “A very large stone ax,” images of old newspaper articles about large skeletons (of something), etc.

The image is from, “Annotated Book of Mormon page 459.”

For an actual consideration of such accounts, see the relevant chapter in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales—and keep in mind that thus far, the only reason we were given for thinking that Nephilim were any taller than average was one word in a Wikipedia entry and a photo of an ax.

Thus, the answer to the third key question is, “No” since the answer to the first one is that it merely renders Nephilim in two verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others—and so never even hints anything to do with any sort of size whatsoever.

The article then notes, “According to the Book of Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as ‘Nephilim’ by some scholars, or as the word ‘fallen’ by others, appears in the Book of Ezekiel 32:27.[3][4]”

This appears to be a continuation from Wikipedia and it’s tragically fallacious. It’s misleading to genetically reference, “According to the Book of Numbers” since, “13:33” is merely quoting an, “evil report” stated by ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked: they just made up a tall-tale—and an impossible one that has Nephilim somehow making it past the flood, past God, so that the flood was much of a waste and God failed.

As for, “Ezekiel 32:27” that’s just a case of the use of the root word naphal and not the Nephilim people group.

We then get another usage of the term, “giants” when Nelson quotes the churchofjesuschrist.org site which notes, “Unusually large, tall persons, apparently having great physical strength. They are mentioned both before the Flood (Gen. 6:4; Moses 8:18) and after (Num. 13:33; Deut. 2:10–11, 20; 3:11–13; 9:2; Josh. 15:8; 18:16).”

Again, wherever they got the idea of, “Unusually large, tall” it wasn’t from the English Bible’s usage. As for, “mentioned both before the Flood” well, I could mention the first US of A POTUS George Washington right now but that doesn’t mean he’s alive: likewise with the post-flood mere mention of Nephilim.

Thus, when it goes on to note, “giants of whom Goliath was one” and, “A 12-fingered, 12-toed giant” and, “giants in Palestine were also known as Anakims, Emims, and Zamzummims” we need to understand that it actually, biblically contextually, means, “Rephaim of whom Goliath was one” and, “A 12-fingered, 12-toed Repha” and, “Rephaim in Palestine were also known as Anakims, Emims, and Zamzummims.”

Nelson then notes, “I think the quotes below from members of our Church are most likely to be correct” and we’ll get to those after his comment, “Many other Christians say the Nephilim are the Fallen Angels or Spirits who had relationships with women on the earth. I am confident that spirits, or those who have not come to this earth to receive a body, cannot have sexual relationships with those who have a physical body.”

I know not how many, “Many” are but the view that, “Nephilim are the Fallen Angels” is rare: historically, the view has been that they are the offspring of the fallen Angels.

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.

As for, “…Angels or Spirits…spirits…cannot have sexual relationships with those who have a physical body” well, that’s not biblical Angelology since there’s no indication that Angels are spirits (proper). Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

A section of the article notes, “JOSEPH SMITH,” Mormonisms’s founder, “DIDN’T BELIEVE IN WATCHERS” and notes, in part:

…a strange little passage which many modern Biblical scholars say was originally intended to explain the rise of the giant race of antiquity by the union of angelic beings with human wives…two main schools of exegesis have formed. The first and most popular explains this passage as descriptive of disobedient angels (sometimes called Watchers) who descended from celestial realms and cohabitated with human women, producing a race of giants…An alternate explanation results by understanding the term “sons of God” to be the pious race descended from Seth, who sinned by marrying descendants of Cain, who would have been pagans…

Nelson notes, “The first explanation is definitely the cool one.  I would have thought that Joseph Smith would have been all over fallen angels, with his emphasis on the corporeality of divine beings.  But it turns out that Joseph didn’t believe in Watchers.” Oddly, not believing in Watchers logically means not believing in Angels.

Nelson further notes an elucidation of the issue via Hugh Nibley, Professor Emeritus of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University (A Strange Thing in the Land: The Return of the Book of Enoch, Part 8), from which I will pick the most relevant portions:

Seth’s son, “Enos gathered together ‘the residue of the people of God’ and with them migrated out of the country ‘and dwelt in a land of promise,’ named Cainan…In The Combat of Adam with Satan, as Migne observes, “the author depicts the descendants of Adam as divided into two separate and distinct branches: the Cainites dedicated to following Satan…and the Sethites who ‘…were faithful to the divine law and bore the name of the Sons of God.”

Long story short (and if you don’t recognize some of the questions it’s because they’re from Mormon sources and not from the Bible): apparently, Sethites who were faithful to the divine law and bore the name of the Sons of God weren’t really faithful to the divine law since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.

Nelson then notes, “In apocryphal Enoch stories we are told how humanity was led to the extremes of misconduct under the tutelage of uniquely competent masters.” 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

He notes, “According to these traditions, these were none other than special heavenly messengers…variously designated as the Watchers, Fallen Angels, Sons of God, Nephilim, or Rephaim, and are sometimes confused with their offspring, the Giants.” He’s actually, in part, quoting someone at this point but since his citation, “307” doesn’t lead to a footnote or endnote I don’t know if it’s to Nibley or whom.

Yet, regardless, it’s incoherent to assert that the fallen sons of God/Angels/Watchers were, “variously designated” also as, “Nephilim, or Rephaim” since the Nephilim were their offspring and Rephaim have literally nothing to do with any of this—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Nelson notes, “The Bible uses the title sons of God—were they different from the Watchers of tradition?” the answer to which is no, if the context allows for it: for example, in Job 38:7 it clearly refers to non-human beings.

Nibley wrote, “It is the Joseph Smith [version of] Enoch which gives the most convincing solution: the beings who fell were not angels but men who had become sons of God” thus, again and apparently, men who had become sons of God were terrible sinners.

Nibley also tells us that, “mortal men could qualify as ‘sons of God’…By believing and entering the covenant” thus, again and apparently, men who believed and entered the covenant were terrible sinners.

Moreover, “sons of God are those who accept and live by the law of God” thus, again and apparently, men who accept and live by the law of God were terrible sinners.

But, no worries, since, “When ‘the sons of men’ (as Enoch calls them) broke their covenant, they still insisted on that exalted title” for some unknown reason.

Thus, that, “Joseph Smith’s unique Mormon spin on the b’nei ha-Elohim [sons of God] was that they were priesthood holders, and the covenant people of the Lord, who were defiling themselves by marrying out of the covenant,” Smith’s spin on the Sethite view, is not only a late-comer of a view (very, very, very late in terms of Smith) but it’s based on myth, based on prejudice, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero). That’s mostly because a wholly holy/righteous/Godly line of Seth and wholly unholy/unrightous/ungodly line of Cain are mere and merely unevidenced fantasies.

We’re then told, “Joseph Fielding Smith later clarified the LDS interpretation of Genesis 6 when he scolded: ‘There is a prevailing doctrine in the Christian world that these sons of God were heavenly beings…This foolish notion is the result of lack of proper information…the correct information is not found in the Book of Genesis…The correct information regarding these unions is revealed in the inspired interpretation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Book of Moses…(Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 1: 136.).”

Furthermore, “The doctrine is repeated in sermons in the Journal of Discourses, such as this one by Charles W. Penrose: ‘…why they were called the ‘Sons of God.’ Those men were in the same position as the Latter-day Saints. They were heirs to the Priesthood. They were the sons of God. They had obeyed the holy covenants. They had received the word of the Lord. They were consecrated to the Almighty. But they went outside of their covenants…(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854-1886], 25: 228 – 229.)”

Interestingly, Nelson notes, “the Church still teaches that it is preferable not to marry outside of the covenant.  But we’re usually not so un-PC as to suggest that marrying non-members is an abominable sin that may cause mankind to be swept off the earth…Once again, we’re seeing a shift in doctrine” and that such is, “to the point that some Latter-day Saint thinkers are again putting credence in the ‘Watcher’ theory of Genesis 6.”

Nelson then includes old newspaper articles titled, “GIANTS BONES” and, “THE GIANT SKELETON” which, again, is premature being based on one ax and one word. He also includes a reference to the article, “Giant Human Skeletons Found Buried in Mounds Across North America” which is, “By Gaia Staff” which is about as reliable as any click bait conspira-tainment.

We’re told, “With the extreme rarity of gigantism, affecting roughly three in a million, it’s surprising how often giants are spoken of in the Bible and North American folklore. David and Goliath” but I’ve no idea what giantism has to do with anyone in the Bible: including Goliath who, most reliably, was just shy of 7 ft.

Overall, the article was pretty typical modern Nephilology which is based on assumptions, assertions, watering down terminology, and mashing together data points so as to appear to connect unconnected dots.

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.

You can surely tell by the title that Biblical docuseries on Nephilim giants in Israel to debut in the fall is just an infomercial by The Jerusalem Post on behalf of The Inspiration Network (INSP) so keep that in mind as we dig for anything that may be of interest.

Upfront, we’re told, “Docuseries on the Nephilim to be released: Giants from the Bible, proof in Golan Heights? Unraveling a Biblical Mystery: Did the Nephilim Giants Exist? Investigating in the Golan Heights, Angels & Giants: The Watchers & the Nephilim docuseries delves deep.”

The term, “Giants” begs these key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

They are especially key due to the reference to, “Nephilim Giants” which (hint to the answer to one of the two parts of the answer to the first key question) biblically contextually means, “Nephilim Nephilim.”

Also, “Angels…Watchers” means, “Angels…Angels” since Watchers is merely a Second Temple Era a.k.a. for Malakim/Angels.

It’s asserted, “A ghost wheel in the Golan Heights and its connection to the Nephilim” which is a very, very subtle nuanced hint combined with a category error that violates the law of identity.

This gets very complicated very fast and I only assume that the author was subtly hinting: they may just have sough to be excitingly creepy with a reference to ghosts—particularly when (fallaciously) coupled with Nephilim.

Firstly, the location is called Gilgal Rephaim or Wheel of the Rephaim and not ghosts—the article later references, “Gilgal Rephaim (‘Wheel of Spirits’ or ‘Wheel of Ghosts’).”

Secondly, the goalpost move to ghosts may be due to Pagan mythology about Rephaim being some sort of living dead/ghosts: that seems to derive from that the root word rapha ranges in meaning/usage from healing to dead—see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.

Thirdly, the other goalpost move to Nephilim is what I noted it is since Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

For details, see the, “Rephaim” chapter in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology and also my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

We continue with a comment about, “The Nephilim giants” which is that, “While many believe that these are fairy tales, others believe that their descendants are still alive today.” Neither are the case: it’s recorded as history in the Bible, with many likewise records in ancient myths and legends, and they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form so no one post-flood can be their descendants.

Via the Angel view of the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, we are told, “the ‘sons of God’…came to Israel and gave birth to children with human daughters” yet, that was pre-flood so there was no Israel. This, we are told, “resulted in the birth of powerful beings of unusual size and shape known as the Nephilim” yet, we’ve no reliable physical description of them so we can only make arguments from silence regarding their size and shape. As pop-researcher and modern un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales Nephilologist Gary Wayne put it, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were.”

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.”

Vague reference is made that, “In the midrash and external books written in the days of the Second Temple, the Nephilim are identified with the angels…describe the Nephilim as legendary creatures, each of whom required a thousand camels, a thousand horses, and a thousand oxen to satisfy his tremendous hunger…These stories caused people to wonder if the blood of these ancient giants continues to exist among us today.”

Yes, I also wrote a book about such tall-tales, The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.

It’s repeated that, “It is said that the descendants of the Nephilim may have survived by intermingling with human populations, with these descendants likely also inheriting unique traits from their giant ancestors.” Yet, again, since we’ve no reliable physical description of them we can’t know their traits.

Likewise with that, “Proponents of the theory point to alleged discoveries and strange findings as possible evidence of the Nephilim’s existence. These include finding extremely large skeletons…”

In case you’re so inclined, yes, I also wrote about that, see the relevant chapters in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

Next, we’re told of, “Rudy Landa, executive producer and director at INSP, and David Cerullo, the company’s CEO” which Landa sating, “The Bible describes the Nephilim in several places” which is accurate only if several means merely two verses.

We’re told, “The main explanation appears in Genesis chapter 6. The Nephilim were descendants of heavenly beings…in another chapter of the Book of Genesis, it is written that the ‘sons of God’ lived with the daughters of men, and the offspring of these unions were called the Nephilim, a race of giants who lived on earth. In other words, there are two versions of the identity of these beings: the Nephilim are upper angels who descended to earth (‘fallen angels’) and took wives for them from human women, or they are the result of those forbidden hybrid pairings.”

Yet, I only read one version: granting that sons of God is an a.k.a. for Angels—and in Job 38:7 it’s clear that the phrase can refer to non-human beings.

It’s noted that they, “enlisted the help of author Douglas Van Doren [actually, Dorn]” which is a shame and I will let you uncover why via my articles My review of Zachary Garris’ review of Douglas Van Dorn’s book “Giants Sons of the Gods” and Review of Paul “Dr. Reluctant” Henebury’s review of Douglas Van Dorn’s book “Giants: Sons of the Gods.”

It’s also noted, “‘It makes sense to start in Israel, in the place where the story of the Nephilim began – and that is in the Golan,’ stressed Landa” but, again, we don’t and can’t know that since the Genesis 6 affair occurred pre-flood, pre-Israel.

Moreover, “The first Book of Enoch…describes the Nephilim and claims that the name of Mount Hermon is derived from the word ‘haram’…According to the first Book of Enoch, the Nephilim were expelled from heaven and sent to Mount Hermon.”

1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.” Also it doesn’t have Nephilim being, “expelled from heaven”: that was their Angel dads. It also has Nephilim having been MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality.

As for Gilgal, “Landa’s search for the truth brought him to Gilgal Rephaim…a circle of stones…five concentric rings, with the outer ring being more than 150 meters wide. In its center is a mound of loose stones over 20 meters in diameter and over 5 meters high, covering a central chamber carved in solid rock…‘There are theories that claim that King Og of Bashan was buried in Gilgal Rephaim,’ said Landa.”

So, if he’s buried there we’ll find the skeleton of a Repha, not a Nephil, for whom we’ve no physical description (at least, no reliable one, not until folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah). One such tall-tale has it that Og, “was alive during Noah’s time but escaped the flood by clinging to the side of the ark using a ladder” even though he didn’t live until centuries later and well, God would not have missed the ladder usage loophole: we’re told five times who survived the flood but Og isn’t on any of those lists, and neither are Nephilim (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).

We’re told, “A rough estimate of Og’s size can be made based on reference to the size of his bed” which is incoherent since that’s based on various mere assumptions: see my book on Og.

Thus, overall, this PR marketing infomercial is typical modern Nephilology: fallacies, watered down terminology, inaccuracies, but oooooooh so exciting!!!

See my various books here.

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

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

To the Quora website question “What happened to the children of the Nephilim?” a certain Darwin Fields replied thusly:

Some people believe and teach that the Nephilim were the giants that were created between women of the earth, and Angels. Nephilim is just another word for giant. In most translations the word Nephilim doesn’t appear, only the word giant. Plus, the giants were on the earth before this incident happened. Genesis 6:4, the key word is afterward.

Some believe that the sons of God are Angels from heaven. Although, sometimes Angel’s are called sons of God in the Bible, so are men. John 1:12. In verse 2 of Genesis chapter 6, it says that these sons of God took these earthly women as wives. This means that they married them. However, Jesus pointed out that Angels do not marry. Matthew 22:30.

All mankind was killed in the great flood. However, Noah’s offspring had more giants, or nephilims. Numbers 13:33, no Angels had anything to do with these giants. Also, Goliath was a giant. He came after the flood as well, and there is no mention of an angel in his birth.

So, just who are these men of God if they are not Angels? They are regular men who worshipped the true God. The women of the earth were just that, worldly women, who did not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Throughout the Bible, God tells us not to marry outside of our faith. Jesus says not to be unequally yoke. I believe that this is what caused God to grieve and regret that He had created men, among other things as well. It was a combination of many things that cause God to flood the earth, not just this one event. God is longsuffering/ patient.

Andre Rene Roussimoff, better known as, Andre the Giant, was 7ft 4″. We called him a giant. Robert Wadlow was 8ft 11″. He was considered a giant. Sandra E. Allen was 7ft 7″, She was called a giant. Anna Bates was 7ft 11″, another giant. NBA player Yao Ming is 7ft 6″, Shauquille O’Neal, is 7ft 1″, Manute Bol, was 7ft. 7″. None of these people had, or have an Angel as one of their parents. Plus, they all lived after the flood.

Sometimes when we read scriptures, we tend to let our imagination add, and see things that the scriptures simply doesn’t say. Go back and read Genesis 6: 1to 4, and look for phases like: come down from heaven, the word heaven, or Angel. Notice that giants were always on the earth, even before the sinful act. If all the Giants/Nephilim were killed in the flood, where did the giants in Cannon, and Goliath come from? The same as you and I, is the answer. Our non-angel parents. Just like the people of the Bible use the word giant to describe people, we do the same today.

Don’t read things into the scriptures that aren’t there.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Friend, “Nephilim is just another word for giant” depends on what you mean by the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English word “giant.” The modern usage implies something about subjectively unusual height but that is not the ancient meaning (which is “earth-born”) and so it’s not what it means when you read it in modern English Bibles.

You say “Genesis 6:4, the key word is afterward” but you seem to think that it refers to the flood but the flood is not mentioned for the very first time until v. 17—a full 13 vss. later.

You say “Jesus pointed out that Angels do not marry” but He never did, He was very specific that He was referring to the Angles “of God” and who are “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it.

You say “Noah’s offspring had more giants, or nephilims” but there’s no reliable indication of that. When you read about “giants” in 99% of the post-flood Old Testament texts you are actually reading about “Rephaim” not about “Nephilim.” Your appeal to “Numbers 13:33” is an appeal to an “evil report” by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked: don’t believe them.

As noted, when you say “Goliath was a giant” you need to realize that biblically, you wrote, “Goliath was a Repha” which is quite true—also, most reliably, he was just shy of 7 ft.

Thus, you seem to base your claims on some simple yet key errors.

Darwin Fields replied:

You said nothing that I agree with. Plus, you are free to disagree with me as well. So let’s not waste anymore time with each other. I wish you well.

Ken Ammi:

Sorry, I believe in having my claims challenged and in a free exchange of ideas.

And well, that was the end of that one—sadly.

For more details, see my relevant books.

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

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

The Giant Clans of the Bible is an article by Jamin Bradley and I thought to post our little discussion about it here since I find discussions to be instructive.

I, Ken Ammi, commented:

It is a best practice to utterly ignore the vague, generic, subjective and un-biblical English term “giants” since it is used to pseudo-translate both the strictly pre-flood hybrid Nephilim and the strictly post-flood human Rephaim–some end up correlating things that the Hebrew text never does by chasing that English term around the Bible.

For example, there is no such thing as “Giant Clans” but “Clans of Rephaim.”

Jamin Bradley replied:

I’d suggest reading “The Unseen Realm” by Bible scholar Dr. Michael Heiser if you’re interested in an incredibly dense study that would say otherwise. And I’m not saying the Bible uses the phrase, “Giant Clans”—I’m using that expression to explain the lines I’m tracing in a way any audience could track with.

Ken Ammi:

Appreciate the tip about Heiser: while I will not take the time to read novels I have read his peer reviewed academic articles, etc. But just because he is very knowledgeable in this area, qualified in it and also a cool guys does not mean that he is infallible.

For example, on his website he stated that Genesis 6:4 says that there were Nephilim on the Earth before and after the flood and I had to point out to him that such is simply not the case.

Pre-flood Nephilim, post-flood Rephaim and no relation between them period. Also, I do agree with him that no one in the Bible is taller than say roughly 8 ft. at most. I wonder if you would be willing to review a brand new book I just published precisely on this issue (I have not even announced it yet).

NOTE: not that the discussion went on for years but this initial comment of mine was posted in 2019 and the last one in 2021. Thus, by now I have posted various articles critiquing Dr. Heiser on my site and featured him in my book “The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants.”

Jamin Bradley:

The idea of the Nephilim before and after the flood comes not just from Genesis 6:4, but Numbers 13:33 as well. I imagine you have a way of settling that so I won’t turn this into a debate, but rather just gather we’re on different pages of interpretation. Good luck with your book though!

A certain Mike Levitsky chimed in with:

I am curious, you state that the giants found in later portions of the Bible are descendants of the Giants in Gen 6, but according to Gen 7:21-23 every living thing on the face of the earth died, only the life on the ark survived. If this is the case, Where do the descendants come from?

Jamin Bradley:

Great question. Here are a few thoughts to consider, though they’ll get weirder and weirder as I propose them:

1. Perhaps the flood was local instead of global and some were able to escape its effects. There does seem to be some over-embellishment in the flood story for the sake of making theological points and perhaps the world in its entirety wasn’t actually flooded. You can go deeper into this conversation with Bible Scholar John Walton in his book, “The Lost World of the Flood.”

Or you can watch me and my friends discuss the same topic deeper in our JXN Cloud episode on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxukF2B4KmY

2. If the angels could commit the sin of raising up giants through human women, perhaps they were able to do it again. I think that’s a long shot, but it seems like even Paul left space for that possibility when he more or less told women to make sure angels knew they were already taken when they gathered together for worship (1 Corinthians 11:10).
3. Since the giants were created in Genesis 6 by angels and humans procreating together, maybe they had some kind of strange features that allowed them to survive the conditions. I doubt this, but because they’re not exactly human, I’ll throw the idea out there.
4. If you were a giant and your angel-parents saw that God was telling Noah to build a boat, you would assume that you need to do something to protect yourselves too, because apparently a flood is coming. Given how long it took to build that boat, who knows if they built their own boats or tried to get out of the area (if the flood was more local) or what they might have done.

Ken Ammi:

When it comes to Nephilim related issues, whether the flood was global or local is not relevant since regardless, they did not survive it (nor did they return).

No, Angels could not do it again since the only ones that fell were incarcerated (Jude and 2 Peter 2).

We are told multiple times that 8 people and some animals survive so I am unsure why we need to argue against such clear teachings just to–for some odd reason–demand that Nephilim survived or returned.

In short, we are often told about the people who lived in the land of Canaan without reference to Nephilim.

We are told of people who lived around the land without reference to Nephilim.

We are told of battles without reference to Nephilim.

We are even told of hand-to-hand combat without reference to Nephilim.

The one and only post-flood reference we have to Nephilim comes from unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies who presented an “evil report” wherein they made five claims about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and whom God rebuked (just to point out a few of the problems with that one single verse): why would anyone believe them?

Jamin Bradley:

Based on your other comments, I know you’re already committed to this view, so I’m not going to push back too much. This “bad report” view doesn’t carry much coherence for me in light of all the giant connections in the Bible, post-flood. Even if we came to agree that the “bad report” was actually a false one, it doesn’t stop giant clans from popping up all over the place, as I’ve mentioned in this post.

Should you be interested, Bible scholar Michael Heiser has covered your argument in a rather lengthy post. https://drmsh.com/want-christmas-another-flawed-nephilim-rebuttal

NOTE: I very often run into the styled attitude of “Thus saith Heiser.”

Ken Ammi:

Sorry but butting in but when you think of “the highest mountain” do not think of what you see on Earth today since such mountains are the result of continental drift, tectonic plates moving and colliding, etc. which would have happened as a result of the flood–the fountains of the deep breaking up the Earth into continents, etc.

Pre-flood the Earth’s surface would have been smoother and the highest mountain we more like a hill.

Mike Levitsky:

I think 2. makes the most sense to me. I have read Walton’s book on The lost world of Genesis 1, but not his flood material. I’ve read Heiser’s stuff, 3 and 4 are hard for me to affirm because the language states everything died…only Noah was left. And I think the local flood theory, takes into account a much smaller population, that would have also been localized? meaning it was a local flood but it still was able to destroy all flesh.

My sticking point is not that there were giants later in the Bible, but somehow that they were descendants of the Gen 6 line, at least on the human side (which is where my mind went first.) Maybe from the spirit side it’s possible, although we don’t have much if any information about how or if spirits can reproduce. With each other I mean.

This is a rabbit hole I have not gone all the way down yet, I need to do a lot more reading and thinking, but it’s always a good time to try to connect the dots, and then fill in some conjecture for fun.

Thanks for your thoughts

Jamin Bradley:

It’s certainly a puzzle. A localized flood could have totally wiped out a local population, you’re right. But I wouldn’t understand how a localized flood (or even a globalized flood) could scientifically rise to the top of the highest mountain. I can’t put that past God, of course, but that statement feels more theologically-pointed than actual.

In my opinion, a massive flood did happen, but there seems to be some possible over-embellishment trying to get us to understand the theology of starting over with a new attempt at eden and mission in a cleansed/baptized world.

So could some clever giants who deduced a flood was coming have possibly escaped? Unlikely, but it remains one possibility to consider when following the thread of giants both pre and post flood and tends to be the theory I’m most open to.

Ken Ammi:

Note that I have referred to the specific Hebrew word “Nephilim” but you are referring to the vague, generic, multi-usage, and undefined English word “giant” which makes me wonder if you are aware when your English Bible is rendering “Nephilim” versus rendering “Rephaim.”

If you believe that all of the various peoples in Canaan were of great stature, that the land devours its inhabitants, that there were post-flood Nephilim, that they were very tall, and that Anakim were related to them then you are forced to base all of those view upon one single verse that is within an evil report stated by men whom God rebuked (and those are just some of the problems with their assertions).

Now, when you speak of “all the giant connections in the Bible, post-flood” please understand that it has nothing to do with Nephilim, that is about Rephaim and their clans.

Should you be interested, I wrote a rebuttal to Heiser’s article Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal” [and by now, also Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy]

Isaac White:

While this study is interesting as a primer, their is so much more to learn about as it pertains to this subject (namely the study of giants). Not only is there many documented proofs of giant bones being found throughout the world and especially in the U.S.. Author L.A. Marzulli has written several very interesting and historically accurate details of giant bones being found right here in North America.

He points out that many of the bones found were of enormous proportion (hence the bones found were not 6’3 or even 6’6 inch tall men and women, but rather 7, 8, 9 and even 14 feet tall actual real human bones found in various states in the early part of the 17-19th centuries.

Sadly many of these bones were destroyed by the Smithsonian Institute ( a fact which the Smithsonian would later admit to) because it is proposed that the theories at the time and still very much today, did not fit with the generally accepted view of the time, ie Darwinism and the “theory” of evolution.

The study of such historical facts, and yes they are facts not just theories (the finding of the bones) along with diligent study of the bible and other non traditional books of Enoch really begin to paint a picture of a universe really untapped fully by humans.

I mean the whole study of extraterrestial beings (which has been described as evil in several places in the Bible, Books of Enoch, and other places) coming from another dimension and then impregnating women to form Giant beings sounds so surreal, but indeed it is real!

The historical veracity of such Biblical and non Biblical texts with descriptions of Giants (it is important to note when we state Giants that were are talking about men and women of enourmous stature..with documented proof across the world of their bones being found and stories and accounts of their actions and demeanor) it really brings to light other texts such as the books of Enoch.

These books which describe how these Giant beings came into existence and their evil intentions definitely are evident in the times of Jesus as determined by the Qumran finds, showing the Bibles age as a historical written document and oral tradition about such beings (GIANTS) and their origins and place within our world, the purpose of the flood and the plan of Satan and his minions to reak havoc again on the world. The title nephilim or fallen ones means (descended on to our realm of existence from their habitation).

If you research the books below

Various Tribes of Giants:

Emim – The fearful ones

Rephaim – The dead ones

Anakim – The long necked ones

Zamzumim-

Fortson, Dante. Taboo Topics In The Bible: Nephilim Giants

Marzulli, L.A.. Nefilim Hybrids

Marzulli, L.A.. On the trail of the Nephilim Vol. 1, 2

Zimmerman, Fritz. The Encyclopedia of Ancient Giants in North America

The Books of Enoch

Bible Verses: A few

Duet. 2:20, Samuel 21; 1 Chronicles 20;Numbers 13:32–33;Ezekiel 32:17–32

Ken Ammi:

Friend, I would recommend not speaking of “giants” since that is a vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined term. One of the problems is that it can lead to referring to Nephilim and to Rephaim and to something unspecific about subjectively unusual height—and to referring to all of these without telling us what you mean by “giants” at any given time.

See, when you cite “Duet. 2:20, Samuel 21; 1 Chronicles 20;Numbers 13:32–33;Ezekiel 32:17–32” you are mixing these up and are also directing us to an “evil report” by men whom God rebukes (Num 13:32-33) so why would you believe them and then try to get us to believe them? And I can only imagine that you cited Ezekiel 32:17–32 because you are reading something into a word’s root or something.

So, if your focus is “proofs of giant bones” then you are not discussing Nephilim or Rephaim but are referring to unusual height. Now, “giant bones” of what, of whom? I noticed you specified, “14 feet tall actual real human bones” so how do you know, where are they, etc.? FYI: just saying “many of these bones were destroyed by the Smithsonian Institute” is claiming that lack of evidence is evidence. Also, what makes you think that it is “a fact which the Smithsonian would later admit to”?

Marzulli and Fortson are among the least reliable people out there making a living off of weaving tall tales so be careful as they, like you, go on and on and on about “giants” whilst being very vague and committing category errors.

1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch was written MILLENNIA after the Torah, contradicts the Bible, and has Nephilim being MILES tall which makes for a great folkloric tall tale but not good reality.

As for “Biblical…descriptions of Giants…of enourmous stature” you will have to provide me citations, please.

When you list “Various Tribes of Giants” you seem to not realize that Emim, Anakim, and Zamzumim are all subgroups of Rephaim and the only contextual thing we are told about them is that some of them were subjectively “tall” compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

I recommend by book “Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers” which is subtitled, “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.”

I realize that you are reading very exciting stuff but if you research it, you will find it is mostly sci-fi.

Isaac White:

“See, when you cite ‘Duet. 2:20, Samuel 21; 1 Chronicles 20;Numbers 13:32–33;Ezekiel 32:17–32’ you are mixing these up and are also directing us to an ‘evil report’ by men whom God rebukes (Num 13:32-33) so why would you believe them and then try to get us to believe them? And I can only imagine that you cited Ezekiel 32:17–32 because you are reading something into a word’s root or something.”

To begin. Im not sure what you state when you say: “mixing them up and directing you to a evil report by men whom God rebukes” ? ….. Why would I believe them? I read and write Hebrew fluently both modern and Biblical so I assure I am not mixing anything up Brother. I never read anything into anyone else’s words.

The citation of references that I listed all show pictures and numerous newspaper articles of Giant bone finds all across America, all of which the Smithsonian admitted to destroying. These are facts brother, not supposition or theories (something the Smithsonian admitted to).

In regards to your comments on the Biblical verses quoted I only go as far as to use outside resources to show a point, namely that in regards to the nefilim and their program the Bible doesnt state what happened to them fully so one is left to look at external resources of the time or other accounts (something a real scholar would recognize and not discount as suppossed theory). We are talking historical documented facts of the Giant bone finds and cross breeded species but since I know you havent read my references before you made your comment I wont respond to it,

It is interesting to note that the Bible does not go very much in depth as the total picture of who these beings were or are but outside scriptural resources do. Hence when coupled with the Biblical report we gain a more complete view of their role in creation.

There is really no need to try and discount my point because I did not attempt to prove anything outside of the obvious, namely that Giant human bones have been found in various places throughout the world, and also that numerous beings of genetic cross fertilization have been shown to be found all over the world as is proven in the books I named as my resources. That these things have been discussed in the Bible and in the books of Enoch and other sources, sources which are creditable and historically proven.

Sci-Fi not really, what is Sci-Fi, have you read them? Have you researched this subject diligently? It does not sound like it and I look forward to our continued discussion to show you the error of your ways. I would not take your recommendation as not speaking on something which I have researched diligently.

Ken Ammi:

I see. Then since you read Hebrew fluently both modern and Biblical then ignore the English word “giants” and note that in Duet. 2:20, Samuel 21; 1 Chronicles 20 you are reading about Rephaim but in Numbers 13:32–33 you are reading about Nephilim (and Anakim).

Thus, you are “mixing them” by calling all of them “giants” and are directing us to an evil report by men whom God rebukes.

I don’t doubt that there are “newspaper articles of Giant bone” but 1) fakenews is not new, 2) newspaper reports are what they are: so and so said so and so (usually with no follow up), 3) saying “Giant bones” does not answer what I asked which was how you know what they are (dinosaur, whale, pachyderm, human, etc.). I published an entire chapter of such newspaper reports in my book “Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.”

So, when you refer to “the obvious, namely that Giant human bones” my questions are which ones and how do you know they are “human”?

You previously wrote, “MANY of these bones were destroyed by the Smithsonian Institute,” now you say “ALL of which the Smithsonian admitted to destroying…something the Smithsonian admitted to” but I had asked, “what makes you think that it is ‘a fact which the Smithsonian would later admit to’? so just repeating it and being more emphatic does not answer that question.

You say “the Bible doesnt state what happened to” Nephilim but they lived pre-flood and eight people and some animals survived the flood so, they did not (not is there any indication that they returned).

The only external resource you have for that is Jubilees (which dates to MILLENNIA after the Torah) and only have then living to the time of Noah’s grandsons).

You say you know I have not read your references but you have no idea so you are just playing mind reader: you should have noticed Marzulli’s and Forton’s names in the subtitle of my book and I have read all of the biblical citations.

I have written 7-9 books (depends how you count them [some dozen by now]) about Nephilim and “giants” so am very, very well aware of what everyone is saying: from scholars to popularizers to bloggers to people posting comments on websites.

The problem with “outside scriptural resources do” is that you are directing us to folkloric tall tales that contradict the Bible.

Thus, when you refer to “the books of Enoch” among those that “are creditable and historically proven” you seem to have bought into the neo-theo-sci-fi.

As for whether I have read them, please see my book “The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants” and “I Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

I know it would be convenient to just pretend that I am not as well informed as you when I ask you questions you cannot answer but such is not the case.

For me, this is just about getting at the truth and being careful about how we do so.

So when you ask “Have you researched this subject diligently? It does not sound like it” that is no way to attempt to get away from the fact that you are now realizing that just accepting what those guys tell you is not working and there are questions you cannot answer.

Shalom!!!

Jamin Bradley:

Ken, you have made your interpretation clear on my post many times. I’m unsure why you feel the need to comment on every new person who drops by my blog, but I’d appreciate it if you gave them some space.

Ken Ammi:

Well, I believe in sharpening iron with iron and in correcting mis-handlings of God’s word. So, if Isaac replies then just tell me to contact mere here since I’m not interested in overstaying my welcome: https://truefreethinker.com/contact

Jamin Bradley:

You’re welcome to keep chatting, but I don’t think you need to target every comment you disagree with that comes in on this post. I’d like to keep conversations respectful in that way.

I know you disagree with my view and that’s totally fine. What you believe based on the research you’ve done is completely up to your discretion—just as it is for those of us who have come to find a different interpretation through our own research.

Ken Ammi:

Appreciate the elucidation. Yet, this is not just about subjectivism, “different interpretation” since when someone is posting to the WORLD WIDE web, via your site, half baked conspiracy theories and recommending people who demonstrably turn God’s word into sci-fi then some, at some time, somewhere, somehow needs to say enough is enough.

There are reasons why Nephilology is a cesspool of misinformation and disinformation and people are willing to take non-paranormal views of, say Gen 6, just to not be associated with the guys who literally make a living by spinning wild tall tales.

UPDATE: a few months later someone commented the following, “What about the possibility that the genetic coding to produce a ‘Nephilim’ was present in Noah’s wife or one of his son’s wives?” but since I seemingly overstayed my welcome so I didn’t reply. Besides, the question was for Jamin. Well, Jamin replied and I didn’t post a reply to the reply therein but will do so here—in-house:

Great question. It’s not impossible to make that argument, though it’s not one of the choices I gravitate to. The story of Noah and the flood is in part a polemic against other ancient writings like Gilgamesh and the flood. Gilgamesh was a giant painted in a hero light whereas the Bible paints the giants in a villain light. In comparison, I think those who heard the Hebrew flood story in ancient times would have instantly noticed that Noah is not mentioned to be a giant, but seems to be against the giants. But could giant DNA have been in him, or his family, or his sons’s wives? You could technically argue that. While Bible Scholar Michael Heiser doesn’t like that route much either, he lends some ideas as to why someone might argue that way in page 5-6 of this podcast transcript: https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/NB-262-Transcript.pdf

Personally, I think it’s easier to understand that the Bible is being overly-exaggerative about the flood in order to make a theological point that everything is being cleansed, turned over to chaos, and then starts over with God’s order. To this point, you could check out Tremper/Walton’s book “The Lost World of the Flood” ( https://www.amazon.com/Lost-World-Flood-Mythology-Theology-ebook/dp/B07B5RDXT9/ ), or the Bible Project’s podcast episode on the topic ( https://bibleproject.com/podcast/the-first-time-god-gets-angry/ ), or one of my own JXN Cloud episodes ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxukF2B4KmY )

So yeah, you could technically go the route you mentioned, as some have. I think Heiser’s direction makes a bit more sense to me:

“…some Jewish writers presumed the answer was that Noah himself had been fathered by one of the sons of God and was a Nephilim giant. Genesis 6:9 clearly wants to distance Noah from the unrighteousness that precipitated the flood, so this explanation doesn’t work.

There are two alternatives for explaining the presence of giants after the flood who descended from the giant Nephilim: (1) the flood of Genesis 6–8 was a regional, not global, catastrophe; (2) the same kind of behavior described in Genesis 6:1–4 happened again (or continued to happen) after the flood, producing other Nephilim, from whom the giant clans descended.”

Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. First Edition. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015. Print.

Ken Ammi:

He insists of referring to Nephilim as “giants” which is not only problematic on its own but will cause further confusion when people read of “giants” in 99% of Old Testament verses where some English versions refer to “giants” which are actually references to Rephaim.

“Noah is not mentioned to be a giant” and neither are Nephilim—even if some modern English versions use that term.

I’m unsure how sound could, technically or not, viably argue that “giant DNA have been in him, or his family, or his sons’s wives” since, in part, that implies that God failed, the flood was a waste, it was a loophole God missed, etc.

Any such concept is just an invention due to desperation—for whatever reasons—to force Nephilim past the flood.

Ironically, Jamin thinks, “it’s easier to understand that the Bible is being overly-exaggerative about the flood” when, in reality, it was the 10 spies in Num 13 were “being overly-exaggerative about the” existence of post-flood Nephilim: in fact, they were downright deceptive.

Heiser’s, or anyone else’s, “alternatives for explaining the presence of giants after the flood” (in one single—utterly unrealiable—verse) are non-issues since they seek to fill a gap that doesn’t actually exist but let’s consider them anyhow:

(1) The scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t make it past it because is was global or because they lived in the flooded region—see my book Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local?, Vol I: A Historical Survey of Views from BC to AD.

(2) There’s zero indication of any such a thing and since the Angels who sinned (and there’s only a one time sin of Angel in the Bible) where incarcerated, it would seem that since the flood was God cleaning house, as it were, that’s when he would have incarcerated them. Plus, this is another proposed loophole God must have missed making the flood a waste.

See my various books here.

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

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

The question Were the Nephilim the cause of the flood in the Bible? was posted to the Quora site and led to this discussion when Dick Harfield commented

The biblical flood belongs in the world of mythology, along with the biblical nephilim. Nevertheless, the story of the flood is ambiguous at this point. On the one hand, Genesis 6:4 speaks of giants, presumably the hybrid offspring of a union of women with paranormal beings, but on the other hand, verses 5 and 6 say that man was wicked and that God repented of creating man.

In either case, we need not feel angry with the biblical nephilim because there never was a great worldwide flood that covered all the mountains.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Your first statement was you beginning with a conclusion to which you merely jumped by asserting it and is a positive affirmation you must prove.

Also, what, on your worldview, is wrong with believing that “mythology” is actually true?

Now, there’s no ambiguity: Genesis 6:4 speaks of Nephilim, the hybrid offspring of a union of women with Angels and verses 5 and 6 say that man was wicked: so, what of it?

Dick Harfield

Hi Ken,

By all means go ahead and believe that the mythology is actually true, as long as you do not need evidence for your belief. You need to believe that “male” angels find female humans sexually desirable and that they are capable of producing fertile offspring. What about female angels—are they supposed to exist and have sexual desires?

Ken Ammi

Hi Dick,

So, we’ve established that on your worldview there’s nothing wrong with believing that “mythology” is actually true.

We also established that you made a positive affirmation you can’t prove: lesson learned is to not make positive affirmations you can’t prove.

Now, is there a universal imperative, on your worldview, to “need evidence for” our “belief”? Or do you realize that that’s just another subjective personal preference du jour of yours that you can’t impose upon anyone else?

I “need to believe that”? Okay, done. Now what?

There either are no female Angels or they’re never mentioned.

And that, as they say, is the end of that: and it’s sad that my ongoing experience appears to be that people make assertions, I call on them to back them and correct them, they realize they can’t back them, they stop replying.

See my various books here.

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

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

The Strange Sounds site published an article titled Mysterious giant humanoids discovered on the ceiling of an Alabama cave which on the day of the article’s publication, May 23, 20220, referenced, “A new scientific study,” “published in the peer-reviewed journal Antiquity,” “uncovered GIANT human-like figures etched in the ceiling of an Alabama cave by Native Americans more than a 1000 years ago…carvings of mysterious giant humanoids” accompanied by photos by Steven Alvarez and Jan Simek from the paper Discovering ancient cave art using 3D photogrammetry: pre-contact Native American mud glyphs from 19th Unnamed Cave, Alabama (Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2022” by Simek, Stephen Alvarez, and Alan Cressler.

This seems like layers of interpretation as someone first outlined that which they saw amongst the scored rock (“glyphs…in the soft mud on the cave’s ceiling”), then told us what they think it depicts within the journal, and then someone else did likewise within the article in question. This is especially so when you consider the vast amounts of crosshatched scorings in these photos.

We are told, “The figures, three of which were humanoid in shape, are among the biggest ever uncovered in the Northern Americas. Some are more than 6ft long per a study.”

Yet, I am unsure how such a height is derived since I am unsure to what such a height is being compared. Also, note that “more than 6ft long” (or, tall), and one specifically specified to be “5.9 ft tall” and another “6.8 ft tall,” have been interpreted for us as “giant” which speaks to the generic, vague, subjective, and multi-usage nature of that English word—giant compared to whom?

We are also told of, “An undefined figure made of swirling lines, with a round head at one end and a possible rattlesnake tail at the other (7 ft wide).”

Simek, an archeologist, notes that Natives, “believe in a tiered universe…They believed that there were these spirit worlds” which means that the illustrations, even if taken as-is, are metaphors since spirits have not height, by definition.

He thinks, “The glyphs portray what archeologists call anthropomorphs, figures that could either represent humans in costumes and masks or humanoid spirits.”

Alvarez noted that “more than 16,000 pictures” were taken, which means that someone had to work very, very hard to make much ado about virtually nothing in telling us of “giants.”

We are told, yet no one is quoted to this affect, about, “enormous humanoid glyphs.”

As for Simek, Alvarez, and Cressler’s paper: it does not refer to “giants.” It does note that in correlation to, “certain…other known regional rock art…The most striking aspects of these cave art images are their size and context” but we are only told about size when it comes to a different location, “Barrier Canyon Style…of Utah…typically described as being ‘life-sized’ (i.e. around 2m in height)….the largest figure at the renowned Horseshoe Canyon site in Utah is described as being ‘over seven feet’, or 2.13m tall” which, overall, can only mean anything about actual height if we take glyphs literally.

Goliath, who was most reliably just shy of 7 ft., may have been a subjective giant to the average Israelite male of those days who was 5.0-5.3 ft.

Likewise, an over seven feet tall personage (granting literalness) may have been a subjective giant in that day and time.

Yet, how being subjectively unusually tall is any sort of issue is quite mysterious, particularly when the “Mysterious giant…” article did not bother telling us why they considered it to be anything but archeological news.

See my various books here.

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

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

This is review of podcast notes for episode Deuteronomy: Giants and Justice.

The title’s reference to, “Giants” begs these key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

Reference is made to, “Nephilim, the evil demon-human hybrid beings we first met in Genesis 6” which is an instant issue since they weren’t, “demon-human” but, “Angel-human.”

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.

As for the difference between Angels and demons, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

Directly thereafter, we’re told, “they resurface as giants inhabiting Canaan” so we seem to have gotten the answer to key question 2 which means that the answer to key question 3 is, “No”: at least, 50%—stand by.

We are told, “The Nephilim were spiritual being-human hybrids and wicked, violent giants. The Anakim, who inhabited the land of Canaan, were descendants of the Nephilim.”

Let’s review:

I actually have no idea what, “We are told, “spiritual being-human hybrids” means but they were human-Angel hybrids.

As for, “wicked, violent” that would be as per the greater context of Gen 6.

As for, “giants,” 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 the podcaster’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

As for, “Anakim…were descendants of the Nephilim”: that’s based on one single, non-LXX, sentence from an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked so there’s zero reason to believe that and many problems with believing it such as how Nephilim managed to make it past the flood, past God? Let’s see if the podcast review convers that key issue. Besides, Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe and were named after a man named Anak, Arba’s son.

This follows directly with, “The flood is an important archetype of judgment” but, of course, any archetype comes after the actual event.

A subsection titles, “Giants in the Land” notes, “a second key theme in the first movement of Deuteronomy, giants”—whatever that means.

Another subsection is, “The Anakim and Nephilim” and we are told that, “Moses mentions giants in Deuteronomy…Moses refers to a group of people called the ‘Anakim’” but, again, the only way to correlate Anakim with Nephilim is, you guessed it, one single non-LXX sentence by unreliable guys whom God rebuked: the, “evil report” of Nun 13:333. Thus, the review wasn’t even able to back its assertion about Nephilim in Duet: but then again, it was not about, “Nephilim” therein, it was about whatever is meant by, “giants” and when you speak and write in unspecific manners then you water things down enough to give the appearance of making things fit that actually do not.

It is noted that, “the 12 spies sent to explore the promised land identified the Anakim as well as the Nephilim” but, as I just noted, that’s mistaken since Caleb, and Joshua who sided with him, were not part of they who merely asserted having seen Nephilim.

We’re also told, “Anakim were considered ‘bad guys’ in the biblical story, representing the greatest evil of both humans and spiritual beings.” Yes, they were bad guys but there’s no indication of any to represent, “spiritual beings.” We’re also told of, “the storyline of the Nephilim and Anakim throughout the Torah” but those are two distinct story lines: with the exaction, I supposed, that they converge only via pointing out that non-LXX versions correlate them only within the unreliable, “evil report.”

“Nephilim, giant human-spiritual being hybrids” are noted—whatever that means—and that, “the clock starts ticking down toward the great de-creation event in the Torah, the flood.” But if the flood de-created Nephilim how, pray tell, were they recreated post-flood? In no way per the Bible and in no way that is stated, it’s only generically assumed, in the podcast notes.

It’s further noted, “The flood is God’s response to the violence of the Nephilim” but He must have failed since they were still around post-flood and so the flood was much of a waste—at least as per post-flood fallacious Nephilology.

Interestingly, it’s noted that Deuteronomy 7:1-3 states:

When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are entering to take possession of it, and he drives away many nations from before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God turns them over to you and you defeat them, you shall utterly destroy them. You shall not make a covenant with them nor be gracious to them. Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them.

Indeed, mentioned are, “Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites” but not Nephilim. In fact, the patriarchs, Moses, et al., were told of the people living in and around the land but were never told one single word about Nephilim.

So, again, “we’re told, ‘they resurface as giants inhabiting Canaan’ so we seem to have gotten the answer to key question 2 which means that the answer to key question 3 is, ‘No’: at least, 50%—stand by.”

I noted 50% and that’s all we got. In the English versions which employ the term giants it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in two texts and what was missed in the review which is that it renders Rephaim in 98% of all others—and, FYI, it never even hints at anything to do with height whatsoever.

See my various books here.

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

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

The following discussion took place due to the video MYSTERIES OF MT HERMON- The Way Congregation – Douglas Hamp & Dr Michael Heiser-The Awakening Report.

marlene g commented

Of course Doug has to mention that he too wrote a book about Nephlem and “it was very popular”.

Hands down Mike is twice the scholar, teacher and author.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

I am not sure that it was a contest. In any case, for all of Heiser’s solid scholarship: his biggest failing is that he teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible does not.

Christopher noted

Petty and divisive.

Ken Ammi

What is, your comment?

Christopher

My comment was in response to the mean-spirited comment by marlene g.  My point is that her comment is petty and divisive. Why would a  person go out of their way to be mean?

Anne Shirley95 chimed in with

I’m glad that he mentioned his book, I keep forgetting about it. Now I’ll  remember, and I’ll go buy it.

Ken Ammi @Christopher

I see. I am sure there are many reasons but we should avoid doing so.

Paxphasmatis Riley

Many pastors are now using Dr Heiser’s divine council/supernatural work. The good ones will credit Dr Heiser and teach it for the benefit of their flocks. The bad ones smell the money and pretend that God revealed it to them alone while  mixing it in with their false prosperity teachings.

Ken Ammi @Paxphasmatis Riley

His material on the divine council is better than his work specifically on Nephilim were he teaches post-flood Nephilim while the Bible does not.

Ken Ammi @Lisa Parker

Note an oddity: you wrote, “Genesis says, the nephilim were, ‘…and after that…’…after the flood, so not sure what you’re referencing.” You did not quote the part where Genesis 6:4 refers to the flood, you inserted that yourself, they are your words, not the texts’ words. In fact, the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time in that chapter until a full 13 verses later. Gen 6:4 tells you exactly what it means by “those days” and thus, by “after” so please re-read it anew. BTW: did the flood have anything to do with Nephilim?

Feisty Nag

Rob Skiba covers this quite a lot. I believe “in those days and after” refers to the days of Jerod not the flood.

Ken Ammi

Well, Skiba is very unreliable–and also does not want to discuss these issues with me [see my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.]

Yes, fine, let us grant that “in those days and after” refers to the days of Jerod: fair enough, that makes my point as well.

Baltic Hammer

Its in Genesis 6:4, not hard to miss.

Ken Ammi

I noted “let us grant that “in those days and after” refers to the days of Jerod: fair enough, that makes my point as well” so I am unsure what you mean by “Its in Genesis 6:4, not hard to miss” I know the quotation comes from Gen 6:4, what is it that I am supposed to have missed?

Diane Larry Gross

yes it does

Ken Ammi

“Yes” what “does” what about what?

Well, that ended that since everyone dropped the issue.

See my various books here.

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

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

The following discussion is from the comments section to the video Dr Kent Hovind – Comments On Comments Q&A.

A certain John Kennedy commented:

About as controversial as an episode of Tom and Jerry. Same old regurgitated stuff.

I, Ken Ammi, commented:

John Kennedy   Your hidden assumption is that it must be new, but why? You seem to have made what I term an argumentum ad chronologicum.

Daughter of Yith commented:

Ken Ammi  No, it should be updated when Hovind’s been corrected. And he has, time and time again, yet he ignores all that and just goes off the same old script.

John Kennedy:

Ken Ammi  No he suggested it was going to be controversial at the start and no never heard of that second thing

Ken Ammi:

Daughter of Yith  I see. Well, now tour hidden assumption is that “it should be updated when Hovind’s been corrected,” etc. but why on your worldview?

Ken Ammi:

John Kennedy  So it was controversial that it was the same old regurgitated stuff ;o) I coined the term “argumentum ad chronologicum” since I thought you implied that he should be presenting something new rather than the same old regurgitated stuff.

Daughter of Yith:

Ken Ammi  If he’s been corrected, then he should update it. The “corrected” part implies the new information is correct. It doesn’t matter if it’s my “worldview” or not (by the way, evolution isn’t a worldview). If it’s correct then it’s correct.

John Kennedy:

Ken Ammi  Nice, that you coined the term – but No, it wasn’t the least bit controversial – doesn’t the word ‘regurgitate’ imply it’s old anyway?

Ken Ammi:

Daughter of Yith  But that “If he’s been corrected, then he should update it” is an assertion based on hidden assumptions so since I don’t accept your authority I will ask: why? And I don’t mean why as per your emotively subjective assertions but on your worldview. Actually, for some people (Atheistic) evolution has become their worldview.

Ken Ammi:

John Kennedy  Let’s bottom line this: if you are an Atheist then on your view truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it. Since that’s the bed you made, you should sleep in it rather than abandoning your views just to argue (not that being consistent is a universal imperative on Atheism).

John Kennedy:

Ken Ammi  Edit: Pointing out this is old is not restricted from Christians which is a small criticism compared etc. …

Ken Ammi:

John Kennedy  Sorry friend, I can’t understand what you mean by “is not restricted from Christians” but you seem to be wanting to back us up to the beginning of the discussion but we are up the bottom line point that “if you are an Atheist then on your view truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others to adhere to it. Since that’s the bed you made, you should sleep in it rather than abandoning your views just to argue (not that being consistent is a universal imperative on Atheism).”

John Kennedy:

Ken Ammi  yeah whatever friend!

Ken Ammi:

Friend, I’ve seen it 1,001 times: the second an Atheist even imagines facing the implications of their worldview, they run away.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, add a few more to the 1,001 count since that ended the discussion.

For more details, see my relevant books.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.