Month: April 2024

One reason that I didn’t include Ryan Pitterson in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers—which, after all, 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.—is that I could only spend so much on gathering books to review and I did end up perusing circa 80 of them.

I may have to publish a follow-up to that book as some researchers are becoming more pop. I decided to write a bit of a review of the The Wolf AND The Shepherd PODCAST show Episode 134 – Judgment Of The Nephilim With Ryan Pitterson.

He notes, “a Nephilim in scripture, so the term itself is an Aramaic term that was borrowed into the Hebrew language and it really means giants” and no, he doesn’t define giants.

Some technical linguistic notes: “a Nephilim” is compounding singular and plural since “a” is singular but “Nephilim” is male plural thus, the statement should have been “a Nephil.”

Now, that word was not borrowed into Hebrew and that it’s Aramaic in origin is speculative.

He’s actually referring to the etymology so, the root, not the word. If form Hebrew then Nephilim has its roots in naphal which refers to fall/fallen/to cause to fall, etc. and if from Aramaic it has its roots in naphiyla which, well, Dr. Michael Heiser, in particular, claims that it means giant which raises two issues:

1. When he tells us it means giants he, like Pitterson, doesn’t tell us what he means by giants. Yet, he’s come to the same conclusion as I which is that no one, no giant, mentioned in the Bible is taller than right around 8 ft.
2. This becomes battle of the credentialed scholars since Dr. J. Edward Wright 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.”

Pitterson refers to, “Genesis chapter 6 is where they’re introduced…the Nephilim, and they were giants they were super human sized.” Yet, Genesis 6 neither states nor implies any such thing. He’s committing two errors:

1. He’s committing the word-concept fallacy whereby if someone is called a giant (or naphiyla) then they must be subjectively unusually tall. Yet, such is a non-sequitur as well since, for example, I’ve been called giant many, many, many times and I’m 6 ft. even.
2. The second one is what we will get into next which is actually relying on an evil report.

One of the interviewers noted this to Ryan Pitterson, “the next mention of the Nephilim is, I think, Joshua and this is when Moses has led the Israelites out of Egypt…they send the spies into the promised land and the spies come back and they say we saw the Nephilim…there are certain people that say well, they look at [like?] Nephilim because of the old stories as like the boogeyman.”

Pitterson replies:

“I think they were really giants, that they were actual Nephilim and, you know, when you think about that, like, you set it up perfectly right, so: this is Moses and Joshua now, they’ve, this is at right after the exodus…they see three Nephilim giants in the promised land and the spies come back and say there’s no way we can take the land right?

They come back and say God cannot give this land to us so that tells me right there that this wasn’t just that they saw a boogeyman or a real tall guy, that these were true giants and also the great detail about that chapter…Numbers chapter 13 is that when they scout the land they brought back fruits.

And it says the grapes, they have a bunch of grapes, and two men it takes two men carrying one bunch of grapes on a pole on their shoulders that they have to carry back. That’s how, that’s how large they were. So, even the agriculture of this area from where the giants were inhabiting was supernaturally large.

So I think that these, uh, these were real Nephilim giants hybrid offspring and it wasn’t just that they exaggerated or they were scared of a boogeyman or anything like that.

And I think that’s why the scripture calls them, in Hebrew, Nephilim is the word, as you said…the root of the term is giant, the meaning, the original meaning, of Nephilim in Aramaic is giant and so I even talked about how in the oldest version of the Old Testament we have today, the oldest version is the Septuagint, which, of course, is a Greek translation from paleo Hebrew, from the old ancient Hebrew and the word they use is gigantes in that chapter, so they’re just calling them again giants.”

Let us unpack this:

One issue is the generic nature of the references such that we’re told that it was about “the spies…They…say” but he fails to distinguish, at least that this point, between the spies: two, Caleb and Joshua, stated no such this as that “God cannot give this land…,” that was the ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and whom God rebuked for presenting an evil report.

Thus, all indications are that the Israelites saw no such thing as giants, Nephilim, nor giants, Nephilim (except they did deal with Anakim who were “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft.), it was just the ten who merely asserted they saw them.

As for the grapes, note that he jumped form what the text stated, which placed emphasis on the “bunch” to that “that’s how large they were.” Now, if he means that the bunch was large then by I’m unsure how a large bunch from a fertile land flowing with milk and honey can be said to have been supernaturally large. Thus, I suspect he was actually taking the pop-pop-research view that the individual grapes were supernaturally large, which is something about which the text does not even hint—see chapter, “Here Be Giant—Grapes!” of my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

Just as generic is that Ryan Pitterson states, “the scripture calls them, in Hebrew, Nephilim …” but “the scripture” makes it clear that such was merely recording an utterly unreliable evil report.

As for the Septuagint, gigantes means earth-born which is part of why when certain English versions render (do not even translate) Nephilim as Giants neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic nor Greek nor English imply anything about height at all.

Moreover, the Septuagint renders (do not even translate) Nephilim and Rephaim, and also gibborim all as gigantes—which only caused problems. FYI: you don’t have to know any language very well to realize that words as different as Nephilim, Rephaim, and gibborim all mean the same thing—especially when gibbor is merely a descriptive term that might/mighty.

Now, Ryan Pitterson’s assertion of post-flood Nephilim raises another question, which he was asked, which is, “how did they survive the flood?”

He replies, “my belief, definitely, is that the Nephilim DNA traveled through on the ark and specifically through the wives of Noah’s sons and even then more specifically Noah’s son Ham.”

There’s actually no need to even delve in this since such a tall tale was invented by people who asserted post-flood Nephilim but had to evidence to back that thus, they just invented a way to get them through the flood—that must have been a loophole that God missed.

This is how he argues the tall-tale-loophole:

“…all flesh had corrupted himself and corrupted itself. So, by the time Noah’s sons were old enough to take wives and had their own children, the odds of finding a woman who was pure blood human were probably slim to none.

And even the way, uh, Noah is described in Genesis, it says that he was a just man and perfect in his generations and that term perfect, in Hebrew tamim, refers to physical perfection. It’s the same term you use for a sacrificial lamb as, to be a lamb without blemish, that sacrificed to the temple that that without blemish is tamim.

So, I think what the Bible is telling us that Noah was perfectly human whereas these whereas the wives would not have been.”

I got into this issue in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology—and archeologist and author Dr. Heather Lynn too particular note of it in that what I wrote “on Noah’s genetic ‘perfection,’ what it really means, and all it entails is a must read.”

In short, perfect pertained to Noah’s righteousness, not his genetics. As for the genetics of his family well, recall that this is all about inventing post hoc tall tale and one that implies God failed.

Ryan Pitterson also notes, “when you look at the giants, like the three giants, the sons of Anak you [the interviewer] mentioned in, in the Book of Numbers, and the other post-diluvian giants, they can, their lineage can all be traced back to Cannan, who was the son of Ham, Noah’s son Ham, they can, all that, their lineages in scripture, can be traced right back to him. So, it all goes back to the ark and I think the wife, the wife of Ham.”

This is multitudinously fallacious:

1. The “three giants” were Anakim and as I noted, they were just subjectively “tall.”
2. One reason for his correlating of Anakim with Nephilim is subjectively unusual height but that fails due to point 1. and also because we’re no reliable physical description of Nephilim and so can’t equate them with subjectively unusual height.
3. Another reason for his correlating of Anakim with Nephilim is, exclusively, Numbers 13:33—one single verse which was part of the evil report and is also apparently a gloss since the Septuagint of that verse doesn’t contain any reference to Anakim.
4. This is premised upon the post hoc tall tale.

Pitterson is asked about Atlantis and replies, “in Genesis you have the same account of angels taking human women as wives giving birth to Nephilim or demigods and then the world is flooded.”

Now, of course, one of the reasons for flooding the world would have been to be rid of Nephilim—even if just because of the general corruption of the times.

Pitterson states:

“…there’s a prophecy in Daniel that says that in the end times they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men. So again, this idea of mingling the seed and that even the Angels who committed this sin, right, like I said, it was a, it was a subset of the fallen Angels who committed this sin of fathering, of marrying, taking human women and fathering the Nephilim.

In the judgment of the flood they weren’t killed, they, the Bible says they were locked in an Abyss. They were dragged down to the Abyss which is in Hell and imprisoned there for millennia. Well, in Revelation they are released. So, they return, the fallen Angels return to Earth and so there will be a second attempt at trying to again mingle our seed corrupt human DNA so I think all this will repeat again uh in in the details of the Book of Revelation.”

I must again punt to a book of mine, this time it’s chapter “Daniel’s ‘They’ and the ‘Seed of Men’” of What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?

Pitterson moved much too fast as he painted a narrative yet, he painted with with a broom. The entire book of Daniel states nothing about Nephilim nor any such thing—he implies that the “they” refers to Angels but there’s no textual indication of that. Daniel was telling us of two people groups that would do business with each other but would not intermarry.

There’s also no indication that “it was a subset of the fallen Angels who committed this sin” since Jude refers to “the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left…” and 2 Peter 2 to “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them…” thus, “the angels…cast them” rather than only some of the Angels.

On a technical note, is was not “dragged down to the Abyss which is in Hell” but rather; into Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) which is in the Abyss (as per the cultural context of Greek mythology).

I agree that “Revelation [chap. 9] they are released” but there’s no indication that there will be “a second attempt…” Rather, we’re told they wreak havoc on Earth, they fight a war in heaven, and end up in what some term hell. Thus, anything beyond this is speculation—and may also imply a loophole that God missed.

Ryan Pitterson was (clumsily) asked, “is there any correlation from Goliath being a Nephilim?”

He replied, “Yeah, absolutely for sure, yeah…he was a descendant of the Anakim who fled to Gath during the wars in Canaan. In the Book of Joshua they said the last of the Anakim fled to Gath which is where Goliath is from. The Anakim, you know, were the descendants of the sons of Anak who the spies saw in Numbers, you know, when most of the 12 spies” made that assertion.

This is another case of the folly of actually believing some of them most reliable people recorded in the Bible since the one and only way for him to correlate Goliath to Nephilim is exclusively via one single verse in the evil report—and, again, he could not do that from the Septuagint.

Thus, this is a non-issue—but at least he was more specific about the spies with that it was “most of the 12.”

Ryan Pitterson notes, “Jesus is called the son of David in the, that’s a, it’s a messianic title, battling a Nephilim right, so, battling an offspring, a half hybrid, fallen Angel offspring so that to me it’s a total foreshadow of Christ versus antichrist.”

Yet, since there’s no correlation between Goliath and Nephilim there’s no such correlation between David fighting Goliath and Jesus “versus” antichrist—except, perhaps, in the loosest of symbolic manners.

Beyond that non-starter, he argues, “the antichrist will be a literal Nephilim, he will be the literal offspring of the Devil. And I think the fallen Angels, again, Daniel says that they’re going to try to mingle their seed with, this, they’re going to try to mingle with the seed of men.”

Here we have the problem of that there’s no indication that the Devil could father genetic/physical offspring even if he wanted to. Recall that he argued that fallen Angels did and will father genetic/physical offspring but the Devil is not an Angel, he’s a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14).

Also, note how specific he is in asserting, “fallen Angels…Daniel says that they’re going to…” but Daniel specifies no such thing.

He was asked, “I want to do a lot of research about the Nephilim…other than maybe your books and, of course, getting the Bible out and starting to read this you’d kind of alluded to earlier, how there’s a lot of misinformation and all that so, other than obviously your books and the Bible where would you point somebody to say, you know, ‘I just gotta learn more’?”

He recommends Michael Heiser: he teaches post-flood Nephilim, but the Bible does not. He also teaches that unclean spirits (demons) are the spirits of dead Nephilim, but that’s folklore from millennia after the Torah was written.

He recommends Gary Stearman: while I’m unsure if he’s published on the subject, I do recall that he taught that Adam and Eve were not naked pre-fall.

He recommends Rob Skiba (R.I.P.) and notes that when he met Rob, he was a “fanboy”: he also taught post-flood Nephilim, that they were very, very tall, giant grapes, etc.

Thus, ironically, reference was made to “a lot of misinformation” and the recommended reading is of some of them men responsible for such misinformation.

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.

This is a podcast review that’s actually titled, “The Bible Project on God Question & Response God, Abraham, Demons, & Giants” but my focus will be the latter subject.

The podcasters are Jon Collins, Tim Mackie, and Bryce Linda.

Tim notes, “the sons of Elohim sleeping with women. And that’s connected to the presence of giants in the biblical world.” This begs the key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

He then states, “The giants are called by many titles in the Old Testament. They are called the Nephilim. They’re also sometimes called the Rephaim. And the Rephaim, was both a name for ancient giants and for the spirits, the deceased life presence of these beings in the underworld, in the grave” and he replies in the affirmative when asked, “So Rephaim is just a synonymous term to the Nephilim?”

This is a basic level category error since Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Of course, this still doesn’t answer question 2—or does it? Stand by.

As for, “Rephaim…a name for ancient giants and for the spirits, the deceased…in the underworld, in the grave” well, that’s based on two things:

1) The root word rapha ranges in meaning/definition or usage from healing to death. Thus, some read it as a reference to the dead and mistakenly apply it to the 100% human Rephaim people groups—see my whole chapter about them in my book, What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

2) Some actually incorporate Pagan mythology into biblical theology—or biblical Rephaology. For the Pagan mythological background, see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.

Tim Mackie continues thusly, “We’re told in the book of Deuteronomy, that the Nephilim are also called the sons of Anak” and, “called them the Rephaim” plus that, “We conquered one of them. Moses did. His name was Og. And he had this gigantic bed, big iron. It’s Deuteronomy 2. Go read it. He says, ‘Big iron bed.’ Moses says, ‘You can still go see it to this day.’ Dude, this is so crazy.”

I would suppose that one reason why Deut wasn’t quoted in support is that it states no such thing. What it does say is that Rephaim had various a.k.a.s by peoples of different regions: it doesn’t say a single word about Nephilim whatsoever.

As for, “the sons of Anak,” the Anakim, they were a clan of the Rephaim tribe.

As for Og: he was a Repha and I assume that his, “gigantic bed” is mentioned as some sort of appeal to his personal size. Yet, that there’s a correlation between the two is based on various assumptions and we don’t have a physical description of Og—a least not until fantastical folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after his death—see my book, The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Jon references, “Nephilim, the half breeds” with Tim chiming in with, “half divine half human…half god half man” and Jon, “they’re connected to these warrior giants” apparently because they’re referred to as, “mighty” in Gen 6.

The way I will put it is that having watered down the very specific concept of, “Nephilim” to, “giants” and, “warriors” allows for that they then can (mis) identify various characters as such. For example, Tim notes, “warrior giants that founded the kingdoms of old. Babylon’s founding legends are about them being founded by these half god half human warrior giants…Gilgamesh was a warrior giant. Nimrod in Genesis 10, is a warrior giant. Totally.”

Yet, Gen 10 doesn’t identify Nimrod as a giant nor as a warrior. He’s identified as a regular guys who became mighty and established kingdoms. Very well then, we may assume that someone who established kingdoms was a warrior but then again, many establishers of kingdoms had their warriors do the warrioring for them and we’ve no physical description of him.

Jon then asserts, “these guys are all over the place, and then Joshua has to fight them.” Now, if they’re consistently referring to biblical Nephilim then absolutely not, there’s not a single reliable data point to back that. Yet, when we’re dealing with name-games such as referring to giants and warriors then the issue becomes much more complex since it’s watered down: did Joshua fight warriors? Sure. Did Joshua fight giants? We’re back to what that word means. Did Joshua fight Nephilim? No. Did Joshua fight Rephaim and Anakim? Yes. Did Josphua fight personages that were taller than the subjective average? Sure but what of it?

Now, Tim Mackie takes a view that, “Genesis 6…is trash talk story against Babylon founding mythology.” That’s a known view in scholarly circles but note that it implies something that’s simply not evidenced: it implies that some form of Genesis existed but it was during one of the dispersals to Babylon that someone decided to inserts trash talk into it and we simple don’t have pre and post manuscripts that show no Gen 6 affair pre and an appearance of it post. For more on this specific issue, see in my, “Appendix: Review of Amar Annus’s On the Origin of Waters” book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?

They then circle back and adds some spice with Tim referring to, “These mutant giants,” Jon stating, “They’re called the Rephaim” and Tim noting, “Eventually, one of their titles is called the Rephaim. And the Giants exist in the Bible to be killed off by just three sets of heroes: by God and the flood, by Joshua in the conquest” but we know by now that all of that is mistaken.

Not surprisingly, reference is made to that, “Michael Heiser has done a lot of this in [his book] ‘Unseen Realm’” well, Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—see these articles for examples:

Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy

Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”

But, again, the problem is being unspecific since Tim notes, “the whole conquest story in Joshua, if you do your homework, they’re targeting the giant clans in Joshua” so, apparently, “giant” claims means Nephilim/Rephaim/Anakim/tall/warrior and well, they were all of those sans Nephilim since they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form—lest God failed and the flood was much of a waste.

Well, Tim notes, “It’s a giant purge,” whatever that means, and emphasizes that it, “makes perfect sense, because it’s God bringing another flood but through Joshua” which, by definition, means that God failed the first time and the actual flood was much of a waste. And there’s still no indication of just how they made it through: one can’t simply assert, especially something as important as this.

He notes, “Goliath is the final ultimate giant” but he was a Repha, not a Nephil: yet, such technical facts inconveniently get int the way of merely asserting that Reaphim is an a.k.a. for Nephilim. Also, as it if matters since we’ve no reliable reason to think that Nephilim were any taller than the subjective average—oooh, I know that debunks virtually all of modern pop-Nephilology: as uber pop-Nephiologist Gary Wayne put it, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.)—the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Flavius Josephus, which is the preponderance of the earliest data, all have him at four cubits and a span, just shy of 7 ft.—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

In keeping with the faulty etymology and Pagan mythology, it’s noted, “they’re divine and human…so the Rephaim becomes a title for evil spiritual presences that live on to terrorize people. These are the beings Jesus is encountering in the Gospels.” Yet, that’s not the case and you can see how it’s not in my article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?

And we can see their error in that Jon noted, “in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Rephaim are described as evil spirits” with Tim supporting that with, “It’s in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 32. They are spiritual beings that are the remnant existence of these warrior mutants of old”: yes, those are references to the dead and to dead warriors and/or kings but what’s missing is the specific correlation to the 100% human Rephaim people group.

As for, “Jesus and his encounter with these demons,” Jon notes, “I just figured it was like the angels that rebelled with the Satan, but they seem different in some way and Tim asks, “But why are they called impure spirits?” and offers the generic reply, “they emerged from the dead corpses of the giant warriors.” Well, that’s too generically vague: the issue is that folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah asserts that the unclean spirits are the spirits of dead Nephilim (which the podcasters watered down to also include Rephaim and giants) but why apply such an assertion to biblical demonology? The texts are namely and mainly Jubilees and the Bible contradicting 1 Enoch: 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.

Jon actually asserts, “Demons or the leftover spirit remains of the half breed giants. Welcome to your Bible” but not so: it’s welcome to late-dated folklore.

Tim and Jon the essentially example why I refer to modern Nephilology as un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales in terms of that Tim notes, “Jesus meets that guy in the graveyard [Legion], it’s a crew of these” to which Jon add, “It’s a battle” and Tim elucidates that the, “military title, legion…Clue you back into Goliath and Og and the Nephilim and all that” with, “all of that” being a perfect way to described how once you water things down enough, you can basically force fit that water into any mold you can imagine—and imagination is all that is going on at this point.

And that essentially brings the podcast to a close.

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.

I thought to relate that the reason that won’t be on an Atheist’s podcast is because the Atheist doesn’t want me on the podcast and here’s why.

Now, since this discussion too place behind the scenes, I won’t divulge who it is nor the name of the podcast.

I simply noted, “I am a Bible believer and have written some contra Atheism books: I wondered if you may be interested in having me on as a guest (not to sell books, just to have a discussion).”

The entirety of the reply was, “No thank you. Not our format.”

I replied, “Appreciate you letting me know. So it is more about Atheists speaking to Atheists about Atheism without being challenged in public?”
The reply began with “Honestly, I recommend you listen to a show before you ask to use someone else’s platform.” Yet, whoever said that formats are written in stone? I thought to nudge them outside of their in-house comfort zone.
The rest of the reply was:
Having you on doesn’t offer us or our listeners anything I find compelling and doesn’t benefit my show since you appear to have limited reach of your own.

That you are unfamiliar with the show and you are still trying to be a guest tells me that your goal here is to use my platform and audience as a shortcut to broadcast your message, and that you are too lazy to bother researching our shows format and style before trying to use our reach for your benefit.
Your books on Amazon have very few reviews, the same is the case for Goodreads. If my reach surpasses yours, you have to offer me something compelling to gift you access to my platform. You didn’t do that.
It’s not that I am concerned about being publicly challenged, it’s that you’re trying to use my public in the absence of your own to do so.
Pass.

I replied:

You jumped to a conclusion of what my goal is based on my limited reach so when you positively affirm that I am trying to use your public in the absence of my own you are playing mind reader.

You are literally claiming to know things you simply do not know–I suspect that is a window into why you converted to Atheism.

How about this: have me on as “Anon” and don’t share my website or any contact info?

I figured that would solve all of the invented problems, right?

Not quite because since I received no reply, I thought to contact them again to, or so it seems to me, pinpoint the one remaining problem, “Well then, I will, sadly, conclude that it is a case of you not wanting your views challenged in public.”

UPDATE:

Now, due to what any reasonable person would just call and “Oopsy!” and move on with their lives: since I have been attempting to have discussions on Atheists’ own shows I looked up any that I could find and did not realize that I accidentally contacted the one in question again. I initially receive a very nice reply of:

At this time, we are not interested.

Thus, I replied as I had done above:

So sorry to hear that.

Out of curiosity: is it a matter of not wanting your worldview challenged in “public.”

Do you know of any likewise shows who may be interested?

Anon:

We already went down this road. We had this exchange the first time I turned you down.

We are not a debate show. It’s not our structure, it’s not an interest of ours.  We don’t do debates. Other people do. We don’t.

Debate is not how scientific questions are tested.   It’s a format that presumes that it is reasonable to choose from one or the other position. I disagree with the premise that debate has value in evaluating scientific claims.

Mostly though, and I want to be very clear here, you, specifically and personally, don’t add any value to our show. You have no reach , no audience.   So far as I can tell, all your press is self generated. You offer nothing I want in exchange for giving you a platform.   I want nothing from you and never will because I don’t value you.

I think an interview with you would bore me and the audience, though I don’t know which would happen first.

You can’t even be bothered to keep track of the fact that I already rejected you a few months ago, which also means you are either lazy or disorganized.

Ken Ammi:

Oh yes, sorry: I’ve been reaching out to so many Atheist shows that I lost track and didn’t realize that, that was you.

Well, it’s too bad since you really need to discuss such issues with someone who can challenge you since, for example, your statements are not only merely asserted jumps to conclusions based on hidden assumptions but this has nothing to do with science.

As for that I don’t add any value, etc. keep in mind that I solved that problem for you by offering to come on the show anonymously and not mentioning my site, etc. so you clearly have other reasons for refusing to engage.

Anon:

We do. And we list them in previous messages.

Perhaps the most important one that you keep intentionally ignoring is that we are not a debate show you daft [a very crude word for a women’s private parts].

Ken Ammi:

Wow, you seem to be exhibiting some psycho-emotional problems.

Well, that was the end of it this time: I would rather be disorganized than being so saturated with hatred that it spills out the side—capiche?

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 What are the angels’ true form? was discussed as follows at the Quora site.

Milan Woodson (self-identified as “Angels studies through the Bible for over two decades”) replied:

The true form of angels is exemplified in the physical human form. But angels are metamorphic, being able to change their appearance, shape or form and size. Naturally they are much larger than stars, so when the visit the earth they normally reduce their size to human size.

The angelic form is of supernatural or superior natural forces and energies, which are beyond physics. Their true form is naturally invisible to physical sight. But they can also transform into visible and tangible form like as a human and vanish instantaneously as well.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Biblically, Angels only ever look just like human males. There’s no indication that they’re “metamorphic, being able to change their appearance, shape or form and size…much larger than stars” nor that they “reduce their size to human size.”

Milan Woodson:

Biblically angels are depicted like human males when they are in the presence of humans. Otherwise they are depicted simply as a human form. There is indication of metamorphic ability. They transform from angelic form into human form. In revelation chapter one, one spirit is said to have held seven stars in one hand and at another time an angel stood on land and sea with his head above the clouds.

At other times angels are depicted in human size. In heaven other angels are depicted as living creatures with four heads and animal features and that of man. Angels also have wings, yet when they transform into human form they do not display wings. All of this indicates that they can change their appearances, shapes and sizes. Shortsightedness and taking things at the surface appearance prevents one from understanding this.

Ken Ammi:

Appreciate the elucidation.

Appealing to Revelation is tricky since so much of it is visionary/symbolic. Jesus is the one who holds the seven stars, not an Angel, and clearly, the stars are symbolic of churches—not that He’s holding celestial objects like the Sun.

The “other angels” who are “In heaven” are not Angels at all, they appear to be Cherubim (see Eze chaps 1 and 10). Likewise, Angels don’t have wings: that’s either Cherubim or Seraphim (see Isa chap 6).

Thus, there’s no indication at all “of metamorphic ability. They transform from angelic form into human form” nor that “they transform into human form.”

Milan Woodson:

Thanks for your reply. But although there is symbolism it also holds true in a literal sense. Whatever God reveals is often true in both a spiritual and literal sense when disclosing something in either sense. What God says in truth, through and through.

Jesus is the Son of God, and the angels are sons of God. They are all naturally much larger in form than humans, even planets and stars in the spirit realm, for they can transform both their size and appearances.

Actually, cherubim and seraphim are ranks of angels. Cherubim are royal guardians and seraphim are royal attendants of God. All angels have wings and fly. While the common angels are messengers with two wings, cherubim have two wings but form four when they merge into one as one of the four living creatures. Seraphim have six wings but when they merge as one of four living creatures they maintain six wings.

There indication of metamorphism throughout the scriptures in plain sight which can easily be overlooked or pass over one’s head. First, angels can transform into a single living creature by merging with one another and produce more wings than each individual may have, with multiple eyes because of the merger of so many. Second, angels can transform into human form. Third, angels can be as small as a human, a giant on earth or even larger than solar systems, to hold several stars in one hand. Angels do more than most realize, for most simply take things at face value as is written and do not see the hidden information right before there eyes.

Ken Ammi:

Thanks for your reply as well.

Now, the issue was “There’s no indication that they’re ‘…able to change their appearance, shape or form and size…much larger than stars’ nor that they ‘reduce their size to human size.’”

So, replying by merely repeating an assertion will only lead to me stating that, again, there’s no indication that “They are all naturally much larger in form than humans…they can transform both their size and appearances.”

Since Cherubim and Seraphim aren’t Angels, how could they be ranks of Angels?

Also, “common angels are messengers” but there’s no indication they have “two wings.”

Also, “cherubim have” four, as you note, but never described as having “two wings.”

There’s also no indication that “angels can transform into human form.”

I already noted that you are misunderstanding the issue of holding stars.

Milan Woodson:

You say: “There’s no indication that they’re ‘…able to change their appearance, shape or form and size…much larger than stars’ nor that they ‘reduce their size to human size.”

The Scriptures indicate.

TRANSFORMING APPEARANCE.

“Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.” 2Co 11:14

TRANSFORMING SIZE.

Tall enough to have a cloud around him, to have his head under a rainbow and the have one foot on the sea and the other on the surface of the earth.

“like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus.” Ga 4:14

“he had in his right hand seven stars” Re 1:16

(Likely Jesus as a spirit, was participating in the vision from space about a seven star group, likely the Pleiades. Jesus was not on earth nor in heaven when John got a vision of heaven. Hence, Jesus must have been in space. Re 5:2, 3

His one hand could span a seven group of stars, which are light years apart from one another.)

“angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as the sun…set his right foot upon the sea, but his left foot upon the earth.” Re 10:1, 2

At other times they take on human size, the size of men.

“he looked and there were three men…the men got on their way to Sodom” Ge 18:2, 22

“Now the two angels arrived in Sodom by evening” Ge 19:1

You say: Since Cherubim and Seraphim aren’t Angels, how could they be ranks of Angels?

The Scriptures reveal that angels are spirits and public ministers of and for God.

“Making his angels spirits, his ministers a devouring fire.” Ps 104:4

To say cherubim and seraphim are not angels is a an assumption and presumptuous statement without any proof behind it.

God is orderly and has his angels in order.

“God is a God, not of disorder” 1Co 14:33

All his angels make up his heavenly army. Armies have ranks in its membership with different positions and roles.

“Praise him, all you his angels. Praise him, all you his army.” Ps 148:2

Archangel, means chief or principal angel. Yet, the archangel is still an angel. He is also the Prince of the heavenly army of other angels. Hence, archangel is a title of and rank of angel. Therefore, there are ranks and positions of angels, with titles.

“Michael the archangel” Jude 9

The archangel is also…

“the Prince of the army” Da 8:11

Michael, one of the foremost princes” Da 10:13

“the Prince of princes” Da 8:25

Hence, there are angels that serve as princes, that sit on thrones. Da 7:9, 10; Re 4:4, 9–11

You say: there’s no indication they have “two wings.”

The Scriptures reveal that individual cherubim have two wings

“the cherubs must spread out their two wings” Ex 25:20

You say: Also, “cherubim have” four, as you note, but never described as having “two wings.”

The Scriptures early on reveal, as noted above, that individual cherubim have two wings. But a conglomerate of merged cherubim manifests four wings. The Scriptures call this formation of angels as a living creature.

“the living creature…were cherubs…each one had four wings” Eze 10:20, 21

While individual seraphim have six wings, a merger of seraphim as a living creature still has six wings.

“Seraphs…Each one had six wings” Is 6:2, 3

“around the thrown there are four living creatures…each one respectively has six wings” Re 4:6, 8

Angels, transform and have different ranks and positions. Those that have higher rank than messenger are often called by their rank when being specifically considered. Otherwise they are all angels just as all are humans, although we hold different ranks and positions. Saying a cherubim and seraphim is not an angel is like saying a security guard and a court attendant are not humans or men just because they are not called that but by their title.

The Scriptures are where the answers are found.

Ken Ammi:

Most interesting, I love it!

Please be mindful to never base a view on just one verse.

For example, you should have quoted 2 Co 11 vss. 13-15 which would have made it clear that what you quote as Satan “transforming himself” does not refer to shapeshifting. It goes on to say, “Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works” regarding what it began by noting which are humans who were “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” and humans don’t shapeshift.

That was about Satan pretending to be a messenger of God.

It also won’t help when you make a claim, I shows you how it’s mistaken, and you just repeat the claim.

FYI: atop certain mountains at certain times of the day or during certain whether phenomena any of us can “have a cloud around him” so this is not about being “Tall” since there are a lot of times when clouds are low-hanging.

Also, by definition everyone on Earth has “his head under a rainbow” after certain rains since the rainbow is above us.

And I’ve been to many beaches and rivers and have had “one foot on the sea and the other on the surface of the earth.”

But more specifically, the verse you quote elucidates it for us, “angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head” so he was tall enough to reach the sky but was coming down from the sky, “and his face was as the sun,” “as” is but not near it, “set his right foot upon the sea, but his left foot upon the earth” just like you can do any time at any waterfront.

Again, don’t just read one single verse, Re 1:16, and invent a “Likely” story about “the vision from space” but keep reading to find out that the stars are symbolic of churches and/or the Angels watching over those churches.

It’s a matter of categorization and the law of identify that, by definition, Cherubim and Seraphim aren’t Angels and so aren’t ranks of Angels.

The proof behind it is that we are never told that they are Angels and that Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim have different job titles, different job functions, and look different from one another. In fact, why argue that Cherubim and Seraphim are Angles rather than that Angels and Seraphim are Cherubim or that Angles and and Seraphim are Cherubim?

Also, there’s no indication that “angels are spirits”: the one single version of Ps 104:4 should have read, according to the context, that they are “winds” as many versions right have it: Psalm 104:4 – Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20104:4)

So, the ranks are Seraphim, Cherubim, Archangel, and regular Angels—not necessarily in that order.

Just because Michael is “one of the foremost princes” doesn’t mean he sits on a throne.

I have no idea what version you’re quoting that states, “the cherubs must spread out their two wings.”

There’s no indication that “Angels, transform and have different ranks and positions” since, for example, we’re never told that Michael sometimes is and sometimes is not the Archangel nor that a regular Angel ever becomes an Archangel.

It’s not the case that “Saying a cherubim and seraphim is not an angel is like saying a security guard and a court attendant are not humans or men just because they are not called that but by their title.”

Rather, it’s saying both a security guard and a court attendant are humans but have different job titles and functions.

Likewise, Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim are all creations of God meant to serve Him but are different categories of being.

And that was all since no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

There are, sad, reasons why I coined the term Gigorexia Nervosa which I defined as an obsession with seeing giants and just making up tall tales where there are none to be seen.

In this case, during our debate Gary Wayne made a very specific claim, “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody—that’s what the Bible says.”

Think for a moment, or look it up now, what the Bible does and does not say in this regard. The claim was that what “the Bible says” is that “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody.”

Well, I chimed in thusly, “It doesn’t say he was selected because he was taller, it says he was selected and points out that he was tall, there’s no statement that he’s selected because of his height, that’s not there.”

Wayne replied, “They wanted to have a king like the other nations, right?”

Now, this is accurate so I noted, “Because the other nations had kings and they didn’t so they wanted a king.”

He replied, “They wanted to have a king like other nations and he was a head taller, right? Okay so, they didn’t call him a giant though. They did not. But, they wanted to have a king like the other ones not only in a monarchy but somebody who was a warrior-like, which Saul, was a warrior-king. Just as David was, but they were happy to have somebody that was, you know, a little taller so that he would lead them, but they didn’t call him a giant.”

He replied, “They wanted to have a king like other nations and he was a head taller, right? Okay so, they didn’t call him a giant though. They did not. But, they wanted to have a king like the other ones not only in a monarchy but somebody who was a warrior-like, which Saul, was a warrior-king. Just as David was, but they were happy to have somebody that was, you know, a little taller so that he would lead them, but they didn’t call him a giant.”

Note that what we didn’t get from that counter-argument is that “the Bible says” that “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody.” Rather, when called on it we got the watered down version, “he was a head taller…who was a warrior-like…a little taller.”

This is refocusing on what the text actually stated and is where our focus should remain—or, quickly return.

Now, if “They wanted to have a king like other nations… a head taller” that implies, and asserts, that the other nations had such tall kings—with “tall” being a subjective term—but we’ve no such data. Thus, his premise is faulty.

But let’s grant it: other nations had kings that were a head taller than the subjective average, what of it?

But perhaps we should first ask exactly which “other nations,” plural, had kings that were, “a head taller?”

Well, to Gary Wayne subjectively unusual height (even if slightly unusual?) has something to do with Nephilim—even though he admits he doesn’t know how “big” they were—with “big” being a subjective term—and yet, still insists of calling them “giants”—with “giants” being a subjective term—so that he ponders how “giants” returned after the flood even whilst admitting the last of the Nephilim died in the flood.

Now, if “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody—that’s what the Bible says” but the case is that he was a “warrior-like…warrior-king” why was David not a head taller than the average Israelite (who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.), nor Solomon nor, apparently, any other Israelite king?

That “they didn’t call him a giant…they didn’t call him a giant” is interesting because if they did then what word/term or phrase would they have used?

I don’t mean which modern vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English word we would use but they would use?

“Nephilim” doesn’t mean nor imply subjectively unusual height.

“Rephaim” doesn’t mean nor imply subjectively unusual height.

“Gibborim,” if you’re reading the LXX, doesn’t mean nor imply subjectively unusual height.

So, they would have said what’s translated as “tall” or “great height”—with both of those being subjective, of course.

But still, we’ve no indication that such was an issue at all.

We know why it was specified that Saul was taller than average but there’s no reason to think that “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody” and can certainly and specifically know that “that’s” not “what the Bible says.”

One of my concerns about such assertions is that if I had not been there to counter-argue, then some would have uncritically, without double checking, simply believed that the Bible says something that it never does.

I give Gary Wayne lots of credit for being willing to debate since, as far as I know, he’s the only pop-researchers of Nephilology, giantology, etc., who was willing to do so.

TJ Steadman was willing as well but he’s not very pop—and he made the same argument as Wayne so if you want to see the relevant texts regarding this issue, I quoted them in the article TJ Steadman on Saul as a king like unto the “Giant” Rephaim kings.

Now, ask yourself why if, say, you get on YouTube and search for “Christian debate” you’ll encounter Christians debating many, many, many subjects except that the only one, as far as I know, featuring a pop-researchers of Nephilology, giantology, etc. will be Wayne.

Where are the ones, the many, featuring pop-researchers whose entire “ministries,” livelihood, and popularity, are based on Nephilology, giantology, etc. defending their views, having them challenged—not just their lectures, videos, and interviews were they are merely given to assert whatever they want in an unchallenged matter?

I can only tell you from experience of having contacted such pop-researchers that they want nothing to do with it and if they discern that you may want to challenge them they, suddenly, just stop replying.

This has to change.

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.

Internal Critique refers to critiquing a worldview (philosophy, idea, etc.) from within, internally, based on its own standards.

Yet, is this even actually possible?

For example, I’ve internally critiqued Atheism many, many, many times in order to show how it fails before it even begins.

Yet, I can’t actually do that from within since it contains no premise upon which to even be concerned about whether or not it fails, at any stage for that matter.

Thus, an internal critique always, or will tend to, contain a foreign substance, a premise that one brings with them so that the internal critique is not necessarily 100% internal.

The very premise of internal critique implies setting out to critique from within so that the concept of critiquing comes with the territory, comes into the exercise.

When I debated Skylar Fiction, I did a lot of internal critique so as to show him the Atheist bed he had made and in order to see if he would sleep in it. Yet, that one ought to sleep in the bed one has made is premised on consistency as a universal imperative but Atheism lacks any and all universal imperatives.

This is why Atheists are always consistently inconsistent—although I will say that TJump aka Tom Jump was very, very consistent when I noted to him that on Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others adhere to it.

TJum ended up agreeing with me and took the fallback position that it all comes down to having fun based on subjective personal preferences du jour.

Now, Skylar Fiction is an exclusivist moral relativist/subjectivist but not long after our debate, he debated someone else about the evils of some events recorded in the Old Testament.

See what I mean about lack of consistency? An exclusivist moral relativist/subjectivist (pseudo) condemning anything is incoherent—good thing, for him, that being coherent is not a universal imperative, on Atheism.

He did so by beginning the debate by stating that for the debate he was granting “objective morals.”

Now, it’s one thing to do an internal critique, especially temporarily (for the duration of the critique) but it’s a wholly other thing to literally abandon one’s worldview at the get-go and argue against another worldview via that other worldview’s views and never appeal to one’s own again.

In other words, since internally there’s no way to condemn the debated some events recorded in the Old Testament then he couldn’t condemn them regardless. Thus, he lost the debate from the get-go and did so on various levels.

See, if he were to say that, say, the conquering of Canaan narratives contradict the concept of an all-loving God then 1. he can’t argue that because such is not the case, internally 2. nor can he argue that based on his own exclusivist moral relativist/subjectivist. Thus, he failed regardless—in typical manner, he merely emoted (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).

Now, back to the specific point about internal critiques: it’s like trying on someone else’s glove which you can put on and move around but it’s your hand doing the moving.

When I internally critique Atheism, for example, I’m bringing into my internal critique my worldview according to which reality is purposeful, as is our ability to discern it, there’s a universal imperative to adhere to it, and to demand/expect others to do so as well. Thus, when I point out Skylar Fiction’s failure that is as per my worldview that I snuck into his because strictly within his, there’s no premise upon which to condemn well, anything at all—not even logical inconsistencies such as contradictions.

In his book Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton noted the following about literally insane people “The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory” meaning that their explanations are internally consistent.

He goes on to write, “Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable” since it is internally consistent.

He continue directly with, “this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do” which is internally consistent since, “His explanation covers the facts as much as yours.”

Moreover, he continues thusly, “Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s.”

He concludes, “A madman is not someone who has lost his reason but someone who has lost everything but his reason” which is the case since it can be said that the madman’s worldview is internally consistent to one cannot claim there’s anything wrong with it strictly from within.

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 assertion was discussed due to the Quora site question, Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?

Charles Fiott (whose self-description is, “studied The Bible”) replied:

Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?

The Bible is not history. It’s mythology. So if we were “biblical humans” we would not be real humans. We would be mythological characters just like Noah.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Friend, that “The Bible is not history. It’s mythology…would not be real humans…mythological characters” is just a list of assertion, they are positive affirmations so you must prove them.

Charles Fiott:

Friend, the Bible is not history. Neither is the Quran. Or Bhagavad Gita. or any other scripture. That’s by definition.

Ken Ammi:

How is doubling down on positive affirmations without proof any sort of intellectual reply? BTW: I don’t accept your self-appointed (pseudo) authority to merely assert, “That’s by definition” as a manner whereby to escape the fact that you have no proof?

Charles Fiott:

You can be as malcontent as you want to be about it, Ken, but you are not going to find Noah or any other pre-Davidian character of the Bible in any modern history book.

Ken Ammi:

So then you’ve surveyed every modern history book (of course, you’re merely asserting that modern history books are the standard)?

But you’re just punting: how is tripling down on positive affirmations without proof any sort of intellectual reply?

BTW: I don’t accept your self-appointed (pseudo) authority to merely assert, “That’s by definition” as a manner whereby to escape the fact that you have no proof?

Charles Fiott:

Here are a few things you should know, Ken, if you want to make this meaningful. Modern historians, like modern scientists, are peer-reviewed. People can’t write whatever their imagination tells them to any more. They have to keep notes and references and prove that they have the necessary evidence and documents before they publish anything.

In ancient times it wasn’t like that. Josephus could write anything he wanted with little or no scrutiny. Same for the biblical writers. The unknown authors of the gospels could say that Jesus said this and Jesus did that without any evidence or documentation or witnesses or anything.

So I am not asserting my own authority. I am asserting the authority of serious, responsible historicity as opposed to the quackery of the Bible

If you think I am incorrect when I say that Noah is a mythological character and the great flood is a myth, you have to provide evidence. You have to provide facts. Without those, your opinion means absolutely nothing.

The only thing factual about the myth of Noah is that it was copied from Gilgamesh.

Ken Ammi:

Well, that caricature of peer-reviewed is clearly idealistic. I’d love to believe it but there are some very, very well known problems with anything put into human hands such as schools of thought biasedly ruling journals as gate-keepers.

As for “without any evidence or documentation or witnesses or anything”: you’re just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative but how so, on your worldview?

Also, how are the documents nor documentations? And they do appeal to many witnesses.

I’ve had discussions with various secular history professors who utterly debunk the typical pseudo-historical methods of people who, contextually, say thing such as, “quackery of the Bible.”

You don’t get to just make a positive affirmation and then ask me to prove you wrong, you made the positive affirmation and now realize you can’t prove it so, a best practice is to stop positively affirming things you can’t prove.

You also demand, “You have to provide facts” but as a merely asserted jump to a conclusion based on hidden assumptions so how and why, on your worldview?

As for “The only thing factual about the myth of Noah is that it was copied from Gilgamesh” have you ever done any reading on that subject on a scholarly level? Besides, that’s just a genetic logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism).

Charles Fiott:

Jesus once reportedly said, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast. I think this applies to you, Ken. You find fault with serious, peer-reviewed, documented histories based on evidence and written by qualified people while accepting without question totally unproven writings by uncertified, mostly anonymous iron-age and first-century authors! You don’t see anything wrong with this picture?

That said, I will answer all your questions.

Question. As for “without any evidence or documentation or witnesses or anything”: you’re just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative but how so, on your worldview?

Answer. That IS actually a universal imperative, yes. All judicial systems around the world are based on evidence and witnesses. Are you saying that all courts are wrong?

Question. You also demand, “You have to provide facts” but as a merely asserted jump to a conclusion based on hidden assumptions so how and why, on your worldview?

Answer. You like the word “worldview,” don’t you? I like facts because facts matter and beliefs don’t.

Question: As for “The only thing factual about the myth of Noah is that it was copied from Gilgamesh” have you ever done any reading on that subject on a scholarly level?

Answer. Yes. And you can too. You can go to the British Museum to see the original Tablet XI of Gilgamesh for yourself or you can go online like I did and compare that tablet with the biblical version.

Further to what you wrote, I did not ask you to prove me wrong. I asked you to prove yourself right. If you can prove that Noah existed, I will accept him as history. Otherwise he will stay in mythology where he was created in the first place

Ken Ammi:

Yes, I see plenty wrong with that picture?

1. Friend, you don’t know nearly enough about me to merely assert that I “find fault with serious, peer-reviewed, documented histories based on evidence and written by qualified people” as if they’re omniscient and infallible, BTW, “while accepting without question totally unproven writings by uncertified, mostly anonymous iron-age and first-century authors!”
2. You refer to “unproven” but haven’t bothered to establish how, on Atheism, 2.a. there’s a universal imperative to prove anything nor 2.b. there’s a universal imperative to only base our views on what has been proved.
3. “uncertified” yet, God inspiring them certifies them.
4. “mostly anonymous” a pseudo-standard that even secular historians would correct you on—believe me, I’ve interacted with a bunch of them.
5. “iron-age and first-century authors”: genetic logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism).

Note that you doubled down on “just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative” by merely punting in the style of well, someone else does it so it must be okay, “All judicial systems around the world are based on evidence and witnesses” which does nothing counter the fact that you are “just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative” but only provides more evidence for it.

No, you are missing the point: this is not about me “saying that all courts are wrong?” but asking you about your worldview.

Most excellent reply that hits the utter Atheist subjectivism nail on the head, “I like facts because facts,” which are accidental on your worldview, as a subjective personal preference du jour.

You then say that you hold to that subjective personal preference du jour because accidental facts “matter and beliefs don’t” so it’s your belief that beliefs don’t matter. But when you refer to “matter” you do so as an assertion without a premise or conclusions: matters how, why, as per what, to what, etc.?

As a shortcut on what I meant by “have you ever done any reading on that subject on a scholarly level?” please see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZZzuweVEs

Another fascinating window into that you recognize, at some level, your collapsed word view is that you say “I asked” regarding “you to prove yourself right” since you know you can’t say it’s incumbent upon me, can’t say there’s a universal imperative for me to do so, I ought, I must, etc. It’s just another subjective personal preference, “I asked.”

Now, as for “prove that Noah existed” how do you suppose one would go about to “prove” (not evidence) that?

Charles Fiott:

All that is irrelevant, Ken. You complain a lot, but you have no argument. My comment was very short — so short that I will repeat it in full for you: The Bible is not history. It’s mythology. So if we were “biblical humans” we would not be real humans. We would be mythological characters just like Noah. That’s all I said. And it’s true. The Bible was written by iron-age religious solicitors, and that makes it a mythology, by definition. If you can’t understand that simple fact, get a dictionary. History, on the other hand, is written by qualified, accredited, peer-reviewed historians — not by uninformed malcontents like you. Grow up.

[This following comment displays thusly to me when I view the Quora page, “This content has been deleted and is only visible to you.”]

Ken Ammi:

So, just so that I understand, every point that utterly devastated your worldview and M.O. are irrelevant?

Indeed, you merely asserted a bunch of stuff and when called on it, can only make vague appeals to generic historians.

Lesson learned: when you can’t back your positive affirmations, just don’t make them.

And that “History…is written by qualified, accredited, peer-reviewed historians” is shockingly myopically ill-informed.

Charles Fiott:

Ken, I removed your latest comment because, again, you are neither addressing the question nor my answer. You’re just talking nonsense.

Ken Ammi:

So, you’re running away from your inability to reply by becoming a censor. Well, that’s okay I have a copy of this entire discussion on my computer and will post it on my website in whole.

BTW, “just talking nonsense” is a mere assertion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that with pointed comment, it was done since no replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

The subject question actually came from a slightly more detailed one from the Quora site Do atheists separate themselves from other atheists in their forms of atheism as far as motive is concerned?

A certain Nev Anderson replied:

“Do atheists separate themselves from other atheists in their forms of atheism as far as motive is concerned?”

Simple rule, when religions assert anything to their own benefit, it is guaranteed to be WRONG.

Atheism is a word that relates a Non Belief in gods.

Like the word Tall, it has one association, and does not define any individual.

The test for Atheism is: “Do you believe in gods?”.

The answer “No” equates to Atheist status.

How many forms of Atheism arise from the word “No” ?

Atheists do not tend to gather as Atheists, just as Non Golf Players do not gather together. There is no incentive to do so.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Your simple rule is not only based on merely asserting implied hidden assumptions but is a form of the genetic logical fallacy (which, I realize, does not matter on Atheism).

Also, that “Atheism is a word that relates a Non Belief in gods” is myopic since the other Atheist denomination would insist that Atheism is a word that relates a positively affirming God’s non-existence. Thus, there are two main forms and various sects.

Friend, that you actually assert, “Atheists do not tend to gather as Atheists” means you are shockingly unaware of Skeption, Reason Rally, Humanist “churches,” and many other Atheist celebrity events, lectures, etc., etc., etc.

As for “There is no incentive to do so” sure there is, for example the basic Atheist modus operandi which is that Atheism is essentially an anti-Christian support group.

Sarah Dillon replied:

As atheists don’t believe in any gods (just one more than the number you don’t believe in), I struggle to see why you think they’d be actively against just one of the many religions.

Ken Ammi:

Odd, it seems that there’s no way to reply to your reply so I’m attempting a reply by replying to your original comment again.

I’m unsure what “atheists don’t believe in any gods” has to do with what I wrote but that “the basic Atheist modus operandi which is that Atheism is essentially an anti-Christian support group” is just a fact (not that facts matter on Atheism).

Well, that was that since neither one ever relied.

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.