May 2024 – Page 3 – TrueFreeThinker

The Limited Times on Evidence of the existence of the Nephilim, the giants from the Bible, was found in the Golan Heights?

Undergoing consideration is the article by The Limited Times site titled Evidence of the existence of the Nephilim, the giants from the Bible, was found in the Golan Heights? – Voila!

Upfront, we’re told “Evidence of the existence of the Nephilim, the giants from the Bible, was found in the Golan Heights.”

Now, the phrase “Nephilim, the 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?

To one of the sentences in the article, I will add a much needed qualifier by having it begin with a rare few and incoherently inaccurate, “Believers argue that these giants were real and that their descendants may have survived for long by intermingling with human populations.” Yet, perhaps the first question should be, “survived” what? If the flood is meant then that contradicts the Bible five times: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper. Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.

This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times.

I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

Also, Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.

Supposedly, “alleged discoveries and strange findings” led to that an, “investigation was opened here in the Golan Heights.”

Now, we get a taste of the answer to the second key question via this statement, “In ancient times there were stories about huge creatures called the Nephilim” but while there were some such tales in, “ancient” times we must keep in mind that the term ancient is vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage. That’s because they may be ancient to us today but they are still from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah.

Yet, that’s with the exception that the Torah itself, in Num 13:33 which may have been the beginning of mere tall-tales about Nephilim being, “huge” (which is also vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage) since it merely records an, “evil report” by some unreliable guys whom God rebuked: see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

We’re told, “stories of the fallen giants came from ancient myths and religious texts. One known mention is found in the book of Genesis (chapter 6, verse 4).” Yet, that’s incoherent since there’s no reference to the article’s misusage of, “giants” which is in terms of, “huge” in that text. Such is why we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim, the only one we have is in the unreliable evil report ergo, we don’t have one.

Yet, it’s merely asserted (via a quotations merely of, “sons of God” from the text) that what I term the Genesis 6 affair, “resulted in the birth of powerful beings of unusual size or shape known as the Nephilim” but again, that’s a mere assertion.

Yet, we’re told, “according to what is told in Genesis and some of the midrashi[m] of the Sages if we accept the description literally, were angels or the offspring of a marriage of the sons of God or angels with human daughters. In the midrashim and the external books written in the days of the Second Temple, the Nephilim are identified with the angels who betrayed God, violated their duty and were banished or descended to the earth.”

I have a feeling that the article was spat out of an AI word generator farm.

Midrashim are not strict Bible commentaries but are sermonizing homiles. Also, the range widely in terms of when they were written, from centuries to millennia after the Torah, so lack of citations doesn’t help.

To get a taste of the Midrashic folklore, “Other midrashim describe the Nephilim as legendary creatures, each of whom required a thousand camels, a thousand horses and a thousand oxen to satisfy his mighty hunger, and when God decided to destroy the earth with a flood, the Nephilim tried to show their strength in a form of defiance towards God, they sent their hands to heaven and tried to block the chimneys of heaven and with their feet to plug the abysses, but God boiled the water and threw them away.”

We then move on to that, “people wonder if the blood of these ancient giants continues to exist…their descendants may have survived for long by intermingling…with these descendants likely also inheriting unique traits from their giant ancestors.” And with that bit of illogical, ill-biological, and ill-theological assertion in place, we are quickly moved on to 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” (with, “large” also being vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage).

Then comes the purpose of the vague and generic article, the sales pitch, “The docu-series of The Inspiration Networks, a religious family entertainment network, called Angels & Giants, The Watchers & Nephilim…includes four hour-long episodes that are a serious investigation of the theories in question.”

“Rudy Landa, executive producer and director” noted, “The Bible describes the Nephilim in several places” which is quite accurate—if, that is, “several” refers to two and, “places” refers to mere verses.

He also referenced, “Nephilim, a race of giants” so, here we go again, 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 Landa usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

For support, “He enlisted the help of author Douglas Van Doren [“Dorn,” actually], who had just written a book on the subject, to guide the project.” Please see my articles:

Review of Paul “Dr. Reluctant” Henebury’s review of Douglas Van Dorn’s book “Giants: Sons of the Gods”

And:

My review of Zachary Garris’ review of Douglas Van Dorn’s book “Giants Sons of the Gods”

For Landa’s oddly and extremely specific assertion, “It makes sense to start in Israel, in the place where the story of the Nephilim began – and that is in the Golan” we’re told that, “Book of Hanuch [“Enoch”?] 1, an apocryphal source from the second century BC…describes the Nephilim and claims that the name of Mount Hermon…According to the book of Enoch 1, the Nephilim were expelled from heaven and sent to Mount Hermon. The area, known as Bashan, is The place where King Og came out against the Israelites when they entered the Promised Land.”

1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah (“second century BC,” see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch) and Og has nothing to do with any of this since he was a Repha, not a Nephil, and was born centuries post-flood.

Yet, we’re told, “the Gemara teaches that Og, king of Bashan, was alive during Noah’s time but escaped the flood by clinging to the side of the ark using a ladder.” Well, that refers to the Talmud Bavli, the Babylonian Talmud which was put into writing 300-500 AD, it anachronistically has Og being alive centuries before he was born and has him surviving the flood which, again, contradicts the Bible five times—oh, and it has Noah contradicting’s God’s purpose for the flood.

We’re told, “Landa’s search for the truth led him to Gilgal Rafaim (Wheel of the Giants)” and we can see the name-games being played as, “Rafaim” is typically transliterated as, “Rephaim” it’s then merely rendered as, “Giants” and it has nothing to do with, “Nephilim”—but wait, there’s more!!! Landa decides to term it a, “ghost wheel” since, apparently, that’s sexier.

We are also told, “Og also appears in Deuteronomy 3, verse 11, as the only person left from the ghosts” whatever on Earth that incoherent assertion is supposed to mean. Well, okay, I know to what it refers: since according to Pagan mythology, the Ugaritic equivalent of Repahim were long dead kings and heroes who could be summoned from the grave to appear at rituals then some are so utterly fascinated with the un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales of which modern Nephilology consists that they are willing to actually incorporate Pagan mythology into biblical theology—or, Nephilology, or Rephaology, etc.

We are also told, “A rough estimate of Og’s size can be made based on reference to the size of his bed” but note that we don’t have a physical description of him (not until wild folklore from millennia after his time) that we can reckon it via his, “bed” is based on various assumptions, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

So, Nephilim or Rephaim or giant or ghost—it’s all under the big top folks, hurry, hurry, step right up!!!

See my various books here.

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

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

Review of Randal Rauser’s: The Problem of Canaanite Genocide and Michael Heiser’s Solution

Randal Rauser (“a systematic and analytic theologian of evangelical persuasion…BA (Trinity Western University) and an MCS (Regent College)”) posted an article titled The Problem of Canaanite Genocide and Michael Heiser’s Solution which begins by noting that since his book, “Jesus Loves Canaanites was released, I have been asked on several occasions about Michael Heiser’s claim that the Canaanite conquest should be viewed as an attempt to eradicate subhuman descendents of the nephilim.”

Now, the bottom line of Rauser theses in Jesus Loves Canaanites is that such instances of conquering aren’t Christ-like so they didn’t happen. It’s basically a world-class text-book classic case of hyper-eisegesis (reading one’s preconceived notions into texts).

Ergo, he takes issue with the exegetical (letting texts speak for themselves) and with Heiser’s view which is actually also a case of eisegesis.

As my recent readers will know from my article Review of Micheal Heier’s “The Giant Clans and the Conquest”, Michael Heiser argued as follows (and as Rauser quotes it):

My view is that it wasn’t indiscriminate at all, and that wholesale genocide wasn’t the point of the conquest. Rather, the command of to “devote to destruction” (herem/kherem) was focused on the giant clans (denoted by words like Anakim, Rephaim, and, occasionally, Amorites).

That is, I believe the rationale for the herem was to eliminate the Anakim, the vestiges of the nephilim (.Num 13:32-33), since those peoples were perceived to be (and were, in some way, according to the OT) raised up by rival gods hostile to Yahweh (and thus their own purpose was to prevent Yahweh’s people from kickstarting the kingdom of God on earth).

Other people were certainly killed, since the giant clans were scattered among the general population, but I contend the conquest rationale was framed by the urgency to eliminate the nephilim bloodlines.

This is textbook “mythic history” (actual historical events framed by, and articulated in light of, theological rationale / beliefs).

Rauser’s view is that Heiser’s view is, “a genocide sourced in ontological inferiority” since it’s a case of that it’s a-okay because they weren’t fully human. Ergo, this comes down to, “what evidence is there that the Canaanites were subhuman and dangerous descendents of the Nephilim?”

His first point only causes problems, “I am aware of no fossil evidence from paleoanthropology to support the claim that there was a large group of subhuman giants living in the midst of Homo sapiens in the Near East.” That is a jump to a merely asserted vague conclusion.

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

Do those two usages agree?

The same could be asked of Heiser (and I asked—and answered—in my article about him). We don’t get an answer from Rauser so I will infer that he implies something to do with subjectively unusual height of some or another level.

Ergo, the answer to the third question is, “No.” That is because the answer to the first one is that it is merely rendering (note even translating) “Nephilim” in two verses and “Repha/im” in 98% of all other instances—and never even hints at anything to do with height whatsoever.

Thus, biblically contextually, “group of subhuman giants” would read as, “group of subhuman Nephilim.” The problem with that, for Randal Rauser’s argument, is that it would mean that he’s unaware of fossil evidence of personages whom we could not identify from such evidence since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim and so no reason to assume they were taller than the subjective average (with the additional problem of how much taller if we even grant that).

He also argue, “the Canaanites could clearly procreate with Homo sapiens…That would certainly support the conclusion that they were human beings.” Yet, that is a non-issue since Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”

Jude correlates the sin of Angels to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

Also, 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.

He also notes, “descendents of the Canaanites live today throughout the Near East and they are definitely human. Just look at their DNA.” Thus, part of his point is that, “Human beings have a long history of dehumanizing human out-group populations and seeking to justify that dehumanization by attributing to the out-group a range of circumstantial factors” such as, “ontological factors (e.g. ‘They are less than human!’).”

He is correct on this point and how it ties in with Heiser’s assertions. Those who appeal to the not fully human angle in order to defend God from ethical charges make thing doubly worse: they first deny what the biblical texts actually say, they invent things they don’t say, and those whom they seek to convince that God’s not a bad guy can suss it out and end up (flaccidly) condemning God and the person to misrepresented Him.

See my various books here.

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

Review of Micheal Heiser’s “The Giant Clans and the Conquest”

Dr. Michael Heiser wrote a post for one of his websites that was titled The Giant Clans and the Conquest.

He sought to tackle the accusation of, “that the Israelite conquest was an indiscriminate genocide of the inhabitants of Canaan.” His solution is that, “it wasn’t indiscriminate at all, and that wholesale genocide wasn’t the point of the conquest. Rather, the command of to ‘devote to destruction’ (ḥerem/kherem) was focused on the giant clans (denoted by words like Anakim, Rephaim, and, occasionally, Amorites).”

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

The answer to the last question is no.

That is because the answer to the first one is that it is merely rendering (note even translating) “Nephilim” in two verses and “Repha/im” in 98% of all other instances—and never even hints at anything to do with height whatsoever.

The answer to the second is that Heiser watered down that term and thus, mashed together people groups that actually are not related.

The, “ḥerem/kherem” issue led me to write a whole chapter just about that for my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

We get a few answers to the second one beginning with “giant clans (denoted by words like Anakim, Rephaim, and, occasionally, Amorites)” but while Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe, and so were Rephaim by definition, Amorites are unrelated to them and so were not “giant clans” given the biblical usage that would have that read as, “Rephaim clans.”

Moreover, Heiser continued directly with, “the rationale for the ḥerem was to eliminate the Anakim, the vestiges of the nephilim (Num 13:32-33), since those peoples were perceived to be (and were, in some way, according to the OT) raised up by rival gods hostile to Yahweh…”

The assertion of a relation between Nephilim and Anakim is an assertion despite a two verse citation since 1) he did not note that he is exclusively appealing to once sentence, v. 33, from an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked and 2) he did not note that he is exclusively appealing to non-LXX versions since the LXX lacks any reference to Anakim even within the fear-mongering, scare-tactic, tall-tale evil report.

Moreover, what is created by the evil report is the problem of how Nephilim, by any other alleged name, made it past the flood, past God?

Heiser opted to assert a local, regional, flood rather than global yet, the scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

Also, we have five biblical statements on who survived the flood but Nephilim are not in any of those lists: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

See my books:

Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local?, Vol I: A Historical Survey of Views from BC to AD.

And

Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local?, Vol II: A Historical Survey of Commentaries from the 1500s to the 2000s.

Thus, one single utterly unreliable sentence doesn’t in the least bit amount to, “Anakim, the vestiges of the Nephilim…perceived to be…according to the OT” except if we take “perceived to be” to mean sure, perceived as such but for which there’s literally zero reliable indication and only one sentence’s worth of indication.

See my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

Michael Heiser goes on to note, “I contend the conquest rationale was framed by the urgency to eliminate the nephilim bloodlines” for which, again, there is zero reliable indication and only one unreliable sentence’s worth of indication.

He goes on to list a few additional points on which he bases that assertion.

One is that, “The conquest account actually begins in Moses’ day in the Transjordan — which is specifically aimed at Sihon and Og (Deut 2-3). The latter is clearly a giant, and both are referred to as Rephaim (a term linked to the Anakim in Deut 2:11), kings of the Rephaim, or Amorites (in Amos’ recollection of the conquest, the Amorites are described as very tall – Amos 2:9). Consequently, the conquest begins with giant clans in view.”

As we reviewed, it is not a linguistics case of, “giant, and both are referred to as Rephaim” since when the English versions that employ the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” employ it of post-flood personages (sans Num 13:33 which is not a case of personages but of a mythical legendary tall-tale) it, again, is rendering Repha/im so there is no, “and” about it.

Thus, “Og…is clearly a giant” biblically means that he was a Repha. But even on Heiser’s misusage of that term he cannot tell us that Og was, “very tall” or even “tall” (which is another vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word) since we have no biblical physical description of him and the ones we do have come from wildly folkloric tall-tales from millennia after the Torah.

See my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Yet, what does it mean in Heiserian terms that, “Og…is clearly a giant” in terms of size? Well, he has noted, “I don’t think the biblical giants were taller than unusually tall people of modern times (between 7-9 feet)”so that is still much ado about not very much (notes to his book, The Unseen Realm).

As for “Amorites (in Amos…described as very tall” well, sure, he told us that they were big and strong but what of it? The text notes, “it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.”

Now there are people who suffer from that which I term Gigorexia Nervosa (an obsessive desire to see “giants” and just making them up where they are nowhere to be seen) who demand that Amos was implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation which results in that Amorites were circa 40ft tall. Yet, they never bother with the equation as to the strength like oats—and never consider that their literalism results in that they also had actual fruits and roots growing out of their bodies.

Thus, what Michael Heiser has done is to correlate Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim, and Amorites based on imaginary heights and one vague symbolic reference.

Heiser references, “The conquest instructions” but leaves out that God told us many times why He commanded such things but never said one single word about Nephilim—granting that some play the name-swap-game and merely assert that names such as Anakim, Rephaim, Amorite, etc. are references to Nephilim.

Yet, those assertions are either based on one single sentence from a non-LXX evil report, from incoherent correlations due to height or imagination about height (for some odd reason or other), or from pure watered-down fast-talking which only gives the appearance of connecting dots that are not viably connected.

Heiser then asks, “Where are the Giant Clans in the Land?” in answer to which he interacts with Num chap. 13 by noting, “Ten of the twelve spies reported that the land could not be taken because of the Anakim” which is interesting since he’s neglecting to mention the, by then non-existent, Nephilim that are merely asserted.

Oddly, after specifically referring to, “Ten of the twelve spies reported…” he actually quote, in part, the chapter’s original report which is accepted as is which notes, “the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there. The Amalekites dwell in the land of the Negeb. The Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites dwell in the hill country. And the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and along the Jordan.”

He draws our attention to, “note a couple things” including, “The report tells us about the inhabitants of the hill country (Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites), as opposed to the inhabitants who live by the sea and in the Jordan river valley (the Canaanites) and in the Negeb (Amalekites)” but he misses the key point in question which is that not a single word is said about Nephilim even though multiple people groups are listed, being identified as inhabitants of the land—even though Nephilim would have been the most unique and awe inspiring mighty men of renown on Earth.

He also left out that the original report refers to the peoples of the land are referred to as having been, “strong” and, “stronger” than the Israelites even by the ten unreliable guys themselves just before their evil report. Thus, their evil report’s reference to the height of the inhabitants, in general and Nephilim in specific, is clearly an embellishment.

Yet, Heiser is more interested in the topography.

He then notes, “The accounts of David’s skirmishes with the Philistines (the remnant Anakim fled to the Philistine cities per Josh 11) and particular Goliath and his brothers are not just window-dressing. They telegraph that the giant clan bloodlines are still around — and still need elimination” which begs the elucidation of that, “giant clan bloodlines” means, “Rephaim clan bloodlines.”

He then focuses on, “The ḥerem / kherem command[s]” which have nothing to do with his premise since, as we have seen, his premise if faulty.

He then hyperbolically asks, “Why haven’t you heard this before?”—FYI: literally every expositional preacher and teacher speak of these things by definition. One reply is that you have not heard it because it is inaccurate. Yet, Heiser’s reply includes, “I think the answer to that is simple enough — because it requires taking these accounts and Gen 6:1-4; Num 13:32-33 seriously and supernaturally (something that involved divine beings).” Yet, while Gen 6:1-4 are reliable and about the supernatural (technically paranormal), Num 13:32-33 is just a list of five mere assertions unbacked by even one single verse in the whole Bible and which contradicts Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible since those confirm, for example, the presence of Anakim in the land but never say a single word about post-flood Nephilim.

For more on this, see my article Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal.”

His article’s postscript includes, “Why are the Hittites mentioned in some of these accounts? Who are the Jebusites? The Hivites? What’s the giant connection? Is there one?” which we would need to dissect to figure out whence he is getting his idea of, “giant” in any given usage and how and why he thinks that personages who were, “between 7-9 feet” at the tallest range must have had paranormal beginnings.

Thus, overall, we end up with vague watered down terminology and solid data points that are connected via vague watered down terminology so that the problem are not the solid data points but the fallacious manner in which they are purported to connect.

See my various books here.

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

How Fallen Angels Biologically-Engineered The Giants w Dr. Tim Chaffey

The Right Response Ministries YouTube channel posted a video titled How Fallen Angels Biologically-Engineered The Giants w Dr. Tim Chaffey which led to this discussion when a certain @waynemorellini2110 commented

This is a complete misunderstanding. Apart from different bone structure and density, they have likely an dna made of one side different substance frkm a different phystcs making different material characteristic, and their father’s blood pumped just fine. The stories of modern day note very quiet quick movement. One of the occult practices is to reduce weight. So, there might be something characteristic in their father’s physiology.

I realised claims in legends of 1 mile high giants, where using the wrong unit of measument as the legend psssed down. When doing the calculations with the correct unit the height came down to around 37 feet. The calvulstions on measurements of lesser giants, lined up with measurements elsewhere.

I did calculations, estimating a few mutations from the cross breeding mismatch between the two types of DNA, and estimated the different hight ratios depending on how many of the mutations imherited, and including the size range of human genes, I got marches to yjr claimed giant heights. An American Indian tribe, I have heard, claimed that sasquatch and there little people (of which corpses and villages on the world hsve been documented found) are the same race. The estimates on mutations matchin with these suzes two. We have not just either or human and angel growth and survival factors, but both at the same time. So, they can not only range across both ranges, but survive the extremes of the range due to their fathers.

If you look at modern stories, they have extra tough skin matrix, resistant to knives and other weapons. We have to wake up to wide independent sources of references to common features. No effort to comprehensively find what evidence exists, trumps evidence.

Aa far as the giants in Israel, at that time the giants had commonly had time to decrease height due to criss breeding, with Gog being a larger one. Thats a handful of mixed breeding events by the time you get to 13 feet. The story of the Solomon Island giants, relates to their leader as a boy around 10 or 12 being around 6 feet. Traditionally, wreckless breeding starts around 13, and reports of non consensual is common.

Incidentally, the Indians are reported to have said that the giants were struck wherever they were by the heavens. One area was the Canadian east, where a meteor hit, Northern Levant wgere a meteor ecploded (haven’t looked into wherever it was just an explosion, but thete was an east west river recorded there, now gone). But, the science shows repeating overlapping catastrophe cycles, which cause a number of events, including volcanism which fims the sunlight for years, which results in repeated famine and starvation, which affects the biggest people the most, which would decrease populations. Most of these events, involve space orientated events.

I, @kenammi355, replied

The key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

@waynemorellini2110

What’s the use of an interested vague diversionary, occult like, gas light?

For everybody, it’s known there is a cultural tapestry behind the word giants at the time, I suppose possibly also popular reports of giants from the land of Patagonia (the land of the big feet, is the translation) which seem to decrease at the same progression of die off from European contact diseases, as other native Americans (90%+) which resulting induced famine, would greatly decrease the population further. There was some mention I recall of movement to the mountains. Then there are the historical accounts common in different countries and America. One of the native American tribes record arriving on the east coast about the same time as big ships. In the times leading up to that, there had been war in the continent, which would have further reduced numbers, such as reports of first hand encounters with these people, then mixed on with American tribes, were short lived and dwindled out. Native Americans known to hide such graves (though they are isolated reports). So, reports from ancient history as well informs of this as well. And it goes towards the sort of term it means in the Bible.

Anyway, what were the giants. Well the reports indicates monstrous hybrids, and not just with humans. Which means also cross breeding between them. If the matter of another universe resembles ours, it can interact with ours and be sticky, which would explain the reports. I’m not going to get into the genetic details of genetic comparability, but it is not really compatible with DNA or Chromosomal length. It’s something else I do not wish to air. But despite incompatibility of different chromosome lengths there are occasional births. Then it has to get to the next generation. But, those are side facts which illustrate points. So, there are a range of reports from more human to more ape to other hybrids. So, the offspring of giants cover a variety of things. But over time the reported sizes decreased with the reported interbreeding and as well with reduced numbers after famine and war, such as we get large people but often hardly gigantic now, outside isolated incidences. Such that with the giants of Northern Ireland, there was a really large framed man, I think over 7 foot, historical figure portrayed in paintings over there.

So, thanks for wasting my time this morning trying to look smart.

@kenammi355

I’m unsure what “interested vague diversionary, occult like, gas light” means but fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.

It’s also typical that I ask people what they mean when they write “giants,” they don’t tell me, and they keep writing about “giants” thus, I’ve no idea to what you’re referring by “reports of giants” except that it’s something to do with vaguely generic subjectively unusual height of whatever range.

Thus, I’m unsure what that has to do with the context of the vid.

@waynemorellini2110

Hmm, seems the correct answer has been removed. But the less desirable replies stay up. Oh well.

@kenammi355

Again, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied which is indicative of the shocking level of ignorance in modern Nephilology circles.

@waynemorellini2110

Again, I published answers, which you can read in your email notifications, which were deleted here by the powers that be (what can I do) and again, you act dumb to the nature of evidence and the wide range of subspecies. So, there is evidence, and you have nothing to back up your claims, but to the contrary you ‘claim’ the scope of evidence is proof of no evidence, and evidence is not as narrow a scope as you try to make out inorder to prove your argument, which is a consistent logical fallacies used in trying to disprove things. Of the thousands of the professionally reported finds of physical evidence around the world, involving independent people, who know not of the this stuff beforehand, with similarities based on sub species rather than than fire knowledge, we can tell something is going on that doesn’t depend on sp called ‘psychically’ imagining the same things independently without shared knowledge or contact. This, your arguments are unjustified and fall down. Genuine intellectual people tend to give up on such arguments at this stage without other motivations. I’ve seen similar behaviours many times in discussing a wide range of topics, even just purely normal technological discussions. As I can’t do much about YouTube deleting more in-depth full answers, then I can’t do anymore, and that is it, as simplistic answers are often flawed and foolish. The demands for them are flawed. I suggest not picking on people looking for simplistic Fantasies, that’s neither real research or science, but the flawed falls into the trap of thinking the ability to find simple things applies to everything, if that was so, we could have achieved a full knowledge of science long ago, rather than finding much is in dispute as flawed when we go into really deep complexities. So after spending a number of hours on your simplistic demands, It’s time to close it down, as I have other things that require more urgent attention. When I am too sick to do them in future again, I can reply to other things out there instead.

@kenammi355

Friend, please don’t go worldly by playing mind reader and tell me I “act dumb.”

As for “you have nothing to back up your claims,” please search Amazon for “Ken Ammi” to find my dozen, or so, Nephilology books or the dozens upon dozens upon dozens (upon dozens upon dozens) or articles on my website (truefreethinker dot com) or my many videos about the topic here on YT.

You generically referred to “physical evidence” and vaguely to “around the world” and unnamed “involving independent people”: well, I really don’t have time to scour the entire planet to see to what you might be referring.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

Nephilim clowns: “Tall creepy ‘man’ I saw as a child…8 or 9 feet tall…grayish or greenish white”

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

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

A post on Reddit was titled Tall creepy “man” I saw as a child and led to this discussion when a certain Conscious_Way_5375 noted

Have you come across anything online about “Nephilim” looking like clowns? Obviously there is a strong correlation between what you saw and the Joker, but with the height it also reminds me of the Shinigami from Death Note.

I, KenAmmi, replied

The claim is based on a miscomprehension of the relevant linguistics, reliance on faulty sources, folklore, and mere assertions. For a detailed review of claim, see “Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns?”: https://truefreethinker.com/2024/01/is-paul-stobbs-right-did-nephilim-look-like-clowns

Conscious_Way_5375

I think anyone who expects to find some kind of definitive answer in this realm of High Strangeness and metaphysics is more of a clown than the “Nephilim” might be. So I am less interested in your deboonking than I am in ideas that fuel the imagination. I’m not claiming to be an expert, just simply making connections, so please take your authoritative crap somewhere else.

KenAmmi

So, ignore literal proof of made-up stuff, dismiss the person offering facts, and live in fantasy land–(pseudo) authoritatively so, mind you: wow, no wonder our culture is in such a low, low state of intellect.

Conscious_Way_5375

I straight up do not care for the attitude of “debunkers” because they lead with an air of authority that is as stupid as people who just believe things they see in a YouTube video.

I know from personal experience that if you have contact with an unknown entity, that researching conspiracy theories a lot of times will connect bizarre dots that end up leading to the same place: you can’t “know” anything outside your own experience, so you have to learn to make peace with reality one way or another.

Do I believe the Nephilim looked like clowns? No, but it’s an interesting idea. There are certainly a lot of coincidences but I think the word “Nephilim” is overused. My concept of the Nephilim is that they are beautiful, in a sinister way that tempts towards 3d pleasures. Do I agree with half the stuff in that article you linked? Also no, plus it carries the arrogant air of “deboonking” that defaults to materialistic rational and appeal to authority, which is not really appropriate for the “acausal” realm of High Strangeness. Encouraging OP in the direction that I did was with the intent to cause them to look into trends and do their own research. They will likely find something that interests them. Nowhere did I say that I believed that and put “Nephilim” in quotes for reason. Real research SHOULD be balanced with intuition and imagination when interacting with High Strangeness, as it speaks to part of the human consciousness that our current modern science cannot directly quantify.

KenAmmi

You seem to (mis)use the term “debunkers” as an excuse to ignore demonstrable facts.

I was made aware of his claims, I investigated his claims, I found his claims to be faulty: I’m unsure what’s wrong with that. The idea might be interesting but is 100% fallacious and it’s part of what has turned modern Nephilology into a literal clown show.

If you assert, “you can’t ‘know’ anything outside your own experience” then you can’t know that I can’t know anything outside my experience since you don’t experience my experience.

Indeed, “the word ‘Nephilim’ is overused” because it became the stuff of which click-bait is made.

As for the article, you should begin by utterly ignoring your emotively subjective misinterpretation of “the arrogant air of ‘deboonking’” since it’s just your assertion and is also a genetic fallacy.

I wonder why you don’t fault Paul for being authoritative.

So, are you saying y9ou “do their own research” but then spit on the faces of those of us who have done just that?

That appears to be the case, at least in my experience, but if that’s you’re point of view then it’s because you demand, “SHOULD” as a (pseudo) universal imperative, “balanced with intuition and imagination” but when you lack the imagination to look beyond what you subjectively label, “deboonking” then you appear to feel comfortable ignoring demonstrable facts and that’s a fallacious MO.

Conscious_Way_5375

I’m pretty ok with my stance on this, especially since you seem to have made a Reddit account just to huff and puff specifically about the Nephilim. You are a bad faith actor and also a bad writer, shill harder next time.

KenAmmi

Sorry, I thought you were interested in a discussion but I see that you’re prejudice and come to incoherent conclusions based on pseudo-standards. Again, “no wonder our culture is in such a low, low state of intellect.”

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

“Can atheists be wrong in their belief system?”

The question Can atheists be wrong in their belief system? was posted to the Quora site and led to the following discussion after Mathijs Wijers (“Hobby philosopher and critical thinker”) commented

Q: “Can atheists be wrong in their belief system?”

A: Atheist believe system:

I see no evidence for any god, therefore:

1b. I don’t believe in any gods.

Sure, we could be wrong. Prove us wrong by showing us some empirical peer-reviewed evidence…

I, Ken Ammi, replied

But friend, you’re beginning with merely jumped to mere assertions based on mere hidden assumptions.

See, before jumping to, “I see no evidence for any god, therefore…Prove us wrong by showing us some empirical peer-reviewed evidence” you need to take the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview.

Mathijs Wijers

Sorry, but it’s not the atheist’s job to prove they are correct. Atheists just do not accept your god-claim, because you haven’t met the burden of proof for your claim.

Your demand for proof that your preferred flavour of fairy tale isn’t true, is an implicit admission that you have no evidence to the contrary. If you did actually have any solid evidence, you would present it, instead of endlessly beating around the bush.

On top of that, if you insist it is our job to prove the non-existence of your particular god, you commit yourself to believing in – or presenting proof of non-existence for – anything you or anyone else can think of. For example, but not excluded to:

Quezalcoatl

The flying spaghetti monster

The invisible pink unicorn

An invisible intangible dragon in my garage

A three-piece Mariachi band in my back garden

Exactly no more and no less than one unpasteurized Stilton cheese in the core of Jupiter

A number of unpasteurized Stilton cheeses in the core of Jupiter equal to or larger than two

No unpasteurized Stilton cheeses present in the core of Jupiter at all

A magnificent flying ferret responsible for maintaining the Earth’s atmosphere called Squortlebleep

A clay teapot in orbit within the rings around Saturn

Me being Yhwh Saboath, Allah El Elohim, your one true god, communicating to you through the medium of Quora

The spare tenner I keep in my wallet for emergencies

Either that, or you expose yourself as being a bit of a hypocrite.

Since you are clearly not a hypocrite (😏), I wonder… How do you manage believing that the core of Jupiter contains none, exactly one, *and* two or more unpasteurised Stilton cheeses?…

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re talking very fast and are fast-talking so let’s slow things down systematically, as I attempted to get you to do at the outset.

You merely asserted, “Sorry, but it’s not the atheist’s job to prove they are correct” so is that because thus saith Mathijs and so all of humanity must adhere to your domgatheism?

You also conveniently ignored the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.

Also, I noted, “But friend, you’re beginning with merely jumped to mere assertions based on mere hidden assumptions” and you merely doubled down on that.

For example, I noted, “the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview” but rather than taking that very first step you merely doubled down, “you haven’t met the burden of proof for your claim” so you’re actually going backward rather than taking step number one.

But I see that you don’t even understand by sentence, “the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview” which you took to have something to do with, “Your demand for proof that your preferred flavour of fairy tale isn’t true…if you insist it is our job to prove the non-existence” but I’m unsure how you got that from “the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview.”

So, before jumping all the way to the bottom of your bottomless pit via the non sequitur, “an implicit admission that you have no evidence to the contrary” please take the very first step first: again, slow it down, please.

Mathijs Wijers

Sorry, but it’s not the atheist’s job to prove they are correct. Atheists just do not accept your god-claim, because you haven’t met the burden of proof for your claim.

Quezalcoatl

The flying spaghetti monster

The invisible pink unicorn

An invisible intangible dragon in my garage

A three-piece Mariachi band in my back garden

Exactly no more and no less than one unpasteurized Stilton cheese in the core of Jupiter

A number of unpasteurized Stilton cheeses in the core of Jupiter equal to or larger than two

No unpasteurized Stilton cheeses present in the core of Jupiter at all

A magnificent flying ferret responsible for maintaining the Earth’s atmosphere called Squortlebleep

A clay teapot in orbit within the rings around Saturn

Me being Yhwh Saboath, Allah El Elohim, your one true god, communicating to you through the medium of Quora

The spare tenner I keep in my wallet for emergencies

Either that, or you expose yourself as being a bit of a hypocrite.

Since you are clearly not a hypocrite (😏), I wonder… How do you manage believing that the core of Jupiter contains none, exactly one, *and* two or more unpasteurised Stilton cheeses?…

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re misrepresenting Atheism—and logic. You merely asserted, “it’s not the atheist’s job to prove they are correct” but you’re still doing what I already noted to you, “conveniently ignored the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.”

So, again, when you merely assert, “Atheists just do not accept your god-claim” you’re ignoring many of your comrades who were the original modern day Atheists.

As for, “you haven’t met the burden of proof for your claim” you’re spinning circles since I already noted, “the very first step which is for you to justify demanding evidence and proof and to be shown and in peer-review form, on your worldview.”

You clearly misread that since you incoherently merely asserted, “Your demand for proof that your preferred flavour of fairy tale isn’t true” which has nothing to do with what I said—as you just saw, again.

So, please start at the start by taking the very first step, step #1.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

Is there any evidence to support the existence of a civilization with giant Nephilim-like beings as described in ancient texts such as The Bible or The Book of Enoch?

Such was the question posted to the Quora site and led to the following discussion after a certain SP commented thusly

They appear as regular humans. Not all are giants. The Word giant, sometimes refers to the amount of authority or fame. Our presidents are Nephilim, famous people too. Jesus is a Nephilim diety born cursed lie. Christ means marked, cross means cursed. If you see someone with lizard eyes, it’s just a Nephilim. There are many walking the earth right now. People who claim to be star seeds, most don’t understand this is the blood of fallen angels. It’s not something to be proud of. It’s an evil act against the Most High.

Enoch is our true messiah named, sealed books and called it good. Our Creator never went back on his word, he is unchanging. Salvation is ours alone. 2nd Enoch 20:3 is the True Most High Creator of All life Aravat. Enoch returned in 2017, the Tribulations are almost over. He is our Righteous Judge on Judgement Day.

Ken Ammi

It’s not really relevant that “The Word giant, sometimes refers to the amount of authority or fame” especially when you don’t tell us in what language or time in history. The word for something like “authority of fame” is “gibborim” and “shem”: might and (of) name.

I assume you’re referring to English but then that 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?

Since you jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” it’s hard to follow to what you’re referring since, for example, you assert post-flood Nephilim and something about “lizard eyes.”

If “Enoch is our true messiah” please repent and accept Jesus.

If, “Enoch returned in 2017” were can I meet him?

I agree with this. There is so many different forms and kinds of Nephilim. Ages have passed so it’s not easy to put into detail. The people who are related to Jesus (and other angels) are the stars we watch on TV and sports or dancers (doesn’t mean they are bad) the leaders and rulers of this world and every day looking people like you or me.

The Book of Enoch is The Word and its where people should start for knowledge about the Nephilim. Caine is the first one born this way so it starts with his family. The fallen angels have had thier hands on our DNA all throughout time.

“Lift up your Horns and open your eyes” might mean exactly that for many. I see them everywhere and they don’t even know it yet. This world is under a spell. The bi bell bibaal is a book of spells and curses. That’s not our True Creator.

All Entertainment is owned by lucifer and has people under a spell too. It’s literally like the days of Noah, people don’t see it, don’t believe it’s true, aren’t listening and are absolutely going to regret this “Rapture” “And the Angels called upon all the foul, to feast on those who follow Christ” why would anyone seek Death in his name? He is The Angel of Death and people don’t see it. He literally asked us to seek Death in his name. Even his name means 666 his star is lucifer too his number is 6ptx6&6 point star fallen from heaven ✡️. His mother was put aside for the day from birth and conceived at 13 the age of Jesus Death is a Mason thing too. He didn’t actually die he also had a twin brother. Jesus was a Mason not just a carpenter. Our creator doesn’t do that to his own people he sees us as his children. She was a child! Her mother was also diety born. They keep it in the blood.

He copied everything from Enoch and made it his. Mirror image and mockery. Heceven quotes him. All religions started After Enoch wrote the Book. Re legion. The laws were already given long before Moses.

Enoch was the first to write with pen and paper and he is also the heavenly scribe at the right hand of The Most High. The Recording Angel.

“I AM” is Archangel Metatron and Metatron is the name assigned to “I AM”. Exodus 23:21 tells you His Name is in him. Not Jesus. No matter how you translate his name it’s still hail Zeus serpent, baal and lucifer, he is The Bright Mourning Star. ALL Stars are Fallen Angels. Mourning for the sins he brought upon the earth. Sunday is sungod worship and feeling sorry for the devil. Hallelujah is helel and means Bright Mourning star lucifer, Amen is ra amenra nothing changed. The Day star also translates to zues lucifer and Jesus. “Let the day star rise in your hearts”

Lyrics are hidden knowledge as well, they scream from hell don’t do it. Some trapped under a bond and born into it some chose this. MuteSick music InDisTree industry. Enoch is here now with his 10k Army and he is releasing people from their bonds. People born into this and handed over to evil, trapped. It all ends soon and people need to wake up ASAP.

Ken Ammi

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

It’s actually impossible that you “agree with this. There is so many different forms and kinds of Nephilim” since I would never say any such thing since there’s zero indication of it.

I’m unaware of anyone who is, physically, “related to Jesus.”

You asserted, on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you, “The Book of Enoch is The Word” but which one? Also, 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.”

“where people should start for knowledge about the Nephilim” is Gen 6 and not folklore that has them being MILES tall.

There’s literally zero indication that “Caine is the first one born this way”: please read Gen 4:1.

There’s literally zero indication “fallen angels have had thier hands on our DNA all throughout time” since Jude and 2 Peter 2 tell us that they were incarcerated.

You “see” who “everywhere”?

I’ve no idea what this means, “bi bell bibaal.”

As for the rest of your rant, it’s very difficult to understand since you go in 100 directions at the same time.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

“Where do Evil Spirits Come From?” discussion as per Dr. Michael S. Heiser’s video

The subject video led to this discussion when @deepwaters2334a commented

The problem with the idea is that Hebrews 1 clearly shows that Spirts are angels, and that humans and angels are totally different. Therefore, humans cannot be disembodied demonic spirits. One could say the same evil spirits of the anakim roam the earth (which is itself the pit/Hades/Tartarus (Jesus said what is bound on Earth will be bound in heaven, and what is loosed on Earth loosed in Heaven) since we know Satan has been cast down from heaven to wander the Earth like a roaring lion), but it is not the souls of the Anakim, which wait for judgement. I definitely favor the sethite view of the “sons of God” over the Nephilim being the children of the fallen angels since angels must inhabit bodies since they don’t have their own, being only spirits.

@kenammi355

Well friend, it’s only the case that “Hebrews 1 clearly shows that Spirts are angels” in the version that you’re reading: many have it as “winds.” And they don’t have it that way arbitrarily but because it’s in Heb 1 since Heb 1 quoting and playing off of Ps 104:4 where, again, some have “spirits” but some rightly have “winds” and “winds” is correct since it’s keeping with the context of the Ps which contains constant correlations to natural phenomena.

But besides, you can’t base an entire theory on one modern English word, the fact is that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. That also does away with the assertion, “humans and angels are TOTALLY different.”

Now, you began by referring to that “Spirts are angels” but then you moved the goalpost to “demonic spirits.” For a biblical view, please see my article, “Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?”

As for, “evil spirits of the anakim” why did you artificially insert them into any of this: the 100% human Anakim people group didn’t even exist until centuries post-flood.

You also assert, “Satan has been cast down from heaven to wander the Earth” but that’s a Rev 12 event and likely hasn’t happened yet.

“the sethite view” is a late-comber based on myth, prejudice, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

@deepwaters2334

I appreciate your detailed analysis, but I think I can convince you. I agree some translations use “spirits” instead of “winds”, but it is not relevant since the point is the angels are sent in various forms. The verse also says servants are sent as fire, which clearly refers to the burning bush appearing to Moses. So either way, we know Angels don’t always appear in physical bodies. I would argue the verse also refers to the pillar of smoke/fire that led the Israelites out of Egypt. I would say that the idea angels always appear as human-like beings is incorrect. Hebrews 1 clearly shows no angel is a son of God in verse 5, and they will be lower than the children of God in heaven, but we see them a little above humans presently. Angels=Spirits. Elisha’s eyes were opened to the spirit world, and he saw the angels in human forms, but not until his eyes were made able to see the spirit world this way. The same can be said for the book of Revelation, which gives angels human forms only as a means of a vision, not literally. All of the visions in Revelation are prophetic, and if the lamb was sacrificed from the day Adam and Eve sinned, Satan was defeated that day; that is why the serpent was cursed to roam the earth on his belly in Genesis. Revelation just references what happened at the cross and at the creation of the world together for narrative effect because the cross made manifest what was already done from the beginning. In regard to Anakim, it is understood they were Nephilim, but so were those before the flood that were born of the line of Seth and Cain. Nephilim had spiritual authority/influences, and the book of Enoch should be considered a prophetic book like Revelation, with the heights of the giants representing the number of spirits they thought they controlled (or were controlled by).

@kenammi355

But friend, there’s no indication that “angels are sent in various forms.” “The verse also says servants are sent as fire” within the context of correlations to natural phenomena, not that they appear as a spark that burns oxygen—such is why there’s no example of that.

The “burning bush” was a manifestation of God’s presence, not an Angel.

Also, you said, “sent as fire” but the phrase is, “makes…fire.”

There’s no indication that, “Angels don’t always appear in physical bodies.”

If you argue about the pillars then you should argue like unto the burning bush: the fire wasn’t God, it was a symbolic manifestation of His presence so likewise, if you want to go that way, the pillars were symbolic manifestations but not the physical bodies of Angels.

Hebrews 1 isn’t about Angelology, it’s about Jesus so no Angel is God’s son in the self-same manner as Jesus is since Jesus is uniquely authoritative. Or, do you deny that Christians are sons of God because, after all, Jesus is God’s “only” begotten Son?

“Elisha’s eyes…saw the angels in human forms” since that’s how they look and “his eyes were made able to see the spirit world” since Angels can choose to be seen or not: visible or invisible, appear or disappear.

You assert, “Revelation…gives angels human forms only as a means of a vision” but there’s no indication of that.

How could Anakim be Nephilim since Anakim are Anakim and Nephilim are Nephilim? See, this is a case of categories and the law of identity?

Anakim were named after a man named Anak and lived exclusively post-flood.

Nephilim were half-Angel and half-human and lived exclusively pre-flood.

The ONLY correlation between Anakim is one single sentence only from non-LXX versions of an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked (Num 13:33) wherein a correlation is merely asserted.

As for “the book of Enoch”: which one? 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.”

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

Do those two usages agree?

@deepwaters2334

Does God not use his angels to speak for him? That is what angels always bring: messages from God: Hebrews 1:1-2 KJV

[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

See, God speaks through angels and prophets. Also, Hebrews 1 goes on to say that Angels are spirits:

Hebrews 1:13-14 KJV

[13] But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool? [14] Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Again, Hebrews 2 says it clearly that the word was revealed in various times and ways through angels, and that though we are lower now, we shall be raised up to equal status with Jesus:

Hebrews 2:1-14 KJV

[1] Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. [2] For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; [3] how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; [4] God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? [5] For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. [6] But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man, that thou visitest him? [7] Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; Thou crownedst him with glory and honour, And didst set him over the works of thy hands: [8] Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. [9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. [10] For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. [11] For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, [12] saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, In the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. [13] And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. [14] Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

How could angels breed with humans, when humans are a separate kind of creature?

I refer to the book of 1 Enoch (there are three books) that we have today that says that Nephilim were thousands of feet tall (http://www.refuteit.com/article-blog/4500-foot-giants-how-did-you-come-up-with-that-number). This is clearly symbolism for spiritual affiliation. Even II Peter and Jude, which many claim support the book Enoch do not say the book is literal, but that Enoch was the seventh son of prophecy: Jude 1:14-16 KJV

[14] And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, [15] to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. [16] These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.

This further confirms that the Book of Enoch should be considered a book of prophecy, not literal history like the Torah, and the heights of the giants are metaphorical references to the angels/spirits they were influenced by and the kingdoms they controlled.

@kenammi355

Friend, you’re going in circles at this point since I already noted that “Hebrews 1 goes on to say that Angels are spirits” in the one version that you’re reading in English. I already told you, “Well friend, it’s only the case that ‘Hebrews 1 clearly shows that Spirts are angels’ in the version that you’re reading: many have it as ‘winds.’ And they don’t have it that way arbitrarily but because it’s in Heb 1 since Heb 1 quoting and playing off of Ps 104:4 where, again, some have ‘spirits’ but some rightly have ‘winds’ and ‘winds’ is correct since it’s keeping with the context of the Ps which contains constant correlations to natural phenomena.”

Moreover, as I also already told you, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.”

As for, “How could angels breed with humans, when humans are a separate kind of creature?” well, Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”

“the” Bible contradicting folkloric “book of 1 Enoch” from centuries, if not millennia after the Torah, “says that Nephilim were” 3,000 ells/MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality.

Since you merely assert the non sequitur that “II Peter and Jude, which many claim support the book Enoch do not say the book is literal” then you must think the same of Greek poets since Paul quotes them.

@deepwaters2334

So, how do you explain the last verse of Hebrews 1, which literally says that Angels are merely spirits, sent to those who are about to inherit salvation? How do you explain Hebrews 2 that says though Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, he has been raised above them, and that we will be welcomed by Christ as brothers and sisters, necessarily making us above the angels and equal to Christ as children of God as well? How do you reconcile that the sons of God are the ones who bred with the daughters of men, when we know the sons of God are the redeemed christians, and that no angel has ever been called the son of God (Hebrews 1:5), only human beings? Therefore, the sons of God must be the redeemed children of God, that is, most likely the line of Seth, whose geneology was just listed immediately before this passage. The evidence for the sons of God being human beings that are Christians (or redeemed/righteous) is overwhelming, and many early Christians believed exactly this. This point I am making about the book of Enoch is not that it is totally false, but that it should be used non-literally like the book of Revelation or Daniel. Would you read these prophecies literally? No; there is extreme symbolism, which is my point about the book of Enoch. I could very well argue you are walking in circles; no offense.

@kenammi355

I will rephrase your question, “So, how do you explain the last verse of Hebrews 1, which” in the one English version that I subjectively prefer to read, “literally says that Angels are merely spirits…”

Other versions right have it as “winds” and that’s right because Heb 1 is quoting Psalm 104:4 which some versions rightly have as “winds” and that’s right because the whole context of the whole Psalm is constant correlations to natural phenomena.

Seach online for, “biblegateway psalm 104:4” and do the same for Heb: when you look up one single verse, you’ll see a link beneath it that will show you how it reads in MANY English versions.

As for your Hebrews 2 question, sorry but I don’t even see what, “making us above the angels” has to do with this discussion.

That “sons of God are the redeemed christians” is myopic: no one who read God’s word for millennia before AD days would have even imagined any such thing. Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).

As for, “no angel has ever been called the son of God (Hebrews 1:5)” well, the context isn’t about Angelology, it’s about Jesus so God never called the Angels His sons like unto the manner in which Jesus is His Son since He’s uniquely authoritative. Or, will you deny that Christians are God’s sons because, after all, Jesus is God’s ONLY begotten Son?

So, what you’re saying is that, “redeemed children of God” were such terrible sinners that their sin (whatever it was) served as the premise for the flood—that’s rather odd.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

How did the Nephilim survive the flood of Noah to reemerge if all were killed except Noah’s family?

Such was a question posted to the Quora site and led to the following discussion when a certain Glenn Brotherton replied thusly

The Nephilim did not survive the Flood.

Most Bible commentators have been misinterpreting the Scriptures again and again….such as Numbers chapters 13 and 14 in this matter of the “Nephilim” meaning ‘those that cause others to fall’ or “fellers” from the Hebrew word. ( Other edited Bibles have the word “giants.”)

How so?

The “Nephilim” (some Bible versions say “giants”) at Genesis 6:1–4, were freakish hybrid-offspring of angels that ‘materialized physically’ and had sex with human women. These new extraordinary creatures existed throughout the ‘120 years’ up to the global Flood. They were notorious and were the basis of many later legends of Babylonian, Greek, Hindu, Roman, Norse, Viking and Anglo-Saxon ‘demigods’ as ‘super-heroes,’…good and bad. (Genesis 6:3–4) But, they were all killed off and swept away by the global flood. However, their spirit-fathers (angelic sons of God) de-materialized, …and returned to the spirit realm where they were immediately arrested and imprisoned in a spiritual dungeon according to 1 Peter 3:18-20; and 2 Peter 2:4, also Jude 1:6. ( For those people that deny the “sons of God” in Genesis chapter 6, verse 1–4 were spirit beings, that materialized as physical men and later returned to the spirit realm as angels, …do they also deny that God’s firstborn son as “the Word” in heaven later became flesh on earth born thru a human mother Mary? [ John 1:14.] Later, Jesus gave his life as a ransom as if a Passover Lamb, [John 1:29] but he was resurrected as a spirit-being again.! > 1 Peter 3:18; Acts 2:32-36.)

The report to Moses of the “Nephilim” of the Israelites spying 40 days inside the Promised Land was an exaggeration by faithless, cowardly men of Irsael who doubted both their leader Moses and their God Yahweh. The spies lied in saying that the tall tribe of Rephaim were the giant “Nephilim,” … and they grossly distorted the comparison by saying that the Israelites were merely the size of “grasshoppers.” Compare Numbers 13:30-33, with 14:36-37.

The false report of “40 days” by the 10 faithless fearful spies out-numbered the other report by the 2 loyal spies > Joshua and Caleb. So, the nation over-reacted and shouted insults to God thru his representative Moses, even though they recently crossed the Red Sea by a miraculous rescue from the attack by the Egyptian army. Next, because of the 40 day negative report, God punished that whole negative generation with “40 years” of wandering in the Sinai wilderness until the faithless generation died off, … except Joshua and Caleb. However, the children of the faithless generation inherited the Promised Land. > Numbers 14:26-33.

Therefore, NO, … the Nephilim did not survive the Flood of Noah’s days. The report by the spies was a false exaggeration by faithless Israelites, even though they were eyewitnesses to the miraculous victory back then when the elite Egyptian Army drowned in the Red Sea. Exodus chapters 14 & 15.

Ken Ammi

Indeed, “Nephilim did not survive the Flood.”

There’s no indication that Angels are “spirit” nor that they “de-materialized, or ‘re-verted.’”

Indeed, Num 13:33 is utterly unreliable—and since that’s the only physical description we have of Nephilim then, well, we’ve no reliable physical description of them at all.

Glenn Brotherton

Hi Ken,

Apparently, you did not examine the proof texts I mentioned > Jude 1:6; 1 Peter 3:18–20; and 2 Peter 2:4.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’ve included those texts in my books on these issues but am unsure what they have to do with my comment: please elucidate. FYI: https://truefreethinker.com/no-end-books-publications

Glenn Brotherton

Why did you write that angels are not spirits?

God is a Spirit, and angels are “sons of God.” > Job 1:6; & 2:1–7 and 38:4–7.

Ken Ammi

I wrote that Angels are not spirits because Angels are not spirits: they are described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and with zero indication that such isn’t their ontology.

God is a Spirit, and born again Humans are “sons of God”—and humans have spirits but are embodied spirits, not spirits proper.

Glenn Brotherton

Have we overlooked Genesis 6:1–4.?

Ken Ammi

No, why?

Glenn Brotherton

No, Genesis 6:1–4 was in my original answer, paragraph 2.

Ken Ammi

What about it?

Dylan Ruble

The Scriptures directy say the fallen angels became spirits after the flood lol. So yes there is direct indication they were spirits and it also literally says they could no longer have human form but only affects the minds of man as evil spirits and demons when trapped into tartarus so yes, de materialized literally point blank lol. Gotta keep reading man. The nephilim were the demigods offspring of the annunaki and they were all men. Like Hercules. Women were gifted magic or sorcery by female angels bc the fallen angels took wives for themselves and were disgusting as the bible says literally. They fallen angels are the annunaki, gods first children. Anu. God. Annunaki gods children. They left heaven came to earth and were giants, could shape shift into human and animal, and they mated and created horrible abominations. Maybe minotaur etc. Half human half animal. It says these fallen angels were worshiped like gods, hence all the Greek and Roman and Norse statues etc. Enki & Enlil, Horus and Set, Cain and Abel, Zeus and Chronos, Thor & Loki. Same story. Tiamat & Marduk/Mardon are descendents of Noah as the biblical genealogy incurs. To simple say someone was exaggerating and chalk it up as that is unwise in my opin ion. The book does not imply or say they were exaggerating in any form, that’s man’s foolish ass umpt ions. It says what it says about them. They made men look like grasshoppers. The Scriptures say not all of the angels died in the flood and not all were trapped in tartarus. These giants were Noah’s offspring. Noah had 3 sons, 1 bloodline was really good, the one that bred Abraham and Jesus. The middle sons offspring died off and the 3rd had the evil side of the world, all the primordial serpent gods, nimrod, etc.

Ken Ammi

I’ve published in books, written in articles, and stated on videos that, “fallen angels became spirits” so I’m unsure about what you’re “lol.”

But that, “they were spirits” is anachronistic since “they were spirits” post-flood and that’s just the fallen ones.

As for, “it also literally says they could no longer have human” please provide quotations and citations.

The fallen Angels’ bodies are in Tartarus but their spirits roam the Earth and are what we call demons or unclean spirits, by any other name.

You noted, “Women were gifted magic or sorcery by female angels bc the fallen angels took wives for themselves and were disgusting as the bible says literally” so please provide quotations and citations.

As for, “fallen angels are the annunaki…left heaven came to earth and were giants, could shape shift into human and animal, and they mated and created horrible abominations” what indication is there of any of that?

The only one who referred to “exaggerating” is you but we can know the “evil report” is inaccurate due to it’s contents and due to that it implies that God failed thus, there are no “ass umpt ions” about it.

I’m unsure why you’re referring to people as “It” but the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked made up a fear mongering scare tactic: why do you side with them rather than with the God who rebuked them?

You claimed, “The Scriptures say not all of the angels died in the flood and not all were trapped in tartarus” but it doesn’t say that any of them died and of course it was only the sinful ones who were incarcerated.

As for, “These giants were Noah’s offspring”: the key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

Profile photo for Dylan Ruble

I will give the direct scripture and verses later but it seems as if you dont really know much about etymology or the study of other ancient cultures like the akkadians, sumerians, Babylonia, etc. Bc its blatantly obvious the nephilim survived the flood, 1 because they are literally mentioned after the flood and 2 because of the bloodline of Noah. 1 good bloodline aka bloodline of Abraham and Jesus. 1 bad bloodline aka ham kush into mardon/marduk, nimrod, enki etc. Which are considered history in the epic of gilgamesh, the oldest story ever recorded by carbondating. Enki and enlil were giants, as well as tiamat who is also the bloodline of Noah. Pan, baal, tammuz, enkidu, even Tiamat, the Starbucks logo primordial evil slayer are the bloodline of noah. Hence the abyss. Or all the movies like the cracken, pirates of carribean, odysseus, etc or anything with sex symbology dealing with seamen and a primordial serpent or other form. Taimat slayed her partner. Like Kale. Or the woman in game of thrones vs John snow. Fire vs ice. Fire dragon goddess slays ice rival, but in Hollywood they tend to reverse the roles a bunch to confuse the masses. I suggest you look into the bloodline of Noah heavily. Study nimrod amd the ziggarut of eridu aka tower of babel, and the tablets which connect history with the bible such as the Enuma Elish, a massive connection. I also suggest you read your Bible again bc its blatantly obvious in exodus, the land of Canaan is literally a land of giants thats why God sent an angel to usher them through that land to protect them lol. The entire story is about the israelites main purpose is to destroy the remaining giants not humans lol. King og, Goliath, the annakim, etc. Exodus 23:20. I could go on forever about these bloodlines, their names in English today and their names in their respective languages but we both know that would take a book lol. Sorry for butchering this entire entry, I’m in the military and writing this in a troop truck lmfao. Very bumpy and my adrenaline spiked heavy rn. Anyways, please look into the bloodline of Noah, and what the scriptures are saying, it’s a terrible idea to see a passage that says the nephilim survived and then as a foolish human you decide that that was a lie or exaggeration. You don’t get to decide that or put that down, it was written for a reason and many passages literally go along with the fact that giants survived the flood through the bloodline of Noah and the purpose of the exodus agter crossing was for the israelites to wipe out the remaining giants. Take this into consideration. Usually they teach Joshua was the leader of these raids of where giants were spotted but this isn’t the case. Gen 15:18-21 promises abrahams descendants the land that’s literally claimed from the giants. The Rephaim being one of those lands that translates directly to old race of giants, you csn find this on the Hebrew and English lexicon websites. This literally tells us that later on when the israelites go into Canaan, they will be going to a land of giants. The men who appeared to Abraham were angels and this is directly confirmed in scripture as well. [****] it I’ll list the verses for you, keep in mind and angel and the angel of the lord are different. Gen 12 (mostly verse 7), Gen 15:1, Gen 15: 18-21 (srry for repeat), Gen 18:2–3, Gen 18:22, (also tske note how many men csme to Abram, Abraham, 3. You must realize now, 1 of them was god) also Hhhh th3 breath of life, Gen 19:1, Gen 22:12, (notice the switch, speaking about God, to speaking as If he is god), Exodus 14:19-20, (notice who marched, who led, a big deal in ancient times, tis The Angel Of The Lord, an importsnt term to note and many verses deal with this title), Exodus 23:21-22, Psalm 75:1 related to exodus 23:21, Proverbs 18:10 related to the previous 2 cited verses, The Two Powers In Heaven is the name of this work, predating the new testament by 200 years. Please take into consideration that this war wasn’t a war amongst people but people.vs giants truly. Oh and the reason I lol is because you’re literal first sentence says there is no proof angels became spirits or de materaliaze, and now your saying you’ve written books on angels being spirits lol. Angels could come into human form, appear in all shapes and sizes it says so these spirits were giants but also appeared as man , just like immortals or any Greek movie where Zeus is an old man guiding a young warrior.

Dylan Ruble

Please let me know what you think about the Enuma Elis and the Bloodline or Noah birthing evil andgiants again in the world as well as the israelites battle in Canaan to wipe out the giants with the angel of the lords protection. Sorry for getting Fiesty, military got my heart rate and blood pumpin all the time lmfao. You do seem very knowledgeable and allow me some time to find the versus about what I mentioned in my first comment. There’s like 40 verses I need to link lol. Gotta find them again.

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

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

Since you assert, “its blatantly obvious the nephilim survived the flood” then you contradicted the Bible five times (does that matter to you?) and you imply that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole that you found, the flood was much of a waste, etc. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper. Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.

As for, “they are literally mentioned after the flood” well, that’s incoherent since I can mention George Washington right now but that doesn’t mean he’s alive.

You’re replying exclusively on one sentence in an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

Since you didn’t reply to the key questions, when you keep on referring to “giants” then I have to merely guess as to what you’re referring such as, “Enki and enlil were giants, as well as tiamat.” But what would their presumed subjectively unusual height (which means that the answer to the third key question is “No”) have to do with Nephilim?

What about “nimrod”?

You also jump from the specific ancient Hebrew term “Nephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” so it’s even harder to follow such as in the case of “Canaan is literally a land of giants.”

Now, you asserted that Nephilim included, “King og, Goliath, the annakim” but they were all Rephaim.

You say, “it’s a terrible idea to see a passage that says the nephilim survived and then as a foolish human you decide that that was a lie or exaggeration” but no passage says the Nephilim survived—that contradicts the Bible five times—and the one and only sentence from you can infer that is a literal tall-tale by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

Likewise, you say, “many passages literally go along with the fact that giants survived the flood through the bloodline of Noah” but there’s literally no such passage.

But then again, you’re generically referring to “giants” so it’s hard to know what you’re saying so let me try it this way:

“israelites to wipe out the remaining giants” no if referring to Nephilim, yes if referring to Rephaim.

“Joshua was the leader of these raids of where giants were” no if referring to Nephilim, yes if referring to Rephaim.

“land that’s literally claimed from the giants” no if referring to Nephilim, yes if referring to Rephaim.

If we get to those key questions, you’ll realize that biblically contextually, “The Rephaim being one of those lands that translates directly to old race of giants” reads as, “The Rephaim being one of those lands that translates directly to old race of Rephaim.”

As for, “Hebrew and English lexicon websites” or, see my book, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010”

“they will be going to a land of giants” no if referring to Nephilim, yes if referring to Rephaim.

“war amongst people but people.vs giants truly” no if referring to Nephilim, yes if referring to Rephaim.

“no proof angels became spirits or de materaliaze” you merely followed that up with another mere assert, “Angels could come into human form, appear in all shapes and sizes” and claim “it says” so please quote and cite.

As for, “these spirits were giants” I have no idea what that means.

“israelites battle in Canaan to wipe out the giants” no if referring to Nephilim, yes if referring to Rephaim.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

ReligionForBreakfast asks, “Who were the Nephilim?”

Such was the name of a YouTube channel and one of their videos which led to this discussion.

@oscargordon

I find it interesting that the oldest copies of Daniel has Goliath as four cubits and a span, or 6′ 9″. Pretty tall compare to what the average person would have been with Bronze Age nutrition but not that impressive, considering Andre the Giant was 7′ 4″ and 520 lbs.. By the 10th century Masoretic text that most Bible translations use, Goliath became 6 cubits and a span or 9′ 9″ tall.

@theonlylolking

Man, sisters these days are not even impressed with being 6’9″. It is so over bros.

@mirandagoldstine8548

I actually like to say the Nephilim are my distant ancestors. You see I have some tall ancestors on my dad’s side. To be specific the tallest man in my family was between (I could be mistaken) 6’6” and 6’8”. This ancestor lived during the 19th century when the average male was 5’8”. So maybe the Nephilim were just people who were unusually tall for the time period.

@oscargordon

I wonder if any of the lady angels came down for breeding purposes because I do appreciate the tall ones.

@kenammi355

Before the Masoretic text, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus, which is the preponderance of the earliest data, all have him at four cubits and a span, just shy of 7 ft.—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

@kenammi355

If Nephilim are your distant ancestors then you must think that God failed. Also, we’ve no reliable physical description of them so you can’t correlate any sort of height to them.

@kenammi355

Angels are always described as looking just like human males.

@oscargordon

Sometimes yes, sometimes in the story sometimes people just thought they were just mundane humans, at other times when an angel appears, the human does the whole “fear and trembling” business with the angel telling them not to be afraid.

And don’t get started on Revelation’s description of angels or do an image search on “Biblically accurate angels”.

@oscargordon

This is not the only case where the ‘modern” 10th century MT text exaggerates from the earlier texts that were translated from the now lost original Hebrew texts.

I once saw a list of where the MT dramatically increases the number of body counts and such from earlier texts.

@kenammi355

“an image search on ‘Biblically accurate angels'” results in biblically inaccurate Angels. But as for the “fear not” thing: when you read those few instances, it’s a case of a person being alone and then a dude is suddenly right there so it’s shock.

@oscargordon

What, you find it a shock and are fearful when someone walks up to you and says hi, or you enter a room and there is already someone their? Weird.

So you have seen an angel so that you know what they look like? Is there not a single example in Google images that looks like what you saw?

@kenammi355

I’m not interested in you moving the goalpost but will note that yes, of course I would be shocked and fearful if I knew that I was alone in a room or home or a field and someone suddenly appeared there> It’s just that you invented, “when someone walks up” and also, this has nothing to do with my so my perceived subjective reaction is irrelevant.

Rather than arguing, you could have just looked up the very, very few (what, 3 maybe) instances and note that the scenario is as I have stated it.

I’m unsure why you ask, “So you have seen an angel so that you know what they look like?” since Angels look just like human males and, “some have entertained angels unawares” (Hebrews 13:2). The only exception seems to be when they are in their natural, glorified (I suppose we could call it) state and are like a perfect version of us: clean pores and all.

@oscargordon

I’m sorry, I thought you knew for certain what angels look like because you had actually seen one. My bad. I think the problem is that since angels don’t really exist, the various Bible authors could make their messengers from Yahweh look like anything from a mundane human to a terrifying creature just as Yahweh could walk and talk with some of the patriarchs as a normal human or appear as flaming shrubbery.

@kenammi355

Insure why you thought that. But perhaps I have and perhaps you have as well.

Now, you merely asserted and positive affirmation with which you began as a conclusion based on hidden assumptions that, “angels don’t really exist” so how do you know that and, more importantly, what would it matter, on your worldview?

You say, “the various Bible authors could make their messengers from Yahweh look like anything…” but I’m unaware of any such thing.

@oscargordon

Fair enough. Let me rephrase that. There is zero credible evidence for the existence of angels outside of human imagination. The only thing I know about how angels look is from the artwork produced by human imagination.

@kenammi355

That’s too bad then since most of that artwork is inaccurate.

@oscargordon

Acknowledging again that in the stories, sometimes angels appeared as mundane humans, let me ask again. How is it that you know what they really look like and all of the artists over the centuries are totally wrong?

@kenammi355

“How is it that you know what they really look like”: I’m only telling you what is revealed in the Bible.

“all of the artists over the centuries are totally wrong”: you will have to ask whoever thinks that.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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