Discussing “Why Did God Kill Everyone in a Flood?!”

Why Did God Kill Everyone in a Flood?! is the title of a video by David Natali which led to the following discussion when a certain @firekirby1234 commented

Mankind was evil  nowhere on the Bible does the Lord have an issue with nephilin

I, @kenammi355, repllied

Except when He ensured they didn’t make it past the flood.

@firekirby1234

also whats your proof for the angels and “nephilim” being eradicated from this planet when we have giants still alive among us  people with uncanny abilities that are more proprietary to a non fully human species yet they are for all inteded purposes human  seems like “nephilims” werent really the issue

@kenammi355

Sorry, that’s really hard to follow since you jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word, “Nephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” so since I’m unsure what you mean, 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?

I will also need to know to what you’re referring by, “uncanny abilities” and what makes you think that Nephilim possessed such–exclusively so.

@firekirby1234

if you dont see it you dont see it, follow your own digging tunnel

@kenammi355

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.

@firekirby1234

you seem to think that your knowledge and others lack of care for your lack of knowledge is an indication that you’re on the right path  you have no idea what a nephilin is and since the bible doesn’t say anywhere He hated them you go on to claim that lack of care to inform someone that doesn’t care for information is the key to your victory in your argument  no debate needed with you sir  shame school seems to have been wasted or perhaps not enough emphasis on actually learning to pursue knowledge

@kenammi355

I’m not interested in your ungracefully worldly attempts at mind reading. You assert, “you have no idea what a nephilin is” (which should be “a Nephil” or just “Nephilim ” without the “a”): but I directed you to what we can know about them and you ignored it.

As for, “the bible doesn’t say anywhere He hated them” well, if you mean the Hebrew equivalent of, “He hated them” then sure, but I’m directing you to the narrative’s context which is a complete thought, not disconnected verses, but you ignored it.

@firekirby1234

bottom line you wanna complain about random stuff to make yourself feel saved but the more you fight it the worse it gets, control your ego pride or you’ll burn

@kenammi355

So now you want to act like an online Atheist and go full blown ungracefully worldly by playing mind reader and pretending that you can discern my thoughts and motivations: you should be deeply ashamed of yourself and please repent.

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Discussing “Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today”

Right Response Ministries posted a vid to their Youtube channel that is titled Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today | with @hauntedcosmos_ that’s a companion to my post On the “Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today.”

This time, it led to the following discussion after a certain @bobbyduke777 commented

A 100FT tall giant could not reproduce, with out genetic manipulation. There were fallen angels still involved. the designers of the pyramids, which are giant electric generators, was from the fallen angels. The secrets of heaven given to men. That is why the Egyptians or what ever people were their at the time, called them gods. they did wonders, like electric lights and probably levitation.

I, @kenammi355, replied

There’s zero indication of “A 100FT tall giant.”

“There were fallen angels still involved” until the flood—as far as we can tell.

What do “Mediterranean cedars” have to do with it?

What “first giants”? In fact, 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?

Who was, “140 feet taLL”?

“As in the time of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of man” has zero to do with this and “Giants are returning now” may imply that God failed and where are they?

Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”

But He kept speaking directly with:

“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17).

Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.

The key questions are key since without the answers we can’t know what you mean by “The angel of the Lord…slew those giants.”

@bobbyduke777

The Bible says they were as tall as cedars. “I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars” (Amos 2:9)

Argue with God, I am not in the mood

@kenammi355

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. What makes you think that Amorites had fruits and roots growing out of their bodies and whence did you get the very specific “100…140” ft numbers?

@bobbyduke777

I don’t know where i said anything about roots and leafs growing out of their bodies so your making things up from the git. The Bible says they were taller then cedar trees. You need to go argue with God if you have a problem with what I said.

@bobbyduke777

also it was their first born that grew that tall. Because they had to mix with human DNA each time, they got smaller over time.

@kenammi355

Friend, please read a text before conveniently selectively quoting it. You ignored the question, “whence did you get the very specific “100…140” ft numbers?” so I will just have to guess that you imply it has something to do with, “height of the cedars” but if that’s the case then, if you imply that Amos was implying conducting a literal one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation (and if so, those cedars aren’t 110-140ft) then you have to take this literally as well, “it was I who destroyed the Amorite…I destroyed his FRUIT above and his ROOTS beneath.”

As for, “The Bible says they were taller then cedar trees”: as you quoted it, Amos noted, “LIKE the height of the cedars.”

There’s literally zero indication that Amorites had anything whatsoever to do with being non-human who had to “mix with human DNA.”

@bobbyduke777

It’s in the BIBLE GO READ IT! their sons were taller then cedars. tell me to read when you havn’t

@bobbyduke777

They were sons of Anuk, and the Raphaim and a few others, but the first born were titans, taller then cedars. Drinkers of blood who ate all the people could produce, and then started eating the people.

@kenammi355

I’m unsure why you didn’t answer my question.

I get the feeling that you’ve bought into pop-Nephilology which is so based on making vague and generic points by watering things down that you’re not aware of the categorical distinctions in the issue you’re discussing.

For example, you generically referred to, “their sons” but didn’t bother stating who’s sons you’re referring to.

As for, “tell me to read when you havn’t” I’m not interested in your attempts at mind reading and it’s rather odd that you merely assume I haven’t read it when I quoted it.

Also, please stop manipulating God’s word since this is the second time you’ve done it and while the first time may have been a accident, now it’s purposeful. Recall that you asserted, “they were taller then cedar trees” but I noted, “Amos noted, ‘LIKE the height of the cedars’” but you decided to ignore God’s word and doubled down on asserting, “taller then cedars.”

You also ignored everything else I noted such that the issue of the fruits and roots.

As for, “They were sons of Anuk” you are being generic again: who were the sons of “Anuk”?

FYI: the sons of Anak were the Anakim and not “the Raphaim and a few others” since Rephaim were a tribe of which the Anakim were a clan.

You jumped from Amorites to sons of Anuk to Rephaim and others and then to titans: see what I mean about being vague, generic, watering things down, etc.: you’re making category errors but seem unaware of it.

You refer to, “the first born” but were being generic so: the first born of whom and when?

Who were, “Drinkers of blood who ate all the people could produce, and then started eating the people” and when and what makes you think so?

See, the more you deal with people who challenge your views, rather than just being equally vague and generic, the more you’ll realize that you can’t back your assertions, the angrier you will become, the more abusive and less graceful and more worldly you will become when the Godly reaction would be to slow down, sharpen iron with iron, and really ponder the facts and change whatever needs changing in your modus operandi and views.

Shalom!

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

See my various books here.

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

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

Was Israelite intermarriage forbidden due to post-flood Nephilim?

Herein I will consider that which many such proponent of the idea of post-flood Nephilim existence claim and that is that God forbade Israelite intermarriage with Goyim/Gentiles due to seeking to keep bloodlines from mixing: in this case, pure human with the literally hybrid genetics of the Nephilim. Also see the sister article,
Was Israelite intermarriage forbidden due to serpent seedline of Satan?

Let us review some of the key texts to which post-flood Nephilim proponents direct us:

Deuteronomy 7: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Joshua 23: Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God. Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you:

1 King 11: But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you…

Ezra 9: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.

Numbers 25: And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

Numbers 12: And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

I have quoted these specific portions so as to approximate the manner whereby they are likely to be quoted by post-flood Nephilim proponents. You will note that the texts are very straight forwards and from here the theorists will tell you that this pertains to not mixing bloodlines.

However, let us take a closer contextual look at these very same texts:

Deuteronomy 7: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Joshua 23: Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God.
Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

1 Kings 11: But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.

Ezra 9: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this.

Numbers 25: And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

Do you see how when read within context the whole concept of genetics mixing is utterly discredited? The texts tell you that this is about actions, about idolatry, about spiritual adultery as it were: about the Israelites not being given over to worship false gods due to intermarriage.

Revelation 2 has Jesus speaking to the church in Pergamos and noting that one of the things He had against them is that “thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.”

Also note Exodus 34:14-16:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

Thus, overall this has everything to do with not being unequally yoked, for example:

2 Corinthians 6: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

But what of Moses being spoken against due to taking an Ethiopian wife? Well, the text continues by noting that Miriam and Aaron also stated, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” the ultimate result of which is:

…the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud…And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.

Moses interceded of Miriam who is then healed and the contextual point with regards to my article is that this had utterly nothing to do with Moses’ Ethiopian wife: the Lord says nothing of it and no more of it is said by anyone ever.

The fact is that, God forbade intermarriage when the context implies undue or unbalanced Goyim/Gentile influence.
In fact Galatians 3 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In counter distinction to post-flood Nephilim proponents’ claims, God allows for such intermarriages in general when the influence would be on the side of the godly and not the idolaters:

Deuteronomy 20: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Thus, we have seen that, yet again, with just a little reading for context another post-flood Nephilim proponents claim gives up the ghost.

See my various books here.

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Was Israelite intermarriage forbidden due to serpent seedline of Satan?

This is part of my ongoing research on the claims made by serpent seed of Satan theorists. They assert that Cain was the son of Eve and Satan and that the events recorded in Genesis 3 is symbolic of their sexual encounter. Also see the sister article, Was Israelite intermarriage forbidden due to post-flood Nephilim?

Herein I will consider that which many such theorists claim and that is that God forbade Israelite intermarriage with Goyim/Gentiles due to seeking to keep bloodlines/seedlines from mixing: in this case, pure Sethite with the literally Satanic genetics of the Cainites.

Let us review some of the key texts to which serpent seedline of Satan theorists direct us:

Deuteronomy 7: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

Joshua 23: Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God. Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you:

1 King 11: But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you…

Ezra 9: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.

Numbers 25: And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.

Numbers 12: And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.

serpent2bseed2bbloodlines-7741162

I have quoted these specific portions so as to approximate the manner whereby they are likely to be quoted by serpent seed of Satan theorists. You will note that the texts are very straight forwards and from here the theorists will tell you that this pertains to not mixing bloodlines/seedlines since this all pertains to genetics.

However, let us take a closer contextual look at these very same texts:

Deuteronomy 7: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

Joshua 23: Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God.
Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.

1 Kings 11: But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.

Ezra 9: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this.

Numbers 25: And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.

Do you see how when read within context the whole concept of genetics mixing is utterly discredited? The texts tell you that this is about actions, about idolatry, about spiritual adultery as it were: about the Israelites not being given over to worship false gods due to intermarriage.

Revelation 2 as Jesus speaking to the church in Pergamos and noting that one of the things He had against them is that “thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.”

serpent2bseed2bbirth2bcert-8630110

Also note Exodus 34:14-16:

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.

Thus, overall this has everything to do with not being unequally yoked, for example:

2 Corinthians 6: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

But what of Moses being spoken against due to taking an Ethiopian wife? Well, the text continues by noting that Miriam and Aaron also stated, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” the ultimate result of which is:

…the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud…And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.

Moses interceded of Miriam who is then healed and the contextual point with regards to my article is that this had utterly nothing to do with Moses’ Ethiopian wife: the Lord says nothing of it and no more of it is said by anyone ever.

The fact is that all so called “races” are one since all of us come from Adam and yes, from Eve. God forbade intermarriage when the context implies undue or unbalanced Goyim/Gentile influence.
In fact Galatians 3 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In counter distinction to serpent seed of Satan claims, God allows for such intermarriages in general when the influence would be on the side of the godly and not the idolaters:

Deuteronomy 20: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Thus, we have seen that, yet again, with just a little reading for context another serpent seedline of Satan claim gives up the ghost.

is2bcain2bthe2bserpent2bseed2bof2bsatan-1803258

See my various books here—including my five volume set Can As Serpent Seed of Satan.

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Brilliant Read Media on How Tall Were the Nephilim Giants in the Book of Genesis?

The BR TEAM published an article titled How Tall Were the Nephilim Giants in the Book of Genesis? Brilliant Read self-identified as, “one of the Leading Online Magazines and a Digital Media Company that publishes the finest content around Personal development, Success Mantras, News, Views, Interviews, Startup Stories, and Entrepreneurship.” It’s utterly fascinating that Nephilology has become such a cottage industry that even contextually irrelevant forums are posting about them.

We’re told of a, “Fallen Angel Nephilim Giant Tall Gods Controversy” which makes me wonder if they realize that biblically contextually, “Nephilim Giant” reads as, “Nephilim Nephilim.” They go on to elucidate, “The Bible describes giants in its content and also groups of giants, including Nephilim, who are mentioned once in the book of Genesis and again in Numbers.” We will have to see to what descriptions they’re referring and whether they tell us to what they’re referring by the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” especially since Nephilim were included in that category.

They note, “many studying the Bible would like to understand is the actual size, how tall the Nephilim really were” and rightly point out, “there is no biblical notation or concrete evidence documenting the exact height of the individuals”: I would go beyond not exact to not at all even generically vaguely—stand by.

For some reason, they next wrote, “Biblical references and North American skeletal remains offer reasonable speculation of the height of giants such as King Og and Goliath. Some specimens not widely spoken of measure between 10 and 18 feet tall.” Yet—I might as well get to the stand by part now—since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim (ok, stand by again for more on that) then there no such, “Biblical references,” especially no in the plural, nor “North American skeletal remains” (referencing an entire continent is a bit of a vague citation) since because we’ve no reliable physical description of them how then could we know even if we were looking right at their skeletons?

Also, we still can’t know to what they’re referring by, “the height of giants” but Og and Goliath were both Rephaim, not Nephilim, so they’re irrelevant to, “the actual size, how tall the Nephilim really were” thus, the, “10 and 18 feet tall” numbers are irrelevant.

As for citations, well, they note, “It was purported that ‘dozens were found between 1850 and 1940’” but we’re not told purported by whom nor where it was purported nor what was found nor where something was found but were only given a decade’s worth of time. It may be of interest that I collected together many (99% vaguely generic) newspaper reports from the late 1800s to the early 1900s in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales (which is one of my dozen, or so, Nephilology books).

It’s noted, “The Masoretic Texts suggest that Goliath spanned ‘six cubits and a span’ which was roughly 9’9” and that King Og slept in a bed of approximately 12’ in length. In 1 Kings 6, the cherubs were ten cubits or 15 feet tall.”

This is a case of that what was not said is more important than what was said so, let’s review:

Indeed, “The Masoretic Texts suggest that” but it’s still irrelevant since, again, he was a Repha, not a Nephil. Yet, moreover, what we weren’t told is that the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.–compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

As for, “Og slept in a bed…” that’s also irrelevant due to the non-Nephil fact but it’s an artificial insertion to merely assert that it was a bed upon which he slept—and a merely assumption that it tells us anything about his personal height (which certainly seems to have been the implication)—a, “bed” of such dimensions was found in the Etemenanki ziggurat and it’s not meant to be slept upon but was an occult Pagan ritual object. For more details, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

As for the Cherubim, they’re also irrelevant to Nephiliology and the implication is that the height describes them physically but what we weren’t told is that the cite text is merely telling us the height of statues of them. And we know that we can’t just take statues of them literally, as in a one-to-one ratio, since another statue of them was atop the Ark of the Covenant, on the sides of the Mercy Seat, and those were much, much, much smaller.

And so, when they get to the statement, “With all of this considered” to come to the conclusion, “Nephilim was likely the tallest of any human, making them range between 10 to 15 feet in height, but that would be speculation” I’m pleased that they included the qualifying term speculation since that conclusion was based on no physical description of Nephilim but only appeals to non-Nephilim—one of whom, Og, for whom we’ve no physical description.

A subsection asks, “What Does Tell Us About Nephilim[?]” the cogently viable answer to which can only logically, and bio-logically, be: nothing.

More on point that they may realize, they note, “Nephilim is mentioned twice in the Bible, in the book of Genesis, and again in Numbers. Specifics on their appearance…size…are not described.” Gen 6:2-4 (is cited but only verses 2-3 are actually quoted) but, indeed, tells us nothing about their physical appearance.

As a side note, since the manner in which they quoted is, “… The sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful, and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not remain with man forever because he is also flesh; nevertheless, his days shall be 120 years” and a comment is, “Nephilim lived on the earth then and beyond” so apparently, beyond 120 years: whether they mean of age or for 120 years after that statement was made.

It’s also noted, “The indication is that Nephilim were ‘malevolent giants consuming all men’s acquisitions and devouring mankind,’ according to The Books of Enock and Giants, neither written by Enoch” which is quite accurate since 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 and as for the Book of Giants, that book convers is as well as that I include both in my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.

At this point, a subsection askes, “Was Goliath Nephilim[?]” the answer to which is, “Goliath was more than likely not Nephilim” which causes problems for them attempting to ascertain the height of Nephilim by appealing to him. In fact, I’d go further than likely not and say that it would be impossible. Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

And they rightly note, “The great flood wiped out Nephilim. The very distinct DNA of this creature was lost then, and there is no specific description of them living on earth following the flood or Noah’s days” about which I will say AMEN!!!

It’s noted, “Following the flood, God forbade human women and fallen angels from coming together” about which what we’re told biblically is that Jude and 2 Peter 2 both tell us that those Angels were incarcerated and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

Yet, the BR staff went on directly to write, “Similarly to Nephilim, Goliath was a giant.” They’re clearly using the term giant to refer to some vaguely generic subjectively unusual height but that’s not the usage of the English Bibles that employ that term, therein the word giants merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

Another section tells us of, “The Nephilim Misconceptions” including, “The giants were able to escape the great flood…” which contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).

That sentence actually ends with, “…but were banished to North America. In that vein, there are legends among the indigenous North American people concerning giants described as having ‘six fingers on their hands, double rows of teeth, red hair and owning advanced technology.’” Yet, there’s zero indication that Nephilim exhibited any of those features.

It’s noted, “the Smithsonian Institute and the US Government confiscated its alleged skeletons and suppressed details” about which I will direct the interested reader to a chapter about that in my aforementioned book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! as well as the articles Lovelock Cave Giants: lost or found? and Review of “Did 14-foot giants exist Did they differ from humans Author explores these ancient beings”

It’s also noted, “Some believe the giants developed a thriving underground civilization” which is a great way of saying that lack of evidence equals evidence. Also, Gen 6:17 notes, “everything that is in the earth shall die.” But indeed, people who, for whatever mis-reason, are post-flood Nephilim obsessed demand that they are still alive but conveniently place them where no one can see them: in underground cavernous caves, in deep underground military bases, in Antarctica, etc., etc., etc.

Another section asked, “Did God Destroy the Nephilim[?]” and answers, “The Nephilim were not included as something to be preserved, meaning these creatures were destroyed with the great flood” which biblically, is the end of them, full stop, since they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

Moreover, “There is no mention of the Nephilim creatures with their distinct DNA, living on the earth following the days of Noah. Any references outside of the Bible to such are myth, theory, or speculation, and nothing more.”

But wait, it had been noted, “Nephilim…are mentioned once in the book of Genesis and again in Numbers” and the, “Final Thought” section reiterates, “Nephilim is mentioned twice in the Bible, both in Genesis and again in Numbers” which is post-flood, and, “there are no specific details describing the giants as far as their appearance, size…” yet, they never delved into the Num reference to them.

Well, that’s no great loss since they are mentioned in Num 13:33 which is merely one of the sentences in an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Thus, there’s zero reason to believe them.

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 (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Biblical Archaeology Society on Nephilim, Giants and Angels

The Biblical Archaeology Society published an article titled The Nephilim and the Sons of God by a certain John Drummond who quotes Genesis 6:1–4 thusly:

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Interestingly, Drummond notes, “Though centuries of rabbinical and church tradition would say otherwise, the audience to whom the text was intended would have understood the ‘sons of God’ to be the members of the divine assembly mentioned throughout the literature of the ancient Near East, including the Bible (see Job 6:1; Job 38:7; Psalm 29:1; Psalm 82). In the biblical texts, the ‘sons of God’ are usually described as lesser heavenly beings in the service of the Most High.”

I say interestingly since the reverse appears to be the case but then again, it’s unknown to when, “Through centuries” refers. As per the earliest relevant centuries: 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.

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

John Drummond asserts that the word Nephilim, “translated means something to the effect of ‘ancient champions who made a name for themselves” but that’s not the word, that a combination of when they lived and what is said about them: pre-flood being ancient and that they are were mighty men who were of old, the men of renown being the, “champions who made a name for themselves” part. The word itself has its roots in naphal: fall/fallen/to fall/to cause to fall, etc.

Drummond notes, “Every society has myths and legends about gods having children with humans who become epic heroes and legendary kings…Readers of the Bible will be quick to point out the obvious problems with the Israelites’ enjoying the epic tales of demigods’ slaying monsters—they glorify a pagan culture filled with a slew of gods and goddesses…Instead of denying the existence of famous heroes altogether, the author labels them ‘the fallen ones’ and all but blames them for the utter depravity that fell upon the world and necessitated the flood…Just after the flood, in Babel (Babylon)…human beings decided to band together and build a tower to heaven to make a name for themselves (Genesis 11:1–9). Were they trying to create their own legends to cement themselves in history alongside the Nephilim? We can only speculate.”

Now, John Drummond goes on to merely assert, “The legacy of the Nephilim did not end with the flood, however, as the biblical texts go on to attribute them as the ancestors of some of the Israelites’ most feared enemies (Numbers 13:33).”

I say assert even though he threw is an unelucidated citation to one sentence because he threw is an unelucidated citation to one sentence.

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 (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).

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.”

But what about that one sentence? Well, that is the mother of all post-flood Nephilim texts—single verse, actually—because it’s the only one. And it’s one sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Thus, the answer to, “Were they trying to create their own legends to cement themselves in history alongside the Nephilim?” regarding the Babel-onians is one issue but the 10 were certainly creating their own legends about Nephilim as a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale: see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

When Drummond goes on to write, “Another feared group that was legendary by the time the Israelites settled the land was the Rephaim, who were known to be powerful giants (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20, 3:11; Joshua 12:4, 13:12)” he doesn’t seem to be aware that biblically contextually, “Rephaim, who were known to be powerful giants” reads as, “Rephaim, who were known to be powerful Rephaim, who were known to be powerful Rephaim.”

He further notes, “It’s unknown if the Israelites originally equated the Rephaim with the Nephilim, but it is clear that by the Intertestimental period (the fourth–first centuries B.C.E.) the Nephilim were thought to be the monstrous giant offspring of fallen angels and humans, as described in the pseudographical Book of Enoch and Jubilees, as well as others found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

If, “Israelites originally equated the Rephaim with the Nephilim” it was due to that one sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: who’s one sentence is literally the premise for all un-biblical Nephilology—and especially 100% of modern Nephilology which is neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.

As for the Intertestimental period; see my books The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Textsand In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch. That is when the 10 guys’ taking the tall-tales up a notch are taken up even more notches since such as who folklore is done—see my How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

Moreover, Drummond notes, “The authors of the Greek Septuagint even chose to use the word gigantes in their translation of Genesis 6, a word that also invokes the monstrous Titans—the legendary giants that were destroyed by the gods in Greek myth. And like the Titans of old, the legend of the Nephilim only continues to grow in modern times.” Very well but he failed to elucidate that gigantes means earth-born (as in born of the false earth goddess Gaia).

But there’s more to the Septuagint’s sorted translating: that was not a translation but merely a rendering and for some unknown reason, those renderers also rendered gibborim and also Rephaim as gigantes (or, gigas: still a reference to Gaia) and it’s a terrible idea to render three very different words with three very different meanings with merely one word.

The article ends by directing us to Jaap Doedens’ paper Biblical Profile: Exploring the Story of the Sons of God wherein it’s noted, “Crucial to the understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 is the question: Who are these ‘sons of God’?…They are either human or non-human….fallen angels, mighty men, descendants of Seth, or divine beings.”

While, “the oldest explanation is that the ‘sons of God’ are angels” and, “The earliest Christian exegetes essentially took over this view. It is around the fourth century C.E. that the tide turns” to, “godly Sethites…who mingle with the daughters of the godless tribe of Cain” so that the Sethites weren’t so godly after all since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood—go figure. The Sethite view is not only a late-comer, it’s based on prejudice, on myth, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

It’s notes that (an overwhelming minority: would that be underwhelming?), “Already from the second century C.E. on, Jewish exegesis had also exchanged the angels interpretation for an explanation of the ‘sons of God’ as judges, rulers, or the elite who marry morally inferior women.” Since when does that, which includes the Sethite view, result in worldwide floods anyhow?

Jaap Doedens notes, “an historical kernel of this narrative about marriages of divine beings and human…can possibly be connected to archaeology. Perhaps the presence of megalithic tombs…dolmens…gave rise to tales about fallen giant warriors…This may be one of the functions of the narrative in Genesis 6:1-4.”

But he employed the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” without defining it and correlated it to Gen 6:1-4 in some unstated manner.

And that, in essence, brings an end to the most contextually relevant portions of what John Drummond and Jaap Doedens had to say regarding my focus as a Systematic Biblical Paranormologist.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

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

Such is the title of a video by Right Response Ministries which led to the following discussion when a certain @redraven1410 commented

The Word Giant means Earth Born, not Huge of Stature, .Many Nephilim may very well have been huge of Stature.

I believe the gene that limits growth is contributed by the Father in some species and the Mother in others .

The Canaanites viewed the Joshua and Caleb and the  10 spies as “grass hoppers” ( very small).

If you lack a growth limiting gene, you would continue to grow for your entire lifetime

I, @kenammi355, replied

The Word gigantes means Earth born.

There’s no indication “The Canaanites viewed the Joshua and Caleb and the  10 spies as ‘grass hoppers’ ( very small).”

@ketubah857

Giant means…GIANT

[note how this person ignored the second correction]

@kenammi355

That’s incoherent since it begs the question it proports to answer. Let me put it this way, 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?

@ketubah857

I use the Hebrew definitions. Not my opinions or any ones opinions

@kenammi355

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. BTW, “Giant means…GIANT” isn’t Hebrew.

@ketubah857

The fallen angels are able to morph or shape shift. They can appear as a handsome man and deceive the women.  The offspring of the fallen angels and the human are called nephalem.  You are correct in that giant is not Hebrew. That is an English term.  But there are skeletons of the nephalim they are huge, as in giant huge.

@kenammi355

Well, but there’s actually zero biblical indication that “fallen angels” or any Angels, “re able to morph or shape shift. I’m unsure how you can identify “skeletons of the nephalim” since we’ve no reliable physical description of them.

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

What is the theory on what happened to the Nephilim and their place in history?

The question What is the theory on what happened to the Nephilim and their place in history? was posted to the Quora site and led to this discussion when L. Budow, “Scripture Questions & Answers Research For Life,” commented

The Nephilim and mans evil, due to the Angels and the resulting Nephilim and Rapha (Giant Nephilim), were the cause for God’s flood on earth to wipe them out.

This did not wipe them all out, as they had regenerative power as half angel and some were not exposed to the devestation of God’s flood.

It is stated in the scripture, during the time of David as King, they attempted to wipe out the giant Nephilim, (the Rapha)

There were still normal size Nephilim, but it is unknown what happened to them.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

The phrase “Nephilim and Rapha (Giant Nephilim)” appears to be a category error.

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?

As for “due to the Angels and the resulting…Rapha[im]” there’s zero indication of that.

It’s odd that you have it that they “were the cause for God’s flood on earth to wipe them out” but God failed, He couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste since, “This did not wipe them all out.”

You very specifically asserted, “It is stated in the scripture, during the time of David as King, they attempted to wipe out the giant Nephilim, (the Rapha)” but I would imagine that you can only assert that due to the incoherent non-biblical term “Nephilim, (the Rapha).”

I’m unsure to what you’re referring by “There were still normal size Nephilim.”

As for, “it is unknown what happened to them”: it is know, the last of them died in the flood—the problem is that you’re swapping “Nephilim” for “Rapaha[im]” but Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

  1. Budow

Now you can disagree with the scriptures below if you disagree with the words of God.

Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakites, Giants

  1. Genesis 6:4

It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth — when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring.

They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

  1. Genesis 14:5

In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim at Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim at Ham, the Emim at Shaveh-kiriathaim,

  1. Genesis 15:20

the Hitites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim

  1. Numbers 13:28

However, the people who inhabit the country are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large; moreover, we saw the Anakites there.

  1. Numbers 13:29

Amalekites dwell in the Negeb region; Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites inhabit the hill country; and Canaanites dwell by the Sea and along the Jordan.”

  1. Numbers 13:32

Thus they spread calumnies among the Israelites about the land they had scouted, saying, “The country that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its settlers. All the people that we saw in it are men of great size;

  1. Numbers 13:33

we saw the Nephilim there — the Anakites are part of the Nephilim — and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them.”

  1. Deuteronomy 2:11

Like the Anakites, they are counted as Rephaim; but the Moabites call them Emim

  1. Deuteronomy 2:20

It, too, is counted as Rephaim country. It was formerly inhabited by Rephaim, whom the Ammonites call Zamzummim,

  1. Deuteronomy 2:21

a people great and numerous and as tall as the Anakites. The LORD wiped them out, so that [the Ammonites] dispossessed them and settled in their place,

  1. Deuteronomy 3:11

Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remaining Rephaim. His bedstead, an iron

bedstead, is now in Rabbah of the Ammonites; it is nine cubits long and four

cubits wide, by the standard cubit!

  1. Deuteronomy 3:13

The rest of Gilead, and all of Bashan under Og’s rule — the whole Argob district, all that part of Bashan which is called Rephaim country — I assigned to the half tribe of Manasseh.

  1. Deuteronomy 9:2

a people great and tall, the Anakites, of whom you have knowledge; for you have heard it said, “Who can stand up to the children of Anak?”

  1. Joshua 14:15

The name of Hebron was formerly Kiriath-arba: [Arba] was the great man among the Anakites. And the land had rest from war.

  1. 2nd Samuel 21:20

Once again there was fighting, at Gath.

There was a giant of a man, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in all; he too was descended from the Raphah.

  1. 2nd Samuel 21:21

When he taunted Israel, Jonathan, the son of David’s brother Shimei, killed him.

  1. 2nd Samuel 21:22

Those four were descended from the Raphah in Gath, and they fell by the hands of David and his men.

  1. 1st Chronicles 20:4

After this, fighting broke out with the Philistines at Gezer; that was when Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai, a descendant of the Rephaim, and they were humbled.

  1. 1st Chronicles 20:5

Again there was fighting with the Philistines, and Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite; his spear had a shaft like a weaver’s beam.

  1. 1st Chronicles 20:6

Once again there was fighting at Gath. There was a giant of a man who had twenty-four fingers [and toes], six [on each hand] and six [on each foot]; he too was descended from the Raphah.

  1. 1st Chronicles 20:7

When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of David’s brother Shimea killed him.

  1. 1st Chronicles 20:8

These were descended from the Raphah in Gath, and they fell by the hands of David and his men.

Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakites, Giants / Overview

Nephilim = angel human hybrids in Enoch

Nephilim = angel human hybrid in Genisis

Rephaim = giants Deuteronomy, 2nd Samuel, 1st Chronicles

Anakites = very large men, descendants of the Nephilim and human, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua,

  1. the Nephilim appeared on earth — when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring
  2. defeated the Rephaim at Ashteroth-karnaim
  3. the Rephaim
  4. very large; we saw the Anakites there.
  5. Amalekites dwell in the Negeb region
  6. one that devours its settlers. we saw in it are men of great size;
  7. we saw the Nephilim there — the Anakites are part of the Nephilim —

and we looked like grasshoppers

  1. the Anakites, they are counted as Rephaim; but the Moabites call them Emim
  2. It is counted as Rephaim country.

formerly inhabited by Rephaim, whom the Ammonites call Zamzummim,

  1. a people great and numerous and as tall as the Anakites.

The LORD wiped them out, so that [the Ammonites] dispossessed them

  1. Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remaining Rephaim.

His bedstead, an iron bedstead, it is nine cubits long and four cubits wide,

by the standard cubit!

  1. under Og’s rule — the whole Argob district, which is called Rephaim country —

I assigned to the half-tribe of Manasseh.

  1. a people great and tall, the Anakites, of whom you have knowledge;
  2. the great man among the Anakites
  3. There was a giant of a man, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes

on each foot, twenty-four in all; he too was descended from the Raphah.

  1. Jonathan, the son of David’s brother Shimei, killed him.
  2. Those four were descended from the Raphah in Gath,

and they fell by the hands of David and his men.

  1. Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai,

descendant of the Rephaim, and they were humbled.

  1. Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite;

his spear had a shaft like a weaver’s beam.

  1. Jonathan son of David’s brother Shimea killed him.
  2. These were descended from the Raphah in Gath,

and they fell by the hands of David and his men.

Ken Ammi

Appreciate it, friend.

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.

Nothing that you posted is relevant since you appear to be reading those texts without being categorical about what you’re reading so I will jump to the “Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakites, Giants / Overview” part:

Indeed, “Nephilim = angel human hybrid in Genisis.”

“Rephaim = giants…”: that’s myopic.

“Anakites = very large men, descendants of the Nephilim and human” there’s zero indication of any of that. We are told they were “tall” (not even “very”) which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as “giants” and they were named after a man named Anak, Abra’s son.

Is this supposed to mean something? “4. very large; we saw the Anakites there” and were is “there”?

This, “7. we saw the Nephilim there — the Anakites are part of the Nephilim” replies exclusive on one single sentence from only non-LXX versions of an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked: why do you side with them rather than with the God who rebuked them?

Indeed, “8. the Anakites, they are counted as Rephaim; but the Moabites call them Emim” and aka Zamzummim but Nephilim have absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

I’m unsure what Og’s “bedstead” has to do with anything.

Please answer the key questions since you will then understand that, “15. There was a giant of a man, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes” biblically contextually reads as, “15. There was a Repha, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes.”

That’s why most of what you posted is irrelevant to the issues I noted which were:

The phrase “Nephilim and Rapha (Giant Nephilim)” appears to be a category error.

As for “due to the Angels and the resulting…Rapha[im]” there’s zero indication of that.

It’s odd that you have it that they “were the cause for God’s flood on earth to wipe them out” but God failed, He couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste since, “This did not wipe them all out.”

You very specifically asserted, “It is stated in the scripture, during the time of David as King, they attempted to wipe out the giant Nephilim, (the Rapha)” but I would imagine that you can only assert that due to the incoherent non-biblical term “Nephilim, (the Rapha).”

I’m unsure to what you’re referring by “There were still normal size Nephilim.”

As for, “it is unknown what happened to them”: it is know, the last of them died in the flood—the problem is that you’re swapping “Nephilim” for “Rapaha[im]” but Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

  1. Budow

This is Scripture Questins….. & Answers.

My opinion is insignificant to God, as is anyone elses.

Ken Ammi

Am I supposed to know to what “Scripture Questins….. & Answers” refers?

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

See my various books here.

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

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

The About Pastors site publishes a List Of Giants In The Bible

The About Pastors site is actually a.k.a. 24H News and published a List Of Giants In The Bible. Due to the formatting of the article and that the whole site appears to be lists, I get a feeling it’s basically an AI generated site. It’s said to have been written (or posted) by a certain Evangelist Shadrach.

The article’s title and opening line, “Giants in the Bible are very interesting and mysterious characters. They are mentioned in different parts of the Bible” begs 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 Shadrach’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

We get a taste of the answer to question two via this statement, “The word ‘giants’ makes us think of very tall and strong people, and that’s exactly how these characters are often described in the Bible.” We will have to see if we are provided with any backing for that statement.

We’re told that in the Bible, “stories are mentions of giants…These giants are not just in one part of the Bible but appear in several places” which is repetitive of an already made statement.

Now, keeping in mind that we were told, “very tall…people,” we are next told:

One of the first times giants are mentioned is in the Book of Genesis, which is the very first book of the Bible. Here, giants are called “Nephilim.” The Bible says that these Nephilim lived on the Earth both before and after a big flood that covered the Earth. People have different ideas about who these Nephilim were. Some think they were the children of angels and human women, while others think they were just very big and strong people.

Shadrach then moves away from Genesis so I’m unsure how it’s relevant since it doesn’t physically describe them at all.

There’s literally not on single statement in “The Bible” which, “says that these Nephilim lived on the Earth both before and after a big flood that covered the Earth”: in fact, 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.

Back to, “very tall…people” well, “very” and, “tall” are just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as “giants”? Next we’re told, “Goliath was a giant” so I supposed that he was subjectively, “tall” and perhaps even, “very” since he was just shy of 7ft. compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft. in those days.

We’re then told of, “other groups of giants mentioned in the Bible, like the Anakim and the Rephaim…known for their size” but the only thing we’re told about their size is that they were, “tall” on average (Deut 2). Also, Those were all Rephaim since Anakim were a clan of that tribe.

We’re then taken back to Nephilim, “The Nephilim are some of the earliest giants mentioned in the Bible, appearing in the Book of Genesis.” Now, oddly, “Genesis 6:4” is cited but not quoted rather, it’s merely asserted, “This verse tells us that the Nephilim were on Earth before and after the great flood” but such isn’t the case since it reads, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

In fact, the flood isn’t even mentioned until a full 13 verse later.

It’s noted, “The Hebrew word Nephilim is often translated as ‘giants,’ suggesting they were much larger and stronger than normal humans. Their great size…” yet, that’s not a translation but is a rendering and to jump from that word to, “much larger” is a word-concept fallacy. The bottom line is that the answer to key question three is, “No” since, “giants” merely renders “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

It’s then specified that, “The Anakim are another group of giants mentioned in the Bible, specifically in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. They are often described as the descendants of the Nephilim, making them part of the giant lineage.” Yet, that is only accurate if, “often” means once—and never in the LXX. It’s only in one single sentence of an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked that such a correlation is made and the LXX version lacks any reference to Anakim. Thus, there’s no logical, bio-logical, nor theo-logical reason to accept that they are related. Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim, such as Anakim, were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

It’s then reiterated, “The Anakim are said,” failing to note that it was said one time and by unreliable guys whom God rebuked, “to come from the Nephilim, linking them to the mysterious giants mentioned in Genesis…Nephilim, the Anakim were noted for their impressive height…” yet, Anakim were, “tall” and we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim since they only one we have comes from the, “evil report” which was just a tall-tale.

“In Numbers 13” is then cited and we’re rightly told, “Moses sends twelve spies to explore the land of Canaan” but then we’re mislead by being told, “The spies report back that the land is filled with giants, specifically mentioning the Anakim.” See, what’s happening here is the we’re led to believe that ten 12 reported that but that was not he case, the citation is to the, “evil report” I noted but the trustworthy Caleb and Joshua didn’t report nor support any such thing.

We’re then told, “In the book of Joshua, the Israelites, led by Joshua, finally enter Canaan and battle the Anakim…The Anakim represent significant physical and psychological obstacles” in part due to their, “intimidating size” but, again, they had nothing to do with Nephilim.

We’re then told, “Rephaim are another group of giants…described as a formidable…in size…being as tall” and one of them is identified, “the most famous Rephaim was King Og of Bashan, mentioned in Deuteronomy 3. He was noted for his enormous bed made of iron, suggesting his great size.” Yet, that’s a non-sequitur based on various assumptions: we don’t have a physical description of Og—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

I’m getting the feeling that this was a AI generated article, a word generator copy and paste job: I suspect that due to the meandering, repetitive nature and that it’s very vague and watered down.

Having said that, we’re circled back to Goliath and told, “Goliath is described as standing over six cubits and a span tall, which would make him about nine feet nine inches tall.” Yet, that’s as per the Masoretic text yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.

We’re then told of, “The Emim and the Zamzummim: Lesser-Known Giants” but Shadrach (or the AI) seems to be unaware that Emim and Zamzummim or Zuzim are merely a.k.a. for Rephaim.

We’re then repetitively circled back to King Og.

The article, and many like is, also pepper homiletical sermonizing statements such as, “a powerful symbol of overcoming great challenges through faith and divine support…representing the triumph of the underdog and the importance of divine aid in achieving victory…themes of divine support and victory over seemingly insurmountable odds,” etc., etc., etc.

Well, we got a tase of watered-down misused terminology along with citations to text that don’t say what it was asserted they say along with assertions peppered throughout the various repetitive statements.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Hilda Scott answers Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From

Hilda Scott, from The Holy Script site, posted an article titled Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From?

The immediately important key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

Those questions are key since, for example, Scott begins by noting, “Most of us are familiar with the term ‘giants’ in the context of the Bible, since they are mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments” but we’re forced to guess to what, to whom, he’s referring much less whereabouts whatever giants are can be found in the NT.

She notes, “The word ‘giant’ is derived from the Latin word ‘gigentes’, which means ‘terrifying monsters with great strength’. These giants were believed to have been descendants of the Nephilim, the offspring of the union between the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’ mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4. According to tradition, the Nephilim were not just ordinary humans, but superhuman creatures with immense power.”

It’s also noteworthy that the word “giant” is derived from the Greek word “gigantes,” which means “earth-born.” Since she didn’t cite anything, I unsure what she was quoting regarding the Latin.

Now, as for the second key question, she noted, “giants were believed to have been descendants of the Nephilim” but I’m unsure who that would have been although sure, there were surely such personages around—strictly pre-flood, of course.

As for, “immense power” well, I suppose one could get that from the Biblical statement, “mightly.”

Now, since she defined, “giant” as per Gen 6:2-4 (only v. 4 refers to them) then by, “giants” she means, “Nephilim.” This actually is half of the answer to the first key question: in the Bibles which employ that English word it’s merely rendering, not even translating, “Nephilim” in two verses and/but, “Rephaim” in 98% of all other verses—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Hilda Scott then notes, “These giants were thought to have inhabited Canaan and other areas of the Promised Land. As related in Numbers 13:31-33 and Joshua 14:1-15, the spies that Moses sent to survey the land before the Entry of the Israelites noticed that the land was populated by an unusually large number of intimidating peoples. Of particular note were the descendants of Anak, who were described as ‘giants.’”

Well, that is actually a case of watering things down in order to make them seem to fit so let’s review:

“were thought to” by whom?

“inhabited Canaan and other areas of the Promised Land” that’s impossible since they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

“As related in Numbers 13:31-33” which is just an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so there’s no reason to believe them.

“and Joshua 14:1-15” there’s not a single word about Nephilim in that text.

“the spies that Moses sent” is too generic since it was the 10 unreliable ones who merely asserted that.

“descendants of Anak, who were described as ‘giants’” well, to say that they were described as such is part of the incoherent tall-tale—and it means, “were described as Nephilim” since they were fallaciously correlated to them.

Scott then tells us, “The incident of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 provides further evidence of the existence of giants in the land.” Yet, he was a Repha, not a Nephil—nor could he have been, so that’s a non issue.

Moreover, “The Philistine giant Goliath is described as being ‘six cubits and a span’ in height, which is equivalent to around nine feet today.” Keep in mind that as per Scott’s definition, “The Philistine giant Goliath” reads as, “The Philistine Nephilim Goliath” but, again, there’s zero indication of that.

As for, “around nine feet” well, I’m unsure what that has to do with anything but that’s as per the Masoretic Text but the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus, which is the preponderance of the earliest data, all have him at four cubits and a span, just shy of 7 ft.—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Hilda Scott then asks and answers, “Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From”—even though she already told us—“The giants also featured prominently in the books of Joshua and Ezekiel” but there’s no indication of any such thing. Okay, let’s get this out in the open: it’s pretty obvious that Scott offered us a definition of, “giants” as a mere reference to, “Nephilim” but has shifted her usage without telling us to something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height.

So then we are being given the homework of attempting to figure out what she’s talking about with any given usage which is just not the right thing to do to one’s readers. For example, translating her with this in mind, the assertion was, “The subjectively unusually tall personages also featured prominently in the books of Joshua and Ezekiel.”

Example one is Joshua 13:12’s reference to, “Og and Sihon, both of whom were referred to as ‘giants’” but 1) Scott doesn’t seem to realize that it means, “who were referred to as ‘Rephaim,’” 2) we don’t have a physical description of either of them and 3) even with the misusage of, “giants” as meaning subjectively unusually tall so merely jump to the conclusion that someone who is referred to as a giant must have been subjectively unusually tall regardless of genre, context, etc., is a word-concept fallacy.

We then come to, “giants” (whatever that means) in the NT, “In the New Testament, Jesus mentions the giants as a warning to his followers not to fear their enemies or be afraid of their own shortcomings (Matthew 16:18). He also speaks of the giants as a reference to people’s capacity to overcome whatever challenge they may face (Mark 8:36).”

We now have to do more homework so here are the actual quotations:

Matthew 16:18, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[b] shall not prevail against it.”

Mark 8:36, “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”

What those have to do with Nephilim or Rephaim or subjectively unusual height is certain mysterious—I’m getting the feeling that the article was the result of an AI word generator farm.

Scott then tells us, “we may never really know the true origin of giants in the Bible” but she already told us about the origins of Nephilim, Rephaim originated form their parents, and subjectively unusually tall people are just subjectively unusually tall—due to better nutrition, a pituitary gland issue, etc.

We’re generically told, “While some” unnamed, “believe that the Sons of God were human kings or rulers, others consider them to be angels, who descended to earth and intermingled with human women.” The, “human kings or rulers” view might be ancient but it’s historically virtually unknown and it’s incoherent since there’s not a single word in the whole Bible about there being anything wrong with kings or rulers marrying hoi polloi—commoners. That is what the view is but there’s no indication that there was anything wrong with that, much less wrong enough to result in the flood.

Another reason I suspect this was an AI article is that it’s tragically repetitive: I’m sparing you most of that—as well as being generic and anachronistic.

Scott, or the AI, tells us, “Some,” somebodies, “believe that the Nephilim were descendants of the wicked nations that existed pre-Flood, such as the people of Canaan and other ancient tribes.” Well, that’s literally impossible since, “the people of Canaan” didn’t even exist until centuries post-flood, and neither did Canaan as the name of a region.

Hilda Scott-AI then tell us that, “their extraordinary size and strength remain evidence of their tremendous power” but the only reference to their, “extraordinary size” is one sentence from an evil report that no one should believe.

Yet, we’re told, “There are several explanations for why the Nephilim were so physically large…bigger and stronger than humans…much larger size” but this is a literal non-issue.

For some out-of-left-field reason, we’re told, “Nephilim were actually significant in terms of innovation, particularly in terms of technology and science.”

It’s then asserted, “Archaeological evidence suggests that the Nephilim existed in many regions around the world…The Nephilim were also credited with introducing new and unique methods of construction, medicine, and even weapons…Nephilim were credited with building the Great Pyramid at Giza” but since we’re give zero citations we can merely dismiss those are tall-tale: for example, what, “Archaeological evidence” is there of pre-flood personages for whom we’ve no reliable physical description?

At this point, I’m disinterested in continuing to read merely watered down assertions such as, “Christianity, believed that the Nephilim were a blessing to humanity…even regarded as divinely inspired”: having familiarized myself with over two millennia of relevant data (with which I wrote my dozen, or so, Nephilology book) I can tell you that literally no one has ever claimed such a thing—although, the innerwebs is a big place so I grant so someone in some blog might have made such a mere assertion.

Scott/AI then noted, “the origin of giants in the Bible remains a mystery” so you see how such artificial articles loop round and round and round.

We’re then, generically, told of, “The phenomenon of giants…Evidence of giant populations…superhuman creatures…giants on earth…giants are descendants of aliens…giants of the Bible remain an enigma” and on and on and on the vagaries go.

Round we go again with, “Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From…Biological Aspects of the Giants…giants are described as having superhuman strength – possibly due to the fact that they had twice the amount of DNA than an average human” with zero indication of whence came that merely asserted supposed, “fact.”

More tall-tales follow with, “hurling large boulders” and then a reference to, “In light of this evidence” which is utterly detached from the article since it presented no evidence but merely generic assertions.

On it goes with, “incredible strength and size….Their physical might…” and so we come to the end of what the future of Nephilology holds: circular assertions repeated over and over again lacking citations and based on watered down vague, AI generated, statements.

FYI: Hilda Scott is described as, “an avid explorer of the Bible and inteprator [sic.] of its gospel. She is passionate about researching and uncovering the mysteries that lie in this sacred book. She hopes to use her knowledge and expertise to bring faith and God closer to people all around the world.” If such is the case, she needs to stop (allegedly) relying of AI and do some serious and seriously detailed research and writing.

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.