The Times of Israel article (a blog post, really) A Giant Mystery: Nephilim, Rephaim, and Anakim in the Bible was coauthored by Roger D. Isaacs (“independent researcher specializing in Hebrew Bible studies”) and Adam R. Hemmings (“Fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society and graduate of the University of Chicago and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London”).
The article begins by noting, “Scattered throughout the Hebrew Bible are a selection of words that refer to peoples who were interpreted to be giants.” This instantly begs the question: if they are interpreted to be giants (by whom, BTW?) then the key questions are:
Perhaps we will get replies within the article, perhaps not—we shall see (or not see).
They note, “Three words: nephilim, rephaim, and anakim” have, “roots…buried deep and are almost impossible to dig up” and yet, “they refer to groups rather than giants” which seems like a false dichotomy since they could refer to groups of (whatever) giants (means).
They write, “Nephilim…are described as the offspring of the ‘sons of God’ and human women in Genesis…The root verb from which this word is constructed is n-p-l meaning ‘to fall.’”
They view that as a problem since, “Scholars suggest that this might be because the ancient authors thought these being so large they were liable to fall, or make others fall (TDOT, v. 9, 497).” I’m unsure who the unnamed and unenumerated plural scholars are but I’ve never heard of any such thing—and they don’t inform us to what the citation refers. But note that we had a reference to, “being so large” without indication of why we should think that they were and with, “large” being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as, “giants.”
For whatever reason, they opt to go about, “looking to other languages. In Egyptian there is the word npr.tyw, which means ‘Shore/Bank/Edge Dwellers’” so that, “If,” and that is a big IF, “nephilim is a loanword from or at least in some way related to Egyptian, then…Nephilim may therefore have a relationship to a group of people living on a shore or edge of something”—or something, for whatever it’s worth.
Roger D. Isaacs and Adam R. Hemmings tell us that, “Another group, who some say like the Nephilim also had giant qualities, are the Rephaim” yet, since they haven’t told us that Nephilim possessed any, “giant qualities” (whatever that means) nor who the, “some” are nor that Rephaim possess whatever, “giant qualities” are.
Yet, they go on to refer to Rephaim as, “mythical giants” even though the only relevant biblical statement about them is that they were, “tall” (רוּם rûm) on average (Deut 2)—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
Again, for some unknown reason, they opt to that, “In Egyptian, we find the word r-pꜥt (hereditary prince – a variant of the more full jrj-pꜥt), which might indicate the leader or leaders of the group in question.” Ergo, “Perhaps the Rephaim were considered nobles” well, the noble ones were, such as King Og of Bashan. For details on this, see Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.
Roger D. Isaacs and Adam R. Hemmings then qualify a statement thusly, “As described in Numbers 13, the Israelite spies who scouted the Land of Canaan were terrified of the huge stature of the inhabitants, including the Anakim, although Moses’ lieutenants, Joshua and Caleb, did not report this, perhaps suggesting it was an exaggeration.”
There’s no suggestion and it was more than an exaggeration, it was a straight up fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale. See, when they generically say, “As described in Numbers 13” that fails to elucidate that they’re referring to one single sentence from an, “evil report” by 20 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. The reason why Joshua and Caleb did not report that in their report, which was accepted as is, is what I just noted about the 10.
Since they misstated the sentence, let us add key details, “As described in Numbers 13, the Israelite spies who scouted the Land of Canaan” 10 of them, “were terrified” at the prospect of confronting what the as is report noted which is that there were multiple strong (not, “huge”: with “huge” being just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants, large, and tall) people groups inhabiting large and well-fortified cities and about whom that they were all, “of the huge stature” was part of the evil report—also, note that reference to Anakim is missing from the evil report in the LXX version.
Once again, Roger D. Isaacs and Adam R. Hemmings tell us that, “The Egyptian Execration Texts mention Anak as a name of enemies of Egypt in the Levant, which would be extrabiblical evidence for the group. Other hints are also available in Egyptian: ꜣnq (aneq) is a priestly title (Wb 1, 11.8), whilst Ynk (Yenek or Yanqa) is a place in Syria” and no, they also don’t tell us to what this citation refers.
They note, “The words Nephilim, Rephaim, and Anakim above all refer to peoples, tribes, or groups. Some Bible interpreters have seen them as giants, but the words themselves would not support this theory.”
As for, “Some Bible interpreters have seen them as giants” again: we’re not told who are the, “Some” nor to what, “giants” refers nor why they see them that way—whatever way that may be.
And we are left hanging since the article ends with unexplained appeals to Egyptian and is peppered with watered down vaguely generic terminology that is never elucidated.
Thus, I will have to attempt to answer the key questions for them:
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.
The Catholic “New American Bible” has Genesis 1:3, 4 reading thusly:
When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose…At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so they took for their wives as many of them as they chose…At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
The footnotes read:
[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation – the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.
[2] The sons of heaven: literally “the sons of the gods” or “the sons of God,” i.e., the celestial beings of mythology.
[4] As well as later: According to ⇒ Numbers 13:33, when the Israelites invaded Palestine and found there the tall aboriginal Anakim, they likened them to the Nephilim; cf ⇒ Deut 2:10-11. Perhaps the huge megalithic structures in Palestine were thought to have been built by a race of giants, whose superhuman strength was attributed to semi-divine origin. The heroes of old: the legendary worthies of ancient mythology.
So, according to this official Catholic Bible, “The sacred author incorporates,” “an old legend…from ancient mythology.”
This is said, merely asserted actually, to have been done so as to, “account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim…”
Well, the, “giants of Palestine” were not Nephilim.
The key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s the note writer’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
The claim that, “the Israelites called the Nephilim” those, “giants of Palestine” is based on one single sentence from an, “evil report” not by, “the Israelites” as a whole but by merely ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
As for, “sons of heaven…sons of the gods…sons of God” being, “beings of mythology” well, Job 38:7 has them being non-human beings but then we need to know if by, “mythology” the endnotes are employing the academic meaning or the common parlance meaning.
As for, “As well as later” by directing us to post-flood days, that’s a tragic misreading of a text which does not even imply any such thing.
Gen 6:4 states, “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.”
The question becomes: when were those days?
Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “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.”
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.
Yet, we are told, “According to ⇒ Numbers 13:33” rather than, “according to one sentence in an, ‘evil report’ by ten unreliable guys’ whom God rebuked so no one should believe them.
As for, “found there the tall aboriginal Anakim” et al., actually, which the endnotes don’t note.
The ten actually merely asserted that Anakim are (in some unknown and un-biblical way) related to Nephilim which is impossible since Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form: and that’s only in non-LXX versions.
As for, Deut 2:10-11: that’s all about Rephaim, not about Nephilim: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
Sure, “Perhaps the huge megalithic structures in Palestine were thought to have been built by a race of,” whatever, “giants” means, “whose superhuman strength was attributed to semi-divine origin” but there’s not even a hint of any such thought in the entire Bible.
Now, the, “Revised New American Bible” has the key text as:
When human beings began to grow numerous on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw how beautiful the daughters of human beings were, and so they took for their wives whomever they pleased….The Nephilim appeared on earth in those days, as well as later, after the sons of God had intercourse with the daughters of human beings, who bore them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
See, what I mean? Even going from, “(as well as later)” to more normative, “those days, as well as later” that’s still pre-flood, of course.
The notes are:
[6:1–4] These enigmatic verses are a transition between the expansion of the human race illustrated in the genealogy of chap. 5 and the flood depicted in chaps. 6–9. The text, apparently alluding to an old legend, shares a common ancient view that the heavenly world was populated by a multitude of beings, some of whom were wicked and rebellious.
It is incorporated here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation—the constantly increasing wickedness of humanity.
This increasing wickedness leads God to reduce the human life span imposed on the first couple. As the ages in the preceding genealogy show, life spans had been exceptionally long in the early period, but God further reduces them to something near the ordinary life span.
[6:2] The sons of God: other heavenly beings. See note on 1:26.
[1:26] Let us make: in the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth (1 Kgs 22:19–22; Is 6:8; Ps 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us go down…”). Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings. Human beings: Hebrew ’ādām is here the generic term for humankind; in the first five chapters of Genesis it is the proper name Adam only at 4:25 and 5:1–5. In our image, after our likeness: “image” and “likeness” (virtually synonyms) express the worth of human beings who have value in themselves (human blood may not be shed in 9:6 because of this image of God) and in their task, dominion (1:28), which promotes the rule of God over the universe.
[6:4] As well as later: the belief was common that human beings of gigantic stature once lived on earth. In some cultures, such heroes could make positive contributions, but the Bible generally regards them in a negative light (cf. Nm 13:33; Ez 32:27). The point here is that even these heroes, filled with vitality from their semi-divine origin, come under God’s decree in v. 3.
Much the same assertions. Note that the (il)logic is that such is the premise for the flood but Nephilim (by any name) get past the flood, past God. Yet, I suppose it matters not since as per the notes, this is all just made-up stuff anyhow.
As for, “The sons of God: other heavenly beings,” the “note on 1:26” read:
[1:26] Let us make: in the ancient Near East, and sometimes in the Bible, God was imagined as presiding over an assembly of heavenly beings who deliberated and decided about matters on earth (1 Kgs 22:19–22; Is 6:8; Ps 29:1–2; 82; 89:6–7; Jb 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).
This scene accounts for the plural form here and in Gn 11:7 (“Let us go down…”). Israel’s God was always considered “Most High” over the heavenly beings. Human beings: Hebrew ’ādām is here the generic term for humankind; in the first five chapters of Genesis it is the proper name Adam only at 4:25 and 5:1–5.
In our image, after our likeness: “image” and “likeness” (virtually synonyms) express the worth of human beings who have value in themselves (human blood may not be shed in 9:6 because of this image of God) and in their task, dominion (1:28), which promotes the rule of God over the universe.
I would have actually appealed to Psalm 8:5 which is about that God created us, “a little lower than the angels.”
Well, we finally got an answer to key question 2, “What’s the note writer’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’?” sine reference is made to, “gigantic stature” (with “gigantic” still being vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage) yet, Gen 6 doesn’t provide us a physical description of them and the only other biblical reference to Nephilim is the, “evil report” which has them as being very, very tall so that’s unreliable.
The answer to key question 3 is, “No” since the answer to key question 1 is that, “the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’ in English Bibles” is that it renders, doesn’t even translate, “Nephilim” in two verse and/but, “Repha/im” in the other 98% and never even hints at anything to do with height whatsoever.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Well, at least at the time it was, “sharpening iron with iron” but I have come to find that when we seek to sharpen iron with iron, someone tends to get cut.
Since then, Eric wants nothing whatsoever to do with me.
As you will see, his premise and argumentation are faulty and so is his conclusion.
I published a transcript of this discussion, along with commentary, in my book The Great Nephilim Giants Debates: Featuring Gary Wayne, T.J. Steadman, Rob Rowe, and Eric Rolon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
What do recent (as of 2023 AD) reports of giant aliens in Peru and reports of giants in Lovelock Cave have in common?
Let’s begin with the sorted tale of the former which begins with mysteriously flummoxing and emotively frightening reports such as Armed 7-Foot-Tall Green Aliens Allegedly Removed a Man’s Face in Peru by MSN which reported, “The small rural district of Alto Nanay in Peru is under attack…The Ikitu indigenous people who inhabit the region claim that seven-foot-tall translucent green aliens have been terrorizing the town…launching nightly assaults on residents.”
Community leader Jairo Reátegui Ávila noted, “These gentlemen are aliens. They appear to be armored like the Green Goblin from Spider-Man. I shot one of them twice and he wasn’t injured; he rose and disappeared. We’re very frightened about what’s happening here in our community.”
Also, “a 15-year-old girl was reportedly cut on the neck” and, “a photo of a mutilated Peruvian man, with some alleging that he’d ‘had his face removed with surgical precision’ by one of the aliens. However, that image was taken from a video shared months ago, with many attributing his appearance to a piranha attack.”
Thus begins the blurring of the lines between claims and click-baiting grifts.
MSN published a follow up titled Mystery of 7ft-tall ‘aliens’ dubbed ‘Face Peelers’ attacking Peruvian villagers solved wherein it’s noted, “what villagers called ‘goblins’ or ‘aliens’ was actually hooded men wearing jetpacks and armor” since, “The Ikitu population that lives in these dense forests is surrounded by gold…The men are part of a crime syndicate that’s been terrorizing the region for decades. Branches of drug cartels also dabble in the gold-mining business. According to prosecutors, they’re working on a terror campaign so the locals stay in their homes and away from the cartels’ illegal gold pits.”
So, this went from, “the Ikitu tribe…stated that these forest creatures have terrorized them” to (likely Western click-bait inspired) interpretation of the creatures being not from the forest but being aliens, to the revelation that they are just very human (even if inhumane) domestic terrorists—depending of what any given person, or culture, means by aliens. “Some villagers have likened the ‘aliens’ to the mythical ‘pelacaras’ from folklore, creatures said to feast on human faces, fat, and organs.”
Dávila also noted, “Their shoes are round-shaped, which they use to float… Their heads are long, they wear a mask and their eyes are yellowish. They are experts at escaping…His face is hardly visible. I have seen his whole body floating at a height of one meter…”
Here is a photo of the floating alien/pelacara from a local woman’s cell phone.
Here’s a nocturnal image.
Thus, this was much ado about nothing regarding other-worldly giant alien but about a land grab?
Well, the Lovelock cave claims have been very, very lucrative to un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales giant post-flood Nephilologists. That is because they claim that Nephilim who lived in North America were cornered in a cave, summarily killed, and then the Smithsonian stole away their bones so as to hide the truth about the Bible (whatever that has to do with anything) and to deny evolution.
It’s a great click-bait scam that mashes together various tantalizing real data points with folklore and modern conspiracy mythology.
The bottom line is that the real conspiracy is that people who make a living selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians are the conspirators—wittingly knowingly or going along with the ignorant flow unwittingly and unknowingly. Such is because it comes down to European racists denied Native their ancestral lands by stealing away skeletons/bones so as to claim that there was no indication of any ancestral presence thereon. Also, they denied them credit for building structures such as burial mounds by claiming that such primitive savages couldn’t have been sophisticated enough to build any such things—and the pop-Nephilologists still play into that by demanding that it must have been built by Nephilim.
Note also how smoothly and quickly the Ikitu correlated/(mis)identified the (supposed) otherworldly beings with the pelacara.
This is just like Nephilologists who suffer from what I term Gigorexia Nervosa do (the obsessive desire to see giants and just making them up where they are nowhere to be seen): any tall-tale that even hints about subjectively unusual height is watered down and sold as Nephilology news (including Bigfoot). Consider that pop-Nephilologist LA Marzulli was scammed by seller of wild and wacky tales of all sorts, Jaime Maussan and/or his comrades by being presented with a small scary-fairy-like being. Marzulli instantly correlated it to the being described in Revelation chap 9 even though the only similarity is that both feature wings.
Another pop-Nephilologist, posted a video titled Peru Alien Attack Expedition Report the info section for which reads, in part, “after-action report and analysis of Timothy Alberino’s expedition into the Amazon jungle of Peru to investigate the alleged alien attacks and face peeler (pelacara) phenomenon of internet fame.” And I LOVE the, “of internet fame” part as if that has anything to do with anything—besides the tacit admission that this was a click-bait opportunity.
A pinned comment by Alberino notes, “Although I cannot say for certain who the face peeler perpetrators are in Peru, I can confirm, unequivocally, that the phenomenon is real and ongoing. My hypothesis is that they are nefarious humans with reverse-engineered alien tech, and possibly working with a nonhuman faction.” So, humans but still with an alien angle: apparently jet packs are, “reverse-engineered alien tech.”
BTW: Peruvian drug cartels have jet packs?!?!?!? Where’s my jet pack?!?!?!?!?
A follow-up pinned comment by him reads, “I want to clarify that, in my opinion, the face peeler attacks in Peru have nothing to do with the alien abduction phenomenon perpetrated by the grays. The grays do not hoover on platforms and are perfectly capable of incapacitating abductees without force or chemical agents.”
So, after being an on-the-scene investigator, he concluded, “nefarious humans with reverse-engineered alien tech” but not do so with, “alien abduction phenomenon perpetrated by the grays” since he’s some sort of expert on the grays.
Thus, overall, Alto Nanay in Peru and Lovelock Cave in Nevada, USA have in common landgrabs and scary tall-tales.
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.
One of my Facebook Atheist trolls, Charlie Reid, commented thusly on my post here:
got that evidence leprechauns don’t exist or are you going to continue to be dishonest by asking me for evidence your fairy tale doesn’t exist?
I, True Freethinker, replied:
I will leave you to deal with your Lucky Charms. You claim that I am “dishonest” without evidence and after having stated “I do not condemn lying” so you have discredited yourself again.
I am not aware that I have ever asked you for evidence that my supposed “fairy tale doesn’t exist.” Rather, you have repeatedly positively affirmed, merely asserted, that God is imaginary, etc. so I have asked for proof and you have failed every single time so you have discredited yourself again.
Now, as to this issue of alleged contradictions in the Bible: you are yet again beginning with a conclusion. Your position is known as “emotivism” which means that all you are doing is expressing that you do not like something but you have no premise upon which to claim that, that something is actually wrong, bad, or whatever you may term it. Thus, your condemnation of contradictions is tantamount to you condemning chocolate ice cream simply because you do not like it (in your case, as per your worldview, it is because predestined random bio-chemical neural reactions resulted in the byproduct of you expressing such an opinion).
Thus, you reject the Bible for supposedly containing contradictions, but you cannot condemn condemnations even if they were there, so your emotivism is invalid and yet, you reject the Bible for supposedly containing contradictions thus, your entire endeavor is invalidly and you discredit yourself again.
This denotes that you literally suffer from cognitive dissonance in that you hold to two mutually exclusive views which are in tension but fail to recognize that they are in tension and/or simply ignore it and in this way you discredit yourself again. You condemn without a premise, so your condemnation is invalid and yet, you rely on your invalid condemnation.
Charlie Reid:
“I am not aware that I have ever asked you for evidence” … “so I have asked for proof” 😂
True Freethinker:
You cannot take me out of context to myself and also with the discussion being available for all to see.
Firstly, you should educate yourself about the difference between evidence and proof. Secondly, you will note the difference between evidence and proof as follows, quoting from above, “I am not aware that I have ever asked you for evidence that my supposed ‘fairy tale doesn’t exist’” issue one and “Rather” marking a transition to issue two, “you have repeatedly positively affirmed, merely asserted, that God is imaginary, etc. so I have asked for proof and you have failed every single time so you have discredited yourself again” and you just failed again and discredited yourself again, on two levels.
Charlie Reid:
i did condemn lying you semi literate halfwit
True Freethinker:
Superiority complex and schools yard level childish taunting: right on schedule. Again, read the comment about which you are supposed to be replying: indeed you did condemn lying and did so after having stated “I do not condemn lying” so you outed yourself as also being a contradictory hypocrite and so have discredited yourself again.
Charlie Reid:
the rest of that is just gibberish, you really need to see a quack mate, your indoctrination has overpowered any iota of rational thought. You either haven’t read anything i write or you’re cognitive dissonance blocks everything but what your indoctrination allows to filter through. Get help.
True Freethinker:
Here we go again: you get again merely assert that I am indoctrinated, I have asked you for evidence of that many, many, many times and you have failed just as many times so every time you repeat it you only prove that you sincerely believe in thing without the least bit of evidence—or proof—which is not surprising.
I also love the way you run away from inconvenient issues by merely labeling them “gibberish” (gibberish, to which you cannot reply).
But then what is it is true that my alleged indoctrination has supposedly overpowered any iota of rational thought, suffer from cognitive dissonance, etc.?
On your worldview: that would not matter and you have no premise upon which to condemn that so, of course, you have discredited yourself yet again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As is typical of him, he scurries off when incapable of actually dealing with issues, only to return again to do it all again.
sorry for asking for evidence for your fairy tale mate perhaps you can explain why you don’t believe in other sky daddies?
True Freethinker:
Indeed, you are right to begin with an apology since you already know that since your worldview provides you no premise upon which to demand evidence: you fail and discredit yourself instantly. Moreover, you just positively affirmed that God is a “fairy tale” so you must now prove it.
Lastly, you actually claim to believe that humans are apes and you expect to be taken seriously, to demand, to condemn, etc. that is 100% inconsistent.
Charlie Reid:
so you cant, only repeat your nonsensical rhetoric. Explain how your book gives you a premise for anything.
are there any other scientific theories you dispute besides evolution?
True Freethinker:
At least you admit that you are utterly incapable of taking step number one and you are unable to because you are incapacitated by a worldview that fails before it even begins. And that is how I can just stand by and merely observe you discrediting yourself just by ensuring you have your say.
Charlie Reid:
where and what did i admit to. Presumably my worldview, that you still don’t understand, fails because you have a contradictory book of fairy tales?
True Freethinker:
Well, you began with “sorry for asking for evidence” about which I noted “you are right to begin with an apology since you already know that since your worldview provides you no premise upon which to demand evidence” and you proved that you, yet again, “fail and discredit yourself instantly” because you merely sidestepped that utterly fundamental issue, yet again.
I also, yet again, noted that you, yet again, positively affirmed that God is a “fairy tale” so you must now prove it and you sidestepped that, yet again.
I noted that you “you actually claim to believe that humans are apes and you expect to be taken seriously, to demand, to condemn, etc. that is 100% inconsistent” and you sidestepped that as well, yet again.
And that your “worldview…fails because” I supposedly “have a contradictory book of fairy tales” is not only incoherent, it is a non sequitur, yet again. Since you have no premise for logic you cannot claim contradiction, since you have no premise for ethics you cannot condemns logical contradiction and you have no premise for truth then you discredited your demands for logic and condemnations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
The last of them died in the flood. Centuries later, some unreliable guys made up an “evil report” about having seen them and were rebuked by God (Num chaps 13–14).
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 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.
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.”:
A certain Heidi Hart posted her own reply, which reads
The Hebrew Nephilim means simply unbelieving very tall person. So yes, all the unbelieving giants died in Noah’s flood. However, I think all humans before the flood were giants. So Noah and his wife and three sons and their wives would also have been giants, but not Nephilim because they were believers. And they survived the flood in the ark. I know that the rabbinical tradition and some translations interpret this otherwise (the book of Enoch is made up of added rabbinical traditions after the very first section that Jude quotes), but read the relevant verse again.
”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” (Genesis 6:4 ESV).
The first phrase is an aside, Oh, yes, there were giants then. But it goes on to say that it was after that when the believing humans men were seduced by the daughters of the unbelievers. Everyone was a giant. It was only later that the believers were seduced.
The sons of God cannot be fallen angels because sons of God are believers.
The angels in Jude 6 who left their first estate were the angels who were deceived in the original rebellion in heaven. Does NOT mean they mated with humans. Jude 6 says NOTHING about mating.
”And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth” (Revelation 12:3, 4).
These stars of heaven are the angels who left their original estate in heaven when they were deceived, and were banished to earth with the adversary, the rebel.
So Noah and his three sons and their wives would still have been of that giant race before the flood. There were a few tribes who were still much taller than the rest of humans at the time that Israel was conquering Canaan. Examples are King Og, and Goliath and his father and 3 brothers. They were Nephilim – unbelieving giants.
Ken Ammi
There is no linguistics nor context for asserting “The Hebrew Nephilim means simply unbelieving very tall person,” it actually means fall/fallen/feller/to cause to fall, etc. See my book, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010”: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks
If “all humans before the flood were giants” then none of them were giants by definition. Yet, 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?
You asserted that Genesis 6:4 “there were giants then” (we will need to await your replies to the key questions) “But it goes on to say that it was after that” but you didn’t say “after” what, “after” when.
As for “The sons of God cannot be fallen angels because sons of God are believers” I’m unsure where you got that but the fallen Angels are referred to as such for the sake of identification, of course, but never again thereafter.
You assert “The angels in Jude 6 who left their first estate were the angels who were deceived in the original rebellion in heaven. Does NOT mean they mated with humans. Jude 6 says NOTHING about mating” but Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
I will guess that by “giants” you’re implying subjectively unusual height but then the answer to the third key question is “No.”
King Og: we have no physical description of him.
Goliath was just shy of 7 ft.
“his father and 3 brothers” we’re told that one of them was of “great stature” and that’s all.
Jo Pearce chimed in with
The book of Enoch is not Biblical. It was written by various people and then changed by others. It is not Gid Breathed.
Ken Ammi
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.”
the bible states the nephilim were around in the days of the flood AND after
king og and Goliath were of the raphaim there is debate as to weather they were descendants of the nephilim or another group of giants…..there is archeological evidence of a group of peoples around the canaan area that were 7–10 foot tall that other culters even recorded trading with, i assume THESE are the raphaim of witch were conquered after the exodus in the bible..their defeat would have left a few stragglers “king og” and his son “Goliath”…..just fun observations if u r interested
Ken Ammi
Can you quote and cite where “the bible states the nephilim were around in the days of the flood AND after” (just ensure that the quote refers to the flood).
“king og and Goliath were of the raphaim” and there can’t be a cogent “debate as to weather they were descendants of the nephilim” since 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 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.
This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times.
As for “nephilim or another group of giants” well, 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?
Jo Pearce
DNA passed down.
Ken Ammi
Passed down to whom and when?
Barry Ellis
I sense alot of hate in a sentiment I am learning about and may be incorrect but the reference of in those days and afterwards being mere paragraphs away from the flood cannot be speaking to anything but the days before and the days after the flood,
IMAGE
genises 6,4
the raphaim have been supposedly claimed to have been nephilim or descendants of such, there is no real decision as to where they came from other than og and Goliath being raphime, also this I may be mistaken about.
the flood was to wipe the earth of sin, and sinners and abominations and the living…witch it did as it was supposed to.
who’s to say these angel offspring aren’t immortal? who’s also to say these angel offspring are ALL evil and served NO PURPOSE? your demand that god must have failed I believe are the faults of a closed mind….we werent there we don’t know.
that is my OPINION given the information I have readily available. it seems to make sense that since there are no giants today that all giants in the Bible must have some commonality or ancestry….regardless the flood wiped the earth clean of sin and abomination as it was supposed to to allow noah to reapear….
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.
Sorry, I don’t know what this means, “I sense alot of hate in a sentiment I am learning about…”
You’re reading Gen 6:4 but you already know “those days and afterwards being mere paragraphs away from the flood” so you’re actually reading ahead rather then reading the verse for what it states. In fact, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.
Gen 6:4 states, “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.”
The question becomes: when were those days?
Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “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.”
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.
By whom are “raphaim have been supposedly claimed to have been nephilim or descendants of such”? Whoever supposed that does so upon zero data and, again, any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed.
See, you assert, “the flood was to wipe the earth of sin, and sinners and abominations and the living…witch it did as it was supposed to” but then Nephilim (by any other name) just continued on and you also have to invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.
As for “who’s to say these angel offspring aren’t immortal?”: God. He revealed five times who survived the flood and Nephilim aren’t on any of those lists.
Now, you once again used the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word “giants” but since I asked you what you meant by it and you didn’t reply then you not only make it difficult for me to understand you but you are making even more statements that I can’t understand such as, “there are no giants today.”
Barry Ellis
whay iv done is begin to research a myth about the nephilim and have given you the information that I have as to the coincidences involved.
witch from your point of view isn’t going to lineup with your biblical teachings and you will use whatever bias opinion was fed to you.
“god” has never said anything in the Bible about the nephilim other than that they were abominations and evil…there’s no discription of lifespan or even visual appearance.
that comes from the book of Enoch witch you would claim is non biblical
you said
When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then( and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.)
this statement here is where I draw issue it doesn’t state that it was pre flood, it also doesn’t state when those days of and afterwards was.
in the days man began to multiply and afterwards?
if they were Around in the time we began to multiply who was the first? Lilith?
I mean there are unanswered legends all over
Ken Ammi
I’m not interested in your failed attempts at mind reading. You can either deal with the issues or not.
I’ve no idea why you’re telling me, “there’s no discription of lifespan or even visual appearance.”
You asserted, “it doesn’t state that it was pre flood, it also doesn’t state when those days of and afterwards was” but it does both.
That’s from Gen 6:4 and it’s only in verse 17 that we’re first told about the flood. Ergo, it’s pre-flood by chronological definition.
Also, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” is pre-flood by chronological definition.
And, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” was pre-flood when “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives” so that “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days” which was pre-flood, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” “and also afterward” of the pre-flood days “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” which was when “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man” so that, “they bore children to them” and it’s all pre-flood.
They began doing it “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” and continued doing it but the flood brought it all to a full and final end—lest God failed and the flood was much of a waste.
“they were Around in the time we began to multiply” as per God’s word.
“Lilith” is just a folkloric non-biblical character.
Barry Ellis
mind reading? ya lost me, I’m taking details of canonical and noncanonical origin and looking at the whole to formulate my own opinion, the opinion of god failing if the nephilim were not all killed in the flood is if your own assertion. there are origins of stories and billions of views on the story. I am not indoctrinated into accepting unanswered questions that I hold.
that being said I have seen your opinion and thank you for it. good day
Ken Ammi
Yeah, failed “mind reading” when you claimed to know that there’s a “bias opinion was fed to” me so, please deal with the facts on the table rather than attempting to mind read.
Ironically, “god failing if the nephilim were not all killed in the flood is” the logical, theo-logical, and bio-logical conclusion.
How do you get Nephilim past the flood? And note that you’ll have to invent something and that you really have no viable reason for inventing something in the first place.
Barry Ellis
your biased opinion over the book of Enoch not being canon. I merely found a book that claims to be of biblical content and was assessing it’s possibilities….there is no mind reading there.
dealig with facts?
your claiming that the offspring of angels and man are ALL the same, your also claiming that they were NOT immortal as their angel parentage are….the logical course of nature for me than would be to rule out these very inconsistencies.
I mean if your looking for facts, those are them.
if nephilim are immortal as their angel parentage were than god DIDNT kill them in the flood…. cause I mean…there immortal….no?
Ken Ammi
Not interested in reading you denying that you did what you did so, let’s focus on the issues.
I’m unsure how anyone in all of human history claimed that “the offspring of angels and man are ALL the same” since the former would be offspring of Angels but the latter not. So, how could they be the same since they’re different?
As for, “they were NOT immortal as their angel parentage are” well, such is why they died but the Angels were incarcerated.
Barry Ellis
lol! again no mind reading, no denial, no made-up facts.
I stumbled across myths and legends and non canonicle biblical liturature and was following it.
it’s clear in your other comments to other users that you don’t see the book of Enoch as cannon biblical liturature…
and finnally let’s deal with the facts that I have noticed, there is no physical discription, there’s no information other than “giants” available that iv seen that claims these half immortal half human offspring ARENT immortal…..so I was looking into peoples opinions who are more fluent in the bible.
you sir have clearly MISSED the ball on every point accept my first comment of the days of and after.
peace be with u.
Ken Ammi
I’m unsure why you didn’t answer the question but perfectly admitted, your views are un-biblical because you “stumbled across myths and legends and non canonicle biblical liturature and was following it.”
So, I’ve only been attempting to assist you in seeing how those, “myths and legends and non canonicle biblical liturature” contradict the Bible.
Of course, I, “don’t see the book of Enoch as cannon biblical liturature” why would I?
I’m unsure what, “no information other than ‘giants’ available” means.
The issue of “days of and after” was the question of when.
Shalom.
Barry Ellis
question? I believe you have forgotten why we started this comentary
IMAGE
OF COURSE I’m chasing a “non biblical” myth and legend from the book of Enoch witch you stated you don’t see as biblical…but there are cultures that do see it as biblical in ETHIOPIA. so I commented on coincidences I found that weren’t answered.
and other than opinion and blame you have provided NO such assistance or claim otherwise if biblical explination….
I am curious as to the biblical understanding of what Enoch speaks about….that’s it
peace be with u.
Ken Ammi
Sorry, I don’t know what this means, “question?”
That 1 Enoch is in the Ethiopian cannon doesn’t make that one cannon uniquely correct but rather, uniquely incorrect since 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah (see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch”) in fact, that cannon also contains a text titled, “The Life of Adam and Eve” which claims that when God created Adam, God commanded the Angels to worship Adam.
“the biblical understanding of what Enoch speaks about” is that it (referring to the key portion of 1 Enoch and not the rest of it nor 2 Enoch nor 3 Enoch) was clearly written a few centuries BC, someone just slapped the name “Enoch” on it, it contradicts the Bible a LOT, it tells tall-tales, but at least it doesn’t have physical post-flood Nephilim so at least on that point, it agrees with the Bible.
Barry Ellis
is the Torah NOT old testiment basically?
Jo Pearce
Wow! Who is king og? Definitely not Biblical.
Ken Ammi
King Og is mentioned circa 22 times in the Bible but we don’t have a physical description of him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
…I honestly can’t recommend this book enough, or for that matter any work by Dr. Michael Heiser. I’d go so far to say that if you don’t understand the influence that the Book of Enoch…
Understanding who the Nephilim are in turn helps you to better understand the Hebrew conquest of the Holy Land…
Dr. Heiser touches upon all of these topics, and they all lead back to the Book of Enoch, as well as the fallen angels descent onto Mt. Hermon in order to seduce and cohabitate with the daughters of men.
I started a YouTube channel a while back where I discuss such topics as the elongated skulls…My hypothesis has been that they were descendants of the Nephilim, and I think Dr. Heiser’s work strengthens that hypothesis…the Nephilim Apkallu also occupied a similar position in Babylon, and as the Bible makes note of, so did the Nephilim Rephaim in Canaanite society.
I, True Freethinker, replied
There’s no such thing as “Nephilim Rephaim.” That’s a category error that violates the law of identity because Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids and Rephaim were strictly post-flood 100% humans.
Michael Shawn Kirby
No they weren’t, and the most obvious rebuttal to your assertion is that King Og was the last of the Rephaim, and he was noted by the OT writers to be a Nephilim giant whose bed was 9 cubits long (he was probably between 10 to 13 feet tall). He and the rest of the giant clans in Canaan were probably propagated by the post-flood Babylonian Apkallu who were two-thirds “divine” and one-third human. They were giants like King Og, with Gilgamesh being the most famous example (i.e. the Sumerians probably weren’t lying when they depicted him as a giant easily strong-arming a fully grown lion, just like the ancient Egyptians probably weren’t lying when also depicting their “gods” as giants that towered over homo sapiens).
Please also note that Dr. Heiser is not the only one that advocates that hypothesis. I’m an Orthodox Christian and a famous Orthodox Christian Podcast is The Lord of Spirits, which is hosted by Father Andrew Stephen Damick and Father Stephen De Young. They also have the exact same theory that the way the Nephilim survived the flood was through the hybridized Apkallu. In regards to how those Nephilim were created, Father Stephen De Young points to ancient Ugaritic texts that speak of kings voluntary surrendering themselves to demonic possession and having ritualized, sexual intercourse with demonized Ishtar priestesses (i.e. temple prostitutes) as the vector by which the Nephilim were re-introduced into the world after the Flood. But what’s interesting is that Dr. Heiser was a Protestant and these guys are Orthodox, yet their combined research made both of them zero in on the post-flood Apkallu as the primary vector by which the Nephilim were reintroduced to Humanity after being wiped out by The Flood.
My friend I find your attempts at self-promotion to be very dishonest and disingenuous. In your other post (which I have deleted), you claimed I said that Dr. Heiser was infallible. I never said Dr. Heiser was infallible, no man is infallible. Furthermore, posting random websites that ask for both private and financial information from my friends list smacks of spam and gives off a very “scammy” vibe. It’s also a very dishonest way of building up your readership not through the quality of your content (because you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about), but instead trying to piggyback off of others with disingenuous libel and spam.
True Freethinker
That’s odd, I could have sworn that I wrote a reply to this already but don’t see it now.
In any case, indeed “King Og was the last of the Rephaim” but if “he was noted by the OT writers to be a Nephilim giant” (“Nephilim giant” is a redundant term) then please quote and cite where they did so.
As for, “bed was 9 cubits long (he was probably between 10 to 13 feet tall)” that’s a non sequitur based on various mere assumptions, please see my book, “The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?.”
As for, “Nephilim giants” and “giant clans”: 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’m unsure why we should take ancient sculptures literally.
“the exact same theory that the way the Nephilim survived the flood” is just another way to claim that God failed: He must have missed that loophole and the flood was much of a waste. Besides, Nephilim are half-Angel and half-human, by definition, not half-(only one of the various myths about)Apkallu and half-human so that’s also a category error that violates the law of identity.
Likewise, by definition Nephilim are physical offspring of Angels and humand and not the product of a ritual recipe that can be followed post-flood to make home-made Nephilim. Besides, we should not incorporate Pagan mythology into biblical theology.
What you emotively subjectively “find” after making failed attempts at mind reading are not a standard. Now, tell me what De Young said when you told him, “My friend I find your attempts at self-promotion to be very dishonest and disingenuous.”
Also, please don’t make up stuff just to argue with me or maybe you give evidence as to why you hold to an anti-biblical Nephilology due to a reading comprehension problem. See, you asserted, “In your other post (which I have deleted)” since you rely on censorship “you claimed I said that Dr. Heiser was infallible. I never said Dr. Heiser was infallible” and I never said that you said that.
I’ve no idea what you’re going on about “random websites that ask for both private and financial information.”
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming and Michael Shawn Kirby relied on censorship to hide his fallacies since not that page reads, “This content isn’t available right now. When this happens, it’s usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it’s been deleted.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
The Facebook group The Metal Bible Podcast posted that about which I have, in turn, posted a few times (here initially) which was appeals to Chuck Missler and especially Michael Heiser regarding Nephilim.
The podcaster then devoted a post to besmirching me wherein he wrote:
Dude commented this 1.8 million times on one of my posts so I thought I would quickly debunk it in one post…. This is probably the easiest thing to debunk in about 3 seconds… The post flood Nephilim isn’t a biblical doctrine? Do you READ the Bible? There are 6 NAMED Nephilim from after the flood…
Someone needs to go watch my 2 part 3 1/2 hour episode with The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast on this topic and come back educated… But here’s a quick debunking anyways. True Freethinker
[Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
Its almost as if the Bible very clearly says there were Nephilim AFTER the flood in the land of Canaan where the Israelites were supposed to claim the promised land as their own…. [followed by five hands up shrugging emojis]
Rather than dealing with the factoids, a certain The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast opined
He’s just trying to get attention. Unfortunate to seek attention instead of Truth…
The Metal Bible Podcast
He just copied and pasted this same comment to every person on my post that wasnt even about the nephilim at all
The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast
he’s probably controlled opposition for the nephilim
True Freethinker
Why do post-flood Nephilologists act just like stereotypical Atheist online? You ignored the substance and played mind reader–and failed at it. So, please opt for engaging in sharpening iron with iron.
Michael Holdren
You spend A LOT of time posting about things that have zero relevancy with The Great Commission.
The Metal Bible Podcast
If you dont know the ENTIRE Bible you dont know God…. and if you watched my 3 1/2 hour episode on this topic you would know WHY this topic is important for every believer to know about….. but of course you would rather complain all of the time instead…. Go start your own page and you can bore people with your nonsense in your own way
True Freethinker
But friend, you have a god that failed.
Michael Holdren to The Metal Bible Podcast
dude, all I’m saying is you have a platform that could help bring salvation to others, or embolden or prepare believers to share the gospel, but instead you want to go down a rabbit hole to chase your own self interests.
MemeVangelists ·
The Metal Bible Podcast Dude realizes he is spending time commenting on a Facebook post, in a Facebook page, using Facebook… instead of IDK, carrying out the Great Commission?
Bethany Pendley to Michael Holdren
are we not allowed to talk about anything else in scripture except the gospel?
Pretty sure the whole Bible is relevant to today, and is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and training in righteousness.
Chrisanthy Thymis Carbajal
Wow, yes!! The evidence is right there in Numbers 13:33!! I think many just don’t want to admit that there were actual giants (“Sons of God” mixed with human).
True Freethinker
Ever wonder why you can’t cite even one single other verse in the whole Bible? Please read the narratives in Num chaps 13-14 to find that you’re appealing to unreliable guys who invented an “evil report” and were rebuked by God: they contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible, and God. Also, the discussion is about the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” so please don’t move the goal post to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants.”
Chrisanthy Thymis Carbajal
relax, bro
and as for me not being able to “site another verse”, I am just getting into researching on the Nephilim and the verse that was posted says it all!! You’re acting like I am struggling to find the evidence for Nephilim being the giants and fallen angels/mixed human race!! Stop making assumptions.
True Freethinker
Friend, you’re projecting since you’re making assumptions. Let’s go through this so as to clear the air.
You noted, “The,” singular, “evidence is right there in Numbers 13:33!!” which is a single verse.
Thus, this was about asserting post-flood Nephilim—and you threw, “actual giants (‘Sons of God’ mixed with human)” in to the mix.
Contextually to your exclusive appeal to, “The,” singular, “evidence is right there in Numbers 13:33!!” which is a single verse, I replied, “Ever wonder why you can’t cite even one single other verse in the whole Bible?” and kept it within context by referring to, “the narratives in Num chaps 13-14.”
Thus, this had nothing at all to do with, “evidence for Nephilim being the giants and fallen angels/mixed human race!!”
Did you read those narratives rather than just one single verse?
I don’t ask just to take a jab but because, especially if you’re just getting into this research and most of what you will encounter about it is un-biblical tall-tales, it’s very, very important to not just pick up one un-contextual verse, run with it, and literally build an entire all-encompassing theory on it.
True Freethinker to the Metal Bible Podcast
Please don’t mislead your audience by being conveniently vague. I commented that to various people when it was applicable.
Oddly, you claim that you “would quickly debunk it” but you didn’t.
You asserted “There are 6 NAMED Nephilim from after the flood” but didn’t even list one—nor could you since none are.
As for, “Num 13:33 NASB20” I told you multiple times that I don’t base my doctrine on one single verse and that you’re quoting an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible, and God. Why do you side with them rather than with Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible, and God?
As for, “Its almost as if the Bible very clearly says there were Nephilim AFTER the flood” well, I suppose that it’s a case of “Its almost as if” because it’s not: there’s no such statement in the Bible.
Robert Watkins
The reason why Saul is commanded to destroy every man, woman, child, and beast of the Phillistines is to obliterate the generational evil that follows the descendants of the Nephilim, and the reason why David, after slaying Goliath of Gath, is tasked with picking up Saul’s slack, and finishing the mission of destroying the remaining Nephilim. By the way, these are the named “giants” he was referring to, in addition to Goliath and Og.
”Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel. And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.“
2 Samuel 21:15-20, 22 KJV
True Freethinker
But friend, you merely asserted, “The reason why Saul is commanded to destroy every man, woman, child, and beast of the Phillistines is to obliterate the generational evil that follows the descendants of the Nephilim, and the reason why David, after slaying Goliath of Gath, is tasked with picking up Saul’s slack, and finishing the mission of destroying the remaining Nephilim.”
Can you quote and cite support for those very specific multiple assertions?
As for, “named ‘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?
I’m unsure what “Goliath and Og…Ishbi-benob…Saph…the brother of Goliath…a man of great stature” have to do with “Nephilim from after the flood.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
People in general before the flood were larger in stature.
Gen 6 does not teach angel hybrids of large stature, but of ‘tyrants, bullies and fellers’ (RockeFELLERs), MEN of renown, those of the line of Cain that lorded it over others in power. Compare to Jasher 4.
I, @kenammi355, replied
What makes you assert “People in general before the flood were larger in stature”?
Indeed, “Gen 6 does not teach angel hybrids of large stature” but the “angel hybrids were the “MEN of renown.”
But I’m unsure what makes you assert that the daughters of men were exclusively of the line of Cain.
As for Jasher: that’s just a modern day hoaxed fraud–see my book “The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.”
@cdmajesty4803 chimed in with
Lots of very large Giants in the not-so-distant past also
@kenammi355
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 usages agree?
@MyChihuahua
‘giants’ is from the Greek ‘gigantes’ and refers to excellence, skill and social status not physical stature. So, the word is used correctly in Gen 6 to describe the tyrants that were in power at that time. Same as we say today ‘Steve Jobs was a giant in the electronics field’. Using ‘giant’ to describe physical stature is a metaphor.
@kenammi355
‘giants’ is from the Greek ‘gigantes’ and refers to “earth-born” as in born of Gaia not physical stature. So, the word is rendered for some unknown reason in Gen 6, et al., to describe the might and renown Nephilim. Using ‘giant’ is using a vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word.
@MyChihuahua
the reason is not ‘unknown’, I explained it in my comment. In the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon it states that it is also used to mean ‘fallers (fellers), rebels, apostates’ by Hebrew interpreters, referring to those who fall upon to attack or bring others low. Strong’s gives the definition of ‘nephal/nephilim’ as ‘tyrants, bullies, fellers’, but it is translated as ‘giants’. We still have it today in names like ‘RockeFELLER’, a modern tyrant in the financial realm.
@kenammi355
Friend, recall that this began when you made assertions you still haven’t supported.
Since you claim to know the reason that please quote and cite the ancient source that tells us why they did that.
Recall that my observation was the fact that, “’giants’ is from the Greek ‘gigantes’ and refers to ‘earth-born’ as in born of Gaia not physical stature. So, the word is rendered for some unknown reason in Gen 6, et al., to describe the might and renown Nephilim…”
As for, “fallers (fellers)…fellers”: first recall that I noted that “giants” is a rendering, it’s not a translation and also, “RockeFELLER” has nothing to do with any of this whatsoever. Please don’t make jumps in meaning or implication based on modern English transliterations of words: Rockefeller refers to an open country, from a German word, and came about due to describing someone the village called “Rockenfeld.”
@MyChihuahua
I already cited the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon for the word ‘giant’. I also referred you to the parallel account to Genesis 6 in Jasher 4. These are 3 witnesses to the truth of what Scripture clearly teaches in it’s whole counsel without adding sensational ideas (angels mating with women) to the text. At the end of the day, it seems we are in agreement on this point that ‘giants’ does not mean here what most are claiming.
@kenammi355
Friend, I wrote an entire book about the linguistics and have read dozens upon dozens of dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, etc. called Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010. A best practice isn’t to just take one isolated definition and run with it but to determine what they mean by “giants,” why they think that, how that applies to the actual context in which the word is found at any given usage, etc. But most “Nephilim giants” obsessed people merely read the word “giants” merely assume they know to what it refers, and run with it.
Recall that I already told you, “As for Jasher: that’s just a modern day hoaxed fraud–see my book ‘The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.’”
Oddly, you assert, “These are 3 witnesses” but one isolated definition and one hoax don’t among to even one. At least, indeed, “‘giants’ does not mean here what most are claiming.”
@MyChihuahua
I already cited the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon for the word ‘giant’. I also referred you to the parallel account to Genesis 6 in Jasher 4. These are 3 witnesses to the truth of what Scripture clearly teaches in it’s whole counsel without adding sensational ideas (angels mating with women) to the text. At the end of the day, it seems we are in agreement on this point that ‘giants’ does not mean here what most are claiming.
@kenammi355
What you are saying is that Genesis 6 and the modern day hoaxed fraud Jasher 4 are about “fallers (fellers), rebels, apostates…those who fall upon to attack or bring others low…tyrants, bullies” and sure, no problem: that doesn’t mean they weren’t half-Angel and half-human. Indeed, “‘giants’ does not mean here what most are claiming.”
@MyChihuahua
Correct. And no where are angels even mentioned in that passage.
Jasher is the only Apocryphal text actually referenced in Scripture. Parts of it may have been corrupted, but the parallel passage of Gen 6 matches the same info.
@kenammi355
“Correct” about what?
Now, you noted “no where are angels even mentioned in that passage” but it doesn’t matter since it’s just a “modern day hoaxed fraud” and the “fallers (fellers), rebels, apostates…those who fall” refers to Nephilim (due to the root word naphal) and not to the Angels who fathered them.
As for, “Jasher is the only Apocryphal text actually referenced in Scripture” nope, there’s some 33 of them. And just because Scripture refers to a book of Jasher doesn’t mean that the modern-day hoaxed fraud is that book.
@MyChihuahua
‘not to the angels that fathered them’ – again, there is NO mention of angels in relation to the Gen 6 account.
@kenammi355
At least you accept that Jasher is a modern day hoaxed fraud so what it states is irrelevant.
It’s a bit unclear what you mean by, “there is NO mention of angels in relation to the Gen 6 account.”
Do you mean that the English word “angels” doesn’t appear in the version you’re reading?
Do you mean that the Hebrew word “Malakim” doesn’t appear in Hebrew versions?
Just in case you’re fixating on one word (in either language) I’ll just note that there’s no grammatical, reading comprehension, literary, or hermeneutical rule that only one word can ever be used to refer to any one thing.
For example, in Job 38:7 it’s clear that “bene ha Elohim”/“sons of God” can refer to non-human beings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
John Piper made me care about doctrine and theology, Mark Driscoll made me care about applying that to real life, but Mike Heiser is by far the one who has impacted me the most. Reading his work and listening to his podcast gave me so much deeper understanding, and the tools to study the Bible for myself and actually know what I’m doing.
The vast majority of Heiser’s work is well established in academia and has tons of scriptural support. The Nephilim is a small corner piece of that puzzle, and doesn’t really effect the greater big picture that much. I could concede that Heiser was wrong about Nephilim without it effecting my opinion on most of what he did.
However I will not concede. I agree with Heiser that the whole “the 10 spies were lying” can’t be taken seriously as an argument. The text doesn’t say they lied about what was in the land, it says they didn’t trust God. Caleb and Joshua don’t accuse them of lying, they simply exhort Israel “do not fear the people of the land”. The implication there being that there *is* a reason to fear, but they should trust God instead.
True Freethinker
I learned a lot from Heiser and aren’t blind to his shortcomings.
I’m going to guess that you didn’t read the articles and wonder why not.
There’s no logical nor linguistics nor literary imperative for a text to tell you the words, “the 10 spies were lying” for you to understand that such was the case from the context.
Also, as I noted in the article you didn’t read, it wasn’t a formal moderated debate for which we have a full transcript so by relying exclusively on an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked for your post-flood Nephilology, you’re only creating a lot of problems for yourself such as having to invent a story about how the made it past the flood—something about God failing, missing a loophole, the flood being much of a waste, etc.
Robert Lindblad
I ‘m not creating any problems. The “problems” you are seeing are there regardless, and cannot be solved by wishful thinking and/or eisegesis. The text also doesn’t say they are problems. You presuppositions are why you think they are problems, and thus feel the need to create an eiegetical alternate narrative that is not in the text.
True Freethinker
It’s simple: the “evil report” consists of five assertions unbacked by even one other text in the entire Bible and they contradicted Moses, Joshua, Caleb, the entire rest of the whole Bible, and God so, why do you side with them?
Why is post-flood and “giant” Nephilology literally based on one single sentence that they stated?
Proof of this is that you exclusively rely on the unreliable rebuked guys’ “evil report” to assert that, “examples of nephilim descendants after the flood, including numbers 13:33” so you see what I mean and also, you’re not only wholly relying on one single sentence but on exclusively non-LXX versions of that one sentence.
As for, “multiple examples of nephilim descendants after the flood” please quote and cite those.
Also, please elucidate how they made it past the flood–although I see that you call your own view, “utter nonsense” and I couldn’t agree more.
Robert Lindblad
I read enough to know you were proposing the “the ten spies lied” idea which is silly. I’m familiar with the concept, and I don’t have to read your specific article in it’s entirety to know that I think it’s bogus. There’s no reason to believe that that is the case based on the text, and there are multiple examples of nephilim descendants after the flood, including numbers 13:33. It specifically says the Anakim were descended from the nephilim. How did they descend from nephilim post flood, if they were all destroyed, and none were left after the flood? It’s utter nonsense.
True Freethinker
Well, that which you subjectively find to be “silly” isn’t a standard and rejecting the conclusions which you haven’t read from an article you claim to have read part of via merely typing out the single word, “bogus” is the sort of thing that Atheist do online (and post-flood Nephilologists).
Now, you asserted (but didn’t quote nor cite) “multiple,” plural, “examples,” plural, “of nephilim descendants,” plural, “after the flood” but you are going in a circle since you one and only bit of (pseudo) evidence is doubling down on a appealing exclusively to one sentence in the “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked and who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible and God.
As for, “It specifically says the Anakim were descended from the nephilim” not “It” but rather, “they” and the day are guys whom you rely on 100% for an all-encompassing theory.
Also, please check the LXX for that verse.
And fascinatingly, when it come to THE key point which is, “How did they descend from nephilim post flood, if they were all destroyed, and none were left after the flood?” you again exclusively appeal to your emotive subjectivism, “It’s utter nonsense.”
And that’s all you will ever be able to do because post-flood Nephilology is exclusively based on that one sentence which is why you must hold on to it—“my precious!”—not matter what, no matter that you imply that God failed, not matter that there’s zero reliable indication of what they asserted, no matter that you side with guys whom God rebuked, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
