Well, “UFO disclosure at last!!!” was what some expected and/or hoped for but a Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is what we got and herein is what it reveled.
Firstly, note the change from UFO to UAP which denotes moving from referring to Unidentified Flying Objects to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Clearly, UAP allows for a fuller scope of investigation.
Both refer to and/or admit dealing with (at least initially) Unidentified this or that and the this or that are specifically Flying in the one case but Aerial in the other. Flying implies some or another level of volition, mindful purposefulness, etc. since it implies traversing the sky from point A to point B.
Yet, there could be plenty of UFOs in the sky that are not flying but could be, say, floating, being blown by wind, could be lights, etc. Thus, Aerial merely informs us that its “up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s…” who knows what?
Likewise, Object implies something, something that is actually and really, and physically present, something along nuts and bolts, something tangible. Conversely, Phenomena could be something like clouds, lights, ball lightning, the infamous swamp gas, etc.
Thus, “Airborne objects not immediately identifiable. The acronym UAP represents the broadest category of airborne objects reviewed for analysis” and “There are probably multiple types of UAP.”
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena is more general and all-encompassing—which may also have the effect of watering things down (this is somewhat like moving from global warming to climate change).
The Office Of The Director Of National Intelligence released an unclassified report on 25 June 2021 AD titled, Preliminary Assessment:Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.
Its Scope includes, “to submit an intelligence assessment of the threat posed by unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and the progress the Department of Defense Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) has made in understanding this threat” note that they are identifying the aerial phenomena as a “threat.”
Yet, that is followed directly with that “This report provides an overview for policymakers of the challenges associated with characterizing the potential threat.”
Since this is Preliminary, it is meant to provide “means to develop relevant processes, policies, technologies, and training for the U.S. military and other U.S. Government (USG) personnel if and when they encounter UAP, so as to enhance the Intelligence Community’s (IC) ability to understand the threat”—it is noted, “No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one in March 2019. The Air Force subsequently adopted that mechanism in November 2020.” Also, we are told that there was a “a six-month pilot program in November 2020 to collect” such data.
One notable thing on that the report is “limited primarily to U.S. Government reporting of incidents occurring from November 2004 to March 2021.”
The Assumptions include that “Various forms of sensors that register UAP generally operate correctly and capture enough real data to allow initial assessments, but some UAP may be attributable to sensor anomalies” which is fair enough since anyone dealing with various forms of sensors, etc., knows about the key necessity of calibration.
It is specially noted, “The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP.”
It is noted, “The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.”
It is noted that those phenomena reported “between 2004 and 2021…probably do represent physical objects.”
Additionally, “In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.”
Expectations are, “Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall ‘other’ bin.”
The “USG or U.S. industry developmental programs” category includes that these “could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities” and no, this does not mean that military personnel in restricted flight zones who witness such Phenomena would be made aware that tests are being run within tests or training within training so that part of the experiment would be how they react, what they describe, what is made of it, etc.
Regardless, “UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security…if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology.”
A subsection notes, “Available Reporting Largely Inconclusive” so that “Limited Data Leaves Most UAP Unexplained” which is also due to “inconsistency in reporting.”
Yet, “the UAPTF focused on reports that involved UAP largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable.”
This led to the ability “to identify one reported UAP with high confidence….a large, deflating balloon.”
“144 reports originated from USG sources” with “80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors.”
It is noted “Most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre-planned training or other military activity.”
This is interesting since UFOs/UAPs have a long history of interacting with nuclear weapons, being around restricted air space, etc. so that the aliens are either peaceniks or earthly governments are keeping tabs on each other, it is also specified, “UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds.”
Another subsection is about “UAP Collection Challenges” covering things such as “Sociocultural stigmas and sensor limitations…technical challenges…radar clutter…disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it.”
One interesting point is that “the effects of these stigmas have lessened as senior members of the scientific, policy, military, and intelligence communities engage on the topic seriously in public, reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic.”
I will add the effect of the media in general, New Age style UFOlogists—apparently, UAVologists now—and Hollywood since it used to be that you were nuts if you believed in little green men but now you are nuts if you deny them.
I will also add Atheistic evolution and the fact that some astrobiologists/exobiologists have entire careers of essentially doing nothing. Thus, they tell us that the universe is so very vast and since life was accidented into being on Earth then it could have been accidented into being elsewhere: long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, etc.
It is noted that “Some Potential Patterns Do Emerge” which include, “there was wide variability in the reports and the dataset is currently too limited” yet, there is “some clustering of UAP observations regarding shape, size, and, particularly, propulsion.”
The issue of “UAP sightings…cluster[ed] around U.S. training and testing grounds” is said to touch upon “a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest-generation sensors operating in those areas, unit expectations, and guidance to report anomalies.”
Also, “a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology” specifically, “18 incidents” included, “unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics” which is not surprising given the surge of drone tech since when you remove a human pilot from within a craft you have more maneuverability leeway since you no longer have to be concerned with the ill effects related to certain speed and movement related effects on the human body.
Specified is that “Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion.”
Overall, “UAP PROBABLY LACK A SINGLE EXPLANATION” since, again, this pertains to Phenomena in general. Yet, also due to “an array of aerial behaviors, reinforcing the possibility there are multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations.”
Overall, “The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management.”
Moreover, “UAPTF’s long-term goal is to widen the scope of its work to include…artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms.”
And so, this was a report about reporting—about reporting procedures—and not about results. This merely begins a new wave of reports and who knows what will come of it or when anything will come of it.
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.
To the Quota site question, How did Abel find a wife?, Neil Hawkins replied:
Cain and Abel never existed. Their story is purely metaphorical and is based on the Sumer Akkadian legend of Enten and Emesh, who argued about who was the most important god in farming. Enten brought forth the ewe to give birth to the lamb, the goat to give birth to the kid, the cow to give birth to calf etc etc . He was like a shepherd god. Emesh brought forth the trees for their fruit, the grasses to produce grain, and to cause good harvests and stables and granaries to be filled high etc etc. Their story is a combination of creation myth and the start of domesticating animals and agriculture. The great god Enlil had to intervene and act as referee and state that both agriculture/farmer gods were as important as each other. So, the “brothers” stopped arguing and endeavoured to cooperate. It’s a very different ending to the biblical tale of Abel, the personification of shepherds being murdered by Cain, the personification of agriculture. Nearly all the stories in Genesis are based on ancient Sumerian and Akkadian mythology.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Why stop at that “Their story is purely metaphorical and is based on the Sumer Akkadian legend” and “Nearly all the stories in Genesis are based on ancient Sumerian and Akkadian mythology” rather than that both are based on what was then commonly known and shared history?
Neil Hawkins:
The point is, it’s exaggerated history. Nearly all myth is based on true events. A prime example is the Tower of Babel. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows it’s a metaphorical story, but it is based on the collapse of the great ziggurat of Eridu during its construction. Cain and Abel aren’t real people. But, their story of agriculture and domesticating animals is based on the Sumerian myth, which in turn, could be based on a group of Neolithic settlers in Mesopotamia who argued about which form of farming is more important. Yes, it’s a theory, but it’s a very plausible theory.
Ken Ammi:
I see. I’d caution against making positive affirmations such as “Cain and Abel never existed…Cain and Abel aren’t real people” since you may be called on it, to prove it. So, we seem to agree on “both [or more] are based on what was then commonly known and shared history?” FYI: “Anyone with an ounce of sense knows…” is not helpful.
Neil Hawkins:
Who are you, the Quora police? I stand by what I say, anyone with an ounce of sense knows Cain and Abel are purely mythical. They are biblical characters, and as everyone in academia knows, the bible is a book of mythology, because it’s been proven as such. The bible is not a historical document.
But, back to Cain and Abel, they aren’t real. They are based on the Sumerian gods Enten and Emesh, who were the respective personifications of agriculture and shepherding. It’s possible that the Ubaid culture, which preceded the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, are the source of agricultural gods/persons, like Enten and Emesh, and of course Cain and Abel. The biblical texts are typical of Middle Eastern mythology, where the person, or persons involved are an over exaggeration of a snippet of truth.
Ken Ammi:
I had noted, “I’d caution against making positive affirmations such as ‘Cain and Abel never existed…Cain and Abel aren’t real people’ since you may be called on it, to prove it.” So now I am calling you on it: you made a positive affirmation and must prove it. After that we can discuss your many, many hidden assumptions—since you tend to begin by jumping to merely asserted conclusions.
Neil Hawkins:
Oh you cautioned me, did you?! 😂😂 And now you’re calling me on it???!!! 😂 Well, well, well. It seems, Ken, that you are the self appointed Quora police after all!! Now let me get this straight, Ken. You are demanding that I prove Cain and Abel, who are characters in a book, that has already been proven to be historically and scientifically unreliable? Are you sure this is the course of action that you wish to go? I made a positive affirmation? Indeed I did, Ken! Having studied the history behind the bible, I can say, unequivocally, that Cain and Abel are not and have never been real. Let’s look at the history, shall we? You obviously know when the bible was written? Would you agree it was at the end of the Babylonian Exile and during Persian rule? So, in historical and archaeological terms, 1,500 BCE to 1,300 BCE is not that long ago. I’m talking about the Old Testament now, because if I include the New Testament, the bible was completed in its current form 419–420 CE. If we are to go back even further to the time of the Sumerians, then we get the origins of the stories contained in Genesis. That’s a historical fact. The evidence is overwhelming, and I don’t have to prove anything to you.
Ken Ammi:
Indeed, I cautioned you but you have clearly decided to be unconcerned about discrediting yourself—how sad. You seem to be talking past yourself. You made a positive affirmation, I asked you to prove it, you fail time and again—including this time since merely asserting “has already been proven to be historically and scientifically unreliable” based on your own pseudo authority is impotent. So, sure, you “can say” whatever you want and assert that you are doing so “unequivocally” but you merely followed that up by merely repeating the positive affirmation, “Cain and Abel are not and have never been real” which only begs the question—yet again. But you miss the bigger point: by asserting, “been proven to be historically and scientifically unreliable” you imply some sort of universal imperative to only believe in what has been proven historically and scientifically reliable but how is that the case, on your worldview? Ironically, you end up showing support of the historicity of Cain and Abel by appealing to that “If we are to go back even further to the time of the Sumerians, then we get the origins of the stories contained in Genesis.” Cool.
Neil Hawkins replied by posting three snowflake emojis. It ended when I replied:
Quora is saturated with people who make big assertions but can’t back 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 following discussion took place due to the video Nephilim Giants AFTER Noah’s Flood? Dr. Michael Heiser when a certain canadiankewldude commented
Noah’s wife carried one bad gene, Ham received it, Ham rapes his mother, Saw Noah’s nakedness. Read Leviticus 18 through 20. Dr Heiser supports Ham raping his mother.
Canaan ended up cursed and with two halves of Nephilim genes combined through a Sinful act.
Nephilim and giants almost all came from the line of Canaan, if any of them intermarried, that would explain the odd single bad seed in other lines, except Shem’s.
Thus far, no Canaanites researched, appear to be dark skinned, from Ham. In Genesis they began spreading out before the Babel incident. The land of Canaan, later Israel and other far off lands.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Besides that there’s zero evidence for that, are you implying that God failed? He meant to be rid of them but missed that loophole?
canadiankewldude
They all died in the flood, aside from animals, only 8 people lived beyond the flood.
I simply have been researching ways the Nephilim could be present after the great flood.
God has never failed nor ever lied.
Thus, my focus has been how the Nephilim were present in the land of Canaan during the life of Moses, while keeping things true, Biblically.
How do you explain Nephilim after the days of Noah, Biblically.
God Bless
Ken Ammi
A return of Nephilim post-flood implies that God failed as much as a survival of them: God must have missed a loophole and the flood was much of a waste—see what I mean.
Now, you seek to answer, “ways the Nephilim could be present after the great flood…how the Nephilim were present in the land…How do you explain Nephilim after the days of Noah, Biblically.”
It’s very simple: post-flood Nephilim isn’t biblical—period, full stop.
You seem to be genuinely researching this so rather than making statement, I will ask you what makes you think that there were ever post-flood Nephilim?
If you know your stuff, and you surely do, you’ll realize you’re literally forced to build an entire all-encompassing theory upon one single verse—period.
So then, ensure that you re-read the narrative, not just one verse, and read the next chapter about the fallout of the statement in that one verse—and yes, I’m being vague on purpose since the travel is worth the destination, or so I have found.
Shalom!
canadiankewldude
Hugh Ross says:
“The explanation for the post-flood Nephilim is that sons of God, distinct from those who went to the daughters of humans before the flood, went to the daughters of humans born after the flood. If these sons of God were fallen angels, then these fallen angels are in addition to the ones who were locked up in the abyss as a result of their having sexual relations with human females before the flood. Thus, the abyss would contain two sets of fallen angels: those who had violated human women before the flood and those who had violated human women after the flood. If the sons of God were human males, this interpretation would imply that God had commanded the sons of Shem and/or Japheth not to have sexual relations with the daughters of Ham and/or Canaan. The violation of this command evidently would have produced a second generation of Nephilim.” – Hugh Ross
Dr. Michael Heiser also says very directly that they exist post flood, I fail to understand why they too are in err.
For the record, I do not abide by the opinions of Hugh Ross. He was just more research on this topic.
I have been researching more but I keep running into suggestions which are counter to Scripture.
How are you so sure that non of the cursed Canaanites, giants, men of renown and so forth not Nephilim.
KJB is my research, please suggest other than Gen. 6.
God Bless
Ken Ammi
I’ve written critiques of Ross’ and Heiser’s Nephilology already. Ross’ premise is faulty, “The explanation for the post-flood Nephilim” presupposes “post-flood Nephilim” but there’s no such thing—ever.
Bottom line is that they both exclusively build an entire all-encompassing theory upon one single verse and then turn that one single verse into a worldview hermeneutic whereby to then misread, misunderstand, misinterpret, and misapply other verses.
The concept of 1. post-flood Nephilim, 2. that anyone, post-flood, was related to them, and 3. that they were very, very tall are all literally based on one single verse that that single verse is Num 13:33 which is part of an “evil report” the speakers of which were rebuked by God.
Heiser was all but forced to actually interact with the narrative of that chapter when so many people complained to him that he was just merely picking up one uncontextual verse and ran with it.
Here are some Bible-fact based critiques of his views:
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.
Ken, you are NOT a free thinker because your mind is trapped inside an invisible box that began with an unseen assumption.
From then on, you have twisted every bit of evidence that contradicts your assumptions into a tool for you to keep yourself locked up.
My reply—Ken Ammi
Friend, here comes the fundamental issue again: you imply that I am wrong or deceptive in calling myself a “True Free Thinker” but upon what premise does your worldview allow you to demand adherence to truth, ethics and logic?
Also, you are very clearly unfamiliar with epistemology which is premised upon the fact that at the core of everyone’s worldview there is an “unseen assumption” that is basic 101 level epistemology, logic, philosophy, etc.
Jerome Reiter
You are wrong in your assumption I am “clearly unfamiliar with epistemology” as I went to Christian college and seminary, taught classes in epistemology and preached the bible until I realized it was all just mythology.
Please tell me about your education since you like to look down on the rest of us for lacking the education you pretend to have.
For those of us in the real world, we don’t need an “ism” to live our lives. I am happy to be a just human.
Ken, you think you are free because you are under the delusion a book of mythology can give you morality and you assume people who don’t believe the fairy tales in your book have no basis for morality. The bible claims everything was paradise until it was ruined by a magical talking snake and a fictional first human pair (with special blame for the woman, of course, since this is a man-made creation myth). The bible claims the solution to all of humanity’s problems was a godman who came to die and rise, as godmen often do. He was last seen flying off a mountain and we were left with a promise he would return on a flying horse. Pure mythology.
Ken Ammi
Friend, I cannot call you a liar as that would require an ability to read minds. However, I do find it astonishingly difficult to believe that you went to Christian college and seminary, taught classes in epistemology and preached but that is only due to the evidence before my eyes that you seem to be quire unaware of the contents, concepts and contexts of the Bible as well as epistemology.
For example, you claim that for the fall into sin, the Bible places “special blame for the woman, of course, since this is a man-made creation myth” which proves my point: you are unaware that Adam is blamed.
I have no education of which to speak and you are simply mistaken in concluding that I “look down on” people due to lack of education.
So, rather than turning this into a styled ad hominem: you imply that I am wrong or deceptive in calling myself a “True Free Thinker” but upon what premise does your worldview allow you to demand adherence to truth, ethics and logic?
Also, you just claimed that “the bible” is “just mythology” and since this is a positive affirmation to possess knowledge then please prove it.
Then your personal opinion regarding “ism” is just that.
Jerome Reiter
I provided you proof that the bible is mythology already. You need to do your homework.
Also, since you have zero education or expertise, and you speak for no religious body, doesn’t that make you just another internet troll know-it-all?
And I bet you hide your background because your background is just a typical jailhouse conversion. You have that love of big words you don’t even understand.
Ken Ammi
Friend, you are confused: you asserting subjective opinions (base on random bio-chemical neural reactions) is not “proof.”
BTW: since I posted and you commented that makes you troll. Also, I do not hide my background but if it fascinating that you try to imagine what it was.
But you still have not begun with the premise upon which you demand adherence to truth, logic and ethics and without establishing this then every statement you make is meaningless.
Jerome Reiter
You totally hide your background. You refuse to say if that is you in the profile pic. You state you have no education relevant to the points you make.
You admit no church or other body has appointed you or even recognized you. Why do you speak as if you alone are the voice of truth on earth? Why not just admit we are all humans and our basis for morality evolves and changes over time?
Ken Ammi
I stated that I have no education of which to speak within the context of your claims to have had academic training. I am self-taught in many areas and so I do have “education” relevant to the points I make.
Why do you speak as if you alone are the voice of truth on earth?
Now, if “morality evolves and changes over time” then you have just disqualified yourself from ever condemning anything: you cannot condemn anything in the past as the “morality” was different then and you cannot even condemn anything in the present since even now that which was “immoral” yesterday could be “moral” today and that which was “moral” yesterday could be “moral” today.
But you still have not begun with the premise upon which you demand adherence to truth, logic and ethics and without establishing this then every statement you make is meaningless.
Jerome Reiter
Al Queda considered themselves “true free thinkers” too, because they also saw themselves as the voice of their god, but this is a dangerous delusion for them and for Ken.
I still suspect Ken got his religion while he was incarcerated. He refuses to deny or confirm that. Very dodgy.
Ken Ammi
Atheist regimes in the 1900s AD considered themselves “true free thinkers” too, because they also saw themselves as the voice of evolution and mass murdered hundreds of millions, but this is a dangerous delusion for them and for Jerome. I still suspect Jerome got his Atheism while he was incarcerated. He refuses to deny or confirm that. Very dodgy.
But you still have not begun with the premise upon which you demand adherence to truth, logic and ethics and without establishing this then every statement you make is meaningless.
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.
A certain Paul, who self-identifies as, “Pastor, Husband, Father and Bible Believer” who makes, “King James Bible teaching and preaching videos” and “would love to show you what the Bible says, not what I think” (I don’t even see what he pastors) posted a list of 25 Characteristics of Nephilim in the Bible.
1. Tall Stature – Giants in the Bible are described as being of tremendous height. (Deuteronomy 3:11)
That verse reads, “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.”
Note that there’s not a single word about “Tall Stature…tremendous height” in that verse.
Some merely assert that he was due to being called a “giant” and having a big “bed.” Yet, the pastor doesn’t seem to be aware that when he reads of Og as a “giant” in the KJV he’s reading that Og was a Repha so the word “giant” doesn’t even imply anything about height whatsoever since it’s job is to merely render (not even translate) Repha: that’s what it’s doing in 98% of the verses in which it’s found—the other 2 verse in which it’s found it renders “Nephilim.”
Ergo, that is not about a Nephil but about a Repha so the very first one on the list doesn’t belong there and didn’t teach us any “Characteristics of Nephilim.”
Moreover, Og’s bed was not something upon which he slept but was a ritual object—a “bed” of the same dimensions was found in the Etemenanki ziggurat.
That verse reads, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
Oddly, likely due to his KJV leanings, he got it 100% backward since it’s anachronistic to claim “Giants are referred to as Nephilim” since it’s really “Nephilim are referred to as Giants” since the ancient Hebrew came first.
Also, the pastor doesn’t seem to be aware that biblically contextually “Giants are referred to as Nephilim” reads as “Nephilim are referred to as Nephilim.”
3. Fame and Renown – They were men of renown, respected and feared by others. (Genesis 6:4)
Fair enough.
4. Warriors – Giants were often depicted as fierce warriors. (1 Samuel 17:4)
That verse reads, “And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.”
Goliath was a Repha, not a Nephil so he’s also irrelevant.
5. Strength – They possessed extraordinary physical strength. (2 Samuel 21:16)
“And Ishbibenob, 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.”
Here “the giant” in question is Goliath: “the giant”/“the Repha.”
As for “extraordinary physical strength” well, regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam from a 7.5 ft. Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23:21).
6. Armor Bearers – Giants were described as having significant and impressive armor. (1 Samuel 17:5)
It’s interesting to note the Pastor’s hyperbolic manner of speaking: here he has one description of one giant’s armor, the only such description in the Bible, and applies to how “Giants were described” in the plural and in general.
Note that he had a guy assisting with the equipment and you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.
7. Six Fingers and Toes – Some giants had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. (2 Samuel 21:20)
Note that this was supposed to be about Nephilim but, due to the KJV, the Pastor keeps telling us about “giants.”
In this case, we also have the issue of watering down and exaggerating since we’re told of extra digits one single time about one single person who was a Repha and that somehow turned into that some Nephilim had such features.
“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.”
Now, recall that “of great stature” means taller than 5.0-5.3ft and that “born to the giant” refers to being Goliaths’ son.
8. Descendants of Anak – Some giants were referred to as Anakim, descendants of Anak. (Numbers 13:33)
Numbers 13:33 reads “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”
He didn’t bother telling us that he was appealing to one sentence from an “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked so there’s no reason to believe them and many to disbelieve them.
His statement “Some giants were referred to as Anakim, descendants of Anak” is missing the key points since Anakim were descendants of Anak who was Arba’s son but then how do we get them having anything to do with Nephilim? The biblical answer is: we don’t.
This is the second of the two verses that refer to Nephilim as “giants” and it’s unreliable.
9. Inhabitants of Canaan – Giants lived in Canaan. (Deuteronomy 9:2)
“A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!”
Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe and Rephaim were “tall” in general (so, taller than 5.0-5.3ft.) and lived in Canaan. But, again, this has nothing to do with Nephilim.
10. Philistines – Some giants were from the Philistine region. (1 Samuel 17:23)
“And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them.”
Recall that what he’s supposed to be telling us is “Some Nephilim were from the Philistine region” but, of course, there’s literally zero indication of that since they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
Thus, he’s actually asserting that Philistines weren’t fully human which is shameful.
11. Champions of Battle – Giants often occupied key roles in battle. (1 Samuel 17:4)
How about we simplify things hereinafter since it’s going to be more repetitions.
In this case, guess what, it has nothing to do with Nephilim, it’s about Rephaim.
Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
12. Multiple Battles – Giants appeared in several battles against Israelites. (2 Samuel 21:18)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
13. Pride and Defiance – Giants like Goliath displayed pride and defiance against God. (1 Samuel 17:10)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
14. Fearsome Reputation – Their reputation instilled fear. (Deuteronomy 2:10-11)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
15. Subjects of God’s Judgment – Giants were often subject to God’s judgment. (Deuteronomy 2:21)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
16. Heart of Stone – Giants were described as hard-hearted. (1 Samuel 17:44)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
17. Relics and Weapons – Their colossal weapons and relics required special attention. (1 Chronicles 20:5)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
18. Rephaim – Another term for giants used in the Bible. (Genesis 14:5)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
Yet, in this case we see another instance of anachronism since “Rephaim – Another term for giants used in the Bible” should read “giants – Another term for Rephaim used in the Bible.”
19. Increased Land’s Difficulty – Giants made the Promised Land appear unconquerable. (Numbers 13:32-33)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
20. Renowned Heroes – Giants earned respect similar to heroes. (2 Samuel 23:13)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
21. Island Inhabitants – Lived on islands and coasts. (Jeremiah 47:5)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
22. Feared by Enemies – Their presence alone could intimidate. (Deuteronomy 9:2 )
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
23. Empowered by False Gods – Believed to be empowered by false gods. (Joshua 11:21)
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
24. Correlation with Evil – Often associated with evil and sin. (Genesis 6:5)
What this has to do with Nephilim is that they were part of the “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” mix.
25. Defied Israelite Expansion – Hindered Israelites from expanding territory. (Deuteronomy 3:13 )
Nothing to do with Nephilim.
So, of the “25 Characteristics of Nephilim in the Bible” what did we actually learn about Nephilim? A wrongly and vaguely generically worded, “Giants are referred to as Nephilim in Genesis” and “Fame and Renown – They were men of renown, respected and feared by others” plus “associated with evil and sin” by association—oh, and even though Pastor Paul didn’t tell us, also that centuries post-flood some guys made up a tall-tale about them.
Thus, that was not so much about “Characteristics of Nephilim in the Bible” but was about what I suspect was that which I term KWBT: Key-Word Based Theology (or, in this case, Nephilology) whereby he merely searched for the word “giants” and strung together some of the verses in which it appears, in the KJV, in a case of taking texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts.
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 YouTuber DejahVu posted a video titled Giants of the Old Testament and it still never ceases to amaze me how someone can speak, on the WORLD WIDE web mind you, on a subject that they get 99% wrong.
I mean virtually every single statement she made is wrong and not at levels of abstraction but just based on straight up front simple data that is either there or isn’t.
I’m just going to paste the comment that I left on that video and you’ll get the idea—and the vid is only 3:03 minutes, BTW, so it’s pretty amazing just how many fallacious statements she managed to pack into such a short vid.
You then jumped to the specific ancient Hebrew term “Nephilim” so it’s hard to follow what you’re saying.
Also, what do, “almost every giant or race of giants” have to do with “Nephilim”?
In fact, Nephilim “were destroyed during the flood” and there’s zero reliable indication of “Nephilim descendant again after the flood.”
You seem to merely assert that there were based on chasing one English word around a Hebrew Bible so it’s no wonder you’re confused and are confusing others on the WORLD WIDE web.
One theory is that God wasn’t smart enough to figure out the genetic loophole and so the flood was much of a waste since God failed.
Also, that theory contradicts the Bible five times: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.
You also don’t realize that Rephaim, Zamzummim/Zuzim, and Emim were not “different giants”: those are just parochial a.k.a.s for Rephaim.
And when you say “listed as giants” well, there’s a reason that the others aren’t: they’re not Rephaim.
When you jump from Hebrew to Arabic, for whatever un-contextual reason, to tell us that a word means “giant” that only begs the question: what does “giant” mean?
As for Amos: what makes you think that Amorites had literal fruits and roots growing out of their bodies?
You say “Goliath…was huge” but “huge” is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “tall” or “giants.” Besides, most reliably, as per the preponderance of the earliest data, he was just shy of 7ft.
There’s no indication “Nimrod…built the Tower of Babel.”
There’s zero indication that at “the Tower of Babel…very” or even slightly “likely was more recreation of Nephilim” as if God failed and the flood was much of a waste because He missed the recreation loophole.
There’s literally zero indication that “Joshua…going around these different Canaanite
city states and destroying the people” had anything whatsoever to do with “heavenly beings coming down and mating with human women creating these giants.” God told us many times why He commanded such things but never said even one single word about any of that.
As for, “they were trying to pollute the bloodline that Yeshua our Messiah was supposed to be born from” well, that’s a popular tall-tale but the fact is that those you merely assert where not fully human are in Jesus’ genealogy.
There’s also no indication of “cannibalistic” anyone in the whole Bible.
Thus, the conclusion that “when Joshua went into the land it was to rid the world of these Nephilim descendant giants” is 100% biblically, logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically incorrect and easily proved to be so.
Likewise with, “when you understand the story of the Nephilim and the Nephilim giants and
how they messed with the DNA of people and animals” and there’s also zero indication they “messed with the DNA of…animals” so that “the story of Joshua down to King David destroying them and ridding them of the land makes a lot more sense” since there’s zero indication of any such thing.
Friend, in the spirit of sharpening iron with iron please, please, stop listening to modern pop-Nephilologists and see what God revealed to us about these things—and not just by chasing an English word around a Hebrew Bible.
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.
On his Facebook page, a certain Rob Baxter posted the following pertaining to assertions made by the late pop-Nephilologist Rob Skiba:
“This video helps to explain why the (largely misunderstood) ‘GOD of the Old Testament’ had the Israelite’s wipe out men, women and children in some of the villages and cities they conquered… ” A certain Daronius Subdeviant commented
there is absolutely no justification for genocide ever. you know right from wrong and you know what is good and right. genocide is none of them.
it must be noted that there is only one god and god is good. it’s not hard to work out what it is telling you.
Rob Baxter replied
but they weren’t human
Daronius Subdeviant
they were not animals. they were sentient. how is any of that in the spirit of unconditional love and infinite compassion?
Rob Baxter
same reason God sent the flood. Only 8 people left. He sent it to SAVE mankind.
Daronius Subdeviant
the old testament is a late addition to the gospel. it stands in contrast to it. where as jesus taught that the pathway was unconditional love and infinite compassion the old testament is a list of how bad it gets when you do not hold that as the divine principle.
you know the difference between right and wrong. the scripture is not inviting you to make excuses for wrong doing. it is asking you to synthesize from the dialectic.
do you really think that a benevolent, kind and loving god would try to wipe out those he loves like children? of course not. the story is an example from sumeria where they were trying to hold something other than the most high as their divine principle. they don’t even use the same name for it as jesus does.
Alex Sc chimed in by replying to Daronius Subdeviant
How can you show compassion to genetically altered beings that were practically monsters? Those tribes were known to be murderers for ages, and basically they were somehow descendants and the byproduct of the angels who betrayed God… See more
Daronius Subdeviant
it’s clearly not the same entity. the old testament is a list of examples of how not to do it. it’s full of examples of people calling something god that is obviously not good and if it is not good it is not god.
there is a whole theological progression to the fact that there is only one god and it is good.
people these days do not know how to synthesize from the dialectic or read the bible in the spirit in which it was written.
so it raises the important question ‘How can you show compassion to genetically altered beings that were practically monsters?’. it is inviting you to find a way because the divine principle is unconditional love and infinite compassion. no conditions and no boundaries.
The Chosen Few
I, True Freethinker, replied
Rob taught post-flood Nephilim which is un-biblical and so merely asserted why the “GOD of the Old Testament” had the Israelite’s wipe out men, women and children in some of the villages and cities they conquered. God told us MANY times why He did that but never said one single word about Nephilim.
Daronius Subdeviant
you know what is good and what is not, you are not an idiot. when you read something that is not good in the old testament, do not try to make excuses. you know what is good and what is not and if it is not good then it is not god.
by their deeds you will know them. if they were doing it right then jesus would not have had to come and show them the way, the truth or the light.
True Freethinker
Sorry, I’ve no idea what that has to do with the facts I noted.
Daronius Subdeviant
maybe you didn’t try to understand what i just told you then.
True Freethinker
I’m unsure how refusing to elucidate when someone tells you they don’t understand you advances the discussion: that’s more like something cyber Atheists do.
Daronius Subdeviant
sorry, i just assumed if you re-read it you would comprehend. it’s not at all vague. maybe my first assumption was premature.
i am saying that you know what is good and what is not and you know through the teachings of jesus christ that unconditional love and infinite compassion are the highest divine principles.
it seems pretty clear to me that when jesus christ talks about the father he is talking about these principles and not any so called ‘god’ of the old testament.
if you can read the old testament and use it to justify any genocide of any sentient beings then you are clearly not reading it in the spirit in which it was written.
Daronius Subdeviant
that moment a techno-gnostic tries to use cyber-atheism as a pejorative against and actual theist who gives thanks and praise to the most high and not some demiurge who pulls the strings of your mental construct simulation of creation.
True Freethinker
I’m unsure what you’re going on about in part because you misread what I write: you went off about some sort of “techno-gnostic” when I was just noting that, “refusing to elucidate” is, “more like something cyber Atheists do.”
In any case, you are also continuing to be vague since you merely asserted, “if you can read the old testament and use it to justify any genocide of any sentient beings then you are clearly not reading it in the spirit in which it was written” but didn’t get to THE most important part which is via what “spirit” do you deny what it states in favor of whatever you’re talking about?
Daronius Subdeviant
True Freethinker the spirit of the divine principle as taught to us by jesus christ amongst others.
i’m sorry if the blindingly obvious is not for you. that might be a symptom of your techno gnosticism.
i’ll spell it out again. if it is not good it is not god. you are not ignorant of what good is so don’t make any excuses.
True Freethinker
I’ll ignore your ungracefully worldly abuse. So now you’re asserting “it is not good” but it’s just that: an assertion piled atop another. And recall that this pertained to that, “Rob taught post-flood Nephilim which is un-biblical and so merely asserted why the ‘GOD of the Old Testament’ had the Israelite’s wipe out men, women and children in some of the villages and cities they conquered. God told us MANY times why He did that but never said one single word about Nephilim.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 following are reference examples for giants (Nephilim iנפלים in Hebrew) from The Bible.
Genesis 6:4 NIV
[4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Numbers 13:33 NIV
[33] We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
Deuteronomy 2:11 NKJV
[11] They were also regarded as giants, like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim.
Deuteronomy 2:20 NKJV
[20] (That was also regarded as a land of giants; giants formerly dwelt there. But the Ammonites call them Zamzummim,
Deuteronomy 3:11 NKJV
[11] “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants. Indeed his bedstead was an iron bedstead. ( Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits is its length and four cubits its width, according to the standard cubit.
Deuteronomy 3:13 NKJV
[13] The rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, I gave to half the tribe of Manasseh. (All the region of Argob, with all Bashan, was called the land of the giants.
Joshua 12:4 NKJV
[4] The other king was Og king of Bashan and his territory, who was of the remnant of the giants, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,
Joshua 13:12 NKJV
[12] all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants; for Moses had defeated and cast out these.
Joshua 17:15 NKJV
[15] So Joshua answered them, “If you are a great people, then go up to the forest country and clear a place for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and the giants, since the mountains of Ephraim are too confined for you.”
For Goliath and his brothers, there was no mentioned that they were giants. But from the description, they were.
1 Samuel 17:4-7 NKJV
[4] And a champion went out from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. [5] He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. [6] And he had bronze armor on his legs and a bronze javelin between his shoulders. [7] Now the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his iron spearhead weighed six hundred shekels; and a shield-bearer went before him.
Goliath was 6 cubits and a span, equal to at 9 feet 9 inches tall. He’s a giant, definitely.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
The key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
Those question are key because, for example, it’s actually very, very myopic to assert, “giants (Nephilim iנפלים in Hebrew).”
To review:
Genesis 6:4 is about Nephilim—when they were alive, on the ground.
Numbers 13:33 is about Nephilim—centuries after the last of the drowned in the flood, it’s just part of an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Deuteronomy 2:11 is about Rephaim—by any other name (not including “Nephilim”) and inform us that they were “tall” on average which is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage “giants.” It really means they were taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.
Deuteronomy 2:20 is about Rephaim.
Deuteronomy 3:11 is about a Repha—offers no physical description of him.
Deuteronomy 3:13 is about Rephaim—who were subjectively “tall” on average.
Joshua 12:4 is about that same Repha—offers no physical description of him.
Joshua 13:12 is about that same Repha—offers no physical description of him.
Joshua 17:15 is about Perizzites and Rephaim—the latter of which were subjectively “tall” on average.
Those questions are key because it’s not accurate that “For Goliath and his brothers, there was no mentioned that they were giants” since that is what they are called but you seem to misunderstand the usage of that term, it’s merely rendering (not even translating) the word “Repha/im.”
“Goliath was 6 cubits and a span, equal to at 9 feet 9 inches tall” 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.
Eddie Lau
Yes, you are right.
No one really knows (except God) whether Goliath was really the same type of Nephilim in Genesis 6.
But one thing I am quite sure is that both of them opposed God and His people. That’s what we need to know. Others are only irrelevant information, I suppose.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.
It’s not accurate “No one really knows (except God) whether Goliath was really the same type of Nephilim in Genesis 6” 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, 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.”
[4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
God allowed Nephilim (Giants literally from Hebrew) to exist before AND AFTERWARDS. That’s clearly a secret that we can’t understand (just the same as why satan is allowed to deceive in this world) from our wisdom.
But as a believer, we just trust Him to work for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28). Goliath was believed to be Anakim who existed even down to Joshua’s time. Were they allowed to help to build in Canaan so that Israelites could dwell in well developed places?
Deuteronomy 6:10-11 NIV
[10] When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, [11] houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied,
If you are still puzzled, so am I, that’s normal and need our faith to cover this mystery that God has not revealed to us. I welcome any possible explanations to widen my knowing of my God.
In fact, the secret of dinosaurs is similarly concealed to men.
Praise the Lord, anyway.
Ken Ammi
Oddly, you wrote, “God allowed Nephilim (Giants literally from Hebrew) to exist before AND AFTERWARDS” but didn’t mention the most important part: after when/what? And please based your reply on what the verse says rather than what it doesn’t.
Since you didn’t reply when I asked you to what you were referring by “giants” then when you assert, “Nephilim (Giants literally from Hebrew)” I have no idea what you mean.
Also, since the issue is Nephilim, what does Goliath have to do with it since, as you noted, he “was believed to be Anakim” which was a clan of the Rephaim tribe?
Eddie Lau
You are right. I just understand from The Bible, the secrets of Nephilim has not been completely released.
In Genesis 6:4 ‘in those days’ were obviously the days before The Flood. So ‘afterwards’ should be after the Flood, That’s certain.
Nephilim is the Hebrew word for giants. You can google to check.
Anakim was a tribe of giants. Goliath was obviously a Giant. But whether Goliath came from Anakim, I can’t find the reference. If you have this information, please tell me.
We give witness based on what The Bible mentions, otherwise, we are only empty talk. As there are areas not revealed (or can’t find), I need to tell you just what I find.
Praise the Lord, anyway.
Ken Ammi
But if “the secrets of Nephilim has not been completely released” how do you know about them? And secrets kept by whom and released by whom?
Notice that you were forced to only quote three words from Genesis 6:4 since you realized that it doesn’t say a single word about the flood so you had to artificially insert “The Flood” in there.
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.
I’m unsure why you advertise for Google but I wrote an entire book about the linguistics so I don’t have to search for the myopic assertion that “Nephilim is the Hebrew word for giants” which only begs the questions: what does “giants” mean? Recall that I asked you about that but you didn’t reply. Please 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
So, when you say, “Anakim was a tribe of giants” I still can’t know what you mean and I bet that you don’t know what you mean either—or rather, you don’t know what the English Bible you’re reading means: since you didn’t want to discuss that either.
But when you assert, “Goliath was obviously a Giant” you appear to be referring to his height so that has utterly nothing whatsoever to do with when he’s called “giant” in the English Bible you’re reading: it’s just telling you he was a Repha, and yes of the Anakim clan of the Rephaim, and, BTW, he was just shy of 7ft.
Eddie Lau
Of course, you can say ‘afterwards’ can mean before the Flood, is that ok?🤣
If you want to argue anything not completely reveal, please do so. I don’t have time to argue any thing meaningless.
For me, afterwards is after Flood. That’s allowed by God but in a much smaller scale for His purpose, probably limited to Canaan. If you find it difficult to accept, fine, have your explanation as I don’t have anymore clues to justify.
Thank for discussing this matter.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Well, I didn’t say, “‘afterwards’ can mean before the Flood” rather, I outlined the contextual text to the effect of that it refers to “afterwards” of when “the sons of God” first “saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose” but your reply appears to only be ridicule.
Now, if “afterwards is after Flood” why are there no post-flood Nephilim anywhere (besides in one sentence from an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked)?
How did you get Nephilim past the flood so that God failed when He meant to be rid of them?
What loophole did God miss?
Why imply the flood much of a waste?
Eddie Lau
Well, afterwards is afterwards. Just listen and accept. Don’t argue,
Why God allowed Nephilim afterwards? Ask Him. If anyone knows the reason. Tell me also.
To argue secrets beyond our knowledge is waste of time, I dare not to do so.
Just praise the Lord, anyway.
Ken Ammi
That, “afterwards is afterwards” is incoherent since at issue is afterwards of when, the text tell you very, very clearly when, but you want to reject that since you want to keep holding on to man-made tall-tales, for some reason.
As for, “Just listen and accept. Don’t argue” that is a very clear window into why you’re posting un-biblical tall-tales on the WORLD WIDE, mind you, web: you hear something, accepted it, didn’t argue, and are just repeating it. I, however, reject your pseudo-authority and am being a good Berean.
As for, “Why God allowed Nephilim afterwards?” again: afterwards of when—as per the text and not your tall-tales?
Shalom!
Eddie Lau
Ok. Tell me what’s your view of ‘afterwards’ then? I want to know your answer from Bible. Don’t just imagine something without Bible proof.
It’s easy to criticise others, but without Bible proof. That’s only plain talk from men.
Please respond.
Ken Ammi
Well, that’s a pretty odd MO, that I asked, “…again: afterwards of when—as per the text and not your tall-tales?” but rather than replying you pulled a tu quoque.
Very well then, I just read what the text states (not just half of one verse):
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.
God didn’t fail when He meant to be rid of the via the flood, He didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste.
Eddie Lau
You seem very considerate of God’s will but no one can exactly know except The Holy Spirit.
However, we can still trace from The Holy Bible.
Your answer to me is simply Nephilim existed before The Flood, right?
But take note of this verse from Numbers 13:33
Numbers 13:33 NIV
[33] We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
What’s your explanation?
So I still remind you better ask The Holy Spirit to tell you the truth.
Explain this to me, please.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Well, “no one can exactly know except The Holy Spirit” and we when He has revealed it to us. Ergo, when we’re told five times who made it past the flood and Nephilim are never on the list then we can know that.
Yes, “Nephilim existed before The Flood” exclusively.
I’m unsure why you tell me to, “take note” and for my “explanation” of Numbers 13:33 since I already told you, “Numbers 13:33 is about Nephilim—centuries after the last of the drowned in the flood, it’s just part of an ‘evil report’ by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.”
Why do you think that you are forced to only exclusively rely on one single sentence for the (supposed) post-flood existence of the most awe inspiring beings on the planet?
See, you can’t just read one single verse, pick it up, run with it, and ignore everything else.
You’re supposed to ask yourself questions such as who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc.
So, are you familiar with the narrative of Num chaps 13-14?—and the whole rest of the entire Bible that doesn’t say a single post-flood word about them?
Eddie Lau
Are you in discussions for something without evidence?
We can only trace from Bible verses to see possible results. Otherwise, just give me your evidence but don’t label me. Everyone can speak from Bible with humility. Ask The Holy Spirit for confirmation of what you comment, I suggest.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
No, I’m not in discussions for something without evidence: I’m just asking you for yours such as, “So, are you familiar with the narrative of Num chaps 13-14?—and the whole rest of the entire Bible that doesn’t say a single post-flood word about them?” which you ignored.
I have had many, many, many, many experiences with post-flood Nephilologists who, when they realize they have zero reliable data to back they’re un-biblical assertions, punt to a gnostic tactic: pray about it. As if the Holy Spirit is going to contradict His revelation that He has already put into our hands.
Eddie Lau
Show me what you have found. Don’t just criticise others.
The Bible is not to talk about giants/nephilim. They are never the subject. Why waste time on them?
We study The Bible to know Jesus Christ. That’s the most important task we need to achieve.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
You noted, “The Bible is not to talk about giants/nephilim. They are never the subject.” Now, for where the Bible does talk about Nephilim please see Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33.
Also, “‘So, are you familiar with the narrative of Num chaps 13-14?—and the whole rest of the entire Bible that doesn’t say a single post-flood word about them?’ which you ignored” and ignored again.
Eddie Lau
You just want to pick my fault, right? But never see the possibility of ‘afterward’ can mean after the flood.
So what’s the point of argument when both of us hold different views.
Would you look at Jesus more closely than Nephilim/giants that were objects of destruction? That’s the only way to grow, sorry.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Oh, I saw that possibility when I was listening to the modern-pop-Nephilologists but not once I researched it for myself.
There are many reasons why afterwards not only doesn’t but can’t mean after the flood.
The point of argument when both of us hold different views is that you’re mistaken and we’re called to correct those in error.
You have a God who couldn’t get the job done, He failed, His flood was much of a waste, etc.
Sorry, I’m unsure what you mean by, “Would you look at Jesus more closely than Nephilim/giants that were objects of destruction?”
Also, “You noted, ‘The Bible is not to talk about giants/nephilim. They are never the subject.’ Now, for where the Bible does talk about Nephilim please see Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33. Also, ‘‘So, are you familiar with the narrative of Num chaps 13-14?—and the whole rest of the entire Bible that doesn’t say a single post-flood word about them?’ which you ignored’ and ignored again” and ignored again.
Eddie Lau
Now this is your problem. Are you going to do works that you think God can’t finish? Why can’t God allow giants to do things for Israelites before they occupied?
So you are limiting God instead of helping Him.
If I were you, I would rather be humble and let Him do whatever He does. Our job is to believe that He is always working for our benefits.
Ask The Holy Spirit to confirm as I always do so to get His secrets.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
I’ve no idea what you’re going on about except that I’ve experienced this many times from people who realize they can’t substantiate their assertions: you ask supposed gotcha questions and play the gnostic card.
Also, you’re still going on about “giants” so you’re clearly not interested in being understood but it is also something some people do so they can keep making vaguely generic watered down assertions: recall that you were incapable of answering the key questions.
Shalom!
Eddie Lau
I told you very early in our discussion that no one can substantiate but just guess.
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.
Such was the title of a vid by Dr. Michael S. Heiser which led to the following discussion when a certain @claytonbigsby commented
All but 8 people died during the flood so where did the giants come from post flood?
@kenammi355
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?
@claytonbigsby
You mean Nephilim?
@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. You used the term “giants” so I’m asking you.
@claytonbigsby
Giants/Nephilim/human hybrids/Elohim : products of a rebellion
@kenammi355
Sorry, I don’t understand: are you asking “All but 8 people died during the flood so where did the Giants/Nephilim/human hybrids/Elohim : products of a rebellion come from post flood?”
@claytonbigsby
I don’t understand why you don’t understand my question,” where did the giants come from post flood?”
@kenammi355
Because I asked what you mean and you didn’t elucidate. I asked three questions and you replied with a question and then with a list of unrelated words so you’re making it hard to understand you.
@claytonbigsby
ok. sorry I didn’t make myself clear.
@kenammi355
Appreciate that. No worries, this issue gets confusing due to some of the popular terms being thrown around not being very specific.
So, let’s back up, “All but 8 people died during the flood so where did the giants come from post flood?” by implication “giants” must refer to Nephilim but there’s zero reliable indication that they came back.
See, that would imply that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed the loophole whereby they returned, so the flood was much of a waste.
Such is the damage that post-flood Nephilology does to theology.
@claytonbigsby
Numbers 13 vs 33 seems to disagree with your interpretation of scripture.
@kenammi355
I would really like to keep this discussion to one thread since we have the same one going on two but for now, I guess, I will note that sure: when you based your views on only one single verse and you ignore the fact that you’re appealing to an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked and who made mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible and whom God rebuked and whom contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the rest of the whole entire Bible, and God then yes, that utterly untrustworthy unreliable sentence disagrees with my interpretation and I’m more than pleased with that since I don’t side with guys whom God rebuked but I side with the God who rebuked them.
@claytonbigsby
verse 33. And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim. verse 34. And Moses said, “What ? That can’t be true cause all them Nephilim fellers died in the flood.” Good catch, I see your point.
@kenammi355
Friend, you don’t seem to be familiar with the relevant data and it may be that you’re been sold a tall-tale by pop-Nephilologists who have taught to you build entire all-encompassing theories upon one single verse and to not read the narrative for context.
If God rebuking them—to death—isn’t enough then I’m afraid that if “Moses said, ‘What ? That can’t be true cause all them Nephilim fellers died in the flood’” (which he already did in Gen 6) won’t convince you to give upon your man-made tradition either.
Please read Deut 1 wherein Moses relates that very same event and tell me where he mentions Nephilim.
Now:
You conveniently ignored, “you based your views on only one single verse”
You conveniently ignored, “you ignore the fact that you’re appealing to an ‘evil report’”
You conveniently ignored, “by unreliable guys”
You conveniently ignored, “whom God rebuked”
You conveniently ignored, “who made mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible”
You conveniently ignored, “whom God rebuked”
You conveniently ignored, “whom contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the rest of the whole entire Bible, and God”
You conveniently ignored, “I don’t side with guys whom God rebuked but I side with the God who rebuked them”
And you didn’t tell me what tall-tale you invented (or parrot) to get Nephilim past the flood, past God who failed when He couldn’t figure out the loophole you found so that the flood was much of a waste.
@claytonbigsby
Numbers 13 vs 33 disagrees with your interpretation of your response to me.
@kenammi355
Friend, if you merely type a profile name on YT it won’t send a notification about the comment, you have to reply to the reply in order for that to happen: I just happened to notice this one now.
You’re directing me to one sentence from an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so, why do you believe 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 following discussion took place due to the Facebook post by the Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series page which is from the nephilimgiants.net which is one of the premier click-bait sites since they merely slap the term Nephilim into 99% of their posts and leave the mere assertions at that—even and especially when challenged, at which point they warn you that they will reply on censorship by blocking you.
The propaganda in this case was, “Three Thousand Nephilim Giant’s Uncovered in Plotted Graveyard in Northern Ohio. Laid Out Like a Modern Cemetery” so they don’t even know that biblically contextually, “Nephilim Giant’s” means, “Nephilim Nephilim’s.”
I, True Freethinker, commented
I check all of the time but still don’t see why you assert that they were Nephilim. “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were”–Gary Wayne (sic.).
Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series replied as they did since I keep asking them basic questions, even just about their usage of the term Nephilim, but all they ever do is threaten and evade
Your comments are getting old.
“Top fan” James McDonald replied
Typical Nephilim specs are given in 1 Sam. 17:4-8. This one (Goliath), was 9’9″. Four others are noted in 2 Sam. 21:16-22. There are references to the Nephilim throughout the O.T.
True Freethinker
I referred to Nephilim but you’re directing me to texts about Rephaim. Can you please provide the citations for, “references to the Nephilim throughout the O.T.”?
Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series
Why don’t you look it up yourself? You are a troll, and the next bull[****] comment is getting you blocked,
True Freethinker to Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series
Please mind your manners. You’re premise is faulty: I don’t ask because I don’t know, I’m asking because I discerned that don’t know and your reply appears to prove my discernment was correct. Now, you merely asserted “throughout” so I can only imagine that to you “throughout” means in two verses, correct?
True Freethinker to James McDonald
Please don’t parrot Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series since I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data which I c, or so, Nephilology books (not counting writing articles and making videos so: what am I missing?
Paul Nichter
Nephilim by definition ARE giants. Its what the word means.
True Freethinker
Hey, I’m glad to be in touch with anyone who also disagrees with Gary. Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens and dozens upon dozens of people who go on and on and on and on about “giants” and literally zero have replied. What two words? I only asked about one word and who are “they”?
Paul Nichter
Nephi and giant
James McDonald
Evidently, the big picture laid out in the Bible.
True Freethinker
Which is?
True Freethinker
Well friend, if you think that “Nephilim” and “giant” are equivalent then that begs these key questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
James McDonald
You need to read it.
True Freethinker
James McDonald Please don’t act online as a stereotypical Atheist: please write cogent sentences. If your hidden assumption is that I need to read the Bible well, been there and done that so, now what?
James McDonald
Believe and receive – or doubt and do without.
True Freethinker
James McDonald “doubt” what?
Paul Nichter
Nephilim by definition ARE giants. Its what the word means.
True Freethinker
So, you disagree with Gary Wayne then. But telling me “giants” only begs these key questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
it’s a simple translation, the two words being equivalent. I am sure they likely had other names in the America’s or in china
True Freethinker
Hey, I’m glad to be in touch with anyone who also disagrees with Gary. Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens and dozens upon dozens of people who go on and on and on and on about “giants” and literally zero have replied. What two words? I only asked about one word and who are “they”?
Paul Nichter
Nephi and giant
True Freethinker
Well friend, if you think that “Nephilim” and “giant” are equivalent then that begs these key questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
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.