Month: September 2024

Having posted Pastor Troy Brewer on Goliath as half-man Nephilim and REVELATION REPORT: Aliens & Nephilim, I thought to review more of his relevant teachings and ran across a set of sermon notes titled.

Pastor Troy Brewer’s sermon notes for the sermon titled THE SACRED SEED WAR & GIANT BED OF KING OG/NEPHILIM begin with the section, “THE DEMONIC AGENDA OF THE NEPHILIM” which begins with a very important, and oft ignored, qualifying detail, “So, when Israel got ready to cross into the Promised Land, 10 of the 12 spies who went to do the due diligence and check out the Promised Land came back with an evil report” which he refreshingly cites as, Numbers 13:25 till 14:10 and notes, in part:

…they brought back word…showed them the fruit of the land…they told him [Moses]…It truly flows with milk and honey, and this is its fruit…the people who dwell in the land are strong; the cities are fortified and very large; moreover we saw the descendants of Anak…The Amalekites…Hittites…Jebusites…Amorites…Canaanites…

Caleb quieted the people before Moses, and said, “Let us go up at once and take possession, for we are well able to overcome it.”
But the men who had gone up with him said, “We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we.”
And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
I noted, “very important, and oft ignored, qualifying detail” since pop-Nephilologists—who currently essentially own and run Nephilology (run it into the ground)—tend to merely fixate on 13:33, uncritically pick it up, run with it, and apply it as if it’s infallible.

Yet, as we saw, it’s just part of an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Here are portions of the rest of the citation:

So, all the congregation lifted up their voices and cried, and the people wept that night….they said to one another, “Let us select a leader and return to Egypt”…
But Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh, who were among those who had spied out the land, tore their clothes; and they spoke to all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying: “The land we passed through to spy out is an exceedingly good land. If the Lord delights in us, then He will bring us into this land and give it to us, ‘a land which flows with milk and honey.’ Only do not rebel against the Lord, nor fear the people of the land, for they are our bread; their protection has departed from them, and the Lord is with us. Do not fear them.”
I will add verses 36-38 since they too are key:

…the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land, who returned and made all the congregation grumble against him by bringing up a bad report about the land—the men who brought up a bad report of the land—died by plague before the Lord. Of those men who went to spy out the land, only Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb the son of Jephunneh remained alive.

Thus, the only indication of post-flood Nephilim is one sentence from one evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Yet, 100% of pop-Nephilology (and much scholarly, see my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?) is based on their say so, on siding with guys whom God rebuked rather than with the God who rebuked them.

The sermon notes then to go, Deuteronomy 3 out of which I will focus on the key verse, 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.
Pop-Nephilologists (and many scholarly ones) suffer from that which I term Gigorexia Nervosa: the obsessive desire to see giants, and just making them up where they are nowhere to be seen.

Thus, they will merely assert that Og was circa 13ft. tall due to the size of his, “bed.” Well, there are various assumptions that go towards that non sequitur of a conclusion—see my book, The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Pastor Troy Brewer rightly noted, “The sacred marriage bed of Marduk aligns to the cubit precisely with the dimensions that are given for Og’s bed in Deuteronomy” and quotes thusly from Dr. Michael Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm:

The most immediate link back to the Babylonian polemic is Og’s bed (Hebrew: ʿeres). Its dimensions (9 × 4 cubits) are precisely those of the cultic bed in the ziggurat called Etemenanki—which is the ziggurat most archaeologists identify as the Tower of Babel referred to in the Bible. Ziggurats (pyramids) functioned as temples and divine abodes.

The unusually large bed at Etemenanki was housed in “the house of the bed” (bit erši). It was the place where the god Marduk and his divine wife, Zarpanitu, met annually for ritual lovemaking, the purpose of which was divine blessing upon the land.
In other words, it was not a bed upon which Og slept but was a ritual object. For some unknown reason, the notes at this point arbitrarily state, “ALTAR OF NEPHILIM SEX MAGIC”: whatever that means.
Now, since these are sermon notes and not an article, it’s for some unknown reason that the next statement is, “in addition to the giantism element, a link between Og and Marduk via the matching bed dimensions may also have telegraphed the idea that Og was the inheritor and perpetuator of the Babylonian knowledge and cosmic order from before the flood.” Ok but why artificially insert, “giantism” into the mix? We had an unreliable reference to the gigantic nature of Nephilim from a mere tall-tale.

Then, in the same evil report, we were also told a tall-tale about that, “all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature” which was an embellishment since the original, reliable, issue was that they were, “strong” and even they agreed that it was that they were, “stronger,” but then took it up a notch, literally, in their evil report.

And zero physical description of Og.

So, we have no reason to even think about subjectively unusual height (which is the only thing that, “great stature” means, even if we grant that).

We then get a reference to, “THE SEED WAR” via an appeal to, “Genesis 3:15 ‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.’”
We then jump to, Genesis 6:1-4:
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Also quoted is, “Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. (GENETICALLY PURE) Noah walked with God” with the parenthetical statement being added by Pastor Troy Brewer.

At this point, the sermon turns to a topic I’ve written and lectured on: Transhumanism.
The notes note, “Transgenderism leads to transhumanism” and I will add, occultism leads to transgenderism which leads to transhumanism. See my book, The Occult Roots of Postgenderism: And a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology.
Now, at this point the notes get very fragmentary so they go from, “Anything trans – hybrid, mixture,” to, “Trans AI technology – chips, ports, nanobots, serums & DNA-altering drugs (REPLACING HOLY SPIRIT)” and then to, “Is all a big part of Nephilim sex magic and the demonic seed war agenda” but Nephilim have been dead and gone since the flood so the only way there could be any, “Nephilim sex magic and the demonic seed war agenda” is if spiritually deluded people think that they can somehow emulate the sin of the Gen 6 affair, as I term it, by mixing and matching sexes, genetics, biology and technology, etc.
The notes end with some sermonizing encouragements.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Hereinafter are considerations of some of the things that TJ Steadman wrote about Anakim in his book Answers to Giant Questions. You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here—including out debate.
TJ Steadman wrote:

The royalty connection is exemplified in the Anakim. The Biblical account tells us of some of the kings of the Anakim, the “sons of Anak.”
This terminology appears to have carried over from the Sea Peoples who gave rise to the Caphtorim, Emim and later the Philistines. “Anak” is not just a name but also a title, from the Greek anax, meaning, “king.”
It is one of the many titles of Apollo, who had a temple in Athens dedicated to the worship of the Anakes, protector gods similar to the Mesopotamian Apkallu.
The Bible tells us that the Anakim, or more accurately, ben ‘anaq, “sons of Anak,” were descended from a man named Arba, father of Anak, after whom was named Kiriath Arba (“city of the tree,” later Hebron).

This seems like a word-concept fallacy: just because in Greek anak/anax means or is used for king does not mean that the people group (especially all of them) were kings. Surely, they had kings over them and those kings may have been Anakim but Anakim are still named after a man named Anak. That is, unless TJ Steadman wants to claim that they are named after a person referred to as Anak because he was their king. Yet, that would only get us to that they are called the Kingly peoples and so, what of it?
So yet, “The Biblical account tells us of some of the kings of the Anakim” what of it?
Note also that in Greek we are dealing with Ενακ not Ἄναξ.
Ἄναξ is the Greek for anax.
Ενακ is Greek for Anak which refers to neck, necklace and in Arabic specifically the length of a neck.
Ἀνάγκη is the Greek for Ananke
Just because words sound similar in English (and perhaps even in the original languages) and are written similarly when transliterated in to English (and perhaps even in the original languages) does not mean they are related, mean the same or similar things, etc.
As far as I know, there are (plural) no Anakes (plural) protector gods (plural). Rather, Ananke (singular) is a self-formed primordial being, eventually personified in feminine form, whose outstretched arms encompass the cosmos. She is the mate of Chronos. Together they smashed the primal egg of creation, the piece of which became sea, earth, and heaven.
I included, “Appendix: On the Apkallu as per Amar Annus” in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology and review the various iterations of Apkallu and one thing is certain, they have nothing to do with the concept of Anakes who is not at all, “similar to the Mesopotamian Apkallu.”
TJ Steadman also wrote that the “translation in the LXX achieves more than just to inform us that the Anakim were tall by association with the Rephaim (translated ‘gigantes’ in the Greek). Because the same Greek is used to translate the earlier 6th century BC Aramaic ‘Naphilin’ (plural form of Naphila, which means ‘giant’) which was preserved in the Hebrew Bible as ‘Nephilim.’”
Part of the problem with this is what I noted above: just because giant and gigantes look and sound alike, so some extent, does not mean that Anakim were well, biblically they were tall (which is subjective, subjective to Israelite males who in those days averaged 5.0-5.3 ft.).
“Rephaim” is not even “translated ‘gigantes’” is it merely rendered as such yes, the Greek also renders “Nephilim as “gigantes” and also “gibborim” as “gigantes”—which just makes a giant mess.
The Greek gigantes means “earth-born” so even that “Anakim were tall by association with the Rephaim” due to the term gigantes is inaccurate—some Rephaim such as Anakim (a Rephaim subgroup) were tall and that is about all we can say.
As TJ Steadman noted, “the presence of giants within the population does not necessarily define the entire people group as giants” which is one of the times he is using the subjective, vague, generic English term giants to mean something unspecified about unusual height.
Yet, TJ Steadman wants to connect the following dots: gigantes is used to translate (render) the Aramaic “Naphilin” from “Naphila” (generally naphiyl) (he is claiming that “Nephilim” derives from an Aramaic root not the Hebrew one, naphal) “which means ‘giant’” as since, or so he wrongly claims, Rephaim are Nephilim 2.0 and Anakim have an “association with the Rephaim” ergo, Anakim are “giants.”
Yet, none of that works even if the term giants/gigantes meant something specific about unusual height since, as J. Edward
Wright, Ph.D. noted, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants” (Shared within a private communique with me).
Wright is himself the J. Edward Wright Endowed Professor of Judaic Studies and Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona.
Since TJ Steadman has a theo-sci-fi view of Nephilim and Rephaim—and Anakim and Nimord and, and, and—then he thinks that Rephaim, being Nephilim 2.0, were a people group (more like a zombie horde) whom the grave cannot hold, return as demons, etc.
Such is why he claims, “Isaiah 26 has much to say about the Rephaim. Firstly, the use in verses 13-14 refers to the Rephaim as lords (or, kings), which supports the idea that the ancient kings of the world were empowered by the Rephaim, like Nimrod, Og, Sihon, Amalek/Agag, Arba, Anak and many others.”
Note the claim not just of Rephaim kings, which of course there were, but that kings were “empowered by the Rephaim” and he does not mean with military backing, financial backing or any such thing—he means spiritual/demonic empowerment.
I am also unsure how Nimrod was “empowered by the Rephaim” when Rephaim were not even close to existing in Nimrod’s day—TJ Steadman’s theo-sci-fi tall tales notwithstanding.
Just like Anakim are named after Anak, Rephaim are also named after one man, Repha, whose genealogy goes, “Benjamin begat Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, and Aharah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth” (Chronicles 8:1).
Thus, with the exception of Nimrod: Og, Sihon, Amalek/Agag, Arba, and Anak are referred to as Rephaim because they were Rephaim. Yet, also, it actually supports the Ugaritic idea that the ancient kings of the world were later, once dead for a while, referred to as Rephaim—see Are Rephaim post-flood Nephilim? “Dead Kings and Rephaim: The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.”
TJ Steadman also wrote, “The clans of the Rephaim are listed as: Rephaims, Emims, Horims, Zamzummims, Anakims, Horims, Avims and Caphtorims. All of these were Repahim. All were giants.”
I can only imagine that the circularity of claiming “The clans of the Rephaim are listed as: Rephaims…” and listing “Horims…Horims” are mere typos.
As for the rest well, Deuteronomy 2:9-11, 19-20 tells us of the land of the Moabites that “The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants [Rephaim], as the Anakims; but the Moabites called them Emims” and of the Ammonite’s land “That also was accounted a land of giants [Rephaim]: giants [Rephaim] dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims.”
Thus, Emims were Rephaim, a clan of Rephaim like a subgroup, just like Anakims were and Ammonites called Rephaim Zamzummims.
We know not much about Horims biblically, except in vss. 12 and 22 notes, “Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them” and the aforementioned Rephaim/Zamzummims “the Lord destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead: As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even unto this day.”
As for Avims and Caphtorims, we are only told this about them biblically, which is in v. 23, “And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.”
As an FYI: Genesis 14:5 is the only reference we have to Zuzims and it does not specify if they were also an aka for, were accounted as, Rephaim, etc., “the kings that were with him [Chedorlaomer], and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim.”
What is interesting about this verse is that it seems to distinguish between Rephaims and Emims but is seems to merely be utilizing two akas based on how they were known in different localities/by different peoples since “Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and…the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim.”

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

The following discussion took place due to my video What will the future think of Aron Ra?

A certain Humanist Apologetics commented

Love the edit job. Why didn’t you provide links to where you clipped these from? Or how about a breakdown of his flood videos and why they are wrong? Considering that the position of the exodus myth is mainstream while the position that the exodus happened is a populist position… What is the strongest piece of evidence for the exodus.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

One evidence is that it is recorded in the best attested volume of antiquity.

Humanist Apologetics

Alright much to unpack here. My conclusion is that the bible is a book just like any other book. I arrived at this conclusion because I tested it’s claims against the actual world. Thus no I did not begin with the conclusion I began with examination. I can provide a link as well and mine even has citations https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/modern-myth-all-but-11-verses-of-the-nt-could-be-constructed-from-the-writings-of-the-early-church-fathers/ Here is another link https://vridar.org/2016/04/04/little-white-lies-is-the-nt-best-attested-work-from-antiquity/ Further your reconstructed bible would have verse not found in the modern bible. If by the term attested you mean that it was copied a lot then… well no I won’t give even that much too you. Many copies does not the truth make, this is known as the ad populum fallacy. Perhaps we are using the term attested to mean different things so allow me to be explicitly clear. By the word attested I don’t simply mean that it was copied lots. I mean how much of it can be verified by external sources. The word I used there was verified. Not verified to have been said in the text. How much of the text can be corroborated? Can more than “yes there was a city by this name.” be verified? I want more than general events. Give me external verification of the exodus. Your strongest piece of evidence. The lie which you told is that the exodus myth is attested to. It is claimed by a book that was popularly copied. Attested: provide or serve as clear evidence of. The claim has been made by the old testament that the exodus happened. Now attest it. Now lets address your deflection because apparently you didn’t learn the last time you tried this on me. “how does your worldview provide a premise upon which to demand adherence to truth, logical and ethics—such as that you would be justified in condemning lying?” Because 1) existence exists 2) I exist 3) Systems of knowledge which can be tested and verified are better than those which cannot. That is how. However I was not in fact condemning your lie. I wish for you to tell more. I wish for you to tell many many more. I also wish for you to deflect. I wish for you to do all that you will. You sir are not my friend, neither are you my audience. Interesting side note. When I was a believer I actually attempted to reconstruct the bible using the church fathers. It was interesting indeed. Perhaps one of these days I will pick the project back up.

Humanist Apologetics commented again before I could reply, with

​Ken Ammi I wrote: “Is genocide ever acceptable?” To which you responded: is a non-issue. I had intended this to be a public written debate. Instead I am just going to let that gem hang out there. I will however address one other thing first ” you just from “is” to “ought,” “. No I just from IF to THEN. I really cannot thank you enough for that gem. All else will be addressed in the other thread if you wish to continue it there. This is just too golden to spoil for the audience. I wrote: “Is genocide ever acceptable?” To which you responded: is a non-issue.

Ken Ammi

​Friend, if anything is hanging out there it is the fact (which anyone can verify) that you are taking me out of context—to me no less: if I wrote something, you will not succeed in taking it out of context when you are writing a comment back to me.

Here is your manipulation of the facts, “I wrote: ‘Is genocide ever acceptable?’ To which you responded: is a non-issue.” Here are the facts: I wrote “how does your worldview provide a premise for truth, logic and ethics such as that you can then go around condemning people, actions, etc.? WITHOUT STARTING THERE then you asking “Is genocide ever acceptable?” IS A NON-ISSUE.”

So you fail by engaging the issue and you fail by sloppily manipulating facts.

Now, I am going to make the following comments here now since YouTube had not allowed it since it contains URLs so I just noticed that the system was asking me to review it and so I just approved it.

Friend, you most certainly did begin with a conclusion since your examination is based on truth, logic and ethics (at least, it is supposed to) so you begged, borrowed and stole those from my worldview since your worldview cannot provide them to you.

If you are just interested in posting links then, feel free: I also know how to copy and paste.

I am going to guess that by “Give me external verification of the exodus” you are going to purposefully ignore the most well attested ancient text and opt for what: for history written by Egyptians, or what?

But we are back to the issue of truth, logic and ethics since you refer to “The lie” which I allegedly told but you provide no premise upon which to condemn lying. But you say that you were “not in fact condemning your lie” which makes sense since you could not do so due to your worldview’s fundamental failures. And look where your worldview has left you: you cannot even condemn lying!

You do not seem to engage the ontological issue of epistemology since “1) existence exists 2) I exist 3) Systems of knowledge which can be tested and verified are better than those which cannot…” are secondary issues and are, as I noted, you simply jumping from “is” to “ought”: your worldview utterly fails to account for how and why 1) is the case, and for how and why 2) is the case, and for how and why 3) is the case. Thus, you have gained nothing but are merely making unfounded assertions.

Well, if you are not my friend than we need to change that.

Lastly, you can make the mere claim that you used to be a believer but such is not the case since “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us” (1 John 2:19).

You see, when you have no premise for truth, logic and ethics you end up where you have ended up: displaying for all to see that you are not willing and/or able to engaged in a truthful, logical and ethical manner.

Humanist Apologetics

Which volume is that? And are you saying that we should believe something because it is written down? If that is the case then that gives me a totally different perspective on the Illiad.

Ken Ammi

Which volume is the best attested volume of antiquity? The Bible. I provided an exemplary chart here: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/destroyed-bible-%E2%80%93-how-reconstruct-bible-part-3

No, I am not saying that we should believe something because it is written down but by playing games as you are, you are about to destroy all history. So, the facts of the matter are that you asked “the strongest piece of evidence for the exodus” and I am directing you to a historical text and one that just so happens to be the best attested volume of antiquity.

Humanist Apologetics

You assume that you understand my objectives. I stated clearly where I am starting from. How does my worldview provide a premise for truth? Let us exercise the spirit of charity and say that what you wrote and my understanding of what you wrote were not the same. Let us do that and say further that because of my understanding of your question I thought that I provided what I believed to be a full and sufficient answer. Then friend shall we endeavor to correct this misunderstanding. “how does your worldview provide a premise for truth, logic and ethics such as that you can then go around condemning people, actions, etc.” Rewording show what I understand your question to mean. I shall here replace the words with the definition of the words. “how does your understanding of the world and the way it works provide a starting place for that which you can demonstrate, the basis for logic and the foundation for human interaction such as that you can then go around condemning people, actions, etc.” To which I respond with How does my understanding of the world and the way it works provide a starting place? Because existence exists. Allow me to clarify this statement because I apparently failed in the full communication of the concept last time. Existences exists, because exists exist it is what it is and things are what they are. How… ? Because I exist. How … because I know (believe) that I exist. How… I know (believe) that other thinking minds exist. How… Because Systems of knowledge (that which can be demonstrated) which can be dis-confirmed are better than those which can be only confirmed. These are my axiom’s the place from which I start. They are the minimal amount of assumptions that I am forced against my will to make because I have no other choice but to make them. So again I ask now that I have answered your question thus finishing one issue (namely how am I able to make condemnations based upon my worldview) I will ask my own question of you. Is genocide ever acceptable? [insert yes or no answer here] [Insert fuller explanation if necessary here]

Ken Ammi

Friend, I appreciate you wanting to set thing aright. Now, I am unsure that rewording and replacing is helpful since you end up answering a question that you asked yourself. But, so be it: I will go with it, at least for now.

I am afraid that you are not engaging issues of ontology and epistemology for which I cannot really blame you since your worldview fails before it even begins which is why you are still and only appealing to after the fact phenomena “Because existence exists” without any elucidation of how and why existence exists nor how and why it is the way it is.

Now, if I may reword and replace: where in your attempted elucidation you kept writing “How” you should have written that “assertion” followed by “further assertion” and more assertion until you are falling into the abyss which is the bottomless pit of assertions upon which your worldview is built: a baseless base.

But you are being consistent with your worldview which tells you that life, the universe and everything is the result of uncaused purposeless accidents.

Of course, if you are merely a temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organism that means that your thoughts are merely the byproduct of random bio-chemical neural reactions and that you are just an ape pounding away at a keyboard which makes your whole endeavor of telling people that they are wrong because you are right into literally absurdity.

However, I have encountered this phenomena before from people who think that there is no objective meaning to life and so they attempt to fill the gap by concocting subjective meaning—as ultimately meaningless as it is guaranteed to be.

So yes, your axioms are “I exist…I know (believe)…I know (believe),” etc. Yet, it is myopic that such as the “minimal amount of assumptions that I am forced against my will to make because I have no other choice but to make them” since that is merely the result of the fact that your worldview fails before it even begins. Thus, you make assumptions based on what you have stolen from my worldview.

Thus, you have not even come close to answering about truth, logic or ethics and you did not even make an attempt at the portion about “such as that you can then go around condemning people, actions, etc.”

I will prove your failure to answer by answering your question with a question, “Is genocide ever acceptable?” You are asking me if it is ever acceptable for temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms to cause other temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms to cease being animated and turn into food for yet other temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms: how is that even a question on your worldview?

Humanist Apologetics 

You concede to a reasonable set of axioms which I applaud you for. I actually thought this might break down into me repeating myself over and over again. Observations are just that observations not charges, I make it clear when I am making observations. *“But, so be it: I will go with it, at least for now. I am afraid that you are not engaging issues of ontology and epistemology for which I cannot really blame you since your worldview fails before it even begins which is why you are still and only appealing to after the fact phenomena “Because existence exists” without any elucidation of how and why existence exists nor how and why it is the way it is.” * I am uncertain as to if this statement is made from malice intent to deceive or ignorance (lack of information and or understanding). Using the principle of charity I will assume that the fallacies committed in the above quote were made from ignorance rather than malice. I will give the name of the fallacy and explain exactly how it was committed. This is an Argument from ignorance fallacy in particular this is the Ignoratio elenchi form which by definitino is:(irrelevant conclusion, missing the point) – an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question. The question you asked was what basis? I have provided that basis. The fact that the basis has no power to explain itself is in fact irrelevant to the fact that I do have a basis. Further it is moving the goalpost by implication at the least. You do this by here implying that I need to justify my axioms. Justifying ones axioms is both absurd and impossible. By way of demonstration it would be as if I had asked you to explain how Yahweh came into being. There is also an implied question begging here specifically in the form of loaded language which is the use of emotionally evocative language to support a conclusion. Your use of “at least for now” implies that you have solved the problem you are accusing me of to the observer. (Observation not tu quoque as I am not making the charge but observing the tactic)The particular tactic here is the Obscurantist Tactic in which one implies they have solved a problem mutual to both parties but refuses elaboration. You are also Moving the goalposts (raising the bar) – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. This time by invoking an indirect threat to appeal to the Nirvana fallacy in the future by using the words “For now”. Nirvana fallacy (perfect-solution fallacy) – solutions to problems are rejected because they are not perfect. If this was not your intent you could have said “For the sake of the argument I will grant…” In the case of the Nirvana fallacy you go on to commit the Historical fallacy – a set of considerations is thought to hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result. This is done by assuming that I somehow need to account for an accounting. You are also committing incomplete comparison*– insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. If I am in error and there is a way for the account to account then it is not unreasonable and is in fact helpful if you demonstrate the way in which such a method may be accomplished. The incomplete comparison is part of the *Stacked Deck tactic. You haven’t actually committed the Texas sharpshooter fallacy – improperly asserting a cause to explain a cluster of data. Yet. The last fallacy I will address is the Red herring – a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument the speaker believes is easier to speak to. Accidental or not by using the “at least for now” language you are attempting to distract the audience by promising a return to attempting to make me justify my axioms if the problem of defeating my argument becomes difficult. This is either going to be an internal critique or it is going to be an external critique. I am fine with either. However decide up front which it is going to be and state which it is so that I know and you are not moving the goalpost on me

Ken Ammi

I am going to attempt to begin narrowing this discussion down since it already takes me hours to reply to all of the comments I get and I cannot write entire essays to you chasing every rabbit down every hole.

I am afraid that you are missing the main point so I will simply lay it out: you doubled down on appealing to after the fact phenomena and not engaging in ontology and epistemology. You began with a conclusion and continue to do so thus, I am attempting to get you to take a step back.

The actual problem is that you are failing to note that your worldview fails before it even begins.

I am attempting to get you to see that as per your worldview it is a non sequitur for you to care what another accidentally and temporarily existing ape thinks.

Thus, the issue is that even if “is” “is” (such as “existence exists”) then, since you claim to merely be a temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms whose very thoughts (whose very concept of existence) is based on byproducts of random bio-chemical neural reactions then the problem you have is that even if “is” “is”/“existence exists” the reply can be as simple as: so what?

You are an ape attempting to get other apes to change their bio-chemistry because you “think” that your bio-chemistry is better than theirs.

Thus, you entire endeavor is absurd—at least on your worldview.

Humanist Apologetics 

Good that last post was not fun for me either. Let me come straight to the rebuttal. Ontology is worthless without epistemology. Without epistemology you cannot even ask the question of ontology. To make it clear. I exist. That I know that I exist means I can know things. That I can know things means knowledge is possible. This is my starting point, this is your starting point, this is everyone’s starting point. Before you can say god exists you have to say you exist. My ontology is that matter and energy always existed and there was never a point at which it did not exist. If you try to push me on this I will ask you where your ontology for Yahweh is. You don’t get to have a double standard. That is the problem you are failing to note, and why your worldview fails. I did not begin with the conclusion. An axiom is not a conclusion. You are failing to grasp this. Axioms cannot be justified therefore they cannot be conclusions. I want to ask how you don’t understand this but that’s not the question I really want to know more than any other. First you claim that I believe in determinism then you claim that I believe in randomness. Please make up my mind for me and tell me what I believe. I cannot have it both ways, either things are random or they are determined. That I believe that consciousness is a product of biological processes does not mean I do not value it. This is the last time I will let you get away with this dirty language trick. The question is not where do I think it comes from, the question is do I value mind? Yes. Now I ask a forth time the question you absolutely do not want to answer at any cost. According to YOUR worldview. Is genocide ever acceptable? Yes or no. In mine the answer is no. It is not because I value my life and IF I value my life THEN I should “do not do unto others.”. Not IS OUGHT, but IF is THEN ought.

Ken Ammi

Friend, if your “ontology is that matter and energy always existed” then your ontology is faulty and lacking evidence. However, it is fascinating that in typical Atheist manner: you reject an eternal personality but accept an eternal non-personality.

Now, if my “worldview fails” then it does not matter since, on your view, we are just temporarily and accidentally bio-organisms whose random neural reactions are called thoughts. And that you “believe that consciousness is a product of biological processes does not mean I do not value it” is merely a subjective personal preference.

Thus, I have not been arguing with you about what an axiom is and is not—the issue of whether a particular thing that someone claims is an axiom or not is another issue.

And of course you began with a conclusion since you cannot simply say something like “I exist ergo, I demand evidence”: that is a world-class non sequitur. Now, if anyone is failing to grasp something it is you since you think that I “do not want to answer at any cost” whether on my worldview “Is genocide ever acceptable?” but you fail to grasp that even if you ask that the question be answered according to my worldview: your worldview provides no premise upon which to ask that, demand that I reply, condemn failing to answer or condemn genocide.

That you exist gets you nowhere even near the realm of dealing with these facts. On your worldview “It is not” because you beg, borrow and steal from mine. The failure of “IF is THEN ought” is that your “IF” is based on the subjective “I value my life.”

So, the reply to “I exist” by accident and temporarily therefore, I demand thus and such is: you exist, well that’s nice.

Humanist Apologetics

 Your avoidance and hypocrisy are getting old.

Friend, if your “ontology is that god always always existed” then your ontology is faulty and lacking evidence. However, it is fascinating that in typical Theist manner: you reject an eternal energy and matter but accept an eternal personality.

Now, if my “worldview fails” then it does not matter since, on your view, we are just playthings of an eternal god and exist to stroke it’s narcissistic  ego. And that you “believe that consciousness is a product of magical processes does not mean I do not value it” is merely a subjective personal preference.

Thus, I have not been arguing with you about what an axiom is and is not—the issue of whether a particular thing that someone claims is an axiom or not is another issue.

And of course you began with a conclusion since you cannot simply say something like “God exists, I demand evidence”: that is a world-class non sequitur. Now, if anyone is failing to grasp how hard you are avoid answering the question at any cost “Is genocide ever acceptable” all they need to do is look  at the fact that this is the sixth time you have failed to answer the question. Because of course genocide is acceptable under your worldview and you are ashamed and embarrassed to admit that as  you should be. You fail to grasp the point of this exercise, just as you have failed to answer the question.

Now again before I ask the question a seventh time. I have in fact repeatedly answer the question of my premise for ethical judgement. The fact that you do not like my answer does not mean that I have not provided one. The basis of my ethical judgement is the fact that I exist and that i wish to continue to existing, combined with cause and effect. This in no way borrows from your world view and in fact is in direct contradiction to your world view, given that a world which has magic is by definition unpredictable. In a world with magic cause and effect are arbitrary and may change at any time.

Now if you are done being a coward because you know how badly it will make you look if you answer the question honestly. “Is genocide ever acceptable under your worldview?” Yes or no?

Ken Ammi

Friend, your frustration should be focus on your worldview’s utter failure. You merely demand, demand, demand and have no premise upon which to do so. So, you can keep complaining about me but anyone who reads this discussion (here and when I post in on my website) will see that you have failed to establish step one and merely demand that I jump to dealing with your conclusions.

So again, you condemn “avoidance and hypocrisy” but without a premise which means that you are not actually condemning them. See how it works, since you make baseless claims, you leave me no claims against which to defend: you are merely being emotive—which, not ironically, is in keeping with your worldview which tells you that you are merely a reactionary animal (by accident, of course).

Now, I “reject an eternal energy and matter” because our best scientists tell us that energy and matter came into being a finite time ago. So, you can appeal to some fantasy realm of eternal energy and matter in order to defend your indefensible worldview but steady state cosmology was proposed and debunked long ago.

Ironically, it is fascinating that in typical Atheist manner: you reject an eternal personality but, without evidence and against the best most current scientific findings, accept eternal energy and matter.

If you worldview is true (and just what is truth on your worldview?) then we are just playthings of eternal energy and matter. But that on my view existence is about stroking God’s narcissistic ego is simply an embarrassingly childish assertion (without evidence) and you also condemn narcissistic without a premise so, you did not actually condemn it and so you discredited your own emotive assertion: see, nothing left for me to do, again.

Now, when you claim “this is the sixth time you have failed to answer the question” which is “Is genocide ever acceptable” you are just playing games since you demand to have your way no matter how illegitimately you are going about it: you really need to read up on logic, epistemology and ontology (at the very least).

Yes, genocide is acceptable since when I clean my hand with antibacterial hand sanitizer I am killing “99%” of the bacteria on my hand and that is healthy for me.

Now, you subjectively assert that “The basis of my ethical judgement is the fact that I exist and that i wish to continue to existing” and on your worldview you exist by accident and temporarily so appealing to that is a mere subjective personal preference that you made up out of whole cloth (of moth eaten cloth, actually) and on your worldview “cause and effect” is also by accident.

Thus, since your worldview cannot account for your existence nor for cause and effect (and no, accidents did it is not accounting for them) then you most certainly are borrowing from my worldview.

And how, coming from a worldview that begins with accidentally existing energy and matter that magically turn into everything, you can actually claim that my worldview is based on magic is not only erroneous but hypocritical. And, of course, since my worldview is not based on magic then it is not unpredictable but, guess what, your worldview of accidents randomly happening to accidents is unpredictable. But since, the universe functions on cause and effect then that discredits your accidents randomly happening to accidents worldview since in a world with accidental magic, cause and effect are arbitrary and may change at any time.

And you end by condemning cowardice but guess what: without a premise.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Having posted Pastor Troy Brewer on Goliath as half-man Nephilim, I thought to review more of his relevant teachings and ran across a set of sermon notes titled REVELATION REPORT: Aliens & Nephilim.

The notes ask and answer, “WHERE DO WE FIND ALIENS IN SCRIPTURE?” and quotes Revelation 16:13-14 thusly:

And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon (China), out of the mouth of the beast (anti-christ), and out of the mouth of the false prophet (false prophet/Pope). 14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

If you missed the alien reference well, you’re certainly not alone.

The notes elucidate:

THE “FROGS” JOHN TALKED OF SOUND LIKE “LITTLE GREEN MEN”…

The Pale Horse of the Apocalypse “chloros” or sickly green…

MANY WHO CALL ON THE NAME OF JESUS HAVE HAD THESE “LITTLE GRAY MEN” DISAPPEAR UPON HEARING THE NAME.

Note the utterly subjective nature of that, “THE ‘FROGS’ JOHN TALKED OF SOUND,” to Pastor Troy Brewer, “LIKE ‘LITTLE GREEN MEN.’” Yet, I’m unsure how frogs sound like men.

But we see that the subjectivism is even worse in that, clearly, Brewer is debilitatingly myopically only imagining green frogs when, after all, frogs come in a tremendous variety of colors.

Also, what frogs, of any color, have to do with, “LITTLE GRAY MEN” is certainly a mystery.

It’s hard to believe that a pastor would actually pass that off as a sermon.

Of course, the key text is Rev 16:13, “I saw, coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs” and the, “like” there is juicy since it allows tellers of such sci-fi tall-tales to again debilitatingly myopically only imagine reptilian-like aliens when, after all, supposed aliens supposedly come in a tremendous supposed variety of colors.

Yet, since they were, “like” frogs but we’re not told how so then why fixate on color or reptilian and not some other feature?

Pastor Troy Brewer has a note that reads, “‘AS IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH’ – So Jesus warned his disciples in the book of Matthew” and that is one of the most abused verses by pop-Nephilologists. Yet, Brewer rightly has it that it was about, “Lackadaisical attitude of humanity despite the destruction looming in the future.” Yet, he followed directly with, “Hybridization of humanity during the Days of Noah” which has nothing to do with it: yes, it has to do with the days of Noah but not with the aspect of those days to which Jesus referred.

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

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

But He kept speaking directly with:

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

Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment—“ Lackadaisical attitude…”

The notes continue thusly, “Sons of God – ‘Watchers’ 72 angels (possibly more) put in charge of stewarding nations to help mankind” well, he’s getting the term Watchers from Second Temple Ear which is centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah—but hey, it’s the cool, hip way of referring to them, especially due to the Bible contradicting folklore in 1 Enoch, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

Pastor Troy Brewer notes, “BOOK OF ENOCH HAS GREAT INFORMATION ON WATCHERS. WAS PART OF KING JAMES 1611 BIBLE, BUT WAS MYSTERIOUSLY TAKEN OUT IN THE 1800s.” Well, it has folkloric information, it was never part of any KJV, and so it wasn’t taken out.

Next up is the Q&A, “WHERE DO WE FIND GIANTS IN the Bible?” Well, unless he tells us to what, to whom, he’s referring then this will be a rookie mistake: chasing an English word around a Hebrew Bible and just mashing together the results regardless of context.

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

Do those two usages agree?

Let’s see if we can discern the answers from the notes.

First up he quotes, “Numbers 13:33 – There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

I certainly hope that he elucidated to his flock that he was appealing to one sentence from an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked—likely not since this is another of the utterly abused texts by pop-Nephilologists.

Their assertion is illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical, see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

The next note is, “GOD COMMANDS JOSHUA TO WIPE OUT EVEN WOMEN, CHILDREN AND ANIMALS IN CANAAN (Deut 20:16-18; Josh 6:21; 8:25).” I devoted an entire chapter of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilologyto this issue and the fact is that God told us many times why He (hyperbolically) commanded such things but never said one single word about Nephilim—not relation to them.

In fact, Pastor Troy Brewer went on to quote Deut 20:16-18 which proves my point and doesn’t add anything to his assertion, “But of the cities of these peoples which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive(even animals) 17 but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the Lord your God has commanded you, 18 lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the Lord your God.”

So, “WHERE DO WE FIND GIANTS IN the Bible?” after all?

Well, another note proports to list, “GIANTS IN THE BIBLE” and here’s that list:

Numbers 13; Deuteronomy 1, 2, 9; Joshua 11, 14, 15  & 21; Judges 1:20 – Anak, sons of Anak and Anakim –– GIANTS, NEPHILIM

Deuteronomy 3:13 – Bashan is the “Land of Giants”

Deuteronomy 3:11 – King Og of Bashan’s bed was nine cubits by four cubits or 13×6 feet.

David killed Goliath, a giant over 13 feet tall. He and his mighty men wiped the rest of the giants off the face of the earth.

We already saw that Num 13 is irrelevant since it was just a fear-mongering, scare-tactic, tall-tale.

He cited Deut 1 but seems to have failed to notice that therein, Moses relates the Num 13:32-33 event and mentions the Anakim but not Nephilim—why would he fail to mention the (supposedly allegedly) most notable personages on the planet? Well, he’s too practical, he’s concerned about the real dangers on the ground, not about some tall-tale—and note that the LXX for that key verse in Num doesn’t mention Anakim.

I’m unsure how Deut 2 is about, “GIANTS” unless Brewer uses that term to refer to anyone who is, “tall” (“giants” and, “tall” are both vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage). That text only tells us that Rephaim, by any other name, were, on average, “tall” which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Deut 9 merely notes that Anakim were, “tall”: and they were a subgroup of Rephaim: like a clan of a tribe.

And well, we know that the rest are just about “Anak, sons of Anak and Anakim” as per the notes and none ever tell us anything more contextually relevant than that they were subjectively, “tall.” Yet, the notes follow that with, “GIANTS, NEPHILIM” so there you have it: the answer to the second key question is that Pastor Troy Brewer’s usage is something utterly vaguely generic about being taller than average. That means that the answer to the third key question is, “No.” That’s because the answer to the first question is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

He also ends up asserting that Anakim were Nephilim but, of course, that’s only based on one single sentence from exclusively non-LXX versions of an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: would you based any other all-encompassing theory upon such a source?

As for, “Land of Giants”: he seems unaware that the statement is that it was a land of Rephaim.

I’m unsure what a bed has to do with anything, especially when we’ve no physical description of Og. Well, firstly, he was a Repha, not a Nephil, and that we can calculate his height based on his bed is multitudinously based on mere assumptions: the, “bed” was a ritual object, not something upon which he slept, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

As for Goliath, he’s being myopic in that he fails to note that the Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. (not, “over 13”).Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

As for, “wiped the rest of the giants off the face of the earth” well, since he referred to Nephilim and Rephaim and subjectively unusual height: just to what, to whom, is he referring at this point? Well, they were fighting Rephaim, et al., but not Nephilim—and height was a non-issue.

The notes then take a turn towards:

ARE ALIENS REALLY FALLEN ANGELS & THEIR DEMON OFFSPRING, THE NEPHILIM…

THE BOOK OF DANIEL MAY HAVE A CLUE. REMEMBER NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM OF THE GIANT STATUE WITH FEET OF IRON & CLAY MIXED? CHECK THIS OUT:

Daniel 2:40-43 – And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. 41 Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter’s clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. 42 And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile. 43 As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay.

Is Daniel talking about the demonic trying once again to mix with humans? Could he be talking about technology?

Note how easily it may be for some to slip on the glove that Pastor Troy Brewer is holding open for them: ponder reading Daniel as a stand alone text versus reading it with Brewer’s premise and conclusion sandwiching it.

Firstly, there’s no such thing as, “FALLEN ANGELS & THEIR DEMON OFFSPRING” since Nephilim weren’t demons—fallen Angels are demons but in a latter roundabout manner, see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

What you need to, “CHECK…OUT” is that he’s basing an all-encompassing theory upon a few words. There’s no context in that chapter nor in the entire book of Daniel to force-fit, “ALIENS” or, “NEPHILIM.” I also devoted an entire chapter to this in my Nephilology/Giantology book and Daniel was just tells us of two people groups that would do commerce together but won’t intermarry.

So, no, there’s no room there for neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.

It’s fairly stunning that a pastor could have this sentence in sermon notes, “God detested and destroyed Satan’s hybrid race with a flood, then later, when the armies of Israel moved into the Promised Land they were told to kill them all.”

Follow the (il)logic:

1) “God detested and destroyed Satan’s hybrid race with a flood”—ergo, that would be the end of them.

2) Yet, “later, when the armies of Israel moved into the Promised Land they were told to kill them all.”

So then, God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

How else could it be that He flooded the entire planet to destroy them but then well, the next thing you know they’re back and humans have to do what God failed to do?

He then asked, “Why?” that was the case and replies, “They were no longer human—part demon” but that was about, “when the armies of Israel moved into the Promised Land” and there’s literally zero reliable indication of any such thing and only one unreliable sentence’s worth of indication that there was—so, who do we believe: Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, the rest of the whole entire Bible or 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked?

Pastor Troy Brewer’s other answer is, “Tainted DNA & blood (that’s why bloodlines are a big deal in the Bible)” but there’s not a single indication that anything post-flood had to do with bloodlines.

We’re then told, “WHEN HUMAN PART OF NEPHILIM DIED IN THE FLOOD, THE SUPERNATURAL PART OF THEM DID NOT DIE. THEY BECAME DISEMBODIED SPIRITS—DEMONS—LOOKING FOR A HOST BODY.” Yet, that’s a mere un-biblical assertion based on folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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