Month: October 2024

It’s not a good sign when there’s an error within the first three seconds of a podcast: the show began by quoting, “there were giants in the earth in those days” and citing it to Genesis 6:1 when it’s actually verse 4 and yet, that’s just a slight error.

An episode of The Monster Talk Podcast, co-hosted by Karen Stollznow and Blake Smith, along with Ben Radford, is titled Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum! and they seem to have opted for a version of that verse that employs the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” because it allows for one to merely imagine to what it refers and so one can use it to tell tall-tales.

We will have to see if the episode answers these key questions:

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

What’s Stollznow’s, Smith’s, Radford’s, and the guest archaeologist Dr. Ken Feder’s (Central Connecticut State University), usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

Now, Stollznow is described as linguist so we will have to see if she unpacks such key issues.

The show’s description includes, “Giants appear in cultures around the world: Biblical tales of giants more than ten feet tall; Roman and Greek stories of titans and heroes; European stories of giants of mountain and hill. They all have one thing in common: enormous monsters” so it will cover, “giants, biblical archeology.”

The next thing we hear is, “Fee-fi-fo-fum, I smell the blood of an English man, be alive or be he dead, I’ll grind his bones to make my bread” from, Jack the Giant Killer. We’re told that there are, “biblical tales of giants more than

10 ft tall” but that’s a problematic assertion so we shall have to see whence they got such info.

Now, since I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of data relevant to Nephilology (which I used to write my dozen, or so, research-based Nephilology books) my focus will be the claims about the Bible.

Interestingly, a point is made about being driven crazy, “when people take that past and they misrepresent it” about which an example is, “a book called Morning of The Magicians, which is which is essentially Eric Von Daniken before there was Eric Von Daniken…I knew some of the stuff that they these guys were talking about and knew that it was complete crap and it got me really pissed off.”

Now, I figured that I would quote the show in general rather than spotting to specify which of the many participants actually said this or that—which is especially tedious when there’s crosstalk.

They get around to tongue and cheek stating, “the Bible has stories of giants,” whatever that means, “well then, it

must be true, well there you go, we’re done”—FYI: at least three participants are described as, “skeptics” whatever that means (there’s a fine line between people who self-identify as skeptic and people who are cynics).

It’s noted:

I actually did a word search of the Old Testament and found something like, I don’t know, 20 specific references in there to whole races of giant…completely populated by 12 foot tall giants and, of course, you know there’s Goliath…Goliath was, what, 11 or 12 feet tall.

So, there are a lot of references in the Bible to it and I think that people grab that, run with that, and say, “Oh, there must have been giants.”

We will have to see if anyone is skeptical enough to linguistically and textually challenge what was just merely asserted: I can certainly confirm that there’s literally zero indication of any such things whatsoever—stand by.

But the reference to, “a word search” reminds me of how and why pop-Nephilology is the mis-info and dis-info un-biblical tall-tales which it is, to the point that I coined the term KWBT for: Key-Word Based Theology. This refers to typing a word into some sort of search engine and merely stringing together the verses in which it appears into a grand narrative, regardless of context.

Did the searcher do as I did in my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010 wherein I sought to discern what the usage of giants was, why the usage was used, whether the sources were reliable, etc., etc., etc., or was it a case of, “Yup, ‘the Bible’ says, ‘giants,’ I’ll just imagine to what that refers, and so, ‘the Bible’ is dumb—done!”?

Playing off of the Cardiff Giant hoax, it’s noted, “although scientists knew immediately this thing was a fake, nobody listened to the scientists: they wanted to believe it” which led to the kneejerk reaction of of:

If scientist said it…they were hiding something, they just couldn’t accept the fact that this was proof of a Bible story…

So many people want to treat the Bible’s giant tales as literal truth. I think there’s a, you know, when people talk about the Bible…

For example, when some of the cities mentioned in the Bible turn out to be actual…folks embrace that.

The reasoning being well, if one fact in the Bible is true…maybe every fact in the Bible is true.

And so, I think that’s, you know, it’s something as ridiculous as 12 foot tall giants, that science scoffs at people like me.

Speaking for myself, I would only scoff at the utter lack of facts and skepticism exhibited by what were mere rants.

Since that’s all there was about the Bible in a show that began by quoting it, what was that all about? Much ado about nothing. What was said about, “biblical archeology” well, about half a sentence. What was the linguist’s input about the utterly key issue of defining terms with any given usage: nothing.

This was just about taking a pop-shot and the Bible and discrediting oneself in the process—perhaps that’s why some scoff: when they use a platform to un-contextually go on the attack (and debunk themselves in the process), “if there can be giants, there can be Noah’s Ark, there can be Ezekiel’s wheel, there can be the shroud of the, there can be miraculous bursts of energy from dead bodies.”

It’s noted, “there is a historical context to the Bible but then they take that one little fact and they run with it.” Well, the show was a case of projection since it exampled, “take that one little [non-]fact and they run with it” and as afore-quoted, “people grab that, run with that.” And with what did they run? They, un-skeptically, ran with, “I…did a word search.”

The show’s premise is that the word giants refers to something uselessly generic about subjectively unusual height. Well then, the answer to key question, “Do those two usages agree?” is clearly, “No” since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles 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.

The word searcher is clearly unaware of that—and the linguist didn’t help.

Thus, when, “I…found something like, I don’t know, 20 specific references in there to whole races of giant” the searcher didn’t realize the results were mere renderings of Nephilim and Repha/im and not about height of any sort.

But what about, “completely populated by 12 foot tall giants…Goliath was, what, 11 or 12 feet tall”? Well, there’s literally zero indication of any such thing.

Nephilim:

1) the only physical description we have of them is recoded in Num 13:33 but that’s unreliable and so irrelevant since that’s just one sentence form an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: there’s zero indication that it’s even possible that what they asserted was even anywhere near close to factual—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

2) thus, we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim—oops, that fact alone just debunked 100% of pop-Nephilologists who sell un-biblical tall-tales to Christians for a living.

Rephaim: the only relevant thing we’re told about them is that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) on average and that’s subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Goliath: The Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft (unsure why he was plumped up to 11-12 on the show). 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.

Og: I might as well throw in King Og of Bashan since someone might actually assert that he was 12-13ft. Well, we’ve no physical description of him (well, not until utterly wild and impossible folkloric tall-tales from millennia after the Torah). And, merely pointing to the size of his bed and subtracting a cubit or foot from it would be a fallacy based on various mere assumptions—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Thus, the show was a case of, “when people take that past and they misrepresent it.”

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 is a consideration of claims made by TJ Steadman within his book Answers to Giant Questions.

You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.

TJ Steadman wrote:

Og of Bashan…is remembered as a perpetual enemy, not so much in traditional Biblical texts (although his possession of the ritual bed of Marduk is certainly suggestive), but certainly in Ugaritic and rabbinic material…He is considered to be perpetually watching from the realm of the dead.

I am glad that he differentiates between “traditional Biblical texts” and “certainly in Ugaritic and” especially “rabbinic material” which contains utterly preposterous folklore.

And not subjectively preposterous as per an argument from incredulity but having him be very, very, very large, living pre-flood, surviving the flood by being allowed to hold on to the Ark, being fed by Noah, etc.
And he watches (what?) from the realm of the dead seems equally unsubstantiated.

He also wrote:

…taking into account the…Septuagint crossovers with Gog and Agag [or Magog], we may consider him a part of this matrix of underworld deities awaiting the final battle.
The strong ties with the imagery of Leviathan make him a definite inclusion in the all-time all-stars list of bad guys. Yahweh wants them ready to face their fate when that day comes…Og’s status as representative of “Rap`iu of Bashan” connects him with Leviathan.

Biblically, there is no correlation with a theo-sci-fi (or so it seems to me) correlation with “Gog and Agag” or “the imagery of Leviathan” since he was a human Rephaim king who died—end of story. Biblically, “Rap`iu of Bashan” would merely mean that he is of the Rephaim who lived in Bashan: he was that region’s Rephaim’s king.

TJ Steadman notes, “Og and Sihon were both kings of Amorite nations; these same nations were referred to in two ways, both as the land of the Amorites and as the land of the giants.” He has a pop-researcher-like habit of employing the vague, generic, and subjective English term giants in an undefined manner and actually using it to mean various things so that his readers are left to guess and wonder what he means at any given time and/or simply fill that term with their subjective understanding or misunderstanding of it.

Biblically, “land of the giants” means land of the Rephaim and, FYI and just in case, the term “Rephaim” implies nothing of unusual height.

TJ Steadman wrote:

“Bashan, land of the Rephaim” in Hebrew equates to “the place of the serpent.” It was considered to be the representation of Hell itself.
…the land of Bashan, or “land of the serpent” to the Canaanites, was regarded as the very gates of Hell.
…the Valley of the Rephaim, or as the LXX has it, the Valley of the Titans.
The English translation give us “Giants.” All three translations are in agreement that actual giants inspired the name of this place.

From all of the meanings of Rephaim, or rather its root word repha—which ranges from healing to dead—serpent is not one of them.

Neither, by the way, does a placed called and of the serpent need mean anything than that replies slithered around thereabouts.
So, was it “the representation of Hell itself” or “the very gates of Hell” which would be no mere representation.

Now, to say Rephaim, Titans, and Giants agree “that actual giants inspired the name of this place” is problem.
Firstly, how can actual giants inspire the name if we are left to guess what “giants” means much less “actual” ones?
Since Rephaim does not even hint at anything regrading height then we cannot say it agrees with any such thing.

Etymological definitions tend to begin with that Titan means “great strength,” “a person of exceptional importance and reputation,” etc. which is then also applied to some Greek characters of myth. However, it is myopic to conclude that “Titan” means or must imply very tall (with “very” and “tall” being subjective) since perhaps the Septuagint translators/renderers were employing the term to make another point and there were also more than one generation of Titans in Greek mythology—and varied mythology about Titans to begin with—so a one-to-one correlation to anything/anyone else is begging the question.
Also question begging is to claim that “Giants” assists us in concluding that “actual giants inspired the name.”

Now, he noted, “his possession of the ritual bed of Marduk is certainly suggestive” and elucidates thusly:

The most famous of these beds is that of Marduk of Babylon, described in line 34 of the ancient Esagila Tablet from Mesopotamia, as being nine cubits in length and four cubits wide, or roughly 13.5’ x 6’. That’s a big bed.

Thus, likewise:

Og’s bed measured 13.5 feet long, and six feet wide. It would obviously be safe to assume that Og himself was under these dimensions in the flesh. That does not negate by any means the notion that Og was actually a giant.

So Og is presumed to have been under 13.5×6 ft. yet, still a whatever “giant” means in this case.

See what happens when an author is unspecific?
In the previous quote he biblically means Repahim but perhaps also thought of unusual height (how unusual is unknown) and he now certainly means something else about an unspecified height that is under 13.5×6 ft.

Now, while Og is said to not have been 13.5×6 ft. on the dot—since everyone is a little smaller than their bed—TJ Steadman, at least in part, thinks Og was a “giant” due to the size of the bed.

Yet, he also, rightly, noted:

…the bed itself was significant because of its intended function. It was not for sleeping on. It was a bed or couch for the purpose of sexual rituals held in temple worship.

Thus, we have no idea how tall Og was, we are never told his height, we have no reason to think he was even one inch taller than average (with “tall” and “average” both being subjective), and his “bed” does not help matters since it was a ritual object, “not for sleeping on.”

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.

Of Nephilim, the Kirban Reference Bible notes:

They are: (1) “Giants in the earth.’—The Hebrew word is nephalim, which many trace to the root nephal, “to fall,” hence, “fallen ones; rebels, apostates” (Gesenius).

In Numbers 13:33 nephalim is used twice, both times referring to the “giants” of Canaan, who were much larger physically than the Hebrews. Are these “giants” or “fallen ones” (a) huge animals, such as the dinosaurs; or (b) large, perhaps Neanderthal-like humans who were the product of a sinful cohabitation of fallen angels. and humans; or (c) very large people, such as Goliath of Gath and the “giants” of Canaan mentioned in Numbers 13:33?

It’s odd that it takes the “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked recorded in Num 13:32-33 as if it’s factual. Within the tall-tale, “nephalim is used twice, both times referring to the” Nephilim.

My standard 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?

Well, the last answer is, “No” since Kirban’s usage is something subjective about “much larger physically”—and much and larger and very and large are just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants. In this case, it’s subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

It doesn’t agree with the English Bibles which employ it since therein, 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.

As for Nephilim, it’s literally impossible that they saw Nephilim since that was centuries post-flood and, of course, Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form. That may be why Kirban noted something as generic as that, “nephalim is used twice, both times referring to the ‘giants’ of Canaan”—whatever that means—just in case, see my article Were “all the people” in Cannan “of great height”?

The 10 unreliable rebuked guys referred to seven people groups: not to “huge animals” and there’s zero indication that “the product of a sinful cohabitation of fallen angels. and humans” were “large, perhaps Neanderthal-like.”

As for, “very large people, such as Goliath” well, the Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. 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.

Once it gets to it, Kirban notes, “It was the majority (10 leaders) who did not want to possess the Promised Land because of the giants. It was the minority (2 leaders) who urged the march into the land knowing God would lead and protect.” Indeed, that shows that an argumentum ad populum can fail. And biblically contextually, the majority/10 did not want to possess the land because they were unfaithful and disloyal (as well as contradictory and embellishers) but also because the six people groups reliably mentioned in Num 13 were stronger than the Israelites and so they made up a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale.

When it comes to Deut 2, the notes are, “…accounted giants, as the An’-a-kims; but the Moabites call them E’-mim…That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt there…” But what the Bible is actually recording is, “…accounted [Rephaim], as the An’-a-kims; but the Moabites call them E’-mim…That also was accounted a land of [Rephaim]: [Rephaim] dwelt there…”

Likewise with, “Og was an Amorite king of Bashan. He was a giant. The people of Israel had a fear of giants” it may be less exciting but that reads “Og was an Amorite king of Bashan. He was a [Repha]. The people of Israel had a fear of [Rephaim—et al.].”

It’s odder still to merely assert something about “much larger…very large” about Og since we’ve no physical description of him—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

We’re also told, “Joshua…killed all the giants, descendants of Anak” which refers to Anakim who were a clan of the Rephaim tribe so what we’re told were, “giants” should read Rephaim or Ankaim.

It’s also telling that even within the notes of this Bible the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage nature of the modern English word “giants” is exampled when it notes, “Caleb had a giant faith that enabled him to expel giants (14:15)” so that even within one sentence one usage if symbolic and one is something generic about subjectively unusual height.”

Moreover, “Og…remained of the remnant of the giants [Rephaim]…the valley of the giants [Rephaim]…unnamed giants [Rephaim] mentioned in 2 Samuel 21:16-22…giants  [Rephaim] were destroyed by Moses…seem all to have been from one line of Canaanite genetic giants [Rephaim]…the land of the Pé-riz’-zites and of the giants [Rephaim],” etc., etc., etc. (etc., etc., etc. [etc., etc., etc.]).

We’re then told, “Eight giants are mentioned in the Bible: Nephilim (Genesis 6:4), Rephaim and Emim (Genesis 14:5), Anakim (Numbers 13:28-33), Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2:20), Og (Deuteronomy 3:11,13).”

This, either on purpose or accidentally (due to lack of discernment) is a plumped up list since We’re then told, “Eight giants are mentioned in the Bible: Emim, Anakim, Zamzummim, Og are all Rephaim. Emim and Anakim were Rephaim clans, Zamzummim (aka Zuzim) is just an aka for Rephaim and Og was a Repha. That leaves Nephilim and they were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

We even get an obligatory sermonizing, “How To Win Over Giants In Your Life!…What are the giants in your life? A broken home? A troubled marriage? catastrophic illness? A fear of living? A fear of dying? Are these your giants?”

Nave’s Study Bible falls into the same linguistic vagueness starting with quoting Gen 6 as, “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…”

A note has it that, “Descendants of Canaan, Were giants, Amos 2:9” which says, “the Amorite…whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.” He was clearly just saying they were big and strong and not implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation. In fact, people who do measure cedars and claim Amorites were that tall never get around to a calculation correlating the strength of oaks—since they’re only interested in tall-tales. Plus, if they take it that incoherently literal then they have to conclude that Amorites had fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.

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.

An Atheist named Mike Touchstone posted the following on Facebook:

Some worldview is going to get taught whether it’s Christianity, Islam, or secular atheistic humanism. Neutrality is a myth. The question is who’s worldview is right.  I would not want Islam taught for the same reason I don’t want atheism taught. I would not want them taught because they are wrong. Why do atheists always think they get the default position?

I, True Freethinker, commented

Atheism is a world view so it can’t be default by definition.

Mike Touchstone

I don’t think you understood my point. Flip this meme over to your worldview. It would read like this: I can’t understand why atheists want their worldview taught in school. If a christian did this, you would say they’re “indoctrinating our kids”. But because it’e atheism, it’s fine? Makes no sense to me.

True Freethinker

Please attempt to deal with, “Atheism is a world view so it can’t be default by definition.”

Mike Touchstone

I think you are misunderstanding what I’m saying because your response doesn’t make any sense. its not 1 of us has a worldview we are trying to push on everyone else and one of us stays completely neutral with our worldview. We are both pushing a worldview.

True Freethinker

Please attempt to deal with, “Atheism is a world view so it can’t be default by definition.”

Mike Touchstone

You must be using “default” in some different context than I used the word. Then you go on to say something in the definition of atheism doesn’t allow a default position. I’m not avoiding your point. It’s incoherent. I can’t respond because it doesn’t make any sense. You have completely avoided my point and are somehow acting like I’m avoiding yours. Deal with my point that if we take out the word “christian” in the OP and put in the word “atheist”, the meme falls apart.

True Freethinker

Again, “Atheism is a world view so it can’t be default by definition.”

Now, what, in your worldview, is wrong with (supposed) incoherence?

Mike Touchstone

I won’t be responding to anymore comments. You’re trolling

True Freethinker

The record in this thread is that you won’t be responding because you’re literally incapable of doing so since your worldview is a collapsed failure and so you invented the “You’re trolling” excuse which is also a genetic logical fallacy: is there anything wrong with committing logical fallacies, on your worldview?

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

The full question posted to the Quora site is Was Goliath a descendant of the Nephilim or were all the Nephilim wiped out by the worldwide flood thus making Goliath a giant not descended from the Nephilim?

L. Budow (“Scripture Research & Answers The Oldest Known Scriptures) commented

Goliath is not verified a descendant of the Nephilim,

however he was said to have six fingers and toes on each foot and hand consistent with Nephilim.

It is clear David beleived Golith to be a Nephilim as they are half human and can regenerate.

So David ran upon hima fter Golith fell to immediately begin to hack his head loose from the body, so Golith couold not get back up.

King David and Goliath are post flood, so obviously the giants and possibly Nephilim suvived the flood.

As did the Rapha, of the half humans, survived the flood.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

In fact, Goliath is verified to not have been a descendant of the Nephilim since they didn’t’ make it past the flood.

There’s no indication that, “he was said to have six fingers and toes on each foot.

Also, there’s no indication that is, “consistent with Nephilim.”

There’s no indication “David beleived Golith to be a Nephilim” (which should have been written as, “a Nephil”).

There’s no indication “they…can regenerate.”

There’s no indication that such is why David did what he did.

“possibly Nephilim suvived the flood” contradicts the Bible five times: does that matter to you?

There’s no indication, “Rapha…half humans.”

There’s no indication, “Repha,” you mean Rephaim, “survived the flood” since they didn’t even exist until centuries post-flood.

L. Budow

Reread your original holy scripture, if you have one.

It is true in First Samuel that it was not written about Goliath being a Nephilim. However, if you read the entire scriptures, you will clearly see, Nephilim and Rapha were said to have 24 fingers and toes.

Here is the scriptures you did not read

that show you what I state was true without question.

First Chronicles 20:4

After this, fighting broke out with the Philistines at Gezer;

that was when Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai,

a descendant of the Rephaim, and they were humbled.

20:5

Again there was fighting with the Philistines,

and Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi,

the brother of Goliath the Gittite;

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

20:6

Once again there was fighting at Gath.

There was a giant of a man who had twenty-four fingers

[and toes], six [on each hand] and six [on each foot];

he too was descended from the Raphah.

20:7 When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of David’s brother Shimea killed him.

20:8 These were descended from the Raphah in Gath,

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

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’m afraid that you committed a fallacy: you took one sentence about one man, one Repha, having extra digits and then concluded that, “Nephilim and Rapha were said to have 24 fingers and toes.”

That’s a non-sequitur since there’s zero indication Nephilim and Rephaim have anything to do with each other and that one single man has an anatomical feature doesn’t mean that all Rephaim had it (not that it would matter)—but then again, you did write “Nephilim” in the male plural but “Rapah” in the singular so I just assume you meant, “Rephaim” instead.

And so my initial reply still stands.

L. Budow

He was his brother. Do the math. Its not rocket science.

At the end of the day, how does this result have any effect on your life or make you more oservnt to God?

Superfluos.

Ken Ammi

Oh, I see well, that’s genetically incoherent since, for example, I have two mutations that my brother doesn’t.

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

That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming by L. Yet, another discussion ensued when someone calling themselves Christ’s Warrior commented

Yes Goliath was Nephilim. They were all around because the Israelites did not destroy them when God commanded them to. When God said said wipe out the whole village, he meant it. Anyone who doesn’t believe this; explain why King David separated the giant soldiers from the others and killed them. 2 Samuel 8:2.

Ken Ammi

There’s no indication “Goliath was Nephilim” and now you have to invent ways to get Nephilim past the flood, past God: the God who failed to be rid of them via the flood which made the flood much of a waste.

There’s zero reliable indication, “They were all around because the Israelites…”

As for, “did not destroy them when God commanded them to” there’s zero indication of any such thing: God told us many times why He commanded such things but never said a single word about Nephilim.

There’s zero indication, “David separated the giant soldiers from the others and killed them” and “2 Samuel 8:2” has utterly nothing to do with anything like that.

Christ’s Warrior

When the spies went into Jericho, they reported seeing giants. Check your Bible. If you have one

Also the Hebrew translation of 2 Samuel 8;2 Says David separated the giants from other soldiers after laying them down and measuring them. I can’t speak Hebrew. But I will take the word of the Israeli scholar who told me. Your problem is you’re stuck in your ways and don’t care about truth. Genius 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days and also after….

Ken Ammi

Well, friend, please be a more discerning reader and writer since it’s not the case that “When the spies went into Jericho, they reported seeing giants” for a few reasons—sorry, but that’s too vaguely generic:

1) 12 spies were sent but 10 of them made that claim. Those where the 10 unreliable ones whom God rebuked.

2) you’re appealing to and replying on their “evil report” wherein they merely made five assertions and contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible, and God.

3) they create problems since now you have to come up with how Nephilim made it past the flood, past God.

4) as for “giants,” the key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

See, answering those will assist you in dealing with “the Hebrew translation of 2 Samuel 8;2”—and BTW: which Hebrew translation? And which English word is supposed to have the Hebrew for whatever “giants” means behind it?

As for, “Your problem is you’re stuck in your ways and don’t care about truth” please don’t go full blown ungraceful worldly attempted mind reader.

Yes, “Genius [Genesis] 6:4 There were giants on the earth in those days and also after….” but I’m unsure why you’re noting that.

Christ’s Warrior

Giants and Nilphilims are on earth right now. ButI won’t try to explain how I aquired this knowledge. You’re too closed minded.

Ken Ammi

You call yourself “Christ’s Warrior” but comport yourself like a gnostic so for which “Christ” are you a warrior because it certainly isn’t the one, true, living, biblical, Son of God, the Messiah, God in the flesh.

But it’s fascinating that I’ve had this experience many times: someone merely makes assertions, I request they back them, they realize that they can’t but rather than giving up their mere assertions, they play the gnostic card by claiming that they have special, secret knowledge but they won’s share it with the uninitiated who aren’t as enlightened as they are.

In fact, I encountered this SO much when dealing with the “serpent seed” theory that I gave many, many examples of it in my book, Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. V: Considering Mysticism and Occultism: from Jewish to Gnostic.

So, please stop implying that God failed and that you’re more enlightened than the average Christian.

So that brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

I’m unsure why the Grace Digital Network is advertising for Google but the title of a vid that was posted on their YouTube channel is This Is Why Everyone Is Googling “The Nephilim And Giants” which led to the following discussion when a certain @TodaysDante commented

Rob Skiba did fascinating talks on this.  You can still find them on youtube.

I, @kenammi355, replied

Rob taught un-biblical Nephilology.

@TodaysDante

Technically, ALL of Enoch is “unbiblical,” since it was generally rejected to be part of the Bible.  But his interpretations are interesting.  Just don’t get hung up on calling them “Aliens” as opposed to “Angels.”  It’s another word to describe the same beings.

@kenammi355

It’s no only unbiblical, it’s anti-biblical since it contradicts the Bible, at lot.

@TodaysDante

Hey don’t get me wrong, I’m not in the church of skiba or anything.  Before he passed away, he became a flat-earther.  But, out of curiously, what specifically did he claim that was anti-biblical?  Admittedly, I don’t know everything the guy said.

@kenammi355

Gotcha. Well, he made a name for himself due to Nephilology but most of his Nephilology was just that, his, not the Bible’s. He really taught what’s typical modem Nephilology which is un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales. For example, he taught post-flood Nephilim and that they were very, very tall but those aren’t biblical doctrines.

@TodaysDante

Doesn’t the Bible say that there were giants in the earth in those days, “and after that?”  As for Skiba, yeah, he admitted he was a writer, so I imagine he liked to fictionalize things.  Like I said, maybe not everything is Biblical, but it’s possible to extrapolate without being anti-Biblical.

@kenammi355

But, “in those days, ‘and after…’” when?

Before replying, please re-read the verse and note that it tells you exactly to what days it’s referring.

As for, “being anti-Biblical”: Rob implied that God failed by not being able to figure out a loophole that Rob figured out (or, that Rob parroted).

@TodaysDante

LOL – I didn’t know that about Rob (saying he knew something God didn’t).  I’m not sure what you’re looking for here.  I already said I didn’t know everything he said, and I don’t agree with everything he said.  He was a flat-earther.  I will say that, and this might just be the way it was translated from the original text, I always found it odd that the Bible said that the Nephilim was IN the earth in those days.  So, maybe they still are IN the earth somewhere.

@kenammi355

Well, Rob certainly would not have put it as that “he knew something God didn’t” but such is the implication.

As for, “Nephilim was IN the earth in those days.  So, maybe they still are IN the earth somewhere” well, all post-flood Nephilology implies that God failed, he missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc.

Also, Gen 6:17 states, “everything that is IN the Earth shall die.”

@TodaysDante

I’m not implying that at all.  Nephilim may have survived the flood, if you accept the interpretation that the flood wasn’t to kill all Nephilim, but rather to keep the blood line of Christ pure and free from hybrid pollution.   The flood succeeded in what it was supposed to do, keep the bloodline of Jesus purely within mankind (through Noah).   No one is implying God “failed.”   There are many interpretations of these texts.  Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean they disagree with God.

@kenammi355

You and Rob implied just that: a God that wasn’t as smart as you two since He missed the loophole you assert when He meant to be rid of them and you also imply the flood was much of a waste.

As for, “Nephilim may have survived the flood”: that contradicts the Bible five times, does that matter to you? Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

Why would anyone “accept the [mis]interpretation that the flood wasn’t to kill all Nephilim” when only eight people and some animals survived by definition? Why MUST you have post-flood Nephilim—besides that the un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales are just too juicy?

If God could keep the blood line of Christ pure with Nephilim being around then the flood was an unnecessary waste of time. See, you assert, “The flood…keep the bloodline of Jesus purely within mankind (through Noah)” even thought post-flood the very same problems were afoot in terms of Nephilim genetic pollution.

Thus, your and Rob’s misinterpretations are illogical, ill-biological, and ill-theological.

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

“Go ask Alice, when she’s ten feet tall.

And if you go chasing rabbits…”

—Jefferson Airplane song White Rabbit

But what about Noah’s wife, just how tall was she?

And what if you go chasing Nephilim giants?

I posted an article titled, L.A. Marzulli on Sid Roth show “It’s Supernatural!” announcing “WE FOUND THE NEPHILIM!” based on a video out of which the following discussion ensued when Arli Gamage commented:

Ron Whyett found the sarcophagus of Noah’s Wife and it is 18′ long. What if this is the average height of Mankind before The Flood. That could make the Giants 40′-50′ tall or even larger. Animal hybrid like dinosaurs that didn’t get on the Ark. Maybe.

Firstly, since his context is pre-flood then by “Giants” he is referring to Nephilim and yet, we have no reliable biblical physical description of them so we have no idea if they were even one inch taller than average—and I would just LOVE it if it turned out that they were little people.

Yet, that does not bias me, I am just discerning by the Bible. Now since the speculation “What if this is the average height of Mankind before The Flood” and the speculation “That could make the Giants 40′-50′ tall or even larger” are based on “the sarcophagus of Noah’s Wife” being “18′ long,” I decided to reply with a basic level question:

Since Whyett found the sarcophagus of Noah’s wife: where is it?

Arli Gamage

I believe. in Turkey. I found it Michael Rood. at A Rood Awakening.

Ken Ammi

You may have to do me a big favor and attempt to track that down since I could not find it on that site—BTW: it is Ron “Wyatt.”

Arli Gamage

Hey Brother, I found it. I have done a lot of praying to find it for you.

A D Archaeological Digs

Michael Rood

A Rood awakening

Noah’s Ark Turkish

Arli followed up with:

Hey Brother, I found it.

A D Archaeological Digs

at A Rood Awakening by Michael Rood. Turkish Government declares National park for Noah’s Ark. I have been praying, I find it for you and today while I was scrolling UTube, there it was.

That, favorable, video/report led me to reply:
I appreciate your effort friend. Of course, you will pardon me if I am not impressed by everything that they said about the sarcophagus of Noah’s wife which was, “what became of that sarcophagus? It was hauled away. We don’t know where it is. Yeah, all evidence was hauled away sadly” without even telling us who hauled it away.

And it is state that “and the sarcophagus, Ron heard, was 18 feet long so that would make her in approximately 16, 15 feet in height.”

So, Ron found nothing: he “heard” about a sarcophagus, never saw it and it was hauled away.

Arli Gamage

ok, my baf

Ken Ammi

Your “baf”? Just kidding, I know what you mean.

FYI: I recently published a book titled “What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology”

And that was the end of it since no more replies where forthcoming.

Such stuff is commonplace amongst believers in that Nephilim were giants (whatever that vague, generic, subjective and un-biblical English term may mean) which often combines with belief in post-flood Nephilim—which is unbiblical, as is any concept of a return of them.

Ironically, such personages generally claim that God’s purpose for the flood was to be rid of Nephilim and so any concept of their survival (even in DNA form) or return, ever, implies that God failed.

Now in a video titled Noah’s Ark & Mt. Sinai w/ Andrew Jones, Jones, who was quite involved with Wyatt personally, added a piece to this puzzle in stating:

​In 1984​ I believe it was​, or early ​’85​, the site was robbed and when the police got involved they found out from a local villager​, who was paid about $300 or $400 to help this ark explorer dig up the grave​, and he told the police​—after they tortured him they pulled out his​, Ron said they pulled out the guy’s fingernails to get him to talk​—and he said well​, what we found was this big old 18​ft​. long sarcophag​us stone box and when they open it up there was a giant skeleton inside and all this gold​.

So, all we have is a story from Jones about a story from Wyatt about a story from an unnamed (nail-less) local villager.

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 L. A. Marzulli un-biblical pop-Nephilology YouTube channel posted a vid titled The Giants of Kandahar!!

The Kandahar giant tall-tale is just an internet hoax based on some anonymous guys making vague claims about generic regions and sold to us by two guys who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians: LA Marzulli and the plagiarist and evolutionist Steven Quayle.

A discussion ensued when a certain @cweed76 commented

Nephilim were men. MEN of Old MEN of renowned. Sons of God are believers Romans 8:14 is one of many scriptures that explains who the Sons of God are. God has never called an angel His son Hebrews 1:5 Angels do not marry Matthew 22:30. Nephilim were giant as in leaders, Kings. They were Godless fallen MEN of old MEN of renowned. Warriors. Although giants did exist in The Bible, none of them were angel hybrids, they were all human.

I, @kenammi355, replied

Well, the Bible refers to humans are men, to Angels as men, to Nephilim as men, to God as man, etc.

As for, “Sons of God are believers Romans 8:14 is one of many scriptures that explains who the Sons of God are” but that’s myopic and you jumped from a Hebrew context to a Greek one from millennia later.

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

As for, “God has never called an angel His son Hebrews 1:5”: you’re taking that out of context since it’s not about Angelology, it’s about Jesus. Ergo, God never called an Angel His son in the way that He calls Jesus His Son since Jesus is unique and authoritative. Or, do you deny that Christians are God’s sons since, after all, Jesus is God’s only begotten Son?

Why do you assert, “Angels do not marry” and cite, “Matthew 22:30” when that verse states no such thing?

As for, “giant as in leaders…giants did exist,” 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?

@cweed76

God has never called an angel man nor has He ever called an angle His son. Hebrews 1:5. Also in Job, you all tend to think Sons of God are angels just because they presented themselves before God, meanwhile, nothing in that scripture indicates anyone was in Heaven and Christians present themselves before God all of the time. What do you think prayer is? You present yourself before God every time you pray. You don’t have to be in Heaven to present yourself before God.

Show me one scripture where God refers to an angel as His son.

It is not I who is taking things out of context. It is those who so badly want angel sex to be a real thing. It’s NOT! Never has been and never will.

Angels are angels fallen or not.  Angel sex comes from Serpent seed doctrine and is Luciferian.

I’ve never denied Christians are sons. That’s exactly my point. Romans clearly states who Sons of God are. And there are many scriptures that state it.

Matthew 22:30 says right in front of your eyes we will be like the angles.

“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in Heaven.” It says right there that angles do not marry nor are given in marriage.

Angels don’t marry nor have sex sorry but maybe stop reading The Book of Enoch, it’s nothing but Jewish fables and mysticism and is filled with heresy.

@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 asserted, “God has never called an angel man.”
As just one example, Genesis 18 has two “men” being identified as Angels in chap 19: that’s very, very, very common.

You asserted, “nor has He ever called an angle His son. Hebrews 1:5. Also in Job, you all tend to think Sons of God are angels just because they presented themselves before God…”

You can take that up with whoever “all” are but I will just, one again since you ignored it and moved the goalpost, note that Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).

Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

As for Heb 1, you merely ignored what I noted.

As for, “meanwhile, nothing in that scripture indicates anyone was in Heaven…”

That’s one of the oddest assertions I’ve ever encountered: ever heard of “Out Father who art in heaven”?

“Show me one scripture where God refers to an angel as His son” Genesis 6 and Psalm 82, off the top of my head.

It’s simply and demonstrably evident that it’s not the case that, “Angel sex comes from Serpent seed doctrine” if for no other reason that the first view, again, was the original, traditional, and majority view but the latter is historically virtually unknown.

In fact, I wrote a five volume set of books debunking the serpent seed view, search Amazon for “Ken Ammi” it’s the “Cain As Serpent Seed of Satan” series.

So, you admit that Christians are “sons of God” even though Jesus is God’s only begotten Son. Likewise, Angels are His sons even if they are not His sons in the self-same manner as Jesus is.

It’s odd that you quoted a verse but then told me that it states what it doesn’t state.

You vaguely, generically, in an all-encompassing manner asserted, “angles do not marry nor are given in marriage.”

Yet, Jesus was very specific and He included a qualifying term that you cut off from His complete thought, “angels of God in Heaven” ergo, the loyal ones which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” in order to do, as Jude put it.

Such is why I had already asked you, “Why do you assert, ‘Angels do not marry’ and cite, ‘Matthew 22:30’ when that verse states no such thing?” which you can now see is the case.

As for, “maybe stop reading The Book of Enoch” please don’t play mind reader: 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

@cweed76

No where in The Bible does it say Jesus died for angels Sins. You’re adding to scripture. Angels don’t have salvation for sin.

@kenammi355

Since you ignored 100% of what I wrote I realize that I’m wasting my time since you idolize your man-made tradition: so, please repent. As for your pseudo-reply, it has utterly nothing to do with anything I wrote so it stinks of arguing-just-to-argue desperation.

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.

Herein, I am considering that which TJ Steadman wrote about Tartarus in his book Answers to Giant Questions.

Before getting into that, and as a just in case, no, Tartarus is not that sauce that people eat with fish ;o)

The term Tartarus appears one time in the Bible thusly, “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to” what some unfortunately tend to render as “hell” but is actually Tartarus, “and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” (2 Peter 2:4).

TJ Steadman writes:

…the “sons of God” were “imprisoned” according to NT authors in “chains under darkness,” and therefore they cannot be seen as having access to the divine abode.
However…the chains are not physical, the Abyss is not physical either, and the chains being the restraining power of the Holy Spirit means that in effect the fallen sons of God are not limited by geography but they are limited in the scope of their power and freedom to act according to God’s sovereign will.
Hence the sons of God or lesser elohim are able to appear before God’s throne as required, whether good or evil; sec Job l-2, I Kings 22 etc.

But why claim “the chains are not physical” when, after all, Angels are physical, having a flesh of their own?

Sine “sons of God” contextually refers to Angels, then it is uncalled for to assert that Angels, as “lesser elohim” appear before God’s throne “whether good or evil” since in the Job l-2 (referring to chaps. 1-2) has “sons of God” coming before God with Satan being among them but Satan is not an Angel, he is a Cherub (whether we may categorize Cherubim as “lesser elohim” is another issue).

He appeals to 1 Kings 22 since it records that Micaiah stated, “I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left” which is one of the Divine Council texts, and “the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead?…And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.”

TJ Steadman further writes:

The Greeks described Tartarus as being under the earth, but that is not meant to be understood in terms of literal “flat earth” geography. As we saw with the “tower whose top reaches the heavens,” you can’t just dig a deep hole and go there.
What this means is that the fallen sons of God are not in some hole far away from the top side of the planet – they are simply unable to access our world as naturally embodied creatures anymore. It seems apparent that they were, however, able to release the disembodied Nephilim spirits to return and finish the work they started.
And the forces of evil appear to be empowered, as we shall later see, to bind or twist together the spirits of the dead Nephilim with the bodies of living men through an evil royal priesthood.

Actually, the Greeks described Tartarus as being under the Abyss which is within the Earth, it was supposedly the deepest part of the Abyss—which is odd considering that Abyss means bottom-less.

In any case, Peter seems to be speaking within the context of his audience’s language and culture to make his point.

I have no idea what any of this does, would, or could have to do with “‘flat earth’ geography.”

As for “tower whose top reaches the heavens,” which pertains to the Tower of Babel, I am unsure what that has to do with being unable to “dig a deep hole and go” to Tartarus.

Assuming that it is within the planet Earth, that still does not mean it is in any way accessible to humans—for various reasons.

So, perhaps “the fallen sons of God are not in some hole far away from the top side of the planet” but if they are then that is perfectly consistent with where fleshly/physical being would or could be kept.

As for “able to release the disembodied Nephilim spirits to return and finish the work they started” that is just theo-sci-fi, as is “bind or twist together the spirits of the dead Nephilim with the bodies of living men through an evil royal priesthood,” as I have demonstrated in my various articles about his assertions.

The last quote is wherein TJ Steadman writes:

The Abyss is no more a physical place than the earth is flat – it is a cosmological understanding, not a scientific one. The sons of God were restrained in terms of a loss of freedom or power, but there is no evidence of banishment to some other place. They still operate within the geography that they were assigned to.
The fact that the conceptual language of “sons of God” appears in Genesis 6 and Deuteronomy 32 is not coincidental. These powers still roam the earth even today (see Job 1 and 2), and their power is limited but still very real. While they do not reside in heaven, they can appear before God at His command.

I get the feeling he is un-contextually appealing to a flat Earth is flat view to embarrass anyone who may think that the Abyss and Tartarus are within the Earth.

The “evidence of banishment to some other place” is, as we already saw, that God, “cast them down to [Tartarus”, and delivered them into chains of darkness” and “the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude v. 6).

Now, as to that “They still operate within the geography that they were assigned to” I agree but with certain qualifiers in place.

My theory is that since the Angels’ sin was physical copulation with human women, they were physically incarcerated yet, their spirits roam the Earth as disembodies demons. Thus, they are, at once, incarcerated and also still operating.

I elucidate this view biblically (as opposed to the folkloric one to which TJ Steadman and virtually all other pop-researchers hold which is that demons are Nephilim spirits) in my book What Does the Bible Say About Demons? A Styled Demonology and summarized it in my article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?.

When TJ Steadman states that sons of God “still roam the earth even today” we need to keep these distinctions in mind.

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.

Who were the Nephilim, and why didn’t ancient readers find them strange? is the title of a video posted by the BibleProject YouTube channel to which a certain @dishikadillon commented

It’s weird because the angels were not able to reproduce; according to the scripture. Next, how would it have looked to see these beings coming home from a hard days work looking like what the bible says they looked like. Third, you think God sat back and let them come to earth, marry women, have babies and then throw them in chains until judgement? Make it make sense.

I, @kenammi355, replied

But that “angels were not able to reproduce” isn’t “according to the scripture.”

What does the Bible say they looked like (but before quoting, ensure that you read the text to find out who said it, why was it said, was it true, what was the reaction to it, etc.)?

Yes, “God sat back and let them come to earth, marry women, have babies and then throw them in chains until judgement?” just like He “sat back” and let Adam and Eve sin, etc.

@dishikadillon

According to scripture they are an entirely separate type of creature from humans. People do not become angels after death, and angels do not become human. In Luke 20:34-36 Jesus says, “The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels.

Now at what point were the angels allowed to come to earth, get married, procreate, go back to heaven, and get kicked out with lucifer (Revelations 12:9)? If you are saying that the fallen angels came to earth married and had children, that would mean at some point, they re-entered heaven. You also have to look at 2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.

Angels are not organic or natural beings. They cannot procreate! If they could, don’t you think God would have allowed them to reproduce with each other instead of humans.

Last, God did not sit back and let Adam and Eve do anything. Everyone has free will; even from the very beginning. Just like then there were consequences, there are consequences now.

@kenammi355

Well, “According to scripture” Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”

I’ve no idea why you wrote, “People do not become angels after death, and angels do not become human” since I have never even hinted at any such thing including in my books on Angelology.

When Jesus makes a statement more than once, it’s not a good practice to only quote the one statement that seems to say what we want to hear and it’s also not a good practice to slice a complete thought into pieces just because you don’t like what Jesus said.

Let’s consider the statements.

You quoted Luke 20:34-36 to end abruptly as, “equal unto the angels” but Jesus went on to say, “are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” so you left out the part about that humans and Angels are, “sons of God” just like Gen 6 refers to them.

Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25 are very interesting since Jesus was very specific in that He notes, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Thus, He spoke of the “angels in heaven”: the loyal ones, which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” as Jude put it.

As for, “at what point were the angels allowed to come to earth, get married, procreate, go back to heaven, and get kicked out” never: I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia of relevant data but am unaware of anyone who has ever claimed that they were, “allowed” rather, again, those who did so were rebellious in doing so, it was a sin.

As for, “with lucifer” that has nothing to do with it, that’s about what happens after the war in heaven which is a post-Jesus’ ascension event and seems to not have happened as of yet.

This also has to do with, “that would mean at some point, they re-entered heaven” since Jude and 2 Peter both tells us that the sinful Angels were incarcerated (not in “hell” but in “Tartarus”) as per Rev 9 they are released, then fight the war in heaven and then are condemned.

You say, “Angels are not organic or natural beings” but Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

You demand, “They cannot procreate!” but I’ve already shown how you came to that faulty assertion. Also, the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

As for, “If they could, don’t you think God would have allowed them to reproduce with each other instead of humans” you’ll have to ask Him about that. But again, Angels always described as human males.

I’ve no idea what this means, “God did not sit back and let Adam and Eve do anything.”

But as far as, “Everyone has free will” well, there you have it: so did Angels.

@dishikadillon

First, thanks for making me think. ❤❤ I have so many questions.

Angels in Hebrew simply means the one who is sent, often translated as “messenger”

Coming in human form and being created in human form, are two different things. if angels are like humans, then we aren’t the first of our kind. If they can procreate, then that would mean they have the same sin nature we have and when Adam and Eve caused the fall of man, they must’ve caused the angels to fall also. Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world.” How did sin enter heaven? I did look at Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.

Also, were the angels like shapeshifters? I mean I do understand the changing forms because of their assignment, but to sneak out of heaven and come in the form of men, marry daughters, and breed giant humans and not some type of hybrid? If the angels could procreate, why didn’t they just procreate with one another?  Concerning the sons of God (Gen.6:1-4) Is this not the son’s of Seth? When it says “there were giants in those days,” the word “giant” caused a misinterpretation. It is believed that these men were literal giants, born from a union of women and angels. Well. there is at least one verse that refutes this thought. First of all, Gen. 6:2 says the sons of God ‘took wives’ and I did give Matt. 22:30 they will neither marry or be given in marriage to prove their not being able to procreate. Angels are not organic or natural beings. They cannot procreate! If they could, don’t you think God would have allowed them to reproduce with each other instead of creating untold numbers of them? (Rev. 5:11)

The sons of God were godly men who married the daughters of wicked men.

Can you imagine if Satan could procreate?

Angels cannot procreate. They cannot mate with humans. So giants did not exist because of unions between women and angels. Just think. If that is the case, tall men like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7 feet, 2 inches) and Shaquille O’Neal (7 feet, 1 inch) or taller, Robert Pershing Wadlow (8 feet , 11.1 inches) or Sultan Kösen (8 feet, 2.8 inches) would be considered demi-gods!

@kenammi355

Thanks in turn for the detailed interaction.

I can only elucidate what’s in the Bible and, again, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and WITHOUT INDICATION THAT SUCH ISN’T THEIR ONTOLOGY.

So, they were apparently, “created in human form” and we were created, “a little lower” than them.

If that mean, “we aren’t the first of our kind” then so be it. Yet, two beings of the same kind can still have some key differences such as that, apparently, Jesus died for human sins, not Angelic ones.

Maybe it was the case that, “when Adam and Eve caused the fall of man, they must’ve caused the angels to fall also” but that can’t be based on, “If they can procreate, then that would mean they have the same sin nature we have” since that’s a non-sequitur and they can procreate but not amongst themselves, obviously, and weren’t supposed to while we can and were meant to.

Romans 5:12 actually also says, “sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” so that’s not about Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim since, apparently, not all of them sinned.

Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are good places for how it entered heaven: the Cherub conceived of a sin and introduced that conception to Eve.

There’s no indication that Angels are shapeshifters and, again, by definition, Angels are always described as looking like human males.

This sentence is pretty tough, “I mean I do understand the changing forms because of their assignment, but to sneak out of heaven and come in the form of men, marry daughters, and breed giant humans and not some type of hybrid?” so I’ll piece it out:

“I do understand the changing forms because of their assignment” there’s no indication of any such thing.

“sneak out of heaven”: no indication that they snuck, they were “cast” down.

“come in the form of men”: since that’s their ontological form.

“breed giant humans and not some type of hybrid”: I’m unsure to what you’re referring by “giant” or “giant humans” and the “Angel view” is the view that they did breed, “some type of hybrid.”

As I’ve noted many times: Angels are described as male so there’s apparently no female ones which is why, “they just procreate with one another.”

Why would, “sons of God” be, “son’s of Seth”?

When you say, “It is believed that these men were literal giants” I neither know, “believed” by whom nor what a, “literal giant” is.

So, 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?

Yes, you, “did give Matt. 22:30 they will neither marry or be given in marriage to prove their not being able to procreate” and I noted that you misrepresented Jesus’ words then and you did so again since He didn’t say, “neither marry or be given in marriage.”

You asserted, “Angels are not organic or natural beings” but I already noted many times, Angels are always described as looking like human males, PERFORMING PHYSICAL ACTIONS, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. You can’t get around that by merely making assertions. You can always read my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology” for every single thing, quoted and cited, that the Bible says about them.

So, when you conclude by asserting, “They cannot procreate!” you do so based on misrepresenting Jesus’ words (please be very, very careful about doing that) and a non-biblical view of Angels about which you’ve already been corrected.

Again, no I, “don’t you think God would have allowed” all males, “to reproduce with each other” since that’s biologically incoherent.

You then tell me that, “godly men” were not godly since they sinned to terribly that their sin served as the premise for the flood so that’s rather odd. You’re just repeating a late-comer of a view that’s based on prejudice, based on myth, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more then zero).

As for, “Can you imagine if Satan could procreate?” I guess I could imagine but there’s no indication of that he even could if he wanted to since Angels look like human males but Cherubim don’t.

As for, “giants did not exist because of unions between women and angels” and I now see that you answered key question #2 so that the answer to key question #3 is, “No” and you will know that if you answer key question #1.

@dishikadillon

when I said godly men I was talking about the son’s of Seth. We do know that Cain’s descendants were evil and did not serve God; as Seth did indeed. . As the Creator, He was the One who created the angels and the whole spiritual realm, but after His birth into humanity He was restricted to time and space. He was lower than the angels. Christ was made temporarily lower than the angels because it opens up the possibility of death, something which angels do not suffer. It doesn’t have anything to do with appearance. Our form will not be the same once we die; if we die in Christ, and receive our glorified bodies. We will not look like this in the when we inherit the Kingdom. Did you not know that beloved?

@kenammi355

Indeed, you were teaching a late-dated view that is based on prejudice, mythology, and only creates problems: you have “godly men” sinning so terribly that their sin served as the premise for the flood so they weren’t so Godly after all.

You merely assert, “We do know that Cain’s descendants were evil and did not serve God” but, that’s just what, “We” don’t know: that just myth and prejudice.

Likewise with, “as Seth did indeed” (but really didn’t as per you).

As for, “Our form will not be the same once we die” that’s denying one of THE key features of the resurrection, it’s denying one of THE things that makes the gospel distinct from false, “religions.”

You don’t seem very interested in dealing with what I write anymore so maybe I won’t put much effort into it anymore.

For example, a very important point was, “As for, ‘giants did not exist because of unions between women and angels’ and I now see that you answered key question #2 so that the answer to key question #3 is, ‘No’ and you will know that if you answer key question #1” but you ignored that.

@dishikadillon

First, it is not mythology, it is theology.

Second,  Genesis names three children of Adam and Eve, Cain, Abel and Seth. A genealogy tracing the descendants of Cain is given in Genesis 4, while the line from Seth down to Noah appears in Genesis 5 therefore, not all were destroyed.

Third, don’t walk away before you see what you did wrong. God cursed Cain and his descendants not to have the priesthood until all of Abel’s descendants had the priesthood. Cain’s curse to his descendants, where they all died in the Great Deluge as retribution for the loss of Abel’s potential offspring. 

Fourth, The Bible says that in heaven Christ “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Philippians 3:21). The Bible gives us a hint of what we will be like in its account of Jesus’ transfiguration. (You can read it in Luke 9:28-36.)

FIFTH AND FINAL, I’M ALWAYS READY TO GIVE AN ANSWER, AS THE SCRIPTURES HAS DIRECTED. I DO NOT TAKE KINDLY TO THOSE WHO PROFESS TO BE WISE, BUT ARE INDEED FOOLS. GOD IS NOT MOCKED NOR WILL HE EVER BE ENTERTAINED BY FOOLISHNESS. GO READ UPON THE SCRIPTURES AND YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THAT GOD IS THE MAKER/CREATOR OF ALL THINGS AND THAT IS THE ONLY MAKER. SATAN NOR THE ANGELS CAN’T CREATE ANYTHING AND LET THIS BE A LESSON TO ALL WHO WISHES TO DISPUTE IT.

@kenammi355 

But friend, it’s myth by definition (and I see you ignored that it’s also prejudice and causes problems) since you’re still unable to provide any quotations to support it.

I’m unsure to what you’re referring by, “not all were destroyed, pre-flood (since you referred to Gen 4-5).

As for, “God cursed Cain and his descendants not to have the priesthood until all of Abel’s descendants had the priesthood. Cain’s curse to his descendants, where they all died in the Great Deluge as retribution for the loss of Abel’s potential offspring” all of that is pure mythology. But just as with your whole view: perhaps you can provide quotations to the contrary.

Indeed, our resurrection bodies with be like Jesus’ at his transfiguration and post-resurrection: physical but with additional capabilities. But I’m unsure what that has to do with our discussion.

Oddly, I though we were having an iron sharpening iron discussion as brother and sister but you decided to call me a, “FOOL…” (all caps, mind you) engaging in, “FOOLISHNESS” and then ignorantly yell at me to, “GO READ UPON THE SCRIPTURES” which I’ve been directing you to and quoting all along. Why did you go full blown ungracefully worldly?

As for, “SATAN…CAN’T CREATE ANYTHING” indeed, that appears to be the case.

As for, “ANGELS CAN’T CREATE ANYTHING” well, that’s the very assertion that’s in question and biblical evidences have been provided to you to the contrary.

@dishikadillon

First, go back through your comments. You were the first to yell; if you are insinuating all caps always means yelling, at me. This is not a discussion of salvation and if you’d go back and start at my original comment, it was pertaining to the “nephilim”. Now I’m not sure why you waited almost a week to come back and offer a response, but I’m not interested in being argumentative today. NO ANGELS CAN NOT CREATE ANYTHING, AND IF YOU FEEL THEY CAN, GIVE SCRIPTURE TO BACK IT UP.

@kenammi355

I suppose that all caps can be used for emphasis but writing entire paragraphs in it gives a certain impression and is a bit harder to read.

Now, you asserted, “NO ANGELS CAN NOT CREATE ANYTHING, AND IF YOU FEEL THEY CAN, GIVE SCRIPTURE TO BACK IT UP”

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

Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

Now, let’s have you answer a version of your challenge: “NO ANGELS CAN NOT CREATE ANYTHING, AND IF YOU FEEL” you can back up that assertion, “GIVE SCRIPTURE TO BACK IT UP”—but please don’t take Jesus out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext again.

@dishikadillon

Hello, again.

Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called “sons of God.” In John 1:12 it says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Does that have anything to do with nephilim? So, since In Judaism “Sons of God” usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth and all of the earliest sources interpret the “sons of God” as angels, it is man’s conclusion we’re leaning towards and not the word of God. I mean since we are known for taking things and running with it. Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Matthew 5:9 also speaks of the “sons of God” but where in the Bible do we here God ever refer to fallen angels or demons as the sons of God? Now in Job 1, when god refers to the sons of God, these seem to be good angels and not fallen angels. Maybe you should study the term “sons of God.”

The Hebrew word nefilim OR nephilim is sometimes directly translated as “giants” or taken to mean “the fallen ones”; some understand it to mean “the fallen ones” but this is a misunderstanding of The Hebrew. Their origins are disputed. I guess we’ll never know until God reveals it.

@kenammi355

Shalom again.

Well, “Angels, just and pious men, and the kings of Israel are all called ‘sons of God’” are assertions. Yet, it mattes not since just because “Angels” might be able to refer to “just and pious men, and the kings of Israel” can be “called ‘sons of God’” does not mean that there’s some sort of law about that “Angels” and “sons of God” cannot refer to anyone else: that’s just not how linguistics works.

Likewise, when you appeal to John 1:12 you’re being myopic and jumping from an Hebrew context to a Greek context from millennia later: that’s just not how linguistics works. Again, just because “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” and that doesn’t “have anything to do with nephilim” doesn’t mean that it never does.

Note your own qualifying term, “In Judaism ‘Sons of God’ USUALLY refers…” indeed, so that allows for unusual usages as well. It’s also problematic to refer to “In Judaism” since we have a many millennia worth of history so the “Judaism” of the Torah, the “Judaism” of secularists, “Rabbinic Judaism” or what? So, for example, if we mean the earliest commentary we have, including statement in apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, then it’s not even accurate to assert that it “usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth” but indeed “all of the earliest sources interpret the ‘sons of God’ as angels, it is man’s conclusion we’re leaning towards and not the word of God”—and I know these things since I wrote the book on them, literally, as I already noted and it’s titled, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

As for, “taking things and running with it” well, I’m unsure who’s doing that but, again: “Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as ‘Angelos’).

Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, ‘left their first estate,’ after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.”

So, you answered your own question about, “where in the Bible do we here God ever refer to fallen angels” not demons, “as the sons of God?”

As for, “Maybe you should study the term ‘sons of God’” but “Maybe” why? I literally published an entire chapter by that term in my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angolology.”

Actually, “giants” for “Nephilim” isn’t technically a translation but a mere rendering and one that is base on the LXX’s mere rendering of “Nephilim” as “gigantes” which literally means “earth born.” And yes, the root word “naphal” refers to fall/falling/fallen/feller, etc. I wrote a whole book just about the linguistics, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.”

As for, “Their origins are disputed” well, not for those who take Gen 6 as is thus, “we’ll never know until God reveals it” and He did in Gen 6 and just because that may cause our man-made traditions some trouble doesn’t mean we should close our eyes to it.

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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