Month: November 2024

The following discussion came about when a certain Pierre Vigoureux commented as follows in answer to the question Can atheism be proven with logic and evidence, even though it is not based on them?

No.

Atheism is not a belief nor a belief system.

It can’t be proved or disproved.

Atheism is always based on the absence of evidence and the presence of logic.

Always.

The newborn baby is an atheist. He can’t believe in God.

The adult atheist is either that way because he never changed, or because he changes his mind because of the absence of evidence and the presence of logic.

The absence of evidence for every god that has been ever imagined.

The evidence that all the other gods, except for the most fundamental god hypothesis, are just imagined.

The presence of logic that says the absence of evidence is proof enough – when the hypothesis is more than just the fundamental one. The believer in one culture’s sun god will not be a believer in another cultures moon goddess.

The absence of logic to just “believe in something” – when all but the most fundamental god principle are just imagined.

You ask a stupid and ignorant question, that starts out with a completely false assumption.

The newborn baby, who is an atheist by definition, starts out with the logic of the absence of evidence.

Ken Ammi

As Richard Dawkins has noted (who is about a gazillion times more well known for his Atheist missionary endeavors that you): there is an Atheistic world-view, of course.

As for, “Atheism is always based on the absence of evidence and the presence of logic” that’s a shockingly myopic merely asserted positive affirmation.

Well, okay then: all it requires to be an Atheist is to possess the level of rational, logic, scientific understanding, philosophical thought that can be mustered by a baby—granted.

But let’s cut to the chase since you go on and on about evidence: the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for you to first justify your demand for evidence, on your world-view.

Pierre Vigoureux

As Richard Dawkins has noted

Richard Dawkins is a biologist. He is neither a prophet or a priest of the “atheist religion”. Atheism is not a religion. The only reason you mention his name is because he tries to explain to ignorant people – like you – how “evolution” works.

Atheist missionary endeavors

He is not a missionary of any religion, and neither am I.

there is an Atheistic world-view

No there isn’t. Atheism is not a belief or a belief system. Use a dictionary for the definition.

As for, “Atheism is always based on the absence of evidence and the presence of logic” that’s

The truth, not a view. Use a dictionary to learn what the definition of atheism is. The absence of evidence of anything like gods or godhood makes atheism the default position – both for newborn infants and for adults.

all it requires to be an Atheist is to possess the level of rational, logic, scientific understanding, philosophical thought that can be mustered by a baby

I never said that, or anything like that. Atheism is the default position of both the ignorant and stupid – like you – and the informed and intelligent – like me. If you believe in “anything like gods or godhood” you diverge from the default position – and now have a belief system involving gods and godhood.

since you go on and on about evidence

I only need to say the word once. Stupid and ignorant people may need constant repetition to learn something.

the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for you to first justify your demand for evidence

The “system” and the “world view” HAS to start with evidence. To assume something out of faith, out of inheritance from your culture or your parental influence, is to not be critical in any way.

You are confused.

We all start out as atheists, with the default position of ignorance.

We are told about gods and godhood. Each culture and each person will have a different world-view that is told to them.

The critical world-view is to not just accept what we are told.

Some of us can even invent gods and godhood for others to accept.

The critical world-view is to not just believe because we want to believe. The critical world-view denies the relevance of faith or inherited prejudice.

The critical world-view demands evidence to criticise. Both for and against gods and godhood.

And there is no evidence FOR and plenty of evidence AGAINST.

Ken Ammi

I was just noting that an Atheist who is about a gazillion times better know for his Atheist missionary endeavors than you made that statement. So, when others agree with Atheists about Atheism take it up with Atheists first: contact Dawkins and let me know how he replies to you debunking of him.

But, of course, Atheism isn’t a worldview because thus saith Dawkins rather, it’s a worldview because that’s what it is: it’s thought restricting and only allows you to think about things in a certain way dictated by dogmatheism—lest you be excommunicated.

Now, for some reason you moved the goalpost to, “Atheism is not a religion” but, of course, there are many Atheists who have been claiming that it is for a long time: again, take it up with them.

Unlike you, I don’t look up a word in “a” singular, “dictionary for the” singular, “definition” that’s tragically myopic.

You seem to be unaware of basic level linguistics and the history of Atheism, even neo-Atheism, such as that a word can have various meanings/definitions and even more usages and that these can change with time. For example, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism was the original neo-one and thus, the original neo-defintion.

Thus, when you say, “The” merely asserted, “absence of evidence…makes atheism the default position” you betray your lack of knowledge of the linguistics and history of Atheism.

You don’t need to say “all it requires to be an Atheist is to possess the level of rational, logic, scientific understanding, philosophical thought that can be mustered by a baby”: it’s implied—at last if you actually think about that you said.

Now, you’re very, very good at being an arrogant jerk so no more proof is needed for that thus, let’s focus on “the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for you to first justify your demand for evidence” since your reply merely doubled down by piling one assertion atop another since, “The ‘system’ and the ‘world view’ HAS to start with evidence” is a merely assertion.

1) thank for admitting there’s no evidence to back Atheism.

2) what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative for having to start a system and worldview with evidence?

That “We are told about gods and godhood. Each culture and each person will have a different world-view that is told to them” is not only a genetic logical fallacy (is there anything wrong with committing logical fallacies, on your worldview) but applies to Atheist as well: We are told about no gods and no godhood. Each culture and each person will have a different world-view that is told to them.

What, on your worldview, is the universal imperative to adhere to “The” singular, “critical world-view? And, of course, I will not just accept what you told me.

Indeed, “Some of us can even invent gods and godhood for others to accept” such as the Atheist god and the many gods of Atheism: the individual Atheists who inevitably merely assert that they are THE authority.

Again, what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative “demands evidence”?

As for, “there is no evidence FOR and plenty of evidence AGAINST” those are mere assertions.

FYI: feel free to drop all of this besides taking the very first critical thinking step which is to justify your demand for evidence, 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 Unforsaken site posted an article titled Giants in the Bible: A Comprehensive post of the Nephilim and Their Descendants which begins by noting:

Giants are a fascinating and often mysterious part of biblical hiaccount [sic.], woven into the fabric of ancient texts and folklore around the world. In the Bible, the term Nephilim refers to the offspring of a union between divine beings and human women, described in Genesis 6.

These giants and their descendants played significant roles in various biblical narratives and seem to be linked with specific people groups known for their formidable stature and strength.

In this study, we will explore their origins, the famous giants of the Bible, their connection to certain tribes, and how their existence might have been one of the main catalysts for the Great Flood.

Just as the title, this statement jumped from the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” to the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” and back again.

Thus, the key questions are:

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

What’s the author’s usage?

Do those two usages agree?

For one, biblically contextually, it would read, “Nephilim are a fascinating…These Nephilim and their descendants…the famous Nephilim of the Bible…” etc.

The author takes the “Angel view” of the Gen 6 affair, as I term it.

Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.

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.

We are then told:

Goliath of Gath: Perhaps the most famous giant in the Bible, Goliath is introduced in 1 Samuel 17. He was a champion of the Philistines, described as being “six cubits and a span” tall, which translates to approximately nine feet and nine inches…

Goliath’s armor is described in detail in 1 Samuel 17:4-7. He wore a bronze helmet and a coat of mail that weighed about 5,000 shekels of bronze, which is approximately 125 pounds (57 kilograms). His legs were protected by bronze greaves, and he carried a bronze javelin slung across his back.

The shaft of his spear was as thick as a weaver’s beam, and the iron spearhead itself weighed 600 shekels, or about 15 pounds (7 kilograms). Goliath’s impressive and heavy armor highlighted his formidable stature…

It seems that by “giant” the author is implying something about subjectively unusual height. In that case, the answer to the third key question is “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.

For some odd reason, the author didn’t bother noting that the Masoretic text has Goliath 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.

He had a guy assisting with the equipment.

Regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft. Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23). Also, you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.

Next up is:

Og, King of Bashan: Another notable giant is Og, king of Bashan. Deuteronomy 3:11 provides a remarkable detail about him: “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.” This would make Og’s bed approximately thirteen feet long and six feet wide, indicating his massive size.

That whole statement is premised on the qualifying term, “indicating” and since that’s subjective—it may appear to indicate that to the author—it’s dismissible.

We don’t have a physical description of Og but “giant” obsessed people make them up where they’re nowhere to be seen (I term that phenomena “Gigorexia Nervosa”) and merely asserting we can know an approximation of his height based on his “bed” is a non-sequitur 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? Hint: the “bed” was a ritual object, not something on which Og slept.

We’re then told of, “Tribes and People Groups of Giants” such as:

The Anakim were a race of giants known for their intimidating stature. Numbers 13:33 records the report of the Israelite spies: “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.”

Note the—purposeful or not—manipulation here when desperation to find “giants” leads to quoting a version that has “giants” for “Nephilim” and what read “There we saw the Nephilim (the descendants of Anak came from the Nephilim)…” was turned into, “There we saw the subjectively unusually tall personages (the descendants of Anak came from the subjectively unusually tall personages)…”

Well, for one: that’s quoting an “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked so there’s no reason to believe any of it in any version: see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

Also, for some odd reason, the author didn’t quote a text that does tell us something relevant: Deut 2 notes that they were generally “tall” on average and/but that’s subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

As we keep waiting for “giants” to be noted, we are told:

Mentioned frequently in the Old Testament, the Rephaim were considered giants. Deuteronomy 2:10-11 states: “The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. They were also regarded as giants, like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim.” The Rephaim appear to have been spread across different regions and were known by various names.

The Zamzummim: Another group linked with the Rephaim are the Zamzummim. Deuteronomy 2:20-21 says: “That was also regarded as a land of giants; giants formerly dwelt there. But the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a people as great, numerous, and tall as the Anakim.”

The Philistine Giants: Beyond Goliath, 2 Samuel 21:15-22 mentions battles between David’s warriors and other giants from Gath, showing that the Philistines harbored more than one giant in their midst.

This is another word-game since “regarded as giants” means “regarded as Rephaim” and not something about height. Rephaim were aka Zamzummim (who weren’t “Another group”) and Emim and Anakim were like clans of that tribe.

Thus, the only thing we’re contextually told about Rephaim is that they were generally “tall” on average and/but that’s subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Now, when you write in vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage manners such as employing the modern English word “giants,” you can then throw virtually any myth or legend into the mix since there are no specifics that disqualify them.

Thus, the author tells us of, “The Global Presence of Giants in Ancient Cultures…Greek Titans…Norse Jotnar (frost giants) and the giants of Native American lore,” etc., which is how tall-tales are told: keep everything watered down and assert correlations where there are none.

The author merely asserts, “Nimrod, described in Genesis 10:8-9 as ‘a mighty hunter before the Lord,’ has intrigued scholars for generations” without offering even one name, quote, or citation to any such scholars.

We’re told, “Some have speculated that the term ‘mighty man’ aligns with the language used for the Nephilim and their descendants, suggesting that Nimrod could have been part of this legacy.” No, that’s literally logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible since Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape or form: lest God failed, He missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

Also, that “‘mighty man’ aligns with the language used for the Nephilim and their” merely implied, “descendants” is utterly myopic since the term in question is “gibbor” which is just a descriptive term referring to might/mighty so that it’s used of Angels and Nephilim and Gideon and some of David’s soldiers and Boaz and God, etc. Thus, that was a merely linguistic fallacy: chasing a word around (only to very specifically selected locations of usage) and merely asserting correlation where there is none.

But the author discerned weakness in doing that so admitted it but still pushed, “while there is no direct biblical evidence stating that Nimrod was a giant, the association with the term ‘mighty man’ warrants consideration” so I considered and debunked.

One section is titled, “Giants and the Reason for the Flood” and notes:

The introduction of the Nephilim in Genesis 6 is immediately followed by God’s decision to bring the Great Flood…

The presence of the Nephilim, resulting from angelic-human unions, is often linked to this judgment. The idea is that these unions corrupted the human gene pool and contributed to an increase in wickedness that necessitated divine intervention.

Did you notice what just happened? Nephilim are correlated to, “the Reason for the Flood…God’s decision to bring the Great Flood…often linked to this judgment…provoke God’s judgment” but, again, God failed, He missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc., since we’re going to play game about that unnamed, unquoted, and uncited scholars merely assert Nimrod was a post-flood Nephil—see my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?

Since we’re chasing the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” around a Hebrew Bible we can appeal to anything that any English version from MILLENNIA after the Hebrew merely rendered as “giants.”

Thus, we’re told of, “Giants in the Conquest of Canaan” which in this case were, “tribes of giants. Joshua 11:21-22 notes: ‘And at that time Joshua came and cut off the Anakim…’…remnants of these giants continued to exist in regions like Gath, where Goliath later emerged.” And we already know how unimpressive all of that is when we understand that here “giants” is merely rendering “Rephaim” and that we know there’s zero indication they were much taller than the average.

We’re then told of, “Characteristics and Traits of Giants” which a mere assertion since “Giants” can, biblically speaking, refer to Nephilim, for whom we’ve zero reliable physical description, or Rephaim which we already covered, “tall.”

Yet, we’re told by the author, “The biblical accounts of giants describe them as exceptionally large and powerful beings. Their physical descriptions imply a scale that dwarfed ordinary humans, as in the case of Goliath and Og.” These are obviously uncalled for and hyperbolically misinformed assertions.

We’re then told of, “The Continuing Legacy of Giants” which mentions utterly generic things such as, “folklore and archaeological curiosities…alleged findings of giant skeletons.”

The author’s “Final Thoughts” include, “The giants of the Bible, from the Nephilim to Goliath and beyond, represent more than just tales of larger-than-life beings. They are part of a complex narrative involving divine beings, human disobedience, and God’s judgment.” And yet, that’s incoherent since Nephilim would fit that but not Goliath so that’s a category error.

And the author ends with a bit of sermonizing.

Sadly, over all we were supposed to learn about “giants” in terms of well, some sort of impressive height above average but we got Nephilim and Og for whom we’ve no physical description, only the taller option of Goliath’s height, Rephaim/Zamzummim/Emim/Anakim who were subjectively merely “tall” and vague assertions about “giants” here and “giants” there but actually nowhere to be found.

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 ensued when a certain Scott French replied to the question: Are the Nephilim created by the Seraphin angels? by noting

The fallen ones were created by Satan the serpent race mentioned in Genesis 3:1

I, Ken Ammi, replied

What makes you assert that—especially as opposed to what Gen 6 states?

Scott French

Genesis 6 says sons of God…this means that God created this that mated with women. The only other race around at that same time was the serpent race mentioned in genesis 3:1. What do you think it says in genesis 6

Ken Ammi

I see. Well, I’m unaware of a “serpent race” but the “races” that were around were the human race, the Angelic race, the Cherubim race, and the Seraphim race—maybe the Ophanim race: depends on how we count “races.”

Scott French

Cherubim are Satan the serpent race

Ken Ammi

How could it be that “Cherubim are Satan” since the “im” is male plural in Hebrew so how could multiple Cherubim all be one being, Satan.

Satan is a Cherub.

As for, “Cherubim are…the serpent race” would could that be since there’s literally nothing serpentine about them?

Scott French

Satan is not a single person but a race of people/cherubim’s= serpent race

Ken Ammi

I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia of relevant data and am unaware of any such thing as “Satan is not a single person but a race.”

As for, “cherubim’s= serpent race” I’m unsure we can really have a discussion if I already asked you, “As for, ‘Cherubim are…the serpent race’ would [I meant to write, “how”] could that be since there’s literally nothing serpentine about them?” but rather than reply, you just double down on an assertion.

Scott French

Relevant data to you but not the truth…let’s try and start simple…all that I say comes from the Bible only. Adam didn’t live to be 930 years old but his name did that long…how can I get you to accept this truth?

Ken Ammi

To get me to accept that supposed truth please rewrite it since I’ve no idea what, “Adam didn’t live to be 930 years old but his name did that long” means.

Scott French

Adam was not just an individual person that lived to be 930 years old when he died. Adam along with every other name in genesis up to Abraham were groups of people living together as a nation. So when it says he dies at 930 years this means there were no more children born to carry out the Adam name so it dies.

Ken Ammi

But friend, that’s incoherent by definition since that he had many sons and daughters means that they lived on: such is the only reason we’re here to discuss it since all humans are Adamites.

Also, since what you asserted hasn’t even been stated by anyone else in human history, as far as I know, then you’re either the greatest biblical scholar in human history or are mistaken.

Scott French

You are correct my friend as we are all Adamites. Chapter 5 is talking about there generations. Cain, Able, and Seth are not the 1st born of an Adam… like I said earlier we were told to be fruitful and multiply from the beginning and we meet Cain and Able after we left the garden. Seth was the 1st born of an Adam 130 years after the 1st Adam was made to take a wife and leave behind all his brothers and sisters and Aunts and Uncles and start his own new nation apart from the rest. Only 105 after Seth left Enos left behind with his wife all the people living together under Seth’s name and started his own nation. The Seth that left the Adam’s nation is not the same Seth that had Enos. These are there generations. Try not to think of them as individuals as they are it is more than that. Your generation would start right after you have your 1st kid and as long as they continue to reproduce your name would continue…if at any point they can’t continue with children then it would stop and your name would die. I encourage you to start again and write stuff down like a chart and hopefully you will see what was shown to me.

Ken Ammi

I don’t have a problem with, “Cain, Able, and Seth are not the 1st born of an Adam” (and noted as much in my five volume book series, “Cain As Serpent Seed of Satan”) but who was, “the 1st Adam”? I ask because I’m only aware of one person (yes, an individual) named that, back then, and there’s zero indication he, “was made to…leave behind all his brothers and sisters and Aunts and Uncles” since he didn’t have any.

You’re using a very unique definition of, “generation” since I could say that my, “generation” began with the actual Biblical man Adam or that I’m of the “Baby Boomer” generation (or to whichever I may pertain).

But I lost track of what this has to do with, “Are the Nephilim created by the Seraphin angels?”

Scott French

I like where your heads at. But Seth and Cain were the 1st to leave behind everyone…not an Adam. The reason Cain’s name is not where Seth’s is in genesis 5:3 is because Cain’s father was not an Adam but instead the same serpent race we met in genesis 3:1. This is because genesis 4:1 the word conceived is the 2nd part of the definition not the 1st. As soon as you learn that these names until Abraham are more than individuals but nations of people living together then you will understand that there was more than one Adam made and for each an Eve given so when they mated there children could reproduce without mixing DNA. You will also see that there is a reason for the list of names from Cains line of descendants and that is because the last 4 were on the ark with Noah and along with 2 other nations from Seth’s, Methuselah and Lamech. So 20 people on the ark because of Genesis 6:19. This is also why there were giants afterwards because these that were on the ark were the 1st Nephilim. 1/2 human 1/2 serpents. These same serpents “cherubim” are the ones who “came down” and mated again with humans to produce more hybrid giants to try and take out mankind. This is why the flood happened.

Ken Ammi

I’m unaware that Seth left everyone behind but I know that Cain did.

Cain is in Adam’s lineage by definition due to Gen 4:1 but thereafter, and that Cain did abscond and started his own side-lineage, in manner of speaking, is why he’s not in the lineage that is meant to ultimately result in Jesus.

As for, “Cain’s father was not an Adam but instead the same serpent race” well, I just directed you to Gen 4:1 that debunks that assertion and you can’t get around that fact by appearing to whatever you mean by, “word conceived is the 2nd part of the definition not the 1st” and, again, I wrote five books debunking denials that Adam was Cains’ dad so I’m aware of the failed arguments.

As for, “than one Adam made and for each an Eve” well, that’s just made up stuff.

You claim, “20 people on the ark” but Genesis 7:7 states, “Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him went into the ark” and 1 Peter 3:20 states, “eight persons, were brought safely through water” and 2 Peter 2:5 states, “Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others.”

So, when you are very, very specifically contradicted by three texts, please, pleaser give up on your made up story.

You say, “there were giants afterwards” but “afterwards” of when?

As for, “serpents ‘cherubim’” the only correlation between Cherubim and “serpents” is that one single Cherub is symbolically referred to as “serpent” (as well as “dragon”).

Thus, there’s literally zero indication that Cherubim “‘came down’ and mated again with humans to produce more hybrid giants to try and take out mankind” rather, it was Angels.

But, if, “This is why the flood happened” very well then, at least you agree that there were no such thing as post-flood Nephilim—or, are you saying that’s why the flood happened but God failed, He missed a loophole, so the flood was much of a waste since it happened all again (with zero examples) post-flood?

Scott French

Look I’m just trying to show you what they showed me and it seems like you are listening but have your doubts and that’s good, I want to be challenged to be sure I’m correct and I enjoy the conversation …I can also say that I have never read the entire bible but once believed the same things you are repeating to me.

You still believe, like I once was thought at church, that Adam had Seth at 130 years old and that is simply not the truth. We were thought wrong so it’s harder for us to let go. I think we both agree that Cain, Able, then Seth are not the 1st 3 children born from Adam and Eve. They were reproducing and having children way before then. I was shown that in Job 1:1 where Job lived and that land was Uz. I was also told that this land could be found in genesis 10:23 and that is because it was more than just an individual person but an entire nation of people (mostly related) living together. These are there generations. There is not a single human, not even Adam that live over 930 years or even Methuselah. What genesis 5 is saying is, 130 years after the 1st Adam was made a child named Seth took a wife and started his own new nation separate from all the other people that were living together under the Adam name. Probably because of what happened with Cain and Able. The Adam’s and Eve’s…yes more than one…continued to have children until 930 years after the 1st sets of Adams and Eve’s were made. These last children did not have any offspring thus the name Adam dies. It’s also confirming the fact that we die because we ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge.

Just because Cain left the presence of God should not be a reason for a separate linage if he was born from an Adam then his name would be where Seth’s is in genesis 5:3. I must take you back to genesis 4:1 like you said but are mistaken. I can know my wife (be married) and still not be the father of a child that she has and this is what happened with Cain. The word conceived in this verse 4:1 is the 2nd part of the definition not the 1st which means it doesn’t mean to become pregnant…we already know this is how a child comes into the world. It means to form a plan in the mind. This is what the serpent race did to produce Cain. Also in 4:1 Eve says I have gotten a man from the Lord. The reason why she says this…again not because he’s the 1st child ever born but because he looks different from all the other children born before him…1/2 human 1/2 serpent…1st Nephilim. God didn’t put a mark on Cain…he was already different/marked.

There has been a lot of things in the Bible that didn’t make sense to me growing up but I just accepted what the church told me. One of those questions I had was, if Adam and Eve were the only 2 humans then there kids would have to reproduce. I have seen what happens when children or relatives mate with each other and the outcome is not good and this is fact, so what is the correct answer. You will get all kind of answers and I’m sure you have yours, kinda like we were closer to God back then so our DNA was ok to do this…just something that is not documented to fit our narrative.

The ark is another great story that I had many questions for but the answers that I got were not expected. If at any point you start to understand that these early people were nations of people living together then the more this will help you make sense of what I’m saying. You referred to genesis 7:7 as well 1st and 2nd Peter to prove your case of how many people were on the ark but will you listen to what was told to me? Genesis 6:19 says that 2 of every sort of all flesh male and female must be kept alive in the ark. I made a chart with all this new information I received and when I did it showed that not only were Noah, Shem, Han, and Japheth nations around at the time of the flood so were Lamech and Methuselah’s. And when I counted the number of children from Seth’s line and read the Bible genesis 4:19 starts to break down these last 4 nations talents and that is because these last 4 nations are around still at the time of the flood and according to genesis 6:19 had to be picked up. So let’s take a look at Peter. 3:20 is saying when the ark was being made only 8 souls were saved from the water. But we need to go back to 3:19 to find the ; witch is a continuation of the sentence. By which also Jesus went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Noah and his sons didn’t need there souls saved they were already chosen by God to continue the human race so I think there place with God was safe…it was the fallen ones that God chained up in darkness, that Jesus was able to go down and save eight souls. Just because these words are together in verse 3:20 doesn’t confirm only 8 were on the ark. 2nd Peter 2:5 says and spared not the old world, but saved Noah the 8 person. This again is not saying there were 8 people on the ark but according the the math the 8th Noah would have been the 8 male born in that nation kinda like Noah jr then Noah jr jr lol. The 8th one was the one the started the ark.

Genesis 6:4 says that there were Nephilim (Hebrew word “fallen ones” “to cause to fall”)in those days and also after. I am telling you that Cain was the 1st Nephilim . So the “angels” that you refer to are actually the same serpent race in genesis 3:1. They mated again with more women and produced an offspring that God didn’t want here because it would destroy humans. The reason there are Nephilim after the flood is because 8 people from Cains line were on the ark and continued after the flood.

sorry so long thanks for listening and God bless

Ken Ammi

Wait, when you say, “what they showed me” who are the, “they”? Also, if what, “they” showed you goes against the Bible then you need to rebuke them.

If you, “have never read the entire bible” then please listen to someone who has and has done extensive research—over two millennia worth of data—on these specific issues.

Now, since you admitted that you, “never read the entire bible”: do you know why you were taught, “Adam had Seth at 130 years old”? It’s because God’s Holy, inspired, and preserved Word states, “When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.” But, you said, “that is simply not the truth” so you’re wrong.

I’m willing to grant that, “Cain, Able, then Seth are not the 1st 3 children born from Adam and Eve” but they might have been.

As for, “Just because Cain left the presence of God should not be a reason for a separate linage if he was born from an Adam” but I already told you why that was. Biblical lineages aren’t just mathematical equations, and one of the main interests is to plot the one that led to Jesus.

You can conceptually argue, “I can know my wife (be married) and still not be the father of a child that she has” but you then just invent, “this is what happened with Cain” without any indication of even a need to invent something like that.

So, you’re arguing that what Gen 4:1 is telling us is that after Adam already knew Eve, he knew Eve so that’s incoherent since, again, he already knew her.

As for, “serpent race did to produce Cain” that is such a tragically incoherent assertion that it has been historically virtually unknown and, again, I wrote five entire books debunking that fantasy.

As for, “Eve says I have gotten a man from the Lord” yes, I am aware of that particular rendering but it matters not since my wife, whom I impregnated, could say the very same thing in terms of the blessing that it was or that it was with the help of, etc. But the Lord in context is God and not the non-lord serpent.

Also, there’s literally zero indication of an, “1/2 human 1/2 serpent” since serpent is just an a.k.a. for Satan and can’t be the “1st Nephilim” since Nephilim weren’t, “1/2 human 1/2 serpent” but were 1/2 human 1/2 Angel.

You also said, “God didn’t put a mark on Cain” but God’s Holy, inspired, preserved Word notes, “the Lord put a mark on Cain” so you’re wrong.

I can see why, “There has been a lot of things in the Bible that didn’t make sense to me growing up” since you, “never read the entire bible” and are teaching people on the WORLD WIDE web that it doesn’t say things that it does say: do you realize how accountable you are for that, for potentially teaching people all over the planet your falsehoods? Please repent.

Indeed, “if Adam and Eve were the only 2 humans then there kids would have to reproduce” but you are ignoring God’s word and are being illogical and ill-bio-logical when you say, “I have seen what happens when children or relatives mate with each other and the outcome is not good.” Friend, that it MILLENNIA after the creation, that is MILLENNIA after genetic mutations have accumulated and accumulated and accumulated to the point that it’s a problem: and God commanded against it so that it would not become a problem. God created “good” and “very good” genetics and entropized over time. It’s anachronistic to take what’s said about the original creation and shortly thereafter and apply it to MILLENNIA later.

So, it’s not just, “we were closer to God back then so our DNA was ok to do this…just something that is not documented to fit our narrative” since it is documented when, guess what, you read the whole Bible and apply what it tells us—and what we have learned about genetic entropy.

You said, “Genesis 6:19 says that 2 of every sort of all flesh male and female” but it’s not that simple since Gen 7 adds specificity, “Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds…Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, two and two, male and female…” So your chart and counting are wrong.

Indeed, “Noah and his sons” and their wives, “didn’t need there souls saved” which his why Jesus, “preached unto the spirits in prison.” So there were 8 in the ark as I noted via two texts.

It’s also incoherent that, “‘angels’ that you refer to are actually the same serpent race” since there’s literally nothing serpentine about Angels and, again, the serpent was symbolic of the Cherub, Satan.

You demand, “there are Nephilim after the flood” but there’s no such thing.

So, whoever, “they” are who show you such things are wrong.

Shalom!

Scott French

Ok so you are under some misinformation and part might be my fault. You think that this information that I came up with is my own or reading someone else’s information lol. You also think just because I haven’t sat down and read the whole Bible front to back that I don’t know any of it, and even bigger lol. I have listened to what people have said about the Bible at 1st Baptist church in Roanoke, VA till about 16–17 when I left my home state. I listened and believed everything that was thought to me but must admit in the back of my empty mind I had questions that didn’t add up but would only discuss with my mother who has read the whole Bible front to back as to not offend any of my teachers.

A bit about me…I accepted Jesus as my savior and keep that promise still today. As for my empty mind, I am apart of a small percentage of people that do not have any audio or video in my mind at all…zero. It’s called aphantasia. I found out myself when I was in my 30’s helping my kid with spelling and was shocked to find out that y’all had this ability to not only see things in your minds eye but hear conversations in your head🤯. Also I’ve discovered that its level of activity is different with each person a little. Mine doesn’t work at all and I might even have a reason for that. I have only escaped death 4 times in my life. The 1st is when me and my brother were about 8 and 9 years old and played with football I went to get and he though a rock and hit me in the back of the head and busted open. I still blame him for this lack of memory I have lol. The 2nd time I was drinking to much with friends and hit a pole going up a mountain rd, after the hit I was going down the mountain but hit a tree the size of my fist right in the middle and kept me there. 3rd was at gun point trying to help people rebuild after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Kid put a gun to my head and asked for the keys to my truck. Told him they were in it and he left. Last one almost got me, being a electrician by trade I was helping out another contractor when I didn’t check a locked breaker 277 volts. As I grabbed the wire it grabbed me back pulling my feet off the scissor lift. Gravity saved me that day, my weight was enough only 175 to pull against the current that had a hold of me. I remember being in the darkness again and just said let go, let go, please let go and it did.

Now that I am 45 a couple years back my wife who is not a believer at all had a lot of death around her and a long with her friends didn’t know why all this stuff was happening. I just wanted to write a book much like yourself and one that in my mind if I did a good enough job could get published but mainly for my friends and family to read. It was going to be the truth on why we were here and what are purpose is. Of course with my religious background I was going to use the Bible as reference. As I started writing everything was going ok until something happened. I voice came into my head and it wasn’t mine saying the truth I’m looking for is already been written and I have a copy. Clearly this caught my way off guard but it continued. It made me go back to the Bible and showed me things that I would never have dreamed about because ohh yeah I don’t dream ether. This would occur not only when I was writing my book but every day it could conversate with me. Telling me truth in all cases about anything. I believe this to be from the holy spirt and not demonic because of the last thing that was communicated to me and that was to quite smoking for 100 days and read the whole Bible…both I have failed to do. I am aware that what I am saying is blasphemy but I cannot continue to hid the truth. But am aware that I’m not trying to rewrite the Bible it was told to me it works and leads to salvation and that is the only thing that matters. But the truth is there and that is what they showed me and I’m just trying to pass on what the truth is. Somehow I’m am going about it the wrong way but don’t know the correct way to get this new truth out. I don’t want you to think I’m a crazy person that loves Satan or anything like that just want people to see the truth

Ken Ammi

Please stop wasting time with filler-arguments. You appealed to a mysterious they, “what they showed me,” etc. and please don’t play mind reader about, “You also think just because I haven’t sat down and read the whole Bible front to back that I don’t know any of it” since that’s ridiculous.

You don’t seem interested in discussing the issues anymore so I will just say that the, “voice” mislead you since I’ve been able to show your many misunderstandings of what’s actually in the Bible. So, rebuke that voice and repent.

Scott French

The holy spirt showed me this and I will not rebuke any of it because it is the word of God. I know a lot about the Bible but do I know everything that was written…no haven’t read the whole thing yet. I will discuss any issue with you and as for the Nephilim I have already told you they are the fallen ones that were created with the serpent race mating with women again just like with Cain.

Ken Ammi

I’ve had many experiences like this with people who teach false thins—and you’re doing it on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you.

You assert, I request backing for your assertions, I show you how you’re mistaken, you realize you’ve no backing for your assertions and can’t refute the corrections, so you pull the gnostic card about how you had secret, special, private revelation directly from the Holy Spirt.

In fact, I have encountered this SO MUCH that one of my five volume book series, “Cain As Serpent Seed of Satan” is subtitled, “Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. V: Considering Mysticism and Occultism: from Jewish to Gnostic” since SO many people are like you.

Well, it wasn’t the Holy Spirit, it was another spirit, it was a spirit you need to rebuke.

Yes, you, “told” about, “the fallen ones that were created with the serpent race mating with women again just like with Cain” but that’s 100% unbiblical.

Scott French

You can write as many books as you want but you are in error not me. I will continue to show the truth however I choose. It’s ok to be wrong as long as it lead to your salvation that is the only thing. God bless

Ken Ammi

But friend, I would not have posted a comment in the first place if you were showing the truth. You could lean the Biblical view on such issues but you’re holding to man-made traditions instead and refuse correction even whilst ignoring points and questions that are inconvenient to your man-made traditions.

Please reconsider.

Shalom!

Scott French

But I am showing you biblical truth you just don’t want to hear about it because you are holding on to man-made beliefs. I will ignore no points or questions you have but you must 1st state one.

Ken Ammi

The test is simple: you’ve been shown to be forced to manipulate texts in order to push your views.

Scott French

What test are you talking about…Not my views but Gods. Now you never did answer my previous question…when you read the Bible is your conclusion that Jesus Christ is the son of God?

Ken Ammi

But that’s not the case since the test is simple: you’ve been shown to be forced to manipulate texts in order to push your views.

Yes, of course He’s the Son of God.

Scott French

Still not sure what test your talking about but be safe and God bless

Ken Ammi

The test as to who’s correct: me or you.

Shalom.

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 question Does atheism justify committing sins because no one will hold you accountable? was posted to the Quora site and resulted in the following discussion when Robert Jordinelli (bio, “I have been studying Atheism for nearly 5 years now) replied

Sin is a man made concept. Sins are offensive to God. God is also a man made concept. Atheists don’t believe in God nor Sin. So you’re way off base

I, Ken Ammi, replied

But friend, you merely listed some merely jumped to merely asserted positive affirmations based on mere hidden assumptions.

Robert Jordinelli

Please restate what you’re trying to convey.

Ken Ammi

This is just an assertion: “Sin is a man made concept.”

This is just an assertion: “God is also a man made concept.”

Robert Jordinelli

You know what’s a [****]ing assertion? God exists. So show evidence for this character, and stop trying to find fault with my answer.

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

Let’s review:

I noted, “you merely listed some merely jumped to merely asserted positive affirmations based on mere hidden assumptions.”

You requested a restatement so I systematically elucidated how that was the case.

You conveniently decided to ignore those demonstrated facts and typed out filth and once again began with a merely jumped to mere assertion based on hidden assumptions.

So, the very first step in systematic critical thinking, before eventually getting to, “show evidence,” is for you to justify demanding evidence, on your worldview.

Robert Jordinelli

I am deleting your nonsensical argument. You make no sense. Write your own [****]ING answer

I don’t give a [****] about manners.

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

Friend, I’ve had discussions with literally thousands of Atheists and you’re a cookie-cutter example: you assert, you’re asked for backing, you realize that you’re literally incapable, you before childishly vile, and you run away—oh, and rely on censorship.

Well, I actually kept a Word doc of our entire discussion so I’m going to post it on my website and—yet another—example of an Atheist who asserted, was asked for backing, realized that you’re literally incapable, before childishly vile, and ran away—oh, and relied on censorship.

Now, I urge you to ponder why it is that you’ve been talked into believing that you’re in a special class of accidentally existing ape who is more evolved than the rest, you have been enlightened to the one real truth about reality but you’re literally incapable for taking step one, the very first one, of systematic critical thinking.

A best practice would be to give up that obviously collapsed failure of a worldview.

Shalom!

Robert Jordinelli

GTFO out of my face. I don’t give shit about how many Atheists you debated. I don’t care about manners when some smug,arrogant Ahole tries to put me down. I don’t take seriously anyone who believes in TALKING ANIMALS. sorry. Not interested in your Rhetoric.

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

Wow, you appear to be experiencing some psycho-emotional problems. Maybe stay offline for a while, get some fresh air, spend time with friends and family in person, etc.

Since your worldview is a collapsed failure you may have noticed that it only ever leaves you able to become manically emotional and hateful.

I’ve no idea to what you’re referring by, “tries to put me down” since I never tried any such thing. But then again, that’s just you emoting.

As for, “I don’t take seriously anyone who believes in TALKING ANIMALS” then you don’t take yourself seriously, right? I mean, you do believe that humans are animals, right?

And yet, this is all just more proof that you’re literally incapable of taking one step, the very first one, #1. And you’re supposed to be a more evolved animal who has been enlightened to the only real truth about reality so I’m unsure why it’s literally impossible for you. But then again, I’m sure you’re talking yourself in to believing that being a jerk and playing avoidance games means that you win and can pound your apish chest in victory, is that the case?

Robert Jordinelli

What does it matter? They’re all FICTIONAL. If you believe in any of them, you’re illogical and irrational and delusional.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re very, very clearly unfamiliar with systematic critical thinking so I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the “how to” about it—and I already gave you a huge tip: just take the very first step rather than beginning with a merely asserted conclusion.

I will await some more.

Robert Jordinelli

Your question is “ wrong “. and you don’t want to make it right. ALL SUPERNATURAL CHARACTERS ARE MYTHICAL. THEY ARE NOT REAL. Now [****] off.

That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming. And, in typical Quora Atheist manner, it seems that Robert hid his tracks by relying on censorship by deleting all but one comment.

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 Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast posted the questions along with an accompanying vid: How did the Nephilim come back? What do you think?
Andrea Jeanette Napiwocki replied
So how did they? Or did they? Hmm?

The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast
I think they went subterranean. Others think there were other incursions.

True Freethinker
Both are late-comer un-biblical views that imply that God failed. Also, as for “went subterranean” Gen 6:17 notes, “everything that is in the earth shall die.”

Erik Fisher
then how did David fight goliath and a town full of giants later on in Samuel?

True Freethinker
Recall that the vid is about “Nephilim” but you moved the goalpost to “giants” so we can deal with your questions by first tackling these The key questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?

The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast
it’s not a surprise that most people think giant when hearing nephilim, since Genesis 6 equates the former with the latter. Your diatribe looks like a stall tactic. The Bible says, Genesis 6:4 ESV
[4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, WHEN THE SONS OF GOD CAME INTO THE DAUGHTERS OF MAN AND THEY BORE CHILDREN TO THEM. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
So it seems we have our answer. More angels fell in love (or whatever) with women and made nephilim babies.

True Freethinker
Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens and dozens upon dozens of people who go on and on and on and on about “giants” and literally zero have replied.
So, when you say, “it’s not a surprise that most people think giant when hearing nephilim, since Genesis 6 equates the former with the latter” how could I possibly know to what you’re referring since I already asked to what you’re referring but you didn’t reply?
You wrote “More angels fell in love (or whatever) with women and made nephilim babies” but “More” when?

True Freethinker replying to Erik Fisher
Please mind your manners. Wow, you seem to be experiencing some psycho-emotional problems.

The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast
I often wonder if you’re more interested in truth than arguing. ~ Ricky

The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast
when? Any time between after the flood and today.

Erik Fisher
says the dude coming back to an argument a week later because he has nothing better to do. Okay. Touch grass.

True Freethinker
But what makes you assert, “Any time between after the flood and today” when the text in question doesn’t even hint any such thing?

True Freethinker to Erik Fisher
Please don’t interrupt the discussion. You’re acting just like online Atheists who have nothing to say but still want to say something, so you’re projecting. And you also committed an argumentum ad chronologicum.

The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast
You’ve wasted a lot of people’s time asking really repetitive questions, to which we’ve given you responses.
I commented that you just like to hear yourself speak instead of trying to understand or come to any kind of consensus on ideas or topics.
You can keep arguing all day, if you want. But, ya know what, unless you present an argument in good faith, you’re just wasting my time.
Also, Shelley and I have a podcast where we discuss these details at length. If you’re actually interested in these topics and what we think of them, you can always go and watch the podcast yourself: Solo.to/thectdw ~ Ricky
The Christian Theological Dark Web (The CTDW) (/thectdw) ·
The Christian Theological Dark Web (The CTDW) (/thectdw) ·
The Christian Theological Dark Web (The CTDW) (/thectdw) ·

True Freethinker
I’ve been given vaguely generic and erroneous responses. The repetition is due to that the failures are at the same data points. I’ve been presenting arguments in good faith all along: it’s just that they expose the man-made traditions so people don’t like them—the un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi modern Nephilology is just too juicy.
Appreciate the link to the podcast but I’ve familiarized myself with over two decades of relevant data with which I wrote my dozen, or so, Nephology books but inevitably, when people find they’re incapable of replying cogently, they think that I must have missed a podcast or an article so the question is: just what am I missing?
Let’s cut to the chase: have me on the podcast and we can exchange ideas.

The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast
wow, interesting commercial you’ve been making there. Why in tarnation would you want to be on a podcast you won’t listen to and talk with people you feel are inadequate? Your opinion of us must be extremely low if you believe we would let you use us to foist your agenda or hawk your books (of which there are apparently dozens) .
It is with much regert that we must firmly nope your proposal. Thanks so much for playing. Your prize is in the mail.

True Freethinker
Please don’t play mind reader since you’re not good at it and it’s unbecoming since only God can discern our secret thoughts and motivations.
But I understand why you don’t want to have a discussion since hiding away in echo chamber safe spaces is the only way that un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales Nephilology thrives.

The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast
who’s playing mind reader now? Hahaha. You should go bother someone else. You’re tiresome. Bet you get blocked a lot.

The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast
Now the echo-chamber comment is rich We regularly challenge our own paradigm.
Furthermore, we’ve also learned which comments/commenters are even worth our time because many times we’ve had these convos.
We’re on here because we use our podcast as a ministry. Not so we can argue the absolute minutia with the likes of people that only want to mince words all day and feign over their “true version” of God’s Word. ~ Ricky

True Freethinker
Yes, people who merely assert but can’t back their views tend to rely on censorship so they can hide away in the safe spaces. I’m unsure that I would call teaching people to worship a false god who failed, couldn’t get the job done, missed loopholes, flooded the Earth as much of a waste, etc. to be “absolute minutia.”

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.

Can Angels Have Sex? – With Timothy Alberino | Tough Clips is the title of a video on the Angelegend YouTube channel which is Rob Rolson’s. I included a discussion with Rob in my book The Great Nephilim Debates: Featuring Gary Wayne, T.J. Steadman, Rob Rowe, and Eric Rolson. As for Timothy Alberino: his un-biblical Nephilology contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) by asserting a survival of Nephilim past the flood, past God, so that God failed, couldn’t get the job done, must have missed the loophole that Tim managed to figure out, and the flood was much of a waste.

Yet, this post is about a discussion that ensued when a certain @markd3250 commented as follows to that vid

There’s a difference between spirit and spiritual.  Spirit is pure energy.  God is spirit.  The Father is absolute, perfect pure energy.  Energy is a substance and can take form, and God can shape energy into whatever form he wants.  He created all the angels directly himself.  There are no female angels.  All the angels are male, and they are the sons of God referred to in the Bible.  They do not reproduce.  When God created Adam, this caused a stir among the angels, because although similar to them in form, he was different in that he had a mechanical outer body that he lived in, while the angels are pure spirit.  This began the questioning by the first created son, Morning Star (now known as satan or lucifer) of what their father was doing and why.  However it was when God created Eve, that things changed drastically.  It angered Morning Star so much, he was able to convince a third of his brothers to join him in a very vocal protest to this.  Not only was Eve quite beautiful, but God had given her the ability to reproduce their own kind, which was something he had not given the angels. 

The point of contention was a VERY vocal and intense “why!?” What was the purpose of this?  And why was God elevating these new creatures to the same level of family as they were?  They were clearly nowhere near as powerful or impressive as they were.  In other words, they were simply not worthy of what God had given them.  Their view was God had, and was, making a mistake.  This was the foundational basis of their grievance, and it rapidly became an obsession; focusing especially on Eve.  This is why Morning Star used the serpent to tempt Eve to disobey God, because if she did, that would prove his contention that these creatures were not only not worthy to be at the same level as they were, but creating Eve and giving her the ability to reproduce their own kind was a huge mistake.  If he could get her to kill herself, that would prove his point beyond question, and at the same time eliminate her as well.  The serpent knew full well that God doesn’t lie, and if Eve ate or even touched the fruit she would die as God said, and that’s what he wanted.  It was an attempt to murder her by suicide, a hideously wicked and evil thing to do.  However the angels that were protesting and rebelling forgot one very important thing; God is God.  He can make whatever he wants to make, and call it whatever he wants to call it.  Their rebellion showed they didn’t really care about their Father at all; they only cared about themselves.  Despite their anger and the intensity of it, they weren’t allowed to openly destroy Adam and Eve, they could only tempt, because Adam and Eve both had free will and the angels are not allowed to violate that.  The fact that God could establish and enforce that requirement should have given them a clue, but they chose to rebel anyways.

Since angels are beings of pure energy, they can manipulate energy as God does, but only to a point.  They are not as powerful as their Father God, which is something they would have done well to remember, because now they’ve given up all that they had, and instead their inheritance will be given to those humans that Jesus has redeemed; the very creatures they so despise and claimed weren’t worthy to receive any of their inheritance.

Angels don’t have sex as flesh and blood men do, but they can replicate the energy that sex is a mechanical approximation of.  All our physical actions generate energy signals that are a shadow of the full power versions in the spiritual realm.  The seed of a human man is an energy form with very specific instructions embedded in it.  The egg of a human female is also an energy form with a corresponding set of instructions embedded in it.  When those two instruction sets combine, that initiates the construction process to create a human being.  Just as the Spirit of God instilled the male instruction code set from God the Father into a seed of Mary, who gave birth to the human form we know as Jesus, so the angels can do somewhat the same thing.  However the rebellious ones are limited in their knowledge of the instruction set, so while they could cause the birth of Nephilim (who were born through women of Cain’s line), they were only physically powerful, not spiritually powerful the way Jesus was.

We have literally been in the middle of a war between rebellious, disobedient angels and God, almost since the beginning when Adam was created.  Their focus has been mainly on human females, and their ability to reproduce, including their babies.  They do everything they’re allowed to, to defile, disrupt, degrade and interfere with it as much as possible, including the defilement and perversion of the relationships females have with males.

All of this is a diversion really, to take our attention away from God and onto ourselves, the exact same playbook that was used on Adam and Eve. Take note how that turned out for them.  Turn away from it, and turn your eyes and heart to Jesus, the only begotten son of God.  He was telling us the absolute truth when he said he was the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except by and through him.  He gave us one new command “A new command I give you.  As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”  We need to study that, use the Bible to study him, and look carefully at the description of that love Paul wrote for us in 1st Corinthians chapter 13.  It begins with “Love is patient, love is kind….”  It’s not about sex or any outward thing really; it’s all inward, and as Jesus said, the things he teaches are “Spirit and they are life; the flesh counts for NOTHING.”  The wise will believe him, believe IN him, and follow him, but it’s our choice to do so, or not.  Choose wisely.

I, @user-oq9hn7qk4j, replied

I often have to tell people who teach un-biblical Angelology “There’s a difference between spirit and spiritual” to kudos!

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. Thus, statements such as, “Angels don’t have sex” are mere assertions.

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.”

Your “When God created Adam…” story is just that: a mere story.

It’s not “Morning Star used the serpent” but that Morning Star (actually, son of the dawn) and serpent are a.k.a.s for Satan/Devil.

As for, “angels are beings of pure energy” well, it can be argued that we humans are as well on the view that matter is compressed energy. Yet, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.”

How can you be as specific as to assert, “Nephilim…were born through women of Cain’s line”?

Friend, 98% of what you said is just made up stuff, 1% is accurate, and 1% is mistaken and merely asserted.

@markd3250

Angels don’t have sex because that function is purely a mechanical construct of flesh and blood, and angels are spirit; they are not flesh and blood. 

The serpent in the garden was a flesh and blood creature; it was not Morning Star who was an angel.  The serpent’s physical form was changed in an instant when God cursed it, but Morning Star was not changed like that.  The serpent was his favorite creature however, and it enraged him when God changed it.  This is the reason why Morning Star made it his mission to use it as his symbol/identity to continue influencing humans.  It’s an act of defiance against God for what was done to the serpent.  If you’ve studied human history, you’ll note how prevalent the serpent is in so many cultures and still is even today.  Dragons are merely amplified serpents; amplified to be greater than any animal God made.  There’s a tremendous amount of ego and defiance involved in all of this.

Satan simply means ‘accuser’, because that’s what Morning Star began to do incessantly in his grievance against us and for God making us.  It’s literally a nickname, though he has been known by many names throughout human history.

The moment you tried to squirm away from the difference between angels and us, you compromised yourself and your “assertions”.  Angels are not flesh and blood, period.  They are spirit beings and that’s clearly stated in the Bible.  We also are spirit beings, but we live in flesh and blood machines, which is different than the angels.  They can appear as one of us, but they also can appear as many things, even a being of light.  They can appear as fire, smoke, even just a hand in the air writing on a wall.  They can also physically interact with us yet be completely invisible while doing it.  The angels have been involved with us and in our affairs right from the beginning, and still very much are.

Nephilim were born through the women of Cain’s line because of who he was.  Just like the serpent’s physical form being changed, so was Cain’s physical form changed.  Both were changed because of the severity of what they had done.  He and his line were the perfect vessels for influence by the rebellious angels.  Serpent worship, satan worship, demon worship, etc. with all of it’s violence, blood and death have come down through Cain’s descendant line; even infecting and contaminating the other descendant blood lines.  It’s still with us today.

I haven’t published it, but I have spent many years researching all of this and much more, including over half a century of personal experience with God and things spiritual.  Not that that’s an authority necessarily, but I’m not simply making “mere assertions”. 

Be careful whom you involve yourself with.  Angels are terribly powerful, and the disobedient ones have become criminally insane.  They are dangerous beyond description.  Don’t get sidetracked in all of this; focus on Jesus and do what he commanded “As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”  Follow and obey Jesus; he will lead you up the straight and narrow path, for that is the only way to the Father.

@user-oq9hn7qk4j

But friend, “Angels don’t have sex because…angels are spirit; they are not flesh and blood” is a mere assertion and I already noted, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology” so I’m unsure why you merely ignored that demonstrable fact.

If you want to counter biblical Angelology with man-made tradition then guess with which I will side.

You merely asserted, “Angels are not flesh and blood, period” but why should I accept that bible contradicting statement just because you say so?

You then assert, “They are spirit beings and that’s clearly stated in the Bible” with zero quotations or citations. So, when, where, and how is it, “stated in the Bible”? When it refers to “ruach,” “pneuma,” or what you’re reading in your modern English Bible as “spirits”?

Indeed, “The serpent in the garden was a flesh and blood creature” and was the, “Morning Star” (which, again, you’re really misstating) “who was” not, “an angel” but was a Cherub: and you can read a physical description of Cherubim in Ezek chaps 1 and 10. Again, “It’s not Morning Star used the serpent’ but that Morning Star (actually, son of the dawn) and serpent are a.k.a.s for Satan/Devil.”

You assert, “The serpent’s physical form was changed” but there’s no indication of that.

I’m unsure what you mean by “squirm away from the difference between angels and us”: just because there are differences doesn’t mean that there aren’t similarities and, in fact, we were created “a little lower” than them.

Yes, “We also are spirit beings” but not spirits proper since “we live in flesh and blood machines” just like Angels.

You merely assert, “They can appear as one of us, but they also can appear as many things, even a being of light. They can appear as fire, smoke, even just a hand in the air writing on a wall” but that’s just a list of mere assertions.

I’m unsure why you merely (re)assert, “Nephilim were born through the women of Cain’s” AFTER I asked, “How can you be as specific as to assert, ‘Nephilim…were born through women of Cain’s line’?” as merely doubling down and just noting, “because of who he was” is a non-statement.

There’s zero indication “the serpent’s physical form being changed” there’s likewise zero indication “so was Cain’s physical form changed”: are you merely asserting without quotations nor citations because you really know that you’re just making up stuff or are parroting things you heard but realize you can’t support those stories?

It’s a mere prejudice myth to merely assert, “He and his line were the perfect vessels for influence by the rebellious angels. Serpent worship, satan worship, demon worship, etc. with all of it’s violence, blood and death have come down through Cain’s descendant line; even infecting and contaminating the other descendant blood lines,” etc., etc., etc.

It’s actually very, very simple: just quote and cite God’s Word based on, “many years researching…over half a century of personal experience” and I will accept that I’m in error.

Now, here are other points you merely ignored:

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. Thus, statements such as, “Angels don’t have sex” are mere assertions.

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.”

Your “When God created Adam…” story is just that: a mere story.

@markd3250

I’m not going to go into exhaustive detail on all of this because I don’t see the value.  You have some very strange ideas, you who like to accuse and call things “assertions”.  (By the way, you do know that the word “satan” means accuser don’t you? And the accuser is an angel?)  Do you know whom your influences are?

I’m not really concerned with whether or not you’re “in error” because the subject and topic isn’t one that’s fruitful to pursue.

However, here’s a few for you though:

            Matthew 28:2-4 “There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.  His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow.  The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.” (flesh and blood doesn’t appear as lightning)

            Hebrews 1:7 “In speaking of the angels he says, “He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.”

            Hebrews 1:14 “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?”  (While they CAN appear as men, that’s just an appearance.  They are spirit and have incredibly more power than we who actually are flesh and blood.)

            Isaiah 14:12 “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!  You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” (He’s not talking about a flesh and blood being.)

            John 6:63 (Jesus speaking) “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.  The words I have spoken to you — they are spirit and life.”

            Revelation 22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches.  I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”  (Jesus who is the only begotten son, has now taken the position that the first created son held, and now Jesus is the Morning Star)

            Genesis 3:14 “So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals.  You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.”  (The serpent was NOT Morning Star or an angel.  The serpent was an animal; a flesh and blood animal who, after the curse had to crawl on its belly as a form of movement.  That indicates something it did not have to do before it was cursed.  Sounds like a change of appearance and form to me.)

And a last quote as a caution:

Colossians 2:18 “Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you.  Such a person goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.”

Turn your focus to Jesus and follow him, rather than putting so much time into angels.  The obedient ones would be the first to tell you this.  It doesn’t matter that you wrote a book or think you have it figured out.  That’s not going to save you or impress God.  The LAST thing you want to hear is for Jesus to say “I never knew you” even after you boasted about writing a book about angels.  They’re not going to lead you into having a spiritual mind; only the Holy Spirit of God can do that, and he isn’t going to lead you into focusing on angels.

Turn to the Lord, and maybe work on writing a book about walking the straight and narrow path with Jesus instead.  I’ll let you have the last word here because I know you’re simply going to have to.  Be careful though; what you think you know and what you’re saying is not the straight and narrow path, and if you’re not on that path, all other ways lead to destruction.

@user-oq9hn7qk4j

It’s fascinating that you accused me of accusing you and then turned the scare tactic up a notch by pointing out that “the word ‘satan’ means accuser” as if that means anything: Jesus accused people of things all the time, there’s literally nothing wrong with that when it’s done viably. I pointed out that you asserted when you asserted so a best practice would be for you to look at those instances and fill them in with data. But since you accused then who are your influences? Since Jesus accused who were His?

As for, “satan…the accuser is an angel?” no, he’s a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14)

You noted, “flesh and blood doesn’t appear as lightning” only after taking a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext since you appear to think that a lightning bolt wearing clothes moved the stone but since, “appearance was like lightning” is followed directly by, “his clothes were white as snow” that informs you that he and his clothes were stunning shockingly brightly white.

As for, Hebrews 1, you noted, “they CAN appear as men, that’s just an appearance” even though there’s no indication of that in the entire Bible. But the problem is that you’re only reading one single version, one single English version, and are basing your Angelology on one single word—and a poorly translated one. If you check more than one version, you’ll see that many rightly translate as “winds” rather than “spirits”: and they don’t do that by flipping a coin. You don’t seem to be aware that Heb 1 was quoting and commenting on Psalm 104:4 and you can tell by the whole context of the whole Psalm that since it’s constantly referring to natural phenomena then that informs us to translate as “winds.”

You say, “not talking about a flesh and blood being” based on “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!  You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” but that’s a non sequitur since there’s nothing about falling from heaven, possessing titles such as morning start and son of the dawn, being case down to earth, and laying low the nations that results in “not talking about a flesh and blood being.”

John 6:63, Revelation 22:16 obviously have nothing to do with this.

If you actually read every instance of the usage of “morning star” or “star of the morning,” etc., in the Bible you’ll see that it’s always used as a term denoting authority. “The serpent was NOT…an angel” correct since, again, he’s a Cherub in that context. As for, “The serpent was an animal” well, Rev chaps 12 and 20 note, “the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan.” As for, “a flesh and blood animal who, after the curse had to crawl on its belly as a form of movement” it’s not a case of that it, “Sounds like a change of appearance and form” to you but if you actually look up every time that terms such as eating dust appear in the Bible you’ll see that it’s always used as a term denoting being humbled such as due to a fall, etc.

You then tell me what I’m allowed and not allowed to study in God’s Word but no thanks: I will study everything God told us, not only what you think I should. And that you think that I’m lost because I study God’s Word about an issue about which you don’t care what God said (even though you accuse and argue about it) is shockingly ungraceful: please repent.

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.

In his Annotated Bible, Finis Jennings Dake noted the following regarding sons of God and giants. “The Dake Bible was first published in 1961 and is the result of the work of a man named Finnis Jennings Dake (1902-1987), a Pentecostal minister. As a result of a criminal conviction, his ordination as a pastor with the Assemblies of God was revoked. The charges were eventually dismissed. He later joined the Church of God but in later years became independent of any denomination” (source).

He quotes the KJV which has the Gen 6 affair, as I term it, 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, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

At, “giants” Dake noted, “Heb. nephilim, pl. of nephil, bully, tyrant, giant. Only here and in Num. 13:33; but other words are trans. giant or giants 10 other times in Scripture.”

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

Do those two usages agree?

At, “also after that” he noted, “Giants after the flood…Sin of angels: giants before and after the flood (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6-7)…Also after that, after those days before the flood, i.e., after the flood, the sons of God again married the daughters of men and produced a second race of giants in the earth who occupied the land of Canaan in advance of Abraham. The purpose here was the same as before the flood – to corrupt the race and thereby make it impossible of the pure seed of the woman to come as predicted.”

Note that, as quoted, Gen 6 states, “giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them” so it does not refer to the flood. In fact, the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later—so, it’s cheating to read ahead and then loop back to insert the flood into a verse that does not reference it.

Yet, Dake told us, “after the flood (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6-7)” yet, those texts read, “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” and, “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. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Now, did you read anything about, “after the flood” which is what Dake was supposed to be evidencing? No. Nor will you anywhere since there is no such biblical concept: there is only a one-time sin/fall of Angels in the Bible.

Thus, there is no indication of, “after the flood” nor of, “the sons of God again married” nor, “a second race of giants” referring to Nephilim 2.0, nor that those, “occupied the land of Canaan” ever. Yet, Dake goes on to assert post-flood Nephilim so his theology, or Nephilology, is that God sent the flood which got rid of them so as to prevent, “to corrupt the race and thereby make it impossible of the pure seed of the woman to come” but God must have missed a loophole (the, “sons of God again married” loophole that God was not smart enough to catch but that Dake was clever enough to figure out: and note that post-flood Nephilologists are forced to invent whatever un-biblical tall-tale they prefer since, of course, there is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim in the Bible—stand by), the flood was much of a waste, it all happened again, God had to have mere humans do the job He could not get done.

Dake wrote:

The term mighty hunter in Heb. could refer to a hunter of animals or of men to enslave them. Nimrod was a hunter of both men and animals. The Heb. gibbor, trans. mighty here means a powerful warrior, tyrant, champion, giant, or strong one.

It is used of giants who were renown for wickedness (6:4) and of other wicked men…so could logically refer to Nimrod as a tyrant and despot oppressing others in the earth…God, when He came down to see Babel, took action to counteract the rebellion of Nimrod (11; 1-9)…

Nimrod himself is called “a mighty one” and the giants in Gen. 6:4 are called “mighty men.” These came from the fallen angels and daughters of men after the flood (Gen. 6:4…)

Interestingly, he told us, “gibbor…means…giant” and previously, he told us, “nephilim…giant”: when you read enough un-biblical Nephilology, you learn that there were many Hebrew words that mean whatever giants means—I am being sarcastic but it is true that such is what they assert.

It is noteworthy that he was incapable of quoting or citing anything to support the assertion of, “hunter of…men to enslave them. Nimrod was a hunter of…men.”

It is also debilitatingly myopic to assert that gibbor/im, “is used of…renown for wickedness…wicked men” since loyal Angels are referred to as such as are loyal humans such as Gideon (Judg 6) and Boaz (Ruth 2) and well, it is also used of God (Isa 9)—at least Dake went on to write, “or strong man (Job 16:14).”

Also, note that there is no, “rebellion of Nimrod” nor indication he had anything to do with the tower built in the city he founded.

There is literally zero indication that both Nephilim and Nimrod, who would then by definition have been a Nephil, “came from the fallen angels and daughters of men after the flood” and making assertions and following them by citations to texts that state no such thing only makes matters worse for Dake.

We then get the answer to key question 2 as Dake wrote, “Giants and Sons of God (6:4) Proofs Giants Were Sons of Angels” a section in which he noted, “The fact that giants, or beings of abnormal size in body.” Thus, the answer to key question 3 is, “No” since Dake’s usage of giants is something generically subjectively vague about, “abnormal size in body” (oh, so perhaps they were little people) yet, the English Bible’s usage is that it merely renders (does not 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.

Yet, Dake asserts, “giants, or beings of abnormal size in body, have lived on earth is one of the most clearly stated truths in Scripture” and his evidence is, “nephil means giant…(Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33). That they were abnormal in bodily size is clear from the fact that men of Israel were as grasshoppers in size compared to them (Num. 13:33). The Heb. gibbor is also trans, giant, meaning powerful, giant.”

Note that he made a generic reference about a very specific narrative and by doing he, he was able to merely assert, “abnormal size in body…abnormal in bodily size” even whilst peppering his assertions with (irrelevant citations). Firstly, he noted and cited, “nephil means giant…(Gen. 6:4; Num. 13:33)” and by giants he means, “abnormal size in body…abnormal in bodily size” so where in Gen 6:4 did we read anything about, “abnormal size in body…abnormal in bodily size”? Nowhere.

Secondly, he did direct us to a text that is very clearly about how, “men of Israel were as grasshoppers in size compared to them” yet, he generically referred to, “men of Israel” which is an all-encompassing term and yet, he neglected to inform his readers that the text, Num 13:33, states no such thing. He ought to have noted that he is appealing to one single sentence by ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked after the presented an, “evil report” wherein they merely asserted that they saw Nephilim and merely asserted such a size issue.

Thus, Dake was either committing a word-concept (jumping to the conclusion that Nephilim must have been, “abnormal size in body…abnormal in bodily size” based on his imagination about what one modern English word must mean) or by cheating again by reading all the way to Num 13, misunderstanding, misreading, misinterpreting, misapplying and misrepresenting it and then looping all the way back to Gen 6.

Dake even emphasizes that, “To say that these original words refer to degree of wickedness instead of size in body, is a mistake” because, “The Anakims were a people great and tall in body (Dt. 1:28; 2: i 0-11,21; 9:2; Josh. 11:21 -22; 14:12-14).” Well, tall is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants. In this case, it merely means taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.

Such are the problems with using uselessly vaguely subjectively generic terms such as, “abnormal…and tall.”

Yet, Dake assures us, “Anak himself was of the giants; and if he and all Anakims were so big, we can be assured the other giants were also (Num. 13:22, 33).”

See how that works—or rather, does not work? Biblically contextually, that, “Anak himself was of the giants” means, “Anak himself was of the” Rephaim. And note the reference to, “so big” after merely being told that they were generally tall which begs the question of how big that was—and, of course, big is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as tall and giants.

He tops that off by directing us to a text which generally refers to Anakim and then jumps to the evil report by ten unreliable guys whom God rebuked, “(Num. 13:22, 33).”

He wrote, “Anak and the sons of Arba of the race of giants (Josh. 14: 15; 15t 13; Num. 13:22)” but, of course, biblically contextually, that means, “Anak and the sons of Arba of the race of” Rephaim, it is also odd phraseology since Anak was a son of Arba.

Dake wrote:

The Rephaims, Zuzims, Emims, and others of [Deut 2] v. 5-7 were of the greatest giant tribes…

Amalekites of 14:7 who were of the giant races (Num. 13:29; 14:39-45) and among the [something] of the nations (Num. 24:20)…

Horites were a branch of the giants who came from the sons of God and daughters of men after the flood (14:6)…

Zamzummims were called giants…

FYI: I bracketed, “something” due to that one online version have, “from” there and another has, “flm” and neiher are coherent.

It is misleading to list, “Rephaims, Zuzims, Emims” since Zuzim (aka Zamzummim) is just a parochial aka for Rephaim and Emim (and Anakim) were subgroups of Rephaim like clans of a tribe since both of those where, “counted [as in accounted] as Rephaim” (yes, even if the KJV has, “counted as giants”) in the very text on which Dake was commenting. Thus, biblically contextually, “giant tribes” means, “Rephaim tribes.”

Now, when he comments on, “Amalekites…the giant races…Horites…the giants who came from the sons of God and daughters of men after the flood” is triply erroneous:

1) Biblically contextually reading it, there is no indication they were Rephaim.

2) In the way that Dake (mis) reads it, there is no indication that they were even just tall.

3) There is literally zero indication that any of them, “came from the sons of God and daughters of men” ever.

But that is not all since he does on to assert, “there were many nations of giants other than the Rephaims who filled the whole country trying to contest God’s claim on the promised land. They are listed as Kenites, Kenizzites , Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, Jebusites, Hivites, Anakims, Emims, Horims, Avims, Zamzummims, Caphtonms, and Nephilims (Gen. 6:4; 14:5-6; 15:19-21; Ex. 3:8, 17; 23:23; Dt. 2:10-12, 20-23; 3:11-13; 7:1; 20:17; Josh. 12:4-8; 13:3; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16).”

Fell free to read all of those cited texts: you will not find a single one that described any of those peoples as being anything more then tall and for most of them, we do not even have that much sated about them.

And to re-emphasize the modus operandi of making assertions followed by citations that are supposed to support them, this time it was, “Horites were a branch of the giants who came from the sons of God and daughters of men after the flood (14:6)” referring to Genesis but that verse reads, “And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto Elparan, which is by the wilderness” so, how does that support Dake’s assertion: it does not do so in any way, shape, or form.

Yet, he further assert that he provides, “Proofs giants were sons of angels” but since he is identifying Rephaim (Zuzim/Zamzummims, Emim, Anakim), Amalekites, and Horites as such then there is literally zero indication that any of those, “were sons of angels.”

He also wrote, “The land of Ammon was a land of giants, for giants dwelled there in old time (Dt. 2:19-20)” which, as you well know by now, biblically contextually means, “land of” Rephaim—and it is a shame that Dake was so often generic since he know how to be specific, he went on to write, “A valley of the giants…This is the valley of Rephaim” except, of course, he would think that it means a valley of the giants who were Rephaim. More to the point, he actually wrote, “The phrase remnant of the giants in Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12 should be remnant of the Rephaims”: a reader should not be made to work so hard and read so far into a text (into his notes) just to only eventually run across something that they hopefully catch and then causes them to re-understand every vague statement they read upon until that point.

He also noted, “Og, king of Bashan, is described as a giant whose iron bedstead was about 18 ½ ft. long and 8 ft. 4 in. wide…a material bed for a giant body measuring nearly 18 ft. tall (Dt. 3:11; Josh. 12:4; 13:12). Bashan is called the land of the giants (Dt. 3:13).”

Indeed, “described as a giant” is double mistaken: 1) the single modern English word giant in only some English versions is not a description (since it is not elucidated) and 2) you know it means that he was, “described” just identified, really, “as a Repha.”

We do not have a physical description of Og (well, not until utterly wild and un-biblical folklore from millennia after the Torah) and assuming that the size of his bedstead tells us anything about his personal size is actually a non-sequitur based on various assumptions—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Dake wrote, “valley of the giants…valley of Rephaim…another branch of the giant races” another in addition to no one, “Rephaims were well-known giants” and he laments, “unfortunately, instead of retaining their proper name in Scripture the translators translated it dead (Job 26:5; Ps. 88:10; Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16; Isa. 14:8; 26:19); and deceased (Isa. 26:14). The word should have been a proper name in all these places, as it is 10 times otherwise.”

That is a rather odd comment since we could say, “unfortunately, instead of retaining their proper name” Rephaim, “in Scripture the” commentor Dake relied on the KJV’s rendering as giants, “The word should have been a proper name in all these places.”

Now, instead of retaining their proper name in Scripture some renderers have it as giants. When he refers to, “translated it dead” he seems unaware that in those cases, he is actually referring to the root word rapha and not to the Rephaim people group. As you can read all about in the Rephaim chapter of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilologyor in my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s, that root ranges in meaning from healing to dead. The misconception of misreading rapha as Rephaim (again, in terms of mashing together a descriptive term with the people group) has led may pop-Nepilologists and some scholarly ones (see my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?) to mistakenly conclude that Rephaim were some sort of living dead.

Dake wrote, “The fact that the Rephaim have no resurrection (Isa. 26:14) proves the reality of giants and that they were not ordinary men…therefore, giants must be a different class from pure Adamites. Isaiah makes it clear that the dead (Heb. Rephaim) are now in hell (Isa. 14:9). Solomon confirms this in Pr. 2:18; 9:18; 21:16 where the Heb. word for dead is Rephaim.”

See, he reads the people group into the root word: even if it is written as rapahim/rephaim, merely the male plural of rapha/repha. The Isa text reads, “They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.”

As for, “are now in hell (Isa. 14:9)” well, hell is one of those English words that renders various Hebrew and Geek words—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Heaven and Hell?: A Styled Superumology and Infernology. That text reads, “Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.”

Here what the KJV has as Hell is actually sheol where all of the dead went. Also, that text is about the king of Babylon—and Satan, the spiritual power behind him—see my post The Apocalypse of the Hidden Hand: The Bible’s teaching on the spiritual sovereign behind the human sovereign.

This is also concluded by incorporating Pagan mythology into biblical theology since in the Ancient Near East, such as found in Ugaritic texts, when kings and heroes died they were initially referred to as kings and heroes yet, when they had been dead for some time, they were then referred to as the equivalent of what is transliterated as Raphaim/Rephaim: rp’um/rapi’uma—see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.

Dake then piles tall-tales upon tall-tales when he wrote that all, “giant nations came from a union of the sons of God (fallen angels) and daughters of men after the flood. Beings of great stature, some of them even had 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot and carried spears weighing from 10 to 25 lbs. (2 Sam. 21:16-22; 1 Chr. 20:4-8). Goliath whom David slew wore a coat of armor weighing 196 lbs. And was about 13 ft. tall (1 Sam. 17:4-6).”

We already know that there is zero indication of that all, “giant nations came from” the Gen 6 affair. And, of course, “great stature” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as big, tall and giants.

As for, “some of them even had” extra digits well, that is only stated about one single person (a Repha: 2 Sam 21).

As for, “Goliath…was about 13 ft. tall” well, that is not only adding a few feet to the standard calculation of 10ft but, for some odd reason, Dake did not inform his readers that he is taking up a few notches what the Masoretic text has him at and yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft so, that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

But what of, “carried spears weighing from 10 to 25 lbs…coat of armor weighing 196 lbs”? Even granting his calculations, the fact is that he had a guy assisting with the equipment.

Also, regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23).

And, you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft lifting 1,000 lbs.

Having written some dozen research-based Nephilology books, it is readily discernable to that Dake was a an early establisher of the fundamental errors which have haunted pop-Nephilology and have turned Nephilology into the un-biblical mis-info and dis-info tall-tales, many of them also being neo-theo sci-fi, which is it—see my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

In this case, he falls for the non-sequitur of that large things must have been built for and by large people and also taking away from humans things for which they ought to be credited, “It is entirely possible that the pyramids of Egypt, the giant cities of Bashan and other huge monuments of construction will remain an unsolved mystery until they are accepted as the result of the labor and skill of fallen angels”—see my video Ancient Alien Megalithic Builders vs Wally Wallington & Edward Leedskalnin.

Having only provided what reliably results in some tall people, Dake goes on to refer to all giants as, “monstrosities…monsters,” in part due to his oft repeated fallacy that all, “giants came only from a union of sons of God and daughters of men.”

He goes on to refer to, “offspring the size of Bible giants” yet, the only indication we have of such sizes are a vague statement in an evil report about Nephilim for whom we have no reliable physical description, a reference to a guy, Og, for whom we have no physical description, one plumped up assertion about Goliath and generically subjectively vague references to big, tall, and giants.

FYI: the tallest person in the Bible was an Egyptian who was 7.5ft (2 Sam 23).

Dake went on to write:

…if, as some teach, giants were born of such unions both before and after the flood, then why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today? Why did this happen in every case then and in no case today?

God’s law of reproduction from the beginning has been everything after his own kind. It was not possible then that giants could be produced by men and women of ordinary size (Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25; 8:19). It took a supernatural element, the purpose and power of Satan and his angels, to make human offspring of such extra size.

After giants came into being, they then produced others of like size instead of ordinary sized men (Num. 13:33; 2 Sam. 21:16,18,20, 22; 1 Chr. 20:4-8).

Not only is it unscriptural but unhistorical to teach that giants came from the union of ordinary men and women. The great question has been: Where did giants get their start? Gen. 6:4 makes it clear—from a union of the sons of God and daughters of men. If the sons of God were ordinary men in the same sense that the daughters of men were ordinary women, then we must conclude 4 things:

That ungodly women have the power to produce such monsters if married to godly men

That godly men have the power to produce giants when married to ungodly women

That a mixture of godliness and wickedness produces giants

That extreme wickedness on the part of either parent will produce giant offspring

The biblical answer to, “why do not such marriages produce that kind of offspring today?” is that not since pre-flood times have there been any such unions, it was never, “after the flood” and besides that it is because God did not fail, did not miss a return of fallen Angels post-flood to do it all again loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, it is because there is only a one-time sin/fall of Angels in the Bible and those Angels were incarcerated (Jude and 2 Peter 2).

Indeed, “God’s law of reproduction from the beginning has been everything after his own kind” and Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind”—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

Having told us nothing of any import about the size of giants, going on (and on) referring to things such as, “extra size” is meaningless—and, of course, “extra size” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as great stature, big, tall and giants.

And feel free to read Gen. 1:11-12, 21, 24-25; 8:19, Num. 13:33; 2 Sam. 21:16, 18, 20, 22; 1 Chr. 20:4-8 and the only relevant thing you will find is the evil report—which is actually irrelevant when it comes to the facts of the matter.

The accurate question is not, “Where did giants get their start?” but, “Where did Nephilim, who are utterly unrelated to any other so called giants, get their start?”

As much as I too argue contra the mere human view of Gen 6, such as the Sethite view (which is a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice—the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim) I would not counter-argue based on fallacies such as that such human with human mating does not, “produce such monsters” nor, “produce giants” since anyone who is actually aware of the facts will argue against that much as I have been doing all along. Yet, Dake went on to argue, “The sons of God could not have been the sons of Seth…who married the daughters of Cain and produced races of giants.”

Interestingly, Dake rhetorically asks, “are we to believe that Methuselah and his other children were the giants? Are we to believe that Noah’s 3 sons—Shem, Ham, and Japheth—were giants? If so, where is our authority for this?” well, where is our authority for a post-flood sin of Angels creating Nephilim 2.0? It is not a good idea to argue against one view based on a fallacious view of one’s own.

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.

Charles Welch and Fredk Brininger wrote of Nephilim Giants in The Berean Expositor, Vol. VIII, 1918 AD. The publication is said to be, “the organ of  NO SOCIETY,  the property of  NO SECT, the exponent of NO CREED” yet, of course, it presents teachings from a certain perspective.

They quote an odd version that has the Gen 6 affair as:

And it came to pass, when Adam began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of Adam, that they were fair: and they took them wives of all which they chose.  And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always remain in Adam (the article is not used here, even as it is omitted in the words ‘in the earth’ in verse 4) for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.”

They note, “We know that angels fell, for Jude 6 speaks of the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation…Their sin is likened to that of Sodom and Gomorrah…The time of their fall is not given in Jude, but Peter links the “angels that sinned” with the time of Noah (II Pet. ii. 4, 5).” In short, 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.

It’s also noted, “angels are always spoken of as men” since indeed, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

Focusing on Gen 6:4, they note the following—since they’re reading what’s typically translated as, “When man [or men] began to multiply” as referring to the singular hu-man Adam—“Of Adam the Lord said, ‘My spirit shall not always remain in Adam, for that he also is flesh’” and from somewhere abouts they get, “Adam differed nothing in this respect from his children, his days were numbered” from which they conclude, “and it is revealed to us that from this point ‘his days’ were to be ‘an hundred and twenty years.’”

In a manner of speaking, whether v. 1 specifically refers to the individual person Adam or to men in general, it’s still roughly the same timeframe since if it’s read as when man/men began to multiply that could be as early as when Adam and Eve’s children first began having children which was still within Adam’s lifespan, of course.

In any wase, based on the above, they continue, “‘There were giants in the earth IN THOSE DAYS’, so continues verse 4, and the only days that can be meant are those which refer to the last 120 years of Adam’s life. Not only were they in the earth then, but ‘after that’, after Adam had died, and after the flood had destroyed the giants that were in the earth during Adam’s closing years.”

It’s challenging to discern to what they’re referring by, “after the flood had destroyed the giants that were in the earth during Adam’s closing years” since, of course, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

They then get into linguistics by noting, “The word ‘giants’ comes from the Greek gigantes, which did not originally mean only greatness of size, but is derived for gegenes, ‘earth born,’” Indeed, 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.

It’s then noted, “The Hebrew word is Nephilim, or ‘the fallen ones’; these were the Gibbor, the ‘mighty’…Nimrod was ‘a mighty one in the earth’…These mighty ones are also called ‘men of renown’, or literally, ‘men of name’; this again is a prominent feature in the rebellion that originated Babel, for the builders said, ‘Let us make us a name.’” Fair enough if we leave it at that yet, be aware that virtually all pop-Nephiologists—who, by definition, make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians—merely assert that Nimrod was a Nephil.

It’s generically asserted, “That the Nephilim numbered among them literal giants, the Scriptures clearly testify” which is the same ol’ problem of communicating vaguely.

Charles Welch and Fredk Brininger also generically wrote, “The spies sent by Moses into the land of promise spoke of the ‘men of great stature’ that they saw, saying, ‘and there we saw the giants (Nephilim) the sons of Anak which come of the giants.’” Well, that wasn’t vaguely, “The spies” since those were 12, rather the ones who stated that with an, “evil report” were the 10 unreliable ones who just made up a tall-tale and were rebuked by God: unsure why such key facts were not noted. Also, they’re quoting a non-LXX version since it doesn’t mention Anakim therein and those are two of the five mere assertions by the 10—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

Now, not defining giant leads to other unknowns such as what they mean by writing, “All however were not of necessity gigantic in size” since that’s fundamentally meaningless. Likewise with, “the giant cities of Bashan still bear testimony to the existence of a race of literal giants.”

Yet, as support they appeal to, “the iron bedstead of Og, king of Bashan (over 15 feet long) bears its witness also” but that’s just piling assertions atop assumptions: that bedstead was not something upon which Og slept, it was a ritual object—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

They conclude, “hence although the A.V. gives ‘giants’ as a translation of Nephilim” but 1) that’s not a translation, it’s a rendering, 2) that’s not why, and 3) that’s a non-sequitur after referring to a Repha—who’s height is unknown.

And even though we’re warned, “let us not hastily come to the conclusion that these Nephilim were not, nevertheless, literal giants, for Scripture most definitely tells us that many of them were” well, speaking for myself, mine wasn’t a hasty conclusion but one based on that 1) I would need to know their usage of giants and 2) note that their only reason for that assertion is misreading one vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word (which is a word-concept fallacy) and one sentence from an unreliably impossible evil report.

They argue, “The intermarrying of one section of Adam’s children with another does not supply a reasonable argument for ‘giants’ as a result” or, as a confused assertion, “If the sons of God were fallen angels, the abnormal consequences are what may be expected” but all indications are that Nephilim looked just like regular humans since both sides of their parentage looked just like regular humans.

Charles Welch and Fredk Brininger continued with that, “such a drastic and universal destruction as the flood becomes a necessity” but, I will add, wasteful since they just taught us post-flood Nephilim so the flood was a waste since God missed a loophole—let’s see if they tell us just how Nephilim made it past the flood, past God.

They throw in that, “Satan himself in the form of a serpent sought by the temptation in the garden to thwart the Most High” but there’s no indication of the form of a serpent but merely being referred to as such—just as with that in Rev 12 it’s not a case of Satan himself in the form of a dragon—beyond in visionary symbolism, that is—see my book What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology.

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.

Undergoing consideration is an Ask the Rabbi segment from yeshiva.co with Rabbi David Sperling answering, “the position of Mainstream Judaism on the identity of the Nephilim.”

He notes that, “In Berashit the Torah writes…” wait, hold on: I can’t believe some people transliterate the Hebrew word for Genesis like that—oi vey—it’s typically something like Beresheeth or something less four-letter-word looking—capiche?!

In any case, he quotes it as:

“1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. 3 And the LORD said: ‘My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.’ 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.”

He then notes, “In Bamidbar,” Numbers, “it writes about the spies report on the land of Israel ‘33 And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.’”

Well, “the spies report on the land” is tragically generic since it wasn’t, “the spies” since there were 12 of them, he’s quoting the 10 unreliable ones whom God rebuked.

It also wasn’t, “report” generically but what’s specifically told to us was a, “bad” or, “evil” report.

Rabbi David Sperling notes:

One of the classic medievil commentators (the Tur) sums up the opinions as follows “ “the Nephilim were on earth at that time.” According to Rashi these creatures had fallen from heaven (in disgrace) and had in turn caused people on earth to fall from their spiritual level to a spiritually still lower level [the hebrew root of nephil means to fall]. The name Nephilim corresponds to the Hebrew word Anakim, “giants” [brackets in original]

FYI: Rashi refers to Rabbi Shlomo Ben Itzaki or Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac.

The one and also indication that, “The name Nephilim corresponds to the Hebrew word Anakim, ‘giants’” is that one single sentence from an evil report—and that’s only from non-LXX versions since Anakim aren’t mentioned in that verse in that version.

There’s literally zero reliable indication Anakim had anything to do with Nephilim nor that they could have since, of course, Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

As for, “the Hebrew word Anakim, ‘giants’” well, that begs the questions:

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

What’s Rabbi David Sperling’s usage?

Do those two usages agree?

He seems to imply that his usage is something about subjectively unusual height but that’s not the English Bible’s usage since in those versions, “giants” 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.

Also, Anakim doesn’t imply what he means by giants but means something like long-necked: and having a subjectively longer neck than average doesn’t necessarily make one subjectively taller.

Rabbi David Sperling continued thusly:

At any rate, ordinary people were frightened of these “giants.” Other commentators simply understand the term Nephilim as representing human beings who, due to their imposing stature, made everyone fall down before them in a state of fear.

Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains the word Nephilim as meaning “great men, giants.” He quotes Job 14,18 as a parallel, i.e. that even the most powerful and great phenomena (such a tall mountains) on earth will ultimately fall, collapse.”

Dealing with the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage word giants leads to problems such as having to attempt to figure out what an author means when they’re that vague.

So, is it, “ordinary people were frightened of these” subjectively unusually taller than average by some unknown margin personages? Does it mean frightened of Nephilim? Or frightened of Anakim?

Based on the context, I’ll guess he means that the Numbers 13 narrative has it that the evil report by the 10 caused fear since they made up a “don’t go in the woods” style of fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale.

Since that one unreliable sentence is the only physical description we have of Nephilim then there’s no such data upon which to even assert, “human beings…imposing stature.” The dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology–the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales—even if they were written in BC days or the medieval period.

And so, if, “the word Nephilim as meaning ‘great men, giants’” that only begs the question: what does giants mean—or, more to the point, what’s the usage?

Rabbi Sperling also noted:

Another commentator (Shadal – Samuele Davide Luzzatto 1800 – 1865) writes “The giants (ha-nefilim) – We know that the nefilim were tall from Numbers 13:33, “And there we saw the Nefilim, the giant race, of the Nefilim; and we seemed to our own eyes as so many grasshoppers, and so we must have seemed to their eyes”.

Do you see the compounding problems due to vague terminology and accepting the unreliable? Now, “nefilim were” subjectively unusually, “tall” by some unknown margin, “from Numbers 13:33” which is utterly unreliable (see Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal) and an odd version that renders Anakim as giants so it reads, “Nefilim, the giant race, of the Nefilim.”

Next, Rabbi Sperling wrote:

This verse also shows that there were nefilim after the Flood, and so, in my opinion, the phrase “and also afterwards” is connected with the preceding phrase. After the Flood, too, when society was reorganizing, there were tall, wild men who kept company with the daughters of society. …

Well, “nefilim after the Flood” has to be explained: just who was it that God failed, He missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

Also, there’s literally zero indication that, “the phrase ‘and also afterwards’” pertains to, “After the Flood”—I’m unsure what he meant by, “is connected with the preceding phrase.”

Firstly, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses after the one from which he merely quoted three words, which is v. 4.

Secondly, it can’t mean anything about the flood since Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

The question becomes: when were those days?

Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”

The next question becomes: when was afterward?

Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”

Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.

Rabbi David Sperling adds, “The existence of a few giants or abnormally tall men cannot be denied: Moses mentions Og, [Joshua’s] spies mention Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai; in Samuel we find Goliath and others.”

What of those, “giants or” subjectively, “abnormally tall men”?

Og: we’ve no physical description of him in the Bible but utterly wild folklore from millennia after the Torah tells tall-tales about him—including anachronistically placing his birth in pre-flood days, having him surviving the flood by hanging on to the side of the ark whilst being fed by Noah and other fictional tales.

We’ve also no physical description of Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai at all.

The Masoretic text has Goliath 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.

I’ve no idea who the “others,” plural, are but will add THE tallest person in the Bible: an Egyptian was 7.5ft. (2 Sam 23).

Thus, what we got as a reply after an Ask the Rabbi session is vague terminology, an appeal to an unreliable single verse, and arguments from silence.

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.

I once wrote an article titled Was Samson buff? since he is generally depicted as looking like a pro-bodybuilder even though we have no physical description of him—besides that he wore long hair.

Thus, I was fascinated to read TJ Steadman discussing Samson from the angle of whether he was a “giant” (whatever that means—something about unusual height).

In his book “Answers to Giant Questions” TJ Steadman made matters very clear by noting, “Of the fact that Samson was not actually a giant, there is no doubt” (p. 247).

Clear enough.

He even went on to address “The suggestion by some, supported by rabbinic musings from the medieval period” that Samson “must have been an enormous giant,” and he is “sorry to burst that bubble, but there is solid archeological evidence to disprove” this on the basis on that he need not have been an enormous giant to push the dual pillars in the Pagan temple (p. 249)—which archeology has proved need not have been the case as the such twin pillars were close to each other.
Clear enough.

Yet, he then writes:

In case there was any doubt that the writer of Judges was really casting Samson as a giant, consider the evidence from archeology.
Recently (in 2013), excavations of the ruins of a fifth-century AD Jewish synagogue in Galilee uncovered elaborate mosaics of colored tiles on the synagogue floor…
One shows a very large man lifting upon his shoulders the complete assembly of a city gate structure. It is a depiction of Samson making off with the gates of Gaza…
The particular significance of this mosaic artwork is the fact that it preserves evidence of a tradition of portraying Samson as a giant – a tradition stretching back at least as far as the authorship of Judges.
Thus, there is evidence set in story (or ceramic, if you must!) that the stories of the actual giants must have been circulation for that whole time, otherwise, the caricature would have been confusing and meaningless. (p. 250)

So, “there is no doubt” that he “was not actually a giant.”
And, “rabbinic musings from the medieval period” (5th-15th centuries) are mistaken in claiming he “must have been an enormous giant” due to “solid archeological evidence.”

Yet, we can know that “the writer of Judges as really casting Samson as a giant” not because therein, Samson was physically described but we can know this due to “evidence from archeology” which dates to “a fifth-century AD…synagogue floor,” of the same medieval period whence such claims were rejected.

This seems like a contradictory manner in which to argue.
Moreover, what “whole time”? From the writing of Judges, written circa 1045-1000 BC, until the fifth century AD?

But why confusing and meaningless unless Samson was physically large (which is never once stated about him) since anyone could see the depiction and get the idea of power, strength, God’s victory being accomplished, etc.?

Lastly, this seems to all be premised upon the assertion “the stories of the actual giants must have been circulation for that whole time”—circa one and a half millennia—but that is a non-sequitur since it does not consider that such a depiction could have come about spontaneously, especially if it proceeded forth from the fertile imagination of an artist.
Now, if a medieval period synagogue floor is to be accounted as solid archeological evidence then why refer to rabbinic musings from that very same period as being disproved by other solid archeological evidence when it all dates from the that whole time period?

Moreover, he wrote—and it is riotous when an author knows they are saying (at the very least) unusual things:

Wait a minute – isn’t that supposed to be “Samson and Delilah?” No, you read it right. Before you even flip the Bible open to Judges and refresh your memory on Samson, you will probably already be aware that Samson’s most obvious trait was his superhuman strength. This is the most in-your-face connection to the giants that you are likely to encounter, but what if there was a lot more to that story than we previously realized?
We don’t have space to recount the entire story of Samson, but you can find it in Judges 13-16. Samson’s father Manoah (sounds like Noah) came from a place called Zorah, near Eshtaol. That area which became the tribal homeland of Dan, has all kinds of Biblical associations with supernatural evil, as we noted earlier when we looked at the Biblical use of “the hornet.” So, the author has given us a hint that we are reading something about a bad person, and yet he reminds us of Noah to get us thinking in the right frame of reference. When we think “Noah,” we think of two things: giants and deliverance.

Yes, “his superhuman strength” and while Samson had his bouts of unethical behavior, he always seems to have repented and was made a judge by God Himself as announced by an Angel so that his “supernatural” power was Godly, not in “connection to the giants”—whatever TJ Steadman may mean by “giants” in this case, it certainly cannot be anything good.

I wonder if it is supernatural that men who are right around 6 ft tall can lift 1,000 lbs? I ask because you can watch strong-man or power-lifting competitions any day and witness that.

In fact, one of the reasons for writing my article Was Samson buff? was to point out that if Samson looked like a pro-bodybuilder—much less (or much more) if he was a “giant”—then his feats of strength may have been a sight to behold but would not exactly be surprising.

I would love to see a movie depict Samson like a scrawny, skinny, little pencil-necked geek—now that would make his feats of strength surprising. His strength did not come from his muscles, did not come from his height, did not come from his hair, but came from God—period.

Again, I find it distasteful, to say the least, to prejudiciously declare that someone is “a bad person” to be associated with “all kinds of…supernatural evil” just because they were born in an “area” that is generally associated with such.

There is not the slightest little tiny hint in the whole Bible that Samson’s parents were of any sort of ill character. The exact opposite is the case, actually, in that they are very, very concerned about ensuring they are loyal to and thus, obedient to God.

Yet, TJ Steadman argues that Samson—and his parents—exhibit, “Two associations with giants, a supernatural birth with suspicion around the fatherhood (grammatically speaking, the text is intentionally ambiguous about whether it was the angel or Manoach who caused the conception of Samson), and now a forbidden intermarriage should be telling us loud and clear that some familiar themes are coming to haunt young Samson.”

If “a supernatural birth” is an “associations with giants” then the same goes for Isaac and Samuel and others including Jesus.

In fact, “a supernatural birth with suspicion around the fatherhood” doubly denotes “associations with giants” in Jesus’ case.

About the text being intentionally ambiguous: it is not.

Judges 13 notes that “the Angel of the Lord appeared to the woman [Manoah’s wife who became Samson’s mother] and said to her, ‘Indeed now, you are barren and have borne no children, but you shall conceive and bear a son…the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.”
She informs Manoah, “A Man of God came to me, and His countenance was like the countenance of the Angel of God” and what he said.
Then “Manoah prayed to the Lord, and said, ‘O my Lord, please let the Man of God whom You sent come to us again and teach us what we shall do for the child who will be born.’”

“And God listened to the voice of Manoah, and the Angel of God came to the woman again” and again she told Manoah what happened, he went with her and said, “let Your words come to pass!” the Angel reiterated the situation, Manoah offers to prepare a meal, the Angel of the Lord replied, “I will not eat your food. But if you offer a burnt offering, you must offer it to the Lord” which is what was done, and “it happened as the flame went up toward heaven from the altar—the Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar!”

Now Manoah was certain that it was the Angel of the Lord and is afraid because “We shall surely die, because we have seen God!” but his wise and holy wife notes, “If the Lord had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these at this time.”

Is this a story about bad people involved in “all kinds of…supernatural evil” or of loyal people to whom God sends a messenger and from whom God accepts a sacrifice?

Right after I stopped quoting, it is stated, “So the woman bore a son and called his name Samson.”

So could it be that the Angel impregnated her? The actual key question is why even bother imagining such a thing? It is actually because TJ Steadman wants to build a narrative so if it is not there, he will insert is therein even if by just implying it.

Now, there is only a one time sin of Angels in the Bible and the sentence was incarceration (see Jude and 2 Peter 2) so what TJ Steadman is implying, or outright suggesting, is that “the Angel of the Lord,” mind you, may have been a sinner—even if he was sent on a specific mission by God Himself—so that this would be a second instance of a sin of at least one Angel in that it would have been “a forbidden intermarriage.”
In short, where TJ Steadman not seeking to weave a tall tale, he would never even imagine imagining proposing any such thing.

And now we know why it is that—as I quoted him in Intro to TJ Steadman’s book “Answers to Giant Questions”—when he claims that his book “will draw out some of the more interesting and theologically significant messages that are regularly overlooked in your average church setting” many of his claims are not overlooked. Rather, they are looked at very carefully and are rightly rejected or are instantly dismissed by those who know that which the Bible states about such issues.

TJ Steadman has written something that I appreciate, “I don’t buy into the modern ‘science fiction view’ of ancient texts. There are no ancient inscriptions that really depict ancient aliens, UFO’s and all that kind of thing” (p. 429).

Yes, he does seem to buy into, and perpetuate, the modern (that which I term) theo-sci-fi view of ancient texts wherein “giants” (whatever that means) are peppered everywhere you look.

And if you look and do not see one, then you invent one—especially if you can use the vague, generic, subjective and undefined English word “giants” to water-down and paint various very different ancient terms in different languages with a broom.

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.