Month: December 2024

A certain pkoutoupis posted the article The Nephilim and the Flood on the Ancient Origins site. It actually ends at, “In the first occurrence we find:” so it seems to be a sample article that must be purchased to read full. I’ll admit, it’s very challenging to read anything on that site since it’s so utterly saturated with ads and pop-ups that you can barely read one sentence without something popping up.

The article is meant to deal with issues such as, “Who are the Nephilim and what do they represent? Are they biblical giants?…It wasn’t until the discovery and translation of the Book of 1 Enoch that we were finally given a better understanding of these Nephilim, but is it a proper understanding?”

We will have to keep an eye on whether these key questions are answered:

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

What’s pkoutoupis’ usage?

Do those two usages agree?

Also, why assert, “It wasn’t until the discovery and translation of the Book of 1 Enoch” (I’d imagine that the question mark at the end of that sentence was supposed to be a period).

Reference is made to, “independent scholars” such as, “Zecharia Sitchin…who proposed that the Nephilim were nothing more than a god-like race with the knowledge and technology to navigate the heavens, who came to earth and created mankind as slave labor mining rare materials.” Of course, biblically that can’t be the case since Nephilim were born on Earth, “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…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” (Gen 6).

A history of modern day mythologizing is noted thusly:

Sitchin had jumped on the chance to translate the Nephilim as: (1) those who came down from above, (2) those who were cast down, and (3) people of the fiery rockets. These made-up epithets are clearly ridiculous and groundless. The Hebrew verb for ‘to go’ or ‘to come down, descend’ is yarad which shows no relation to the term in question.

He then goes on to identify the Nephilim with the Sumerian deities, claiming that the Sumerians knew of their existence and that they came from a planet called Nibiru…The sources cited came from his mistranslated Mesopotamian inscriptions and cylinder seal impressions.

Many others have tried to follow in Zecharia Sitchin’s footsteps, such as Alan Alford, but have quickly repealed their theories…retracted his ancient astronaut theories.

Apparently, this made such a powerful impact that Zecharia Sitchin threatened Alan Alford with a 50 million dollar lawsuit on the grounds that Alford’s comments discredited Sitchin’s theories and destroyed his reputation…

Then there was Andrew Collins, using the sons of God and the Nephilim to hint at a forgotten race…seems, may be based on earlier works, such as that belonging to Sitchin…Collin’s clearly displays his lack of knowledge in biblical Hebrew…

pkoutoupis then quotes Gen 6:4 but oddly assures us, “The biggest clues to the identification of the Nephilim will come from Numbers 13:33: 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”—stand by.

We’re then told, “When the Old Testament was first translated to the Greek language, the word for Nephilim read gigantes, the Greek word for giants. This is confirmed in Numbers 13:33 with the description of the Israelites when compared to the race of giants.”

Well, we can now answer the key questions:

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

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.

What’s pkoutoupis’ usage?

Something about subjectively unusual height.

Do those two usages agree?

No.

Now, it’s actually the case that, “When the Old Testament was first translated to the Greek language, the word for Nephilim” and also gibborim and also Rephaim, “read gigantes, the Greek word for,” literally earth-born. Thus, nothing is, “confirmed in Numbers 13:33 with the description of” only the 10, “Israelites” who presented an, “evil report” and were rebuke by God who told a tall-tale about being, “compared to the race of giants.” It’s also literally impossible that they saw Nephilim since, of course, Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood since, of course, God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. For more, see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

And well, as far as I can tell between adds and pop-ups, that’s about it for the free sample section of the article.

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.

Such was a claim made during a discussion in the comments section of Pastor Allen Nolan’s YouTube vid Nephilim: Shocking Truth About Giants | Angels And Demons Bible Study | Pastor Allen Nolan Sermon when a certain @JohnnyRedpilled commented

For the nephelim to be hero’s of old after the flood, that means Noah’s family had to have recorded their deeds and passed down the stories of the giants. Doesn’t seem right.

I, @KenAmmi-www.truefreethinker, replied

There were no Nephilim after the flood since God didn’t fail and the flood wasn’t much of a waste.

@JohnnyRedpilled

God didn’t fail. He killed everything on earth with the breath of life in it. But in Numbers, after the flood they are said to see giants. The Nephelim seem to be back. I know they didn’t survive the flood. But that doesn’t stop them from appearing on earth the same way they got here before the flood.

As a matter of fact there are fish gods depicted as having the body of a man and the tail of a fish. Many stories say they came out of the water. Lakes or the ocean. Is it possible some nephelim with gills survived the flood? That doesn’t defeat what God said. Everything on the earth that has the breather of life was killed. Whales breathe but they’re in the water not on earth.

I tend to believe angels mated with humans again after the flood. But maybe only a couple.

@JohnnyRedpilled

I agree God didn’t fail. But in Numbers it says they saw nephelim comparing themselves to grasshoppers next to them. God said he killed all beings with the breath of life on earth. But whales breathe air and they weren’t killed because they were in the sea. There are gods depicted as coming out of the sea some even have fish tails. Some had fish bodies along with human bodies. Could they have survived?

And, could the nephelim appear after the flood the same way they did before? By fallen angels mating with human women?

They sure seem to be there after the flood.

@KenAmmi-www.truefreethinker

By, “For the nephelim to be hero’s of old after the flood” do you mean Nephilim themselves or stories about them?

You jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word “nephelim” to the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word “giants” so it’s hard to follow what you mean.

The key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

It’s literally impossible that, “the two brothers that founded Rome were nephelim” since Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

@KenAmmi-www.truefreethinker

Why are you only reading one single sentence in Num 13 and are switching from Hebrew to English words and implying that God failed by missing that they would come right back?

You’re appealing to one single sentence from an “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: haven’t you read all of Num chaps 13-14?

“they didn’t survive the flood. But that doesn’t stop them from appearing on earth the same way they got here before the flood” yes, of course it does since the Angels were incarcerated: haven’t you ever read Jude and 2 Peter 2? And, again, God would not have missed that–plus, you had to make up that un-biblical story.

“there are fish gods depicted” where? “Many stories” where? I don’t accept generic assertions.

“Is it possible some nephelim with gills survived the flood?” of course not: where is your regard for God? He told us FIVE times who survived and they’re not on any list.

Again, it’s not that generically, “in Numbers it says” but it says that 10 unreliable guys made up an “evil report” why do you side with guys whom God rebuked rather than with the God who rebuked them?

That’s is THE only reason that you merely assert, “They sure seem to be there after the flood.”

@JohnnyRedpilled

ok so you think Noah’s family recorded the legends of the pre flood nephelim? Or giants or whatever semantic rule you need to follow. I’m talking about the offspring of the “sons of God and the daughters of men”. You think Noah’s family watched God destroy the entire world except one family but they still venerated the nephelim by recording in incredible detail all their stories? Doesn’t seem likely. And, the legends of all the ancient hero’s are country specific. Those countries didn’t exist pre flood.

The Bible says there were nephelim on the earth after the flood. I understand Pastor Nolan doesn’t think that’s the interpretation but many disagree. The Bible says they were there after the flood. People in the Bible say they saw them after the flood.

@JohnnyRedpilled

I believe the Bible when it says God killed everything on earth. And that any nephelim on earth before the flood were all killed. No one survived the flood except Nah and his family. But, the Bible says they were on the earth after the flood. So, that interpretation is wrong or they appeared again the same way they did pre flood. Which isn’t impossible. Fallen angels could have again mated with women. And, it seems they did.

We aren’t adversaries. We are on the same team. As long as you believe Jesus died for our sins and the Bible is the inspired word of God, we are on the same team. We can still debate about the nephelim.

@KenAmmi-Shalom

Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to hundreds of people who go on and on (and on and on [and on and on]) about “giants” and 99.999999% can’t even reply—and couple that did got it wrong.

I’ve no idea who, “recorded the legends of the pre flood nephelim” and it’s an incoherent non-sequitur that, “recorded” equals, “venerated.”

“the ‘sons of God and the daughters of men’” were Nephilim.

You asserted, on the WORLD WIDE web, that, “The Bible says there were nephelim on the earth after the flood…The Bible says they were there after the flood” so can you please quote and cite where abouts that’s in the Bible?

As for, “People in the Bible say they saw them after the flood” that’s a very different category of phenomena: do you know who those people where and why they merely asserted that and if it was accurate and what happened to them?

Please understand that I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data so I don’t accept genetic assertions.

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 concept of “Do what thou wilt” has a very long history. It can be found in many places and times and stated with variations. For example, the most popular current pop-occultural use of the motto is probably Nike’s motto “Just do it”—not surprising considering that Nike is a Greek false goddess.

We have written on this specific topic in On Aleister Crowley’s Book of the Law motto “Do what thou wilt” and also in Aleister Crowley’s influence on pop-occulture – “Do what thou wilt” wherein we chronicled some of the motto’s history.
As an accretion to the motto’s chronicle, let us note Eckhart Tolle who is the [in]famous guru for Oprah Winfrey (about whom you can learn here), G.A.T.E.-the Global Alliance for Transformational Entertainment.

On p. 72 of his book New Earth he quoted the motto thusly, “Love and do what you will.” So was he endorsing Aleister Crowley’s motto?

Firstly, Crowley (about whom you can learn here) quoted the motto in a few different forms. I do not say he wrote but he quoted as the book from which the motto proceeds is the Book of the Law about which Crowley wrote (1976 AD ed., p. 5):
“This book was dictated in Cairo [Egypt] between noon and 1 p.m. on three successive days, April 8th, 9th, and 10th in the year 1904. The Author called himself Aiwass, and claimed to be ‘the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.”
A specter of sorts would appear behind Crowley and dictate to him. Ironically, Hoor-paar-kraat aka Harpocrates is a god of silence and his minister, nevertheless, spilled the beans to Aleister Crowley. Thus, if he is to be believed; Crowley was the ghost writer (pun intended) for Hoor-paar-kraat and thus, quoted the motto.

One instance of the motto is, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; love is the law, love under will.” Thus, Eckhart Tolle certainly seems to be quoting Crowley. However, Tolle actually tells us exactly whom he is quoting as in that p. 72 he actually wrote:
“‘Love and do what you will,’ said St. Augustine.”
So, it was that party animal St. Augustine who came up with this motto! The Augustinian motto comes from his Homily 7 on the First Epistle of John which deals with 1st John 4:4-12 which states:
“You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.
We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.”

In his homily, Augustine wrote the motto as, “Dilige et quod vis fac”:
“This we have said in the case where the things done are similar. In the case where they are diverse, we find a man by charity made fierce; and by iniquity made winningly gentle. A father beats a boy, and a boy-stealer caresses. If you name the two things, blows and caresses, who would not choose the caresses, and decline the blows?
If you mark the persons, it is charity that beats, iniquity that caresses. See what we are insisting upon; that the deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. For many things may be done that have a good appearance, and yet proceed not from the root of charity. For thorns also have flowers: some actions truly seem rough, seem savage; howbeit they are done for discipline at the bidding of charity.
Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.”
Thus, the context is that God’s love is sacrificial, self-giving, and God manifested in the flesh as the Messiah Jesus in order to show the ultimate love, “Greater love has no one that this; to lay down one’s live for one’s friends” (John 15:13). With this sort of love as a guide, we can do what we will as what we will to do will be guided by this sort of love.

Is this the very same thing, guide, context that Aleister Crowley employed? Not quite exactly. Here are some examples of Crowley’s/Aiwass’ context:
“I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge & Delight and bright glory, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, and be drunk thereof! Be strong, o man! Lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee of this.”
One does not need to know much Bible to recognize that this being is identifying itself with satan—the serpent in the Garden of Eden who beguiled Eve to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Thus, by the time the term “God” is used at the end of the quotation, we know that this god is not the one true living God YHVH.

So, there is YHVH’s love and there is the twister self-serving selfish pseudo “love” of satan. In fact, verse 57 of the Book of the Law clues us in to the fact that there are various sorts, or definitions, of “love” (see “Love” and “Hate” – Defining Terminology):
“Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love.”

Verse 21 states, “We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.”

Verse 41 states, “The word of Sin is Restriction.”

Verse 61 states “Ye shall gather goods and store of women…always in the love of me…and drunkenness of the innermost sense.”

Verses 56-59 state that “for beauty’s sake and love’s” cowards and fools are to be despised and “As brothers fight ye!”

We could go on and on and on proving that the “love” guide behind the motto is not YHVH’s love but satanic lack of “love.”

Verses 49-55 seem to put a nail in the coffin:
“I am…the blasphemy against all gods of men. Curse them! Curse them! Curse them! With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him. With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din…I spit on your crapulous creeds. Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!”

So, to what sort of love was Eckhart Tolle referring? He was quoting Augustine however, Tolle’s worldview-philosophy-theology is nothing like Augustine’s. Was it then an underhanded manner whereby to promulgate Aleister Crowley’s worldview-philosophy-theology? It is their shared anti-Christian worldview-philosophy-theology which may answer the question for us.

As a side not which may expose a clue or be a coincidence; recall that for some or no reason Tolle quoted the motto on p. 72. It is a fact that “72” is a very important occult number as it refers to the Goetia, the Lesser Keys of Solomon, wherein there are 72 demons which rule the world. Again, this either means nothing or says it all.

In any case, the love of which Crowley writes and the love of which the Apostle John and Augustine write are direct opposites so—where does Eckhart Tolle lay?

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

Here are some relevant books:

Richard Abanes:
A New Earth, An Old Deception: Awakening to the Dangers of Eckhart Tolle’s #1 Bestseller

William Ramsey:
Prophet of Evil: Aleister Crowley, 9/11 and the New World Order

Aleister Crowley: A Visual Study

Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders (which we reviewed here)

John Weldon and John Ankerberg:
Knowing the Facts about Divination Practices and Occult “Games”

The Facts on the Occult

The Coming Darkness

Walter Martin:
The Kingdom of the Occult

Ron Rhodes:
The Truth Behind Ghosts, Mediums, and Psychic Phenomena

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.

Dr. Tracy E Barnes answered the question Where Do Demons Come From? via a vid by that tiled on his YouTube channel.

I posted the following comment:

Dr. Barnes is correct in that the Bible does not (I will add explicitly) specify whence come demons.

Also correct is that there’s no pre-human-fall war in heaven of fall of any beings: Satan’s fall was during the Gen 3 timeline, the fall of Angels (Satan is a Cherub, not an Angel) was during the Gen 6 timeline, the war is a post-Jesus’ ascension event so does not seem to have happened yet.

To state “A race of giants that are called Nephilim” is misleading and anachronistic since it’s actually “A race of Nephilim that are called giants in some English versions”: and with “giants” not being used to refer to any sort of height whatsoever.

He then notes that demons/unclean spirits “were considered” to be dead Nephilim but didn’t say “considered” by whom—until close to the end.

Only then does he reveal that he means “considered” by what seems to range from theological speculations to folklore from MILLENNIA after the Torah.

And that’s important to note since he referenced, “the ancient texts” but “ancient” is subjective since, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls and 1 Enoch are “ancient” to us but are still from millennia AFTER the Torah—which is much more “ancient” still.

He notes Nephilim had both a body and immortal spirits but every indication is that so did their parents: Angels and humans.

In short, he made a strictly linguistic argument by chasing the term “unclean spirits” around regardless of context.

A much stronger, and actually biblical, case can be made of that demons/unclean spirits are actually fallen Angels—with a twist. Jude and 2 Peter 2 tell us that those sinful/fallen Angels were incarcerated: that was physically chained while their spirits roam the earth as demons/unclean spirits.

For details, search online for my article, “Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?”

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 Video Bible site posted an answer to the question Was Goliath One of the Nephilim?

It begins, “The Bible does not directly identify Goliath as one of the Nephilim, though he was certainly a giant and a formidable opponent of Israel.”

That simple sentence raises a few issues such as:

It directly identify Goliath as a non-Nephil: he’s referred to as a Repha virtually every single time he’s mentioned.

I’m unsure what “certainly a giant” has to do with anything—stand by. For now, keep in mind that biblically contextually “certainly a giant” means “certainly a Repha.” The article notes “Rephaim, a race of giants distinct from the Nephilim” which is quite accurate—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them—but the article’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” appears to be something unspecific about subjectively unusual height. That has nothing to do with the English Bible’s usage since therein, it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

And that he was an “opponent of Israel” is irrelevant since that has nothing to do with Nephilim who only lived before there was any such thing as Israel.

It’s noted “The Nephilim are mentioned only in Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

We’re also told that Goliath was “approximately nine feet tall” so I’m unsure why it wasn’t mentioned 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.

At least it’s noted “Goliath’s background, therefore, connects him more directly to the Philistine culture and less to the mysterious Nephilim.”

It’s noted “Ancient Israel encountered various groups of giants during their conquest of the Promised Land” but keep in mind that such is a misuse of one modern word, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.

Noted are “Anakites and Rephaim” but the former were like a clan of the latter tribe.

After some sermonizing that’s not contextual to my review, we’re told “Joshua and Caleb: Unlike the other spies, Joshua and Caleb believed that God could overcome the giants in Canaan, demonstrating faith over fear (Numbers 13:30, 14:6-9)” but that’s focusing on sermonizing and not that the issue is that the 10 just made up a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale due to their fear of what was noted in the first, original, accepted as is report in that chapter: being itinerant wilderness tent dwellers having to confront six strong people groups living in large and well fortified cities.

At least it’s rightly concluded “Goliath was not one of the Nephilim” even if that sentence ends with the linguistically fallacious terms “but a giant descended from the Rephaim.”

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.