National Catholic Register posted an article titled The Mystery of Biblical Giants, From Goliath to the Nephilim by Bradley Shumaker (“attorney and military veteran. He is an Associate Editor at The Everyman, and his articles have appeared in The Everyman and The Catholic Post.).
Since the title appears to juxtapose Giants and Nephilim, that begs the following questions the answers to which we will have to keep an eye out to see if they are answered directly or by implication: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the National Catholic Register usage? Do those two usages agree?
It’s noted that, “the Old Testament contains several mysterious references to ‘giants’” which is reliance on one or another modern English version and we are then immediately told about Goliath, “the most famous giant” about whom it’s noted:
In some Bible versions, Goliath is listed as being 6 cubits tall, which is about 9 feet. Writings recovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls listed Goliath’s height as only 4 cubits, which would have made him about 6 feet 9 inches tall. In the New American Bible (NAB), Goliath is specifically identified as being “6 and a half feet tall” (1 Samuel 17:4). Thus, as it turns out, while he certainly may have been large, the most famous giant in the Bible does not appear to have been gigantic (in the same way that most people have historically understood this term). 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.
Having been offered no definition/meaning nor usage of giant, Bradley Shumaker then told, “does not appear to have been gigantic” without being told what is, “the same way that most people have historically understood this term” so that’s meaningless.
But let’s grant that most people’s usage is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height by some unspecific level above the parochial average: and that’s as useless as it sounds.
We might as well get this out of the way at this early stage since that’s all the linguistics we’re going to get out of Bradley Shumaker: biblically contextually, “the most famous giant” means, “the most famous Repha” 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 Next to be mentioned are, “Anakim/Anakites” about who we’re told, “The first mention of the Anakim in the Bible appears in Genesis 6” but that’s not the case, they weren’t even close to existing at the time: they didn’t until centuries post-flood.
It’s also noted, “A note in the NAB describes them as ‘tall aboriginals’ whom the Israelites likened to the Nephilim (mentioned below)” we will have to see about the latter statement (since it’s hyperbolic, at best) and tall is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants.
About the latter, Bradley Shumaker notes:
Numbers 13:33 refers to them as “a race of giants.” Another note in this same chapter describes them in more detail as “an aboriginal race in southern Palestine, largely absorbed by the Canaanites before the Israelite invasion. Either because of their tall stature or because of the massive stone structures left by them the Israelites regarded them as giants.” Numbers 13 also tells of twelve scouts who were sent by Moses to reconnoiter the land of Canaan. What they reported back was having observed huge men who were so large that they felt like “mere grasshoppers” compared to them (Numbers 13:33). To say, “Numbers 13:33 refers to…” is too generic since the hermeneutical key questions are: who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc.
We know by now that biblically contextually, “a race of giants” means, “a race of Rephaim”: Anakim were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe.
Numbers 13 is misrepresented since it wasn’t the case that, “twelve scouts…reported back” that claim: there were 12 spies but without telling the readers, Bradley Shumaker is referring to and relying on the 10 unreliable ones who presented an, “evil report” and were rebuked by God.
As for, “giants…tall…giants…huge…” the only contextually relevant thing we’re told about them is that they were subjectively, “tall” (Deut 2).
And, Num 13’s, “evil report” refers to the fantasy tall-tale height of Nephilim, not Anakim—some merely suppose since the falsehood asserts they were (impossibly) related then they were both very, very tall but that’s piling one assertion atop another—and the LXX doesn’t even mention Anakim in that verse.
Next up are Rephaim about whom we’re told:
The word Rephaim is a Hebrew word for “giants.” According to the Bible, they were a people who were said to be tall, like the Anakim. They were known as the Emim by the Moabites (Deuteronomy 2:11) and the Zamzummim by the Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:20).
While their exact height is not certain, a strange passage from 2 Samuel 21:20 describes one of them as having “six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.” King Og of Bashan was the last of these “giants,” who was said to have slept in a bed that was 9 cubits in length (Deuteronomy 3:11), or possibly as much as 13 cubits long, according to other Bible translations. If, “The word Rephaim is a Hebrew word for ‘giants’” then that begs the question of what giants not just, “in the same way that most people have historically understood this term” but according to the ancient Hebrew understanding: which we can’t get since that’s a modern English word.
Yet, we know that the root rapha ranges from dead to healing and has nothing whatsoever to do with height of any sort: see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010 and the whole chapter about them in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
It’s not Rephaim, “known as the Emim” but known as Zamzummim as an aka with Emmim and Anakim being like clans of that tribe.
Indeed, “tall…their exact height is not certain” besides that they were taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
Indeed also, extra digits were only stated about one single Repha.
And, “Og of Bashan was the last of these ‘giants’” you know by now means, “Og of Bashan was the last of these ‘Rephaim.’”
And his bed is irrelevant: merely assuming one can derive his height from it piling assumption atop assumption: that was a ritual object, not something upon which he slept, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Next are the Nephilim about whom we’re told, “may have been giants” which circularly redundantly means, “may have been Nephilim.” It’s clear from the article that Bradley Shumaker’s researched this issue by just reading notes on the NAB version (New American Bible) and so noted, “the NAB only makes use of the term ‘Nephilim,’ and does not specifically label them as giants” which begs the question: what’s the NAB’s usage of that word? See why it’s better to just ignore that word and just say what one means?
That’s especially the case when we’re told, “the NAB…does not specifically label them as giants” and/but, “An NAB footnote goes on to suggest that the Nephilim may have been a ‘race of giants.’”
Refreshingly, we’re then told, “While other Bible versions translate the word Nephilim as ‘giants,’ it is entirely possible the name might merely have been a reference to the name of their tribe.” Indeed, especially when we have to juggle, compare and contrast what any given user means by giants. In fact, it may not even be that if we had asked, they would have said something like, “Our tribe is called Nephilim” since that term is likely what latter Israelites called them as they reflected on pre-flood history and used a derisive term of them.
It’s noted, “Other scholars have translated the Nephilim as ‘tyrants’” and the root word naphal means fall/fallen/feller/to cause to fall, etc. We’re also told, “their placement in the Bible comes immediately before the description of the Great Flood” since that is the only time they existed, since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc., and that’s part of the proof that the Num 13 evil report is false: and, by the way, since that’s the only physical description we have of them then we’ve no reliable physical description of them.
Bradley Shumaker ends by asking and answering, “So Do Giants Exist?” as per an un-biblical usage of that term, and answers as per how, “most people have historically understood this term,” so that, “references to giants are found throughout the pages of the Old Testament” all we know is that they were taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
The Biblehub site asks Are Nephilim fallen angels, demons, or giants? which immediately brings to my mind that I will have to keep an eye out for what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Biblehub’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
It’s noted, “The Hebrew word often transliterated as ‘Nephilim’ (נְפִילִים)…comes from a root that can suggest ‘to fall’…the label ‘Nephilim’ does not universally translate as ‘giants.’” Technically, it never translates as such since that’s a rendering.
It’s rightly noted that such linguistically came about due to that, “several English Bible translations, influenced by early sources like the Septuagint, render the word as ‘giants.’ This explains why some interpret ‘Nephilim’ primarily in terms of their physical attributes.”
This got close but trailed off: “several English Bible translations, influenced by early sources like the Septuagint, render the word as ‘giants’” due to that the Septuagint/LXX renders it as gigantes which means earth-born. Thus, it implies nothing about, “their physical attributes”—not in any language, as we shall see.
It’s noted, “Genesis 6 Setting: Before the flood…Nephilim are described as present…”
Then, “Numbers 13 Account: Much later, after the Exodus, Israel’s spies reported seeing in Canaan people described as “Nephilim” (Numbers 13:33). The verse states: “We seemed like grasshoppers in our own sight” (BSB excerpt). This parallels the earlier tradition that the Nephilim were of imposing size or stature, but it could also reflect exaggeration by the frightened spies.”
For some unknown reason, we’re directed to Num 13:33 without being told that it’s a single sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
It’s a misrepresentation to generalize the 12 generically, “Israel’s spies reported…the frightened spies” without noting that 2 were faithfully loyal and 10 were unfaithfully disloyal.
As for, “…like grasshoppers…parallels the earlier tradition that the Nephilim were of imposing size or stature” no such earlier tradition was appealed to—it would seem that Biblehub is merely assuming and asserting that the single word giants implies such a thing but it does not.
So, we might as well get to those key questions: 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.
Biblehub’s usage seems to be something about un-specifically generically vague about subjectively unusual height compared to the parochial average.
Thus, the usages do not agree.
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.
It’s noted, “certain non-canonical works like the Book of Enoch expand on the idea, describing them as offspring of angelic beings and humans” about which you can see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts. We then get a succinct elucidation of, “Major Interpretations” beginning with, “Fallen Angels Theory” about which I will note that 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.
Next is, “Sethite or Godly Line Theory” which is a late comer of a view based on myth and prejudice. It invents an un-biblical wholly holy line of Sethites who were actually such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood. Likewise, it invents a wholly unholy line of Cain. Clearly, there’s no indication of any such things. The last one is, “Demonic Spirits vs. Giant Humans” which doesn’t even make a blip on the historical radar. It’s elucidated as, “Some consider the Nephilim to be distinct from demons: demons are typically understood as disembodied evil spirits. By contrast, the Nephilim in Scripture appear embodied and described as “mighty.” They may indeed have been physically imposing—that is, giants in size and strength—without necessarily being fallen angels themselves.”
As for, “Some consider the Nephilim to be distinct from demons” well, it’s more of an issue that the only reason why only some, very, very few, people ever even imagined that Nephilim weren’t distinct from demons is that folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah says so—see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
“They may indeed have been physically imposing—that is, giants in size” but there’s literally zero reliable indication of that.
As for, “without necessarily being fallen angels themselves” that makes even less than the historical whimper on the radar—they weren’t fallen Angels, they were offspring of fallen Angel.
It’s then noted that, “‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days…’ (Genesis 6:1–4 excerpts)…suggests an unusual event that contributed to widespread wickedness, prompting the flood.”
Then Num 13:33 is misrepresented again by generically referring to, “The spies” in general, and that they merely asserted, “‘We even saw the Nephilim there…’” but it’s at least noted that, “it could also reflect the” 10 unreliable, “spies’ exaggeration out of fear or their memory of stories describing earlier Nephilim.” It’s always problematic when an author jumps languages back and forth such as from the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word giants to the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim and then back and forth.
At this point, we’re told of, “Consistency with Other Mentions of Giants” about which it’s noted, “Passages referencing ‘giants’ or unusually large individuals” but, again, that has nothing to do with the Bible’s contents, concepts, or contexts.
Yet, going with the misusage of giants, we’re told, “Deuteronomy 2–3 (with references to people like Og, king of Bashan)” for whom we’ve no physical description. Thus, so much for, “unusually large”—with unusually and large being just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.
It’s then noted, “These may reflect large or fearsome people groups, indicating that ‘giant’ can be a descriptive term of physical stature” yet, there’s literally zero indication of that. The author doesn’t seem to realize that when whatever version is being read refers to Og as a giant it’s merely identifying him as a Repha, it’s not saying nor implying nor hinting at anything whatsoever about his size.
After referring to Og, it’s noted that giants, “does not definitively clarify all aspects of the Nephilim’s origins but does show there were historically notable individuals or clans of great size.” Yet, again, Og was a Repha, not a Nephil: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
The conclusion of the article notes:
“They appear again in Numbers 13, described by Israel’s spies as intimidating figures” but to what does appear refer? Appear as being alive at the time or appear as a word within an evil report that was written down?
If I refer to the first POTUS George Washington, does that mean he’s currently alive?
Recall that the article noted, “‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days…’ (Genesis 6:1–4 excerpts)…suggests an unusual event that contributed to widespread wickedness, prompting the flood” so if there were post-flood Nephilim—in any way, shape, or form—then God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. and post-flood Nephilologists literally have to invent un-biblical fantasy stories about how God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Another closing point is, “Their name may suggest ‘fallen ones’ or might be linked with extraordinary size and power” which is a non-sequitur: what does fallen have to do with size of any sort? Next is, “They do not precisely equate to demons, who are commonly identified with disembodied spirits” but a qualifying term is missing: are un-commonly identified with disembodied spirits in folklore. It’s noted, “conservative and historical Christian interpretations incline toward viewing the Nephilim as giant” which biblically contextually means, “Nephilim as Nephilim” just like, “Nephilim as literal giants” means, “Nephilim as literal Nephilim.”
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Dr. Justin G. Prock is described on his site as: English professor and the English Chaplain at Pyeongtaek University, in South Korea. Bachelor’s in History from Tennessee Technological University (1990); an 140 Certificate in English as a Second Language from International TEFL Teacher Training (2011); a Master’s in Biblical Studies (2016), a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies/Eschatology (2017), and a Master’s of Divinity (2020), from Louisiana Baptist University; a Certificate of Achievement from The National Bible College (2018); a Certificate in Christian Education from The American Institute of Theology; and four Certificates of Mastery from The Bible Mastery Boot Camp (2021), and ordained as a Reverend in The General Assembly of Presbyterian Church in Korea Pierson.
One thing to instantly note is that his reference to, “NEPHILIM, GIANTS” alerts us to keep an eye out for sussing out to what, or whom, he is referring by the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants: what is the usage of that term in English Bibles vs. his usage, do those usages agree or differ.
Up front, he notes:
With regard to His Return, YAHSHUA, Jesus the Christ, stated in Matthew Chapter 24, Verse 37, “For as the Days of Noe were, so also will This Coming of the Son of Man be.”
What was YAHSHUA referring to exactly? What was happening on the Earth in the Days of Noah? What Event brought about Father YAHWEH’s judgment of His Creation by the Flood in Genesis Chapters 6 through 8? (emphasis, including colors, in all quotes of Dr. Prock herein are by him).
Well, there is no reason to wonder what He was referring, exactly, since He told us—in most detail in Luke 17. His words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:
Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
But He kept speaking directly with:
Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.
Keeping in mind that this is part 3 of a series, he intros it by noting:
…we are going to talk about the Second Incursion of Satanic Seedline into Father YAHWEH’s Creation in order to corrupt the Adamic Race, as well as His Creation, as found in Genesis Chapter 6, only this time with Fallen and Watcher Angels, who produced the Nephilim, Giants, and their disembodied spirits, which Father YAHWEH in the Book of Enoch, called Evil Spirits/Demons.
He means a, “Second Incursion” after the Gen 6 affair: 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.
Note the reference to, “Nephilim, Giants” and that it is followed by, “their disembodied spirits…Evil Spirits/Demons.” It is difficult, at this early juncture, to discern if he is distinguishing Nephilim from Giants or correlating them.
In any case, note that he also asserted, “Father YAHWEH” must have inspired the Book of Enoch by which I discern he is referred to 1 Enoch, in particular, but that is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch. As for the specific claim: that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim (and/or Giants)is just folklore from those centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
He seeks support by noting, “Psalm Chapter 96, Verse 5 clearly states that, ‘All of the gods of the nations are demons;’ That word, ‘gods,’ in the Hebrew is Strong’s #H433, Elohim, which means, ‘angels, magistrates, judges, gods.’” Interestingly, that is a styled admission that Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance offers no support for gods/elohim/demons having anything to do with Nephilim (and/or Giants) and the Psalm also implied no such thing.
He next comments, “what our Bibles have to say with regard to the Antediluvian (Pre-Flood) Prophet Enoch, and why his Book should be included in the Canon of Scripture.” Yet, those are three issues:
1) The actual, “Antediluvian (Pre-Flood) Prophet Enoch.”
2) One of the books titled with his name (or, namesake).
3) And why that one book (one of the books of Enoch asserts that he wrote over 300 books), “should be included in the Canon of Scripture.”
As for 1), Dr. Prock quotes:
Genesis Chapter 5, Verses 21 through 24 which states: “And Enoch lived one hundred and sixty-five years and begot Mathousala. And Enoch continued to please God after he begot Mathousala two hundred years and begot sons and daughters. And all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. And Enoch continued to please God and was not found, for God TRANSLATED him.”
Why did Father YAHWEH translate Enoch? Because he was a very Godly man in the Antediluvian Period of the Bible, and Father YAHWEH needed him as we will see.
Now, please turn in your Bibles to Second Peter, Chapter 2, Verses 4 and 5, which states:
“For if God spared not angels who sinned, but confining them in TARTARUS, in chains of darkness, delivered them up to be kept for judgment – and if He spared not the old world, but preserved eight persons, including Noah, the proclaimer of righteousness, when He brought a deluge on the world of ungodly men…”
He then quotes:
Jude Verses 14b through 15 which states:
“Now to such as these Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, ‘Behold the Lord is coming with His Holy Myriads (Angels) to execute judgment on ALL and to convict ALL the wicked among them of ALL their impious deeds, which they have impiously committed, and of ALL the bitter things which impious sinners have uttered against Him.’”
Because of these Watcher Angels, who left their Heavenly Abode to corrupt Father YAHWEH’s Creation, sin entered the world on a grand scale, and Father YAHWEH had to deal with it immediately!
As you can see, both Peter and Jude directly quoted from the Book of Enoch.
Now, please turn in your Bibles to Genesis Chapter 6, Verses 1 through 4 which states:
“AND it came to pass when the men (Adamites) began to be multiplied on the Earth and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (Angels) seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whom they chose: then The LORD GOD said, ‘My Breath must not continue in these men to this age, because they are flesh; their days, however, shall be an hundred and twenty years.’ Now there were GIANTS on the Earth in those days, after the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men, and they bore offspring to them. These were the giants of old, the men of renown.”
So, the angels of Father YAHWEH, left their first estate (Heaven) and came down to Earth, and procreated with Adamic women, thus bringing forth hybrid children of Heaven and Earth known as the Nephilim Giants.
Continuing with Genesis Chapter 6, Verses 5 through 12 which states:
“So, when the LORD GOD saw that the wickedness of the men on the Earth was multiplied, and that everyone was in his heart studiously and continually bent upon evils, God was grieved that He had made man on the Earth. And God came to a determination and said, ‘I will blot out from the face of THIS EARTH the man I have made, both man and beast; both reptiles and birds of the air. For I am grieved that I made them.’ But Noe found favor in the sight of The LORD.”
“Now these are the generations of Noe. Noe was a just man; and being perfect in the tenor of his life, Noe please God. And Noe had three sons, Sem, Cham, Japheth. Now the Earth was corrupt before God; and the Earth was filled with iniquity. And God beheld the Earth and it was corrupt; because ALL FLESH had corrupted their way on the Earth.”
As an FYI: he is employing that Second Temple Era (516 BC-70 AD) term Watchers (a mere a.k.a. for Malakim/Angels) for an event that was recorded centuries, or millennia, earlier, and took place even more millennia before that, due to his reliance on 1 Enoch.
It is not clear that Peter quoted that text, but Jude seems to have quoted its paraphrase of Deut 33:2, “The LORD came from Sinai and dawned from Seir upon us; he shone forth from Mount Paran; he came from the ten thousands of holy ones, with flaming fire at his right hand.”
In any case, we may point out that Paul quoted Greek poets so, what of it?
We seem to have gotten the answer to Dr. Prock’s usage of Giants (or, one of them) since this time, he compounded, “Nephilim Giants” as referring to the same beings. Well, biblically contextually, “Nephilim Giants” means, “Nephilim Nephilim” so that is circularly redundant. Yet, his usage is still unclear since is he merely nothing that Giants renders Nephilim or that Nephilim were Giants? If the former then we will have to suss out if he employs that usage consistently, if the latter then that only and still begs the question as to English Bibles’ usage vs. his usage of Giants.
He continues thusly, “So, according to Father YAHWEH, ALL FLESH HAD CORRUPTED THEIR WAY ON THE EARTH.”
This time around, he asserts that, “Apocryphal Book of Enoch, which is not in our Bibles…was quoted by Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, and Peter and Jude” and notes, “200 Watcher Angels, led by Semyaz, came down from Heaven onto Mount Hermon” pause: the very specificnumber, the very specific location, and the name Semyaz are Enochian innovation and linguistically contextually, “Watcher Angels” means, “Angels Angels”—see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
At this point, he quotes Dr. Michael S. Heiser about whom I will note that he was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology was not biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved within that context—see these articles for examples:
I also included him in my book, The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
He held to that demons are dead Nephilim and, of course, got that from folklore from well, you know when.
The point of quoting Dr. Heiser was to make a claim about Jesus at the foot (or thereabouts) of Mt. Hermon:
Matthew Chapter 16, Verses 13 through 18. Remember what YAHSHUA, Jesus the Christ, stated at the base of Mount Hermon:
“When Jesus was going to Caesarea-Philippi, He asked His Disciples, saying, Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? And they said, Some say, John the Baptist; and some, Elias; and some Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith to them, And who do ye say that I am? Upon this Peter, in reply, said, Thou art THE CHRIST, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus answering, said to him, Happy art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee, but My Father Who is in Heaven. Now I say to thee, Thou art named Peter, and upon this very rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against It.”
Long linguistics story short, “the Greek word translated ‘hell’ (ᾅδης, hadēs)…the Underworld—Hades, the realm of all the dead, not just unbelievers. The Hebrew equivalent to Hades is Sheol— the place ‘under the earth’ where all went after this life ended’…Both the righteous and the unrighteous went to Sheol…”
The bottom line of which is to apply something about the Underworld to that, “According to the Old Testament, Bashan was controlled by two kings—Sihon and Og—who were associated with the ancient giant clans: the Rephaim and the Anakim…The people of Ugarit believed the Rephaim were the spirits of dead warrior-kings.”
This can get very complex very quickly so I will succinctly note that such is a manner whereby to claim that Rephaim (with Anakim being like a clan of that tribe) where some sort of not-really human living dead. That, as we saw from the quote from Dr. Heiser, is applying Pagan mythology to biblical theology. In Ugaritic texts, recently deceased kings and heroes were referred to as kings and heroes but after they had been dead for some time, they were called rpu (which is their version of rapha) and could be summoned from the dead to attend rituals, etc.—for details, see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.
From that, Dr. Heiser, and thus Dr. Prock, get that, “Mount Hermon was the location where the divine sons of God had descended from Heaven— ultimately corrupting humankind via their offspring with human women (see Gen 6:1–4). These offspring were known as Nephilim, ancestors of the Anakim and the Rephaim (Num 13:30–33). In Israelite theology, the spirits of these giants were demons (1 Enoch 15:1–12).”
What we have at this point is really a mashing together of Pagan mythology, the historical record of the Gen 6 affair (as I term is), an evil report, and folklore which has somehow come to be termed Israelite theology by Dr. Prock without the qualification that it was myopic Israelite theology from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah.
As for, “Nephilim, ancestors of the Anakim and the Rephaim” that ranges from unsupported (unsupportable) to what I will term an expandio ad absurdum argument from silence.
Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there is zero correlation between them.
How could it possibly be that Nephilim were the ancestors of the Anakim and the Rephaim when God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.?
Note that fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper and, consciously or not, post-flood-Nephilologists always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus.
Just how did Dr. Prock get Nephilim past the flood, past God? Well, Dr. Prock told us up front: a, “Second Incursion”—which implies that God missed that loophole which made the flood much of a waste so that God failed and for which there is not only literally zero indication but zero reason to invent such an un-biblical theology proper damaging fantasy story.
See, the one and only reason to even imagine (and imagination is that all it is) post-flood Nephilim was pinpointed by Dr. Prock: 1) an evil report and 2) very late-dated folklore—mashed together via a category error that violates the law of identity.
Num 13:33 reads, “there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight” (as the KJV has it). Now, post-flood Nephilologists would hope that you simply read that one verse, pick it up, run with it, apply it, and turn it into a worldview-hermeneutic which becomes a black hole which pulls other texts into it which makes for taking texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts.
Yet, key hermeneutical questions are: who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, does it conflict with other texts, are there textual critical issues, etc.
I actually quoted a non-Septuagint/LXX version on purpose since that is what Dr. Justin G. Prock played off of: the LXX does not mention Anakim in that verse at all.
Au fond, that verse is an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. They just made up a fear-mongering, scare-tactic, “Don’t go in the woods…” style of tall-tale.
The report consists of five mere assertions that are unsupported by even one single other verse in the whole Bible. They also contradicted Moses, Cabel, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible. Plus, they created many logical, bio-logical, and theo-logical problems.
I am unsure why Dr. Prock did not elucidate these facts for his audience.
Anakim were named after Anak who was Arba’s son (Josh 15:13) and we have zero reliable indication that they were Nephilim. Also, to merely assert that all Rephaim were related to Nephilim is what I will term an expandio ad absurdum fallacy since it is merely asserting that is one Rephaim clan was (impossibly) related to Nephilim ergo, all Rephaim must have been as well.
…Remember what Paul stated in Second Corinthians Chapter 11, Verse 15, “Nor is this to be wondered at; for Satan himself putteth on the appearance of an angel of light: No wonder, then, if his ministers transform themselves to appear like ministers of righteousness. But their end will be according to their works.”
In other words, Satan and his angels will appear as angels of Father YAHWEH, when, in fact, they are the Fallen Angels.
Indeed, this is about appearance as in what Satan (not Angels) pretends to be and he is not an Angel, he is a Cherub (Ezek 28).
He then quotes, “Enoch Chapter 7, Verses 2 through 6” which states: “And the women became pregnant and gave birth to great giants whose heights were three hundred cubits…” which is a non-standard version since that text actually has Nephilim being 3,000 ells tall which is miles tall: great folklore, poor reality.
At this point, he plays off of a very popular pop-post-flood-giants-Nephilology conspiracy, “The Smithsonian collecting and hiding the skeletal remains of these giants from the past, as well as those found today? Do you think that this finding of skeletal remains of giants just might contradict the atheistic narrative of Darwinism? Yes, it absolutely does!”—see the relevant chapter of my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.
That is a great North American evangelical-style assertion to make yet, the only reason he gave us for thinking that Nephilim were subjectively any taller than the parochial average (which is that the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) is one single sentence from an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked and very much late-dated folklore.
The dirty little secret is that since we have 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.
Due to assertions in 1 Enoch, Dr. Prock tells us, “Adamic men learned what to wear for war and Adamic women learned how to beautify themselves, as well as the art of witchcraft, sorcery, and astrology” note that biblically Adamic men and women are the only game in town.
After quoting much from 1 Enoch, he concludes, “Father YAHWEH sent His Holy Archangel Asuryal to warn Noah of the impending judgment on the Earth, and commanded His Other Holy Archangels, Raphael, Gabriel, and Michael, to carry out His Righteous Judgment on the Watchers and their offspring, the Nephilim Giants, and to cleanse the Earth.”
Note that, by definition, there is only one Arch-Angel (and that is Michael) and that Asuryal and Raphael are biblically unknown supposed Angels—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
Most importantly, note that he is implying that even though God, “commanded His Other Holy Archangels, Raphael, Gabriel, and Michael, to carry out His Righteous Judgment on the Watchers and their offspring, the Nephilim Giants, and to cleanse the Earth” all of them failed, all of them missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste since they just came right back post-flood—as per Dr. Justin G. Prock implications.
He went on to write:
When you read the Old Testament, you will note that there were other giant clans all throughout the Land of Canaan that the Israelites had to deal with in order to conquer the Promised Land.
These Serpent Seedline Nephilim Giants and their offspring, the Anakims, Aviums, Caphtorims, Emins, Horims, Rephaims, Zamzummins, and Zuzims, mixed their seed with the line of Cain, the Kenites, as well as the tribes of Canaan, known as Canaanites: the Amorites, the Arkites, the Arvadites, the Girgashites, the Hamathites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, the Perizzites, the Sinites, and the Zemarites. These giants were known to be of great stature with six fingers and six toes and had double rows of teeth.
This gives us a lot with which to deal:
1) As per his usage thus far, “other giant clans” would logically and bio-logically mean, “other Nephilim clans” post-flood yet, that causes the problems that have been noted.
2) The usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles 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.
3) “Serpent Seedline Nephilim Giants” is a fantasy category error that mashes together an assertion that there is a physical Serpent Seedline which is said to include Nephilim along with what is either an English a.k.a. for Nephilim or an assertion about subjectively unusual height—see my five-volume book series Cain As Serpent Seed of Satan for a refutation of the serpent seed theory.
4) The various tribes and clans he lists are an example of a hyper-expandio ad absurdum argument from silence: there is literally zero reliable indication that any of them had anything to do with Nephilim and only one unreliable non-LXX version’s sentence worth of indication that one of those clans did.
5) Zamzummim is merely an a.k.a. for Rephaim and Anakim and Emmim(which he did not list) were like clans of that tribe.
6) Rephaim/Zamzummim, Anakim, Emmim as giants as per Dr. Prock’s latter usage: the only thing we are contextually told about them is that they were subjectively, “tall” (Deut 2)—which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants and again, meaning taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
7) “were known to be of great stature with six fingers and six toes” known by whom, where, and when? That is only stated about one single Repha (1 Chron 18-21) and that one Repha is not Goliath.
8) “double rows of teeth” known by whom, where, and when? That is just a modern-pop-Nephilology assertion, there is nothing about such teeth in the Bible.
Now, Dr. Justin G. Prock asserts, “Esau married into this serpent seedline. Hence, the line of Esau/Edom is corrupted Serpent Seedline!” which is quite a simple un-biblical tall-tale to dispatch when we consider that part of his supposed support for that is that with which he followed directly, “In First Samuel Chapter 17, David had to deal with the champion of the Philistine army, the giant Goliath, who was over six cubits tall and had six fingers and six toes. The number ‘666’ is always associated with the Serpent Seedline.”
The premise is faulty and so is the conclusion.
1) Biblically contextually, “the giant Goliath” means, “the Repha Goliath” and such is what he was.
2) “over six cubits tall” I am unsure why Dr. Prock did not inform his audience 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. so, that is the preponderance of the earliest data.
3) Yet, even if myopically opting for the taller of the height ranges: that, as we saw, does not correlate him to Nephilim, whose height is unknown.
4) “six fingers and six toes”: no such thing is stated about Goliath.
5) Thus, “The number ‘666’” (however it is that Dr. Prock got that sum from 12 supposed fingers+12 alleged toes) is irrelevant.
As per Dr. Justin G. Prock, Nephilim were serpent seed so that when he asserts, “Seed of the Serpent survived the Flood” he contradicted the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) since that is how many times we are told who survived it but Nephilim/serpent seed are not on any of those lists.
Worse still, God failed to do be rid of them Himself and even failed when He (supposedly) attempted to have His people, the Israelites, get rid of them since, “and continues to this day through the seed of Esau/Edom, as well as the other tribes of Canaan!”
That is a tragically dangerously misguided thing to assert since he is asserting that some people are not fully human—see chapter, “Nephil Kampf” of my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.
For him, that was the, “Second Incursion of Satanic Seedline” which started with, “Satan/Samael and his offspring, Cain” even though Gen 4:1 clearly states, “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.’”
Dr. Prock is very specific, “200 Watcher Angels and their offspring, the Nephilim Giants…everything had corrupted itself upon the Earth, and men only thought evil continually…That is why in Genesis Chapters 6 through 8, Father YAHWEH flooded His Earth in order to purge and purify His Earth of all of its wickedness and abominable sins.”
Thus, the only logical (yet, un-biblical) conclusion is that, “Father YAHWEH flooded His Earth in order to purge and purify” but could not get the job done since He missed a loophole that Dr. Prock managed to figure out.
But it is not just an implication that God missed a generic loophole but a wholesale survival of them as is, since he wrote, “For more information on whether The Flood was worldwide or only local with regard to Father YAHWEH’s Creation, please see Bertrand L. Comparet’s article, Noah’s Flood was Not Worldwide!”
Thus, “Father YAHWEH flooded His Earth in order to purge and purify” but did not flood quite enough. Well, the fact is that the scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either did not make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form—and, by the way, see my books Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local?, Vol I: A Historical Survey of Views from BC to AD and Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local?, Vol II: A Historical Survey of Commentaries from the 1500s to the 2000s.
At this point, Dr. Justin G. Prock goes the route of warning against, “modern science!…biological and chemical weapons; chemtrails; fluoride for the water supply; genetically modified, processed and artificial foods and preservatives; pharmaceutical gene altering mRNA hydrogel nanotechnological vaccines and prescription drugs; as well as the crossbreeding and cloning of animal species, which, by the way, all leads us to Artificial Intelligence, CRISPR Gene Editing Biotechnology, and Transhumanism, which is the atheistic belief that man can live eternally without God…,” etc. which are important issues but not within the context of my review, see my books The Golden Golem Goal: From Organism to Transhumanism – On the tangled web of occult mystical alchemy and high tech Transhumanist chemistry and Transhuman Hollywood: From Normative Fiction to Predictive Programming.
Thus, overall, we got a typical pop-post-flood-giants-Nephilology view which is based on vague terminology the usage of which switches without informing the audience, late-dated un-biblical folklore, the employment of fractions of texts that are mashed together via such, and assertions upon assumptions upon theology proper damaging claims.
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.
Pastor Paul Tackett (Master’s degree in Pastoral Theology: the, “Meet Out Pastor” section of the, “About” page of his site does not state from where), of VerseQuest Ministries, posted a PDF titled SCATTERED GIANTS: NEPHILIM MIGRATION MAPS which is part of a, “15-part deep-dive series exposing the global movement of the Nephilim from Genesis 6 to Revelation 13.”
He assures us, “It’s Bible-based” and also, “It’s prophetically urgent” and, “Watchmen and warriors—this one’s for you.”
He begins by writing, “This series maps how the giants of old scattered from Babel, infiltrated Egypt, spread across Asia, Europe, the Americas, and even hid in Antarctica—then resurfaced in our time through elite bloodlines, secret societies, transhumanism, and AI hybridization.”
One instant issue is that since he jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the modern generically subjective English word giants, we need to know what the usage is of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? We also need to know Pastor Tackett’s usage. And only then can we determine if those two usages agree.
Employing watered down terms makes it simple to pull a lot of strings together into a tangle web he weaves but forces the serious reader to have to do the work of attempting to figure out his meaning with every usage. Example, he wrote, “From red-haired giants in Nevada to watcher tech in Silicon Valley” which are wildly different categories ranging from biological anatomy to a conceptually metaphorical usage. Such is what makes the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants so useless since it needs to be defined with every usage and so the issue becomes: why use it, why not just say what you mean and mean what you say—up front.
Since actual watchmen watch and discern if the purported danger is real before warning about impending doom and actual warriors only war against real enemies and not imagined ones, let us see if that which follows is Bible-based and prophetically urgent.
Pastor Paul Tackett continued by noting, “giants, walking among men, born of an unholy union between the sons of God and the daughters of men” (all emphasis, bold in this case, which follows is in the original) thus, at this point, by giants he means Nephilim, “Scripture calls them the Nephilim—mighty men of renown, but abominations in the eyes of God.”
He rightly notes, “The Flood wiped them out,” which counts as Bible-based and yet, he follows directly with, “Or so we thought.” Yet, it is not a case of what we thought but what God revealed: five times He told us who survived and Nephilim are not on any list (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) nor is a return of Nephilim concept cogent or at all biblical.
Yet, he noted, “Genesis 6:4 makes a haunting statement: ‘There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that…’ What happened after the flood? Where did the Nephilim go? How did they reappear in the land of Canaan? And more importantly—where are they now?”
Let us succinctly consider this before he takes us on a, “Nephilim Migration Maps…journey through time, terrain, and spiritual war.”
It is very simple to quote half a verse and follow it by making assertions—especially when you cut the verse just when it was about to tell us to what days it is referring. He cut it at, “after that” which is incoherent since it begs the questions: after when? After, “those days” which begs the question: which days? Well, v. 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.”
Thus, those days were when the sons and daughters first married, mated, and birthed and so after that meant just that, after they first did so (they kept doing so) yet, that is still all pre-flood, of course, since God did not fail, did not missed a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
As for, “What happened after the flood?” lots of things but he is ignoring what the text states and is artificially inserting the flood into it. In fact, he is at v. 4 but the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later: v. 17. So, he cheated: he read ahead, looped back, cut v. 4 in half, ignored what it states, and inserted the flood into a verse that does not even hint of any such thing.
As for, “Where did the Nephilim go?” we are not told but it would seem that they went to sheol, just like all of the pre-Jesus ascension dead did.
As for, “How did they reappear in the land of Canaan?” it is quite simple: they did not and there is literally zero reliable indication that they did—or that they could have since, again, God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Yet, post-flood Nephilologists always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus—consciously or not.
As for, “where are they now?” likely sheol.
Pastor Paul Tackett then switches back to giants, from NephilimMigration Maps, by still introducing the study, “post-Babel dispersion of the giants” and this time denotes that his usage ranges, “From the Anakim of Canaan to the red-haired giants of Nevada, from the Titans of Greece to the gods of Mesoamerica” which denotes more category errors and a window into how slippery his usage is.
He assures us, “This is Bible truth” and that it is, “rightly divided” along with that, “The war against the Nephilim is not over” so that, again, God must have failed.
He notes that, “The Nephilim stand as one of the Bible’s most intriguing and controversial mysteries. Their name evokes imagery of giants” so that this time around, his usage cannot be Nephilim or else he was stating, “The Nephilim…evokes imagery of Nephilim” which would be circularly redundant. But since he has used giants to refer to Nephilim, to red-haired giants, to whatever, “watcher tech” means, to Anakim,to Titans to gods, etc. I suppose that I will have to guess that this time around he means something as useless as subjectively unusual height compared to the parochial average.
We then get a window as to why he is partial to using the word giants without ever defining it (and using it to mean many things along the way) and that is because he is relying on one English version as he appeals to, “those who take the Bible seriously, especially from a rightly divided, dispensational KJV standpoint” thus, since that version has giants in Gen 6:4, he goes with it: apparently never pondering the usage—note that he did not elucidate on which iteration of the KJV he is relying.
He then asserts, “Nephilim are…a key to understanding the spiritual battle that has waged on this earth since the days of Noah” even though biblically, that is when their portion of the battle ended, “these corrupted bloodlines and their influence may still be active today” which, again, shows how fallacious Nephilology can damage theology proper.
At this point, he notes, “This series—Scattered Giants: Nephilim Migration Maps—aims to uncover that trail,” etc.
He makes a cryptic reference to, “the biblical ‘-im’ tribes (Anakim, Rephaim, Emim, Zamzummim, etc.)” which makes it seem that he is unaware that 1) im is merely the Hebrew (male) plural and 2) Rephaim were aka Zamzummim and Anakim and Emmim were like clans of that tribe (Deut 2).
He next loops back to the Gen 6 affair (as I term it) and make this clear, “Here, ‘giants’ is translated from the Hebrew word Nephilim” and the, “Here” is a very, very important qualifying term since that answer to the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles 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. Thus, Pastor Paul Tackett’s usage thus far, only agrees with the English Bibles’ usage in one verse, thus far.
Recall that I noted the five times that God inspired who survived the flood and that Nephilim are not on any of those lists and compare that to what Pastor Tackett notes which is, “here’s the key: the Nephilim weren’t eradicated at the Flood.” Since he is looping around he again makes the point, “Genesis 6:4 drops this chilling clause—‘and also after that.’ This reveals the persistence or reappearance of these hybrid beings after the Flood” which is a non-sequitur, this time based on merely four words.
He notes, “though the mechanism remains debated. Whether through a second incursion or a surviving bloodline on the ark (possibly through Ham’s wife or Canaan), they returned.” See, post-flood Nephilologists are forced to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about just how it was that the flood was much of a waste based on which loophole God missed—but the post-flood Nephilologists managed to figure out.
He goes on to make his case, “The first post-Flood clues of the Nephilim are found in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10), particularly with the lineage of Ham through Canaan. The cursed line of Canaan becomes the host for many of the tribes of giants later seen in the land of Canaan—Rephaim, Emim, and Anakim. Deuteronomy and Numbers later confirm their presence.”
Note that now, giants refers to, “Rephaim, Emim, and Anakim.” Well, what he has done, without informing his audience, is two switch categories and usages of the term giants: 1) Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim (by any other name) were strictly post-flood humans, and there is zero correlation between them and so 2) there is literally zero correlation between that tribe and those clans and pre-flood Nephilim.
But he did note, “post-Flood…Nephilim are found in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10)” which they are not since they are not mentioned anywhere in that chapter. Plus, “Deuteronomy and Numbers later confirm their presence” so we will have to see where abouts in those books.
From Gen 10, he picked out, “Genesis 10:8-10 speaks of Nimrod, a descendant of Ham, who became a ‘mighty one in the earth.’ This phrase is eerily similar to ‘mighty men of renown’ from Genesis 6:4.”
That is a myopic correlation since he could have elucidated by writing, “This phrase is eerily similar to ‘mighty men of renown’” when the key term gibbor/im is used of Angels or humans or even God Himself: examples are Gideon, Boaz, some of David’s soldiers, and God being referred to as El Gibbor (Isa 9).
He asks, “Is it possible that Nimrod had Nephilim blood?” which he answers thusly, “While the Bible doesn’t confirm this explicitly, the language strongly suggests he was more than just an ambitious man. He may have been a hybrid or Nephilim-empowered leader who spearheaded the rebellion that culminated in the Tower of Babel.”
His answer should have been: absolutely not, there is literally zero indication that any such thing was even possible, where is your regard for God and His Word?
He plays off of this by referring to, “the building of the Tower of Babel…possibly under the rule of a mighty Nephilim-descendant (Nimrod)” though we do not have any indication he had anything to do with the tower.
He then notes, “Ancient Jewish tradition (e.g., the Book of Jasher) and extra-biblical texts (like the Book of Enoch) suggest the tower was a ziggurat meant to access the heavens,” etc. but the term ancient is subjective. Sure, 1 Enoch is ancient to us by it is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.” Pastor Tackett noted that it is, “non-canonical but historically informative” yet, there is no indication that it provides any historically accurate data.
We have more than one Jasher book, both of which are just modern-day hoaxed frauds, see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
Note that he cannot confirm that Nimrod was a Nephil (but he could confirm that he was not) and also uses more qualifying terms, “if,” and that is a big IF, “the Nephilim were among them” and uses two levels of doubt to push the idea that if plus if equals, “their DNA or demonic influence persisted—then the scattering sent that influence to the four corners of the globe.”
Note that Pastor Paul Tackett, again consciously or not, has God failing such that, “God Sent Israel to Eradicate Them” but that was another of God’s failures since Pastor Tackett has Nephilim continuing on to this very day.
He then comes to the second of only two verses in which Nephilim are mentioned, “When the 12 spies return from scouting the land in Numbers 13:33, they bring back this alarming report: ‘And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers…’”
This is a misrepresentation of the narrative since there were 12 spies total but it was the unreliable 10 who presented an evil report wherein they merely asserted that and were rebuked by God: unsure why the Pastor did not mention those utterly key facts.
Well, he did go on to correct himself in a manner of speaking (since there are two reports in that chapter but he only mentioned the second and misattributed it to them tall), “Joshua and Caleb are undaunted, but the other 10 spies are terrified.”
He comments, “The Anakim—direct descendants of the Nephilim” which is only based on non-LXX versions of that one sentence since the LXX lacks any mention of Anakim in that verse. Regardless, the 10 merely made five assertions and contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the whole rest of the entire Bible, see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Thus, that Nephilim, “were so imposing that seasoned warriors felt like insects beside them” was just a tall-tale: the dirty little secret is that since we have 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.
Yet, Pastor Paul Tackett assures us, “This was no exaggeration.”
All post-flood Nephilology is literally premised on one single sentence by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: post-flood Nephilim, that they were very, very tall, and that (in non-LXX versions) Anakim were related to them (in some unknown and literally impossible way). Once someone has uncritically picked up and has run with Num 13:33’s evil report they then use (abuse) it to pull other texts taken out of context to make pretexts for pooftexts into its black hole—such as we saw he did with Gen 6 and Deut 2.
He goes on to say, “God’s command to Moses and Joshua to utterly destroy these tribes was not genocidal whimsy—it was divine judgment on the polluted bloodlines that had once nearly destroyed all of humanity.” But note to what he is referring to by, “these tribes” since he noted, “In Deuteronomy 2 and 3, we see explicit references to Israel destroying Rephaim and Emim; in Joshua 11:21-22, the Anakim are wiped out…The conquest of Canaan wasn’t just a land grab—it was a surgical strike against Nephilim strongholds.”
Yes, all of that is based on one sentence.
The fact is that, “God’s,” actual, “command to Moses and Joshua” never include one single word about Nephilim.
Thus, Pastor Tackett piles assertion atop assertion into a giant conclusion since he gave us no reason to even imagine that, “Rephaim and Emim” had anything to do with Nephilim and, again, “Anakim are wiped out” since they were of, “polluted bloodlines” in, “Nephilim strongholds” is based on some versions of an unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable rebuked guys.
Anakim were named after Anak who was Arba’s son (Josh 15:13) and we have zero reliable indication that they were Nephilim: such an assertion is illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical.
He then loops back to, “several ‘-im’ tribes in the land: Rephaim, Emim, Zamzummim, and Anakim” and breaks them down thusly, “Rephaim: These giants were in Bashan, with Og being the last known king (Deut. 3:11). His bed was over 13 feet long. Anakim: The most direct link to the original Nephilim, found in Hebron and surrounding mountains. Zamzummim and Emim: Moabite and Ammonite regions, east of Jordan.”
Again, these are a tribe and two clans. Biblically contextually, “Rephaim: These giants” means, “Rephaim: These Rephaim” so again, he is misusing giants to mean something about height. He noted, “His bed was over 13 feet long” but 1) since we do not have a reliable physical description of Nephilim, no height of any sort can correlate anyone to Nephilim and 2) what does a bed have to do with anything?
Well, we have no physical description of Og (not until folkloric tall-tales from centuries and millennia after his time) so the assumption is that the bed tells us something about his personal size. Yet, to cut to the chase, it was not something upon which he 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?
It seems that Pastor Tackett employed a typical (typically incoherent) post-flood Nephilology assumption: he assumes Anakim were Nephilim and ergo, all Rephaim must have somehow been Nephilim—that is an expandio ad absurdum.
He then has a very short section titled, “Beyond the Bible: Global Legends of Giants” which notes, “If the Nephilim influence was dispersed at Babel, we would expect to find legends of giants among global civilizations” but since that is based on one of the five assertions within the evil report, it is a non-issue.
He then included a subsection which touches upon one of the most used, abused, and misused verses amongst post-flood Nephilologists, “Prophetic Implications: As It Was in the Days of Noah” which notes, “Jesus said in Matthew 24:37” and quoted, “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
To him, this is about, “the presence of Nephilim. If those days are to return, we should expect not just moral decay, but possibly a return of hybridization, demonic mingling with human flesh, and the resurrection of the ancient rebellion.”
Sure, it is easy to come to such a conclusion when only one single sentence is pulled from context yet, quoting from a fuller recording of it, Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were, “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”
But He kept speaking directly with, “Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17).
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment and nothing about sci-fi tall-tales.
He then asks, “Could Nephilim bloodlines still exist? Could world leaders, occult societies, or global elites carry remnants of this lineage?,” etc. which is astonishingly dangerous since he is asserting or implying that some humans are not human and historically, that has led to mass and serial murder. Such dangerous incoherence is so common amongst post-flood Nephilologists that I included a chapter quoting and elucidating such, titled, “Nephil Kampf,” in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.
Yet, to Pastor Tackett, “Tracking the Nephilim isn’t just a theological curiosity—it’s a prophetic necessity” in part, since, “It explains global mythology: the giants, gods, and monsters of old may be real” followed by the dangerous, “many nations and bloodlines may carry the legacy of rebellion” so, pray tell, what is to be done to such nations and bloodlines?
He then loops back to the Tower of Babel which is only relevant, “to those who look deeper—especially through the lens of spiritual warfare and Nephilim influence” which is a styled form of lower-case gnosticism since if you do not see any of what he is talking about then it is your fault since you are not looking deeper.
Recall that before, he carefully qualified his statements, “ifthe Nephilim were among them” and, “the building of the Tower of Babel…possibly under the rule of a mighty Nephilim-descendant (Nimrod)” and, “language strongly suggests he was more than just an ambitious man. He may have been a hybrid or Nephilim-empowered leader.”
Well, at this point, he leaves such careful traipsing behind and merely makes positive affirmations, “Babel was a global pivot point, a spiritual fracture in history where not only mankind was scattered, but so were the corrupted bloodlines of the Nephilim” even if he is still a bit unsure about specifics, “Babel may have functioned as a launchpad for the global spread of Nephilim-influenced bloodlines and pagan systems that still exist to this day” (emphasis added for emphasis).
He has it that, “This tower was likely a ziggurat…used for celestial observation and spiritual rituals…the worship of the ‘gods’—which we would understand as fallen angels or the spirits of Nephilim.”
He then loops back to Nimrod and asserts that an unenumerated, “Many” unnamed, unquoted, and un-cited, “Bible scholars and Hebrew language experts suggest that Nimrod ‘began to be’ a mighty one—implying he may have undergone some transformation or corruption…possibly Nephilim-tainted or demon-possessed” and yet, the text is very clear: he was a regular guy, a well known hunter, who became might, “Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord” mind you, “Therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord” mind you. Yet, do not let that trouble, or comfort, you since in typical post-flood Nephilologist form, Pastor Tackett noted, “‘mighty hunter before the LORD.’ This phrase can also mean ‘against the LORD.’ He was a rebel king, self-appointed, not God-ordained.”
He then loops back to the flood, “God wiped out everything except Noah’s family” but four misread, misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied words, “and also after that” means that God could not get, and keep, the job done—not even post-flood, you will recall, since not even when God had to get mere humans to do what which He could not do were they successful since Nephilim persist to this very day—somehow and somewhere.
Since we are merely on page 8 of 95, we will begin skipping a lot since Pastor Tackett touches upon a subject, moves on, loops back, reiterates his previous statements, moves on, loops back, etc.
Let us consider, “The Bloodlines: Canaan, Ham, and the Giant Nations,” swapping back to giants, “From Canaan sprang the nations and tribes that became the enemies of Israel—and many were home to giants” and he lists Canaanites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Perizzites but, pray tell, what is wrong with them since, after all, these are ites so, whatever happened to the im? Believe it or not, there are post-flood Nephilologists who actually do make a case of that im vs. ites denotes something biological: as if transliterations into modern English are some sort of window into (allegedly) deep things.
Indeed, before the im were the problem but not it is the ites as well: not one is safe from dangerous un-biblical tall-tales.
He went on to assert, “These peoples were not just pagan—they were genetically polluted. The Anakim, Rephaim, Emim, and Zamzummim would be among them, described in Deuteronomy and Numbers as giants, some of whom had six fingers and toes, massive stature, and lived in fortified high places.”
I suppose that we could say that a slight genetic mutation that causes an extra finger on each hand to be duplicated can be said to be, “genetically polluted” yet, 1) all post-fall humans are genetically polluted and 2) we know such is not what he means by it.
As for, “described in Deuteronomy” Rephaim are but Nephilim are not and, in “Numbers” many are, including Nephilim but in an evil report. Yet, “described…as giants” as per his misusage well, again, we do not have a reliable physical description of Nephilim and Rephaim, in general, are described as having been, “tall” (Deut 2) which is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as giants and, in this case, is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
As for, “some of whom had six fingers and toes” well, only if, “some” means one: since we are only told about one single such person (1 Chron 18-21). As for, “massive stature” well, that is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as tall and giants—the tallest person specified in the Bible was a 7.5ft Egyptian (2 Sam 23).
Pastor Paul Tackett ends up affirming, “Babel did not just scatter humans. It scattered bloodlines.”
He merely asserts, “Nephilim dynasties that still manipulate power behind the scenes.”
Pastor Paul Tackett offers a one, two, three eschatology punch which he asserts, cites and quotes as, “Just as the Nephilim rose before the Flood, and again after it, they may rise once more before the return of Christ. The Bible gives several clues: Matthew 24:37 – ‘As the days of Noah were…’ Daniel 2:43 – ‘They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men…’ Revelation 17–18 – ‘Mystery Babylon… is fallen, is fallen…’”
We reviewed how he misrepresented Jesus’ words, emphasis, and qualifying terms regarding the days of Noah. Dan 2:43 is another favorite of post-flood Nephilologists including the return of Nephilim sect. And yes, they typically quote one single sentence, the inference of which is that, “They” Nephilim, “shall mingle themselves with the seed of men.” Yet, there is no context is that sentence, nor paragraph, nor chapter, nor book for any such concept. Rather, Daniel was telling us of two people groups who would engage in commerce but would not intermarry, see my whole chapter about just that issue in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
He then loops back to going full on sci-fi with the AI (artificial intelligence) issue, “Technology and globalism are reconstructing what Babel once attempted—without bricks this time, but with bytes…genetic manipulation, AI…”
He positively affirms, “the Tower of Babel was…the launchpad of Nephilim corruption…scattered tribes…carried corrupted DNA…bloodlines…that still influence the world stage today.”
He then loops back to, “Mapping the ‘-Im,’” loops specifically back to the non-LXX evil report’s version of Anakim, and loops back to Rephaim in general, with a twist.
He notes, “Rephaim: The Shades and Ghostly Giants Name meaning: ‘Dead ones’ or ‘Healers’ (debated)” which is quite on point as the root word rapha has a wide span of meaning/definition and usage.
He actually notes, “Some translations simply call them ‘giants,’ but the name Rephaim is also used in contexts related to the realm of the dead, as in Isaiah 14:9: ‘Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead [rephaim] for thee…’ This dual use of Rephaim as both ‘giants’ and ‘the dead’ is striking. It suggests that these beings may have had spiritual implications beyond the physical—perhaps even necromantic worship or demonic possession” and loops back to Og’s bed.
A typical pop-Nephilology move is to turn the root word rapha into the people group Rephaim. Yet, the bottom line of why think they were some sort of living dead is that as per Pagan mythology, such as found in Ugaritic texts, recently deceased kings and heroes were referred to as kings and heroes but after they had been dead for sometime, they were called rpu (which is their version of rapha) and could be summoned from the dead to attend rituals, etc.—for details, see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.
FYI: Exodus 15:26 refers to YHVH Rapha as in God the healer or God my healer.
After listing, “Emim…Zamzummim…Og…Avim and Horim,” Pastor Paul Tackett loops back to, “God’s Command: Total Eradication” which he merely asserts pertained to, “intermingling with genetically and spiritually defiled tribes…pollute…The Nephilim.” Well, God told us many times why He commanded such but never said one single word about Nephilim, see relevant chapter of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
He actually argued, “The conquest of Canaan was not just about land—it was about preserving the seed line of the Messiah” yet, if we want to go the route of that assumption, the biblical view would be the flood was not just about wiping out only to be followed by a return—it was about preserving the seed line of the Messiah which God was successful at doing then and there.
Another indication of his multi-usage of giants at any given turn is, “David and the Remnant of the Giants” which pertains to, “Despite Joshua’s success, some giants remained. The Philistines, especially in Gath, continued to breed them. The most famous descendant of the Anakim was Goliath, who stood over 9 feet” for some odd reason, he did not inform his audience 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.
Yet, I am certain that those historical facts do not matter since he adheres to a KJV.
The rest of the 15-part series is basically a vicious looping circle over and over and over again—in fact, this was basically a one part 15-part series.
That is, with the exception of getting into the likes of things such as, “Antarctica and Inner Earth Theories” regarding, “Frozen Thrones and Hollow Shadows: Could the Nephilim Be Hidden in the Ends of the Earth?” and if you are interested in such tall-tales, see my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.
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.
Up front, the correlation of GIANTS to BIG MEN denotes that the article’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word GIANTS is something to do with subjectively unusual height at some level above the parochial average.
This usage is not only useless, since it has to be defined and then has to elucidate that unusual height (for example, biblically unusual height is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days)—and BIG is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage.
Note that this usage does not agree with the usage in English Bibles wherein 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.
Yet, within the context of BIG, we’re told, “Throughout history, the echoes of giants have persisted—from the Nephilim of Genesis to the towering Anakim, from Goliath and his brothers”:
1) 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.
2) The only contextually relevant thing we’re told about Anakim is that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as GIANTS and BIG.
3) 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.
4) The only physical description we have of, “his brothers” (his sons, really) is of just one of them, “a man of great stature” (2 Sam 21:20) which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as GIANTS, BIG and tall.
I’m unsure why these facts weren’t mentioned in the article.
It’s noted, “A particular Sumerian stone panel housed in the British Museum adds fuel to this ancient mystery. The relief shows a figure nearly as tall as a palm tree, towering over those around him…could this be one of the legendary ‘Big Men’ of Sumer—Lugal, the great king?”
IMAGE
Perhaps, but it could be adults interacting with a child.
Those could be not fully mature, not fully grown, trees.
And why should we take ancient, or from any time, carvings literally?
Was Abraham Lincoln really that big?
IMAGE
Now, we do get a reason for why Nephilim are referred to as BIG GIANTS in the article via a subsection titled, “‘We Were as Grasshoppers in Their Sight’: The Giants of the Bible” which notes:
In Numbers 13:33, the Israelite spies return from Canaan with a fearful report:
“There we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”
This was no exaggeration. The Anakim, a remnant of the Nephilim, were so massive that warriors felt dwarfed in comparison. The Bible speaks of:
Og, king of Bashan, whose bed was over 13 feet long (Deuteronomy 3:11).
Goliath of Gath, a warrior over 9 feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4).
The Rephaim, a race of giants referenced throughout biblical texts.
The Hebrew word for giants in Numbers 13:33 is נְפִילִים (Nephilim).
This is multifacetedly problematic:
1) It’s a misrepresentation of the chapter to generically assert, “the Israelite spies,” in general, said that since there were 12 but that was stated by the 10 unreliable ones.
2) “giants [Nephilim], the sons of Anak…” is only from non-LXX versions since that version lacks any reference to Anakim in that verse and it’s literally impossible that Anakim had anything to do with Nephilim. Anakim were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe and Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.
3) That was from an, “evil report” (fearful report) which consisted of five mere assertions and contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the whole rest of the Bible—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
4) God rebuked the 10, to death.
5) It was beyond an exaggeration, it was an impossible tall-tale and since that’s the only physical description we biblically have of Nephilim then, again, we’ve no reliable physical description of them and so can’t correlate subjectively unusual size to them.
6) Non-LXX versions of that unreliable report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked is the only indication of, “Anakim, a remnant of the Nephilim” so there’s no reason to believe in that version of the tall-tale. Anakim were named after Anak who was Arba’s son (Josh 15:13) and we have zero reliable indication that they were Nephilim: such an assertion is illogical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical.
7) What the 10 felt dwarfed by was what the original, accepted as is, reliable report noted earlier in that chapter, “the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large…we saw the descendants of Anak…Amalekites…Hittites…Jebusites…Amorites…And the Canaanites…” not a single word about Nephilim or height.
8) We don’t have a physical description of Og but the mere assumption (which his based on various hidden assumptions) is that his, “bed” denotes something about his personal height. Yet, that wasn’t something upon which he 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?
9) We already saw that, “Goliath…over 9 feet tall” is a latter data point.
10) Biblically contextually, “Rephaim, a race of giants” means, “Rephaim, a race of Rephaim.”
I’m unsure why these facts weren’t mentioned in the article.
We’re then told, “Etymology and Meaning of נְפִילִים (Nephilim) – GIANT” even though, “Root Word: נָפַל (nafal) – meaning to fall, to be cast down, to collapse.” Well, if, “Meaning of נְפִילִים (Nephilim) – GIANT” that only begs the question of what GIANT means, with which we already dealt—for more linguistic details, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
“Possible Interpretations” are noted, “‘The Fallen Ones’ – Some” unnamed, unquoted, and uncited, “scholars suggest Nephilim refers to fallen beings, possibly linked to fallen angels in extra-biblical traditions.” 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. This means that Nephilim were not the fallen Angels but that those Angels were their dads.
“‘The Mighty Ones’ – Others propose that Nephilim signifies mighty or powerful beings, not necessarily fallen but of great stature and strength.” It signifies that only in that Nephilim are described as gibborim which is a mere descriptive term for might/mighty—not that the term Nephilim means that.
“‘Those Who Cause Others to Fall’ – A military interpretation suggests they were fierce warriors who made their enemies collapse in fear.” In one way or another, that’s generally fair enough. Note that it seems that Nephilim is what Israelites ended up calling them and they would demean them: it’s doubtful that if you had met Nephilim back in the day, they would have been using that as a moniker, like a self-identification, they likely didn’t call themselves Nephilim.
We’re then told, “In Numbers 13:33, the Nephilim are described as ‘the sons of Anak,’” by some impossible extension, “a race of giants so massive…physically imposing” but for post-flood and GIANT Nephilologists that one single (non-LXX) sentence is the only game in town: without it, they literally have nothing, they must side with unreliable guys whom God rebuked rather than with the God who rebuked them—and have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how they got past the flood, past God.
Thus, when it comes to, “The biblical portrayal of giants mirrors Mesopotamian traditions, where great kings were often depicted as physically immense, ruling with divine authority” we can instantly dismiss that.
For example, when we’re told, “Gilgamesh…is described as physically massive, much like the Nephilim” we know that’s baseless.
The article ends with, “How do the biblical accounts of giants (Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim) compare to the Mesopotamian depictions of ‘Big Men’ (Lugal) and figures like Gilgamesh?” well, uhm, thy all had feet, ears, heads, elbows, etc., and were mighty in one or another way but that’s about all folks.
It’s also asked, “What role does fear and perception play in the biblical [10 unreliable rebuked] spies’ report of the giants in Canaan (Numbers 13:33)?” it played a hugely gigantic role that led to the fear-mongering scare-tactic, “Don’t go in the woods!!!” style of tall-tale.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
A 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.
I came across an interesting idea from this video. Thoughts?
I, KenAmmi, replied
The claim that Nephilim looked like clowns is based on a miscomprehension of the relevant linguistics, reliance on faulty sources, folklore, and mere assertions. For a detailed review of claim, see, “Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns?”
A certain Chicatt replied and the rest of the discussion was a refreshing example of how an instantly dismissive genetic logical fallacy turned into a pretty amicable interaction
Man this was so poorly written and incoherent. I’m gonna go with Paul…
KenAmmi
Well, “poorly written” is subjective and, “incoherent” is a mere assertion. So, why go with a guy whom literally made up a story about how the Nephilim looked–premised on the fact that we’ve no reliable physical description of them, mind you?
Chicatt
Cute word salad, you said nothing.
KenAmmi
“word salad” means you realize you’re literally incapable of dealing with the issue but you still want to post something. It’s simple: when it comes to Nephilology, Paul should be ignored. There’s a reason why he never directly appeals to what they looked like and that’s because we’ve no reliable physical description of them so he just made up stuff and people unfamiliar with the issue just believe him because well, thus saith Paul–I guess.
Chicatt
Again, you made no argument.
KenAmmi
S’what? I made 18 pages worth of arguments. Take your pick. How about that we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim so when Paul proports to provide us one, he’s just making up stuff?
Chicatt
🙄
KenAmmi
Exactly: you’re no answer. Friend, I’ve seen it 1,001 times: someone like Paul makes up stuff, undiscerning people love their tall-tales, I come along proving they’re mistaken, but my proof isn’t as exciting, so they opt for believing in fantasies. That’s the stuff of which pop-Nephilology is made and Paul pushed it over into literal clown show status now.
Chicatt
Actually his anthropological survey is quite compelling and he isn’t making any definitive claims.
Actually his anthropological survey is quite compelling andhe isn’t making any definitive claims.u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•18d ago I thought I posted a reply but I can’t see it now. In anycase: indeed. He just needs to drop the Nephilim angle since that’s a HUGE failfor him. I’m writing a review of the book now and it’s tragically poorNephilology. His book’s front matter states, “The characters and eventsportrayed in this book are fictitious where the author has created hypotheticalscenarios” but he goes on to claim he knows what Nephilim looked like. Hehad a guy illustrate what he thinks they looked like and he thinks that the offspringof two beings that look human don’t look human–go figure.u/Chicatt avatarChicatt•17d ago I think his evidence is compelling, especially the strikingsimilarity of shamanic practises and visuals across the world. It cannot beproven that’s exactly what Nephilim looked like but it is very interestingregardless.u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•17d ago Yes, interesting but I’m familiar with over two millenniaworth of relevant data and have written some dozen research-based Nephilologybooks: he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to Nephilim andthat’s a demonstrable fact many, many, many times over. It’s too bad he jumpedon the Nephilim-click bait band-wagon rather than sticking to what he appearsto be better at doing.u/Chicatt avatarChicatt•15d ago Nephilology isn’t a rigorous discipline so you are both justhaving fun and making conjectures based on your own interpretation of otherpeople’s accounts. And I think his conjectures are compelling. Respectfully, itseems like you’re ego is wrapped up in this topic as you’ve invested a lot intoit and you don’t like him stepping on your toes. Or perhaps you’re resentfulhis book has done well and I’ve never heard of you before?u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•14d ago Well, my “Systematic Biblical Paranormology”Nephilology is rigorous and it’s demonstrable that Stobbs misrepresents theBible, appeals to faulty sources, make linguistics errors, etc. I’d rather discuss the issue that having you play mindreader about your emotively subjective misinterpretation of my ego. In fact, Stobbs claims to have uncovered truth aboutNephilim that NO ONE is all of human history has known so tell me about hisego. Meanwhile, I CONSTANTLY beg people to step on my toes sinceI believe in sharpening iron with iron—but I found that when we seek to dothat, someone tends to get cut. And I don’t resent popularity based on making a living byselling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians.u/Chicatt avatarChicatt•13d ago Can you give me an example of one of his errors?u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•13d ago Well, I began by directing you to an entire article. He invented how Nephilim looked in part by appealing to”Seraphim Angels” of which there’s no such thing: he merely parrotedthat from Gary Wayne who committed a category error that violates the law ofidentity–he basically parroted Wayne for 99% of his Nephilology. On top of that, they merely assert that Seraphim weredragons/reptilian/serpentine, etc. which is an incoherent assertion that’sun-evidenced. Isa 6 is our biblical depiction of them and notes no such thing. So, that alone debunks his main point: what Nephilimallegedly looked like.u/Chicatt avatarChicatt•13d ago• Edited 13d ago Thank you for your response, I’m enjoying the discourse. Isee your point although the serpent in the garden could suggest the fallen oneswere also serpentine beings. I do see the connection between the shamanic/clownattire and the beings reported on hallucinogenic drugs which lends itself toStobb’s hypothesis. I was impressed by his assertion that clowns weresymbolizing giants with their tiny umbrellas, big shoes, small car, and theirblood-stained lips and nose. In Isaiah 6 their faces are covered and could beobscuring a striking serpentine visage.u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•8d ago Likewise. “the serpent in the garden” was a Cherub (Ezek 28)and merely called “serpent” and other things (Rev 12 and 20). Again, he can have his, “connection between theshamanic/clown attire” but I’m now on chap 12 of his book as I’m writing afull review of it and it’s utterly stunning how anyone with any knowledge ofthe subject matters revolving around Nephilology can take him seriously. But you see how this works, right? He literally throwsEVERYTHING at the wall and then tells you what sticks. So, for example, he got you to narrow your thought processto that now, “tiny umbrellas, big shoes, small car” aren’t done forhyperbolic effect or because such exaggerations are funny but because well,wait, he can only merely assert that Nephilim were “giants” (which isa word he contextually misuses). Likewise with, “blood-stained lips and nose” but1. you’re generalizing about clowns (that myopic thinking again) and 2.demanding it represents blood–based on folklore from centuries, if notmillennia, after the Torah (and he also relies on 100% demonstrable straight upfraudulent hoaxed texts). Same with Isaiah 6 which offers literally zero indication ofany thing serpentine: he talked you into believing something is there that’snot there. The issues isn’t “could be” because thus saith Paul, it’sthat it’s an argument from silence based on a very, very long series of utterfallacies.
KenAmmi
Likewise.
“the serpent in the garden” was a Cherub (Ezek 28) and merely called “serpent” and other things (Rev 12 and 20).
Again, he can have his, “connection between the shamanic/clown attire” but I’m now on chap 12 of his book as I’m writing a full review of it and it’s utterly stunning how anyone with any knowledge of the subject matters revolving around Nephilology can take him seriously.
But you see how this works, right? He literally throws EVERYTHING at the wall and then tells you what sticks.
So, for example, he got you to narrow your thought process to that now, “tiny umbrellas, big shoes, small car” aren’t done for hyperbolic effect or because such exaggerations are funny but because well, wait, he can only merely assert that Nephilim were “giants” (which is a word he contextually misuses).
Likewise with, “blood-stained lips and nose” but 1. you’re generalizing about clowns (that myopic thinking again) and 2. demanding it represents blood–based on folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah (and he also relies on 100% demonstrable straight up fraudulent hoaxed texts).
Same with Isaiah 6 which offers literally zero indication of any thing serpentine: he talked you into believing something is there that’s not there. The issues isn’t “could be” because thus saith Paul, it’s that it’s an argument from silence based on a very, very long series of utter fallacies.
Chicatt
In all seriousness, Nephililogy is a fringe are of study and not a rigorous discipline. It’s all circumstantial evidence but compelling. I find Paul’s work interesting but not authoritative and I wouldn’t consider anyone’s study on the subject authoritative unless they actually saw a Nephilim themselves. I think Paul had done a a good job in his anthropological survey. I enjoy his work and Gary Wayne’s work but my faith doesn’t hinge on their arguments. It’s just a fascinating in-house discussion for Christians with an interest in conspiracies.
KenAmmi
If only it was that simple–and it should be that simple. Stobbs and Wayne don’t succeed because they represent any truths but because they sell exciting neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
Now, you may be cogent enough to remain balanced even whilst listening to their false incoherence but the issue somewhat like unto how cults start: someone takes a minor, secondary (if that) issue, and turns it into THE issue.
So, while Stobbs and Wayne are tall-tale teller, the problem is that what they leave on their wake is un-biblical Angelology, un-biblical Nephilology, un-biblical anthropology, un-biblical you name it: Seraphimology, Repahimology, etc., etc., etc., and in the ends, they damage the canon and damage theology proper.
Chicatt
I think it’s an amusing idea but has no bearing on one’s salvific status. May I say that I think you’re taking it a bit too seriously, my friend? I respect your research on the Nephilim but I think so little is known about them, that there is room for different interpretations regarding them. I don’t see any intention on the part of Stobb’s or Wayne to begin a cult. It’s not an issue that is central to the faith. Just like there is room for people to be pre/a/post millennial, there is room for various ideas within Nephilology.
“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”
Ken Ammi
I would like to personally agree but the problem is that those guys do literally turn it into THE main issue. And it’s tragic that they’re so influential and could make such a positive impact but they’re just too in love with their superhero stories. What a shame.
And that ended the discussion since the only follow-up was when I told Chicatt:
I published the book “Did the Nephilim Look Like Clowns?: A Review of Paul Stobbs’ Theory”:
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.
I will not be divulging with whom I had the following discussion since it didn’t take place on the interwebs but via private email exchanges. Yet, it’s still worth posting anonymously in case someone may gain from it in terms of how such discussion can go.
I, Ken Ammi, commenced the interaction by contacting and anonymous him, noting:
I pray I find you well.
In the name of sharpening iron with iron, just wanted to let you know that I posted a review of the subject article:
And article I’m keeping out of this since it would let the cat out of the bag.
The reply was—without a single word of pleasantries and in bold (all bold in that which follows is by anon):
Not one verse in the entire OT where the Hebrew word “adam” is used is it referring to angels but to men of flesh:
God did not create angels with flesh and DNA that can procreate with humans but your free to believe as you wish!
Beginning with sarcasm, I replied:
I’m pleased to be in touch with you as well.
I’m unsure what, “the Hebrew word ‘adam'” has to do with, “referring to angels but to men of flesh.”
As for, “God did not create angels with flesh and DNA that can procreate with humans” well, that’s an assertion and the biblical fact is that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
Anon’s reply:
I am well aware that angels appear as men and can eat as these passages prove but there is not one verse that so much as hints that angels can procreate:
Genesis 18:2 & 8 and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood over against him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself to the earth,…..(8) And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.
Hebrews 13:2 Forget not to show love unto strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
There are some apostates out there claiming the serpent had sex with Eve so I would assume they also believe he had sex with Eve in the garden immediately after he deceived her as she was already naked:
Genesis 3:1 & 10 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?…..(10) And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
The insanity runs pretty deep down that rabbit hole!
Ken Ammi
Rabbit hole…………more like a serpent hole ;o)
Yet, I’m unsure it’s very deep.
It’s not that, “angels” merely, “appear as men and can eat” but that such is how they are, ontologically.
Also, we were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them.
Indeed, Genesis 18:2 & 8 and Hebrews 13:2 aren’t about that Angels can procreate.
That’s based on Gen 6, with Job 38 as support, and pinpointed by a Jude and 2 Peter 2 combo.
As for, “the serpent had sex with Eve” well, for one, Satan’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub and, no worries, I wrote a five volume set of books again that:
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. I: Considering Some Issues Which Encircle the Theory
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. II: Considering Zen Garcia’s Claims
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. III: Considering the Claims of Various Promulgators of this Theory
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. IV: Considering the Claims of White Supremacist Promulgators of this View
Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. V: Considering Mysticism and Occultism: from Jewish to Gnostic
Anon:
You poor souls forget who is in control of ALL wombs so that not once has any fallen angel been allowed to impregnate a human!:
1 Samuel 1:5-6 but unto Hannah he gave a double portion; for he loved Hannah, but Jehovah had shut up her womb. (6) And her rival provoked her sore, to make her fret, because Jehovah had shut up her womb.
Job 31:14-15 What then shall I do when God riseth up? And when he visiteth, what shall I answer him? (15) Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?
Psalms 139:13-16 For thou didst form my inward parts: Thou didst cover me in my mother’s womb. (14) I will give thanks unto thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well. (15) My frame was not hidden from thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. (16) Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was none of them.
Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith Jehovah, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am Jehovah, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth (who is with me?);
Isaiah 49:5 And now saith Jehovah that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, and that Israel be gathered unto him (for I am honorable in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God is become my strength);
Isaiah 49:5 And now saith Jehovah that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, and that Israel be gathered unto him (for I am honorable in the eyes of Jehovah, and my God is become my strength);
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations.
Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.
Luke 1:31 And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Romans 4:19 And without being weakened in faith he considered his own body now as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb;
Galatians 1:15 But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace,
I suggest you study why it is that species do NOT interbreed:
As it should be obvious to anyone with two functioning brain cells that angels do NOT and can NOT breed with flesh as they are spirits!:
Hebrews 1:13-14 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? (14) Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?
All angels stand by the throne of the Father whether the fallen to His left or the righteous to His right waiting to be sent forth by the Father as ministering spirits:
1 Kings 22:19-23 And Micaiah said, Therefore hear thou the word of Jehovah: I saw Jehovah sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. (20) And Jehovah said, Who shall entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner; and another said on that manner. (21) And there came forth a spirit, and stood before Jehovah, and said, I will entice him. (22) And Jehovah said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also: go forth, and do so. (23) Now therefore, behold, Jehovah hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets; and Jehovah hath spoken evil concerning thee.
Ken Ammi:
Most interesting.
Are you claiming that God causes MILLIONS of women to get pregnant with unwanted babies, and causes MILLIONS babies to die in the wombs of “natural” causes, and causes MILLIONS of abortions, causes MILLIONS of women to suffer and/or die from all sorts of womb related problems, etc.?
As for, “not once has any fallen angel been allowed to impregnate a human!” well, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
Why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?
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”—“species” isn’t biblical taxonomy, “kinds” are so please don’t ignore God’s Word just to attempt to make point, especially one that commits a category error.
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.
The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”
As it should be obvious to anyone who has studied God’s Word to include the linguistics involved: Angels did and could breed with flesh as they are NOT spirits!: that’s a common misconception based on a man-made tradition and some wrongly translated English versions.
In case you’re unaware, Heb 1 was quoting Ps 104:4 and then playing off of it, see here for how many English versions rightly have it that God makes them, “winds” nor, “spirits” and so ministering, “winds” not, “spirits”:
I counted 45 versions vs. 12 and what’s important is that the difference in translation isn’t just about flipping a coin, is that, “winds” is in keeping with the context of Ps 104 which, “spirits” isn’t so it fits the narrative’s context which is about constant appeals to natural phenomena.
As for 1 Kings 22, you’re inserting, “Angel” into what the text merely has as, “spirit.”
Anon:
It is up to God as to how and what a person is born with or without:
John 9:2-3 And his disciples asked him, saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind? (3) Jesus answered, Neither did this man sin, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
I suggest you study the underlying Hebrew here:
Psalms 8:4-5 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him? (5) For thou hast made him but little lower than God, And crownest him with glory and honor.
And here:
Psalms 104:4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
Hebrews 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?
I now understand why you cling to the “LXX” as it not on the same authority as the Hebrew!
Ken Ammi
It’s odd, you seem to reply to less and less of what I write every time you email me: I’m unsure that’s a good idea.
It’s not just about, “what a person is born with or without” but whether they’re born at all. So yes, you claim that God causes MILLIONS of women to get pregnant with unwanted babies, and causes MILLIONS babies to die in the wombs of “natural” causes, and causes MILLIONS of abortions, causes MILLIONS of women to suffer and/or die from all sorts of womb related problems, etc.
I didn’t realize you were some sort of extremist Calvinist.
Being generic is also not helpful in terms of, “the underlying Hebrew” of Psalms 8:4-5.
As for Psalms 104:4, been there, done that so, again, I’m unsure what you mean when you make vague statements.
I’m unsure how I’m clinging to the LXX and I’m the one who urged you to consider that the Hebrew of Psalm 104 and Hebrews 1 should be translated as “winds” as per the context as, again, 45 versions rightly have it.
So, back to one of the issues you decided to sidestep: what was the pre-flood sin of Angels?
Anon:
I am no Calvinist but that does NOT mean I do not believe our Father is absolutely sovereign over all of His creation:
Nowhere in Genesis 6:1-4 is an “angel” once mentioned as committing any sin but “men”(Hebrew ~ H120 ~ Adam) is continuously at fault but you clearly refuse to agree with this:
Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men(Hebrew~adam) began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them,
Genesis 6:2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men(adam) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose.
Genesis 6:3 And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man(adam) for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.
Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim(men of renown) were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God(Seth’s lineage who were not to commingle with those God drove out just like Israel was told not to marry any foreigners) came in unto the daughters of men(Hebrew~adam), and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
I am not going down that road of fantasy!
Ken Ammi:
I would have thought that “absolutely sovereign over all of His creation” is to be a “Calvinist” but that may be a different discussion about what being absolutely sovereign means: such as your assertion that God personally and specifically, on a case-by-case basis, purposefully causes MILLIONS of women to get pregnant with unwanted babies, and causes MILLIONS babies to die in the wombs of “natural” causes, and causes MILLIONS of abortions, causes MILLIONS of women to suffer and/or die from all sorts of womb related problems, etc.
Interestingly, I literally just emailed someone noting this:
“Now, being bilingual I can tell you that languages are what they are and as much as words have meaning language is tentative and malleable–recall my example of Michael Jackson’s usage of the word, “Bad.” So any one thing can be referred to in various ways and any one word, term, phrase can refer to various things–as annoying and confusing as that may be.”
So, “Nowhere in Genesis 6:1-4 is an ‘angel’ once mentioned” isn’t relevant since, “sons of God” is another way to refer to them.
And so, the exclusive male sons are juxtaposed with exclusively female daughters: of God and of men.
Where there really no attractive female Sethites and no attractive male, “those God drove out”?
And who were, “those God drove out” anyhow?
But I get your meaning that you claim that males in Seth’s lineage were such terrible sinners that their sin (what sin was that?) served as the premise for the flood.
Angels, Nephilim, and humans are all referred to as man/men so it’s a non-issue to write “adam” after the text’s reference to, “men.”
And yes, I’m still tracking those issues and questions you avoid.
Anon:
All it took to curse the entire human race was for Eve to pull a piece of fruit off a forbidden tree and eat it and convince Adam to also eat it!
There is not one verse that even hints that angels are sons of God unless one jumps to an unprovable conclusion with this verse:
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
But lets ignore this verse because it does not fit the narrative:
Psalms 82:6 I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High(God).
I ran many youth groups over the years and it often amazed me how many young women would chase the “bad boy” choosing them over a good looking hard working young man that was interested in them but didn’t get a look cause they weren’t “cool” enough :o(
Yes angels, nephilim, and humans are all referred to as man/men but it clearly is an issue if if not one of those places where angels are referenced but the Hebrew word “adam” is not used in that reference but only “‘îš”:
Your failing to recognize the difference between “adam” of “flesh”:
Genesis 6:3 And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.
And a “spirit” that can manifest as a man yet not have flesh and bones:
Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having.
Hebrews 13:2 Forget not to show love unto strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
Ken Ammi
Well, there are various issues such as that the Bible isn’t about Angelology so we can’t expect many details from it.
I noted that, “Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that ‘sons of God’ can refer to non-human beings.” So that’s a good place to start.
The Angel view explains why it was only exclusively male sons of God on one side of the Gen 6 equation and why only exclusively female daughters of men on the other.
Then there’s the issue you never touched about 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.
I’m afraid that, the Hebrew word “adam” is a non-issue since Angels are not adams/earth-men and of course the focus of Gen 6 is humans: the entire Bible’s main focus is humans, it’s an anthropological text and not an Angelology text.
Gen 6:1-4 is merely the premise and then the rest of it is about humans—just as is every text, eventually.
I’m unsure why you asserted, “‘spirit’ that can manifest as a man yet not have flesh and bones” just before quoting Jesus referring to, “hands and my feet” yet, “a spirit hath not flesh and bones” but, “ye behold me having” them.
And that ended it as no more replies were forthcoming.
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.
Undergoing consideration is what appears to be a number of writings that have been mashed together into a PDF titled I Will Give You The Keys To The Kingdom Of Heaven that was written by self-styled neo-prophet Jonathan Kleck—note that, “the Prophets were until John” the Baptist (Luke 16:16).
He begins by stating, “The biggest trick Satan ever pulled is keeping people (us angels) in the dark and having us believe he doesn’t even exist. This is the greatest identity crises ever. We are angels and don’t even know it.”
I will say that one of the biggest trick Satan ever pulled is get a guy to believe that people are Angels—and getting people to actually believe him, in turn.
Kleck begins his evidencing by merely asserting, “Satan and the rebel angels created these human host bodies to trap us (our light essence) on earth. The human host body is an illusion, an Idol, a lie, as is the host body / system, the whole earth that Satan helped create.”
Incidentally, the assertion that people, humans, are Angels is actually an old false theory that was held, for example, by the heretical Cathar sect which was based on neo-Manichaean—referring to the Gnostic cult (thank you for the tip JDS).
Now, we can believe that or, we can believe Gen 1:26, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” and Jesus said, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” (Mat 19:4).
Thus, Kleck has attributed to Satan what was done by God.
Worse still, this implies that when Jesus incarnated, He incarnated in the image of Satan, in the image of a trap created by Satan and rebel Angels, into an illusion, an idol, a lie—in my book The Trinity Texts: : Does the Bible contain Trinitarian Theology and if so where? I included chapters on texts that very specifically attribute creation to each person of the Trinity thus, to God.
Yet, Gen 1:27 notes, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Jesus stated, “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh…So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Mat 19:5-6).
Have you noticed that Kleck asserted, “people (us angels)” were created by rebel Angels but that would mean that Angels would have had to preexist their existence in order to create themselves before they exited which his as incoherent as it sounds?
He calls humans, “eternal angels” by which I can only imagine he means the human and Angel eternality is having come into being at a certain point in time and not God’s eternity which is having exited forever in what we call the past, present, and future.
So, he merely asserts that eternal angel bodies were created but that, “we are from the Lord God, eternal angels; messengers of flaming fire with bodies of LIGHT.”
I am unsure what, “bodies of LIGHT” are since, by definition, bodies are physical, being composed of minerals, amino acids, liquids, tissue, etc., etc., etc. but light is wave and particle.
In any case, Jonathan Kleck merely asserts, “We fell from heaven into these human host bodies of flesh through birthing and our DNA is our chains of darkness” yet, 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.
Gen 1:28 states, “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply…” yet, the unauthorized Kleck version would have that as, “And Satan and rebel Angels cursed them. And Satan and rebel Angels said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply…”
Thus, again, Kleck attributes to Satan and rebel Angels what was done and said by God.
He then elucidates, “Satan and the rebel angels are not us. They are the Angels that fell first from the rebellion Satan started in heaven. They fell into a Pre-Adamic earth and populated it and the rest of us angels fell after them and continued breeding more angels into the flesh for them below.”
Well, the, “rebellion Satan started in heaven” resulted in his fall during the Gen 3 timeline and then resulted in that he cast one third of Angels during the Gen 6 timeline (Rev 12, also see Daniel 8).
Thus, neither fell during some un-biblical fantasy, “Pre-Adamic earth” and thus, Earth was not populated by those Angels nor populated by merely alleged supposed, “us angels” who, “fell after them” at some un-elucidated time.
Jonathan Kleck then invented some fancy sci-fi sounding stuff about that, “the Lord God allows his angels to use His commands or codes to create. Satan stole the Lord Gods codes of life and used them to create abominable things in this world, even the Pre-Adamic man and beast of various kinds” all for which there is literally zero indication—they did not get the cheat code.
Thus, Kleck has it that, “after the rebellion in heaven, Satan and the rebel angels were cast out of heaven and down to earth” but he is inventing a commencing timeline, is mashing together two falls (the Cherub Satan’s and the Angels’) and is ignoring that biblically, there is only a one-time sin/fall of Angels (and the Gen 6 affair was it).
Recall what I noted above regarding, “Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined…”
Yet, Kleck merely asserts, “Satan and the rebel angels fell into EVERLASTING chains of darkness and will not be coming back to heaven” yet, Jude and 2 Peter 2 only refer to Angels, not to the Cherub Satan. And as for, “not be coming back to heaven” Rev 12:7 notes, “war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back” which is a post-Jesus’ ascension event after His resurrection (Rev 12:5).
Yet, recall that Jonathan Kleck decided to merely assert that chains means DNA thus, “The rest of us angels fell into chains of darkness of the flesh (DNA) but they are not everlasting and we can come back home.”
Note that to him, being embodied, in the flesh, incarnated, is a sin performed by Satan and rebel Angels but, again, biblically it was the purposeful doing of God which is part of why Jesus incarnated, resurrected physically, and remains physically incarnated forever thereafter. Thus, Kleck is teaching straight up Gnosticism whereby flesh, physicality, the material creation is evil and only spirit is pure, holy, etc.
Jonathan Kleck goes on to note, “Satan…not only owns but also controls our flesh bodies, known as the qliphoth” which means that he is also teaching Rabbinic Judaism’s mysticism: Kabbalah. While originally said to be creations God to serve as containers of holiness, latter Kabbalism claimed that qliphoth are corruptions of attributes/emanations of God, being the byproducts of God failing to create a perfect universe, etc.
Kleck refers to, “the Lord God’s children, everyone in this world, His angels trapped in the serpent flesh.” He then plays off of fallacious theology proper by asserting, “This is why our father came into the earth which is the Matrix (Womb) system of the flesh” yet, it was not the father who incarnated (in, “serpent flesh,” mind you) but Jesus, His son.
He then moved on to that, “there are two world ages and the second world age is now at its end. We are entering the third world age which is in the final phase of the New World Order (NWO)” and thereafter, he includes seven instances of, “(Reference: Zen Garcia)” which is not surprising at all since Garcia also teaches Gnosticism—and other un-biblical fallacies, see my posts about Garcia.
Now, here is were the un-biblical cosmology mythos is elucidated: on the combo Kleck/Garcia view, “the 1st world age was” when, “Satan and the rebel angels…created Pre-Adamic man” and, “The 2nd world age” was, “when the rest of us angels started falling from grace to earth.”
Kleck/Garcia merely assert, “Satan seduced Eve into having sex with him and then Eve seduced Adam as well” which, by definition, would mean they both had sex with Satan since this claim (which historically barely even makes a blip on the theological radar) has it that tree, fruit, eating, etc., are all symbolic of sex and Adam ate of the same fruit from the same tree as Eve—such aberrant sexual fantasies tell us about those who make such claims but nothing about history—see my book Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. II: Considering Zen Garcia’s Claims.
Now, since Gen 4:1 is crystal clear, “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, ‘I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord,’” Kleck/Garcia can not allow God to reveal that which occurred as it occurred so they merely artificially insert this into God’s Word, “Eve birthed Cain and Abel who were twins from different fathers, which is known as superfecundation. Cain’s father was Satan and Abel’s father was Adam.”
Interestingly, they merely assert, “Cain was the first born and first debased (corrupted) man that was created on earth” that is even after telling us about how debased Adam and Eve were since they sinned before Cain was even born.
We then come to a mashup of category error and thus, fallacious biology as they merely assert, “Since Satan was his father, Cain was a fallen angel and a Nephilim.” Again, Satan is a Cherub, there is zero indication that Cherubim (we only know of one fallen one) ever mated with humans, ergo Cain was not part Cherub nor a Nephil since Nephilim were half-Angel.
Kleck/Garcia continue with, “Afterwards 200 angels called the watchmen, who came to earth on Mt. Herman” this is playing off of 1 Enoch which is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.” It is also not watchmen: the Second Temple Era (516 BC-70 AD) for Angel is Watcher. And, it is also not Herman but Hermon.
They merely assert, “Cain, the fallen angels, and the watchman created more abominations like the Nephilim giants that roamed the earth in those days along with the many abominable beasts.”
Biblically contextually, “Nephilim giants” means, “Nephilim Nephilim” so key questions are: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” in English Bibles? What is their usage? Do those two usages agree?
After two pages, the PDF includes the Introduction which assures us, “The information provided in this document has been given by the Lord God to his servant Jonathan Kleck, Who has been chosen (predestined) to ring the bell and gather the church of Philadelphia.”
After putting his name, not, “the Lord God,” in bold font, he goes on to say, “This is my humble attempt in conveying the intended meaning of this information in written form.”
Thus, he pretends to have received personal, private, secret revelation directly from the Lord God—even though Jude referenced, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” and not, with more to come over two millennia later.
Jonathan Kleck follows directly with what he claims is, “the hidden knowledge of the truth, given by the Lord God…all the information in this document is revelation given to the Lord God’s church” and, note this, “all of it is true and consistent with scripture in the bible” which instantly discredits him, as we have seen.
Yet, he seems to have sought an out, as it were, since he hides behind, “This information in part, is the hidden knowledge of the truth revealed in the end days (Colossians 1:26), the unrolled scroll (Daniel 12:4) and the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19).” That way, he can claim whatever he wants and claim that he is finally reveling, as he quotes them, “Colossians 1:26 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 26that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints.”
And, “Daniel 12:4 (KJV) 4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”
And, “Matthew 16:19 King James Version 2000 (KJV2000) 19And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.”
It is interesting that he jumps from the NASB to the KJV to the KJV2000: I find that this modus operandi generally denotes a person desperately seeking versions that will say what they already want to hear, in an eisegesis manner.
Yet, those texts do not allow for someone to flat out contradict the Bible and teach Gnosticism and Kabbalah and merely assert he is revealing, “the mystery…now been manifested” (with that, “now” referring to two millennia ago, of course, which Kleck missed) “the book” for, “the time of the end” and that Kleck is the one who received, “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
Interestingly, that which Satan does is a copy but corrupt version of that which God does: Satan just turns everything upside-down, inside out, and backward.
Well, Jonathan Kleck has a subsection titled, “The Prince Of The Power Of The Air, Those Who Hide Their Plans From The Lord” wherein he quotes (in part highlighting in green, in part yellow, some font being black, some red—for whatever reasons), “Isaiah 29:15 (KJV) 15 Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us? 16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?”
Based on that, he figures that if he turns things upside-down, he can discern Satanic imagery—which is really just a window into Kleck’s delusions.
He wrote, “Below is an image of a dead sheep that Satan hid in an image of the virgin. The following image shows life right side up and death upside down”:
Next, he provides us, “Excerpt from article” without bothering to cite article in any way. It is basically a neo-theo sci-fi claim about that, “Satan is the prince of the power of the air reveals” that is referring to, “Radio, television and other modes of communication are broadcast through the air” so that, “Satan influences humanity by broadcasting…tuned to his wavelength,” etc.
Seeking to elucidate, “the knowledge that we are all actually angels,” which, “has been hidden from the world” but revealed to him, “let’s do a little bible study” but, “let’s consistently match the Hebrew and Greek word /s originally used in the bible with their true meanings” and only Kleck is qualified to determine, “their true meanings” since he received personal, private, secret revelation so no mere mortal is qualified to challenge him.
He urges us to, “Then read the scripture…replacing the word /s in the scripture with the definition of the word /s that were matched” which means that he is determined what a word should read based on an isolated definition and then forces that definition into texts regardless of the individual usages of words: in order words, he is taking texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts.
It is hermeneutically invalid to demand that any given word can only have one single meaning, definition, or usage since all languages function exactly the opposite way: any given word, or phrase can refer to more than one thing and any one thing can be referred to in various ways.
In this case, he references Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance—it is just me or is that odd for someone who is receiving personal, private, secret revelation directly from God?
But first, he asserts, “If the Lord God is our Father and the almighty King and we are His children. Then by definition, that makes us His angels” which is a non-sequitur since keep in mind that this has not been about the usage of the term angels merely meaning any messenger, including human ones (such as human preachers of the evangel) but about ontology: the very nature and essence of a being.
The Psalm is referring to the one Almighty Elohim speaking to various lower/lesser elohim.
He then quotes Jesus, “John 10:34-38 (KJV)…34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are godsG2316? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”
And notes that the Strong’s word in question is, “Theos, theh’-os” referring to, “deity…the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate.”
From that, Kleck concludes, “we are royal princes, angels that fell from heaven. When we fell, we were birthed into the MatrixH7358. The MatrixH7358 is a carnal state, in the realm of the flesh. Our fall is being birthed into a flesh host body of the serpent skin and as it says in the word of God, definitively, ‘but you shall die like men.’” Thus, he is merely asserting that they, “unto whom the word of God came” refers to all humans and that, partly based on a word he had not mentioned yet, which is matrix in terms of the womb.
One issue is that the lower/lesser elohim will, “die like men” so they are not ontological (hu)men and if they are not men then who are they, in Jonathan Kleck’s mythos.
Recall that he keeps attributing to Satan and rebel Angels that which was done by God—as confirmed by Jesus, mind you—well, having merely asserted that elohim refers to (humans) Angels, he then applies his own assertions to his own arguments and concludes that Gen 1:26-27 is not God speaking, but of that, “Satan and the rebel angels created this human host body…in their image, meaning in the serpent flesh and from the beginning, they commanded us to breed and multiply for them.”
So now, Cherubim look like humans even though as per Ezek chaps 1 and 10, they most certainly do not.
The Apostle Paul noted, “he made from one man every nation of mankind…that they should seek God…Being then God’s offspring” which Kleck would have us misread as, “Satan and rebel Angels made from one man every nation of mankind…that they should seek Satan and rebel Angels…Being then Satan’s and rebel Angels’ offspring.”
Kleck then includes this, “Below is an image of the human flesh under a micro scope that matches serpent scales” which is as incoherent as it looks.
He wrote, “Below is an image of the human flesh under a micro scope that matches serpent scales”:
Even if he subjectively thinks they look alike that does not mean that they are related or to be correlated in the way he means it. Serpent scales are made of keratin but human skin is not. Also, why, “serpent skin” and what do, “serpent scales” have to do with anything considering that Ezekiel’s actual description of Cherubim and the many descriptions of Angels do not even hint at anything serpentine whatsoever. He must be merely assuming that the serpent in the garden of Eden as a literal reptilian and yet, Rev chaps 12 and 20 elucidate that such is just a symbolic reference, “the great dragon…that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan.”
At this point, Jonathan Kleck circles back to, “Knowledge Of The Qliphoth” and openly admits that he is teaching not based on God’s personal, private, secret revelation to him but rather as per, “the Kabbalah Judaism esoteric teachings.”
Yet, he merely asserts, “the qliphoth represents our human host body…The qliphoth is unholy…qliphoth (human host body) is inherently evil.”
Now, be mindful that it may be easy for Christians to agree with, “our human host body…is unholy…(human host body) is inherently evil” because we are fallen. Yet, that it is inherently evil is Gnostic since on that view the very fact of the existence of flesh, physicality, materliality is corruption since only spirit is pure and holy.
They teach that a false, lower, lesser, arrogant, senile god created matter and that is what ontologically makes matter corrupt, unholy. Yet, the biblical view is that the one true Most High Almighty God created matter, which includes our bodies made in His image, that we fell, that Jesus incarnated in that material flesh, and redeemed us—as is—with physicality being thereafter eternal.
He then refers us to, “The metaphysical science and mystical art of manipulating and altering matter…to accomplish transmutation. In alchemy the human transmutation circle within our host body (shell), converts our angelic energy to dark energy through constant sin.”
Kleck then all but trails off about, “the Lucifer Star Polygon…the Isotoxal star” the quora star, the convex hexagon, a polytope which leads to something about, “Hendecagram And Goddess Of Liberty” regarding New York’s Statue of Liberty. I am afraid that is all a bit too in the weeds when my contextual focus is the issue of whether humans are Angels. Never letting a chance to turn something into something different to make a point about something go by untapped, Kleck wrote, “For the moment, let us refer to Satan as a she for goddess liberty.”
Most of that was to play upon geometric shapes and to imply that virtually anything flame/torch related is Satanic since Satan is the, “light-bearer.”
Thus, he also turns the, “Spark Of Life” into something Satanic since, “Satan created the female energy system that we’re in” and since, “scientist discovered that at the moment the female egg is fertilized, in proportion to the egg, a huge spark occurs” then that is also Satanic to the point that he actually wrote, “Sperm entering into a portal from heaven to the realm of the flesh, the matrix (the woman’s womb) Genesis 1:2” with that verse reading, “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters” which has something to do with heavenly sperm portals and not about the whole context of Gen 1 which is the creation of the universe, the Earth, and that which it contains.
He then trails off regrading mitochondria and actually wrote of Revelation’s, “woman arrayed in purple and scarlet” that, “When reading on the Woman Arrayed in Purple below, take note of the colors Red and Blue in the HEART” and provided this colored illustration of a human heart:
FYI: the human heart is not actually this color, which I cannot believe I have to point out.
But what, you may ask, does that say for the fact that the text actually states, “woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup” well, you are clearly over-thinking facts: he can either utterly ignore data points that do not fit into his mere assertions or can turn them into that which he wills—if he discerned any usage he may get out of them.
He argues that, “Regarding the scripture, 4The woman was arrayed in purpleG4209. When we combine the colors red and blue we get purple” and that means, “The revelation that the Lord revealed is that we (angels in host body) are the woman arrayed in purple and scarlet and we are controlled by the female energy”—no, nothing about, “gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup,” since those data points are useless to him.
Jonathan Kleck merely asserts, “In Revelation 17, the woman arrayed in purple represents our human host body. When our veins and arteries are put together we become arrayed in the color purple” which is just mixing color together, that is not what happens in human bodies so that is a category error. Worse still, in Rev 17:18 we are told who, what, the woman is and it is not our bodies, “the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.”
He then trails off about, “Male And Female Chromosomes” regarding, “Satan masquerades as mother Goddess, the female energy” and a stunning revelation that, “linguistically and semantically the word FEMALE was intentionally made to parallel the word MALE” since, apparently, not one has yet to notice that female is a word made by adding fe to male. But, of course he cannot leave it at that but asserts that, “the FE-male energy that we war with in our human host body that keeps us in constant sin and eventually converts our eternal angelic energy to dark energy” in part since, “In science the periodic table for elements for the letters FE is IRON” and that has something to do with, “Daniel 2:43-44 (KJV) – Iron mixed with Clay…And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”
Jonathan Kleck asserts that, “In this scripture Daniel is saying, the two energies or seed lines (seed of the serpent and seed of the woman) shall not cleave one to another…male and FE-male energies, also the enmity that the Lord God placed between the two seeds lines.”
For support, Kleck quotes, “Targum Of Jonathan – Genesis ‘And the Lord God made to Adam and to his wife vestures of honour from the skin of the serpent, which he had cast from him, upon the skin of their flesh, instead of that adornment which had been cast away; and He clothed them.’”
Simply stated, this merely refers to two people groups that will engage in commerce but will not intermarry—see my whole chapter on this issue in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
What Kleck did not bother noting is that Targum Of Jonathan a.k.a. Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel a.k.a. Targum Pseudo Jonathan a.k.a. Targum of Palestine a.k.a. Jerusalem Targum (got that?) dates to circa half a millennia after Jesus’ time on Earth and is utterly saturated with Rabbinic folklore—see my article Serpent seedline of Satan in Zen Garcia’s book “The Aramaic and Palestinian Targums.”
Another open wide window into Kleck’s Gnosticism is that he asserts, “Since one energy is of the Lord God (Male) and the other of Satan (Female). It causes a duality, a duplicitous nature that keeps us separated from our father.” This is the stuff of which much occultism is made since claims such as that the gender binary was the doing of, in this case, Satan and rebel Angels has been in occult literature for millennia—see my book The Occult Roots of Postgenderism: And a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology.
Again, the actual, real, one true Almighty God created humans male and female—purposefully and in His image, as Jesus affirmed.
Yet, Kleck asserts, “Adam and Eve did not have Satan’s seed in their host bodies when they fell from paradise to earth. They were created by the Lord God, not birthed on earth as we were” even though as per Gen 1, they were created on Earth.
God literally made Adam from the stuff of the Earth, Gen 2 refers to, “the earth…the earth…the earth…the field…the land…the field…the land…the ground…the land…the ground…the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground.”
Kleck continues by referring to, “Through Satan having sex with Eve…and subsequent pact with the watchman, the angels that had sex with the woman of men, continued the debasement of ‘man’ (originally angels)…Through the co-mingling of the fallen angels with humans, a hybrid species was produced at the genetic level…This is exactly what is stated in the bible in Genesis 6” which he does not take as referring to the sons of the one true God but rather, the sons of his version of elohim.
He quotes v. 2 thusly, “That the sons of GodH430 [אֹלִהים,’ĕlôhı̂ym, el-o-heemˈ]saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”
He ties that in with the contextually/biologically irrelevant, “Genesis 3:15…‘I will put enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.’”
After asserting, “the abomination that causes desolation is the alien seed otherwise the serpent seed that is growing within us, which is the female energy that is consuming the male energy” he moves on to a section titled, “The Antichrist Barack Obama” wherein he assures us, “It has been revealed to the Lord God’s saints,” whoever that is, “that the last president known as Barak Hussein Obama is the biblical Antichrist, who Satan will take over and completely possess his body. At that time, Satan will manifest and Obama will come out of the shadows and rule for the time permitted by the Lord God. With the promise of peace, he will bring about death and destruction.”
The issue is when will, “that time” be? Well, he wrote, “Satan will take over and completely possess his body” followed by, “At that time, Satan will manifest and Obama will come out of the shadows and rule for the time permitted by the Lord God. With the promise of peace, he will bring about death and destruction.”
So, “that time” refers to when, “Satan will take over and completely possess his body” but he didn’t get around to the most important part: when will that be?
See, being vague is a trait of false prophecy since we have to wait until Obama passes away to confirm that Kleck was mistaken—and yet, he can always merely assert that we need to await his resurrection (whenever that may be—stand by).
Let us make a deal, I will skip that part until I see that Obama comes out of the shadows and rule as antichrist.
I will pick up the action with Jonathan Kleck’s assertion that, “The bible states that we are angels of light, messengers of flaming fire” followed by quotations that state no such thing.
He begins with, “Hebrews 1:7 (KJV) 7And of the angelsG32 he saith, Who maketh his angelsG32 spiritsG4151, and his ministers a flameG5395 of fireG4442.”
Note that he myopically selected one version that has Angels as spirits which here, you can find 44 English versions that have them as winds. And the difference in translation is not due to flipping a translational coin but rather, that Heb 1 is quoting, and then playing off of, Psalm 104:4 which due to its context should rightly be translated as winds rather than spirits since the Psalm’s context is constant references to natural phenomena.
In fact, the definition/meaning/usage that he provides includes, “Bible definitions of Strong’s Greek word spiritsG4151…From G4154; a current of air, that is, breath (blast)or a breeze.
Fascinatingly, he followed that up with, “To reiterate this point a little differently”: since it still does not say what he eisegetically wants to hear so he has to artificially insert his assertions into the text somehow. And the only slightly, “little differently” is, “For those angels who do not become CONVERTED in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. When their host body (shell) dies on earth, their eternal angel energy called the soul becomes food for the locusts below and they get a Locust for a new host body” well, such is the KJV: Kleck Jejune Version.
Apparently, “Converting Angels To Locusts” is a simple process which Kleck illustrates thusly:
Premised on a myopic and incorrect translation of one word, he throws is a little, “laws of physics in Thermodynamics is that energy can neither be destroyed nor created but it can be converted” and we get, “Our angelic light energy soul transmutated into dark energy for the Locust host body below.”
After all, “In scripture, Revelation 9 describes what the locusts are like” and yet, as he goes on to quote it, it is not about locusts but about some level of likeness to locusts—and many other features—which is how Angels being released from the Abyss in Rev 9 are described (emphasis in the following quote has been added by me to denote the many other features), “Revelation 9:7-10 (KJV) 7And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. 8And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. 9And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wingswas as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. 10And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.”
The bottom line is that locusts here denote a hoard which destructively consumes—see chapter, “Sons of God” in my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology wherein I chase down every symbol to earlier portions in the Bible to demonstrate that these are all symbolic representations and what they represent.
To make a point about this, Jonathan Kleck demonstrates another delusion of his via a photo of the Vatican’s, “plaque called the list of popes” which, get this, “when you turn the plaque for the list of Popes upside down, the plaque reveals and represent what the locust from the pit will look like” and this he uses, “to prove man turns to locust in the pit, just as the bible says”:
He even asserts that when we turn the face upside down, the mouth/teeth become a crown—etc., etc., etc.
But that is not all, in another PDF titled The FINAL Case Against Lucifer, he provided these subjective interpretations of Vatican artistry (that PDF is a very, very disturbing window into a very troubled mind’s literal delusions):
But that is not all, given his mere assertion that, “Satan created the female energy system”:
Eventually, he quotes, “Commentary made by Richard” because, apparently, one first name with no citation is authoritative. Well, the mysterious Richard merely asserted, “We are all angels (immortal, invisible spirit beings)…” so that is enough to rely upon.
In concluding that section, he notes, “Our whole existence here is a lie” which is more Gnosticism.
Now, keep in mind that such as been the revelation, “given by the Lord God to his servant Jonathan Kleck, Who has been chosen (predestined)” so that the question is which Lord God? That is because we got a cacophonous mixture of Gnosticism, Kabbalism, mere assertions, mere assertions followed by texts which supposedly allegedly provided support but did not, taking texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts, and on it went.
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.
