Month: April 2026

The Way of Truth site posted an article titled Understanding Genesis 6:4: Giants and Their True Legacy. In part, we’re told, “This site is devoted to proclaiming the eternal truth of God’s Word and upholding its authority against all forms of error, false doctrine, and skeptical attacks.”

The usage of the term “Giants” begs these key questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the Way of Truth site’s usage? Do those two usages agree?

That which I term the Gen 6 affair is quoted thusly, “‘There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown’ (Genesis 6:4).”

It’s noted, “the account of widespread human multiplication and moral decline…humanity’s wickedness…the presence of ‘giants,’…moral decay and impending judgment…The verse thus prepares the reader for the Flood.”

We’re told, “The Hebrew term nephilim is introduced without explanation, signaling that the author assumes either familiarity or that precise definition is not the narrative priority…Moses does not tell us where the nephilim came from, only that they existed…Genesis 6:4 is not attempting to resolve the origin of the Nephilim.” Yet, he did tell us whence and when they came, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”

Note that when a mere four words are quoted, it’s simple to argue:

The addition “and also after that” is crucial for proper interpretation. This phrase indicates continuity beyond the immediate context of Genesis 6:1–2. The nephilim are not confined to a single generation or event, nor are they portrayed as a unique aberration never repeated. This wording strongly cautions against reading Genesis 6:4 as a one-time supernatural intrusion. Instead, the text presents the nephilim as recurring figures associated with certain cultural conditions.

As we will see, “beyond the immediate context of Genesis 6:1–2…not confined to a single generation or event” not a, “one-time supernatural intrusion…recurring” can only refer to pre-flood days since that’s the only time Nephilim lived.

Of the term Nephilim we’re told, “Later biblical usage, especially in Numbers 13:33, associates the nephilim with fear, intimidation, and perceived invincibility rather than with metaphysical origin” so we will have to see what that’s all about.

We’re told:

Importantly, Genesis 6:4 does not claim that the nephilim are produced by these unions. The nephilim are mentioned before this clause, and the grammar does not link them causally to the relationships described. This sequencing undercuts interpretations that insist the nephilim must be hybrid offspring. The verse instead juxtaposes two realities occurring in the same period.

That “The nephilim are mentioned before this clause” seems to mean that the author of the article is, at that point, ignoring vss. 1-2 and if fixating on v. 4. In fact, later in the article, this is made quite clear, “The verse opens with a statement of fact: ‘There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that.’ Only then does it proceed to describe the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men and the offspring that resulted from that union” yet, vss. 1-2 already, “describe the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.”

So the, “Only then” is myopically about one single verse, not about the whole narrative. Thus, when that’s followed by, “Nephilim are not introduced as the offspring of those unions…The grammar does not link their origin causally to the unions described” it actually does just that.

The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.

Yet, based on that basic level error in reading comprehension—fallacious eisegetical hermeneutics—the author’s conclusion is that Nephilim, “are fully human.” 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.

Yet, part of that mundane conclusion the premise, “Genesis consistently places moral responsibility on humanity rather than shifting blame to non-human forces.” Yet, that fails to elucidate that Angels, Nephilim, humans, and God are all referred to as man/men. It also fails to note that of course humanity is the Bible’s main focus no matter upon what it touches in passing or detail since it’s an anthology about our creation, our fall, and our redemption. And, it fails to note that Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.

It had been noted that, “Genesis 6:4 is not attempting to resolve the origin of the Nephilim” which is a sentence that continues with, “nor is it presenting them as the central explanatory factor for the Flood” and yet, it literally serves as the premise for all which follows in terms of what led to the flood.

For some odd reason, the article then loops back to, “Later biblical usage, most notably in Numbers 13:33, associates the Nephilim with fear, intimidation, and perceived invincibility” and back to, “Genesis 6:4 does not say that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God” and repeats the same fallacious assertions.

And yet, it then loops within a loop to note, “the text does explicitly connect the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men with the birth of children who later ‘became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.’”

We’re told, “The text does not describe these men as ontologically different from other humans. They are not called angels, hybrids, or divine beings. They are men” and yet, 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.

It’s noted, “The implication is…the boundary-breaking union” but, pray tell, what boundary is broken when humans mate with humans?

As for, “If the ‘sons of God’ are best understood as angelic beings who transgressed divinely established boundaries” we’re told that, “Appeals to Matthew 22:30 must be carefully qualified. Jesus teaches that angels ‘in heaven’ do not marry, which establishes the normative order of angelic existence, not the impossibility of rebellion or transgression.” That’s very well said (I have to point that out to pop-Nephilologists all the time): that’s why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.

On that view, “Genesis 6, on this reading, depicts angels acting against their created purpose. That does not require Scripture to explain how such rebellion functioned physically” and yet, it did: it was the good ol’ fashioned way.

We’re told, “Scripture nowhere develops a doctrine of angel–human hybridity. It never revisits the idea, never categorizes the offspring as a distinct class of beings, and never grounds judgment in their nature. This silence strongly suggests that Moses’s concern lies elsewhere.”

The reason for that is that Nephilim were done away with via the flood so there was no more to be said: they were a post-flood non-issue—stand by for more on the post-flood Num 13:33.

Back to the fallacy of myopically implying that man/men can only ever refer to hu-mans, it’s noted, “The decisive theological signal comes in Genesis 6:5–7, where God’s judgment is grounded entirely in human wickedness. The earth is condemned because man is corrupt, violent, and continually evil in thought. The mighty men are judged as men, remembered as men, and swept away as men” which ignores the Gen 1-4 premise.

The only thing noted about that is, “The Nephilim form part of the ominous backdrop” but they’re identified as humans in the article so it’s all one in the same

The author of the article then loops back to, “Nephilim are…not identified as the offspring of the unions” as if having to constantly loop so as to keep the reading audience reading in that direction.

We’re told, “Genesis 6:4 never describes…non-human anatomy” but why would it since both sides of Nephilim’s parentage look human: the daughters of men were human women and Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

It’s noted, “From a theological standpoint, Genesis 6:4 also guards against a subtle but serious apologetic error: the displacement of human responsibility. One might be tempted to explain the Flood as a response to non-human interference: angelic rebellion, monstrous offspring, or cosmic contamination. Yet the narrative emphatically refuses that explanation.” What the narrative does is to marry them so neither the extreme of weaving tall-tales of pop-Nephilologists (who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians) nor the extreme of weaving mundane rescue devices tell us the full story.

We’re then looped back to, “When God renders His verdict, the indictment falls squarely on man…wickedness of man…under judgment is a human world, shaped by human choices and values” which include Gen 6:1-2.

The article ends with a long section of sermonizing which is fine for what it is but not within my review context.

Now, we had been told, “the account of widespread human multiplication and moral decline…humanity’s wickedness…the presence of ‘giants,’…moral decay and impending judgment…The verse thus prepares the reader for the Flood…Genesis 6 moves steadily toward divine judgment…a moral narrative moving inexorably toward judgment…Nephilim…are…part of a world that God evaluates as corrupt” and yet, post-flood Nephilim are asserted due to Num 13:33.

As for, “Moses’s concern lies elsewhere” indeed, since in post-flood days, he wasn’t concerned about some tall-tale and that tall-tale was that is that Num 13:33 is:

you needed to mention that you’re relying on:

1.       One single unreliable sentence

2.       From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)

3.       Of an unreliable “evil report”

4.       By 10 unreliable guys

5.       Whom God rebuked—to death

6.       Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible

7.       Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible

8.       Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.

I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

On his X page, Paul Tackett (of VerseQuest Ministries, Master’s degree in Pastoral Theology: the, “Meet Out Pastor” section of the, “About” page of his site does not state from where) posted 🚨🚨 NEW VERSEQUEST SERIES RELEASED 🚨🚨 which is titled The Nephilim Were Not Clowns Series 1-22. My previous article about him is Review of Pastor Paul Tackett’s Post-Flood Nephilim Migration.

If you find yourself in the outermost corner of a pop-Nephilology rabbit hole, you will know that the reason to even write Nephilim and Clowns in the same sentence is due to that a certain Paul Stobbs has virtually single handedly turned Nephilology into a literal clown show.

Biblical Nephilology has been coopted by pop-Nephilologists for some time now. Pop-Nephilology sells un-biblical tall-tales (many of which include sci-fi aspects) to Christians.

Pop-Nephilology is where the most ridiculous conspiracy theories and theology proper damaging fantasy tall-tales find new life by being put into a blender and being peppered with assertions about being biblical. Stobbs has taken that cesspool of misinfo and disinfo and made a name for himself publishing a book titled The Nephilim Looked Like Clowns.

Now, the claim that Nephilim looked like clowns is based on a miscomprehension of the relevant linguistics, reliance on faulty sources, folklore, and mere assertions.

Stobbs admitted that it came from him having a hallucinogenic drug flashback.

For a detailed review of claim, see my book Did the Nephilim Look Like Clowns?: A Review of Paul Stobbs’ Theory.

For a succinct review, see the article I published before he published his book Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns? and also the follow-up article ​Anatomy of the making of a modern-day myth: Nephilim looked like clowns.

When it comes down to it, as you will see, Stobbs’ assertion The Nephilim Looked Like Clowns and Tackett’s The Nephilim Were Not Clowns are actually saying much the same thing: both, at once, claim that Nephilim did and also did not look like clowns since they both claim that Nephilim featured clown-like features that have been reflected in clown-like and modern clown aspects.

I found Tackett’s take interesting in that he walks the line between Stobbsian tall-tales and Biblical Nephilology—that is, in the text undergoing review: in my article Review of Pastor Paul Tackett’s Post-Flood Nephilim Migration I demonstrated that, in general, his Nephilology is not biblical since, for example, he asserts post-flood Nephilim, something he does not do in the present text.

In fact, in the text in question he wrote, “The flood erased their bodies…The last time humanity embraced such distortion, God sent a flood…a world humanity once knew and God erased with water…thoroughly that God wiped the slate clean…Nephilim were

Destroyed. The Bible says the flood was God’s judgment…those beings died in the flood” (and this is just a sample of the various times he affirmed such).

Now, logically (and bio-logically and theo-logically) how can that be the case (which it biblically is) and there also be Post-Flood Nephilim Migration? There cannot be thus, that is a fundamental level contradiction and one that implies that God failed, must have missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste.

I am typically loath to critique another author’s writing style since, as I have noted variously, mine style (or lack thereof) leaves much to be desired in part since suffering from some form of dyslexia, English being my second language, and not having an editor makes for a perfect storm for my writings.

Yet, I will note that, at least in the subject text, Paul Tackett is extremely repetitive and he could have produced a more succinct and ergo, more impactfully laser focused text if he condensed rather than having dispersed his claims and data points.

Paul Tackett notes:

One of the strangest symbols the modern world has normalized is the clown — a painted face, an exaggerated expression, a distorted body, a walking inversion of human dignity. Children laugh. Adults pretend to laugh. Yet somewhere deep inside the human soul, something recoils.

Something remembers. Something ancient recognizes something ancient. The face is familiar in a way we cannot articulate — and that is the warning…

Across continents, cultures, languages, and eras, the same grotesque figure reappears: white face, red mouth, oversized features, ritual paint, chaotic movement, mockery of order, mockery of authority, mockery of the human form itself. The world calls it comedy. The Bible believer asks a different question: Why does this symbol survive? And why now?

Genesis 6 gives the first clue: “There were giants in the earth in those days…” These were not merely tall men. They were the offspring of fallen angels and human women — hybrids, distortions, grotesque parodies of the divine order.

The flood erased their bodies, but it did not erase the trauma they left behind. Every post-flood culture carries a memory of distorted beings. Every myth remembers a hybrid face. Every pagan ritual recreates the mask of a fallen god. Humanity forgot the names — but remembered the faces.

Clown-Nephilologists make quite the case regarding clown features and yet, they seem to overlook that there are reasons as to why performers tends towards exaggeration: they need to be seen from afar—whether as spectacles in ancient rituals attended by hundreds, modern day stages which required huge screens to project the goings on to the people in backrows, or under the big top in circus center rings.

It is the reason that Michael Jackson would wear one sequined glove and high water black pants with black shoes and white sequined socks: so you can see his movements from afar. The same reason that opera singers traditionally overdo make up.

And yet, something recoils because they are other: they are unusual, they do unexpected odd things, they jokingly mock, etc., etc., etc.

Tackett’s view is that coulrophobia reflects ancient memories of having seen Nephilim.

He wrote:

The Nephilim were not clowns, but the clown is a faint, distorted reflection…these were not fairy-tale giants with cheerful faces and comedic antics (Genesis 6:4). They were the offspring of supernatural rebellion — the literal children of fallen angels, the product of abomination and transgression. Their appearance would not have been normal. Their faces would not have been pleasant. Their proportions would not have matched human design. They were the distortion of the image of God’s creation.

When a being outside of humanity corrupts human genetics, the result is something human-shaped but not human…

The exaggerated face is corruption. The elongated smile is corruption. The corpse-white skin is corruption. The blood-red markings around the mouth and eyes mimic wounds, death, or predatory expressions. These are not comedic enhancements. These are the echoes of a race that distorted humanity so…A clown is a mockery of humanity. A Nephilim was…A clown exaggerates what God made…

Behind the mask is an archetype — the trickster, the jester, the shaman, the ritual performer, the spirit medium — all descended from the same spiritual pattern: fallen beings masquerading behind distorted human form.

I want to insert a linguistics issue here as he refers to Nephilim as giants which begs the following key questions: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? what is his usage? Do those two usages agree?

The noted:

The King James Bible paints a picture of a world before the flood that was distorted, corrupted, mutated, and spiritually contaminated. “There were giants in the earth in those days”…“And also after that” (Genesis 6:4) was not a

suggestion. It was a warning that the spiritual corruption did not end with the giants’ bodies…Genesis 6 does not describe them in cartoon terms. It calls them “giants” and “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).

That was stated within the context of reference to their, “height, proportion, strength, and shape that did not match human design.” Thus, that informs us that his usage of giants is something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).

This means that his usage does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage since therein, giants 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.

He also refers to them as, “tall” but that is just as vague, generic, and multi-usage as giants.

As for, “offspring of supernatural rebellion — the literal children of fallen angels” indeed, 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.

Yet, as for, “Their appearance would not have been normal” that is a speculative argument from silence especially since both sides of their parentage looked human thus, every indication is that their offspring would look human.

Human women look like human women because they are human women.

Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

Could there still have been some abnormal effects from the combination of Angel and human, sure, yet, the dirty little secret is that since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height and appearance is a non-issue—and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical-pop-Nephilology.

We have no reliable indication that, “elongated smile…corpse-white skin…blood-red markings…mimic” Nephilim features since we know not what Nephilim features are.

Now, there is something to be said regarding the issue of, “archetype — the trickster, the jester, the shaman, the ritual performer, the spirit medium” in terms of what Paul Tackett puts as:

…the clown…is the surviving symbol of a spiritual distortion. He is the echo of the Nephilim. He is the cartoon version of something humanity once feared…the same spirit behind the giants is conditioning the world again through imagery, mockery, inversion, and distortion…This is why the clown matters.

This is why the imagery matters. This is why the symbols matter…A clown is one of the strangest contradictions in modern culture. People pretend it’s harmless, pretend it’s comedic, pretend it’s a children’s toy — but the soul knows better…

Satan…needs the world to stop recognizing distortion when it sees it. He only needs mockery to become entertainment…the devil repeats himself. He recycles symbols. He repackages ancient corruption into modern aesthetics.

At issue is the, “the clown…is the surviving symbol of a spiritual distortion” the something to be said about which is that Satan only one untuned stringed banjo card is: copy but corrupt. He does that which God does but upside-down, inside out and backward.

Now, just as Nephilim might have been physically distorted, we cannot ignore that memories—especially cultural memories such as those held by Noah’s grandchildren and beyond who did not actually see Nephilim—and stories in general grow with telling, retelling, re-retelling, etc. as they become tall-tales: taller and taller they grow with time and telling—see my paper How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

Hyped click-bait existed long before clicking and the way to get and keep attention is to keep upping the ante, taking it up a notch, seeking to be unique my making the most outlandishly interesting claims: and now you have a taste of why neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales Nephilology has become a very lucrative cottage industry—an cottage made of straw.

An issue with which we must be very mindful is the ease with which we can water down otherwise solid data points in order to string them together in a manner that is actually not viable.

As for, “He only needs mockery to become entertainment,” Tackett noted, “Hollywood turns demons into superheroes” which is the case indeed especially in terms of the anti-hero who is a technical bad guy and does bad things but it is painted as being pragmatically acceptable since bad is being done for the right reasons, for the good—and I am italicizing terms here since they are being blurred into subjectivism.

And so many superheroes are aliens, hybrids, genetically mutated humans, have superpowers, etc.—Batman is among the only actually 100% non-GMO human superheroes.

We were told of, “white face, red mouth, oversized features…” and:

Nephilim, the hybrids, the corrupted seed, the giants who twisted the natural order. It’s no accident that the earliest giant legends from after the flood — in Canaan, in Bashan, in Native American lore, in Norse mythology — describe beings whose features were unnatural, whose faces were

oversized, whose expressions were monstrous.

It is too simple to vaguely refer to, “Native American lore” for example since Native American refers to many cultures from many locations and with various levels of oral traditions passed on for centuries and millennia with whatever level of reliability: see my article Lovelock Cave Giants: lost or found? for an example of this.

As for, “Nephilim, the hybrids…giants…after the flood — in Canaan” one such example is found in Num 13:33 which reads, “there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

Yet, that was:

1.            One single unreliable sentence

2.            From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse does not even mention Anakim)

3.            Of an unreliable evil report

4.            By 10 unreliable guys

5.            Whom God rebuked—to death

6.            Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible

7.            Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible

8.            Then one has to make up an un-biblical tall-tale about how they made it past the flood, past God.

I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

As for, “Nephilim, the hybrids…giants…after the flood…in Bashan” I would imagine that he is specifically referring to King Og of Bashan about whom we are told, “only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit” (circa 13.5x6ft.).

The only contextually relevant thing we are told about Rephaim, in general, is that they were subjectively, “tall,” in general and that is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days (Victor Harold Matthews, (Hendrickson, 1991 ed.) Manners and Customs in the Bible).

Also, seeking to derive Og’s height from the size of his bed is a non-sequitur based on various mere assumptions. Every indication is that it 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?

Note that Paul Tackett argues thusly, very specifically:

Many were said to have red hair…

One of the strangest consistencies in giant lore across the world is the description of their physical features…pale skin and fiery, red hair. The Bible itself gives hints of this pattern, not in superficial description but in typology. Esau — the progenitor of nations hostile to Israel — is born “red, all over like an hairy garment” (Genesis 25:25). That is not normal. That is an emphasis.

The Native Americans spoke of the Si-Te-Cah, a race of red-haired giants who were cannibalistic, violent, and godlike in stature. When the Comanches spoke of their ancient enemies, they described them as “white men” with reddish or copper hair, massive height, and unnatural strength.

…red hair preserved in strands, pale bones of abnormal size, and skulls elongated far beyond normal human proportions…The Bible believer calls them evidence of Genesis 6 and its aftermath.

Why does this matter? Because the clown archetype — without consciously knowing it — preserves the same two features. The pale, corpse-like skin. The unnatural, blazing red hair…

Some accounts even describe them as glowing or luminous, not in a divine sense but in the eerie way moonlight reflects off a lifeless surface.

Red is the color of blood, the color of violence, the color of war, the color of sacrifice. It is the color of Esau, who despised his birthright and became a type of carnal rejection and opposition to God’s covenant.

Now, that, “Many were said to have red hair” is clearly a mere assertion and the only citation we have is generically to, “The Native Americans” and specifically to, “the Comanches.”

Worse yet, the argument was myopic and vague when it came down to it: and rather potentially dangerous to red-heads.

It would seem that what Native Americans were depicting are not cultural memories of Nephilim but rather, cultural memories of interacting with Vikings: giant/tall, White, and red-haired.

As for, “hints of this pattern…Esau” if we are to correlate that he was, “red, all over like an hairy garment” coupled with, “progenitor of nations hostile to Israel” we might was well say that King David was likewise (sans, “progenitor of nations hostile to Israel”) correlated to Nephilim since, after all, “he was ruddy” (1 Sam 16:12).

As for, “pale bones,” and he also wrote, “The pale face is the color of death” well, all bones are pale but there are huge issues with appealing to generic bones since that opens us a can of gigantic worms that range from individual bones to skeletons and from those examined by qualified people to unqualified people claiming they saw such.

Some are mere tall-tales without evidence, some are vague assertions, some end up being bones of pachyderm, whales, dinos, etc.—see my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales for a whole chapter featuring newspaper accounts form the late 1800s-early 1900s and, “Appendix: Review of Adrienne Mayor’s The First Fossil Hunters” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

As for, “abnormal size, and skulls elongated far beyond normal human proportions…The Bible believer calls them evidence of Genesis 6 and its aftermath” that is a clearly unfounded mere assertion.

Note that even, “pale, corpse-like skin” is generic and myopic since some people are just pale so the only reason to refer to pale as corpse-like is bias.

Even his, “Red is the color of…” statement is myopic since he could have just as easily have said, “…delicious fruit, beautiful sunsets, gorgeous flowers. It is the color of David, who’s hear was after God’s own heart and became a type of loyalty to God’s covenant.”

Referring to Stephen King’s novel It, Paul Tackett wrote:

Pennywise is not terrifying because he’s a clown. He’s terrifying because he is almost human. The white face and red markings are not scary because of makeup. They are scary because they visually approximate a hybrid face — a face that is human enough to identify but wrong enough to disturb.

Pennywise is not terrifying because he’s a clown. He’s terrifying because he is almost human but ontologically, he is not human and is not a clown.

In fact, he is not a he rather, It was created by what King referred to as other and another which is a Gnostic-style unknown god, deus absconditus, theos agnosticos who created some indescribable something that, for human comprehension, is symbolically described as a spider and which takes on various shapes once it discern that which will scare its victims the most: one such shape is Pennywise the Dancing Clown—for details, see my book A Worldview Review of Stephen King’s “It”: The Mystical, Mysterious, and Metaphysical in the Novel, Miniseries, and Movies.

Thus, as for, “features were unnatural, whose faces were oversized, whose expressions were monstrous” it may be the case that depictions of giants were meant to visualizing such distorted beginnings: rebellion that resulted in offspring that were never meant to be.

For all of his talk about distorted vestiges of humanity, the most terrifying facts of history include that the most terrible actions against humanity (sans weather and genetic related catastrophes) is that humans with normal human features have been some of the most monstrous.

Paul Tackett asserted, “The Bible says demons desire to ‘inhabit’ bodies because they once had bodies. Their former state was hybrid, flesh” yet, that is not the case: which is why it is a mere assertion.

While the Bible does not state that, it is true and yet, he seemed to be arguing that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim and yet, that is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

Thus, overall, Paul Tackett’s point is that The Nephilim Were Not Clowns but they were, for all intents and purposes since, “Humanity…is haunted by what it remembers…the world before the flood was…preserved not in writing, but in imagery” and that imagery is supposedly based on how Nephilim looked.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

The Answer the Bible site posted an article titled What is the significance of the fact there were giants in those days (Genesis 6:4)? by a certain Aaron Chin.

The site notes that their, “goal is to help you find biblical answers to all of your Bible questions…Our team of researchers dives deep into Scripture to provide clear, concise explanations to your inquiries…We believe every detail in God’s Word matters and can help bring someone closer to Christ.”

The article begins by quoting that which I term the Gen 6 affair thusly, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

Aaron Chin claims, “Nephilim were a race of giants” which begs these key hermeneutical questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Chin usage (especially since he quoted a version that doesn’t refer to, “giants”)? Do those two usages agree?

Of, “sons of God” he notes, “Some believe this is referring to fallen angels or demons who mated with human women, producing superhuman offspring. Others believe it refers to godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with ungodly Cainites. Either way, the Nephilim were a hybrid race of giants who dominated the pre-flood world.”

I’m unsure how they could be hybrid either way: unless he’s watering down the term hybrid to refer to half-Angel and half-human and also 100% human from two related lineages—and how does the latter result in superhumans?

The former option is 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. The latter is a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice.

For some odd reason, certainly not the Gen 6 affair, he concludes, “Their physical stature…made them celebrities and legendary figures” and yet, 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.

Thus, his usage of the term giants seems to be something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).

That means that his usage doesn’t agree with the English Bibles’ usage 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.

Aaron Chin affirms that, “they contributed to the violence, immorality and corruption that overran the world, leading to God’s judgment by flood…Nephilim…stoked God’s anger.”

Since his usage of giants isn’t in keeping with the English Bibles’ usage he takes a wrong turn in going on about that, “The fact that giants once existed challenges the popular notion that humanity has been on an upward evolutionary trajectory over millions of years.”

He adds, “It lends credence to the biblical timeline that sophisticated civilizations date back only thousands of years. The prescence of giants also testifies to the reliability of Scripture, as their remains have been unearthed around the world.” Well, “around the world” is a bit of a vague citation but worse of all, that statement is misleading since by this point we’re dealing with such watered down assertions that they’re meaningless and nothing about the hints we can derive from his usage would have anything to do with the Bible.

Following up on his statement about the flood, he adds, “God refused to let these powerful hybrids and their corruption continue indefinitely. He stepped in to destroy their dominion and punish sin, while saving righteous Noah and his family. The Nephilim were wiped out…in the judgment of the flood.”

Now, he then takes a gigantic misstep by asserting, “Genesis 6:4 notes that the Nephilim existed even after the flood, implying some may have survived God’s judgment.”

You read Genesis 6:4 as he quoted it and there was no indication whatsoever that it “notes that the Nephilim existed even after the flood.” As for, “implying some may have survived God’s judgment” which is not only not in the least bit the case, it’s logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible—unless, that is, one want to assert that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

How can a site focused on finding biblical answers to provide clear, concise explanations of every detail in God’s Word to help bring someone closer to Christ claim that a verse states what it doesn’t and then imply that God failed.

Well, one problem is his usage of useless terminology: he seems to be chasing his subjective usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants around an ancient and specific Hebrew Bible.

By making that linguistics error, he can write things such as, “Some believe giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim. However, there is no conclusive biblical evidence for Nephilim coexisting with humans today.”

We aren’t told how many the, “Some” are nor who they are nor where they stated such things nor are they quoted or cited. Yet, I know that he’s referring to un-biblical Nephilology since when it comes to Goliath when one reads of him having been a giant in some modern English Bibles that’s merely identifying him as a Repha: it’s telling us that he was of the Rephaim tribe and not telling us anything at all about his size.

As already noted, the only way it could be that, “giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim” is if God failed. As for, “no conclusive biblical evidence for Nephilim coexisting with humans today” fair enough but, pray tell, why not if they made it past the flood—in some un-biblical manner?

An odd feature of the manner in which pop-Nephilolgists communicate is that one of their MOs is that they make a point, move away from it, come back to it, move away, come back, etc.

Thus, Aaron Chin goes back to, “Giant bones and skulls unearthed at ancient burial mounds in America, particularly the Ohio valley region” which is biblically irrelevant.

And, “Weapons of enormous size belonging to giant warriors found in Greece” which is biblically irrelevant.

And, “Giant footprints fossilized in stone at sites in Africa” which is biblically irrelevant. I’m unaware of plural footprints. I’m aware of this:

Actually, one of the firsts tests to determine if that’s a footprint is whether there are plural footprints: where’s the long line of footprints leading to it and away from it? Apparently, the answer is that there aren’t any. So, that’s a giant indicator of that it’s not a footprint.

And, “Ancient Jewish and Roman historians like Josephus referencing bones of giants being on display in public places” which is biblically irrelevant. Think about it: he asserts that bones of something are on display so, what of it?

He then refers to that:

The Nephilim are mentioned in some ancient extra-biblical sources, which provide additional insights about how they were viewed:

The Book of Enoch (7:2) describes giants 3,000 ells high (around 4,500 feet).

The Book of Jubilees (7:21–25) details that they could kill men with their bare hands.

The Book of Giants from the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions the Nephilim’s height and influence.

The Rephaim are described as giants in Ugaritic texts dating back to 1300 BC.

The first three texts are Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch and The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts. Also, read my How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

As for, “Rephaim are described as giants in Ugaritic texts dating back to 1300 BC” I’m unsure I’ll accept that un-cited assertion but in Ugaritic texts recently deceased kings and heroes are referred to as kings and heroes but after they had been dead for some time, they were referred to as rph, could be summoned from the grave/underworld to attend rituals, etc., see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.

Aaron Chin then writes of, “Nephilim co-existing with adamites” thusly:

According to Genesis 6:4, Nephilim lived concurrently with “daughters of man,” presumed to be the female descendants of Adam. The text portrays these groups intermarrying and producing offspring. This raises some interesting questions if the Nephilim really were giant hybrids:

How could giants and humans reproduce if they were completely different species or creatures?

Were there families that contained both giants and normal-sized people side-by-side?

Did the Nephilim have special abilities or superhuman traits compared to their human spouses?

What happened to the children of these mixed marriages in terms of their stature and skills?

Unfortunately the Bible does not provide this level of detail about Nephilim-human relations. But it does make clear that giants could somehow breed with humans, adding to the biblical intrigue surrounding these ancient colossal beings.

This is a bit messy so, just in case, “Nephilim lived concurrently with ‘daughters of man” having come into being after the daughters of men were around.

They had to be, “female descendants of Adam” by definition.

Perhaps, “these groups intermarrying and producing offspring” eventually but the Gen 6 affair was about the sons of God producing offspring with the daughters of men, not the Nephilim.

As for, “How could” let’s switch to sons of God as Angels, “and humans reproduce if they were completely different species or creatures?” well, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.” See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

As for, “How could giants and humans reproduce if they were completely different species or creatures?” well, remember the dirty little secret.

How about, “How could” Nephilim, “and humans reproduce if they were completely different species or creatures?” they weren’t completely different.

Note that he appealed to, “giants” and, “colossal beings” which are both uselessly vague terms and while he means something about subjectively unusual height by them, he’s yet to provide us any reason whatsoever to think that Nephilim were such.

Following up on his statement about the flood, he adds, “God refused to let these powerful hybrids and their corruption continue indefinitely. He stepped in to destroy their dominion and punish sin, while saving righteous Noah and his family. The Nephilim were wiped out…in the judgment of the flood.”

Now, he then takes a gigantic misstep by asserting, “Genesis 6:4 notes that the Nephilim existed even after the flood, implying some may have survived God’s judgment.”

You read Genesis 6:4 as he quoted it and there was no indication whatsoever that it “notes that the Nephilim existed even after the flood.” As for, “implying some may have survived God’s judgment” which is not only not in the least bit the case, it’s logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible—unless, that is, one want to assert that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

How can a site focused on finding biblical answers to provide clear, concise explanations of every detail in God’s Word to help bring someone closer to Christ claim that a verse states what it doesn’t and then imply that God failed.

Well, one problem is his usage of useless terminology: he seems to be chasing his subjective usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants around an ancient and specific Hebrew Bible.

By making that linguistics error, he can write things such as, “Some believe giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim. However, there is no conclusive biblical evidence for Nephilim coexisting with humans today.”

We aren’t told how many the, “Some” are nor who they are nor where they stated such things nor are they quoted or cited. Yet, I know that he’s referring to un-biblical Nephilology since when it comes to Goliath when one reads of him having been a giant in some modern English Bibles that’s merely identifying him as a Repha: it’s telling us that he was of the Rephaim tribe and not telling us anything at all about his size.

As already noted, the only way it could be that, “giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim” is if God failed. As for, “no conclusive biblical evidence for Nephilim coexisting with humans today” fair enough but, pray tell, why not, if they made it past the flood—in some un-biblical manner?

Having written, “that the doings of Nephilim played a part in, “leading to God’s judgment by flood…God…destroy their dominion…Nephilim were wiped out…in the judgment of the flood” and then that, “Nephilim existed even after the flood…giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim.”

He went on to assert, “A key reason that God judged the world with a flood in Genesis 6 was because of the proliferation of Nephilim giants” which, FYI, biblically contextually would mean, “Nephilim Nephilim.”

And he then circled back to, “The giants known as the Nephilim”—“Nephilim known as the Nephilim”—“were not the only oversized beings mentioned in the Old Testament narratives” of which he hasn’t appealed to a single one, “There were also the Anakim, Emim and Rephaim, who were tribes or clans of very large people described as giants or comparing in height to the Nephilim. The most famous giant was Goliath, the Philistine warrior defeated by David.”

On a basic level of categorical thinking, if, “Nephilim…were also the Anakim, Emim and Rephaim” then, by definition, Anakim, Emim and Rephaim wouldn’t be, “Anakim, Emim and Rephaim” they would be Nephilim.

Yet, he offered no backing for the mere assertion that such was the case, in any case—in any way, shape or form. So, I’ll have to argue his point and then debunk it. The one and only possible way to even imagine arguing that Anakim, Emim and Rephaim were really Nephilim, by any other name, is Num 13:33 which myopically correlated Nephilim with Anakim. Yet, when one appeals to that verse, they needed to mention that they’re relying on:

1.       One single unreliable sentence

2.       From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)

3.       Of an unreliable “evil report”

4.       By 10 unreliable guys

5.       Whom God rebuked—to death

6.       Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible

7.       Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible

8.       Then they have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.

I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

Aaron Chin doesn’t seem to realize that, “Anakim, Emim and Rephaim” are one in the same since Rephaim were aka Emmim and Anakim was like a clan of that tribe. As for, “oversized…very large” well, those terms are as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants and he can only get such an idea from Deut 2 which refers to them as, “tall” which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage: in this case, is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

He added, “Goliath stood around 9 feet tall and his armor weighed over 120 pounds (1 Samuel 17:4-7)” yet, “1 Samuel 17:4-7” where? See that was a myopic assertion since 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’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

He also wrote, “Other giants included King Og of Bashan whose huge iron bed was over 13 feet long (Deuteronomy 3:11)” but what does a, “bed” have to do with anything? He committed a very, very common pop-Nephilology fallacy of a non-sequitur. Concluding anything about his personal height from his, “bed” is based on various mere assumptions. And note that he doesn’t appeal to Og’s stated height since we have no physical description of him. He seems unaware that indications are that the, “bed” was a ritual object, not something on which he slept. Yet, even if he slept on it there are various reasons to not jump to a non-sequitur since he was a lavish king and if you measured my bed you’d conclude I’m some five times wider than I actually am. For more, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

As for, “the giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot” that’s, “the Repha” and what of it?

He adds, “giants even after the flood. They stood well over seven and even nine feet” but the tallest person specified in the Bible was actually an Egyptian at 7.5ft (2 Sam 23).

He does affirm, “Though not the original Nephilim” but tells a tall-tale about, “later giants were evidence of genetic anomalies producing supersized humans both before and after the flood” for which there’s literally zero indication—granting that supersized is a useless term.

He then focuses on, “Nephilim size…There are no precise details in Scripture about how tall the Nephilim giants actually were” but claims, “a few clues” such as, you guessed it, “Numbers 13:33 says the Nephilim made the Israelite spies look like grasshoppers in comparison.” No, it states no such thing: that’s an unreliable sentence from an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked who merely asserted that Nephilim made the Israelite spies look like grasshoppers in comparison.

He then circles back to, “Goliath…about 9 feet” but that’s not only myopic, it’s about a Repha so doesn’t count for Nephilim—odd that he literally wrote, “not the original Nephilim” followed by, “Nephilim size” followed by appealing to the, “not the original Nephilim” Goliath.

Next up is, “Some Nephilim may have had six fingers and toes (2 Samuel 21:20)” but that has nothing to do with, “Nephilim size” and it’s a non-sequitur to take one single Repha who lived centuries post flood and imagine a correlation to pre-flood Nephilim.

Then, “They were descendants of Anakim giants who were described as strong and tall like cedars (Amos 2:9).” Yet, he gets that from the only place he could, non-LXX versions of an unreliable sentence and Amos doesn’t say anything about Anakim.

Amos 2:9 says, “the Amorite…whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.” He was clearly just saying they were big and strong and not implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation.

In fact, people who do measure cedars and claim Amorites were that tall never get around to a calculation correlating the strength of oaks—since they’re only interested in tall-tales. Plus, if they take it that incoherently literal then they have to conclude that Amorites had fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.

Next, he wrote, “The Book of Enoch claims Nephilim were over 400 feet high” which he wrote after, you will recall, having written, “The Book of Enoch (7:2) describes giants 3,000 ells high (around 4,500 feet).”

His conclusion is, “they potentially ranged anywhere from 9 feet to over 400 feet tall!” which is unfounded. He ended that assertion with, “Even on the low end, they would have towered over average humans” and imagines that, “Their immense stature aligned with descriptions of being ‘mighty’ men and warriors. They must have had incredible strength to match their size.” Yet, history is peppered with mighty men and warriors who weren’t taller than the parochial average.

Aaron Chin then asks, “How did giant Nephilim exist?”—“How did Nephilim Nephilim exist?” yet, that section is premised on un-biblical tall-tales about Nephilim so he focuses on, “Given the much smaller stature of humans both then and now, how could giants like the Nephilim arise? There are several possible explanations” which he states as follows:

Supernatural origin – If the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels/demons, their coupling with humans may have genetically altered humanity’s development, producing unnaturally large offspring.

Genetic anomalies – Rare gigantism disorders could have produced abnormally large humans exceeding seven or even nine feet at times.

Ideal environment – The pre-flood world environment may have been “hyperbaric” with greater air pressure and oxygen levels, promoting larger growth.

Diet/lifestyle – Their diet and living conditions could have promoted greater height and body mass.

While definitive evidence is unavailable, a combination of supernatural engineering and ideal living conditions most likely enabled Nephilim to grow remarkably large in stature compared to humans both before and after the flood.

Why merely assume that, “angels/demons,” it was Angels, not demons, would be “producing unnaturally large offspring” rather than unnaturally small?

There’s no biblical reason to even appeal to something as mundane as, “gigantism.”

Certainly, “The pre-flood world” may have been a factor in, “promoting larger growth” and my only point is that we’ve no data to back Aaron Chin’s assertions and assumptions about Nephilim’s size.

I’m unsure what, “Diet/lifestyle” would have, “promoted” 4,500ft.

“supernatural engineering” is an oddly sci-fi manner to refer to physical copulation. Again, perhaps it’s, “most likely” but we’ve no indication of it: merely un-biblical tall-tales by pop-Nephilologists.

He concludes by listing, “several key takeaways from the brief mention of Nephilim giants in Genesis 6”:

They were real creatures verified by archaeological finds.

They possessed great size and abilities beyond normal humans.

They were hybrid offspring of angelic/demonic beings and humans.

They were associated with violence and evil before the flood.

They significantly influenced the spreading wickedness on the earth.

Their judgment by God in the flood stands as warning about the inevitable judgment of evil.

There’s no way to correlate, “archaeological finds” to Nephilim.

There’s no reliable indication of, “great size and abilities beyond normal humans.”

Indications are, “They were hybrid offspring of angelic” not, “demonic,” “beings and humans.”

Indeed, “associated with violence and evil before the flood” which is part of why they didn’t survive—and there’s literally zero reliable indication that they returned—likewise with, “significantly influenced the spreading wickedness on the earth” and, “Their judgment by God in the flood” which brought them to a sudden and full end.

Sadly, he ends with, “The fact that giants once walked the earth reminds us of the accuracy of Scripture” which is a non-starter so we can’t rely on it do assist in reminding us of the accuracy of Scripture.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Thinbox Dictator replies to Is it possible atheists see themselves in a righteous battle against God?

A person going by the username Thinbox Dictator replied as follows to the question Is it possible atheists see themselves in a righteous battle against God? How could they not see how mistaken they are?

I don’t see myself in ‘a battle’ against something I don’t believe exists.

I don’t even know where you’ve got that idea.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Why don’t you believe God exists?

Thinbox Dictator

Because every argument for its existence I’m aware about,is really bad.

Ken Ammi

So then it’s about your admitted limited awareness.

It’s also about your merely asserted your subjective personal opinion about those of which you are aware but that’s not a standard.

You seem to imply that presenting arguments is a requirement but how and why is that the case on your worldview?

You also seem to imply that we can only believe in things for which there are successful arguments (which you arbitrate) but how and why is that the case on your worldview?

Thinbox Dictator

Do you think before writing/speaking?

Of course that’s a standard.

How can I evaluate (,or be convinced by) something I’m not aware about?

Every apologetic argument for something supernatural I’ve ever heard,is based on misunderstanding (that’s assuming apologists don’t lie on purpose just to give people like you false confidence) whatever topic it touches/is based on.

What more you expect from me,than to evaluate arguments I’m aware about?

Every time I’ve looked into topics apologists base their arguments on I’ve found out that their arguments can at best be misunderstanding of it, but most likely it’s downright lying to their gullible audience.

They sell their arguments not to convince “unbelievers”, but to give false confidence to those who already believe that stuff.

You are a nice example of it.

You try to hang on “it’s just what I’m aware about” as if it’s some gotcha, because some dumb apologist used it before and you just swallowed it without thinking.

Use your head, just a bit, please.

Ken Ammi

Ok, so, you’re asserting that it’s a standard—ergo, a universal imperative—that all of humanity go by what you personally subjectively find to be, “really bad” or not: fascinating?

Whence did you derive such universal authority?

Indeed, how can I evaluate (,or be convinced by) something you’re not aware about: I was just pointing that out, you’re not omniscient.

Now, when you retort with that, “Every apologetic argument for something supernatural I’ve ever heard…” and then opine, that’s a down the line argument: the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for you to begin with, to first, justify demanding cogent arguments, on your worldview.

Then, justify how and why only believing in things for which there’s cogent arguments is a universal imperative, on your worldview.

What, on your worldview, is wrong with giving, “false confidence” and, “lying”?

See, you began and continue functioning based on merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions: I’m just seeing if you’ll reveal them.

Thinbox Dictator

I understand that you want to change the topic, but you didn’t address the topic you seem to be so angry about.

“””

… that’s a down the line argument: the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for you to begin with, to first, justify demanding cogent arguments, on your worldview.

“””

…to myself,yes.

And it is not the first step,it is one of steps, but deffinitely not the first.

obviously your “steps” are different and our starting points are on different continents, but thankfully that is not the topic you are so angry about.

so could you please explain what you find so upsetting on the fact that you have to evaluate claims based on what you are aware about?

if the claim is insteresting/ important to you , you educate yourself on the topic, but you don’t just trust the salesman that their product is the best,right?

so obviously (to me, I didn’t imagine I would find someone disagreeing on that) , you evaluate claims based on what you know and learned.

what more can you expect from any indivudual?

if you agree with me on that, why are you upset about it?

Ken Ammi

Well, on your worldview there’s nothing wrong with changing the topic.

Yet, that’s not what I’m doing: I’m merely asking you to back up to the very first step: ever wonder why you’re literally incapable of taking it?

At least you agree that you’re no premise upon which to jump to your merely asserted conclusions since you appeal to subjectivism, “starting points are on different continents”—which is a mere assumption in and of itself.

You’re merely assuming that I’m angry and upset.

So, to put it another way: you anachronistically began with the merely asserted conclusion, based on hidden assumptions, that “to evaluate claims” is some sort of universal imperative, on your worldview, and that we are only to believe in thing which have been evaluated.

Let’s go back to my original reply:

“It’s also about your merely asserted your subjective personal opinion about those of which you are aware but that’s not a standard.”

“You seem to imply that presenting arguments is a requirement but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”

“You also seem to imply that we can only believe in things for which there are successful arguments (which you arbitrate) but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”

Thinbox Dictator

Evaluating claims has nothing to do with worldview, are you thick?

That’s why I’m baffled why you have a problem with it.

Everyone does that.

All the time.

Your version might be simple“sounds right, I believe that” and I do that lazy automatic evaluation sometimes too, despite trying not to,or dismissal without further investigation.

I’m just interested why you have a problem with me listening to apologetics and examining their arguments vs stuff I can learn independently about topics they base their arguments on, finding their arguments be invariably just big pile of thrash.

I could understand why you would have problem with my conclusion, but you are complaining about me evaluating their arguments in the first place.

It’s as if you complain that I didn’t just accept whatever they say without thinking about it.

That’s how it looks to me,so you want to change topic because you understand that apologetic arguments you know about, are really bad,I guess.

And sorry, I’m not here to explain my worldview, especially when you seem to be unable to grasp basic questions.

It would be conversation for hours and I’m not doing that, and if I would,it would be with someone who can understand basics.

I’m aware that changing topic is common apologetic tactic when you’re in a corner,but you weren’t even in a corner. You just leaped out with classic distraction when I was just asking the simplest question.

Maybe the question surprised you, because nobody asked that before.

Do you know why? Because nobody has a reason to disagree with it. Even the dumbest apologists would agree with it.

I’m guessing You misunderstood what I meant, and after I’ve made clear what I meant, you can’t just say you misunderstood, so you change topic.

I mean I hope, because I don’t believe you can be that thick with level head.

So it’s either that,or You came here to argue so you can’t think clearly… or you’re really that thick.

Either way,if you can’t answer that, there’s no point in this.

Ken Ammi

My friend, since you don’t seem to be getting the systematic critical thinking point, I’ll stop asking questions and start making statements.

You stated, “Evaluating claims has nothing to do with worldview” based on your worldview. Actually, you’re right about that evaluating claims has nothing to do with YOUR worldview, it’s just your emotively subjective personal preference du jour since your worldview provides you no premise upon which to claim that it’s a universal imperative to evaluate claims.

Yes, “Everyone does that. All the time” but the point is that, on your worldview, doing so is just an emotively subjective personal preference du jour so you disqualify yourself from even complaining about anyone who doesn’t do that.

On your worldview, “sounds right, I believe that” is 100% acceptable as is, “I do that lazy automatic evaluation” and, “dismissal without further investigation.”

I’ve no idea where you got even a hint at that I, “have a problem with [you] listening to apologetics and examining their arguments vs stuff I can learn independently about topics they base their arguments on, finding their arguments be invariably just big pile of thrash.”

On your worldview, there’s literally nothing whatsoever wrong with what you term, “big pile of thrash.”

The only problem I have with your, “conclusion” thus far is that you jumped to it, you incoherently illogically and anachronistically began with your conclusion based on hidden assumptions. Yet, on your worldview you’re utterly welcome to be incoherently illogically and anachronistic.

On your worldview there’s nothing wrong with, “without thinking about it.”

Indeed, “That’s how it looks to me” which you state subjectively.

You don’t have to explain your worldview, I’ve derived it from what you’ve stated and see it’s fundamental level failure of a collapse since it leaves you incapable of taking systematic critical thinking step number one, the very first one.

So, what you subjectively term, “distraction” is actually begging you to do what is clear you can’t do.

So, “Let’s go back to my original reply:” again:

“It’s also about your merely asserted your subjective personal opinion about those of which you are aware but that’s not a standard.”

“You seem to imply that presenting arguments is a requirement but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”

“You also seem to imply that we can only believe in things for which there are successful arguments (which you arbitrate) but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”

Thinbox Dictator

How can you not understand that worldview of individual is independent of the fact that individuals have to process information somehow, evaluate it. Consciously and/or subconsciously.

How do you connect it in your head to being dependent on worldview?

My previous response was deleted, because I wasn’t kind enough to you.

That means,if you don’t get the question,or you have incoherent answer to this,I might just ignore this nonsensical thread.

Ken Ammi

I get it, your tactic is to ignore 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999+1% of everything I point out and ask and continue on as if you haven’t been 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000+1% debunked—by your own worldview.

Let me ask this as a circumlocution to answer your question: in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?

Thinbox Dictator

my tactic is to ignore your irrelevant,wrong assertions and be focussed on one information I am interested in to get from your head.

you know nothing about my worldview,that’s why I’m ignoring your wrong assumptions about it.

to answer your last question: none.

I get that you don’t understand what I’m doing here,you’re stuck trying to win an argument.

I’m not arguing with you. I’m trying to find out where we agree and go from there.

I thought “everyone has to evaluate claims” is something nobody can disagree on,but you showed me wrong.

therefore: I want to know how it works in your head.

if you weren’t stuck in your argument,this could have been already over or we could have gone further with it,but you’re not able/willing to stay focussed on a simple topic.

before it seemed to me that you are upset that I didn’t accept whatever apologetic argument that would feel right,instead I’ve looked into it and found it trash.

to it you replied that I’m wrong:

“””

The only problem I have with your, “conclusion” thus far is that you jumped to it, you incoherently illogically and anachronistically began with your conclusion based on hidden assumptions. Yet, on your worldview you’re utterly welcome to be incoherently illogically and anachronistic.

“””

which was laughably funny,because in your own complaint,you project what you think my worldview allows and you have a problem with how I jumped to a conclusion compatible with what you view as my worldview.

are you upset because apologetics is illogical / incoherent? that maybe my ridiculous worldview therefore should be fine with it?

it just shows me that I was right. you are upset that I’ve looked into it closer than I had to.

I understand that you are confused,but you should understand why you’re upset about this.

you are upset that apologetics don’t survive closer examination.

you can scream and shout how you imagine my worldview fails all over the place,because your preacher says so,but the problem is,that apologetics fail flat and you don’t like it.

I don’t like it too,that’s why I don’t buy what they sell.

so now that we got it out of the way,can we get to the interesting part?

please tell me how in your head the fact that individuals have to evaluate claims/information, is dependant on worldview.

that’s the only piece of information I’m interested in from this nonsensical conversation we have here.

if you want to shout at me with more nonsense,I can stand it,just include answer to that question, ok?

Ken Ammi

If you think that I don’t know anything about your worldview then you should correct me, please.

I actually don’t recall you ever stating, “everyone has to evaluate claims” but the issue is simple: this isn’t about subjectively agreeing but about how there’s a universal imperative that everyone has to evaluate claims, on your worldview. If there’s not, and there’s not, then everyone has to evaluate claims is just a merely asserted positive affirmation, an emotively subjective personal preference du jour rather than a standard.

Still waiting for you to reply to, “in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?”

See, you complain that I don’t know your worldview but when I specifically ask about it in order to understand you better you ignore me—and then you complain that I don’t know your worldview.

Thinbox Dictator

I don’t reply to your belated questions about my worldview, because it’s irrelevant to the question I’m interested in, plus you don’t seem to be able/willing to grasp simple concepts.

I’ve already replied to your question “in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?”

With “”” to answer your last question: none. “”” because that’s how you’ve ended your last nonsensical rant.

Now to your last remark:

“”” I actually don’t recall you ever stating, “everyone has to evaluate claims” “””

Are you kidding?

So little recap:

You’ve asked why I don’t believe in god, to which I replied “Because every argument for its existence I’m aware about,is really bad.”

Then you thought that the problem must be my “limited awareness* to which I replied mainly with “How can I evaluate (,or be convinced by) something I’m not aware about?”

You still didn’t get the question,so I tried to ask different way “How can you not understand that worldview of individual is independent of the fact that individuals have to process information somehow, evaluate it. Consciously and/or subconsciously.”

And then it continues, I’m asking and you try to talk about something else that would steer the conversation somewhere else where you wouldn’t like my answers to your undoubtedly even dumber questions.

If you are trying to just exercise your rethoric, I’m not doing that. I’m not debating someone who doesn’t get simple concepts.

I was asking you, repeatedly,in various ways,how do you in your head think that the fact that everyone has to evaluate claims is dependant on worldview.

I’m on topic of your complaint about my limitations.

Evaluating claims is how worldviews are built, among other things,so I find your complaint absurd. So I’m asking how it works in your head.

It’s not imperative, it’s just a fact. I’m trying to find out how it’s not a fact in your head.

It’s not subjective opinion, it’s not about agreement on that, it’s about topic of your complaint about the fact that I can evaluate only what I’m aware about.

You are trying to get out from it somewhere else.

I’m actually interested how in your head it possibly can be different in any individual.

I’m interested if you actually had a complaint or you were just mindlessly repeating apologetic rethoric with gaping hole in its logic without ever spending second on thinking about it.

So far it looks like you’re just mindlessly repeating.

Ken Ammi

It’s not mindlessly repeating but rather mindfully repeating since you keep missing the point—purposefully or not.

Your worldview is THE point. Your worldview’s core is Atheism and it infects all it touches such that you literally view everything and anything via that dirty lens.

So as to not turn this into trading essays, here it is:

On your worldview, reality is accidental (uncreated, undesigned, not the end result of a volitional plan, etc.).

As is our ability to discern it.

There’s no universal imperative to adhere to it.

Nor to demand or expect others to do so.

Ergo, it’s literally pure subjectivism and all you can tell me is that you emotively subjectively don’t personally like what I’m saying as a personal preference du jour—on the level of level of a, “My dear diary, today I feel…” entry and with the same level of flaccid impotence.

Thus, you discredited yourself by disqualifying yourself from ever condemning anything ontologically since all you can do is express how you feel about things.

Thinbox Dictator

you still don’t understand it.

I don’t care about your misconceptions about how reality works without your magical god, I don’t care what you think it implies.

I’m asking you how it is not a fact that every individual has to evaluate, one way or another, outside information.

I understand that you hear from dumb apologists how reality doesn’t work without god and I don’t care how much you ( want to ) believe it.

it is completely irrelevant.

that’s why I’m ignoring your attempts to steer conversation (I take this as a conversation, I guess you’re trying to win a nonexistent debate in your head) somewhere else,where I would try to explain to you something you must have heard in various forms and shapes before,but you just don’t like it.

what is your problem with a fact that individuals have to process outside information?

not imperative,how you try to frame it. it’s not a command from some magical force,it’s just how it works. a fact.

how in your head it depends on worldview?

just tell me how it is not a fact independent of worldviews. that’s why I’m asking you..

when you don’t address that, your attempts to pin it “on my worldview” are meaningless.

that’s why I’m ignoring them.

Well, that ended it since when I went to reply that I haven’t received the money yet, I got this, “Page Not Found. We searched everywhere but couldn’t find the page you were looking for.”

Yet, I found that this person also posted a reply to the question Do atheists realize the fact that God can see through your lies?

Yes,we realise that if there’s a god that knows everything,that god would know if we would just pretend to not believe in it.

We don’t pretend.

I’m interested how you square abundance of lies in apologetics,which are used to deliberately mislead theists to give them false confidence in their faith, when they say they do believe in said god.

Ken Ammi

Did you delete our entire discussion? Regardless, I have the entirety of it since I kept saving all replies and will post it on my website.

Curious, who are you to literally speak for all Atheists?

Thinbox Dictator

If you mean “we don’t pretend” , it’s just position of atheism.

Atheism isn’t “pretending to not believe”

And maybe you thought discussion under another answer, this one is relatively new.

I didn’t delete it.

Good that you have a backup, maybe you can think about it sometimes.

Ken Ammi

I asked “Curious, who are you to literally speak for all Atheists?” which you ignored but keep speaking as if you do.

It’s low-level Atheism to turn it into an issue of whether you believe or not: that ignores the issue of the reality or lack thereof of God’s existence.

As for “lies”: how do you know they’re lies.

What, on your worldview, is wrong with lying?

The next time I sought to get onto that discussion, the result was, “Page Not Found. We searched everywhere but couldn’t find the page you were looking for.” Seems that Quora is deleting a lot of discussions: I’m seeing it more and more.

See my various books here—including my contra Atheism ones.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Aris Manus (“Independent researcher & investigative writer. Obsessed with how power conceals itself. No fixed address, no alma mater – only loyalty to the record. Reads everything, forgets nothing. The most dangerous truths hide in plain sight. He finds them all”) wrote two guest posts for the Ancient Origins Unleashed site but I can only partially review them since I’m not about to subscribe to a site that promulgates faulty info so I can only see portions of the articles—plus, they don’t provide contact info so I can’t even reach out to them to offer a direct critique.

One is titled The Watchers, the Nephilim, and the True Reason for the Great Flood: The Forbidden History of Fallen Angels.

Note the premise in that they were not only, “the…Reason” but were, “the True Reason.”

The employment of the term Watchers alerts us to reliance on 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch since that term is a mere aka for Malakim/Angels from the Second Temple Era (516 BC-70 AD).

Manus asserts, “There is a passage” referring to that which I term the Gen 6 affair, “so profoundly unsettling, that for centuries theologians have quietly glossed over it” even though there’s literally millennia’s worth of focus on it and literally every expositional teacher, preacher, commentator deals with it—for example, see my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s.

He abruptly tells us that the affair resulted in, “a forbidden transfer of celestial technology” which is from the 1 Enoch tall-tale and, “and the birth of a monstrous, bloodthirsty race of giants.” I say abruptly since Manus jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” to the modern generically subjective English word “giants” so they key questions are what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Manus’ usage? Do those two usages agree?

Having jumped from Nephilim to giants he then jumps back to Nephilim due to quoting the affair thusly:

“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” (Genesis 6:1-4)

He then asks, “who were the Nephilim, the towering ‘men of renown’” about whom he inserted the vague term towering, “whose existence demanded a global apocalypse to wipe them out?”

Well, “To uncover the truth, we must look beyond the sanitized modern Bible” which I can tell means that the Bible isn’t neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales enough for him so, “We need to delve into the ancient apocryphal texts that the early Church Fathers read, debated, and ultimately excluded from the canon. This includes the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Enoch, and the disturbing account of the fallen angels known as the Watchers, a forbidden history that bears an alarming relevance to the world situation today.”

Thus, rely on anything written by anyone for any reason in any genre at any level of reliability from centuries and millennia after the Torah.

Yet, note the emphasis, “the True Reason for the Great Flood” and, “whose existence demanded a global apocalypse to wipe them out.”

That’s the end of the preview so we’ll move onto the follow-up article preview for If the Flood Destroyed the Nephilim, Why Did Giants Return? Note that asking, “Why Did Giants Return?” (now jumping languages in a single sentence) is the wrong primary question ask, the primary question is, “Did [Nephilim] Return?”

I wrote, “Did [Nephilim] Return?” since pop-Nephilology (which is currently ruled by people who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians) love chasing the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage word giants around an ancient and specific Hebrew Bible.

Again, “the True Reason for the Great Flood” and, “whose existence demanded a global apocalypse to wipe them out” and now, “the Flood was meant to wipe out that corruption.”

To show just how unqualified Aris Manus is to have his work featured on this issue anywhere on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you, he wrote, “one question becomes impossible to ignore: why do giants appear again after the Flood? Why do the Anakim, Og of Bashan, and later Goliath still stand in the biblical story like shadows of a world that was supposed to have been buried beneath the waters?”

1. We need to know his usage of giants or else we can’t answer that question.

2. We get a hint at his usage since he swaps it with Nephilim so his usage seems to be a mere aka for Nephilim—why not just be a consistent communicator that than swapping languages even within one sentence?

3. Yet, his reference to, “Anakim, Og of Bashan, and later Goliath” is to Rephaim, not to Nephilim—Anakim were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe.

Thus, he not only swaps languages but committed a category error that violates the law of identity. That seems to hint at why he swaps languages: he can refer to Nephilim and Rephaim as giants but couldn’t correlate them if he was dealing with the original language.

He added, “if the Nephilim were part of the reason the old world was destroyed, then their story should have ended in Genesis 6” which is where it ended—with two exceptions:

1. centuries post-flood we have a sentence recorded in Num 13:33 about which one must always be aware that it’s:

1.       One single unreliable sentence

2.       From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)

3.       Of an unreliable “evil report”

4.       By 10 unreliable guys

5.       Whom God rebuked—to death

6.       Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible

7.       Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible

8.       Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.

I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

2. centuries and millennia post-flood, post-Torah, all sort of folkloric tall-tales were told about Nephilim, see my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

Referring to, “the biblical record” Aris Manus asserts, “The Judgement and the Flood came, and yet, giant traditions returned” which, again, he’s basing on a bottomless pit of mere unreliable assertions and unreliable assumptions.

He speculates, “Either something of the old corruption survived” which contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) and implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. or, “the same kind of rebellion happened again” which implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. or, “later giant traditions preserve the memory of that earlier horror in ways most readers have never fully considered” which is quite possible.

Pre-Tower of Babel, humanity lived in relative proximity but thereafter we spread abroad taking with us what was then commonly known and shared history which, with time and telling (and aggrandized augmentation) became myth and legend.

Thus, based on what I could see, Aris Manus made a lot of missteps and relies on the unreliable since he’s not a fan of the un-exciting, “sanitized modern Bible.”

Fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Someone going by the username The[not so]BrilliantAtheist posted the following answer to the question Is it possible atheists see themselves in a righteous battle against God? How could they not see how mistaken they are?

It would be impossible by definition for us to see ourselves in a battle with god because we don’t believe god exists. How can religious people be so easily duped by fairytales and mythology? How could they not see how mistaken they are?

I, Ken Ammi, replied

The entire Atheist missionary enterprise is “a battle with god” as evidenced by Atheistic books, videos, essays, papers, articles, lectures, etc.

What, on your worldview, is wrong with “fairytales and mythology” and being “mistaken”?

TheBrilliantAtheist

There’s no such thing as an atheistic missionary. You’re not here to have a discussion are you?

Ken Ammi

Unsure why you ignored the parts about:

“a battle with god” as evidenced by Atheistic books, videos, essays, papers, articles, lectures, etc.

What, on your worldview, is wrong with “fairytales and mythology” and being “mistaken”?

As for “There’s no such thing as an atheistic missionary.” Please tell Matt Dillahunty, for one, that he doesn’t exist and let me know what he replies.

Primarily, Atheism is an anti-Christian support group, Atheists are CONSTANTLY merely asserting that Christianity, the Bible, Jesus, God, are all wrong and we should give them up and convert to Atheism. Ergo, missionaries.

TheBrilliantAtheist

Oh you just came to cry I see. Matt would laugh at you, and rightly so.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re very good at incoherently beginning with merely asserted conclusions but you seem to be incapable of discussing them much less backing them.

TheBrilliantAtheist

Was there a point in there somewhere? Gonna need some dressing for that world salad.

Ken Ammi

“world salad”: Atheist-speak for, “I’m literally incapable of dealing with the very issue that I, myself, raised but sense an emotive impulse to still say something.”

So, let’s try again Master Theologian [since this person’s bio reads, “Master Theologian at Earth (planet)”]:

1. Have you had occasion to peruse “Atheistic books, videos, essays, papers, articles, lectures, etc.” as I mentioned to you?

2. “What, on your worldview, is wrong with ‘fairytales and mythology’ and being ‘mistaken’?”

TheBrilliantAtheist

irrelevant.

nothing, if you’re a child.

See? No thesaurus required.

Ken Ammi

Now we’re getting somewhere: I directed you to peruse data that debunks your assertion and you reply with, “irrelevant” so you’re not interested in facts—especially those that discredit you so you purposefully ignore issues that are inconvenient to your view.

Since you’re playing games (at least, I hope you are lest I’m forced to conclude you’re literally incoherently illogical—with which there’s nothing wrong, on Atheism): “what, on your worldview, is wrong with ‘fairytales and mythology’ and being ‘mistaken’?” for non-children?

What’s another word for thesaurus?

TheBrilliantAtheist

Yep. The amount of books, videos, essays, papers, articles, and lectures I have personally consumed has NOTHING to do with whether or not god exists, thus it’s irrelevant to the question. You can keep dodging if you want, everyone can see you came here to cry with your thesaurus. Oh harrumph you’re literally incoherently blah blah blah. Big words aren’t impressive. Evidence is.

Ken Ammi

We already established, “I directed you to peruse data that debunks your assertion and you reply with, ‘irrelevant’ so you’re not interested in facts—especially those that discredit you so you purposefully ignore issues that are inconvenient to your view” followed by your agreement, “Yep.”

As for, “The amount of books, videos, essays, papers, articles, and lectures I have personally consumed has NOTHING to do with whether or not god exists, thus it’s irrelevant to the question” indeed, it has nothing to do with that (neither does Atheism—at least primarily) but that was about your mere assertion, “There’s no such thing as an atheistic missionary” which you now agree has been debunked.

Ok now, since, “Evidence is,” “impressive”—even though that which does or doesn’t impress you isn’t a standard, it’s just an emotively subjective personal preference du jour—then the very first step in systematic critical thinking is that you establish how and why 1) presenting evidence and 2) only believing in thing which have been evidenced is a universal imperative, on your worldview.

TheBrilliantAtheist

So you can’t prove god exists, got it.

Ken Ammi

I totally get it since I’ve literally had THOUSANDS of discussions just like this one with Atheists.

I understand that your view is that thus saith TheBrilliantAtheist equals a universal imperative for all humans.

Yet, I hope you can empathize why even though such a delusion of grandeur is perfectly acceptable on Atheism, I’m still waiting to see any vestige of Brilliant on display.

It’s simple: you come up to me and say “gimme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

I reply “why?”

You utterly collapsed.

See, the problem is that your worldview is such a failure that it fails before it even begins, you’re a witness to how it utterly failed you.

I just asked that you take the very first step in systematic critical thinking and you a literally incapable of doing so because, by now, you surely know that on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to demand proof, to present proof, nor to only believe in things that have been proven.

Thus, since you debunked yourself you discredited yourself and you leave me nothing to do but to just keep holding a mirror up to your face.

If you don’t like what you see, take it out on your worldview’s mirror, not on me.

TheBrilliantAtheist

 · Mar 6

Just so we’re clear, you once again have failed to prove your god exists, ergo atheism is true by default. Got it, thanks for clearing that up with your tantrum.

So again I will ask you Trash Can Man:

Ken Ammi

I’m starting to think that you’re not just trolling, you’re actually literally incapable for understanding the issue, like you actually simply do not get it.

Let’s try again: you’ve given me no reason to even make an attempt at proving (not evidencing?) that God exists because all you’ve done is to yell, “gimme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” and when I asked, “why?” you just yelled, “I said gimme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Nothing has changed since our very first back and forth since your worldview is such a collapsed failure that you can’t even answer a very, very basic question and all you can do is yell, “GIMME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

TheBrilliantAtheist

You’re still here and you failed now 4 times to prove your god is real. I’m beginning to think you’re as dumb as you have proven here. I’m just gonna sit back and laugh as I add another notch to the old belt. Pathetic. Atheism always wins.

That’s four times now you’ve failed. Wanna try for five? Fucking loser.

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

Since I’ve literally been spoon-feeding you epistemology, we’re beyond that you just can’t understand the situation into which you put yourself.

So, let’s try it this way this time: gimme all your money, you can use the PayPal link here

Donate

TheBrilliantAtheist

You’re still here? Go play in traffic.

Well, that ended it since when I went to reply that I haven’t received the money yet, I got this, “Page Not Found. We searched everywhere but couldn’t find the page you were looking for.”

I’m unsure how or why that happened but it’s very, very common for Atheists on the site in which the discussion took place to rely on censorship as an attempt to hide their failures and run off to their safe-spaces.

See, I told him to send me all of the money since the MO is clearly that merely making a demand, asking a question, etc., means that a person is requited to adhere. Seems that it doesn’t work when the rubber hits the road.

See my various books here—including my contra Atheism ones.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

On his YouTube channel, Sam Shamoun posted a video titled Who Were the Sons of God in Genesis 6? Enoch, Watchers, and Nephilim Explained.

He begins by noting, “the oldest extant Jewish document that we have regarding Genesis 6 is the Book of Enoch” a section of which is, “called the Book of Watchers…telling you that the sons of God were Angels and gives them their names. And interestingly, Jude cites [quotes] from this Book of Watchers.”

Indeed, and Paul quotes Greek poets. 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

Sam Shamoun notes, “if you want to go with the early church, the consensus of the early church agreed with this interpretation” indeed, 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.

He notes that as per 1 Enoch the wives of the Angels, “became pregnant and bear great giants whose height were 3,000 ells, whatever that means.” Well, I provided the measurements in my book, the bottom line is that it has Nephilim, the giants, as being MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality.

He adds, “I am not saying Enoch is inspired, historically accurate, and these details are accurate. No, I believe Enoch contains a lot of historical truth embellished…exaggerated like all myths…myths are not lies, myths are actual historical events that have been embellished and exaggerated.”

Well, certainly, when 1 Enoch mirrors the historical record of what I term the Gen 6 affair it’s accurate but there’s no indication that the additional data it provides is accurate. The term myth is somewhat shifty and so it’s myopic to assert that it can only refer to, “actual historical events that have been embellished and exaggerated” even though that’s within the overall range of the usage of that term.

Sam Shamoun then asserts, “if you read the bible carefully, believe it or not, Goliath was a Nephilim and he was a giant. But if you read the biblical account he was over 9 feet tall. So, the Bible, which is tame calls, these giants giants, not because they are 300 ells but because they were 9 feet, they were not 30, 40, 50, 60 feet. Goliath, the measurement given to him, he had six fingers, six toes and if you measure the cubits he comes out to a little over nine feet that was considered a giant.”

This touches upon the utterly subjective nature of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants. In common parlance, the usage is to refer to something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).

Biblically, the usage is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

For details, see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.

The only reason to even imagine (and imagination is all that it could be), “Goliath was a Nephilim” (the proper grammar would be the singular Nephil) is one single unreliable non-LXX sentence from one single unreliable evil report (Num 13:33) by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

That’s because non-LXX versions of that single sentence merely assert that Anakim are related to Nephilim (in some logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible way) and since Goliath was of the Anakim clan of the Rephaim tribe then some jump to such a conclusion.

As per my point above, whenever English readers read of Goliath being a giant they’re reading about him being a Repha, not anything about his size at all.

Also, 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.

Now, even if for some odd reason, one actually believes that sentence (and 100% of pop-Nephilologists do since they’re all post-flood Nephilologists and make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians) they then have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim made it pas the flood, past God. Any and all such fantasies imply that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

Yet, a good point was made despite the problems in that there’s no indication in the whole Bible about anyone who’s even taller than 9 feet—see my How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

Now, based on his myopic view of Goliath’s height and his misidentification of him as a Nephil, he concludes that Nephilim, “were…over 9 feet, over 8 feet.” Yet, since the only physical description we have of them is that one unreliable sentence by unreliable guys then 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 un-biblical pop-Nephilology.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

If there is anything I love, it is dealing with issues pertaining to Nephilim and giants and this is for various reasons including the fact that small subtleties can lead to gigantic conclusions. Hereinafter, I am going to comment on the following articles by Dr. Claude Mariottini (Emeritus Professor of Old Testament, Northern Baptist Seminary): Rereading Genesis 6:4: Were They Really Giants?, The Nephilim Again: A Response to Joe Cathey and Duane Smith, and Bruce Waltke on the Nephilim.

He notes, “The word translated ‘giant’ in the KJV is based on the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament into Greek” while others leave “the Hebrew word Nephilim untranslated.” The former case is due to the Septuagint/LXX translating (technically rendering) it as gigantes γιγάντων which literally means Earth-born.

Dr. Mariottini notes, “The KJV uses the word ‘giant’ to translate the word ‘Nephilim’ in Genesis 6:4 and in Numbers 13:33. In addition, the KJV uses the word ‘giants’ several other times, but most of them to translate the word ‘warrior’ (Job16:14 ESV) or the word ‘Rephaites’ (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20 NIV) or ‘Rapha’ (2Samuel 21:22 NIV).” So that is a rendering of a rendering.

Something that my readers may be tired or hearing (or, reading) me state but is of the utmost importance was evidenced in this comment. The word “giant(s)” does not belong in English Bibles because 1) it is a generic term merely meaning taller than average (and Hebrew males of those days averaged 5.5ft.) and 2) it is employed so as to render various Hebrew words making it even vaguer, less helpful and more prone to causing confusion.

Dr. Mariottini further notes, “There were several groups of people who were called giants in the Old Testament…a tall group of people…The word anak in Hebrew means ‘long-neck’ or giants.…all the inhabitants of the land were giants.” Thus, “There were several groups of people who were called” by the same generic English word but different Hebrew ones.

Also, “a tall group of people” presents the same problem which is that “tall” is relative (recall the average 5.5 ft. and that was for males who tend to be taller than females).

Then there is the issue of anak meaning “‘long-neck’ or giants” well no, it means long-neck and not giants even if some render it as such into English—granted that perhaps having unusually long necks made them taller than the average male Hebrew but this still would not mean that this is what the word means in common parlance: something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).

Thus, when we come to a conclusion such as that “all the inhabitants of the land were giants” we must hear it as stating that “all the inhabitants of the land were” well, some generic thing or another or, rather that “all the inhabitants of the land were” described by different Hebrew words even if  Dr. Mariottini wrote, “When Moses sent the twelve spies to visit the land of Canaan (Numbers13), they identified the offspring of the Anakim with the Nephilim of Genesis6:4” and we shall see what is meant by “identified.”

He elucidates:

To the ten spies, the fortified walls of the Canaanite cities were an overwhelming obstacle for their conquest of the land. The spies were so terrified by the size of the inhabitants of Canaan that they concocted a story in order to dissuade the people from entering the land. The spies said to the people:

“The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Num. 13:32-33 NIV).

In their exaggeration of the situation, the spies said that, in addition to being people of gigantic stature, the Anakim were the Nephilim, the dreadful people who lived on earth in the days before the flood.

It is rare that I find anyone who agrees with me—with the Bible actually—on that they “concocted a story.” In fact, the prior verses have them being intimidated by the size of the cities/walls (them being intenerate wilderness dwellers) and that the peoples, in general, were `az: strong (#H5794). They even mention various people groups including the Anakim but say nothing of the unusual size of any of them.

Yet indeed, only once Caleb chimes in to encourage (with Joshua siding with him) the people do the unfaithful/disloyal spies “In their exaggeration of the situation,” and just before we are told that they presented a bad/evil report, they tell of great height and that “the Anakim were” from, actually “the Nephilim”: FYI: Anakim aren’t mentioned in the LXX vesion of that verse.

I also agree 100% with Dr. Mariottini in that “the spies did not see any Nephilim for the Nephilim had died in the flood” which he continues with “The spies saw the Anakim, tall people who lived in Canaan at the time Israel was preparing to enter the land” keeping in mind that “tall” is generic as well and that they were “Dominated by fear and superstition, the spies identified the Anakim with the Nephilim of old. There were no Nephilim in Canaan, only Anakim.”

In fact, in relating this event Moses, Caleb and God Himself affirm that Anakim were in the land but say nothing about Nephilim—as being in the land or that the Anakim are related to them (see Deuteronomy 1, Joshua 14 and Numbers 14).

Dr. Mariottini then goes into more etymology:

Most scholars today derive the Hebrew word Nephilim from the Hebrew verb naphal, which means “fallen ones.” This is the translation adopted by Young’s Literal Translation: “The fallen ones were in the earth in those days…” Some scholars have derived Nephilim from a Hebrew word nephel, which means “miscarriage.”

These scholars understand the Nephilim as unnaturally begotten superhuman beings emerging from miscarriages…some scholars view the Nephilim as the ones fallen from heaven, that is, divine beings or angels.

He adds that “Those who translate ‘Nephilim’ as ‘giants’…fails to deal with the moral issues raised by the commingling of ‘the sons of God’ and ‘the daughters of men’…Those who leave the word ‘Nephilim’ untranslated recognize that…the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were not the Anakim of Numbers 13:33” and he drives this point home, “the Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 are not the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4…the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were not the Nephilim of Numbers 13:33.” I would emphasize that it is not just a case of that they are not the same but that in Genesis 6 they are actually present but in Numbers 13 they are not.

We then come to a not all together oddity in Dr. Mariottini’s view of this issue which is that “According to the biblical text, it was the progeny of the sons of God and the daughters of men who were ‘the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown,’ not the Nephilim…Genesis 6:1-4 does not say that the Nephilim were the offspring of the marriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men.”

It seems to me that this conclusion is due to a grammatical issue—and also does not make sense. I believe his conclusion is based on v. 4 which reads “There were nĕphiyl in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

Thus, some read this as that the Nephilim just so happen to be there when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. It seems that an elucidating reordering of the English translation would be when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, there were nĕphiyl in the earth in those days (as they were the nĕphiyl); and also after that, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

For me, the key issue is not just that the Nephilim would just happen to be there: where by the way? “in the earth” in general or the general vicinity of where the Genesis 6 affair took place? The key issue is that if they are not the offspring then why mention them? In other words, why say that this is a record of the affair between the sons of God and the daughters of men, their marriages, and their offspring and, oh yeah by the way, the Nephilim were also around at the time—just thought to mention it for no apparent reason: especially as we know nothing about them prior, nothing about them is described. We are not told why they are being mentioned/why referring to them is relevant, not told what the point is, etc., etc., etc.

To one of the articles, someone in the comments section wrote, “The Nephilim were called giants because the sons of God married the daughters of men” which makes zero sense. They also wrote, “sons of God is more apt to denote individuals that had some covenant relationship with God through the line of Adam to Seth and the daughters of Cain” and followed directly with catching themselves in a problem which is “Why this would create ‘giants’ or ‘Nephilim’ is not completely clear.”

They also wrote, “Some have interpreted this as fallen angels marrying human women. However, spiritual beings do not procreate, so this interpretation must be discounted.” But just as common as such comments are made this one was also not elucidated but is a mere assertion. We are merely told that “spiritual beings do not procreate” (note that this is not about spirit beings but about spiritual beings) but we are offered no argument, no quotations, no citations, nothing. Thus, this interpretation must not be discounted based on a mere assertion.

The Sethite view is a late-comber based on myth and prejudice which ends up claiming that individuals that had some covenant relationship with God didn’t really had some covenant relationship with God since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.

This also goes against the view taken in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2. Someone commented that they ran across “an interesting spin on the translation of nephilim from hebrew as ‘those who came down’…could ‘those who came down’ refer to extra-terrestrials…they were still around post flood. they may have ‘come backdown’ when the coast was clear.”

Dr. Mariottini noted “in Hebrew, ‘to come down’ is a word different from the word ‘naphal’ (to fall)” and dismissed the ET idea. The commentator made it clear that they consider the Bible an example of when the Sumerians’ “texts were twisted.” For some details on this sort of view, see Is the Bible an Anunnaki control mechanism?

Another comment was, “ANGELS WHERE KNOWN BEFORE THE FLOOD TO COMMUNICATE WITH US HUMANS…ANGELSHAVE [been] KNOWN TO TAKE HUMAN FORM.…I LISTEN TO CHUCK MISSLER ALL THE TIMEAND HE TALKS ABOUT THIS AND I BELIEVE WHAT HE SAIDS.” Much like the assertion that “spiritual beings do not procreate” the statement that “ANGELS HAVE [been] KNOWN TO TAKE HUMAN FORM” is another mere assertion about which the Bible states nothing. Biblically, Angels look like human males ontologically: in their nature and essence so that they do not “take” human form but are naturally of human form, see my book What Does the Bible Say AboutAngels?

Moreover, perhaps “ANGELS WHERE KNOWN BEFORE THE FLOOD TO COMMUNICATE WITH US HUMANS” but the Bible does not state as much. And Missler has certainly made a lot of good points on this issue and certainly popularized it but he references a “return of the Nephilim” but the Bible knows of no suchthing—see 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.

Along these lines, someone commented, “Does not the Bible teach that Angels are male in outward appearance, character and actions but lack the ability to reproduce(N.T.)? Or, at the least leave a strong impression of this with us.” Yes, the Bible teach that Angels are male in outward appearance, character and actions but no, we are never told that they lack the ability to reproduce—we are only told that the Angels “of God” and “in heaven,” as in loyal un-fallen ones, do not marry (Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25) which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.

Someone commented, “the SONS OF GOD were men in the Godly line of Seth, and the Daughters of man were women from the un-Godly line of Cain” and referred to this as an “unacceptable union.” Dr. Mariottini noted, “Mixed marriage is not a good reason for a flood that destroyed the whole world” to which the reply was “Mixed marriages were absolutely a perfect reason for the destruction of the world. The intermingled union of Sethites and Cainanites were in direct rebellion to God, that is sin and all sin is worthy of death…God intended for the two lines to remain distinct.”

The main issue here is that the claim that the “line of Seth” and “un-Godly line of Cain” were an “unacceptable union” and that “The intermingled union of Sethites and Cainanites were in direct rebellion to God, that is sin and all sin” and that “God intended for the two lines to remain distinct” are all mere assertions about which the Bible knows nothing.

In any case, Dr. Mariottini followed up with “Genesis 6:11. This is the real reason for the flood” which reads, “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.” The commentator then took a step back with “I never said that mixed marriages were the only reason for the flood” and “it doesn’t mean that the nephilim were a race of giants…Another point is that angels had not been mentioned yet in scripture, however Moses did speak openly against mixed marriages between Cainenites and Sethites.” That against which Moses did speak was marriages between the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews and non-Hebrews/Israelites/Jews.  

Dr. Mariottini quoted Bruce Waltke’s An Old TestamentTheology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007):

The “sons of God” are best understood as demon-possessed kings. The perverted psyches of these tyrants allowed this entrance of the demonic. The Nephilim (i.e., “fallen ones”)–who also existed at the time of Moses (Num. 13:33)–were probably their offspring, also called “heroes.” They filled the earth with violence.

Dr. Mariottini is quite rightly blunt in stating, “This interpretation is impossible” and elucidates, “If the Nephilim existed in the time of Moses and if they were the offspring of the ‘sons of God,’ then this means that they survived the flood. The biblical text is very clear that only Noah and his wife, their sons and their wives, eight people, survived the flood (1 Peter3:20)…If all people died in the flood, except Noah and his family, then the Nephilim could not have survived the flood. If the Nephilim could not survive the flood, then, the Nephilim in the time of Moses could not have been the descendants of the ‘sons of God’ since they also perished in the flood.”

He also wrote, “Genesis 6:4 which declares that the Nephilim were on the earth before the flood and also afterward. This editorial comment, and also afterward, written by the writer of Genesis, seems to imply that the Nephilim survived the flood, thus helping the writer of the biblical text identify the Nephilim with the tall people who lived in Canaan.”

Someone commented, “E.W. Bullinger is not exactly a scholarly source, but one thing he pointed out was this: that passage in Genesis 6 says there were nephilim in those days, AND AFTERWARDS. For him, that means that they were destroyed in the flood, then a new batch of them emerged later on, after the flood. Therefore, as far as he was concerned, there were Nephiliim after the flood. And Numbers13:33 calls the inhabitants of Canaan Nephilim.” I actually featured Bullinger in my book Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. III.

Let us review: indeed, the last of the Nephilim died in the flood—period. Note that it is reading into and inserting words and meanings into the text to claim that Genesis 6:4 “declares that the Nephilim were on the earth before the flood and also afterward.” The Bible states that they were “in the earth in those days; and also after that” and states nothing of the flood on this point. But, some ask, to what else could “those days; and also after that” refer?

Well, the text begins by setting a timeline starting point which is “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” which could be as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children. Thus, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” are “those days” and “also after that” means just that: after men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them.

In other words, contextually “those days; and also after that” are both pre-flood. This leads some, such as Bullinger, to propose what is known in pop-research circles as the multiple incursions theory whereby they admit that the last of the Nephilim dies in the flood but then more Angels fell and did the whole thing again.

Yet, the Bible knows utterly nothing about this and it would defeat God’s purpose for the flood in the first place. Also,it is not accurate that “Numbers 13:33 calls the inhabitants of Canaan Nephilim” as the spies were referring to the Nephilim within the context of naming various other people groups such as Anakim, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites (vss. 28-29). Itis rather odd that Dr. Mariottini not only argues that the Nephilim did not survive the flood but that the Bible affirms this but then also claims that “the writer of Genesis, seems to imply that the Nephilim survived the flood” as a technical literary loophole.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Pop-Nephilologist Josh Peck posted a video on his YouTube channel Daily Renegade which is he being interviewed by a certain Pastor Gary Mckibben. The subject matter is Peck’s new book The Return of the Watchers: Ancient Nephilim Technology Revealed.

FYI: I will be reviewing in general what’s stated rather than doing through the very time consuming work of ironing out who said what (since the transcript doesn’t break that down for us).

The reference to Watchers was indicative to me of him taking a pop-Nephilology tactic (pop-Nephilologists sell un-biblical tall-tales to Christians for a living) since it implies he’s relying on 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—since Watchers is a Second Temple Era aka for Malakim/Angels.

And right on schedule, within two minutes reference is made to, “the technology of the Watchers” within the context of, “the extra biblical Book of Enoch which” wer’re told, “helps fill in some of the gaps that we get in Genesis.”

Well, I could write a book today which is said to “fill in some gaps” but the issue is of what degree of reliability are those gap fillers. There’s no indication that a folkloric text from that long after Gen offers us any actually reliable historically accurate data—in fact, it has Nephilim as being MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality.

Reference is made the what I term the Gen 6 affair within the context of the Angel view and it’s noted, “the consequence of that procreation is the giants or in the Hebrew the Nephilim.” Keep that in mind: the usage of giants within this discussion is that it mere renders (doesn’t even translate) the word Nephilim.

We’re then told, “that’s basically the reason for the flood because these things spread all over and basically just consume the entire world.”

We’re told that 1 Enoch, “was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and we know that in the time of Jesus books like the book of Enoch, the book of Jubilees, things like that, were highly regarded because they’re actually quoted in the Bible.”

Well, the DSS are only partially scripture and a lot of it are things like Community Rules, apocalyptic speculations, etc. Paul quoted Greek poets so being quoted in the Bible only accredits what’s quoted, not full texts nor authors, etc.

Just in case, 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.

What 1 Enoch does is to give un-biblical names to various Watchers and specify which taught humanity what forbidden knowledge/technology. For example: metallurgy, enchantments, astrology, and even cosmetics as in makeup.

We’re told that as per 1 Enoch, “there was a civil war among the Nephilim tribes. Whoever didn’t die in that got killed in the flood. So the flood wiped everything out, wiped the slate clean.”

Since there’s no way to get a, “Return of Ancient Nephilim…Ancient Nephilim Technology” from the Bible, they are forced to appeal to anything, written by anyone, at any time, for any reason, in any genre, water it all down, and mash it all together into fantastically exciting neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales.

Thus, they moreover refer to The Apocalypse of Abraham, from somewhere between 70BC-150 AD, and The Book of Giants from circa the same time as 1 Enoch and Jubilees: a few centuries BC—see my book on 1 Enoch and The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.

It’s noted, “the origin of demons…when the Nephilim died, they didn’t go to heaven. They didn’t go to hell. At least not yet. But they became evil spirits. They became demons. This is why we have demons. Yeah.” Yet, that’s just part of the folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

We’re told, “we have a situation where there’s Watchers under the Earth and demons…there is a couple of places where some of these Watchers get released early.” Basically, they’re mashing together biblical eschatology with cherry picked folklore.

We’re told, “I fully believe the antichrist is going to shed his own blood because what more perverse than Nephilim blood? And the reason that I think that the antichrist is Nephilim is because as we saw the punishment for the Watchers mating with humankind was to basically be bound in the abyss.”

Pray tell, where on Earth is the antichrist going to get Nephilim blood since the last of it was done away with at the flood?

See, pop-Nephilologists are all post-flood-Nephilologists and always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus. God must have failed, must have missed a loophole that Peck managed to figure out and the antichrist (or his parents) will figure out, the flood must have been much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. since God got rid of them but they will come back (and/or already have).

Such is why post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim made it past the flood: such as Jubilees containing a quaint story about how post-flood, a recipe was found for how to make hot, fresh, right out of the oven Nephilim—God must have missed that.

It’s noted, “Satan is not bound in the abyss. Satan was not involved in this original 200 Watchers thing. Um he didn’t commit that sin, but apparently he must commit it in the future because he is bound for a thousand years in the abyss. It’s the same judgment that the watchers get.”

The, “200 Watchers thing” refer to that 1 Enoch places that very specific number on how many fell. Technically, those Watchers were incarcerated in Tartarus as per 2 Peter 2—which as per Greek mythology is the lowest place of the Abyss where the worse of the worse go.

The, “must” is speculation and an unfounded non-sequitur. One reason that, “Satan was not involved in” the Gen 6 affair is that Angels look just like human males and so could copulate with human women but he’s a Cherub rather than an Angel and apparently can’t do likewise. Also, Revelation 20 notes, “an angel…seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit [Abyss]…so that he might not deceive the nations any longer” and not so he can’t mate with humans any longer.

We’re told, “all throughout the Bible, the Antichrist is called son of predition: son of, it’s basically, I believe that he’s literally the son of Satan. I believe Satan commits this act one time to create the Antichrist” and then somehow the byproduct of Angels mating with humans is shifted over to the supposed byproduct of a Cherub allegedly mating with a human so that, “what’s more profane than Nephilim blood could there possibly be to defile the temple with?”

Thus, what God apparently missed is that He got rid of Nephilim just to have a Cherub create one post-flood.

Yet, it’s noted, “The Apocalypse of Abraham talks about him being in the garden as a Seraphim” but that’s another category error that violates the law of identity since Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim are difference categories of being and Satan is a Cherub (Ezek 28).

As for, “are still any Nephilim genetics” the reply is, “There might be if there are any Nephilim genetics in anybody’s blood, it’s not, it’s minuscule to the point where like they can still get saved” but that’s just another way of implying that God missed that.

It’s actually a tragedy that a pastor is going along with neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales.

See my various books here—including some endorsed by Josh Peck and to include one in which I feature him 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.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

The Messenger Church of God ministry’s COGMessenger website’s Rod Reynolds posted an article titled Were There Giants on the Earth?

The title begs the key questions what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?

He quotes that which I term the Gen 6 affair thusly, “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).

He gets right into the key questions with:

The word “giants” is translated from the Hebrew word nephilim, from naphal, “he fell.” (Clarke’s Commentary). This word does not necessarily mean a person of great stature or size. In the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the pre-Christian era, the Greek word γιγαντες (gigantes) was used to translate nephilim.

The word γιγαντες literally means “earth-born” (Clarke’s Commentary), and also does not necessarily indicate a person of great stature or size.

However, some scholars have pointed out that Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew, has a word that in its plural form would be nephilin, equivalent to Hebrew nephilim, and meaning “giants” (cf “Battle over the Nephilim,” Tim Chaffey, answersingenesis.org, January 1, 2012).

Technically it’s not that, “The word ‘giants’ is translated” but rather rendered from—and it’s a rendering of a rendering.

The rendering of the rendering is that giants renders gigantes which renders Nephilim—yet, be aware that the LXX also rendered gibborim and Rephaim as such (which was a terrible idea).

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.

As for the Aramaic issue, the J. Edward Wright Endowed Professor of Judaic Studies, who is J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. himself, and who is the Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona notes, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants” (Private communique, July 2019).

Yet, it’s a battle of the scholars since, for example, Dr. Michael Heiser did argue that the Aramaic naphiyla does mean giant. Yet, that only begs the question of what his usage of giants was. Well, he did leave us with this, “I don’t think the biblical giants were taller than unusually tall people of modern times (between 7-9 feet)” (https://www.moreunseenrealm.com/ch25).

Indeed, it’s not just that, “This word does not necessarily mean a person of great stature or size” but 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.

As for Chaffey, my name appears favorably in his book since we found out that we were conducting the same research around the same time with regard to 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.

I made him aware of 8-9 references he had missed and he made me aware of 2-3 that I had missed. Yet, I also included him 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.

That was because his Nephilology isn’t biblical: for examples, see my website’s search Results for “Tim Chaffey.”

Rod Reynolds myopically noted:

The term “sons of God,” or “children of God,” is used several places in the Bible of those who are sanctified, i.e., who are led by God’s Spirit, not the spirit of the world, or fleshly lusts (Hosea 1:10; Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; John 1:12; 11:52; Romans 8:14-21; 9:8, 26; Galatians 3:26; 4:6; Ephesians 5:1; Philippians 2:15; I John 3:1-2, 10; 5:2; Revelation 21:7).

I said myopically since, for example, he didn’t note that Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that, “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.

He concludes, “Probably Genesis 6:4 is speaking of descendants of Seth intermarrying with the descendants of Cain” but that’s a late-comer of a view—I wonder why it was only strictly male Sethites who were terrible sinners and only exclusively female Cainites.

He notes that such marriages were, “with the descendants of Cain, or who had not corrupted themselves by rebelling against God in other ways” but there’s no indication of any such thing. That view is based on myth and prejudice.

He notes:

The “nephilim” of Genesis 6:4 were “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” The word translated “mighty,” gibbôr, implies one who is powerful, and could imply one who is a tyrant, or a bully, a violent man. The word translated “renown” is shêm (pronounced shame), and implies one who is famous, or who is in a conspicuous position. The implication is that these men were the leaders of the society at the time, the rulers, the famous warriors, etc. But they were degenerate morally and spiritually.

Sure, it “could imply…tyrant…bully…violent” but it’s also applied to God (Isa 9) and is typically defined generically as might/mighty.

He notes, “Very likely, some of them were men of great size…what we would call giants in the sense of physical size” yet, he very rightly noted, “although the Scripture does not specifically say that.”

Note that “great size” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.

He adds:

In the New King James version, the word “giant,” or plural “giants,” occurs 20 times. In most of these it is speaking of individuals or groups of men who were of extraordinarily large stature, as can be determined from the context. And this same Hebrew word, “nephilim,” is used in connection with them, as well as other words. Some of the “giants” spoken of in the Bible were famous and were kings.

Note that “extraordinarily large” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as great size and giants.

We will get to what he must have meant by that the, “Hebrew word, ‘nephilim,’ is used in connection with them” since that’s a problematic assertion—stand by.

He then refers to, “gigantic stature” which, you guessed it, is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as extraordinarily large, great size and giants.

He noted:

Internet browser concerning human giants returned a response summed up as follows: “In short, no giant human remains have been scientifically verified, and mainstream archaeology and paleontology reject the idea of a race of giant humans.” An article in Wikipedia states as follows: “Giant skeletons reported in the United States until the early 20th century were a combination of hoaxes, scams, fabrications, and the misidentifications of extinct megafauna” (wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_human_skeletons; retrieved 3-20-2026).

But we need to know the usage of giants and what that has to do with the Bible.

He goes on to refer to, “references to men of giant, or extraordinarily large stature found in the Bible? Were there giants on the earth? Did men like Goliath” to whom we shall yet get—stand by.

Rod Reynolds quoted:

“But the men who had gone up with him said, ‘We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we.’ And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, ‘The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight’” (Numbers 13:31-33).

It’s rather odd that after quoting that, he concludes:

The word used here, translated “giants,” is the same word used in Genesis 6:4: nephilim. Here we plainly see a report of men of gigantic proportions, much larger than the average Israelite, or other average size men.

He had prefaced that with, “When God had brought the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, he told Moses to send some men into the land of Canaan to explore, and bring back a report.” They actually brought back two reports: the first is reliable, the second (the one he quoted) is not.

Just how it is that, “we plainly see” that? Or, perhaps I should say that sure, we see that in an unreliable report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

They made five mere assertions that are unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible. And, they created the problem of post-flood Nephilim—which is why post-flood Nephilologists are forced to make up un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about just how the Nephilim made it past the flood, past God.

So, sure, in an utterly false report it’s, “the same word used in Genesis 6:4: nephilim” but it matters not and sure, “we plainly see a report of men of gigantic proportions, much larger” but that was just a tall-tale.

You know it, “gigantic proportions, much larger” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as gigantic stature, extraordinarily large, great size and giants.

Indeed, as per Deut 2 Rephaim who were aka Emmim and Zamzummim the tribe of which Anakim were a clan were subjectively, “tall”—with, “tall” being just as well, you know.

Subjectively that means taller by some unknown degree than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.

He then quotes regarding how, “Og…remained of the remnant of the giants” and ruled, “Bashan…known as the ‘land of the giants.’” He didn’t note to his audience that biblically contextually that means, “Og…remained of the remnant of the Rephaim” and ruled, “Bashan…known as the ‘land of the Rephaim.’”

He then notes, “Og’s bed was at least 13.5 feet long and six feet wide” but what of it? We’ve no physical description of him and jumping to a conclusion about his height based on the size of his, “bed” is a non-sequitur based on various assumptions.
Indications are that it wasn’t something on 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?

We now come to Goliath whom, or so he myopically tells us, “was over nine feet tall” but he didn’t tell us that the Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

He then quotes a long text that I will reduce to, “Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels…Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant…Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam…a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant…These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Samuel 21:16-22).

It’s not as exciting but that actually reads, “Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the Repha, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels…Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the Repha…Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam…a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the Repha…These four were born to the Repha in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Samuel 21:16-22).

The only reference to height is, “great stature” (assuming that’s not about social stature) and well, “great stature” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as tall, gigantic proportions, gigantic stature, extraordinarily large, great size and giants.

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

Oddly, Rod Reynolds goes onnote:

The Keil and Delitzsch commentary explains “the giant” referred to in II Samuel 21:16, 18, 20, 22 (above) as “Raphah, one of the gigantic race of Rephaim. Raphah was the tribe-father of the Rephaim, an ancient tribe of gigantic stature, of whom only a few families were left even in Moses’ time.”

We can’t do anything useful with the incessant use of watered down vague terminology. Biblically contextually, “the gigantic race of Rephaim” would mean, “the Rephaim race of Rephaim.”

For more about Keil and Delitzsch and many others, see my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s.

He then goes on to tell us of, “Other than the Bible, is there any evidence that humans of giant stature existed?” but, “Other than” what?

Nephilim: no reliable physical description.

Og: no physical description.

Goliath: most reliably, just shy of 7ft.

A man of generically, “great stature.”

Rephaim/Emmim/Zamzummim/Anakim: taller than 5.0-5.3ft.

It’s not very exciting when we iron out the facts but such is why pop-Nephilologists make up un-biblical fantasy tall-tales for a living: click-bait is exciting and lucrative.

To support, “Other than the Bible, is there any evidence that humans of giant stature existed…Men nine feet tall or taller…These would include fossil remains of, among others, the following: Columbian Mammoth…Dire wolves…Giant Sloths…Glyptodon: A giant armored mammal related to and resembling a large armadillo…Megalodon: The largest shark…Giant Rhinoceros…Megalania (Varanus priscus): A giant monitor lizard…Argentavis: The largest flying bird…Diprotodon: World’s largest marsupial…Deinosuchus riograndensis: Fossilized remains of gigantic crocodiles.”

Now, I’ve no idea what that has to do with, “humans of giant stature existed…Men nine feet tall or taller” but he does tell us: it’s a giant jump to a huge conclusion, “If other creatures existed in families and individuals of extraordinary size, who is to say that the same was not true of humans, as has been reported not just in Scripture, but in many ancient traditions?”

Note that my claim, at least, isn’t that Nephilim weren’t taller than the subjective parochial average, taller than we are today on average, etc. but is rather that we’ve no reliable indication of that. If we’re going to merely speculate then fine, let’s merely speculate but that’s as far as we can take it.

He then reviews claims of taller than average people throughout history but they’re irrelevant to my context: of course taller than average people existed throughout history, the issue is what of it?

For details, see my books What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology and Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales which review the biblical data as well as old newspaper reports and much more that it all the rage in pop-Nephilology circles.

His conclusion is, “There were giants on the earth, as the Bible says” but that really means, “There were whatever I subjectively mean by ‘giants’ with any given usage on the earth, as the one modern English Bible I happen to be reading says” (which is the New King James Version in his case).

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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