Undergoing review is Paul Fahy’s article Nephilim, Anunnaki and other tall stories. The only things I know about his are what’s on his site’s About page, “has exercised a teaching ministry in various churches since 1971…served as a pastor-teacher in a house church in Brighton [England]…”
I’m empathetic about what he states at the outset which is, “Wacky ideas about a race of angelic/alien/human giants are everywhere these days. There are hordes of books, films, YouTube videos, conferences, ministries and speakers on this matter. There are multiple conferences given over solely to this topic. There are ‘Christian’ ministries that exist only to speak about Nephilim. People will tell you that this is the key to understanding the past and the future.”
Most of what he notes is that which I term un-biblical-neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales.
I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales and also, 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.
He also rightly notes that, “One key to realising that there is something fishy about all this is the reliance upon non-Biblical sources. Supporters of this will refer to apocryphal books mentioned by Biblical authors, such as the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jasher. Others will refer to mythological sources, such as Mayan documents or Sumerian legends. Some people have even produced books that contain Biblical texts, apocryphal texts and secular myths side by side in parallel.”
I wrote an entire book just about that, The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.
Reviewing, “Common sources used for information on the Nephilim” he notes, “The Book of Enoch,” 1 Enoch, Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah, see the book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.
Also, “The Book of Jasher” which is just a modern day hoaxed fraud. Fahy notes, “there are at least five books that have this title and they were all composed much later than Biblical times. One commonly used is a Hebrew book printed in 1613…An earlier edition (1552)…This was later accepted by Joseph Smith of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons)…Another one was published in 1750…a revised edition of this was published in Bristol and then again in 1934 by the Rosicrucians.”
Then, “Philo of Alexandria was a Greek / Jewish philosopher living between about 25BC and 50 AD. He sought to harmonise Greek and Jewish philosophy and heavily utilised allegory.”
Next is the, “Targum of Jonathan” which, “supports the idea of angelic intermarriage with humans and mentions them by name, calling them Schanchazai and Uziel, who fell from heaven, and were in the earth in those days. This is just Jewish mythology.” Well, that one Targum is very late dated, the 600s AD, and it’s a paraphrase, not a translation, and is pepper with folklore.”
Also, The Dead Sea Scrolls, which range widely in genre.
And, Flavius Josephus (37-100 AD).
Also, “The Apocrypha: Judith, Sirach, Baruch and the Wisdom of Solomon etc.” which date from the 1st century to the early 2nd century BC.
I dealt with virtually all of these in my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.
Paul Fahy then references, “Early church fathers” such as, “Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Lactantius” with whom I deal 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 then provides, “The list of ‘giant’ races involved: Biblical” (sic.) but he hasn’t answered what are three key questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s his usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those usages agree?
Thus, we will have to attempt to discern to what he’s referring with any given usage.
First up are Nephilim who are mentioned in Gen 6:4 (reliably) and Num 13:33 (unreliably).
He elucidates, “‘Giants’ = Nephilim” which goes back to question begging since, at least for now, that reads as, “‘____’ = Nephilim.”
He further notes, “The root meaning of ‘Nephilim’ is either ‘violent’ (i.e. falling upon one’s enemy) or ‘causing to fall.’”
He also notes, “The LXX translates this with ‘gigantes’, which actually means ‘earth-born’ not giant.” That’s technically not a translation but is a rendering (but be aware that the LXX also rendered gibborim and Repha/im as such: so in the LXX gigantes only refers to Nephilim in two verses).
Again, telling us, “‘gigantes’, which actually means ‘earth-born’ not giant” is telling us, “‘gigantes’, which actually means ‘earth-born’ not _____.”
He notes that, “English translators…used the Greek term, abbreviated to ‘giant’” (although that’s not an abbreviation) and conclude, “Thus the distinction in Gen 6:4 is between ‘earth-born’ sinners and godly ‘sons of God’. The whole concept of the Nephilim being giants is based on a mistranslation of a translation from Hebrew to Greek.”
At this point, I will just guess that by giants he’s implying something about subjectively unusual height which is not the English Bible’s usage: as he had literally just finished telling us.
He notes, “There is confusion as to whether the Nephilim are the sons of God or the offspring” but the contextual narrative of the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriages, and their offspring. Thus, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward” clearly as a result of, “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
Paul Fahy then notes, “There is no Biblical indication that these were giants” and based on his leaving it to us to guess that he’s implying something about subjectively unusual height: he’s correct.
Next on the list are Anakim about whom he quotes Num 13:33, “There we saw the giants [Nephilim] (the descendants of Anak came from the giants [Nephilim]); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight” as well as Deut 2:19-21, “a people as great and numerous and tall [‘high’, ‘lofty’ [these brackets by Fahy]] as the Anakim. But the LORD destroyed them before them, and they dispossessed them and dwelt in their place.”
Paul Fahy comments that Anakim were a, “race of giants descended from Arba (Jos 14:15), the father of Anak, that dwelt in the south of Palestine near Hebron (Gen 23:2; Jos 15:13). They were a Cushite tribe of the same race as the Philistines and the Egyptian shepherd kings. David encountered them on several occasions (2 Sam 21:15-22); including facing Goliath (1 Sam 17:4)” and that’s all.
He didn’t inform his readers that Num 13:33 is one sentence form an evil report stated by unreliable guys whom God rebuked: they just made up a tall-tale.
Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc. Also, post-flood Nephilologists will have to just invent an un-biblical tall-tale about how they made it past the flood.
Note also that reference to Anakim is lacking form the LXX version. Now, Fahy rightly elucidated the little we know about their genealogy and one thing that is not therein is any connection to Nephilim whatsoever.
As for a, “race of giants” as per Fahy’s misusage, indeed, we’re just told that they were, “tall” which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants. Contextually, it means that they were taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days—and the preponderance of the earliest data is that Goliath was just shy of 7 ft.
Next up are the Rephaim about whom I will succinctly relate what Fahy told us: the land of, “the people of Ammon…was also regarded as a land of giants; giants formerly dwelt there. But the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim…(Deut 2:19-21).
Here giants renders Rephaim, we learn that an a.k.a. for them was Zamzummim, and they were generally taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.
Moreover, “Og king of Bashan…his bedstead was an iron bedstead…Nine cubits is its length…Deut 3:11…Gilead, and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og…Argob, with all Bashan, was called the land of the giants. Deut 3:13…Og king of Bashan and his territory, who was of the remnant of the giants…Jos 12:4…Og in Bashan…remained of the remnant of the giants…Jos 13:12.”
Again, giants is rendering Rephaim, not implying anything about height whatsoever. As for Og in particular, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
Also, “the land of the Perizzites and the giants…Jos 17:15” referring to the land of Rephaim.
And, “The dead [rapha [brackets by Fahy]] tremble, those under the waters and those inhabiting them. Job 26:5” which is a case of applying the root word rapha to the Rephaim people group.
Plus, “Ishbi-Benob…one of the sons of the giant…2 Sam 21:16…Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant. 2 Sam 21:18…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. 2 Sam 21:20. These four were born to the giant in Gath…2 Sam 21:22…Sippai, who was one of the sons of the giant…1 Chron 20:4…a man of great size, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; he also was descended from the giants. 1 Chron 20:6…born to the giant in Gath…1 Chron 20:8.”
Some of that are reiterations, all of which are references to Rephaim, with, “great stature” being just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as tall and giants and, by the way, we find out that one single Repha had extra digits (pop-Nephilologists assert that such is a Nephilim trait but there’s zero indication of that, see chapter, “” in my book Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers).
Further, there are more usages of the root word rapha in Ps 88:10, Prov 2:18, Prov 9:18, Prov 21:16, Isa 14:9, Isa 26:14.
Recall that he had asserted, “‘Giants’ = Nephilim”? Well, he now tells us, “‘Giants’ = rapha; i.e. the Rephaim…A race of giants.” So, he thinks that two very different words both refer to subjectively unusual height but neither do: even though Rephaim were generally subjectively unusually tall.
He notes, “Anakim, Zuzim, and Emim were branches of this stock” but it’s more like that Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe and Zuzim and Emim are other a.k.a. for Rephaim.
He goes on to note that, “In Job 16:14, in the KJV, ‘giant’ appears but this is a wrong translation. The word is gibbor meaning ‘a mighty one’, i.e. a champion or hero. In its plural form (gibborim) it is rendered ‘mighty men’ (2 Sam 23:8-39; 1 Kg 1:8; 1 Chron 11:9-47, 29:24).”
Indeed, it’s just a descriptive term for might/mighty which is why it’s used of Angels, Nephilim, some of David’s soldiers, Boaz, God, etc.
Pop-Nephilologists actually assert that there was a Gibborim people group but that’s as misguided as the rest of their un-biblical assertions.
At this point, he writes a, “Conclusion” which includes, “Not all the words translated as ‘giant’ by the KJV refer to giants” but given his usage, only Rephaim fits and that’s only because they were taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.
Thus, when he concludes, “Giants were: some of the house of Anak (the Anakim) and some of the Rephaim (including the Zamzummins and Emim)” that’s only as far as we can take it.
Mover, “Not all the Hebrew words that can refer to giants (such as rapha) are actually referring to a
giant” but rapha ranges in meaning from healing to dead and never subjectively unusually tall—see the, “Rephaim” chapter of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
He then moves to, “The idea of angels mating with humans” and claims that Gen 6:4, “is the only verse that can be used to support this mad idea” which he all but bypasses by directing us to his Paper Can demons mate with humans?
Note that he moved the goalpost from, “angels mating with humans” to, “demons mate with humans.” Angles are physical and are thus able to physically copulate but demons are spirits and cannot, see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
His argument is, “the word ‘angels’ does not appear in this verse at all; the reference is to the ‘sons of Elohim’. If Moses had wanted to specifically refer to angels he would have used the appropriate term (mal’ak). Can ‘sons of God ‘refer to angels? Yes, but rarely (Job 1:6, 2:1). Job 38:7 does not have to refer to angels at all being a poetic reference to the stars.”
It’s simply not the case that Gen 6:4 is the only verse that can be used to support the Angel view.
It’s not Fahy’s place to dictate that which Moses would and would not do: there’s no linguistic standard that one thing can only be referred to in one way—no language works like that.
At least he admits that sons of God can refer to Angels and Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that sons of God can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “angelos”).
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined place the one-time sin of Angels to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin.
Yet, having admitted as much, he myopically asserts, “‘Sons of God’ are God’s children i.e. humans in Matt 5:9, Lk 20:36, Rm 8:14, 19, Gal 3:26” but that’s one usage.
Yet, for Paul Fahy, it’s about statistics, “the predominant reference is to human beings not angels” which is not the way to do Angelology nor linguistics.
He also notes, “No Biblical writer outside of Job…refers to angels as ‘sons of God’” but that’s not the case since Gen 6:4 employs bene haElohim and/but Psalm 82 has ben Elim, etc.
He further argues, “Note also that the judgment of God resulting from this behaviour fell upon men and not angels (Gen 6:6)” yet, 1) Angels are generally referred to as man/men (as are Nephilim) and 2) the Bible’s main context is humanity so to whatever it refers, it always and quickly returns it’s focus to us.
He also argues, “Note also that angels are not mentioned in the Genesis narrative before this point” but why would it? Again, see point 2) that I just made plus, they were out of the picture at that point since, again, as per Jude and 2 Peter 2, they were incarcerated.
As for, “The angelic state,” Paul Fahy asserts, “Angles are spirit beings; that is they are not material at all. As immaterial beings it is impossible for them to be able to mate with a human.” Yet, his premise is faulty since that Angels are spirits may be tradition, may be common knowledge, but it’s not biblical.
Moreover, “Although angels sometimes appeared on earth to men in an apparent physical human form, they did not change their actual composition but only their appearance.” This is just made up stuff. See, he continued by noting, “In Genesis 18 the Lord appears with two men, whom we can presume to be angels” we don’t have to presume since Gen 19 very clearly identified then as such, “Abraham arranges for food to be prepared for these men. They give the appearance of eating, but this was a miraculous and unusual appearance by God; it does not mean that the angelic bodies were physically human.”
He made an argument from silence and then misdirected us at the end of it.
You see, he reads about, “angels…appeared on earth to men in an…physical human form” which is what text such as Gen 18 tell us yet, he inserts, “apparent” therein due to his eisegesis.
He reads about, “men,” who were Angels, eating food but inserts that it’s, “only their appearance” and not their true form and that it was merle, “the appearance of eating.”
Well, no one is claiming that, “angelic bodies were physically human” but that biblical Angelology is that Angels look just like human males ontologically and there’s no indication whatsoever that such isn’t their true, natural, ontological form nor that they change, shape-shift, temporarily take on bodies, etc.
For some reason, he seeks to buttress his faulty premise and conclusion by noting, “The wonder of the incarnation of Jesus Christ is that this was the first and only time a heavenly Person became an actual human being” but, again, no one claims Angels because, “an actual human being.”
He then writes of, “immaterial angels/demons” which is erroneous and a category error.
He then has a section on, “Demons” which begins thusly, “The Nephilim angered God by their doings and cannot be elect angels that never sinned.” Yet, Nephilim aren’t Angels at all: they were the offspring of Angels. Yet, he said that, “if these were angels then they had to be demons” which is a techinal category error.
He (admits and yet) denies that sons of God in Gen 6:4 are Angels but thinks that Nephilim are Angels so he must read Gen 6:4 as, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, God’s children i.e. humans saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…The demons were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when God’s children i.e. humans 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.”
Since he mashes the words and concepts, “angels/demons” he ends up mashing together things that are exclusively about Angels and things that are exclusively about demons. For example, “Fallen angels (demons) were cast out of heaven when they chose to rebel against God and support the satanic insurrection (2 Pt 2:4-5). They were imprisoned in the aerial regions around the earth (thus Satan is the, ‘prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience’; Eph 2:2).”
2 Pt 2:4-5 is about the Angels’ pre-flood sin and incarceration but Eph 2:2 is about demons.
He rightly notes that which I noted above, “Demons cannot take on genuine corporeal form; they are spirits” but that’s not relevant to Angels proper.
Again, he rightly notes, “A spirit being has no DNA and could not reproduce of its kind in a hybrid fashion” but that’s not relevant to Angels proper.
But this does, or may, apply to Angles, “God has set laws in creation so that different physical kinds cannot reproduce chimeras.” Yet, since Angels look just like human males, we were created, “a little lower” (Psalm 8:5) than they, and we can produce offspring then, by definition, we’re of the same basic kind.
Paul Fahy then notes, “The long held historic interpretation of this sentence is as follows: The sons of God are the children of Seth, the line of godly people that had originally kept a pure, godly racial line. At some point they intermarried with the line of Cain and the result was corruption of godliness.”
Well, it may be, “long held” from our perspective of looking way back in time but the fact is that the Sethite view is a latecomer. 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 Sethite view is also based on mythology. There’s no indication of any such a thing as a, “line of godly people that had originally kept a pure, godly racial line” nor of any such thing as a, “corruption of godliness.” That view only creates more problems than it solves (more than zero).
Why was it only exclusively males on one side of the equation and only exclusively females on the other?
The, “line of godly people that had originally kept a pure, godly racial line” weren’t so godly, pure after all since they sinned to terribly that their sin served as the premise for the flood—and there’s no indication that there were any, “racial line” that was not meant to be crossed: they were all from Adam and Eve—which is why the only race is the human race.
Paul Fahy notes, “This view goes back to Augustine, earlier fathers and even beyond to Jewish rabbis” but it was a minority view among, “Jewish rabbis” (as oppose to whom, Gentile rabbis???) and there may be a psychological reason why Augustine broke with the traditional view: he converted to Christianity from Gnostic Manichaeism and sought to leave it wholly behind. Thus, since Mani held to the Angel view, Augustine would not.
Here again, he misrepresents the view in order to attempt to strengthen his arguments against it in (mis)stating, “Throughout church history the idea of demons mating with humans has been denied by all sound scholars, and even by many unorthodox scholars” which they rightly should yet, again, that’s a category error by Fahy.
He also notes that, “The sources that drive the modern notion of demons mating with humans to produce a super race stems almost wholly from unbiblical writers. These propose a range of nonsensical things. For example, the Book of Jubilees proposes that although the flood rid the earth of Nephilim, God allowed 10% of the disembodied spirits of the Nephilim to remain after the flood as demons to lead the human race astray. This is just fanciful rubbish.”
Yet, Jubilees has it that it was Angels, as does 1 Enoch (having Angles as Watchers) so as unreliable as those folkloric text from millennia after the Torah are, at least they don’t even have demons mating with humans—see my book, The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.
Paul Fahy then deals with Jude 1:6-7 and notes that, “the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” really means, “a simple reference to the rebellion in heaven when some angels disobeyed God and were cast out” yet, Jude told us of what their rebellion consisted but Fahy merely sidesteps factoid.
Except, that is, that he notes, “Sodom and Gomorrah are given in Scripture as the classic case of judgment on sinners for iniquity involving heavenly fire and are thus a picture of hell” whilst still sidestepping that bit about, “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.”
He then asserts, “Christ asserted that angels cannot marry (Matt 22:30; Mk 12:25; cf. Lk 20:34-35); distinctly implying that it is impossible for angels to have sex because they had no gender.”
Yet, that’s simply note the case, note Jesus’ own words, meaning, implication, specificity, emphasis, context, etc.:
Matt 22:30, “30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
Mk 12:25, “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
Lk 20:34-35, “And Jesus said to them, ‘The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.’”
From that, Fahy got, “cannot marry…impossible for angels to have sex because they had no gender.”
Yet, this was specifically about that, “angels in heaven…angels in heaven” thus, the loyal ones who don’t marry nor are given in marriage. That’s why those who did are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” as we saw that Jude noted.
And it’s too bad that Fahy stopped quoting Lk 20 at v. 35 since 36 notes, “for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” so that to be, “sons of God” is to be, “equal to angels” who ergo, must be, “sons of God.”
Yet, Paul Fahy continued by emphasizing his unfounded assertion, “could not have sex.”
His conclusion of that section is, “The concept of demons mating with humans is not only impossible to achieve, it is laughable” and it’s equally laughable that he continues committing category errors.
When he continues by noting, “There is no clear Biblical text which teaches this idea” he’s up against no one who has ever claimed that there is.
He then claims that such is, “a repeated concept in pagan mythology…(Greek mythology) is filled with stories of gods mating with humans and the peril that ensues” but he has moved from Angels to demons to gods—and I would grant that the gods of such tales are either make-believe or where fallen Angels.
He follows that with a section asking, “Have there ever been giants on earth?” his reply to which is, “Yes there have; the Bible mentions this openly.”
Since he’s misunderstanding, misinterpreting, misreading, misdefining, and misapplying giants he refers to, “gigantism” and notes that, “The Bible mentions giants apart from the Nephilim” but he hasn’t established that Nephilim were subjectively unusually tall—well, not besides quoting one single sentence from an evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
But since he didn’t interact with the narrative of Num 13, he generically wrote, “The Israelite spies mention giants amongst the Canaanites” but it was not, “The,” twelve, “Israelite spies” but the ten unreliable ones.
He wrote, “Goliath was a giant…Goliath’s height was, ‘six cubits and a span’…117 inches or
9¾ feet tall.” Yet, that’s myopic since That’s as per the Masoretic but the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at four cubits and a span, just shy of 7 ft.
Yet, after having written many pages about giants, Paul Fahy finally give us some idea of to what he’s referring, “We still have giants of a sort with us; some people have grown to seven-foot high” so there we have it: to him the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants refers to, “grown to” meaning not beyond in general 7 ft.
At this point, he loops back to Og and that his, “bed is stated in the Bible to have been 9 cubits long; that is 162 inches or 13 feet 5 inches. Of course we cannot say with certainty that Og was over 12 foot tall; many royal people have beds much larger than themselves; nevertheless Og was a giant and may have been 12 foot tall.” In short, we’ve no physical description of Og (not until folklore from millennia after the Torah) and that we can derive his height based on his, “bed” is based on numerous assumption—as I elucidate in my book about him.
He then notes, “Goliath was far removed from pre-flood times when the gene pool had already degenerated somewhat” but the only gene pool in which Goliath was swimming was Noah’s, of course.
He then comments on, “Some of the writers on the Nephilim” about whom I will mostly agree with him since I make it a habit of debunking such personages who make a living by selling un-biblical-neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales.
One very important point is that such tall-tale-tellers, “posit that…the command of God to wipe out the Canaanites was due to the strain of rogue DNA in the populations” yet, “The Biblical reason
for the destruction of the Canaanites was that they were condemned for their sin (and
especially their idolatry)” which is something I’ve pointed out to such pop-Nephilologists dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times and actually wrote an entire chapter just about that in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
Speaking of sci-fi-tall-tales, Paul Fahy notes, “Another strand of Nephilim teaching is based upon the claim that Nimrod is the Antichrist…Others claim (wrongly…) that Nimrod is also Gilgamesh (supposedly a giant) and that the body of Gilgamesh was discovered and captured by American troops in the occupation of Iraq…Multiple writers aver that the Antichrist will be the resurrected Nimrod, who is a Nephilim creature…”
He reviews some claims that are not even worth delving in to for my purposes, “Many proponents of the Nephilim teaching claim that the Nephilim are actually alien…One aspect of the alien /god theory is that Satan sent 200 of his fallen angels to be Watchers / rulers on the earth. This comes straight from secular mythology…The identification of the Anunnaki with the unobserved planet Nibiru leads to multiple speculations about future cosmic events when Nibiru comes into plain view and heralds
the end of the world (supposedly soon). This planet has never been identified by astronomers…Another strand of Nephilim teaching is the connection between the Nephilim (in the form of the Watchers) and the global elite,” etc., and so we will leave it at that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.