Rob, of the Sum of Thy Word site, posted an article titled Who are the “sons of God” of Genesis 6? which is of interest to me since I wrote the 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 upfront that, “There is a popular belief in some Christian circles that the ‘sons of God’ mentioned in Genesis chapter 6 were fallen angels who produced giants with the ‘daughters of men’ before the flood.”
I will note that one issue is what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Rob’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
He quotes and notes, “And it came to pass, when men(Hebrew~adam) began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born unto them…This clearly proves the subject of the first four verses are the physical offspring of the first ‘man’ who was ‘Adam’” indeed.
He asks, “Is there any sin being named in Genesis 6:1 that would cause God’s Spirit to not strive with man(adam)? Absolutely not! God told the man and woman to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” indeed: so there’s a hint to that something in v. 1 (and 2) denotes sin—so, what was it?
Rob notes, “do we see any sin being named in Genesis 6:2 that would cause God’s Spirit to not strive with man?: Genesis 6:2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men(adam) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose. Absolutely! God did not want the ‘sons of God’ marrying the ‘daughters of men’ or verse 3 would not express God’s displeasure with those ‘sons of God’” indeed so, who were they and what was the sin?
He further notes, “Genesis 6:3 And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man(adam) for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. God is clearly declaring the ‘sons of God’ are ‘men’ who His Spirit will not strive with forever for marrying the ‘daughters of men’!”
At this point, Rob tell us, “We are told ‘not to go beyond what is written’ in our Father’s Word” and notes:
…some Christians are going beyond the Word of God by giving heed to Jewish fables such as the book of Enoch which is NOT a part of the cannon set of scriptures:
Titus 1:13-14 This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, (14) not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.
If the “sons of God” were fallen angels marrying the “daughters of men”, as is being hyped these days, then Jesus would’ve revealed this when He described the sins occurring in the days before the flood of Noah:
Matthew 24:37-39 And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. (38) For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, (39) and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.
Jesus did not even hint of any “angels” being involved. But He did clearly define the “sons of God” as being “sons of the resurrection” which “angels” have absolutely no part in because they never die:
Luke 20:34-36 And Jesus said unto them, The sons of this world marry, and are given in marriage: (35) but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: (36) for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Only those sons of flesh who are accounted worthy to be part of the first resurrection no longer marry or die but are “sons of God” who are now equal to angels who have never married or died:
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: over these the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Let us pause since there is a lot to consider.
It’s not, “some Christians…being hyped these days” but 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 that I noted.
Now, oddly, he noted we ought to, “not to go beyond what is written” but he didn’t go by what is written since biblically, humans and Angels are all referred to as man/men.
Thus, that does away with many of his objections. Indeed, “the subject of the first four verses are the physical offspring of the first ‘man’ who was ‘Adam’” and, “God told the man and woman to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” and, “God did not want the ‘sons of God’ marrying the ‘daughters of men’” but wait, why not if it was just two groups of human marrying?
Just in case, note that 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.
It’s never a good idea to play mind reader and tell us what, “Jesus would’ve” done if. Why would He make reference to Angels when His point was about examples being unaware and/or unconcerned of coming judgment.
Jesus fuller statement on the matter was when He words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”
But He kept speaking directly with:
“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17).
As for Luke 20:34-36 well, it notes that being a son of God is to be correlated to Angles.
Rob’s concept of what was so wrong about humans marrying each other, to the point that it served as the premise for the flood, is that, “the ‘sons of God’ in our new testament covenant are commanded by our Father not to marry unbelievers” as if that has something to do with pre-flood days from millennia before that and in different historical, cultural, and linguistic contexts.
Rob does then go backward and notes, “The ‘sons of God’ in the old testament covenant were commanded by God not to marry unbelievers as well” and quotes the latter parts of Genesis, Psalms, Deuteronomy, and Judges from centuries after the flood.
He even specifies, “Our Father commanded His spiritual children not to marry the unrighteous during the 2000 year period from Abraham to Christ. Then again the same command was given to the Christians for the next 2000 year period from Christ till today” so what about prior to Abraham?
He merely opines, “it should stand to reason that the 2000 year period from Adam to Abraham would be the same command.”
Well, regardless, sure: believers ought not marry unbelievers—apparently this used to lead to a worldwide flood but no longer did thereafter.
Note that he also opines, “God repented for making men because those He called sons burned in the lust of their flesh for the daughters of men before the flood” even though God specified why He repented and didn’t mention, “those He called sons burned in the lust of their flesh for the daughters of men” so let’s not go beyond what is written.
What is written is:
The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them”…the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
As for, “the most misunderstood verse in Genesis chapter 6” he quotes and notes, “Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. The English word ‘nephilim’ comes from the Hebrew word ‘nephiyl’ and is defined as fellows, giants.”
This begs the questions I noted up front: he appeals to Strong’s lexicon but what’s Strong’s usage of giants? Well, I literally wrote the book on the linguistics so if you’re interested in that detail, see Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
We finally get the answer to Rob’s usage which is, “before the flood the entire earth enjoyed a warm tropical environment. There was enhanced oxygen in the atmosphere that would have supported larger animals…men would have also had the capacity to be much larger before the flood” which means that the answer to the third key question is, “No”: his usage is not the English Bible’s usage. 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.
Rob notes, “Nephilim or giants could have easily been on the earth since the days of Cain and Seth’s early descendants: Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.”
Indeed, we don’t know exactly to when, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose” refers but it could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children first started having children.
Rob claims, “The phrase ‘and also after that’ in Genesis 6:4 was pointing 500+ years later when Enoch walked with God for 300 years ‘after’ he begat Methuselah”: I’m unsure about the exact dating but will note upfront that indeed, “after that” refers to after when those marriages first took place.
Although, I’m unsure what would be wrong with marriages between, “Cain and Seth’s early descendants.”
Rob then misrepresents Num 13 by, again, not going beyond what is written but by not going with what is written.
He puts it thusly:
The “nephillim” reappeared on the earth once more after the flood in the land of Canaan where Moses sent the 12 spies in to see what the people were like:
Numbers 13:17-18 And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them, Get you up this way by the South, and go up into the hill-country: (18) and see the land, what it is; and the people that dwell therein, whether they are strong or weak, whether they are few or many;
The fact that the Nephilim were the sons of Anak proves that giants come from men and not fallen angels:
Numbers 13:32-33 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had spied out unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. (33) And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Note that he appeals to, “the 12 spies” and jumps to Num 13:32-33 by conveniently sidestepping the very fact that in v. 31 we’re told what turns out to be, given the whole narrative and textual considerations, one single unreliable non-LXX version of an unreliable, “evil report” not by, “the 12 spies” but by the 10 unreliable ones who God rebuked: unsure why he didn’t elucidate those facts.
He merely asserted, “‘nephillim’ reappeared on the earth once more after the flood” based on a deception: he sides with guys whom God rebuked rather than with the God who rebuked them.
That he also notes, “Nephilim were the sons of Anak” means that he’s ignoring the LXX version that contains no reference to Anakim in that version’s version of that verse.
He also missed that, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof” is a straight up contradiction of the first, original, accepted as is report in Num 13 which he utterly ignored.
And he’s using one version on an unreliable sentence of an unreliable report by unreliable guys to concludes, “Nephilim were the sons of Anak” based on the incoherently circular reading, “Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim” so that the Nephilim were actually the Anakim who come from Nephilim so they’re actually Nephilim. More normative readings have it that the non-LXX version of the deception was that they saw Nephilim (which isn’t mentioned in the first, original, as is report: so it’s an embellishment) and that Anakim come from Nephilim.
Of course, that’s logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically incoherent since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. and we know that Anakim were named after Anak, Abra’s son, with zero indication that they anything to do with Nephilim.
Rob then jumps to, “who are the ‘sons of God’ in Genesis 6:4? The shorter answer is the ‘sons of God’ were NOT angels whether righteous or fallen for at no time were any angels ever called a ‘son of God’: Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?”
From that, Rob concludes, “God specifically says that He never called an angel His son nor are they born of Him for they were created spirits by God: Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh(created) his angels winds(spirits), And his ministers a flame of fire.”
Yet, he took Heb 1 out of context since it’s not about Angelology, it’s about Jesus. Ergo, God never called an Angel His son in the way that He calls Jesus His Son since Jesus is unique and authoritative. Or, does Rob deny that Christians are God’s sons since, after all, Jesus is God’s only begotten Son?
He then circles back to, “Jehovah clearly labeled the ‘sons of God’ in verse 2 as ‘men’ in verse 3 who in their carnal flesh” but he seems to have missed appoint by, again, not going with what is written which is that 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) so, indeed, they were of, “carnal flesh” at that time.
For some reason, Rob asserts something as very specific as that, “Those ‘sons of God’ mentioned in Job chapters one and two would be those righteous souls who died from the lineage of Seth…” but why of Seth, why only one single lineage?
He asserts, “There is a very clear distinction made between Cain and Seth! Cain was driven from the presence of God as an unrighteous soul” well he was a murderer but, “an unrighteous soul” who, by the way, God protected, “Jehovah said…whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And Jehovah appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him” as Rob quoted it.
Then, “Cain went out from the presence of Jehovah, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden” since God’ presence was in Eden at the time.
So, with one on the record sin for Cain, he moves on to, “Seth was the only son of Adam described to be after his own likeness and image” since, apparently, he looked more like Adam than the others.
From a general statement in Deuteronomy 32:7-8, he then jumps backward to Deuteronomy 7:3-4 to argue:
Seth and His lineage were commanded by the Most High God to remain separated from the lineage of Cain:
Deuteronomy 32:7-8 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. (8) When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
These “sons of God” were to remain separated from those God had driven from His face. God followed through with this same principle and commanded it to His sons in Israel’s day:
Deuteronomy 7:3-4 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. (4) For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
He’s not only reading extreme specifics into generic texts but is ignoring the many, many, many, many, many other lineages since Adam and Eve had many, many, many, many children—and their many, many, many, many children had many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, children.
Note that Rob seems to read, “nations” as only Sethites and Cainites.
And in doing so, he appealed to, “this same principle” in Deuteronomy 7:3-4 which was about, “Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”
He then takes the general statement, “began men to call upon the name of Jehovah” to somehow exclusively mean Sethites due to the timeframe, “Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah.”
Thus, by merely asserting and turning generalities into specifics, Rob concludes, “the ‘sons of God’ were the lineage of Seth that took the daughters of Cain to marry” and yet, we’ve no reason to think there would have been anything wrong with that.
Based on one on the record sin for Cain, such people are willing to condemn an entire lineage and based on a general statement about calling on God’s name, they accredit an entire lineage.
Such is how and why such a view is mythical prejudice—as well as a late-comer of a view.
And note that, apparently, Sethites were so holy that they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.
Now, 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.
Now, 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.
Yet, Rob attempts to get around these as written facts by appealing to, “One of the biggest errors we as Christians make is to think God exists on a linear timeline like we do”: I’m actually not aware of any Christians who make that error.
The fact is that God communicates with us in mostly linear manners since that’s how we understand things. Ergo, when He says, “Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof, (7) When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?” He meant, “Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof, (7) When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
Yet, to Rob, He meant, “Whereupon were the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof” and at some unspecific time in the far, far, far distant future well, well, well, after the foundations thereof were fastened and the corner stone was lain.
In fact, he manipulated the text by not bothering to quote that God’s statement is very specifically about, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?” and then, within a couple of verses, jumps to a much later time. No, rather, it’s a complete, linear, thought.
To Rob, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone” isn’t about, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone” but is about that God was sermonizing, as I will term it, “God was clearly addressing Job nearly 2000 years before Christ came while at the same time declaring the end from the beginning when He spoke of the corner stone of Jesus having already been laid which causes ALL the ‘sons of God’ to shout for joy” and yet, it was about, “the foundation of the earth.”
He then argues, “Not one ‘fallen angel’ would shout for joy about the corner stone of Jesus being laid 2000 years ago!”: see, he jumped from when the Earth was created to the time of Jesus for His (mis) understanding.
Rob then invents that, “All angels stand by the throne of the Father whether the fallen to His left or the righteous to His right waiting to be sent forth by the Father as ministering spirits.”
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.
Ergo, there’s no such thing as fallen Angels, “stand by the throne of the Father…waiting to be sent forth by the Father as ministering spirits.”
And, note that Rob didn’t like that the version he’s quoting (right) had Heb 1:7 as, “winds” so he inserted, “(spirits)” and now he can just assert, “ministering spirits” even though, again, Angels are always described as looking like human males so that they are really spirits is just a common man-made misconception.
He was playing off of which refers to someone/something which would be, “a lying spirit in the mouth of” false prophets: we’re not told that’s an Angel—fallen or not.
concerning thee.
Yet, since Rob didn’t like, “winds” then he can demand, “spirits” and go on to argue, “Not one of those spirits have flesh and bones” up and against literally every single description of Angels in the whole Bible—interestingly, since he now want to make that point, he switches to a version that (mistakenly) reads Hebrews 1:13-14 as referring to, “ministering spirits.”
So desperate is Rob to protect his man-made tradition, that he actually brought himself to deny any fall of Angels—even whilst referring to some Angels as fallen—, “All angels whether fallen or righteous are completely under the control of our Father as His ministering spirits so not one of them ever went rogue and married women!”
But if, “All angels…are completely under the control of our Father” then, “not one of them ever went rogue” in any way, shape, or form so then it’s impossible that there are any, “fallen” ones—ever.
He then adds, “Man will also be as angels in heaven who neither marry or are given in marriage: Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.”
Rob seems to have missed what is written since Jesus was very specific and His qualifying terms are that He was exclusively speaking of Angels, “in heaven.”
He then commits a technical category error by asserting, “All ‘fallen angels’ are referred to in the scriptures as demons, evil spirits, or unclean spirits” yet, fallen Angels, proper, and demons technically differ since, for example, we saw that fallen Angels are incarcerated but demons aren’t: see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Rob then asserts, “Fallen angels have no interest in merely marrying and procreating with human females as they do not differentiate based on sex or flesh: 1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.”
It’s an incoherent non-sequitur to come to that conclusion based on that verse. Yet, in part, he comes to a fallacious conclusion based on category error since he argues, “They desire a watery house to inhabit regardless of whether it’s a male or female human or swine: Luke 8:32-33…” but that’s about demons.
He then circles back to Cainites and notes that, “Cain’s likeness and image as a murderer was spreading through his lineage for Cain’s descendant, named Lamech, killed both a man and a young man: Genesis 4:23-24 And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: For I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me: (24) If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.”
So, the grand total of sins that we have on record for Cainites is one for Cain and one, or maybe as many as two, for Lamech (sin 1. polygamy, probable sin 2 is murder but it may have been self-defense killing, “for bruising me”): and that’s enough for Rob to condemn an entire linage in a most ungraceful, mythical, prejudice and worldly manner.
In fact, to Rob, one or maybe two murders generations apart equals, “murder was becoming commonplace.”
And that’s enough to arbitrarily label, “righteous men” (who, again, weren’t righteous after all) and, “unrighteous women” of which we don’t even have one single example (unless, I supposed, you want to count as high as 2 for Lamech’s two wives).
He then jumps from one topic to another by time traveling all over the place chronologically and we end up at, “The angels who chose to fall with satan in eternity past are now ‘principalities’ cursed with everlasting bonds under spiritual darkness that roam the heavenly places where Christians wrestle with them: Ephesians 6:12 For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities(arche), against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”
1. There’s no such thing as, “The angels who chose to fall with satan.”
2. There’s no such thing as either fall being, “in eternity past.”
This link shows the variations in the rendering/translating of the last part of that verse since it’s typically understood to refer to high places or the heavens as in, “the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2).
The fall of the Cherub, Satan, was during the Gen 3 timeline.
The fall of Angels was during the Gen 6 timeline.
Ergo, not, “with” nor, “in eternity past.”
And, Angels aren’t, “cursed with everlasting bonds under spiritual darkness that roam the heavenly places” but in Tartarus (2 Peter 2).
Even though Jude wrote of, “angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling” followed by the portion that Rob quoted, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh,” he ensures that we don’t get what Jude was telling us but asserts, “it is ‘the cities about’ Sodom and Gomorrah that ‘having in like manner with ‘Sodom and Gomorrah had ‘given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh.’”
Yet, as per what is written, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them” and not Rob’s remixed version.
Oddly, and this is an ongoing issue, having told us, “All angels…are completely under the control of our Father” incoherently including, “whether fallen or righteous” he again tells us of their non-completely under the control of our Father’s fall, “Jude was proving that both angels and Christians who choose to teach contrary to God’s purpose” (this time, emphasis added for emphasis).
He then moves to what, “There are some teachers trying to take these two passages and force the ‘they’ in Daniel 2:43 to mean the angels who were cast out of heaven” and to make a long story short, pop-Nephilologists assert that, “they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men” is something about hybrids or some such thing that’s not the case: Daniel was just telling us about two people groups that would engage in commerce but wouldn’t intermarry—I had a whole chapter about this in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.
Thus, overall, we saw the same thing that happens to anyone who attempts to deny the biblically supported original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC: myopic manipulations of God Word in attempts to protect a late-comer of a man-made tradition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Leave a Reply