I informed Pastor Paul Tackett that I had posted an iron sharpening iron review of his subject series as Review of Pastor Paul Tackett’s Post-Flood Nephilim Migration. I had also posted Pastor Paul Tackett notes that Nephilim Were Not Clowns.
What he termed Chapter One of his review opened with a few words short of 1,000 words (not counting when he commented on it a couple more times as he went on) commenting on that I did not review his entire series—since part of my critique was that the series is verbose, being verbose in reply is no remedy.
He was kind enough to write a review, motivated by that my, “review raises several biblical, interpretive, and methodological questions—and because it also comments on my educational background—…and your decision to begin skipping material at page 8 of the 95-page work. Readers are welcome to examine both documents and judge the arguments from Scripture and the evidence” the latter portion of which refers to that I ended it with:
The rest of the 15-part series is basically a vicious looping circle over and over and over again—in fact, this was basically a one part 15-part series.
That is, with the exception of getting into the likes of things such as, “Antarctica and Inner Earth Theories” regarding, “Frozen Thrones and Hollow Shadows: Could the Nephilim Be Hidden in the Ends of the Earth?” and if you are interested in such tall-tales, see my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.
He titled his review You Cannot Review What You Refuse to Read and yet, I reviewed what I read. Since I am familiar with over two millennia worth of relevant data, including having perused circa 80 pop-Nephilology books, I focused on the main issues and left the rest for those who have an interest in reading and re-reading the same things over and over pepper with such theories.
My experience includes having discusses these issues with literally thousands of people and a running theme is that if I just read their take then I would finally see the error of my ways.
Well, again, I have been familiar enough with Nephilology, ranging from the academically scholarly level to what is merely sci-fi tall-tales that I am under no obligation to read an entire series, for example, to be able to touch upon the main points and let them speak for themselves—especially when a series if premised on fundamental level fallacies that are demonstrable without having to review the entire series.
He noted about my review, “I read his argument about Genesis 6:4. I read his treatment of Numbers 13:33. I read his remarks about the Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim, Emim, Zamzummim, Og, Goliath, the King James Bible, my educational background, my use of historical traditions, and the distinction he draws between pre-Flood Nephilim and post-Flood giants.” Likewise, I read his argument about Genesis 6:4. I read his treatment of Numbers 13:33. I read his remarks about the Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim, Emim, Zamzummim, Og, Goliath, the King James Bible, his educational background, his use of historical traditions, and the correlation he draws between pre-Flood Nephilim and post-Flood well, we will have to get to what he means by, “giants.”
He notes that at one point my review, “pronounces the remaining series a ‘vicious looping circle.’ He read far enough to become annoyed, skipped what remained, and then wrote the verdict before examining the evidence” yet, he emoted annoyance when I referred to how I discerned vicious circularity—in other words, his series could have been much more succinct if he just collated his points rather than peppering them in a piece-mean manner.
Recall that his promise is, “A Biblical Response” to which he added, “The issue is truth. The issue is Scripture” so that gives us a goal, a target, via which to discern if his views are truthfully biblical or not—my original review pointed out various ways that they are not.
He refers to, “The issue is whether the post-Flood record contains giant peoples connected in any meaningful way to the strange events of Genesis 6” in this case, I can only image that he is referring 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).
If he seeks to demonstrate something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average connected in any meaningful way to the strange events of Genesis 6 he will first have to demonstrate something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average in Gen 6.
Chapter Two is about how I noted, “Pastor Paul Tackett (Master’s degree in Pastoral Theology: the, ‘Meet Out Pastor’ section of the, ‘About’ page of his site does not state from where)” so he wrote circa 430 words on that. For some odd reason, he took me offering the credentials offered by his website as me attempting, “an insinuation: perhaps something about the educational background is incomplete, questionable, or intentionally concealed. A parenthesis can carry a knife,” etc., etc., etc. I just figured that if someone offers something about their education it is because they want it to be known and so rather than writing, “some guy named Paul Tackett” I referred to him as, “Pastor” and noted what his site noted about his education.
My readers know that I have also posted reviews of literally anonymous blog writers and my focus is, “A Biblical Response” since, “The issue is truth. The issue is Scripture” regardless of what, if any, credential anyone has or does not.
Chapter Three focuses on linguistics since:
A major portion of Ammi’s review objects to the word giants, repeatedly calling it vague, generic, subjective, modern, and nearly useless. He argues that I move among Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, mythological giants, unusually large humans, and metaphorical systems without defining the term at every appearance.
There is a legitimate caution buried beneath the repetition: an umbrella term can become confusing when several distinct categories are gathered underneath it.
A careful writer should clarify when giants refers specifically to the Hebrew Nephilim, when it represents Rephaim, when it concerns extraordinary stature, and when it functions thematically for powerful or hybrid figures in world traditions. I accept the usefulness of that distinction. Precision is not an enemy. A sharpened pencil writes better than a broom handle.
That was very well said and I consider it an important linguistics lesson learned—especially when in my original review, I noted the problem and how it negatively affects communication:
One instant issue is that since he jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to the modern generically subjective English word giants, we need to know what the usage is of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? We also need to know Pastor Tackett’s usage. And only then can we determine if those two usages agree.
Employing watered down terms makes it simple to pull a lot of strings together into a tangle web he weaves but forces the serious reader to have to do the work of attempting to figure out his meaning with every usage.
Now since his preference is reliance on some version of the King James Bible, he notes:
But Ammi’s remedy is worse than the ailment. The uses the English word giants. Genesis 6:4 says, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that.” Numbers 13:33 says, “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants.” Deuteronomy 2:11 says of the Emim, “Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims.” Deuteronomy 2:20 says of the Zamzummim, “That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time.” Deuteronomy 3:11 says, “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants.”
The word may represent different underlying Hebrew terms, but that does not make the English word useless. The word spirit has multiple biblical uses. The word world has multiple uses. The word law has multiple uses. Nobody throws them out of the dictionary because context must determine meaning. Context is not an inconvenience invented to rescue language; context is how language works.
The issue is that when one digs into any topic in detail one will need to dig in to detail, by definition, and just chasing a modern English word around a Hebrew Bible leads to correlating things that have nothing to do with each other.
For example, biblically contextually, “Genesis 6:4 says, ‘There were Nephilim in the earth in those days; and also after that.’ Numbers 13:33 says, ‘And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim.’ Deuteronomy 2:11 says of the Emim, ‘Which also were accounted Rephaim, as the Anakims.’ Deuteronomy 2:20 says of the Zamzummim, ‘That also was accounted a land of Rephaim: Rephaim dwelt therein in old time.’ Deuteronomy 3:11 says, ‘For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of Rephaim.’”
Those categorical distinctions are key in part since they are made by the Hebrew text.
He notes, “The series used giants in both a strict and an expanded sense. Strictly, the term referred to the beings identified in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33” thus, by definition, an entire series really only used giants regarding two sentences/verses.
Yet, “More broadly, it followed the King James Bible’s designation of Rephaim-related peoples and investigated whether giant traditions elsewhere preserved distorted memories of similar beings.” The problem is that, “Rephaim-related peoples” are not Nephilim-related peoples which makes his readers have to be hypervigilant in noting when his usages change since he does not alert them—and sadly, the tendency is the fallacy I noted: readers will not discern those changes but will just commit word-concept fallacies and mash everything together.
Now, does, “giant traditions elsewhere” regarding, “similar beings” refer to Rephaim-related peoples or Nephilim-related peoples? See, the vague word usage problems manifest already due to lack of specificity.
In short, the reason some Bibles, such as the KJVs, render (not translate) those terms as giants is because they are following the Septuagint’s/LXX’s lead since that version, for whatever unknown and not good idea reason, rendered Nephilim and Rephaim and also gibborim all as gigantes which means earth-born: rendering three different words with different etymologies, different morphologies, different meanings, etc., all with one word was simply not a good idea. What some English versions have done is to drop rendering gibborim as such and only refer Nephilim and Rephaim as giants.
In terms of his broader context, he rightly noted, “A Greek Titan is not proved to be a biblical Nephilim merely because both traditions involve extraordinary beings. A red-haired giant tradition in Nevada does not become a verse in Numbers by wearing a large sandal,” etc.
Chapter Four is fascinatingly titled, “Genesis 6:4 and the Four Words That Would Not Stay Buried” which is fascinating since myopically hyper-focusing on, “Four Words” is the problem”: “the Four Words That” should not be isolated by being cut off of the complete sentence, complete verse, the complete thoughts, the immediate and greater context, which give them meaning.
Coming to a conclusion from the text as I did, Pastor Paul Tackett wrote:
The central textual dispute concerns Genesis 6:4: “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.” Ammi argues that “after that” refers only to continued unions occurring after the first unions but still before the Flood. He insists that inserting the Flood into the phrase is artificial because the Flood is not explicitly introduced until later in the chapter.
That is an interpretation. It is not a grammatical commandment descending from Sinai on a separate stone. The verse identifies giants “in those days” and “also after that,” then explains their association with the sons of God entering the daughters of men. The precise reach of “after that” must be interpreted from the larger biblical record, not settled by repeatedly declaring another reading incoherent.
The series interpreted “also after that” in light of the post-Flood appearance of the same English term and the biblical record of extraordinary giant peoples in Canaan. That interpretation may be challenged, but it was not created by cutting a verse in half and fleeing the scene. The full verse was cited in the study. The phrase was emphasized because it raises the question that later passages appear to answer.
Ammi accuses me of “cheating” by reading ahead and connecting Genesis 6 with subsequent biblical history. Reading ahead is otherwise known as studying the Bible. The Holy Ghost did not place Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Samuel, and Chronicles in soundproof rooms. Scripture compares with Scripture. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:13, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” When a rare designation appears before the Flood and again in Canaan, examining the relationship is not cheating; it is the job.
Note the very specific points, “inserting the Flood into the phrase is artificial because” it is an artificial insertion since, “the Flood is not explicitly introduced until later in the chapter” and because the sentence/verse/thought does not end at, “after that” but with what he quoted, “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them…” which points us back to vss. 1-2 since that is what told us the timeline, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.”
We will see that there is no, “larger biblical record”: for now, ponder whether, “the post-Flood appearance of the same English term” means that a word was repeated or whether they whom the word represents were alive, on the ground, at that time.
Note also his reference to, “extraordinary giant peoples”: does he mean, “extraordinary Nephilim peoples” or, “extraordinary Rephaim peoples” or, “extraordinary something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average peoples”?
So, quoting what we now term Gen 6:4 in full does not negate that it is cut in half when claiming that it points forward in time when it actually points backward first and then forward until the flood.
He notes that, “Ammi accuses me of ‘cheating’ by reading ahead and connecting Genesis 6 with subsequent biblical history.” Rather, I specifically noted, “As for, ‘What happened after the flood?’ lots of things but he is ignoring what the text states and is artificially inserting the flood into it. In fact, he is at v. 4 but the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later: v. 17. So, he cheated: he read ahead, looped back, cut v. 4 in half, ignored what it states, and inserted the flood into a verse that does not even hint of any such thing.”
Indeed, “Ammi also argues that five passages [Gen 7:7, 23; Heb 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20 and 2 Peter 2:5] identify the Flood survivors and do not include Nephilim. That observation defeats one possible theory—that living pre-Flood Nephilim walked onto the ark beside Noah carrying luggage, but it does not defeat every possible mechanism of post-Flood recurrence.”
Pastor Paul Tackett’s view seems to be that God made it crystal clear that Nephilim did not survived the flood but they somehow came back. Thus, God seems to have been assuring us that He did not fail in one way, He did not miss one loophole, His flood was not much of a waste in one way, but He did fail, missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste in some other un-biblical way.
When we put theology proper fist, we instantly discern that God did not fail, did not miss any loopholes, the flood was not much of a waste, and there is not a single reliable reason to even invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about post-flood Nephilim—more on this to come.
His view is that God flooded the planet, at least in part, to be rid of Nephilim but they just came right back. He argues, “The original series explicitly stated that ‘the mechanism remains debated’” since there is not even any hint of any such thing (at least not until wild speculation in terms of folklore from centuries after the Torah, nearing AD days), “and mentioned possibilities including another incursion or transmission through a human bloodline…A second incursion fits the pattern of Genesis 6 more naturally than a giant hiding….”
This is the point at which post-flood Nephilologists make up stuff and then demand that if their speculations are not discredited then they are cogent—or at least the best options for supporting that something we have no indication of ever happening happened.
It is not merely a case of that, “the mechanism remains debated” but that any mechanism must be invented is the hurdle his speculations cannot surpass: again, more to come, there is not reliable reason to even invent such stories.
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days, and tell us that those sons of God/Angels were incarcerated. Now, they do not tell us when they were incarcerated but since the flood was when God was cleaning house, as it were, then it would have been during the flood or before it.
He notes, “Nobody argues that because only eight people survived the Flood, idolatry, murder, sorcery, and rebellion could never appear again” but the issue is that we know idolatry, murder, sorcery, and rebellion appear again (although he is merely presupposing that idolatry and sorcery existed pre-flood) is because we are reliably told of post-flood idolatry, murder, sorcery, and rebellion. We are not, however, reliable told of post-flood Nephilim—stand by.
Chapter Five brings us to when you can stop standing by since it deals with the mother of all post-flood Nephology texts (single sentence, actually), the very statement that then causes them to backtrack all the way to Gen 6 and misread, misinterpret, misunderstand, and misapply, “Four Words.”
He notes:
The “Evil Report” Did Not Turn Every Noun into a Lie
Ammi’s principal answer to Numbers 13:33 is that the statement came from the ten unbelieving spies who brought an “evil report.” Therefore, he treats their identification of the sons of Anak with the giants as unreliable and insists that nearly all post-Flood Nephilim teaching rests upon one sentence spoken by rebuked men. That sounds formidable until the rest of the Bible is allowed into the courtroom.
Well, an, “identification of the sons of Anak with the” Rephaim is quite biblical since Deut 2 does just that: they were like a clan of that tribe. Yet, he meant, “identification of the sons of Anak with the” Nephilim. Unfortunately, he ignores something I noted in my review which was, “He comments, ‘The Anakim—direct descendants of the Nephilim’ which is only based on non-LXX versions of that one sentence since the LXX lacks any mention of Anakim in that verse.”
The rest of this review Chapter notes:
Yes, the ten spies were unbelieving. Yes, they exaggerated Israel’s helplessness. Yes, they discouraged the congregation and contradicted God’s promise. The evil in their report was not that every city, inhabitant, grape, wall, mountain, and tribal name had been invented. The evil was that they used the real obstacles to deny the power and promise of God. Their conclusion was false: “We be not able to go up against the people” (Numbers 13:31). Caleb’s answer was not, “There are no Anakim.” His answer was, “Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it” (Numbers 13:30).
Moses later describes the land without depending upon the ten spies’ grasshopper comparison. Deuteronomy 1:28 recounts the people saying, “The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.” More decisively, Deuteronomy 9:2 identifies “a people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!”
Moses does not correct the existence, identity, or formidable stature of the Anakim. He corrects Israel’s unbelief by declaring, “Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them” (Deuteronomy 9:3). The unbelievers said, “They are great; therefore God cannot.” Moses said, “They are great; nevertheless God will.” The error was not seeing giants. The error was seeing giants and forgetting God.
Joshua 11:21–22 then records that Joshua “cut off the Anakims from the mountains” and that none remained in Israel’s land except in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. That geographical remnant matters because Goliath later comes from Gath. The Bible does not need the ten spies to preserve the existence of the Anakim, their unusual reputation, their geographical placement, or their survival in Philistine territory.
Numbers 13:33 is not floating alone in a vacuum like a loose page blown out of a bad man’s notebook. It belongs to a network of passages. Ammi may still argue that the ten spies falsely connected the Anakim directly to the Nephilim. That is the actual point of debate. But saying the entire post-Flood giant case rests on one evil sentence is like saying the doctrine of resurrection rests only on the testimony of frightened women because they happened to reach the tomb first. The witness must be evaluated, but the rest of the record does not disappear.
Granted, someone can be an unfaithful, disloyal, unreliable, contradictory, embellisher (as the 10 were) but still make a true statement but someone can be an unfaithful, disloyal, unreliable, contradictory, embellisher and make untrue statements. Thus, the issue is whether what they claimed in Num 13:32-33 was true or not—there is not even one single verse in the whole Bible that supports any of their five mere assertions, see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal—which I am currently updating.
I wonder if he ignored Nephilim and hyper-focused on Anakim at this point since he can show ample evidence for Anakim but zero for Nephilim. The existence of Anakim in the land is a non-issue, the mere assertion one single time by a mere 10 utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked is the issue.
Sadly, since he hyper-focused on a non-issue, Pastor Paul Tackett missed a noteworthy point in Deut 1: Moses refers to the Num 13 event and mentions Anakim but does not say a single word about Nephilim: he was too practical, he was concerned about the real dangers on the ground such as the notorious Anakim and not about some tall-tale about Nephilim.
Just a few notes of clarity, “taller than we” means taller than 5.0-5.3ft since that was the average height of Israeli males. Thus, here, “giants” either means, “Rephaim” when correlating Anakim with them or, “taller than 5.0-5.3ft” by some unknown margin—it is not as exciting as writing about, “formidable stature…giants” but they are the sober facts.
Indeed, “The Bible does not need the ten spies to preserve the existence of the Anakim” and making that an issue is to argue contra a straw-man.
Indeed, the issue is non-LXX versions having, “ten spies falsely connected the Anakim directly to the Nephilim. That is the actual point of debate.”
By, “post-Flood giant case” does he mean, “post-Flood Nephilim case” or, “post-Flood Rephaim-Anakim case” or, “post-Flood taller than 5.0-5.3ft case”?
The demonstrable fact that it, “rests on one evil sentence” is because it does: no one in the whole entire rest of the Bible mentions Nephilim.
Chapter Six keeps us focused on vaguely generic mis-directions with:
The Post-Flood Giant Record Is Larger Than One Verse
Deuteronomy 2 refuses to cooperate with the claim that the post-Flood giant subject is manufactured from Numbers 13:33 alone. Concerning the Emim, the Bible says, “The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims” (Deuteronomy 2:10–11). Concerning the land of Ammon, it says, “That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims” (Deuteronomy 2:20–21).
These statements are not spoken by the ten spies. They are not part of the evil report. They are inspired historical explanations delivered through Moses. They identify giant peoples, compare them with the Anakim, and describe them as great, numerous, and tall. The critic may debate their genetic relationship to Genesis 6, but he cannot honestly reduce their existence to one unreliable sentence.
Deuteronomy 3:11 adds Og king of Bashan: “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants.” His iron bedstead measured nine cubits by four cubits “after the cubit of a man.” Ammi argues that the object may have been ritual rather than a sleeping bed and therefore tells us nothing certain about Og’s height. That interpretation does not remove the inspired description that Og remained “of the remnant of giants.” Even if his furniture were ceremonial, the label remains. Later, 2 Samuel 21 and 1 Chronicles 20 describe warriors “born to the giant in Gath,” including one with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. Scripture is not merely describing an unusually tall basketball team that wandered into Palestine. It presents recurring lines, locations, physical peculiarities, and tribal memories grouped beneath the language of giants.
Here a distinction must be maintained. The existence of post-Flood giants is explicit in the King James Bible. The exact biological relationship of every Rephaite, Anakite, Emite, Zamzummite, Philistine champion, and pre-Flood Nephilim is interpretive. My series argued for significant continuity; Ammi argues for absolute separation. Neither man should smuggle his conclusion into the definition and then announce victory. He repeatedly says there is “literally zero correlation” between pre-Flood Nephilim and post-Flood Rephaim.
But Numbers 13:33, in the Bible I use and teach, expressly places Nephilim and sons of Anak in the same statement. He eliminates that correlation by declaring the statement unreliable. I accept the statement while distinguishing its factual observations from the unbelieving conclusion built upon them. That is the disagreement. The battlefield is not empty merely because one side has planted a sign saying, “Nothing happened here.”
At least now you can see why I did not review his entire series since it is much like this: this is already covered ground repeated with just a few de novo words added and those few words do not add substance.
By, “The Post-Flood Giant Record Is Larger Than One Verse” does he mean well, you know?
Note what he did here: he asserts, “Deuteronomy 2 refuses to cooperate with the claim that the post-Flood giant subject is manufactured from Numbers 13:33 alone” because it tells us that Zamzummim is an a.k.a. for Rephaim and that Emim and Anakim were like clans of that tribe. Did you notice the missing data point? It does not say one single word about Nephilim It does not correlate them—no one reliably does, nothing does, never, ever.
In order to imagine that it does, and imagination is all it is, his procedure is 1) ignore textual issues, 2) uncritically pick up, run with, and apply a KJV version of the utterly unreliable Num 13:33, 3) take that highly questionable reference to Anakim, 4) expand that unreliable reference to one clan and apply it to a whole tribe.Do you see how Num 13:33 is the mother of all post-flood Nephology texts? It becomes a hermeneutic, a worldview, a philosophy, a lens via which to read everything else—it is actually a case of hermeneutic (mis-reading comprehension in this case), a worldview (all-encompassing), a philosophy (actually mis-philosophy), a (dirty, scratched up) lens via which to (mis) read everything else into a grand and un-biblical fantasy tall-tale narrative.
The only thing he said about the actual issue is a dismissive, “may debate their genetic relationship to Genesis 6” without which, “reduce their existence” is a non-issue since to whom, “their” refers is the issue, it is the genetic relationship issue that he conveniently sidestepped in order to conquer Don Quixote-like giants that do not exist, that are not an issue.
Note that in order to argue contra, “tells us nothing certain about Og’s height” he employes an un-biblical usage of giant as having something to do with height. As I noted in my review, “the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (does not even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.” Thus, his sometimes usage does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage.
Yet, perhaps he meant, “That interpretation does not remove the inspired description that Og remained ‘of the remnant of giants’” taller than 5.0-5.3ft (even though the Hebrew text has it telling us that he was the remnant of Rephaim). Recall that I noted, “If he seeks to demonstrate something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average connected in any meaningful way to the strange events of Genesis 6 he will first have to demonstrate something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average in Gen 6.”
Yet, the only way he did that is via implication that his reliance upon the mother of all post-flood Nephilology texts has them as very, very, very tall. Well, that only means that, “the dirty little secret is that since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue—and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales” which I wrote in my review.
Thus, even if we grant that Og was however tall someone wants to make him via no physical description of him, the issue becomes: what of it?
It is as much of a non-issue as that, “2 Samuel 21 and 1 Chronicles 20 describe warriors ‘born to the” Repha, “in Gath,’ including one with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot.” Yes, Goliath had sons and one exhibited a genetic mutation: what of it?
As for, “recurring lines” of Rephaim, not Nephilim, “locations” where no one who is reliable placed Nephilim, “physical peculiarities” such as being taller than 5.0-5.ft and one single person having extra digits, “and tribal memories grouped beneath the language of giants” which can only happen millennia after the fact once English was invented and someone started rendering using the term giants. Again, not as exciting but factual.
If we are just chasing the term giants around a modern English Bible then, sure, “The existence of post-Flood giants is explicit in the King James Bible” since one would be hyper-focused on looking at a word, looking for a word, mashing every text in which that word appears into a manufactured artificial narrative regardless of original context.
Yes, “The exact biological relationship of every Rephaite, Anakite, Emite, Zamzummite, Philistine champion” is premised on what Deut 2 explicitly told us but nothing has anything to do with, “pre-Flood Nephilim.”
Note his assertion that I, “repeatedly says there is ‘literally zero correlation’ between pre-Flood Nephilim and post-Flood Rephaim” but that was only the case one single time:
Note that now, giants refers to, “Rephaim, Emim, and Anakim.” Well, what he has done, without informing his audience, is two switch categories and usages of the term giants: 1) Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim (by any other name) were strictly post-flood humans, and there is zero correlation between them and so 2) there is literally zero correlation between that tribe and those clans and pre-flood Nephilim.
Then there are these only two other similar instances of, “there is literally zero reliable indication…we have zero reliable indication” and I do attempt to be careful enough to always add the qualifier reliable since well, recall that I noted, “We will see that there is no, ‘larger biblical record’: for now, ponder whether, ‘the post-Flood appearance of the same English term’ means that a word was repeated or whether they whom the word represents were alive, on the ground, at that time.” See, I can refer to the first POTUS George Washinton right now and claim that I just saw him alive but that is merely a case of the same English name, not a case of him being alive, on the ground, at this time.
Pastor Paul Tackett’s fundamental error is to turn one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked into his hermeneutic-worldview-philosophy—lens and view all (relevant) things via it.
Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible affirm, for example, Anakim in the land but never say one single word about post-flood Nephilim beyond recording one single unreliable sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: as for me and my house, we will side with Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible.
Thus, that, “Numbers 13:33, in the Bible I use and teach, expressly places Nephilim and sons of Anak in the same statement” is a non-issue (well, besides the textual issue that he ignores). As for, “declaring the statement unreliable” well, declaring is an odd way to refer to pointing out many data points.
Anyone appealing to Num 13:33 needs to mention that they are relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions
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 aforementioned Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Unless someone can successfully counter-argue against these seven points (and many more in my chapter sample) they would be the ones merely declaring. It is not enough to merely point to a Hebrew word, then switch to an English word, then chase that word around, and then defeat a straw-man.
Key hermeneutical questions are: who said it, why was it said, what was the reaction to it, was it accurate, etc.
No Bible believer really thinks that if it is in the Bible then it is true since, for example, Satan’s lies are in the Bible: we believe they are lies, we do not believe the lies. Likewise, the mere assertions of the 10 are in the Bible: we believe they are mere assertions, we ought not to believe the mere assertions.
As for, “Nothing happened here” no, rather, a lot happened there: the original report in Num 13 which is accepted as factual by all was concerning since it noted whom they actually saw in the land: Anakim, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites (the 10 later embellished by merely asserting seeing Nephilim: which turns the reliable Caleb and Joshua into being unreliable).
Chapter Seven loops back to the flood—already covered ground again, just expanding a point he already made. He noted:
God Did Not Fail Because Evil Appeared After Judgment
Ammi repeatedly claims that post-Flood Nephilim teaching makes God fail. According to his framing, if Nephilim or related corruption appeared after the Flood, then God missed a loophole, wasted the Flood, or needed Israel to finish a task He could not complete.
I am unsure to what, “or related corruption” refers but his point is that, “God’s judgment at one point in history does not require that the judged sin become metaphysically impossible forever afterward. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, yet sexual perversion did not vanish from the earth” and on it goes.
Again, we know those things continued because we are reliably told they continued, we do not know that Nephilim continued or began anew because there is literally zero reliable indicationof that and only one gigantically problematic utterly unreliable sentence that it did.
In Chapter Eight he notes:
One of the most important distinctions in the entire discussion is the difference between biblical statement, interpretive conclusion, historical correlation, and speculative possibility. My series did not always place flashing road signs between those categories, and some sentences should be tightened if the work is revised. But the distinctions are present.
When it comes down to it, it is hardly an issue if a certain assertions is to be categorized as, “biblical statement, interpretive conclusion, historical correlation, and speculative possibility” since the assertions are either viable or not. Thus, when he presents speculative possibility it is still an open question as to whether the speculative possibility is or is not an actual positivity, whether or not it is cogent regardless of how one may categorize it.
He referenced, “The study says the mechanism of post-Flood recurrence ‘remains debated’” with the primary issues being whether it happened at all and why even begin to imagine that it did rather than seeing who can invent the best tall-tale.
Thus, “Nimrod ‘may have been’ hybrid or Nephilim-empowered…Babel ‘may have functioned’ as a launch point” are just that, they are may have beens but does that mean that logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible things are to be seriously considered just because they are not presented as dogma? Of course not, if anything they deserved added layers of scrutiny such as asking: why speculate about such things in the first place?
There is always a place of speculation, when we speculate we ought to stated it outright (he agrees on this), speculation is to be kept as close to the vest (the source material, the reliable data) as it can stay, and speculation should be reasonably coherent, cogent, and viable.
Chapter Nine refers to, “Ridicule” which is a category in which he puts, “expressions such as ‘un-biblical fantasy tall-tales,’ ‘neo-theo sci-fi,’ ‘dangerous incoherence,’ and similar dismissive labels” but I only referred to un-biblical fantasy tall-tales, neo-theo sci-fi, and dangerous incoherence as being un-biblical fantasy tall-tales, neo-theo sci-fi, and dangerous incoherence. For some reason, he follows that with a chapter about sarcasm but those were not sarcastic remarks, they were just calling it as it is.
He wrote:
The most excessive portion of the review is the attempt to connect questions about corrupted bloodlines with the historical danger of mass and serial murder. The series asked whether ancient bloodline traditions and spiritual influences might persist. Ammi answered that such ideas imply some humans are not human and have historically led to murder, even referring readers to a chapter he titled “Nephil Kampf.”
That is not a measured warning; it drags an investigation into giant traditions toward the shadow of genocidal ideology without demonstrating that I advocated violence against anyone. I did not. The New Testament command is explicit: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12). Christians are not commissioned to identify suspicious families, draw bloodline maps, or harm people suspected of carrying anything. The weapons of our warfare are spiritual, and the Gospel is offered to sinners without a genealogy test at the door.
The assertion of post-flood Nephilim, “corrupted bloodlines…ancient bloodline traditions” does, in fact, “imply some humans are not human” and it more than implies it: that, speculation or not, is blunt. And my point was not that he personally, “advocated violence against anyone” but noted the demonstrable fact that, “historically, that has led to mass and serial murder” just ask so many that suffered and were murdered by Atheist Communists, for example, since on an Atheistic evolutionary view they were not mass and serial murdering humans but less evolved sub-humans.
But as for those who do imply and outright teach that Christians will have to wipe out not fully human people, such is why I wrote the terrible to research and write chapter 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.
I undertook that most unpleasant task because such is a theme amongst some militant post-flood Nephilologists.
He noted:
The review ends with an extensive catalog of Ammi’s own books dealing with angels, demons, Nephilim, giants, Og, Enoch, paranormal entities, and related subjects. There is nothing inherently wrong with referencing one’s prior work when it contains supporting arguments. I have books and studies too.
But the effect is worth noticing: the reviewer dismisses most of another man’s ninety-five pages after skipping them, then directs the reader to a shelf of his own treatments as the place where the subject has presumably been handled correctly. That is not a neutral observer wandering through the field. That is a competing shopkeeper reviewing the store across the street and stapling his catalog to the verdict. His books may contain valuable research. They may also contain errors. Their existence does not make his interpretation self-authenticating any more than my degrees make mine.
Note that, “the effect” is Pastor Paul Tackett doing what in philosophy is called making a psychological report: he is telling us his emotively subjective reaction to me writing, “For more details, see my relevant books…”
The point about a neutral observer is a styled genetic fallacy since the issue is the data, not whether or not I am a neutral observer. Yet, I will note that a neutral observer can come to the same conclusions that I have when properly handling the relevant linguistics and texts. As for, “self-authenticating” well, the way I would put that is that I have proposed my view to literally thousands of people and they are incapable of presenting defeaters. I have been told thousands of times that Gen 6:4 teaches post-flood Nephilim as does Num 13:33—it is a literal mantra for some—but when it comes to actually examining those assertions, there is nothing to them but cutting texts in half, relying on the unreliable, and chasing the word giants around.
Chapter Ten brings us to the point of, “A Biblical Response…The issue is truth. The issue is Scripture” as it is titled, “Let the Bible, the Evidence, and the Full Record Be Read” and not just speculations so we will go point as makes sense:
His view: “My central position remains that Genesis 6 records a real supernatural incursion, that the sons of God were not merely pious boys from Seth’s Sunday school class, that their union with the daughters of men produced the giants named in the text, and that the post-Flood record contains giant peoples whose relationship to the Genesis 6 event deserves serious investigation.”
My view: my central position remains that Genesis 6 records a real supernatural (I would go with paranormal but that is a technical issue) incursion, that the sons of God were not merely pious boys from Seth’s Sunday school class, that their union with the daughters of men produced the Nephilim named in the text, and that the post-Flood record giant peoples whose relationship to the Genesis 6 event deserves serious investigation”—an investigation that determined no biological nor second incursion related relationship.
His view: “Numbers 13:33 supplies an explicit verbal connection in the King James Bible. Deuteronomy 2 independently describes the Emim and Zamzummim as peoples great, numerous, tall, and accounted giants like the Anakim. Deuteronomy 3 identifies Og as remaining of the remnant of giants. Joshua 11 traces surviving Anakim to Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. Samuel and Chronicles record giant warriors from Gath. Those passages do not prove every global migration theory in my series. They do prove that post-Flood giantology is not constructed from one lonely sentence with nothing beneath it but imagination.”
My view: “Numbers 13:33 supplies an explicit verbal connection in the King James Bible” that has nothing to do with any biological nor second incursion related relationship. “Deuteronomy 2 independently describes the Emim and Zamzummim as peoples great, numerous, tall, and accounted giants (Rephaim) like the Anakim. Deuteronomy 3 identifies Og as remaining of the remnant of giants (Rephaim). Joshua 11 traces surviving Anakim to Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. Samuel and Chronicles record giant (Rephaim) warriors from Gath. Those passages do not prove any global migration theory in his series. They do prove that post-Flood giantology is not constructed from one lonely sentence with nothing beneath it but imagination if and only if we understand that, “post-Flood giantology” refers only to Rephaim a.k.a. Zamzummim, Anakim and Emim only, not including Nephilim in any way, shape or form.
His view: “My broader historical and prophetic proposals remain proposals to be tested. Global accounts of giants, demigods, divine kings, hybrid beings, extraordinary architecture, forbidden knowledge, and flood memories are not automatically biblical confirmations. They may preserve distorted memories, reflect ordinary mythmaking, combine historical recollection with pagan theology, or arise through several causes at once. Claims concerning archaeological suppression, unusual remains, elite bloodlines, Antarctica, transhumanism, and AI require evidence proportional to their size. Where evidence is incomplete, the language should remain investigative. But Christians should not surrender the field merely because secular institutions or irritated specialists have placed a “No Trespassing” sign around the question. First Thessalonians 5:21 does not say, “Mock all things.” It says, “Prove all things.” Proof requires open Bibles, open records, careful distinctions, and enough patience to finish the paper before reviewing it.”
My view: his, “broader historical and prophetic proposals remain proposals” have been, “tested” and failed the, “Biblical Response…truth…Scripture…Let the Bible, the Evidence, and the Full Record Be Read” test.
“Global accounts of” to whatever, “giants” refers in this case, “demigods, divine kings, hybrid beings, extraordinary architecture, forbidden knowledge, and flood memories are not automatically biblical confirmations. They may preserve distorted memories, reflect ordinary mythmaking, combine historical recollection with pagan theology, or arise through several causes at once” but may be memories of real events spread abroad post-tower of Babel and recorded in the Bible.
“Claims concerning archaeological suppression, unusual remains, elite bloodlines, Antarctica, transhumanism, and AI require evidence proportional to their size” and, “Where evidence is incomplete, the language should remain investigative” and the investigations may determine that certain assertions and/or speculations can be disproved, at which time they can be categorized with labels such as un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
“But Christians should not surrender” to whatever, “the field” refers (plural fields seems more apropos), “merely because secular institutions or irritated specialists have placed a ‘No Trespassing’ sign around the question” or because un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales proponents will not accept their dogma being debunked—why do you think that I can only think of one single top pop-Nephilologists who has ever debated their views live (and he, Gary Wayne, debated me).
“First Thessalonians 5:21 does not say, ‘Mock all things.’ It says, ‘Prove all things.’ Proof requires open Bibles, open records, careful distinctions, and enough patience to finish the paper before reviewing it” which is what I have done for many, many, many years now.
We now come to the Conclusion of his review:
Ken Ammi had every right to disagree with Scattered Giants: Nephilim Migration Maps. He had the right to argue that “and also after that” remains pre-Flood, that Numbers 13:33 contains an unreliable identification, that Rephaim were ordinary post-Flood humans, that Og’s bed was ceremonial, that global giant traditions are unrelated, and that modern technological parallels are speculative.
Those are legitimate areas of debate. What he did not have was a sound methodological basis for dismissing a ninety-five-page series after announcing on page eight that he would begin skipping. The title says “Review,” but the document becomes a rebuttal to selected early claims followed by a summary judgment over largely unread material. A review that refuses to review is a weather report written with the curtains closed.
I only, “argue that ‘and also after that’ remains pre-Flood” because the cut off portion of the statement denotes that it remains pre-Flood.
I only argue that, “Numbers 13:33 contains an unreliable identification” because every indication—logical, textual, contextual, etc., etc., etc.—denotes that it is an unreliable identification.
Indeed, every indication is that the people group, “Rephaim were ordinary post-Flood humans.”
Every indication is that, “Og’s bed was ceremonial” but even if we can derive his height from it, it is a non-Nephilim related issue.
Does, “global giant traditions” mean, “global Nephilim traditions” or, “global Rephaim traditions” or, “global something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial aver traditions”? Without the answer to that, we cannot discuss if they, “are unrelated.”
As for, “modern technological parallels are speculative” well, they are speculative although due to my familiarity with issues such as Transhumanism, I would be willing to refer to certain modern technological parallels (although I am quite unsure how modern technology can parallel anything in the reliable pre-flood record) can be generally categorized as another attempt to dehumanize humanity—from made in the image of God to Satanically inspired remade, or un-made, in our own distorted image: my relevant books are The Golden Golem Goal: From Organism to Transhumanism—On the Tangled Web of Occult Mystical Alchemy and High Tech Transhumanist Chemistry and Transhuman Hollywood: From Normative Fiction to Predictive Programming.
While, “Those are legitimate areas of debate” at some point post-flood Nephilologists should accept that the debates have been had, they lost, and their view is not legitimate—nor logical, nor bio-logical, nor theo-logical.
Granted, someone can come to correct conclusions based on faulty premises yet, faulty premises are indicative of faulty conclusions. He also keeps implying that since I did not write a review of his whole series then I did not read his series. One of the most important aspects of his series, as a whole is something he noted and I appreciate him doing so:
Ammi notices some of those qualifiers, quotes them, and then complains that later passages sometimes move into categorical language. On that limited point, he has identified something worth improving.
When a long series develops from biblical exposition into historical theory and prophetic application, the writer should consistently tell readers which ground they are standing on. “The Bible says” must never become interchangeable with “this pattern may suggest.”
The issue is that he would intro a subject with speculative qualifiers but when he circled back to them they were suddenly being stated as certainties. What this caused is a styled line of dominoes such that if I was able to debunk the speculations then the certainties fell down the line and there was no need for me to chase down every topic to which he came back again and again—it was a literal case of self-defeating.
My, “sound methodological basis” was my familiarity with over two millennia worth of relevant data that has assisted me in discerning the main foundations without which that which was to be built atop it fails.
Example, one of his main points was to plot post-flood Nephilim migration yet, since there were no post-flood Nephilim then there could not have been any post-flood Nephilim migrations by definition. Thus, there is no point is reviewing assertions about post-flood Nephilim migrations when no such thing was possible.
And in the end, we see that he has sadly missed the point in asserting, “The educational parenthesis did not settle Genesis” but reading it for what it states did.
“The repeated ridicule did not erase Deuteronomy” but reading that and noticing zero reference to correlations to Nephilim did.
“The appeal to the evil report did not make the Anakim disappear from Moses and Joshua” nor was that ever an issue: he merely created a straw-man and successfully debunked his own misguided creation.
“The charge that God must have failed did not account for the biblical pattern of judgments followed by later recurrences of evil” since that is irrelevant due to that no reliable indication of a recurrence of Nephilim exists—such is why he can only ever appeal to Num 13:33 for post-flood Nephilim.
“The accusation of dangerous bloodline thinking did not fairly represent a work that nowhere commands violence against any human being” nor was any such thing stated rather, general remarks were made about where some have applied such misguided ideas.
“And the long list of the critic’s own books did not transform his interpretation into the Authorized Version” nor where they meant to.
“When the smoke clears, the reader is left with two competing approaches: one that investigates a broad pattern and sometimes reaches beyond what can be established, and one that narrows the field so aggressively that inconvenient connections are declared impossible before the investigation is complete. One approach needs tighter guardrails. The other needs to read past page eight.”
Rather, “When the smoke” made by the post-flood Nephilim assertion, “clears” when someone comes along and blows it away, “one that investigates a broad pattern” by purposefully or not manipulating texts, watering down tentatively employed terminology and jumping from speculation to certainty. And one that follows the narrows path of the biblical teaching which is that Nephilim lived pre-flood, did not make it past the flood, did not return post-flood, centuries post-flood 10 unreliable guys made up a tall-tale, there is no indication of even any reliable reason to invent post-flood Nephilim tales and that, based on pseudo-connections being declared impossible after familiarity with over two millennia of relevant data.
Pastor Paul Tackett notes, “where the Bible speaks, let no critic silence it with a smirk” nor let any speculator turn un-biblical tall-tales which damage theology proper talk one into accepting such tales.
Indeed, “where the text raises a question, let no specialist bury it beneath terminology” and where the text raises a question, let no speculator keep asserting that the only answer is un-biblical tall-tales which are buried beneath watered down terminology from a language that came along millennia after the fact and/or committing word-concept fallacies.
And, “where a man publishes a verdict over material he admits he skipped, let” the reader understand his statement about why he skipped—the writing portion even when his last line is, “you cannot honestly review what you refused to read” and yet, I did, he was found wanting, and will only correct qualifying terms rather than his failed un-biblical post-flood Nephilim theory.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
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