As you will see, hereinafter is a discussion—styled debate—that commenced due to my posting a review of Pastor George Lujack teaching.
I, Ken Ammi, contacted him and noted:
I pray I find you well,
In the name of sharpening iron with iron, I thought to note that I published an article titled
Pastor George Lujack:
Greetings Ken.
That above was the most scholarly and lengthy review of any of my works anyone has done thus far.
As for, “Some claim that these giants were the offspring of angels mating with human women” well that is a mashing up of categories again since Nephilim were, “offspring of angels mating with human women” …
In this statement you offer nothing to support your assertion: “since Nephilim were, “offspring of angels mating with human woman” …
Moreover, and most importantly, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
Here you make a claim and you offer no support for it, except citing your book. Furthermore, it appears that you are purposely conflating angels with demons. Demons have been cursed.
Faced with this, some (as Lujack does) opt for merely asserting that Angels take on human bodies when they interact with us but there is literally zero biblical indication of that.
HEBREWS 13:2:
Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.
After one rejects that they were Angels, sure, one can then conclude, “not classified as hybrids, a crossbreed between angels and men” but that is the point of contention and we have seen various examples of how his rejection is premised on various fallacies.
What “various fallacies? You make wild claims, as others do, because I am attacking your boogeyman idol: Nephilim hybrids. It is you who has the fallacy, which happens to be a pre-existing belief.
Prebelief generally refers to an opinion, assumption, or conviction that a person forms in advance, prior to experiencing an event or receiving full factual information. It acts as a mental expectation, judgment, or bias that influences how an individual perceives a new situation.
The term is often conceptually tied to related phrases:
- Pre-existing belief: An opinion or mindset someone holds before encountering new evidence or information.
- Cognitive Bias: Psychological phenomena (like confirmation bias) where pre-existing beliefs cause people to favor information that confirms their established views.
If you want to believe in the Nephilim boogeyman, no amount of rightly explained Scripture will alter your belief.
As for, “God would have had to have permitted it” well, is it not up to Lujack to demand what God would and would not allow: would God not allow Adam and Eve to eat from the forbidden tree that He, Himself, put in the garden?
Here you are purposely conflating God permitting man free will to sin and demons being able to take on human flesh and attack human women, rape them (eh, through marriage) and have hybrid children with them.
You omitted the part about Satan roaming the Earth, who obviously hates God’s most righteous – in this case Job, and Satan NEEDING PERMISSION to mess with Job’s life.
Satan did not personally do anything to Job, as Satan is a spirit being, but Satan saw to it that other human beings destroyed Job’s life, but Satan did not have permission to kill Job.
So, it is you who makes the wild assumption, presumption really, that God let demons have their way with human women – no permission necessary – but somehow Satan needed permission to mess with Job’s life.
What would be even worse is the presumption that God would have given demons permission to mate with human women. Why would God do such a thing?
So it is not “Lujack” who “demands” what God will and will not allow. It is SCRIPTURE EXAMPLES and God’s goodness.
GENESIS 9:2:
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand.
Genesis 9:2 does NOT exclude demons.
Yeshua (Jesus) further stated this.
LUKE 10:20:
“Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.”
You Nephilim-hybrid people got it ass-backwards. You believe that human women are subject, as physical prey, to demons.
Some of you people believe that in the end-times, the demons will return and once again mate with human women, such as various authors who write a boogeyman books, “The Return of the Nephilim.”
Ooh, I’m so scared – NOT! The demons are subject to me, in the name of Yeshua (Jesus)!
Indeed, “Kinds reproduce after their own kinds” but he is stating that based on his faulty Angelology, “The spirit-kind cannot mate and impregnate mankind” while oddly, at the same time admitting, “It can be argued that angels and humans are the same kind of being” yet then falling back on the fallacy that, “angels are spirit beings and humans are flesh and blood beings” so that then, on his view, how can we possibly still be, “the same kind of being.”
Meaning the same kind of overall appearance but composed of different matter.
I already noted how he has not informed his readers about everyone to whom man/men applies so that, “Nephilim…were men…therefore not the hybrid crossbreed” is a non-sequitur of a faulty conclusion based on a myopic premise.
I had a good laugh at that description and dismissal. It is not a “faulty conclusion based on a myopic premis.” Aah, the scholarly talk. I bet you spent some time coming up with that line.
GENESIS 6:4:
There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6:4 states that the giants were MEN, not hybrids. The “faulty conclusion based on a myopic premis” is you pre-believing that the giants were not men, but angel/human hybrids.
As we have also seen, there is literally zero reason to appeal to gigantism since there is zero reliable indication that, “Nephilim…grew to much larger proportions” even if (and that is a big IF) it is the case and was due to, “the higher oxygen levels that existed on the pre-flood Earth”—yet, then again, if Nephilim were George Lujack’s usage of giants due to those conditions shared by everyone alive in those days then if all people were giants then none of them were giants since they shared a standard range of heights and none were well, 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).
There is ZERO REASON to appeal to angel/human hybridization. Modern man, which has a much shorter lifespan, and thus less time for variation, produces a great variety of different heights, from dwarfs ro 7 foot NBA players. Pre-flood man could live over 900 years in age, thus allowing for even greater variation in height.
Note what opting for a late-comer of a view caused him to end up affirming, “righteous men taking wives who were the ‘daughters of men,’ or daughters of demonically influenced sinful men” thus, he actually ended up showing us that, on that view, “righteous men” were not righteous since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that is rather odd.
Note how you began omitting explanations. Scripture warns believers not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, especially in marriage. King Solomon, a once righteous man and the wisest of men, took many wives who caused him to worship other gods, which obviously displeased the true God.
Note that George Lujack tells us what God is and is not allowed to say, “would no longer be referred to by Scripture as ‘sons of God’” but God is quite capable of deciding how to communicate without Lujack as an editor.
The God I worship is righteous and holy. He would not call demons “sons of God,” anymore than He would call Satan a son of God. “Sons of God” indicates righteousness and Satan and the demons are called serpents and scorpions.
He then continues to ague fallaciously based on his myopic usage of men:
GOD DESTROYED MAN FROM THE EARTH, NOT HYBRID ANGEL-MEN
Aah, that term “myopic” again. Is it I who is nearsighted or you who is ADDING and EXPANDING to God’s word.
Scripture declares that the sins of men were great on the Earth, and for this cause – and this cause alone, He decided to flood it.
GENESIS 6:5-8:
5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
Not a peep about destroying hybrid Nephilim that the “sons of God” (demons) had created from mating with human women.
PROVERBS 30:3:
Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.
Is that another “logical fallacy” and “myopic” use of Scripture from me?
Thus, 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 is only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.
WRONG CONCLUSION, failing to recognize the passages as metaphors.
So, if they are not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we have no idea to what sin they were referring and taking those specific combined points and reducing them to a generic assertion of, “REBELLED AND CAME DOWN TO EARTH TO INFLUENCE AND POSSESS HUMAN BEINGS” along with an irrelevant citation does not change that fact.
Let me help you out here… These sins, which are ALL sins:
GENESIS 6:5:
Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
“Fallen angels could not have harnessed the power of the Holy Spirit to put on the appearance of human beings, and then marry and mate with women, without the approval and consent of Almighty God” and he is right again whilst arguing wrongly: God did not consent rather, He incarcerated them physically (which is part of why the likes of the Gen 6 affair has never happened again).
Your conclusion is, at best, absurd. I reiterate and ask, why would God allow demon/human marriage and offspring initially, but Satan needed permission to mess up Job’s life?
Moreover, he added, “Demons cannot physically assault us” which is tantamount to that they cannot physically mate with us. He also asserted, “In order for demons to do anything to us, they must first get the consent of God, which is exactly what happened in the story of Job. Satan wagered against God…” I am unsure we can take one single example to conclude that any and all such doings of demons must first be God-allowed. I am even more unsure how one example of a non-demon informs us about all demons.
But you default to your belief that demons can and did marry and mate with human women. Thus, you negate Yeshua’s (Jesus’) words that we are not subject to demons, but they are subject to us.
All demons can do is influence and possess human beings, people who drive God and His commandments out of their lives.
Biblically, Nephilim did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or from yet, he answers, “DO NEPHILIM GIANTS EXIST TODAY?” with, “While most would say that Nephilim giants do not exist today, this is not the case at all” since by Nephilim he means, “very tall and large” (which are generically vague subjective terms) so to him, anyone who is whatever, “very tall and large” means is a Nephil.
Your Nephilim tales are inconsistent with Scripture truths…
Overall, we saw that his counter Angel view arguments fail since they are based on un-biblical Angelology, category errors, myopic points, appealing to irrelevant sources, etc.
Big scholarly words, zero substance.
Well Ken, while I wholeheartedly disagree with your viewpoints on hybrid Nephilim, I was amused by your lengthy analysis of my article.
As with many people with pet doctrines, I think I have attacked your sacred cow idol: the boogeyman hybrid Nephilim, and cognitive dissonance has set in upon you.
Elohim (God) bless.
George Lujack
Scripture Truth Ministries
Ken Ammi:
Appreciate the detailed interaction.
Indeed, in that, “statement” I, “offer nothing to support” the original, traditional, and majority view but I did later on in the article.
Indeed again I, “make a claim and…offer no support” since there’s only so many issues I could iron out in detail. Yet, it’s simple: the assertion was that every time Angels are described they’re described as looking just like human males, performing physical actions, etc. and the evidence is found every time Angels are described. Example: the Angel who interacted with Samson’s mom is described by her as a, “man” who stood on the ground, speaks with her, carries a staff, etc.
I, “purposely conflating angels with demons” on the technical level of that demons are disembodied fallen Angels, as I noted in the article: it is they who have been cursed (if you want to put it that way).
Unsure why you quoted Heb 13:2.
Unsure why you refer to the original, traditional, and majority view (which by definition doesn’t make my view, “wild” but rather, normative: historically, your late-comer of a view is, “wild”) an, “idol.” I specified the conceptual, linguistic, and category error fallacies you made but in turn you call the Angel view, “wild” and are prejudice by asserting that it’s my, “pre-existing belief.” Yet, it wasn’t a belief until it was a belief so it wasn’t preexisting: I came to it only after many years of research, thought, and prayer, having familiarizing myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data, having discussed/debated it with literally hundreds of people, etc.
I’d retort, “If you want to believe in the” late-comber Sethite view mythical prejudice, “no amount of rightly explained Scripture will alter your belief” but then again, I’m not a fatalist and believe in the power of God and His Word to lead us to the truth.
It’s actually impossible that I was, “conflating…demons being able to take on human flesh” since I’ve never even hinted at any such view and actually argued against that view in the article: again, you misunderstand the Angel view: it’s a view about Angels, not demons. Thus, it’s simply not the case that I, “makes the wild assumption, presumption really, that God let demons have their way with human women.” Thus, no indication in the Bible nor the Angel view of, “the presumption that God would have given demons permission to mate with human women.” Thus, no indication that we, “Nephilim-hybrid people got it ass-backwards. You believe that human women are subject, as physical prey, to demons.”
When you seek to critique a view but argue against a straw man you discredit yourself since you only succeed against a pseudo-view of your own making.
I’m unsure how I, ” omitted…Satan NEEDING PERMISSION” since I specifically commented on that in the article: again, you took one single example of one Cherub one time and applied it to all fallen Angels or demons always.
You asserted, “Satan is a spirit being” but we have a physical description of him–just as we do of Angels.
Unsure why you wrote, “does NOT exclude demons.”
I’ve no idea who the, “Some of you people” are who, “believe that in the end-times, the demons will return and once again mate with human women” in part since it wouldn’t be, “again” since, that never happened. But I have personally done A LOT of work to debunk whom I term pop-Nephilologists who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians–I touched upon that in the article–and have written 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.” plus others such as, “The Pastoral Nephilim And Giants: What Do Pastors Teach and Preach? Featuring: John MacArthur, Anton Bosch, Billy Crone, Carl Gallups, Gene Kim, R.C. Sproul, Charles Lawson, Chris Ward, and Steven Anderson.”
So, you may want to discuss it with whoever teaches that rather than with me who doesn’t.
As for, “Meaning the same kind of overall appearance but composed of different matter” well, that may be the distinction between, “a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44-58). Seems to me that loyal Angels are physical but what we may term un-fallen, glorified, and what we can expect in our resurrected bodied: physical yet with added capabilities such as that they, “fly” without wings, they appear and disappear (like the post-resurrection Jesus), etc. Angels have hands and use them physically, just like human-male, thus there’s no reason (according to Biblical Angelology) that they don’t have all male anatomical features even if only the disloyal ones used that certain part.
In the article I address the, “Genesis 6:4 states that the giants were MEN, not hybrids” issue specifically.
Again, “pre-believing” is your mere assertion and, “giants” is an essentially useless term.
It’s odd that it ends up that I’m the one who notes that Nephilim height is a non-issue and it’s you who takes a view closer the pop-Nephilologists in going on about the size of personages for whom we’ve no reliable physical description.
You noted, “ZERO REASON to appeal to angel/human hybridization” but, “a much shorter lifespan…different heights” have nothing to do with my view. I suppose there’s zero reason other than, that is, Job 38, Jude, 2 Peter 2, I’ll throw in Psa 82 to include how the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators took it.
Yes, MILLENNIA post-flood we have commands against being unequally yoked especially in marriage–although I’ve no problem if we want to assume that such was known to be God’s will all along, from before that. Ergo, daughters of men ought not have married sons of God/Angels. But sinful Sethites marrying sinful Cainites wouldn’t be unequally yoked by definition so, what’s the problem?
Again, you argue against someone else and against a historically virtually unknown view regarding, “He would not call demons ‘sons of God.’”
It’s you who is, “nearsighted” and not as my assertion but via the examples I provided.
Again (again) I dealt with the, “man” issue in the article and by reiterating, “man…Not a peep about destroying hybrid Nephilim” you doubled down on being nearsighted. When you’re identified as being nearsighted via examples and so are corrected by being offered a comprehensive view, a best practice is to adjust your view by incorporating new data into it rather than acting as if such additional data wasn’t provided to you.
I’ll see your Prov 30:3 and raise you a Deut 4:2, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it.” See, you took away by myopically hyper-focusing on, “man” only exclusively always referring to humans but I noted in the article that Angels, humans, Nephilim, and God are all referred to as man/men. I then went on to note that there’s absolutely no problem if we want to myopically hyperfocus on humans for Gen 6:3 since that’s in keeping with the Bible’s overall contextual focus.
It’s fascinating that when Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined are crystal clear on this issue, you merely assert, “failing to recognize the passages as metaphors”: is that a pre-existing belief? Regardless, a mere assertion about metaphor (metaphor is like onto an application of principles and not necessarily unreal stuff) isn’t an appropriate route to take when you encounter divinely inspired texts that are devastating to your tradition–again, adjust your views.
Also, you used the assertion of metaphor to move the goalpost from the sin of Angels to the sins of humans so that’s a non-sequitur of a category error.
You, “reiterate and ask, “why would God allow demon/human marriage and offspring initially” I reiterate (actually re-re-re-reiterate) that’s a non-view. As for why did, “Satan needed permission to mess up Job’s life?” we’re not told. My point is that, again, you used one single example of a Cherub and applied it to all non-Cherubim always. But, why would God put a forbidden tree in the garden?
It’s impossible that I, “negate Yeshua’s (Jesus’) words that we are not subject to demons, but they are subject to us” since that’s a non-sequitur premised on the, “belief that demons can and did marry and mate with human women” to which, again-again, I don’t hold.
That my, “Nephilim tales are inconsistent with Scripture truths” is a mere assertion.
You asset, “Big scholarly words, zero substance” but just as in the article, I’ve again been able to show that you come to your non-sequiturs via fallacious premises.
I personally love sharpening iron with iron at this level of detail and appreciate the interaction very much.
Shalom aleichem in Yehoshua!
PS: if it’s okay, I’d like to post however many interactions we may have via email as follow-ups to the article.
Pastor George Lujack:
Greetings Ken,…
Indeed, in that, “statement” I, “offer nothing to support” the original, traditional, and majority view but I did later on in the article.
Majority views are most often, more than not, wrong. If we were to cite “majority view” as a reason to believe in any theology, then the whole Christian faith should become Catholics, because they are the majority view with the largest flock.
The different views. I agree primarily with number 2.
In Genesis 6:1-4, the “giants” (Hebrew: Nephilim) are typically viewed in one of two ways. The dominant ancient and modern academic consensus is the Supernatural/Angel View, while the leading conservative evangelical alternative is the Sethite View.
The primary interpretations are detailed below:
1. The Supernatural View (Fallen Angels & Humans)
- The View: The “Sons of God” are understood as fallen angelic beings who took human form, mated with human women (“daughters of men”), and produced the Nephilim—a legendary race of giants or hybrid offspring. [1, 2, 3]
- Prevalence: This is the majority view among ancient Jewish texts (such as the Book of Enoch), early Church Fathers, and is widely accepted in contemporary scholarly analysis of Ancient Near Eastern context. It is frequently discussed in resources like the Via Emmaus Ministries analysis of the text.
2. The Sethite View (Righteous Lineage & Wicked Lineage)
- The View: The “Sons of God” are the godly descendants of Seth (the line of Adam and Eve) who intermarried with the “daughters of men,” generally viewed as the ungodly descendants of Cain.
- Prevalence: This is the majority view among classical Protestant Reformers (like John Calvin) and many modern conservative evangelicals who argue angels cannot reproduce. They contend that the Nephilim were distinct people who simply lived during that era, rather than the genetic offspring of the intermarriage.
3. The Royal/Tyrant View (Mighty Rulers)
- The View: The “Sons of God” are ancient, powerful earthly rulers or dynastic kings who practiced polygamy and tyranny, establishing kingdoms of renown rather than intermarrying supernaturally. [1, 2]
The Identity of the Giants (Nephilim)
Regardless of the interpretation of the “Sons of God,” the Nephilim themselves are generally characterized as heroic, violent men of antiquity. The text notes that the Nephilim were on the earth both “in those days” and “also afterward”. They are famously encountered later in Numbers 13:33 by the Israelite spies when they explore Canaan.
Yet, it’s simple: the assertion was that every time Angels are described they’re described as looking just like human males, performing physical actions, etc. and the evidence is found every time Angels are described. Example: the Angel who interacted with Samson’s mom is described by her as a, “man” who stood on the ground, speaks with her, carries a staff, etc.
Your point being, I presume, is that angels were just like human beings and thus could mate with human women. You overlook two things in your flawed logic.
1. Angels on a mission from God were granted the ability to appear in the flesh before man. Demons, on the other hand, Satan being the chief demon, need permission to attack man, and then they could only do so by influencing human beings to attack other human beings, but they cannot kill us or breed with us themselves.
2. Today, man is in the infant stage of creating AI robots that look like human beings and can interact with human beings, and are capable of doing many things human beings can do. This does not mean that AI robots will ever be able to bear children to human beings.
Unsure why you quoted Heb 13:2.
You said…
Faced with this, some (as Lujack does) opt for merely asserting that Angels take on human bodies when they interact with us but there is literally zero biblical indication of that.
HEBREWS 13:2:
Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.
My point was that when Yeshua resurrected, He had His same body, but it was somehow supernatural and different. He was able to transport through walls into the Apostles’ locked room. Therefore, since flesh and blood cannot walk through walls, Yeshua and the angels must be able to transfer from spirit to flesh and blood bodies.
Likewise, if we entertain angels, well how did these angels get here on Earth? If they “beamed down” or came by a similar supernatural means, they likely came in spirit and then took on flesh, if and only if they were sent on a mission from God. They would need to access the Holy Spirit power of God to transform.
Demons are cursed and have no access to the Holy Spirit power of God. We do not wrestle against flesh and blood demons, but evil spirits in the spiritual realm (Ephesians 6:12). Neither did human women get impregnated and bear children to evil spirits, as demons are spiritual hosts and cannot take on human flesh. If you believe that demons can be called “sons of God,” this is an illogical fallacy. Satan is called the serpent of old. He once was that bright star of heaven, but now is called the father of lies, not a son of God.
I specified the conceptual, linguistic, and category error fallacies you made but in turn you call the Angel view, “wild” and are prejudice by asserting that it’s my, “pre-existing belief.” Yet, it wasn’t a belief until it was a belief so it wasn’t preexisting: I came to it only after many years of research, thought, and prayer, having familiarizing myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data, having discussed/debated it with literally hundreds of people, etc.
When someone goes down the wrong rabbit hole, and refuses to see they are misguided, they will remain lost.
Not a peep about destroying hybrid Nephilim” you doubled down on being nearsighted. When you’re identified as being nearsighted via examples and so are corrected by being offered a comprehensive view, a best practice is to adjust your view by incorporating new data into it rather than acting as if such additional data wasn’t provided to you.
I stated a Scripture fact: “Not a peep about destroying the Nephilim,” and you reply with big scholarly words in an attempt to refute my plain stated Scripture fact, as if scholarly words can negate what I said, which is true. You want to believe in the boogeyman: angel-human hybrids being the Nephilim, no different than people want to believe in BigFoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Darwinian Evolution, and the Big Bang Theory where nothing exploded and created the universe. The evidence is simply not there for these things, so scholars and zealots make things up, including fake evidence, to support their golden calf idols.
It’s fascinating that when Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined are crystal clear on this issue, you merely assert, “failing to recognize the passages as metaphors”: is that a pre-existing belief?
YOU might argue that, but it is based on the FOREKNOWLEDGE that demons are SPIRIT BEINGS that cannot have sex with human women, and the knowledge that God often uses metaphors to teach a spiritual truth. Such was the case in Acts 10, when the Spirit told Peter to “kill and eat.” Peter said, “Not so Lord, for I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” Then the Spirit said, “What God has cleansed, do not call common.”
So… What did God cleanse? The Gentile races. Peter came to understand that he was to meet with Cornelius, a righteous Roman, but had, until the vision, been refusing to do so. God used the comparison of unclean creatures as a METAPHOR for all the Gentile people of Earth, letting Peter know that Yeshua’s (Jesus’) sacrifice on the cross covered and paid for their sins too.
But, why would God put a forbidden tree in the garden?
I re-reiterate: Free will. Free will to obey God or not to obey God. This is a very poor metaphorical comparison to make the case that God would also allow demons to take on human flesh and bear human women children. I use the example of Job, because God is consistent, not inconsistent. If Satan needed permission to mess with Job’s life, yet was not allowed to kill him, this shows that if the Nephilim were the product of demon-human hybridization, God would likewise have to had granted these demons permission to marry and bear children to human women.
To believe that is to believe, for no reason at all, God granted these demons permission to bear children to human women. Then you would have to believe with Job, it was different. Satan was restricted from messing with Job, and all humanity. Satan issued God a challenge wager. God accepted the wager to test and prove Job’s righteousness and to prove Satan wrong.
So… What would be the point of God allowing demons to mate with human women?
Another alternative thought of you Nephilim hybrid people is that God was busy, or simply unaware of what the demons were doing with human women. God was simply asleep at the controls.
Both possibilities are flawed illogical assertions about God.
1. God permitted the demons to marry and bear children to human women, He permitted this evil upon women, for no reason at all.
2. God, an all-knowing God, didn’t know what was going on.
I personally love sharpening iron with iron at this level of detail and appreciate the interaction very much.
Shalom aleichem in Yehoshua!
PS: if it’s okay, I’d like to post however many interactions we may have via email as followups to the article.
Shalom. You have my permission to share our email exchanges.
Ken Ammi:
TGIF!………….actually, let’s TGI any and every day!
Granted, my reference to the, “original, traditional, and majority view” wasn’t that it makes the view right but perhaps was more of a statistical one. I’m unsure about the stats on “Majority views [and, “academic consensus”?] are most often, more than not, wrong” but majority views can be right, of course. I merely noted that and argued biblically.
I literally wrote the book on who took which view so am very familiar with them–I also wrote the books, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010” and “Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s” and so 10 other relevant ones, which are a few of the 70, or so, books I’ve written–but enough spam ;o)
Again, the Sethite view actually ends up telling us that, “the godly descendants of Seth” weren’t really godly since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood. As for Cainites, “generally viewed as the ungodly” I don’t go by thus saith the, “generally” majority.
Indeed, modern day, “Calvin) and many modern conservative evangelicals who argue angels cannot reproduce” via un-biblical Angelology based on man-made tradition.
“The text notes that the Nephilim were on the earth both ‘in those days’ and ‘also afterward’” is an oddly abrupt partial statement: what of it?
Literally zero reliable indication, “They are famously encountered later in Numbers 13:33.”
I already elucidated in the article that the likes of, “Angels on a mission from God were granted the ability to appear in the flesh” is just a made up un-biblical rescue device of an assertion (recall that I could appeal to a specific text for my example, but you can’t since none exist).
Again, (unsure why you keep doubling down on points I already corrected, it can’t be, “Satan being the chief demon” since he’s not a demon. Indeed, again (many times over), “Demons…cannot…breed with us.”
Yes, you, “opt for merely asserting that Angels take on human bodies when they interact with us,” as you just did again, and it still stands that, “there is literally zero biblical indication of that” since Heb 13 merely notes what you quoted: there’s not a single word therein about, “the ability to appear in the flesh” nor take on human bodies.
Thus, that is the sort of statement that’s meant to get you to conclude that they look just like us ontologically rather than taking, “unwittingly entertained angels” and wrapping an all-encompassing theory around it that begins with a faulty premise and ends in a faulty conclusion.
My friend, by desperately seeking to defend un-biblical man-made based Angelology, you ended up fundamentally contradicting one of the foundational points of Jesus’ mission and thus, of the gospel. By arguing, “when Yeshua resurrected, He had His same body…must be able to transfer from spirit to flesh and blood bodies” that’s a contradiction, firstly, since you said, “His same body” which was a physical body but then, “transfer from spirit to flesh” which He wouldn’t have to do since He, “resurrected…His same body.” An utterly fundamental aspect is that He resurrected physically, not as a disembodied spirit.
But yes, I already noted, “Angels are physical but what we may term un-fallen, glorified, and what we can expect in our resurrected bodied: physical yet with added capabilities.” Not that it was the same body but not really since it was spirit but then transferred, etc.
But I see that part of the problem is your faulty premise, “they likely came in spirit and then took on flesh” but that’s only subjectively likely to you based on your faulty Angelology. Of the Angel, “man,” who interacted with Samsons’ mother it’s noted, “the flame went up toward heaven from the altar, the angel of the Lord went up in the flame of the altar” nothing about him transferring from flesh to spirit.
Also, “why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1): He resurrected, ascended, and will return, “the same way” (or, “in like manner”) ergo, physically. Call it beaming, call is flying, call it what you will: it’s the actions of a physical body with additional capabilities.
Again (unsure how many times I have to affirm it), “Demons…Neither did human women get impregnated and bear children to evil spirits, as demons are spiritual hosts and cannot take on human flesh.” I keep affirming those statements since you keep misrepresenting the, “Angel” view by moving the goalpost into a demon view.
I’m unsure why you stated, “If you believe that demons can be called ‘sons of God…’” when I gave zero indication of any such thing: you’re just committing more category errors and keep moving the goalpost: recall that I noted, “When you seek to critique a view but argue against a straw man you discredit yourself since you only succeed against a pseudo-view of your own making.” See, when Angel view adherents read your arguments they’ll realize you’re not arguing against their view, you misrepresent their view, you don’t understand their view and will just ignore you–or seek to correct you.
There’s no indication that Satan was ever called a son of God–and no indication demons ever were either.
On this issue alone, I’d say that you’re projecting when you refer to, “goes down the wrong rabbit hole, and refuses to see they are misguided.”
Your, “Not a peep about destroying hybrid Nephilim” seems to be premised on a few merely asserted premises such as:
God is required to tell us every details of any action He takes.
We’re not allowed to consider everything He’s revealed about any given issue and come to biblical conclusions.
Not a peep about destroying hybrid Nephilim can and must only equal that no hybrid Nephilim was destroyed.
What follows from that is that no hybrid Nephilim ever existed.
Etc.
If you want to go the route of, “You want to believe in the boogeyman: angel-human hybrids being the Nephilim, no different than…” perhaps I’ll say that what you believe about the Gen 6 affair is an example of being influenced by modern secularism and/or, “Calvin) and many modern conservative evangelicals” which denies the supernatural (even if just on the Gen 6 affair). The evidence is simply not there for these things you claim, so scholars and zealots make things up, including fake evidence, to support their golden calf idols which can’t accept biblical Angelology.
It’s fascinating that when I pointed out, “It’s fascinating that when Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined are crystal clear on this issue, you merely assert, ‘failing to recognize the passages as metaphors’” you once again committed a category error by moving the goalpost from both Judas and Peter referring to, “Angels” and changing that to demons. So, again, you only succeeded in arguing against a straw-man of a non-view.
Moreover, rather than facing the fact that, “you merely assert…metaphors” you doubled down on merely asserting by not elucidating what Jude and Peter said in those texts (how you know it’s metaphor, what the metaphors mean, etc.) but moved the goalpost to a contextually irrelevant text in Acts 10: everyone knows that metaphors are employed, that doesn’t give us an excuse to merely assert, “metaphors” arbitrarily and as a mere assertion–or when we don’t like what a statement clearly states.
So, the reason that God put a forbidden tree in the garden is, “Free will” which is the same free will the Angels abused when they, “left their first estate.”
I’m unsure I’ll keep pointing this out if our discussion continues since I’ve already done it circa a dozen times: agreed, no indication of, “demons to take on human flesh and bear human women children…Nephilim were the product of demon-human hybridization…demons…bear children to human women…demons to mate with human women…what the demons were doing with human women…God permitted the demons to marry and bear children to human women…”: category error non-issues about a non-view (or, a view that you invented so as to debunk your own creation).
I personally love sharpening iron with iron even though when we sharpen iron with iron, someone tends to get cut.
Shalom!
Pastor George Lujack:
Greetings Ken,
Next round…
Granted, my reference to the, “original, traditional, and majority view” wasn’t that it makes the view right but perhaps was more of a statistical one. I’m unsure about the stats on “Majority views [and, “academic consensus”?] are most often, more than not, wrong” but majority views can be right, of course. I merely noted that and argued biblically.
Ah, no, I wouldn’t say that. You noted the majority view (supposedly), and argued emotionally, not biblically.
I literally wrote the book on who took which view so am very familiar with them–I also wrote the books, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010” and “Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s” and so 10 other relevant ones, which are a few of the 70, or so, books I’ve written–but enough spam ;o)
Ah, yes… I have seen and experienced this before. It is called pride, stubbornness, and being uncorrectable. You see, you are so heavily devoted and invested, in writing 10 or 11 books on angel-human hybrid Nephilim, that you cannot possibly accept that you are in error on the matter, because that would mean much of your life’s work was wrong.
Well, I don’t know about the other 60 or so books, but I can assure you that all you have written about Nephilim being angel-human hybrids, is wrong.
I had a similar debate with Young Earth Creationist, Kent Hovind, who will not debate me again, because I shattered part of his life’s work: The idea that the Earth and universe were created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago.
NOT TRUE. God created the heavens and the Earth in the beginning. Then, 6,000 years ago, He formed the Earth to be habitable for life and created all life (including the dinosaurs) upon it.
Video (51:24): George Lujack vs. Kent Hovind, “Old Earth Creationism vs. Young Earth Creationism” Debate 09/15/2017
Video (101:27): IN THE BEGINNING GOD; IS EARTH ONLY 6,000 YEARS OLD?
Video: (16:43): EXPOSING FALSE TEACHINGS: Kent Hovind, “6,000 Year Old Earth and Universe”
Again, the Sethite view actually ends up telling us that, “the godly descendants of Seth” weren’t really godly since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood.
I said I generally agreed with the overall premise of number 2, but not completely with the “Sethite view.” I do not agree with all the details of it.
The idea that righteousness comes solely from genealogy is COMPLETELY ABSURD to me. Do I think the “the sons of God” were all descendants of Seth and all the “daughters of [UNRIGHTEOUS] men were all descendants of Cain? No, I don’t. A descendant of Cain may have done what is righteous and have been considered a son of god, while a descendant of Seth may have turned to sin and have been considered unrighteous.
God does not judge man by genealogy, nor is man righteous due to geneology bloodlines, nor likewise is man considered unrighteous by genealogy bloodlines.
ROMANS 10:12:
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.
And yet there are many today, in the Messy-anic movement, who think if they have some Jewish DNA bloodline in them, they automatically have preferred person status with God, ignoring Romans 10:12.
Indeed, modern day, “Calvin) and many modern conservative evangelicals who argue angels cannot reproduce” via un-biblical Angelology based on man-made tradition.
As I said in the last response, referring to Catholics, “A broken clock is right twice a day.” Using “Calvanists and conservative Christians” as and argument that they possess an “un-biblical view,” is wrong, as it is the biblical view and you promote the “Angelology” un-biblical view based on man-made tradition of the boogey man angel-hybrid offspring of angels and human women. You MUST declare that the “sons of God” reference in Genesis 6 refers to angels, when you know perfectly well that demons, or rebelling angels (as you prefer) could NO LONGER BE REFERRED to God as “sons of God. “Righteous men, however, who were righteous BEFORE they married daughters of sinful men, could be called righteous, and then after the marriages, the women turned them from their righteousness to unrighteousness, just as righteous Solomon married many wives who turned him from unrighteousness to serve and worship other gods. The very moment that the angels joined Satan and rebelled against God, attempting to overthrow His kingdom, they were NO LONGER RIGHTEOUS and could never be referred to as “sons of God.”
“The text notes that the Nephilim were on the earth both ‘in those days’ and ‘also afterward’” is an oddly abrupt partial statement: what of it?
There is NOTHING odd about it to me, but only to Angel-woman hybrid people who believe God flooded the Earth to wipe out the Nephilim. Oops! God failed, because the Nephilim came after the flood as well, because the 8 on the ark still had in their DNA gene pool the ability to produce Nephilim giants, and man’s lifespan g r a d u a l ly declined from 900+ years to 120 years. It did not happen immediately after the flood.
I already elucidated in the article that the likes of, “Angels on a mission from God were granted the ability to appear in the flesh” is just a made up un-biblical rescue device of an assertion (recall that I could appeal to a specific text for my example, but you can’t since none exist).
Sorry to have to say this, but it appears you are a bit obtuse. I did provide a Scripture example, but you dismiss it because it goes against your boogie man nephilim idol.
HEBREWS 13:2:
Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels.
If a person entertains a stranger, but he did not know it was an angel, then he entertained someone who appeared to him in the flesh and he thought that someone was a human being.
My friend, by desperately seeking to defend un-biblical man-made based Angelology, you ended up fundamentally contradicting one of the foundational points of Jesus’ mission and thus, of the gospel. By arguing, “when Yeshua resurrected, He had His same body…must be able to transfer from spirit to flesh and blood bodies” that’s a contradiction, firstly, since you said, “His same body” which was a physical body but then, “transfer from spirit to flesh” which He wouldn’t have to do since He, “resurrected…His same body.” An utterly fundamental aspect is that He resurrected physically, not as a disembodied spirit.
I never claimed He was a “disembodied spirit.” I said His physical body changed and became more supernatural. Our flesh shall also be changed…
1 CORINTHIANS 15:51-53:
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
But yes, I already noted, “Angels are physical…
NO, they are not, and you ignore the plain spoken rebuke of your false statement that Scripture proclaims, for the sake of your 10-11 books on the topic, and your boogie man Nephilim hybrid idol.
EPHESIANS 6:12:
For we DO NOT wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Demons, or fallen angels, are NOT flesh and blood physical beings, but are spiritual beings. Scripture could not be clearer, except to Angel-human Nephilim hybrid idolaters.
I personally love sharpening iron with iron even though when we sharpen iron with iron, someone tends to get cut.
You are getting cut up pretty bad bro. The overwhelming Scripture and reason argument is against you, as I have exhaustively pointed out.
Shalom.
George Lujack
Scripture Truth Ministries
Ken Ammi:
Anyone reading this will readily discern that, “You noted the majority view (supposedly), and argued emotionally, not biblically” is a misguided assertion—and you may be projecting again.
I already provided some of the biblical backing for the Angel view so it’s rather odd that you want to keep denying it that I did so.
It’s fascinating that I inform you as to that I’m well informed on these issues and you pretend to be a mind reader, putting yourself in the place of God, by merely asserting, “It is called pride, stubbornness, and being uncorrectable.” Regarding, “stubbornness, and being uncorrectable”: is you projecting again. As for pride: is that what you feel about the research you’ve done in order to write content for your website? A common sense reply would have been something along the lines of, “Oh, I see, it’s nice to converse with someone who has made himself so very familiar with the issues and has provided plenteous research for others to view.”
I’m unsure why you’re seeing to distract from the issues by launching personal attacks. As for, “cannot possibly accept that you are in error on the matter, because that would mean much of your life’s work was wrong”: that’s another failed attempt at mind reading so please stop it and repent.
The great thing about my books is that I can edit them whenever I want and when, for example, someone pointed out that I made a mistake (as minor as it was: literally one single wrong citation) I not only edited my book, I posted on my website to inform my readers about it.
I already dealt with the, “could NO LONGER BE REFERRED to God as ‘sons of God’” issue so that you keep bringing it up as if you haven’t read my comments on that may, perhaps, speak to your discernment skills.
But good point, “Righteous men, however, who were righteous BEFORE they married daughters of sinful men, could be called righteous, and then after the marriages, the women turned them from their righteousness to unrighteousness” in like manner, “Loyal Angels who were loyal BEFORE they married daughters of sinful men [unsure why you call their dads sinful: you added to God’s Word], could be called loyal, and then after the marriages, the women turned them from their loyal to un-loyal” or rather, they were loyal and the act of coming to Earth to marry, etc., designated them as no longer loyal.
What was odd is that you made a half statement, that’s all. Those specific, “Angel-woman hybrid people who believe” are mistaken since they’re of the post-flood Nephilim variety and that’s un-biblical.
Again (and again) you didn’t, “provide a Scripture example” of, “Angels on a mission from God were granted the ability to appear in the flesh” rather, you quoted a text about how we might entertain them unaware that makes no reference whatsoever to your un-biblical man-made tradition: how can you keep missing statements I iterate and reiterate (and re-reiterate)? Again, makes me concerned about your discernments.
So, here it is again, “If a person entertains a stranger, but he did not know it was an angel, then he entertained someone who appeared to him in the flesh and he thought that someone was a human being” because that’s what Angels look like—ontologically. No need to artificially add anything to it in order to try to make your faulty view work.
Regarding the resurrection you wrote, “Yeshua…must be able to transfer from spirit to flesh and blood bodies” ergo, you did say disembodied spirit by definition, application, and consistency since you had the resurrected Jesus go from spirit to flesh. But let’s take that to have been sloppy terminology and I’m very, very pleased you don’t stand by that.
I noted, “Angels are physical” you replied, “NO, they are not” based on, “we” humans, “shall all be changed…the dead” humans, “will be raised incorruptible, and we” humans, “shall be changed. For this corruptible” human flesh, “must put on incorruption, and this mortal” human flesh, “must put on immortality” so that was about humans and that’s the physical glorification of the resurrected body.
When you write in term of, “Demons, or fallen angels, are NOT flesh and blood physical beings, but are spiritual beings” it’s a technically very tricky thing to deal with:
1) “NOT flesh and blood physical beings, but are spiritual beings”: you’re confusing and so are swapping, “spiritual” for, “spirit.” Example, again, humans can be spiritual and are flesh and blood.
2) “Demons…are NOT flesh and blood physical beings, but are” spirit, “beings” indeed.
3) “fallen angels, are NOT flesh and blood physical beings, but are” spirit, “beings”: we need to distinguish between that the fallen Angels’ physical bodies are incarcerated in Tartarus while their disembodied spirits roam the Earth as demons.
So, try to quell your emotions to as to leave aside the time-wasting personal attacks, childish taunts, and failed mind reading, don’t keep arguing as if I haven’t replied to the arguments you keep repeating many times, and make substantive replies, please.
Be blessed and be a blessing.
Pastor George Lujack:
It’s fascinating that I inform you as to that I’m well informed on these issues and you pretend to be a mind reader, putting yourself in the place of God, by merely asserting, “It is called pride, stubbornness, and being uncorrectable.”As for pride: is that what you feel about the research you’ve done in order to write content for your website? A common sense reply would have been something along the lines of, “Oh, I see, it’s nice to converse with someone who has made himself so very familiar with the issues and has provided plenteous research for others to view.” I’m unsure why you’re seeing to distract from the issues by launching personal attacks. As for, “cannot possibly accept that you are in error on the matter, because that would mean much of your life’s work was wrong”: that’s another failed attempt at mind reading so please stop it and repent.
One doesn’t need to repent from telling the truth, your hurt feelings aside. You’ve presented nothing but anecdotal evidence in ALL your research, based on your biased, empty-faithed, hopeful view in believing in the Nephilim-hybrid boogeyman.
The scientific and Scripture facts don’t lie:
1. Fallen rebelling angels, aka demons, could not be referred to as “sons of God,” anymore than Satan can be (Genesis 6:2,4).
2. Angels / demon beings are spirit beings that can possess human beings, and are not flesh and blood physical beings that can impregnate human women (Ephesians 6:12).
3. Satan needed permission to mess with Job’s life and could not do so personally, as a spirit being, so Satan had to influence other human beings to destroy Job’s life. God
granted Satan permission, but Satan was not permitted to kill Job. (Job 1:6-12). If Satan needed permission to mess with Job’s life, fallen angels would have likewise needed permission, from God, to marry and impregnate human women. NO SUCH permission was implied or granted in any way, manner, or form in the Genesis 6:1-4 passages.
4. That which is spirit (fallen angels / demons) is spirit and that which is flesh (human beings) is flesh (John 3:6).
It is fascinating that you have “done the research,” but fail to recognize that your research is worthless and false, as you have gone down the wrong rabbit hole and now you are acting like the Mad Hatter defending your sacred cow.
I have met many Catholics who have stated, “I’ve done 12 years in Catholic theological studies, so I know that the Catholic Church is the one true church.”
And evolutionists who have said, “I’ve studied evolution for years and you creationists are denying the science.”
Both the Catholics and evolutionists are wrong, believing “truth” based on what they have studied, in non-critical thinking tunnel vision learning, and are not able to objectively see the error of their biased research.
Such is also the case with you, Ken Ammi, concerning your belief in angel-human hybrid Nephilim.
in like manner, “Loyal Angels who were loyal BEFORE they married daughters of sinful men [unsure why you call their dads sinful: you added to God’s Word], could be called loyal, and then after the marriages, the women turned them from their loyal to un-loyal” or rather, they were loyal and the act of coming to Earth to marry, etc., designated them as no longer loyal.
Clarifying God’s word is not adding to it. Scripture often leaves out specific details. You are CONFLATING and TWISTING for the sake of your sacred cow doctrine. Righteous human men became unrighteous after marrying pagan unrighteous women, who corrupted them, just as righteous King Solomon was corrupted by his wives, who turned him from worshiping God to worshiping other gods. The fallen angels became evil after a third of them joined Satan in his rebellion against God. After the angel rebellion with Satan, these angels were judged and cursed as demons and could never, never, be referred to as “sons of God.”
Again (and again) you didn’t, “provide a Scripture example” of, “Angels on a mission from God were granted the ability to appear in the flesh”
Genesis 19. Acts 1:10-11.
don’t keep arguing as if I haven’t replied to the arguments you keep repeating many times, and make substantive replies, please.
Your arguments do not hold up to scrutiny and fail the truth test.
Elohim (God) bless.
George Lujack
Scripture Truth Ministries
Ken Ammi:
But you do need to repent of making unrighteous judgements: which you based on pretended mind reading, on pretending you can discern my inward most thoughts and motivations which only God can know, lest I reveal them.
Again, anyone reading this can see that when you say, “You’ve presented nothing but anecdotal evidence in ALL your research, based on your biased, empty-faithed, hopeful view in believing in the Nephilim-hybrid boogeyman” that’s an instantly self-debunked mere assertion–and you might be projecting.
Unsure why you keep ignoring things we already discussed: is it that you don’t like being corrected?
1. “Fallen rebelling angels, aka demons” and mashing what was present tense during the Gen 6 affair with a future tense of what they became later on so, again (and again and again, again): demons aren’t relevant while it took place. I already noted that Israel was still called Israel when they sinned so that supports why God would call Angels His sons in order to identify them.
2. Again (and again and again, again) demons are spirits, Angels are not. Demons, “can possess human beings” Angels cannot. Demons, “are not flesh and blood physical beings that can impregnate human women” Angels are. But that is only if you hold to biblical Angelology and biblical demonology.
3. Again (and again and again, again) Satan isn’t “a spirit being”: we have physical descriptions of him in Ezek chaps 1 and 10. As for, “Satan had to influence other human beings to destroy Job’s life”: unsure how other human beings caused, “fire of God fell from heaven and burned” or, “a great wind…struck the four corners of the house” and it states, “Satan went out from the presence of the Lord and struck Job with loathsome sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.” Have you ever read the Book of Job? I already noted that you’re presenting one example of one event and are applying it to all events. And I already noted that if you want to do that then fine, Satan needed permission so then, “fallen angels would have likewise needed permission, from God, to marry and impregnate human women” and likewise, Adam and Eve needed permission to sin and so has every single being in all creation who has sinned.
4. You seem to be unable to think categorically and so to distinguish chronological events, different beings and/or different phases of the existence of beings, etc. “That which is spirit” but fallen Angels weren’t during the Gen 6 affair so that’s a non-issue. “That which is spirit” regarding demons but they weren’t involved in the Gen 6 affair so, non-issue.
So, as long as you keep making the same assertions that have been corrected time and again you’re merely doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc., down on demonstrable fallacy: just like you keep arguing against a straw-boogey-man of your own making rather than a view that anyone ever actually held.
You’re projecting again with your appeals to Catholics and evolutionists since I’ve corrected your Bible contradicting man-made Angelology time and again by appealing to the Bible but you keep holding to false views, “non-critical thinking tunnel vision learning, and are not able to objectively see the error of their biased research.”
You literally just made up an assertion about that the daughters were of sinful dads and call that, “Clarifying” and, “specific details” that were left out but that they were left out is a mere assertion and the specific details are something you just made up.
You ended up proving my point:
I noted, “Loyal Angels who were loyal BEFORE they married daughters.”
You then borrowed my point and just changed a few words, “Righteous human men became unrighteous after marrying pagan unrighteous women.”
How come it makes perfect sense to refer to human sinners as, “Righteous” before they sinned but it doesn’t make sense to refer to Angel sinners as, “Sons of God” before they sinned?
You accept it when it’s convenient for you but not when it’s convenient to the original, traditional, and majority biblical view.
Indeed, now you’re getting it, “The fallen angels became evil after a third of them joined Satan in his rebellion against God. After the angel rebellion with Satan, these angels were judged and cursed as demons and could never, never, be referred to as ‘sons of God’”: AMEN!!!
The only point you’re missing is that what you had as, “joined Satan in his rebellion against God” Dan 8 has as, “a little horn…grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them” and Rev 12 has as, “a great red dragon, with…His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth” with, again (and again and again, again) Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined telling us when and what that sinful rebellion was.
So, it still stands that, “Again (and again) you didn’t, ‘provide a Scripture example’ of, ‘Angels on a mission from God were granted the ability to appear in the flesh’” and it’s a shame that rather than facing that fact, you took two texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts. You won’t be able to find even one, you can’t because none exist.
Shalom!
Pastor George Lujack:
But you do need to repent of making unrighteous judgements: which you based on pretended mind reading, on pretending you can discern my inward most thoughts and motivations which only God can know, lest I reveal them.
Again, anyone reading this can see that when you say, “You’ve presented nothing but anecdotal evidence in ALL your research, based on your biased, empty-faithed, hopeful view in believing in the Nephilim-hybrid boogeyman” that’s an instantly self-debunked mere assertion–and you might be projecting.
It is an assertion, an opinion, true, not a judgment. The judgment God warns of is inflicting punishment upon someone, stoning for example, not rebuking someone’s incorrect doctrine.
Unsure why you keep ignoring things we already discussed: is it that you don’t like being corrected?
1. “Fallen rebelling angels, aka demons” and mashing what was present tense during the Gen 6 affair with a future tense of what they became later on so, again (and again and again, again): demons aren’t relevant while it took place. I already noted that Israel was still called Israel when they sinned so that supports why God would call Angels His sons in order to identify them.
So, your position is that the angels, who rebelled with Satan, attempting to overthrow God’s kingdom, were referred to as “sons of God?” Problem is, as I stated, then Satan would likewise have been referred to as a son of God. Since he isn’t, your argument fails. Sons of God were righteous men who took pagan wives and then became corrupted by them, just as King Solomon’s wives corrupted him.
So, as long as you keep making the same assertions that have been corrected time and again you’re merely doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc., down on demonstrable fallacy: just like you keep arguing against a straw-boogy-man of your own making rather than a view that anyone ever actually held.
What you call fallacy, I call truth.
How come it makes perfect sense to refer to human sinners as, “Rightous” before they sinned but it doesn’t make sense to refer to Angel sinners as, “Sons of God” before they sinned?
WILLFUL IGNORANCE TO PROTECT YOUR SACRED COW BOOGEYMAN NEPHILIM HYBRIDS.
As stated ALREADY, the rebelling angels SINNED the moment they joined Satan in rebellion. Therefore, they could NO LONGER be called sons of God after that act.
Sons of God, men, became sinful after they married pagan women.
ARE WE LEARNING YET? Hello, McFly, anybody home?
You accept it when it’s convenient for you but not when it’s convenient to the original, traditional, and majority biblical view.
Catholics have the majority spiritual opinion, but are spiritually lost and wrong. We do not judge the veracity of truth via “majority opinion” and I doubt nephilim-hybrids are the majority opinion anyway.
Indeed, now you’re getting it, “The fallen angels became evil after a third of them joined Satan in his rebellion against God. After the angel rebellion with Satan, these angels were judged and cursed as demons and could never, never, be referred to as ‘sons of God’”: AMEN!!!
The only point you’re missing is that what you had as, “joined Satan in his rebellion against God” Dan 8 has as, “a little horn…grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them” and Rev 12 has as, “a great red dragon, with…His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth” with, again (and again and again, again) Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined telling us when and what that sinful rebellion was.
Now you are willfully conflating end-times prophecy with Genesis 6. Amazing! Anything to protect your sacred cow doctrine!
George Lujack
Scripture Truth Ministries
Ken Ammi:
As per my actual statements, “making unrighteous judgements: which you based on pretended mind reading, on pretending you can discern my inward most thoughts and motivations which only God can know, lest I reveal them” was about your mere assertions of, “pride, stubbornness, and being uncorrectable.” You’re (failingly) mind reading the first and I debunked the other two.
Why are you making up, “Satan would likewise have been referred to as a son of God” when he’s not an Angel? You made another category error: just like when I pointed out, “you used one single example of a Cherub and applied it to all non-Cherubim.”
Yes, I know that you believe that righteous men weren’t righteous since they took, “pagan wives.” That’s the late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice.
What I call (correctly identify via examples) fallacy, you call truth and that’s the problem.
You don’t get to determine that which God is or is not allowed to inspire. So, “the rebelling angels SINNED the moment they joined Satan in rebellion. Therefore, they could NO LONGER be called sons of God after that act” is a mere assertion: I already noted that you don’t get to restrict God and I gave you the example of sinful, “Israel” still being referred to as, “Israel” when in utter sinful rebellion against God—I did that twice already, you ignored it twice.
Conversely, you merely assert, “Sons of God, men, became sinful after they married pagan women” but rebellion against God comes before sinful action.
I already told you, “Granted, my reference to the, ‘original, traditional, and majority view’ wasn’t that it makes the view right but perhaps was more of a statistical one. I’m unsure about the stats on ‘Majority views [and, ‘academic consensus’?] are most often, more than not, wrong’ but majority views can be right, of course. I merely noted that and argued biblically”: unsure why you keep going over already covered ground time and again (and again and again).
As for, “I doubt nephilim-hybrids are the majority opinion anyway” I have no idea about that but I proved that the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view, see my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
What do Dan 8, Rev 12, Jude and 2 Peter 2 have to do with, “end-times prophecy”?: which I have to ask since you merely asserted but didn’t elucidate.
aDios!
Pastor George Lujack:
Greetings Ken,
It is a little difficult for an intelligent man, me, to deal with your willful, idolatrous ignorance.
Yes, idolatrous, because you WANT to believe in the boogeyman, Bigfoot, Nephilim half-breeds.
Therefore, they could NO LONGER be called sons of God after that act” is a mere assertion: I already noted that you don’t get to restrict God and I gave you the example of sinful, “Israel” still being referred to as, “Israel” when in utter sinful rebellion against God—I did that twice already, you ignored it twice.
A mere “assertion?”
Were Adam and Eve judged as sinners after they sinned, or did God continue to regard them as sinless for some long time?
Once the angels sinned and rebelled against God with Satan, THEY COULD NO LONGER BE CALLED “SONS OF GOD!”
GENESIS 2:25:
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Once Adam and Eve sinned, they knew they were naked.
GENESIS 3:9-11:
Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”
In the SAME MANNER that Adam and Eve knew they were naked, once the angels rebelled with Satan against God they could NOT BE CALLED sons of God, because they became agents of Satan.
ARE WE LEARNING YET?
Believe in the boogeyman if you want to.
I know the truth crushes you, because you have dedicated (wasted) so much of your life attempting to prove and verify the angel-human Nephalim offspring hybrids, but the fairy tale is just not true.
Better you should admit that now and stop wasting your time on a false doctrine.
Adios.
George Lujack
Scripture Truth Ministries
Ken Ammi:
Caricaturizing your interlocutor’s views merely discredits you.
Indeed, mere assertion since 1) you made it up, 2) there’s biblical counter evidence that I provided to you twice already, and 3) you can’t defend you view on the point that, “they could NO LONGER be called sons of God after that act.”
What you did is move the goalpost from the twice appeals to fact that sinful Israel is still called Israel as to why sinful sons of God were called sons of God to “Were Adam and Eve judged as sinners after they sinned, or did God continue to regard them as sinless for some long time?”
That’s a category error since this wasn’t about, “regard them as sinless” after sin, it’s about titles such as “Israel” and “sons of God” even while He still considered both sinners: just like Adam is called a, “son of God” (Luke 3) AFTER being personally responsible for the fall of humankind.
But if you had your man-made tradition way, you would have asserted, “Once Adam sinned and rebelled against God, HE COULD NO LONGER BE CALLED ‘SON OF GOD!’” and yet, he is. See, you keep arguing against God’s inspired words, not against me.
And recall that I noted, “How come it makes perfect sense to refer to human sinners as, ‘Righteous’ before they sinned but it doesn’t make sense to refer to Angel sinners as, ‘Sons of God” before they sinned?’” and your only reply was a non-reply: it was a goal-post moving childish taunt. A best practice is that when you realize your mere assertions have been debunked you don’t get emotional and lash out but correct your views.
Be blessed and be a blessing.
Pastor George Lujack:
Babble, babble, babble.
Regarding “sons of God” description of what you think are fallen, rebelling angels, this is merely only one reason why your boogeyman nephilim-hybrid theory does not work.
Bottom line: Angels are spirit beings. Spirit beings cannot mate with flesh and blood human beings. They can possess and influence human beings, but not mate with them.
EPHESIANS 6:12 [WITH HELP]:
For we do not [ENGAGE IN SEXUAL INERCOURSE NOR] wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Can’t beat that definitive argument, but you will try, and must dismiss the truth, because you must protect your Nephilim-hybrid idol at all costs! A false theory that you have invested (wasted) so much of your time promoting.
It is like the current war, AC vs DC. Thomas Edison invested so much time, money, resources, and effort on his DC electrical system, but Nikola Tesla came along with a superior AC system. Edison knew AC was superior, but he had so much invested in DC that he did all that he could to discredit AC. But in the end failed, because AC was superior.
Likewise, you have invested so much time and effort in promoting Nephilim hybrids, that you will not accept the truth that this doctrine is fatally flawed and false.
Like Edison, who came before you, it would be better if you accepted the truth rather than stick with a patently false doctrine, end your stubborn defiance, and admit that you were wrong.
Elohim (God) bless.
George Lujack
Scripture Truth Ministries
Ken Ammi:
I’m unsure how you can pretend, “Bottom line: Angels are spirit beings” when I already proved otherwise.
Recall that in order to keep merely asserting that un-biblical man-made tradition you had to literally ignore every physical description of Angels and then merely asserting the un-biblical man-made tradition that they take on such an appearance coupled with failed attempts a appealing to texts that didn’t back up your un-biblical man-made tradition.
Indeed, “Spirit beings cannot mate with flesh and blood human beings” but since Angels aren’t sprits, that’s another failed defeater.
Indeed, “Spirits…can possess and influence human beings, but not mate with them” but since Angels aren’t sprits, that’s another failed defeater.
Indeed, “we…wrestle against…spiritual hosts of wickedness” so 1) you, again, played word-swap when you jumped from “spirit” to “spiritual” (recall that I noted that humans can be spiritual but we’re physical) and 2) you’re referring to demons which you word-swapped for Angels—at least, that’s my guess: you and I don’t know specifically who/what is being referred to as, “spiritual hosts of wickedness.”
I’ve been tracking the issues you drop after you’re debunked but don’t want to admit it.
For example, when faced with the biblically clearly verifiable that the man responsible for causing the fall of humanity into sin is referred to as a son of God AFTER that most terrible of sins, you ignore it even though that devastates one of your attempts at supporting your un-biblical man-made traditions—and that speaks volumes.
Shalom my friend!
Pastor George Lujack:
I’m unsure how you can pretend, “Bottom line: Angels are spirit beings” when I already proved otherwise.
EPHESIANS 6:12:
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
You have only proven that you are IGNORING Scripture to protect your boogeyman idol: Nephilim-hybrids.
Ken Ammi:
Again, I’m taking note of the issues you drop along the way.
You seem to propose that Eph 6:12 is a defeater for having proved that Angles aren’t spirits:
1) where do you see “Angels” in that verse?
2) do you really think that you can outweigh literally every single physical description of them by appealing to one single modern day English word?
As for, ” IGNORING Scripture”:
1) you’re projecting–again.
2) how could I ignore that upon which I already commented? “Indeed, ‘we…wrestle against…spiritual hosts of wickedness’ so 1) you, again, played word-swap when you jumped from ‘spirit’ to ‘spiritual’ (recall that I noted that humans can be spiritual but we’re physical) and 2) you’re referring to demons which you word-swapped for Angels—at least, that’s my guess: you and I don’t know specifically who/what is being referred to as, ‘spiritual hosts of wickedness.’”
aDios!
And that was the end of it since no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more details, see my research-based Nephilology books—available on Amazon and many other book sellers. Also, see my website and YouTube channel for various formats of Nephilology data:
What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology
Related books in a series are:
What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology
What Does the Bible Say About Demons? A Styled Demonology
What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology
What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology
What Does the Bible Say About Heaven and Hell? A Styled A Styled Superumology and Infernology
The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts
Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010
Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s
The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?
The Pastoral Nephilim And Giants: What Do Pastors Teach and Preach? Featuring: John MacArthur, Anton Bosch, Billy Crone, Carl Gallups, Gene Kim, R.C. Sproul, Charles Lawson, Chris Ward, and Steven Anderson
The Great Nephilim Debates: Featuring Gary Wayne, T.J. Steadman, Rob Rowe, and Eric Rolson
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.
Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales
Nephilim and Giants: A Library of Congress Reader
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
In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch
The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon
Did the Nephilim Look Like Clowns? A Review of Paul Stobbs’ Theory
Leave a Reply