Serpent seed discussion on “Special LIVE report – Biblical Giants with guest Gary Wayne”

The following discussion took place due to the video Special LIVE report – Biblical Giants with guest Gary Wayne.

A certain PracticalDailyLiving commented

In depth, diligent Bible study over a long period time while referencing the earliest known manuscripts and asking God to guide us and reveal His Truth is necessary if we don’t want to be led astray.  We have to let the Bible define its own terms and it is important to clarify what the Bible is referring to regarding the “sons of God” as well as the “daughters of men.”  See:  Difficult Bible Passages at #2 >  https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/difficult_study.htm

and if interested:  The False Doctrine of the “Serpent Seed” known as “Nephilim” – -https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/The%20FALSE%20Doctrine%20of%20the%20Serpent%20Seed.pdf

I, Ken Ammi, replied

For sons of God see Job 38:7. “Serpent Seed” generically refers to the false doctrine that Cain is Satan’s son, it has nothing to do with Nephilim.

PracticalDailyLiving

The term ‘sons of God’ has nothing to do with “Nephilim,” – that’s right.  But your belief that Nephilim etc.. are the PHYSICAL offspring of human beings who were “possessed” by evil angelic beings is not Biblical.  There is no evidence that angels, good or evil are able to procreate.

It is correct to say that human beings who worship/follow Satan and army of demons are Satan’s SPIRITUAL offspring because they believe in him rather than the Creator.  To base your argument on one or even two texts is superficial scholarship, at best, and, at worst, can and does lead people away from the Truth found in God’s Word.  God gave us the whole Bible and He wants us to study it, in depth, diligently, repeatedly, over a long period of time.

Job 1:6,7 “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan (the adversary) came also among them.

“And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou?  Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth and from walking up and down in it.”

Notice that Satan is mentioned separately from the ‘sons of God’.  Satan had already rebelled against God, long before humanity was created.  The angels who DID NOT rebel are the ‘sons of God’ as well as the human beings who believe in, follow and place all their trust in Jesus Christ, the True God of Heaven, in Human form.

“For as many as are led by the Spirit (Breath) of God, they are the sons of God.”  Romans 8:14

see also: Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1 and 1 John 3:2

Ken Ammi

Unsure why you wrote your first sentence but “The term ‘sons of God’ has” only “to do with ‘Nephilim’” in that the former fathered the latter.

Unsure why you refer to “human beings who were ‘possessed’ by evil angelic beings” as being my “belief” since I’ve not only never claimed any such a thing but have argued against it.

Evidence that Angels are able to procreate is in Gen 6 (in conjunction, see Jude and 2 Peter 2).

When you refer to me as leading people away from the Truth found in God’s Word and imply that I don’t study it, in depth, diligently, repeatedly, over a long period of time you’re being shockingly worldly in passing an unrighteous judgment: please repent.

I’m unsure what Job 1:6,7 has to do with “Satan had already rebelled against God, long before humanity was created.”

PracticalDailyLiving

In my earlier comment re “your belief that human beings who were ‘possessed’ by evil angelic beings” I was mistaken in who I was communicating with. I mistook you as the person being interviewed by George of The Reveal Report re Biblical Giants.  My sincere apologies.

In my original comment, I posted links to two separate in-depth Bible studies. The first link I will repost here:  Difficult Bible passages – -https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/difficult_study2.htm – – See #2 re Nephilim.

The second link was re: the “Serpent Seed” doctrine – – for anyone interested in sorting out this issue that is currently being talked about more widely.  I never said this doctrine was the same as the Nephilim topic. Satan wants us to believe that there are human beings with angelic “DNA.”  Some of the people who hold power over humanity from behind the scenes believe they have the right to rule because of their “DNA.”  Satan has something for everyone and he’s very good at deceiving people because he’s been doing it for thousands of years.  See below link re Why Did God Create Human Beings…

In addition, “An important way to study the Bible is by subject – finding ALL the texts or passages on a specific subject such as “What happens when we die?” so we can understand everything the Bible says on that certain subject.

But the most important step in studying the Bible is to pray that the Lord will guide you in searching His Word, because ALL wisdom comes from God.  There is NO understanding of God’s Word unless He opens our mind.”  Excerpt from – – How to study the Bible and find truth – – https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/studybible2.htm

Finally, here are two additional studies that will inform your understanding if you so choose:  Why Did God Create Human Beings Into a Universe Already Heavily Contaminated With Sin? https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/humans.htm; Alien Invasion Hoax – – https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/alien_hoax.htm

All the best to you on the journey ahead.

​Ken Ammi

Unsure why you wrote your first sentence but “The term ‘sons of God’ has” only “to do with ‘Nephilim’” in that the former fathered the latter.

Unsure why you refer to “human beings who were ‘possessed’ by evil angelic beings” as being my “belief” since I’ve not only never claimed any such a thing but have argued against it.

Evidence that Angels are able to procreate is in Gen 6 (in conjunction, see Jude and 2 Peter 2).

When you refer to me as leading people away from the Truth found in God’s Word and imply that I don’t study it, in depth, diligently, repeatedly, over a long period of time you’re being shockingly worldly in passing an unrighteous judgment: please repent.

I’m unsure what Job 1:6,7 has to ​​do with “Satan had already rebelled against God, long before humanity was created.”

PracticalDailyLiving

In my earlier comment re “your belief that human beings who were ‘possessed’ by evil angelic beings” I was mistaken in who I was communicating with. I mistook you as the person being interviewed by George of The Reveal Report re Biblical Giants. My sincere apologies. In my original comment, I posted links to two separate in-depth Bible studies. The first link I will repost here: Difficult Bible passages – -https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/difficult_study2.htm – – See #2 re Nephilim.

The second link was re: the “Serpent Seed” doctrine – – for anyone interested in sorting out this issue that is currently being talked about more widely. I never said this doctrine was the same as the Nephilim topic. Satan wants us to believe that there are human beings with angelic “DNA.” Some of the people who hold power over humanity from behind the scenes believe they have the right to rule because of their “DNA.”

Satan has something for everyone and he’s very good at deceiving people because he’s been doing it for thousands of years. See below link re Why Did God Create Human Beings… In addition, “An important way to study the Bible is by subject – finding ALL the texts or passages on a specific subject such as “What happens when we die?” so we can understand everything the Bible says on that certain subject. But the most important step in studying the Bible is to pray that the Lord will guide you in searching His Word, because ALL wisdom comes from God. There is NO understanding of God’s Word unless He opens our mind.” Excerpt from – – How to study the Bible and find truth – – https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/studybible2.htm Finally, here are two additional studies that will inform your understanding if you so choose: Why Did God Create Human Beings Into a Universe Already Heavily Contaminated With Sin? https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/humans.htm; Alien Invasion Hoax – – https://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/spiritual/home_study/alien_hoax.htm All the best to you on the journey ahead.

Ken Ammi

No worries about the mistaken identity.

There WERE Nephilim with Angelic “DNA” but no more, no one does post-flood.

I’ve no idea what those other links have to do with our discussion but thanks anyhow.

See my book “Fifty Shades of Gray Aliens.”

Such ended the discussion.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

On Ellen Lloyd’s Ancient Pages article “Mystery of Pre-Adamic Didanum Race: Giants Who Were Ancestors of the Nephilim and Rephaim”

From the get-go we have problems in Ellen Lloyd’s article Mystery Of Pre-Adamic Didanum Race: Giants Who Were Ancestors Of The Nephilim and Rephaim since Lloyd opens with, “In the Bible, there are many references to the giants Nephilim who were offspring of the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’ before the Great Flood.” Well, if “many” means two verses total then, sure—since that’s all there is and about “giants Nephilim” well, that’s another issue.

Lloyd continues, “There are also a number of stories dealing with the Rephaim, another group of giants described as ‘a mighty people with tall stature who lived in Canaan.’”

I’m unsure what Lloyd is quoting—it seems to be a paraphrase from an “evil report,” that no one should believe.

Asserting it’s about “Rephaim” is tricky since one would have to take a verse and parse it. Typically, Num 13:33 is translated as that the ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies whom God rebuked for what they said claimed to have seen “Nephilim (the sons of Anak come from the Nephilim) and we were as grasshoppers in their site…”

First one has to massage it to be referring to the Anakim’s height, then one has to disregard the specific reference to Anakim (which, as per the LXX, may just be a gloss in the Masoretic) and vaguely turn it into one about Rephaim (since Anakim were a subgroups of Rephaim).

Thus, there are various reasons to consider Lloyd’s comment as multitudinously confused.

The next assertion (especially since we’ve not seen a single citation yet) is that “Another mysterious race that is mentioned in the Bible is the little-known Didanum…ancestors of the Nephilim and Rephaim” for which there’s zero evidence and zero such statements.

Lloyd wants to “unravel the mystery of the enigmatic Didanum” but first wants to elucidate, “the story behind the Nephilim and Rephaim. How far back in the distant past can we trace the giants?” and note that Lloyd doesn’t bother telling us what is meant by giants—nor that there’s literally zero relation between Nephilim and Rephaim and only one single utterly unreliable verse about Nephilim relation to Anakim.

We finally get a citation with a quote from Gen 6:1-4 which is about when “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives…Nephilim were in the earth in those days…the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown…”

The comment is, “We are informed that giants, the Nephilim, the ‘fallen ones’, existed in the antediluvian world as well as after the Great Flood. The earliest accounts of giants occur in times before Adam.”

Now, nowhere in 1-4 did we get a reference to “giants”: and since Lloyd is implying unusual height then we don’t even get that in English versions that have “giants” rendering, not even translating, “Nephilim” since such is not the usage of the word “giants” in English Bibles.

Also, nowhere in 1-4 did we get a reference to “after the Great Flood” since the flood isn’t even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later: v. 17—and v 4 tells us to what days it’s referring and it’s not the flood, it’s before and after the sons of God and daughters of men first mated.

And, nowhere did we get “giants…in times before Adam.”

Continuing along the lines of the “times before Adam,” we’re told, “Some,” unenumerated, unnamed, and uncited, “alternative ancient researchers think these divine scientists,” “celestial beings,” “manipulated the genes of various kinds of animal life and as a result, they genetically engineered a race of humanoids of gigantic stature.” And, well, anyone can think anything.

Based on some someones thinking something, “These were the first giants, the pre-Adamites.”

Next, we’re told, “According to the Bible, those who descended to Earth and mated with the women of Earth were the ‘fallen angels’, (the Watchers), a group of 200 high-ranked divine beings.”

I’d imaging that no quotations or citations are provided because, technically, no such statements exist in the Bible.

I’d argue that “According to the Bible, those who descended to Earth and mated with the women of Earth were the ‘fallen angels’” but based on correlations with Job 38:7, Jude, 2 Peter 2, etc.

The term “Watchers” contextually comes from 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch as does the specific number “200.” But neither the Bible nor Enoch have any such a thing as pre-Adamic Nephilim.

Lloyd wrote, “The offspring of the Nephilim were giants known as the ‘Gibborim’, ‘heroes of old, men of renown’, which are mentioned in Genesis 6. The Gibborim were not as tall and powerful as the Nephilim, but they were nevertheless a dangerous warrior race.”

This is simply 100% made up stuff.

The offspring of the Nephilim were giants known as the ‘Gibborim’, ‘heroes of old, men of renown’, which are mentioned in Genesis 6. The Gibborim were not as tall and powerful as the Nephilim, but they were nevertheless a dangerous warrior race.”

Lloyd quoted 6:4 as, “The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown…” wherein “mighty” is translating gibborim.

Thus, there’s no reference whatsoever of any offspring of Nephilim (even if they did have some offspring) and the statement is that “the same” Nephilim “were the” gibborim: meaning that they became mighty at some point.

And, we most certainly have zero reference to the mere male plural term for might meaning “not as tall and powerful…but they were nevertheless a dangerous warrior race.”

Thus far, the grade for the article is only F- since there’s nothing lower than that.

I have little hope for the next section having Lloyd telling us about “Pre-Adamic Didanum Race.”

We’re told, “The Hebrew word Rephaim has two different meanings. Sometimes it is a reference to departed spirits whose dwelling place was Sheol and on other occasions, the meaning of Rephaim is ‘a mighty people with tall stature who lived in Canaan.’”

I included a whole chapter about Rephaim in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology and can tell you that it, or it’s root repha, varies in meaning and usage to also include healing.

Lloyd notes, “The first reference to the Rephaim is Genesis 14:5” which, BTW, is centuries post-flood.

We’re then taken to Num 13 without a citation and only a paraphrase, “When the Israelites first approached the Promised Land…they were afraid to enter the land because it was filled with ‘giants’, the sons of Anak.”

Technically, “they were afraid to enter the land because” they were deceived when utterly unreliable guys told them that, “it was filled with” Nephilim—saying, “‘giants’, the sons of Anak” is just a translational/rendering issue.

Lloyd continues using (misusing) the vague, subjective, generic, multi-usage and undefined English terms “Giants” and doesn’t seem to realize that it’s rendering two words, Nephilim and Rephaim, which don’t even hint at anything to do with height at all.

Ellen Lloyd asserts, “Giants were widely scattered through Canaan but were known by different local names, including Rephaim, Zuzim, Emim, and Anakim. In Deuteronomy 2:20-21 it is written that the Rephaim were strong and tall, like the Anakites. Og, king of Bashan, was described as the last of the Rephaim in his land (Deuteronomy 3:11), and his bed was thirteen feet long and six feet

wide.”

Since her article is nowhere even near close to having been well researchers (much less sourced) then I need to re-write is as that the Bible would have us understand it, Rephaim were widely scattered through Canaan but were known by different local names, including Zuzim, Emim, and Anakim—Rephaim subgroups.

Deut 2 tell us that some Rephaim, such as Anakim, were “tall” which is as subjective a term as “giants” and, in this case, subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 in those days.

We’ve no physical description of Og whatsoever and so much ado about nothing must be made of his bed which raises a lot of issues in terms of the incoherence of imaging we can guestimate his height that way.

Lloyd asserts, “The Didanum people were a pre-Adamic race and these beings were closely related to both the Nephilim and Rephaim” even though we’ve no reason at all to even imagine any such thing—at least not as of yet, let’s see if this is established.

She notes that the Legend of Keret aka Epic of King Keret (KTU 1.161, 1-34) the Didanum summed to the council:

The written record of the sacred celebration in honor of the Shades (zlm). You are summoned, O Rephaim (rp’m) of the netherworld, you are summoned, O council of the Didanites (ddn)! Invoked is Ulkan, the Rapha. Invoked is Taruman, the Rapha. Invoked is Sidan and Radan, invoked is Thar, the eternal one. You are invoked, most ancient Rephaim! You are all summoned, O council of the Didanites. Invoked is Ammithtamru, the king, and invoked as well is Niqmad the king. O throne of Niqmad, may you be mourned! And lamented be his footstool. Let the table of the king be mourned in his presence.

But let their tears be swallowed, and their dreadful lamentations. Go down, O Shapsh, go down, O great luminary. May Shapsh shine upon him. After your lord from the throne, after your lord to the netherworld descend! To the netherworld descend and go down low into the earth.

Down to Sidan-and-Radan, down to the eternal one Thar, down to the ancient Rephaim, down to Ammithtamru the king, and also down to Niqmad the king. One, make an offering, two, and make an offering, three, and make an offering, four, and make an offering….Hail, Ammurapi! And hail to his household! Hail, Tharyelli! Hail to her household! Hail, Ugarit! Hail to her gates!

I didn’t notice anything about relation to Nephilim nor being unusually tall nor consisting of “the genes of various kinds of animal life” nor anything that has been asserted thus far except.

In short, in Ugaritic material, to which this text pertains, recently deceased kings and heroes are referred to as kings and heroes but after kings and heroes have been dead a certain amount of time, they were then called Repha(im).

Ellen Lloyd told us that Didanites were pre-Adamites but comments, “This text is of crucial importance in shedding light on the historical memory behind the Rephaim viewed by the Canaanite kings as their ancestors” or, rather, viewed by them as being their long deceased kings (and heroes). And, “King Keret, who is a descendent of the Didanite” who “were highly significant as their presence was required during the accession of the Kings…in Sumerian texts…were enemies of the goddess Inanna” none of which even hints at the tall tale she spun about them.

She tells us “The Canaanite text equates them with the Rephaim” but was “Rephaim (rp’m) of the netherworld, you are summoned, O council of the Didanites (ddn)!” equating them or naming two groups (one specified to be int eh netherworld and one not)?

In any case, Lloyd refers to “these giant beings” but we’ve yet to see even a hint anywhere describing them physically. She assures us that they are “a separate race not in any way related to other giants” well, but she has Rephaim as “giants” and Didanum/Didanites being equated.

She tells us, “Based on what we know so far, we can conclude that the Didanum people were very important, pre-Adamic giants” but that has strictly merely been asserted, not established—not even close.

And well, that’s the end of it so that all we got is a tall tale based on nearly 100% fallacious pseudo-data points. The article was titled “…Pre-Adamic Didanum Race: Giants Who Were Ancestors of the Nephilim and Rephaim” but we’ve no indication that they were Pre-Adamic, not Giants, nor Ancestors of the Nephilim.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Discussing “Evolution is Useless”

To the Standing For Truth video Evolution is Useless | Professor David McQueen I, Ken Ammi, commented as follows, after which discussions ensued:

If Atheist evolution is true then it collapses any universal imperative to adhere to truth and so it self-defeating on a conceptual level.

H H:

Word salad.

Redefine Living:

H H  Tell me, at a fundamental level, how can you determine what is true? Does natural selection select for truth and falsity or survivability?

H H:

Redefine Living  natural selection selects for advantageous traits to fit the environment. So you’re asking is if what is true is advantageous in an evolutionary context. The answer is no, they’re not related. Truth is a property of propositions, meaning it is heavily dependent on the information and frame of the context provided. I can live my entire life believing that the earth is flat, and it would have no impact what so ever on my survival prospects. All that matters is that I make enough correct choices with my remaining energy and activities to off set any false apprehensions I may have.

Redefine Living:

H H  If Truth to you is based on information and context, then you can never know if you have all the information and all the context, therefore you can never ultimately access truth from your not-God worldview. Tell me, what is your fundamental axiom for determining what is “true”? If “truth” is determined by considering evidence, would you propose that your reasoning is that which is fundamental? Please respond.

I would appreciate if you do not edit your responses once you have posted them.

H H:

Redefine Living  Im glad you chose the axiomatic route, because it keeps things kinda simple without getting into things like truth by definition, or epistemic truths. Truth by proposition is more interesting in my opinion anyway. You seem to already have a decent grasp of what I’m talking about, so I’ll agree that because one can never be absolutely certain of the quality of facts or have a complete picture including all relevant facts, one can neither be certain to have access to any absolute truths. The raven paradox or the black swan paradox are exercises designed to explore the nature of the facts available that nit pick and challenge the conclusion or proposed truth.

Also, wod you rather read a post full of grammatical and spelling errors? I think you can tolerate an edit here and there.

Redefine Living:

H H  Because I am not your English teacher, I’m not interested in grammatical or spelling errors. So as you have acknowledged, nothing can ultimately to be true, but what you fail to acknowledge is that this is only a problem from within your position. From your position, “knowledge” comes from an open system where anything can be true and therefore nothing can be true because truth is only arbitrary from within your system. When you use the word “truth” from your system and then attempt to apply it to truth from my system where I can have objective truth, it is a false equivocation. From my position, I am in a closed system with only one source of truth, that source of truth is objective.

  1. If God exists, objective truth exists.
  2. Objective truth exists.
  3. Therefor God exists.

H H:

Redefine Living  then you have to ask yourself how you know if you’re position, the facts available are complete, and your perception and mental faculties are objective enough to derive am absolute truth, or or a useful one.

Ken Ammi:

H H  My experience has been that terms such as “Word salad” are an Atheist diversionary tactic when the Atheist finds themselves incapable of replying and so seeks to sidestep the issue and runs away. The fundamental issue is that on Atheism, truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand or expect others to adhere to it.

H H:

Ken Ammi  word salad is an informal adjective describing a lack of comprehensible verbiage. If you suspect that someone doesn’t have a response other than “word salad,” it’s likely because what you said isn’t making sense, or even sounds like it could in some context.

Ken Ammi:

H He  As I noted, I was relaying “My experience.”

Now, “If Atheist evolution is true” the concept of it being true would imply that there’s no universal imperative to be concerned about whether it’s true since on that view truth would be accidental, as would our ability to discern it, there’d be no universal imperative to adhere to truth, not to expect/demand others adhere to it.

Thus, it would “then it collapses any universal imperative to adhere to truth” ergo, “it[’s] self-defeating on a conceptual level” since the very concept collapses ontology and epistemology as universal imperatives.

H H:

Ken Ammi  except we do have evidence for evolution, and that evidence is compiled into a theory.

You’re arguing backwards as if evolution is just an idea to be weighed on purely philosophical grounds, when it’s a scientific theory that is judged on the evidence, and how others perceive that evidence. It’s literally just changing the discussion to avoid having the discussion.

Ken Ammi:

I see. Well, it seems that you are misreading me. My issue is not (at least not at this point) to doubt that “we do have evidence for evolution…it’s a scientific theory that is judged on the evidence” so it’s not “literally just changing the discussion to avoid having the discussion” but is about applying

The video is titled, “Evolution is Useless” and I initially noted, “If Atheist evolution is true then it collapses any universal imperative to adhere to truth and so it self-defeating on a conceptual level” which I then elucidated.

In other words, let’s grant that it’s 100% not demonstrable fact that “we do have evidence for evolution…it’s a scientific theory that is judged on the evidence,” etc. the question that begs is: why believe it? Why accept evidence? Why base our views on evidence? Why base our views on truth, reality, facts, etc.?

Why, on Atheism, ought we to do those things in a universe wherein there’s no universal imperative to do any such things?

Thus, I’m not arguing backwards but am actually starting with step one.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that ended the discussion.

For more details, see my relevant books.

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

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

 

Matrix Disclosure’s article “Forbidden History – Ancient Giants – Gods and Kings”

The Matrix Disclosure site published an article titled, Forbidden History – Ancient Giants – Gods and Kings.

The article’s author wrote, “Were the fathers of our father’s giants…they were…very large in size…giant men…ancient giants.”

The first on which focus is put is Goliath, the reference to whom is prefaced by, “The Bible often involve giants: Nephilim were semi-divine beings. The King Og had an iron bed 6.7ft by 14: he would be at least 12ft tall. Goliath, the gigantic rival that King David brought down with his sling, was 9.2ft tall. In Rome about 235, they said the Thracian Maximinus Caesar had an 8.6ft skeleton.”

Let us review:

From the context, it would seem that the claim, “The Bible often involve giants” is meant to imply that unusual height is oft noted in the Bible—which, by the way, is not the usage of the vague, subjective, generic, and multi-usage modern word giants in English Bibles.

Nephilim: we have no reliable physical description of them.

Og: we have no physical description of him until folkloric tall-tales form millennia after the Torah. To merely assume that we can know his height from the size of his bed is to jump to a conclusion based on various assumptions—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Most reliably, Goliath was just shy of 7 ft.

As noted in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales, that tall-tale about Thracian Maximinus Caesar is just that: a tall-tale.

Thus, where are the giants?

Well, the article goes around the world providing examples of claims of giants and includes this chart:

nephilim-giants-chart

In my Believe It Or Not! book, I devoted an entire chapter to examining that chart, including interacting with museums, and the score is that it is 99% unreliable.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Nephilim in Eustace Mullins’ book “Curse of Canaan: A Demonology of History”

Eustace Mullins is described in the books as having been, “kept under daily surveillance by agents of the FBI…the only person ever fired from the staff of the Library of Congress for political reasons…only writer who has had a book burned in Europe since 1945” who, “hopes to end a three-thousand-year blackout behind which the enemies of humanity have operated with impunity in carrying out their Satanic program.”

The book under succinct consideration, “is written solely with the goal of renewing our ancient culture, and of bringing it to new heights.”

Mullins wrote of, “Satan, the fallen angel” but he’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub—see my book What Does the Bible Say About the Devil Satan? A Styled Satanology.

He wrote of the fictional, “pre-Adamic man” as, “a hybrid creature whose origins are described in ancient books” and directly thereafter wrote, “The Book of Enoch (which itself is part of an earlier Book of Noah, written about 161 B.C.)…”

Within such context (such as those of post-flood Nephilologists) be careful about the usage of the term ancient since 161 BC may be ancient to us but is still millennia after the Torah. 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from around that time—see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

In any case, it is noted that the text, “says that Samjaza (Satan), the leader of a band of two hundred angels, descended on Mt. Carmel”: it actually has then descending on Mt. Hermon.

We are told, “They had lusted after the daughters of men from afar, and now they took them for wives. These fallen angels, known as the Order of the Watchers” yet, Watchers is just a Second Temple Era aka for Malakim/Angels.

Eustace Mullins noted, “The issue of these unions was a race of giants, known as Nephilim” about which it is key to ask a few questions (as it is key to ask them of post-flood-giant Nephilologists):

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What was Mullins’ your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

In any case, he assures us, “The Bible does not mention the Nephilim specifically by name, and Strong’s Concordance does not list them. However, Nelson’s Concordance has several listings under Nephilim.

The verses of the Bible to which it refers are Genesis 6:4, “There were giants in the earth in those days.”

The Revised Standard Version does give the name of the Nephilim, the same verse reading, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days.”

I’m unsure how it is that, “The Bible does not mention the Nephilim specifically by name” except when it does.

Strong’s #H5303 is the term nāp̄îl/nef-eel’ which is said to come from the root #H5307 nāp̄al/naw-fal’ as the primitive root.

Indeed, contextually, giants is merely rendering (not even translating) Nephilim.

Eustace Mullins went on to claim:

These giants later became known as “the sons of Anak.” In Numbers 13:33, we read, “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants.”

These giants constituted a powerful menace to other peoples. In Deuteronomy 9:2 is the complaint, “Who can stand before the children of Anak?” Nevertheless, they were finally killed or driven out. “There were none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel.” (Joshua 11:22)

What this denotes is that his entire theory about what Nephilim had to do with however he ties them into whatever he ties them is exclusively relying on one single sentence spoken by utterly unreliable, unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who presented an evil report and were rebuked by God.

Note that the Septuagint/LXX version lacks a reference to Anakim in that verse.

People who believe in post-flood Nephilim do so due to that one single verse and then use it as a hermeneutic whereby to fallaciously pull other verses from their context and into the post-flood Nephilim black hole.

Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of the via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., and then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent an un-biblical tall-tale about how they made it past the flood.

Let us answer the questions I posed above:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? It’s merely rendering Nephilim in two verses (Mullins’ “several listings” amount to two) and Rephaim in 98% of all other instances—and Nephilim and Rephaim are utterly unrelated: the former were strictly pre-flood hybrids and the latter were strictly post-flood 100% humans.

What was Mullins’ your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”? He used to it mean something unspecific about subjectively unusual height.

Do those usages agree? No.

It is not the case at all that, “These giants later became known as ‘the sons of Anak’”: Nephilim were the sons of the sons of God while the sons of Anak were the sons of Anak.

As for being subjectively unusually tall well, sure they were. They are referred to as having been, “tall” in Deut. 2 and this means taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Yes, they were notoriously infamous, “Who can stand before the children of Anak?” but we’re not even told why.

Since (in pop-researcher Gary Wayne fashion) Eustace Mullins quoted anything by anyone anywhere of any context and any genre, what he tells us about the giants is based on folklore from millennia after the Torah such as, “These early giants…had habits and lusts which horrified their neighbors. Their leader, Satan (the adversary of God), also known as Satona, was the serpent who entered into and seduce Eve,

producing the first murderer, Cain” the last part of which I debunked in my five volume set of books titled Cain As Serpent Seed of Satan.

The folklore continues thusly, “Not only were the Nephilim a menace to others, their uncontrollable hated and violence sometimes led them to attack and kill each other. They then ate their victims, introducing cannibalism to the world. According to some accounts, God slaughtered them, while the Archangel Michael imprisoned the fallen angels, the Order of the Watchers, in deep chasms in the earth” the last part of which touches upon what is found in 2 Peter chap. 2.

As with all post-flood Nephilologists, they give lip service to God’s actions to counteract but end up implying that He failed since, “Unfortunately for humanity, this was not the end of the matter. Satan, through his children, the Nephilim, and also through Cain, had now established a demonic presence on the earth.” Biblically, the flood was the end of any such, “demonic presence” when understood contextual to, “the Nephilim, and also through Cain.”

Eustace Mullins claimed, “While they were wandering in the desert, the Jewish tribes worshipped demons and monsters. They revered their mythical monsters, Leviathan, Behemoth, and Raheb, who well

may have been survivors of the tribe of giants, the Nephilim.”

Indications are that Leviathan and Behemoth were animals. The mythical aspect of Leviathan, or so it seems to me, is that once that animal kind went extinct, it became the stuff of myth and legend and was referred to metaphorically—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology.

As for Raheb/Rahab, that was a persons’ name (Jos 2:1) but also refers to a styled mythical sea creature (Job 26:12) and also a metaphoric manner whereby to besmirch Egypt (Isa 30:7).

Well, there is not much more of contextually interesting relevance to me since therefrom, he goes onto A Demonology of History book.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Nephilim question answered: How do normal sized women give birth to giants?

The following discussion took place due to Dr. Taylor Marshall’s video NEPHILIM in the Bible? Children of Demons? Expert explains GIANTS in Genesis and Book of Enoch

@marydd4147 asked:

How do normal sized women give birth to giants?

I, @kenammi355, replied:

They key questions are:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

@marydd4147 replied:

I have no idea of the Bible’s use of that word. I didn’t write the book. Hence, my question.  I’ve never understood this, and nobody appears to question it. Can you explain why my vague definition is of ANY relevance?

@kenammi355:

Well, it has relevance since I can’t know to what you’re referring so had to read your sentence like this, “How do normal sized women give birth to _________?”

So, let’s go about this thusly:

“What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’?”

Your usage (and the usage of 99.999999% of everyone “out there” talking about Nephilim) is something unspecified about subjectively unusual height: inches taller, feet taller, entire body lengths taller–we can’t know if the person using the word doesn’t specify.

“What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’ in English Bibles?”

It’s rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” in two verses and “Rephaim” in 98% of all others–and it never even hints at anything whatsoever to do with subjectively unusual height.

“Do those usages agree?”

Not in the least bit.

So now, let’s rephrase your question like this, “How do normal sized women give birth to subjectively unusually tall personages?”

The Biblical answer is that it’s a non-issue since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim and so can’t merely assert that they were subjectively unusually tall.

@marydd4147:

All you needed was your last sentence. Thank you.

FYI: I have asked those key question to dozens upon dozens (upon dozens [upon dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have answered them, not a single one—but they’ll go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants.”

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

William Lucas on Deep State and Ancient Origin of the Cabal

William Lucas authored a book titled, “Deep State and Ancient Origin of the Cabal” which features an image on the cover along with the words, “The Cabal or Illuminati.”

It could really do with some consolidating since it reads like a rant. For example, for any one statement I quote, he actually repeats the statement, peppering it over and over and over and over, throughout the book.

Referring to a modern channeled book, Lucas writes, “The Urantia Book states that beings from a higher universe came took plasma from the most advanced humans and made superior bodies for those sons of God.” Let us pause here to note that by sons of God, he is referring to humans since, as he puts it (many times), “The Bible often calls men and women sons of God; see Hebrew 12:6-7.”

Well, that is being myopic and is a case of that which I term the canergois fallacy: can ergo is—since it can be the case ergo it is the case. Yet, his context was that which I term the Genesis 6 affair and so it would have been better for him to consider the Old Testament context of, for example, Job 38:7 which has sons of God as being non-human beings—as is the common usage of the term in the Old Testament (whether it is bene ha Elohim or ben Elim, etc.).

William Lucas follows with, “Lucifer rebelled, and of the 100 sons (Anunnaki) that came, 60 rebelled along with Lucifer. They were the ones that had children by humans; their descendants were known as Nephilim; their bodies were made with human DNA.”

So, he has basically just swapped sons of God/Angels with Anunnaki.

He adds that, “After they sinned, the Tree of Life was taken from them.” For one, he has sons/Anunnaki who, “rebelled along with Lucifer” but the Biblical timeline is that Lucifer rebelled and the sons rebelled later—with some level of prompting from him, sure, but not at the same time (Rev 12).

All indications are that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden before having any children, the Genesis 6 affair took place, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” (Gen 6:1) so it could not have been that, the Tree of Life was taken from them” since it had been previously been kept from being accessed by stationing two Cherubim at the entrance to the Garden so as, “to guard the way to the tree of life” (Gen 3:23) so it was a done deal by the time the sons can around.

Yet, what is that to him since he claims of Adam and Eve, “They were not the first two people on earth…it would have been impossible for them to have been the first two people on earth.”

Lucas proposes a fallacious, inaccurate, and anachronistic tale about this, “the sons of God…live indefinitely if they took the tree of life, just as Adam and Eve…After they rebelled, the tree was taken from them, and they would surely die. When the leader of this group realized they would surely die, they were ordered to start having children. Before this, they were not allowed to have children until they had ordered.”

He claims, “Genesis 6:4 says those descendants of the sons of God became men of renown. After thousands of years, they became the people that attempted to build The Tower of Babel; this is the first megalithic site recorded on earth, and they were the only ones on earth that were advanced enough to build such a site.”

Lucas notes that Gen 6:4, “emphasize the male sons of God had children by the daughters of men.” Yet, he also wrote, “I read someplace the reason because all the angels were known as female.” Well, I am as unsure as he is as to what is being referenced as, “someplace” but the fact is actually the 100% opposite: Angles are described as looking like human males.

Lucas appeals to, “Genesis 6: 4 where it says: ‘There were giants (the original word was

Nephilim the King James version) 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.’ Did you notice the giants were already here when the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men?”

No, what I noticed is that since the narrative is about the sons of God and daughters of men, their attraction, marriages, mating, and offspring, then I would not conclude that a very odd narrative indeed, merely throws in a contextually inconsequential reference to Nephilim—about whom nothing more is said.

Rather, the context of the narrative is that, “There were giants…Nephilim…in the earth in those days; and also, after that” as a result of, “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men and they bare children to them…”

Lucas claims, “The Jews changed the story to a flood of the whole world to suit their purpose when the Babylonians captured them in B.C. 597” because, “The Hebrew priests had difficulty tracing the Jewish race back to Adam and Eve; as their task was impossible…So they falsified their history to trace Abraham to one of the surviving sons of Noah.”

He knows this because, “The Higher Beings state in The Urantia Book that the tale of Noah and the universal flood was an invention of the Hebrew priesthood during the Babylonian captivity.”

So, based on a channeled assertion, he makes an assertion, and now he can also comfortably assert post-flood Nephilim since there was no flood or the flood was local.

Yet, the flood’s scope is irrelevant to Biblical Nephilology since they either did not survive because the flood was global or because they lived in the flooded region.

Interestingly, he writes, “The contradictions between the Bible and The Urantia Book, we must do a careful analysis of the story of Noah and the Ark as told in the Bible” rather than, the contradictions between the Bible and The Urantia Book, we must do a careful analysis of the story of Noah and the Ark as told in the The Urantia Book. Thus, we see his bias: the Bible must be the problem, and it must be the problem because it contradicts a channeled text from many, many, millennia after the Torah—and because it states what he wants to hear, what will allow his grand narrative to appear cogent.

His attacks upon the Biblical text are misguided, at best, “it would have been impossible for four men

to build a boat that would carry two of every kind of animal in the world” but just like Noah, himself, is told to build it, there is no indication that only one man or three built it.

I have no idea where he gets the idea that, “a person would not have been able to see from one end of the ship to the other,” nor how that would matter.

He asks, “How could Noah and his sons procure enough food and water to last two of a kind of every animal in the world for ten months?” and subjectively informs us, “the whole story sounds ridiculous. How could the Western world believe a story like this for so many years and call themselves intelligent human beings? I know some will say that for God, all things are possible. We must stop using God to wiggle our way out of our stupidity. We must stop letting others use sorcery on us; we must be under some spell to believe some of these stories.”

This is after the very first line of his book’s, “Dedication” reads, “I dedicate this book to the spirit of God within me, and to humanity. One Corinthian 3:16: ‘Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, that the spirit of God dwelleth in you?’” So, the Bible is accurate only when he agrees with it. Also, he really needs to, “do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1-6).

Part of the issue is that the typical animal (and human) reaction to cataclysmic weather (or just severe storms) is to hunker down and not be very physically active which dramatically reduces the need for what would otherwise be an average caloric allotment—this also cuts down on the level of waste that is produced. Besides, anyone undergoing such an endeavor would board smaller animals, younger ones that eat less.

Well, that was it, those jejune points are enough to opt for a tall-tale from a modern channeled text.

Yet, he also asserts, “The legend of Noah and the Ark is a story told in the third millennium B.C.E….the Epic of Gilgamesh.” Now, B.C.E. refers to Before Common Era and is just a scholarly manner whereby to refuse to even make any reference to Jesus since B.C.E.  denotes the same exact date as B.C.Before Christ.

The legend of Noah and the Ark is a story told in the third millennium B.C. because it was an actual event. Such is why ancient cultures around the world relate the same event: whether it later came to be called myth or legend, or not.

Yet, fascinatingly, William Lucas wrote, “The Urantia Book claims…When the severe floods came, only Noah’s family survived.” Thus, by besmirching the Bible in favor of that text, he ends up in the same exact place where he started and did not advance a single inch—yet, he moved back a tremendous distance by opting to besmirch the Bible.

Since, “only Noah’s family survived” then Nephilim did not.

Yet, since he appeals to any text from any time by anyone that will say what he subjectively prefers to hear. In fact, he wrote, “I have recently been studying the Emerald Tablets of Thoth—The—Atlantean, and with my knowledge of The Urantia Book, I have discovered some fantastic facts putting the pieces together for me; they are facts.”

He decides to take us in the direction of that, “From the stories found on clay tablets in Sumerian ruins, one can conclude that the Jews fabricated their history years after leaving Egypt as slaves.”

Thus, appeal to the Urantia Book for that it was, “an invention of the Hebrew priesthood during the Babylonian captivity” or the Sumerians for that, “Jews fabricated their history years after leaving Egypt as slaves”: it matter not as long as the Jews are said to be corrupt.

From that standpoint, the line of dominos collapses, “many Bible stories are made up….David and Solomon’s vast empire are just stories created by Jewish authors…a global flood is physically impossible…” and on it goes.

William Lucas asks, “If a worldwide flood destroyed all but one family in the Middle East, as reported in the Bible, how did other cultures know there was a flood? It’s reported that as many as 500 different cultures worldwide have myths and traditions of floods. How would the people know there was a flood in their region if everyone was destroyed?”

Well, it is precisely because a worldwide flood destroyed all but one family in the Middle East that other cultures know there was a flood. Post-flood, humanity lived in relative proximity until the Tower of Babel event, after which they dispersed. They took with them what was then commonly known and shared history, which later, with time and telling, came to be called myth and legend.

And he knows this because he goes on to write, “Genesis 11:8 said they scattered.”

Lucas ends that particular section with, “So says The Urantia Book.”

As he progresses, he says about those that scattered, “After thousands of years, the ones that stayed in Mesopotamia became the people of the Land of Nod, where Cain found his wife.” Yet, that is anachronistic since Cain absconding to Nod occurred quite a long time pre-Babel. Yet, he claims, “we all must realize the people of the Land of Nod, were here thousands upon thousands of years before Adam and Eve, they were the descendants of the sons of God who became the men of renown” which is just a mish-mash of timelines since, of course and again, the sons of God married and mated after Adam and Eve’s children began having children.

Also, note that he wrote, “the sons of God who became the men of renown” but he is confusing the sons of God with their Nephilim offspring who are they who became the men of renown (Gen 6:4).

But I suppose, why let chronology get in the way of a good tall-tale—especially when Lucas has a “second Garden.” At one point, he writes of when the, “Garden of Eden and Atlantis was no more.”

Moreover, “After many more years of mixing with the people in their environment, including Adam and Eve’s offspring after The Book of Enoch warned them not to” referring to a Bible contradicting folkloric text from millennia after the Torah, “They became the Aryans, the ones Hitler tried to discover” and, “The Sumerian language, though virtually lost to the world, was not Semitic; it had much in common with the so-called Aryan tongues.”

The direction in which he is going is to identify, “The Cabal or Deep State…The Cabal (Nephilim) or children of the Land of Nod.”

He notes, “Recently someone posted on FB and asked if anyone thought the Cabal could be the descendants of Nephilim. I said they were. They have been trying for thousands of years to keep their bloodline pure and hide their origin.” Well, such a concept is fallacious since they did not make it past the flood—in any way, shape, or form (lest God failed).

Interestingly, he asserts, “They are the descendants of the ones The Book of Enoch warned his people not to associate with. And they were the offspring of the sons of God of Genesis 6:4, who had children by the daughters of men, and became men of renown” the last point of which contradicts his previous error.

What is interesting is that there were no physical post-flood Nephilim in The Book of Enoch (1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch) so he undermined his own tall-tale.

He relates folklore from Enoch stating of Noah that when he was born, it was noted, “this baby was as white as snow and resembling the sons of God of heaven” and something about, “This is the kind of stuff the Vatican has hidden away in their Library; they don’t want us to know” which makes me wonder how he knows that. Yet, it is always convenient to assert that lack of evidence equals evidence: since we do not have the data that is hidden away then what we merely imagine it may be, must be true.

Likewise with his assertion, “That is why The Book of Enoch was taken out of the Bible, it exposed the Nephilim.” Thus, or so goes the (il)logic: Enoch was taken out of the Bible because it exposed the Nephilim even though Nephilim are in the Bible. He noted, “I guess the Nephilim or Cabal didn’t want anyone to recognize them; the Book of Enoch Identified them” so credit goes to Enoch, not to the Bible, and he does not get a post-flood Cabal of Nephilim post-flood from either one.

Also, there is zero indication that, “The Book of Enoch was taken out of the Bible,” that is just an oft repeated myth.

Lucas continues with that, “The Nephilim invaded Europe.” Now, he circles back to, “The Urantia Book claims those sons of God…rebelled with Lucifer…attempted to build the Tower of Babel” and after, “they scattered…the ones in Mesopotamia…became the people of the Land of Nod, where Cain found his wife. And many more years of mixing with the people in their environment, including Adam and Eve’s descendants, they became the Aryans…A small group at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers maintained more of their racial integrity. They persisted for thousands of years and eventually furnished the Nodites [which Lucas interprets as Nephilim] ancestry which blended with the Adamites to find the Sumerian peoples of historic times.”

Oddly, he wrote this, “‘There were giants (or Nephilim) 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 unto them some became mighty men that were of old, men of renown.’ Please pay attention to the section where they said after the giants they went in unto the daughters of men, and those children became the men of renown.”

Well, what I paid attention to is that it states nothing about that, “giants…went in unto the daughters of men” but that the sons of God did.

He goes on to say of, “Nephilim; they were ‘Hell’ on earth. You can check the Bible to see the problems they cost the people of those times [Numbers 13:30-33] also [Deuteronomy 2:10-11].”

Yet, Num 13:32-33 is just recording an “evil report” by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked and Deut 2 does not say a single word about Nephilim, it is about Rephaim.

It is asserted that, “Nephilim…are mixed all over the world” and, “guess what we call the Nephilim descendants today, yep, Cabal or Deep State. Throughout history, they have caused havoc in the Middle East and Europe. I’d never heard of the Kazazian [sic.] Mafia until recently. Some believe they are trying to eradicate all Abrahamic religions. The only religion they want on earth is the Babylonian Talmudism, known as Luciferianism worship. The evilest people on earth. Here is additional information about them. ‘The Rothschilds are not Jews; they are in fact, Kharzas… [sic.]’”

This is based on the utterly debunked myth that claims just that: Khazar Jews are not real Jews.

William Lucas quotes, “Armageddon Apocalypse End of World Blog *** Intelligence news

update from the Human Homo-Sap” from July 11, 2017 which claims, “The Phoenicians who are the snake bloodline Nephilim descendants mentioned in the Bible” yet, of course, no such thing is even hinted at in the Bible whatsoever.

The claim is that the snake bloodline Nephilim descendants (whatever that means), “moved through Europe and became the royal families and current-day congress parliament, Hollywood celebrities, corporate leaders, billionaire bankers, media leaders, school leaders, feminist leaders, polic [sic.] leaders, intelligence agency leaders, presidents’ prime ministers, and 34 million Illuminati family members in the U.S. They are the Baal Molek abortion clinic and Baal Molek Pizza Gate spirit cooking pedophile cannibal child sacrifice ritual Nephilim descendant feminist witch race Illuminati Luciferian Satanist descendants of the Draco reptilian ‘Predator Alien’ chimera ancestors.”

Wow, that is a drink from the conspiratorial hot-button key-words firehose!

Thus far, we learned that the Nephilim cabal are, “the Kazazian Mafia…Kharzas” who are, “The evilest people on earth” about whom we are then told are, “The Nephilim from the Middle East invaded Europe thousands of years ago; they were the first white race…” and we saw the reference to the, “baby was as white as snow” Noah (so, now he was a Nephil?) and these, “Nephilim descendants are mundane materialistic beings and mostly appear to be Satanic worshipers.”

So, this really led to the Jews as literally Satanic enemies of humanity in more than one way and even if Lucas does not realize what he is saying since his data points range from valid to tall-tales and the manner whereby he connects them is even more problematic.

On his view, “The evilest people on earth” claim to be Jews but are not.

In reality, he still really is claiming that they are Jews since they really are.

Yet, overall, he is identifying them as a group of White people.

Now, there is a reason that in my book Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop-Researchers, I included a chapter titled, “Nephil Kampf” and that reason is that I discerned a patter whereby post-flood Nephilim believers somehow end up claiming a form of Lucas’ all-encompassing conspiracy theory and end up claiming that we need to take up arms against them.

One of the most dangerous aspects of this is when the claim is that literally Satanic (in worship and genetics, in a manner of speaking) can be identified because these half-human serpent/demon, etc. creatures look exactly like human beings.

William Lucas ends up encouraging us, “We need to work together as evolutionary humans and bring down the descendants of the Nephilim whose been trying to keep their bloodline pure for thousands of years; there are many more of us.”

Moreover, “they have been putting themselves off as a European white race all these years. The Urantia Book called the Cro-Magnon race the blue race. People need to wake up and recognize

the real enemy. The Nephilim don’t care about anyone, but themselves and have been fighting for years to keep their bloodline pure. People, everyone, NEED TO WAKE-UP. THE CABAL KEPT ALL THIS KNOWLEDGE FROM US HUMANS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.”

Until, that is, William Lucas came around. His styled messianic complex is to the point that he wrote, “I had to share this knowledge even if it cost me my life. I believe it’s too important to keep to myself.”

Lastly, he notes, “The descendants of the Nephilim have duped us…conned many of the human races to believe those stories were nothing but myths to hide their identity. Now that myth wants to rule the world.”

Yet, within this circle of research, that there has ever been any sort of post-flood Nephilim—in any way, shape, or form—is the myth that wants to rule the world.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Regarding the AZ Animals site’s article Discover 8 Fantastic Beasts and Creatures Featured in the Bible

The AZ Animals site published an article titled Discover 8 Fantastic Beasts and Creatures Featured in the Bible by Andrew Wood (May 20, 2023).

First on the list are Nephilim, the section for which begins, “Does the Bible teach that real, human giants once walked the Earth?”

Since Wood instantly jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants,” that begs the questions:

What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?

What’s Wood’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those usages agree?

Likewise, Wood jumps from, “‘Sons of God’ are fallen angels” to “These demons.” Such jumpy writing is actually very common in pop-research circles so I’m not surprised that Wood employed it since he like is reading the pop-stuff.

Pop-researchers tend to write as per the modus operandi since it makes it easier to water everything down, fast-talk, and appear to cohere things that don’t really correlate.

Please see my book “Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.

Also, see the article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

Wood tells us that sons of God/Angels/demons, “intermarried with people and produced giants.”

I discern that he’s meaning something about subjectively unusual height by giants, which is not the biblical usage, due to the next thing he wrote which is, “The Nephilim appear again in Numbers 13:33, when Israelite spies go into the land of Canaan. They report that the Nephilim were there, and went on to say, ‘We seemed like grasshoppers’ compared to them. What’s the verdict? Were they giants? Nobody knows. But they aren’t described in more detail. It seems they were not an important part of the story the writer was trying to tell.”

That “The Nephilim appear” in a verse does not mean that they were alive, on the ground, at the time: if I mention POTUS George Washington right now, that does not mean he’s alive.

Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of the via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., and then, one has to invent an un-biblical tall-tale about how they made it past the flood.

It’s sloppy writing to assert, “Israelite spies…They report” since 12 went but only the 10 unreliable ones whom God rebuked merely asserted that “the Nephilim were there” with an evil report.

Thus, “Were they” subjectively unusually tall? It’s a non-issue since it’s not an issue that “they aren’t described in more detail” but that they just made up a tall-tale so since there is the only physical description we have of them, however generic, that means that we’ve no reliable physical description of them at all.

The next section is about Angles—and we already encountered his jump from Angel to demon.

He writes, “Angels…appear and disappear from our world” which is fair enough. Wood asserts, “They can have different appearances, titles, and areas of responsibility and perform different kinds of services. Sometimes they looked just like ordinary people, and sometimes their appearance was bright, powerful, and frightening. In fact, angels usually said, ‘Don’t be afraid!’ to the people they appeared to.”

The only differing “appearances” I’m aware of Angles having is the regular human-guy look and their hey, I’m an Angel in all of their glory look.

The only differing “titles” I’m aware of them having are: Angel of the LORD, Archangel, and regular Angel.

As for differing “responsibility and perform different kinds of services” well, their titled gives us the basics: their Hebrew tiled Malakim refers to being messengers.

As for the supposed “fact” that “angels usually said, ‘Don’t be afraid!’” I believe that’s a grand total of four instance. And, it has nothing to do with “bright, powerful, and frightening” since those instances are when people thought they were alone but there was suddenly someone else right there.

We get an idea whence Wood got some of his ideas when he writes of “Roles Angels Performed in the Bible” including “Guardians: God placed an angel with a shining sword at the entrance to the Garden of Eden.” Yet, that’s a category error since that was not one Angel, it was two Cherubim. Thus, Wood committed a category (and mathematical) error that violates he law of identity.

The next subsection is about demons and Wood claims “Demons in the Bible are ‘fallen angels’” which is accurate, as per my article, in a roundabout manner.

Wood note “an angel known as Lucifer, Satan, or ‘the Devil’” but he too is a Cherub and thus, not an Angel, by definition.

He claims that Lucifer/Satan/Devil “rebelled against God and led a large number of other angels to do the same (Revelation 12:7). The Archangel Michael led an army of faithful angels to fight against them” yet, he’s mashing together two wholly different timelines.

The “large number of other angels…(Revelation 12:7)” refers to the Gen 6 affair timeline but the “fight against them” is a post-Jesus’ ascension event.

Wood rightly notes “Demons in the Bible do not take a human form independently, but instead, they possess people or animals and cause them to act in destructive ways.”

Wood has a section on Cherubim “Ezekiel describes the cherubim as each having four wings and four faces: of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. Beside each was a strange contraption: two intersecting wheels spinning within each other and moving alongside each of the cherubim. Scholars say these were the cherubim’s spirits.”

The only point of correction is that the Cherubim’s spirits were in the wheels, the Ophanim.

Wood notes, “The Bible describes a similar description of four living creatures around the throne of God, in Revelation 4:6-8…Instead of wheels, the creatures themselves are covered with eyes” but they also are in Ezekiel chap 10.

The last section we will consider is on Leviathan wherein Wood notes, “it is not clear whether this is a literal creature that actually lived, or a fictional animal used for symbolism…Isaiah 27:1…says that God would one day kill it with a great sword.

Again, the issues are “Some people think Leviathan was an actual extinct species, perhaps a prehistoric reptile…Another possibility is that the writers of the Bible used a common mythological creature as a poetic example that God is stronger than the strongest creatures.”

As I concluded in my book What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology, I think that the horn splitting third way is that this is a case of both: it was a real-life animal but once it became extinct (or whilst still living) it became the stuff of myth and legend and/or, the stuff of symbolic metaphor.

Another section focuses on the “red dragon with seven heads wearing crowns and 10 horns. He is identified as an ‘ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan” so we know that Dragon is a symbolic metaphor so that not much more need be said.

I’m leaving two sections of Wood’s article without a comment since they are even more so wholly about symbolic metaphors since they deal with “Daniel’s Prophetic Creatures” and “The Beasts of the Sea and the Earth” as per “The author of Revelation.”

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Question: Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?

The discussion herein took place due to the Quora site question Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?

David Johnson replied

No, the Bible it technically fiction.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

How so?

Kyle Huxtable chimed in with

The flood didn’t happen as described by the Bible.

Ken Ammi

How did it happen?

Nicholas Peterman chimed in with

It was local, if it happened at all. And there was no ark.

Ken Ammi

Most interesting: where’s your proof of that?

Al Taylor chimes in with

Where’s your proof of a global flood? The person who makes the extraordinary claim (Bible believers) must provide the extrordinary evidence to support that claim.

Ken Ammi

That’s an incoherent pseudo-standard. The question was, “where’s your proof of that?”

Dead Weight chimed in with

The Burden of proof is on you if you believe there was an ark or a global flood. Trying to prove something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened is fallacious

Ken Ammi

So, three people chimed in with merely asserted positive affirmations they can’t prove and rather then having the integrity to call them out on it you seek to move the goalpost to that the burden of proof is on me?

Well, you imply that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive affirmation—which is what I’ve been implying.

You end by making a positive affirmation, “something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened” so you must prove it, right?

Also, you say “is fallacious” but how, on your world-view, do you imply condemning logical fallacies?

Dead Weight

Your obviously so lost in your nonsensical religious Make-believe you fail to see your own inability to support your claim. Religion made the claim God exist . Atheists want proof for the claim to be considered true. Still with me? Because it might get complicated ok? theist shift the burden of proof for something they made up because they don’t know the unfalsifiability fallacy. Disprove I didn’t have a thought of a turtle just now. You can’t. And yes I referred to it as made up because you have yet to provide proof for the claim that God exists so therefore its made up.

Ken Ammi

If I grant that you’re right: how is that even an issue, on your worldview according to which there’s nothing wrong with an accidentally existing ape believing such things—and, in fact, which may claim that it’s a Darwinian survival mechanism for an accidentally existing ape to believe such things.

I asked you, “So, three people chimed in with merely asserted positive affirmations they can’t prove and rather then [than] having the integrity to call them out on it you seek to move the goalpost to that the burden of proof is on me?”

You ignored that.

I noted, “Well, you imply that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive affirmation—which is what I’ve been implying.”

You ignored that.

I asked, “You end by making a positive affirmation, ‘something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened’ so you must prove it, right?”

You ignored that

I asked, “Also, you say ‘is fallacious’ but how, on your world-view, do you imply condemning logical fallacies?”

You ignored that.

If you truly have attained the one truth: how come you can’t deal with simple issues raised by an accidentally existing ape?

See, you say “Your obviously so lost in your nonsensical religious Make-believe you fail to see your own inability to support your claim” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “Religion made the claim God exist” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “Atheists want proof for the claim to be considered true” but the first step is for Atheists to justify their demand for proof (not evidence?)

You say “theist shift the burden of proof” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “something they made up” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “because they don’t know the unfalsifiability fallacy” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

You say “you have yet to provide proof for the claim that God exists so therefore its made up” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

Dead Weight

You are so lost right now? How do you not see your own ignorance?

I asked you, “So, three people chimed in with merely asserted positive affirmations they can’t prove and rather then [than] having the integrity to call them out on it you seek to move the goalpost to that the burden of proof is on me?”

It’s not a positive assertion your literally just using words that you think will make you sound like you have any idea what your talking about. It is a refuting statement because with no proof that the Bible holds any truth means We can disregard the bibles validity with the same concept of no evidence to prove it.

I asked, “You end by making a positive affirmation, ‘something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened’ so you must prove it, right?”

No I don’t because trying to find physical evidence for Somthing that isn’t proven to be real is a logical fallacy. It’s really that simple are you a child? It’s truly a simple concept that I did answer in my last comment. And again I didn’t make a “Positive Affermation” I disregarded a claim made without evidence so we can disregard that claim without evidence to.

I asked, “Also, you say ‘is fallacious’ but how, on your world-view, do you imply condemning logical fallacies?”

This doesn’t even make sense so now I know you have no idea what your talking about. I can disregard logical fallacies because I have common sense to know that a fallacy is false argument narrative. My God did you graduate high school?

If you truly have attained the one truth: how come you can’t deal with simple issues raised by an accidentally existing ape?

Literally no one said anything about a One truth that’s just something you made up inside your head there is no one truth? To what? You haven’t made a single point of anything yet that’s what we’re waiting on for you to make a point but I don’t believe you ever had 1.

See, you say “Your obviously so lost in your nonsensical religious Make-believe you fail to see your own inability to support your claim” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview

I didnt jump to any conclusion I made an informed Observation, are you serious? It’s like trying to argue with a 7yr old. I dont need to say what’s wrong with that because most of us have common sense somthing clearly you’ve never heard before.

You say “because they don’t know the unfalsifiability fallacy” but as a mere jump to an asserted conclusion and without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview.

Your Joking right this idiocy doesn’t even deserve a response.

I Would go on but I feel like I lost braincells your obviously Delusional and lack common rational thought

Ken Ammi

Seems that Dead Weight (/profile/Dead-Weight-8) is trying to run away by not allowing replies to comments so, I will post it here:

What, on your worldview, is wrong with an accidentally existing ape being (supposedly) ignorant? See since you merely constantly jump to merely asserted conclusions you seem to give away that you realize you’ve no premise for your subjective opinions. I mean, you’re great at being a jerk—that’s been well established—but are you able to actually apply your worldview’s implications to your assertions (although, I realize that would be consistent but being consistent isn’t a universal imperative on Atheism)?

You seem to be projecting since, for example, “The flood didn’t happen as described by the Bible” and “something Made Up and doesn’t exist or happened” are, by definition, positive affirmations: they’re claims to possess positive knowledge.

As for “proof that the Bible holds any truth means…no evidence to prove it,” step one is for you to justify your demand for evidence and proof and then get around why, on your worldview, ascertaining accidental truth is even an issue.

You say “trying to find physical evidence for Somthing that isn’t proven to be real is a logical fallacy” yet, you appeal to a logical fallacy without establishing how not committing such is a universal imperative, on your worldview. But if you want to run away from your positive affirmation by asserting, “trying to find physical evidence for Somthing that isn’t proven to be real is a logical fallacy” then the lesson is that you shouldn’t make positive affirmations about things you can prove.

And this is not about you implying that your (supposed) common sense is a standard and this is not about “to know that a fallacy is false argument narrative” but is about why, on your worldview, adhering to logic (which is accidental, on your worldview) is an issues in the first place: why do you imply it’s some sort of universal imperative?

Sorry, I assumed you were implying you know the truth—the “One truth”—about reality but I can agree with you that you don’t (and knowing the truth about accidental reality is not a universal imperative on your worldview anyhow so it matters not).

This is rather odd, I observed “without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview” and you complain but then you agree, “I dont need to say what’s wrong with that.”

But then, just (again) appealing to your (supposed) “common sense” fails since that’s not a standard.

Seems like you’re witnessing your worldview’s utter fundamental level failure since I’m binging up meta issues—such as “without bothering to say what’s wrong with that, on your worldview”—and you just ran away with “Your Joking right this idiocy doesn’t even deserve a response…lost braincells your obviously Delusional and lack common rational thought” without, guess what, telling me what’s wrong with any of that on your worldview.

I realize that it’s more convenient and easier to just be a jerk but have you ever actually thought about your worldview’s implications?

Well, that was the end of that.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

When someone asked, “Do Christians believe in immortality?”

Such was a question which launched the following discussion.

Patrick Enmonsiast commented

“We don’t have any great descriptions of it.” Right, because it’s make believe! He’s just making stuff up & she’s like, 🙄!

I, Ken Ammi, replied

And if he’s making it up, does it matter on your worldview–and if so, how/why?

Patrick Enmonsiast

It absolutely matters, because I for one want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. So I’m not willing to accept claims without evidence. When authority figures, like this guy, or my fellow citizens, insist on believing things without evidence and then dare to use those beliefs to make decisions that can affect me — like the way they vote or legislate — then I think that is worth identifying and opposing.

Ken Ammi @Patrick Enmonsiast

Friend, please note that I didn’t ask if it matters to you but “does it matter ON YOUR WORLDVIEW”?

Thus, when you parrot Matt Dillahunty you expose your worldview just as he did his: it’s pure subjectivism, right? You said, “I for one want to”: not “we” nor “must” or “should” or “ought to” but that you have a subjective personal preference—again, I asked about your worldview but you replied about your preference on the level of telling me which ice cream flavor you prefer.

Thus, you can’t mix such utter subjectivism with “It absolutely matters” since you, in essence, collapsed any absolutes.

You then follow utter subjectivism by artificially inserting some sort of merely asserted universal imperative to reject, “believing things without evidence” merely as a jump to a conclusion without telling us how or why, on your worldview, we are to only believe in things based on evidence.

Have you really never thought about the implications of your worldview and actually incorporated them into your thinking and assertions?

Isovapor2112 chimed in with

All gods throughout human history are man made creations. There is zero evidence for any god ever that can be proven or reproduced. Nothing is immortal. You are here on earth. You will die. You will never come back to life in the body or spirit. There is zero evidence for the afterlife. It is all make believe. Man made delusions that modern educated humans still unfortunately believe. Cheers!!

Ken Ammi @Isovapor2112

Friend, that “All gods throughout human history are man made creations” is 1) a genetic logical fallacy and 2) a positive affirmation you must prove.

That “There is zero evidence for any god ever that can be proven or reproduced” seems to mean that you consider yourself omniscient, or something—you’re certainly more militant than Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins.

Note also that you started with a conclusion when you merely implied that basing our views on evidence is some sort of universal imperative but how is that so, on your worldview?

You then just list a bunch of mere assertions.

And you leave us with “Man made delusions that modern educated humans still unfortunately believe” without bothering to tell us what’s wrong with (alleged) “Man made delusions” in the first place: do you always just jump to conclusions which you merely assert?

Well, perhaps the question I posed are instructive even if they weren’t answered.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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