Author: Ken Ammi

Brewery Ministries’ Nathan Snyder (self-ID as, “Resident Theology Nerd”) wrote an article titled Post-Flood Giants? 15 Major Theories of how the Nephilim returned after the flood.

In part, the site/ministry, noted, “Brewery Ministries is a non-profit organization creating new ways to explore faith for people who don’t feel like a traditional church setting is the right fit for them.”

Snyder begins by noting, “One of the biggest unsolved mysteries in ancient history is how the giants returned after the flood. On this page I’ve created the ultimate list of every theory on the return of the Nephilim.” Note that the title refers to giants, the subtitle refers to Nephilim, the first sentence to giants, the second one to Nephilim, etc., etc., etc.

Thus, some key questions are what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Snyder’s usage? Do those two usages agree?

See, he’s jumping back and forth from a vague modern English term to a specific ancient Hebrew term. Perhaps we can assume that by giants his usage is a mere aka for Nephilim—let’s track whether that’s consistently the case.

The real primary issue to consider isn’t how the Nephilim returned after the flood but rather, did Nephilim return after the flood, the biblical answer to which is no, of course not since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

Quite on point, Snyder notes, “Before we dive into the list of theories though, many people question whether or not the giants actually returned after the flood” and while I’d say that there’s literally below zero reliable indication of any such thing as a return of Nephilim, he notes, “Let’s quickly look at the best ancient evidence of post-flood sightings.”

First up is, “Stories of the giants’ post-flood return aren’t just a biblical phenomenon; other civilizations claim to have spotted them after the flood as well” but that’s rather odd since, for one, the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales. So, how would they spot them?

One example is said to be, “Sumerians and Babylonians famously wrote of the giant Gilgamesh, a real historical king who was said to be two-thirds divine. In my research, I discovered that Gilgamesh may have been the first post-flood giant to appear in ancient writings. Not long after, Egyptians wrote about a giant who was too tall to enter a shrine to worship the gods (a).”

His usage of giants seems here to be the only thing that the term giants really means (outside of metaphoric usages such as, “Elon Musk is a giant of high tech”) which is 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).

Thus, due to this usage, and more which follow, his usage doesn’t agree with the English Bible’s usage since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

Thus, to Snyder, “giant Gilgamesh” means something about his height, as well as what he noted about the Egyptian.

Of course, we also need reason to believe what those folkloric tall-tales tell us.

He added, “A few centuries later, Egyptians claim to have spotted unusually tall warriors” but unusually and tall are just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants and just as irrelevant to Nephilology.

Snyder went on to assert, “Joshua and the Israelites saw them in the book of Numbers (c). They claimed these giants were 4-5 cubits tall (approximately 6’ 10” to 8’ 6”). With the average height being about 5’ 6”, a 7-8 ft warrior would have been absolutely terrifying. It is no coincidence that Joshua and the Israelites battled giants in the same region during the conquest of Canaan.”

The, “(c)” denotes a footnote which reads, “Numbers 13:25-33.” Thus, that was a deeply misguided assertion:

1) Joshua isn’t even mentioned in that entire chapter.

2) there’s no indication that, “the Israelites saw them” unless by the all-encompassing term, “the Israelites” he means merely 10 of them.

3) nothing in that entire chapter even comes close to that, “They claimed these giants were 4-5 cubits tall (approximately 6’ 10” to 8’ 6”).”

4) “the average height” is a big vague: the average of those giants or of the Israelites: the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

5) Joshua and the Israelites battled Rephaim, et al., not Nephilim.

Sometimes I think that pop-Nephilologists language jump when they realize they can’t argue in favor of post-flood nor very tall Nephilim so they chase a generic modern English word around a specific ancient Hebrew Bible and just mash together all places where the modern English Bible they’re reading mentions giants regardless of context.

Incidentally, I have corrected this ministry many, many, many times in comment sections to their various YouTube videos but they seem impervious to correction—I even gifted them one of my books on the subject since we’ve actually interacted in various comments but I never received as much as a thanks and no follow up whatsoever.

He then moves onto, “if the original giants were wiped out by the flood, how did they re-emerge after?” but his premise is faulty.

Nevertheless, we will consider his, “list of every theory I’ve come across ranked from the least commonly-held views to most commonly held.”

15. Miscarriage/Strange Births (Fringe / Linguistic Theory) This theory suggests that the term “Nephilim” doesn’t refer to a race of giants at all, but rather to “monstrous” births or congenital anomalies. It’s an attempt to explain the Nephilim through scientific means, identifying their size as the birth defect called “gigantism.” From this perspective, the appearance of Nephilim after the flood was simply the natural recurrence of rare genetic or developmental conditions.

​Of course, “‘Nephilim’ doesn’t refer to a race of” his subjective usage of, “giants” and there’s no reliable indication of, “their size” so no reason to even mention, “gigantism” nor any, “appearance of Nephilim after the flood.”

14. Noah as a Nephilim Carrier (Fringe Theory) A more controversial take from later Rabbis suggests that Noah himself possessed the “giant” gene. If you’re not familiar with the supernatural origin of the giants, the traditional and oldest interpretation views the giants as half-angel; the children of human women and angels called the Sons of God (see Genesis 6:1-4). The view that Noah was actually a giant himself seems to have been inspired by extrabiblical passages in the Book of Enoch and The Genesis Apocryphon, but it’s not directly from either book.

There’s no indication that there’s any, “Noah as a Nephilim Carrier” view, “from later Rabbis suggests that Noah himself possessed the” Snyder’s misuage of, “‘giant’ gene”: which would also mean that God missed that loophole.

Not even the Book of Enoch, which is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah (see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch) has Noah as Snyder’s usage of giants, in fact, he quoted it thusly:

Check out the passage from the Book of Enoch that inspired this view below:

1 Enoch 106:5-6 (Lamech, Noah’s father is speaking): “l have begotten a strange son:” He is not like an (ordinary) human being, but he looks like the children of the angels of heaven to me;” his form is different, and he is not like us. His eyes are like the rays of the sun, and his face glorious.”lt does not seem to me that he is of me,’ but of angels…’”

Lamech speculated that his wife Batenosh had an affair with an angel, implying that Noah himself was a Nephilim. To his credit, Noah was kind of unusual-looking. He was described as having white hair with red and white skin, looking nothing like his dad.

​

There’s not a single word about Noah’s size.

Snynder added:

Later, the Rabbis in Genesis Apocryphon elaborated even more:

“Then I considered whether the pregnancy was due to the Watchers and Holy Ones, or (should be ascribed) to the Nephil[im], and I grew perturbed about this child”.

In this story, Lamech goes on to confront his wife Batenosh and ask her if she had an affair with an angel. But she swears up and down that Noah is his son. The modern theory that Noah was a giant is rooted in this extrabiblical story and speculates that Batenosh lied about the affair. I provided the above background though to show that this conclusion doesn’t actually come directly from either story; it’s kind of its own thing.

There’s not a single word about Noah’s size.

13. Necromancy/Summoning (Fringe Theory) This view holds that the physical Nephilim were destroyed in the flood, but their disembodied spirits remained. Post-flood occultists and necromancers allegedly used ritualistic summoning to bring these spirits back into physical form.

​This is really touching upon the claim that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim but that’s just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

As for, “bring these spirits back into physical form” of course, there’s no indication that God missed that loophole.

12. Pre-Adamic Humanoids (Fringe / Harmonistic Theory) This theory attempts to harmonize theology with paleoanthropology by suggesting that Nephilim were not supernatural hybrids, but surviving remnants of pre-Adamic hominids like Homo erectus or Neanderthals. In this view, these groups survived in isolated pockets or were misidentified by later ancient civilizations.

​I’m unsure what a, “pre-Adamic hominids” would be since there’s never been any such thing and Neanderthals not only were humans but still are, “All modern humans have Neanderthal DNA, new research finds…modern Europeans, Asians and Americans…inherited about 2% of the genes from Neanderthals…researchers from Princeton University now believe, based on a new computational method, that Africans do in fact have Neanderthal DNA” (Katie Hunt, “All modern humans have Neanderthal DNA, new research finds,” CNN, January 30, 2020).

11. The Sasquatch/Bigfoot Link (Fringe / Cryptid Theory) A popular theory in certain fringe and cryptid-hunting circles, this idea proposes that the Nephilim never truly went extinct but retreated into the deep wilderness. It suggests that modern sightings of creatures like Bigfoot or Sasquatch are actually encounters with the elusive, surviving descendants of the biblical giants.

​This one is the sort of stuff that has turned Nephilology into a clown show. Why think that beings who’s parents looked human—since their Angel dads look just like humans and their mothers were humans—would look like big ol’ apes?

10. Extraterrestrial Origins (Fringe / Pseudoscientific Theory) Often associated with the “Ancient Aliens” hypothesis, this theory argues that the Nephilim were actually extraterrestrial beings, such as the Anunnaki. Their “return” after the flood is explained as subsequent visits to Earth via advanced spacecraft, where they once again interacted with human populations.

​It can’t be that, “Nephilim were actually extraterrestrial beings” since they were born on Earth, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose” (Gen 6, ESV).

Too bad that God missed the, “subsequent visits to Earth” loophole.

9. Interdimensional Portals (Fringe Theory) This theory suggests that the Nephilim escaped the flood through portals to another dimension. The region of Bashan is often cited as a primary location where the giants crossed back into the physical realm. Interestingly, that region was thought of as the gateway to the underworld, possibly explaining how this theory originated.

​Clearly, all 15 of these imply that God failed via un-biblical fantasy tall-tales.

“The region of Bashan” is mostly focused upon Nephilologists who commit the category error of correlating Nephilim and Rephaim (such as the Repha, King Og of Bashan—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

8. Ritualistic Possession (Fringe Theory) I’ve actually run across this theory on a couple well-known Biblical studies websites. Focusing on the spiritual over the genetic, this theory proposes that post-flood kings and leaders sought to recreate the original Nephilim by inviting demons to possess them during sexual rituals. This theory believes their children were “divine” or Nephilim-like due to this spiritual “indwelling” rather than by being literally fathered by angels.

​As I just quoted Gen 6 above, there’s no indication that Nephilim come about in any way but that: good ol’ physical mating between Angels and humans: which hasn’t and can’t happen since the flood since Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

7. Traditional/Legendary Survival (Og) (Traditional / Jewish) Rooted in Jewish Midrash and folklore, this tradition suggests that Og was a pre-flood giant who survived the flood (g). Some legends claim he either tied himself to the front of the ark, was fed by Noah through a window, or was so tall that he simply stood in the shallowest parts of the floodwaters until the flood was over.

​Midrashim are sermonizing homilies and not history. Thus, we get literally incoherent, anachronistic, category errors such as a Repha who didn’t exist until centuries post-flood being a Nephil who lived pre-flood. We also have a guy for whom we’ve no physical description (until wild folkloric tall-tales from millennia after his time) being made to be a giant whom, BTW, Noah helped to save.

6. The Seed War Theory (Scripture-Based Inference) The Seed War Theory views the return of the Nephilim as a strategic attack; a supernatural attempt to corrupt human DNA. The goal? To pollute the bloodline of humanity so the promised Messiah of Genesis 3:15 could not be born. In Christianity, it’s thought of as a strategy that fallen angels used to prevent Jesus from being born.

​That theory is actually not just about a fantasy, “return of the Nephilim” but serves as speculation about why they came into being in the first place.

5. Regional/Localized Flood (Mainstream / Harmonistic Theory) This perspective argues that the flood was a localized or regional event rather than a global one (but still a very large flood). If the water only covered the known world or a specific region, then Nephilim outside of the flood zone would have survived naturally, explaining their presence in the land of Canaan later on.

The scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form—and there’s no such thing as, “their presence in the land of Canaan later on.”​

4. Literary/Symbolic Motif (Mainstream / Academic Theory) Many modern scholars view the term “Nephilim” as a literary device used by ancient authors to describe terrifying or powerful enemies. In this view, the post-flood Nephilim weren’t literal giants or hybrids, but a symbolic way for the Israelites to describe the intimidating warriors they saw in Canaan. In this theory the Israelites’ enemies weren’t literal giants; they just seemed like giants. Some would say the Biblical authors were using the mythology of the day as an analogy. Others would call it exaggeration similar to the wild fish stories your uncle or your grandpa used to tell (ex: “I once caught a fish this big!”)

​Indeed, there’s no reliable indication that Nephilim literal (Snyder’s usage of).

As for a, “way for the Israelites to describe the intimidating warriors they saw in Canaan” if that was the case, why is that only the case in only one single verse (the utterly unreliable Num 13:33)? This fits into the, “I once caught a fish this big!” since the fisherman only tells that long-tale but can’t produce any actual indication of it.

I’m unsure what, “weren’t literal” Snyder’s usage of, “giants” but only, “seemed like” his usage of, “giants”: how does someone seem like a size they’re not?

3. Natural Genetic Variation (Mainstream / Academic Theory) This theory is very similar to the last theory with a slight twist. It puts forward the idea that the giants mentioned after the flood—such as Goliath or the Anakim—were simply exceptionally tall humans. It attributes their size to natural genetic variation, hormonal conditions (like gigantism), or selective breeding within certain tribes, requiring no supernatural explanation. What’s interesting about this variation is that it acknowledges literal pre-flood giants, just not post-flood giants. The previous theory (#4) usually does not believe either pre-flood or post-flood giants were true supernatural Nephilim.

Let’s breakdown, “Goliath or the Anakim—were simply exceptionally tall humans.” Yes, they were humans:

1) Anakim were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe: the only relevant thing we’re told about them is that, on average, they were, “tall” (Deut 2) so, taller than 5.0-5.3ft.

2) Goliath was a Repha/Anakim (when some English Bibles refer to him as a, “giant” the Hebrew that’s being rendered is, “Repha”) and the fact is that the Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. so, that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

I’m unsure what, “genetic variation, hormonal conditions (like gigantism)” is necessary to be taller than 5.0-5.3ft. up to 7(ish)ft.

​

2. Genetic Transmission (Hamite Line) (Mainstream / Scripture-Based Inference) A common literalist view, this theory is an inference made from examining the genealogies in the Bible. Because the post-flood Nephilim emerge from Noah’s son Ham’s descendants, this theory suggests that one of Noah’s daughters-in-law (often identified as Ham’s wife) was part-Nephilim.

Some suggest she was a carrier of these recessive “giant” genes and passed them on to her descendants, leading to the resurgence of the Nephilim traits in the line of Canaan.

​The only problem with this one is the same problem with the previous: there’s literally zero indication of it, it damages theology proper, and there’s not even a reason to appeal to such fantaties.

1. The Second Incursion (Mainstream / Scripture-Based Inference) This is the most direct interpretation for many theologians. It suggests the Nephilim did go extinct during the flood, but returned when the angels bred with human women again. A second, separate group of fallen angels is believed to have committed the same transgression as the first group, mating with human women after the flood to produce a new generation of Nephilim.

​What’s interesting about this is that as I noted in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers Rob Skiba would get on LA Marzulli’s case since Marzulli teaches that fantasy. Yet, Skiba asserted that Nephilim survived the flood genetically which is just another fantasy. Thus, I pointed out that both of them are wrong: they’re just appealing to different fantasies.

Snyder notes, “While no ancient writing confirms that the angels bred with human women again, there is a verse in 1 Corinthians 11 that opens the door for this as a possible explanation. Something Paul said suggests he was concerned that the angels could be tempted by women and more angels could still fall.”

Well, that’s reading much too much into that and ignores the logical, bio-logical, and theo-logical problems into which such a view runs.

​​Snyder paraphrased, “angels could be tempted by women and more angels could still fall” while the verse actually merely reads, “a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

I would never cheat on my wife but that doesn’t mean it’s right for women to attempt to entice me.

Bonus Theories: A couple rare theories that some have suggested include the idea that the giants hid deep in the earth in underground tunnels (possibly originating from the literal interpretation that the underworld is actually deep in the Earth) and that the giants developed gills to survive underwater.

​See how it goes? God flood but they are smarter than God and also magically, “developed gills.”

He ends with:

…were the giants really created by angels who slept with human women? There’s a big debate about whether or not the offenders mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4 were actually angels or human descendents of Seth. I actually put the time in to trace both views backwards to see which interpretation is the oldest. There’s a pretty clear answer, as one view is 1500+ years older than the other!

​​I’m unsure I’d go with, “1500+ years older” but I created such as chart and began my 2018 book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view while the Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.

Overall, Snyder would to well to either write about Nephilim exclusively or about giants in general according to the English Bibles’ usage which doesn’t allow for mashing Nephilim together with Rephaim/Anakim or anyone else.

See my various books here—including some dozen on Nephilology issues.

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.

If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Silouan Thompson, rector of Saint Olga Orthodox Church in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, posted Who are “Nephilim?” which is part of the website’s, “Infrequently-Asked Questions list.”

The full question was, “What are ‘Nephilim?’ What does it mean that they’re called ‘Sons of God?’”

Thompson quotes Gen 6:2–4 thusly:

The sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose… 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 6:2-4)

Then, for some reason, he jumps to around 347-407 AD to quote John Chrysostom, Sermons 22-23 and wrote:

Here’s the gist of it: He says “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are descendants of the righteous Seth. The “daughters of men” are wicked descendants of the murderer Cain. So Chrysostom does not have to speculate about sexual activity by angels, who are bodiless and cannot marry or produce offspring. He understands the descendants of this union, the giants (Greek gigantes, Hebrew nephilim) to be violent, powerful, arrogant men, not hybrid half-angel beings. He interprets “giants” morally, speaking of tyrants, men of great wickedness, not biologically.

That view is a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice. And I’m very surprised that an Orthodox rector would myopically exclusively appeal to that since the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

As for, “angels, who are bodiless and cannot marry or produce offspring” that’s merely a list of mere assertions. Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

And, there’s no indication that they, “cannot marry or produce offspring.”

The point of, “giants (Greek gigantes, Hebrew nephilim)” is just jumping (anachronistically) through three languages.

Note the oddity that Silouan Thompson started with, “descendants of the righteous Seth” so he was righteous but nothing is said about their status. But it was, “wicked descendants of the murderer Cain” to which was added, “intermarriage with the wicked”: well, I’m sure he had wicked descendants just as everyone has.

It’s further argued, “Why are Seth’s descendants called ‘Sons of God’? In Hebrew idiom, ‘son of’ is a description of a human person, identifying his likeness, agency, and relationship.” Yet, the logical conclusion of the Sethite view is that Sethites weren’t identifying his likeness, agency, and relationship since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.

The, utterly shockingly, Silouan Thompson myopically merely asserted, “John the Baptist and Christ denied that the leaders of Judea were sons of Abraham, but rather sons of the devil. (Matthew 3:9; John 8:39-44).” That’s utterly astonishing because what was left out was that in a verse that was ignored, John 8:37 (just before his second citation) Jesus affirmed, “I know that you are offspring of Abraham.”

The point was that he was distinguishing between that they were biologically descended from Abraham but not spiritually.

Overall, I really hope that whoever asked the question got a second opinion since the reply not only ignores the original, traditional, and majority view but manipulated Jesus’ words.

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 and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Kevin B. Potter wrote an article titled Giants, Dragons, and the Days of Noah: Job 41 Part 4 for his website The Septuagint (LXX) Scrolls (and I can’t find parts 1-3).

He’s described as “came to faith later in life after many years of agnosticism that followed his Mormon childhood. His unique journey brings a fresh perspective to biblical scholarship…As an independent researcher and author, he specializes in the Septuagint and early textual transmission of Scripture. His mission is to make ancient biblical scholarship accessible to believers and curious seekers alike.”

I will bypass dealing with the dragons issue since my main interest is Nephilology—yet, you can see my book 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.

He notes, “the biblical tradition doesn’t just give us dragons. It gives us giants” which, along with the title, begs these key questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?

I will get to the answer of his usage up-front since we have much more pressing issue regarding a fundamental level contradiction which damages theology proper.

His usage is, “Nephilim were…particularly tall…Nephilim were…tall” yet, tall is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.

He added, “The Septuagint consistently translates Nephilim as γίγαντες (gigantes): giants. Ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters universally understood these to be beings of enormous size and strength. Numbers 13:33 confirms this: the spies felt like grasshoppers compared to them. Whatever the Nephilim were, they were terrifyingly large.”

He’s also aware that, “The word Nephilim is related to the Hebrew root נָפַל (naphal), meaning ‘to fall.’”

The qualifying term consistently seems hyperbolic since, after all, as he pointed out, “The word נְפִילִים (Nephilim) appears only twice in Scripture” so fine, I suppose we can all two times being consistent: even though the second time it’s actually spelled slightly differently.

In any case, giants really only refers to something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).

In any case, the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

There’s a missing data point in the statement, “Nephilim as γίγαντες (gigantes)” since ending it with, “: giants” not only begs the question as to the usage of giants but fails to note that gigantes actually means earth-born.

As for, “Ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters” well, they may have, “universally understood these to be beings of enormous size” but that’s in part by being undiscerning enough to rely on that, “Numbers 13:33 confirms…terrifyingly large” which is note the case: see below. Also see my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

As we shall see, the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.

Now, let’s get to some crystal clear affirmations, as Kevin B. Potter assures us:

…the world before the Flood, a world so strange that it took a global deluge to reset it…

…divine judgment and a fresh start for the human race…

…Nephilim as the source of all monsters in the pre-flood era…

…before the Flood, the world contained creatures and hybrid beings that God had not originally intended…

According to Genesis 6…A world so corrupt that God determines to destroy it and start fresh…The Flood (Genesis 6-9): God judges the corrupted world. Only Noah’s family and pairs of animals are saved…

Nephilim as the source of all monsters in the pre-flood era…

Those very clear and straight forward statement are very welcomed since there’s no question about his view: “a global deluge…reset it…divine judgment…creatures and hybrid beings that God had not originally intended…God determines to destroy it…God judges the corrupted world” and the specificity that, “Only Noah’s family and pairs of animals are saved” and, “Nephilim as the source of all monsters in the pre-flood era.”

Problem identified, solution enacted.

Yet, Kevin B. Potter also wrote:

The Post-Flood Survival…

Genesis 6:4 says “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward.”

Also. Afterward.

Somehow, giants survived the Flood or reappeared after it. This is why Moses encounters them in the Conquest: Numbers 13:33: The spies see the Nephilim in Canaan.

…giants survived or reappeared after the Flood.

Post-Flood World (Genesis 10+): Giants somehow reappear or survive.

The Conquest (Joshua-Judges): Israel encounters and defeats the giant tribes. This is presented as finishing what the Flood started; removing the genetic corruption from the Promised Land.

This is a fundamental level contradiction of what he stated about the flood. It also shows how fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper since it implies that God’s enacted solution failed: He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

Kevin B. Potter wrote, “The Flood was necessary to reset the corrupted creation” and yet, it didn’t since, “Some of these elements survived or reappeared post-Flood”: both imply that God failed and the survived option contradicts the Bible five times since that’s how many times we’re told who survived the flood but Nephilim aren’t ever listed (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).

Now, he had actually written, “Some of these elements survived or reappeared post-Flood…The biblical text accurately describes all of this” so let’s review how it does so.

Firstly, note that he jumped from the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants to the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim and then back again. I certainly don’t know if such Nephilologists do that on purpose or not but it’s a common MO and comes into play just when it seems they may realize they can’t make their post-flood Nephilim case so they switch to chasing the modern English word giants around an ancient Hebrew Bible—regardless of contextual usage.

He wrote, “The Nephilim were literal hybrid giants” which biblically contextually would mean, “The Nephilim were literal hybrid Nephilim” which is redundantly circular.

Note that writing, “Genesis 6:4 says ‘The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward.’ Also. Afterward” suffers from another missing data point since he neglected to include the most important point: afterward of when? His implication is clearly afterward of the flood but he can only come to that conclusion by literally chopping that verse in half.

If you re-read it, you’ll see that it tells you to what days it refers: “those days” were when the sons and daughters first married, mated, and birthed (with the commencing timeline being given in v. 1) and so “afterward” meant just that, after they first did so (they kept doing so) yet, that is still all pre-flood.

Genesis 6:4, as he actually quoted it earlier in the article, reads, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

If you re-read it, you’ll see that it tells you to what days it refers: “those days” were when the sons and daughters first married, mated, and birthed (with the commencing timeline being given in v. 1) and so “afterward” meant just that, after they first did so (they kept doing so) yet, that is still all pre-flood.

Now to:

The word נְפִילִים (Nephilim) appears only twice in Scripture—here in Genesis 6:4 and in Numbers 13:33, where the Israelite spies report seeing them in Canaan:

“And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

…Numbers 13:33: The spies see the Nephilim in Canaan.

That’s not specific enough to accurately represent that verse. It wasn’t generically, “the Israelite spies…The spies” since there were 12 of them but that was stated by 10 of them.

Anyone appealing to that verse for post-flood Nephilim needs to mention that they’re relying on:

1.       One single unreliable sentence

2.       From strictly non-LXX versions, which is what Kevin B. Potter quoted but without noting that the LXX’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim.

3.       Of an unreliable “evil report”

4.       By 10 unreliable guys

5.       Whom God rebuked—to death

6.       Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible

7.       Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible

8.       Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.

I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

Now, by jumping from Nephilim to giants or Anakim he supposed that he was exampling where, “The biblical text accurately describes…survived or reappeared post-Flood” via the following:

Deuteronomy 2:10-11: “The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim.”

Deuteronomy 2:20-21: “That also is counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there… a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim.”

Deuteronomy 3:11: King Og of Bashan, whose bed was nine cubits long (about 13.5 feet), is specifically called “the remnant of the Rephaim.”

The Bible names multiple tribes of giants:

Nephilim (Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33)

Rephaim (Genesis 14:5; 15:20; Deuteronomy 2:11, 20; 3:11, 13)

Anakim (Numbers 13:33; Deuteronomy 2:10-11, 21; 9:2; Joshua 11:21-22)

Emim (Deuteronomy 2:10-11)

Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2:20)

Goliath of Gath, at about nine feet tall (1 Samuel 17:4), came from a line of giants. His brothers are named: Ishbi-benob, Saph, and Lahmi, “whose spear shaft was like a weaver’s beam” (2 Samuel 21:18-22; 1 Chronicles 20:5-8).

Fascinatingly, he quotes the unreliable sentence from the unreliable non-LXX version of the evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so show that Anakim are related to Nephilim but then quotes the reliable Deut 2:10-11 which shows they’re actually related to Rephaim: like a clan of a tribe.

Thus, Deut 2:20-21 and 3:11 are about Rephaim, not about Nephilim.

As for the, “multiple tribes of giants” that’s a list of two since the word Nephilim is rendered by some as giants and Rephaim were aka Emim, Zamzummim, Anakim were Rephaim and Goliath was a Repha.

Let’s rereview with his usage of giants in mind:

Nephilim: no reliable physical description.

Rephaim/Emim/Zamzummim/Anakim: the only contextually relevant this we’re told about them is that, on average, they were, “tall” which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Goliath: for some reason, Kevin B. Potter didn’t tell us that the Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft., so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

That he, “came from a line of giants” biblically contextually means, “came from a line of Rephaim.”

“His brothers”: they were actually his sons and as for, “spear shaft was like a weaver’s beam,” regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft. Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23).

Thus, when Kevin B. Potter affirms, “The Conquest (Joshua-Judges): Israel encounters and defeats the giant tribes. This is presented as finishing what the Flood started; removing the genetic corruption from the Promised Land” there’s literally zero reliable indication that any of it had anything to do with Nephilim whatsoever.

Moving on, he wrote:

Modern interpreters often try to soften this passage. The “sons of God,” they suggest, were simply the godly line of Seth intermarrying with the ungodly line of Cain. The Nephilim were just particularly tall or powerful men.

But that’s not how the ancient world understood this text. And it’s not what the text itself most naturally says.

Who Were the Sons of God?…spiritual beings— angels.

The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

The view that they, “were simply the godly line of Seth intermarrying with the ungodly line of Cain” is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.

Ergo, “The Nephilim are the offspring; hybrid beings, part angelic and part human”—incidentally, Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Touching upon the dragon issue a bit, he notes:

The phrase “all flesh had corrupted their way” (Genesis 6:12) may imply more than just moral evil. It may suggest genetic or biological corruption.

And here’s the crucial point: if the created order was corrupted before the Flood, that corruption would have extended beyond just humans. The megafauna of the antediluvian world— including creatures like Leviathan —existed in this corrupted environment.

Interestingly, according the Book of Enoch the Nephilim then procreated with animals, birthing monstrous hybrid creatures. This has been interpreted as pointing to the Nephilim as the source of all monsters in the pre-flood era.

And this, ultimately, is why Noah is told to preserve “every kind” in the ark. God was resetting creation, preserving genetic lines, and starting fresh. But the implication is twofold: first, that Noah was chosen because his bloodline was uncorrupted by angelic influence (one interpretation of being “perfect in his generations”) that before the Flood, the world contained creatures and hybrid beings that God had not originally intended.

Recall how his statement such as the last one just quoted contradict his post-flood Nephilology.

Reference to the Book of Enoch gets us into what I termed Folkloric Territory in the title of my article as with time and telling, Nephilim grow in stature and actions: ever wilder—and neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales in more modern times.

The fact is that what’s specifically 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

To the list, he adds:

The Book of Giants: The Missing Link

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered at Qumran, archaeologists found fragments of a text called the Book of Giants. This text, dating to the 2nd century B.C. or earlier…we can piece together describes:

The Watchers’…producing the giant offspring called Nephilim. The Giants’ Corruption: These giants were not merely large humans…some scholars believe the Book of Giants was once part of 1 Enoch.

Giants and Dragons: Where the Evidence Actually Comes From…Source 1: The Manichaean Book of Giants (3rd-4th century A.D.)…Source 2: The Decretum Gelasianum (5th-6th century A.D.) Even more intriguing is a much earlier, independent attestation of this tradition. The Decretum Gelasianum— a Latin document traditionally attributed to Pope Gelasius I (492-496 A.D.), though likely compiled in its final form in the early 6th century —contains a list of books considered apocryphal by the Roman church. Among them is this entry:…“The book about the giant named Ogias, who the heretics claim fought with a dragon after the flood—apocryphal”…Source 3: The Babylonian Talmud…(Niddah 61a) [500 AD]

We can’t claim that a 2nd-century B.C. Jewish text explicitly states that antediluvian giants fought dragons. That’s what I originally implied, and it wasn’t accurate.

…the broader Enochic tradition (1 Enoch 7-8)

So, “2nd century B.C….3rd-4th century A.D.…5th-6th century A.D….492-496 A.D.” and The Babylonian Talmud from between 400-500 AD. The issue is that those late dated texts give no indication of providing any reliable pre-flood history but give every indication of being folkloric.

Kevin B. Potter added:

The Days of Noah and the Days of the Son of Man

Jesus Himself referenced this antediluvian period:

“For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:37-39)

Yes, Himself referenced this antediluvian period but since that’s one of the most abused texts by the pop-Nephilologists who try to force Jesus to be referring to a return of Nephilim (which is utterly un-biblical) I’ll mention that Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”

But He kept speaking directly with:

“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17).

Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.

Lastly, he noted:

Angels violated created boundaries by mating with humans

This produced hybrid offspring of enormous size

The antediluvian world contained both giants and megafauna

Yes, “Angels violated created boundaries by mating with humans” yes, “This produced hybrid offspring” no indication of, “enormous size” and well, to whatever he’s referring by, “The antediluvian world contained both giants and megafauna.”

He offers these options:

Option 1: Rationalize or Allegorize

Genesis 6 is poetic or mythological

The Nephilim were just tall humans or tribal chiefs

Option 2: Take it Seriously

Genesis 6 describes actual historical events

The Nephilim were literal hybrid giants

…The Book of Giants preserves authentic traditions

Even on option 1 there’s no reliable indication, “Nephilim were…tall.”

Taking option 2 doesn’t result in, “giants” (as per his misusage) and so it’s not the case that, “The Book of Giants preserves authentic traditions”—The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.

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 and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

On his Daily Renegade YouTube channel, Josh Peck posted a video interview with Derrel Sims titled The Creators of UAP Aliens are TERRIFYING | Derrel Sims | TSR 345 (FULL) | UScreen Repost.

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

My readers know that I never make personality-based comments (what some would call personal attacks) such as I will in that Sims seems quite arrogant—which doesn’t mean that he is nor that he’s wrong (I’m not pulling a genetic logical fallacy). It’s one thing to be 99% omniscient (which he comes across as thinking of himself on the subject issues) but it’s another to treat other as though they’re lesser than he.

For example, he offered many anecdotes wherein Christians were debunked by him and he clearly views them as lesser Christians: not in terms of standing before Jesus but as being too mormie, too ignorant, too misinformed compared to him so that they’re just following party lines but he’s got personal experience on his side so he knows better.

Some of his appeals to special knowledge are early age experience with Watchers and aliens, having been a police officer, having been a CIA agent, and appealing to apocryphal and pseudepigraphic texts.

He’s got Watchers figured out, he’s got aliens figured out, he’s got Bigfoot figured out, he’s got Chupacabra figured out, he’s got Nephilim figured out, etc., etc., etc.

An odd feature of the interview is that he turned an interview into biographical story time in terms of saturating his statement retelling what he has told other people—most to correct them. He relates conversations so that during the interview he sated, “I said…” 316 times.

One of them times he, let’s say, passive aggressively related times when he saw himself as debunking his Baptist Pastor dad, he notes, “dad one time, he said, ‘Well, where do you we read all this weird stuff?’ I said, ‘Well, I don’t know. The book of Jasher, the book of The Wars of the Lord” to which his dad replied, “‘That’s not in the Bible.’ I said, ‘It’s mentioned in the Bible, daddy.’ Yeah. It’s supposed to be a reference, not scripture.” He then adds, “The Book of Enoch. I said, ‘My goodness, [illegible] quoted from the Book of Enoch in right there in the book” referring to the Bible.

Now, the fact that Josh Peck and Derrel Sims refer to the Watchers alerts us that they’re relying on 1 Enoch—and that’s been a trendy term to use amongst pop-Nephilologists for a long time. 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch. Watchers is a mere aka for Malakim/Angels from the Second Temple Era (516 BC-70 AD).

Jasher is just a modern day hoaxed fraud: actually, there’s more than one fraudulent Jasher—see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts. See, the illogic of it is to commit the non-sequitur of concluding of Jasher, “It’s mentioned in the Bible, daddy.” Yes, a Book of Jasher is mentioned in the Bible but that doesn’t mean that the frauds we have today are that book.

As for The Wars of the Lord, that’s a lost book of the Bible from which we have two verses in Num 21:14-15 which read, “Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord, ‘Waheb in Suphah, and the valleys of the Arnon, and the slope of the valleys that extends to the seat of Ar, and leans to the border of Moab.’” Thus, perhaps Derrel Sims is referring to philosophical text by Levi ben Gershom (aka Gersonides: 1288-1344 AD) or some other hoaxed fraud.

Thus, in short, his additional info comes from unreliable texts from centuries and millennia after the Torah: all the way to the modern day and with zero indication that any of that is anything but folklore and fraud.

Now, he besmirches Christians who claim that the whole alien phenomena is demonic because demons are spirits but aliens are physical. He refers to, “an alien in the backseat of a car…They filmed one of my abductees who ran a red light. He was getting abducted at the time in the alien, city, in the back seat and they filmed it and he had to pay $350 for the ticket. But I got the original photo” which he didn’t show during the video interview, “So, there’s a lot of evidence like that in there.”

He then ostensibly quotes doubters telling him, “These things can’t be filmed. They’re demons” to which he replies, “They’re not demons. And they can be filmed. Yes, they can. I’ve got pictures of mantis beings and other things you could scarcely imagine. I haven’t been sitting on my hands for 50 years. I’m the alien hunter. That’s what I do.”

As for Watchers, he relates that someone told him of, “‘a nasty abduction event at age 17.’ I said, ‘No, what you don’t understand, the alien didn’t show up in the last event. The ones who made, hatch, clone, made, or manufactured them came.’” He’s claiming that Watchers created aliens.

He continued, “In other words, what Christian would refer to as the fallen ones, the Watchers, that sort of thing. They’re the ones that showed up, five of them in that last event. And of course I get people all the time saying, ‘Oh my goodness, I know all about that.’ I said, ‘Oh, great. Well, then why don’t you describe them to me?’ And they said, ‘Oh, you know, is a long white hair flowing robes and all that.’”

He adds, “And I said, ‘You’ve been watching Star Trek too much. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re making this stuff up.’ And I said, ‘My events are quite real, and I don’t need somebody watching Star Trek to validate me.’”

The, “why don’t you describe them” question was part of his close to the vest gotcha question as Josh Peck notes/asks, “You had mentioned that you had this, your last experience, you actually saw the Watchers. Can you detail, like, what they looked like” to which the reply is that Derrel Sims, “won’t answer all those questions. I’ll answer 99% of your questions but that’s one of them I haven’t answered. And there’s a reason. The real, the reason that I’ve not answered the question about the last event is because I always get people in church, out of church, anywhere, it doesn’t matter where they’re at, they say, ‘Oh yeah, me too.’ And my response is, ‘Okay, if that’s true, describe them in detail, right?’ And they can’t. And the reason is because they hadn’t had that experience.”

So, he uses the claim that he saw them as a test for anyone who has claimed to have seen them: their experience is judged by his.

BTW: I can tell you what a Watcher looks like since they’re Angels and Angels are always described as looking like human males—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology. Yet, since the flood those fallen ones haven’t been on Earth and demons don’t look like anything, by definition, since they’re spirits.

He refers to how, “the ones that came in my bedroom that night the five so-called Watchers.” Of aliens he says, “Christians answer, ‘Well, they’re demons.’ No, they’re not demons” which is because he isn’t teaching that aliens are outer-space travelers to Earth but, again, that they were created by Watchers.

He added, “my dad’s answer, ‘Well, son, that’s just the old devil or those are demons.’ Same answer I got growing up. Yeah. I asked dad, I said, ‘Well, wait a minute. Wait, we stop the bus right here. Let’s get biblical. If we’re going to do that, what is a demon?’ ‘Well, demon there are demons.’ I said, ‘You’re not answering the question. You’re, that’s not,  that’s not an answer.’ I said, ‘Give me an answer to a demon.’ And he said, ‘Well, it’s a disembodied spirit.’ I said, ‘Well, thank you. Now we’re, now we’re talking on the same level.’ I said, ‘If it’s a disembodied spirit, how is a little gray alien a demon?’ That’s what he mean. I said, ‘Well, they have a, they have a body. I’ve got some photography of them if you want to see them’” we sure do but he didn’t show us anything.

Now, one oddity is that he teaches that Watchers and demons and aliens are roaming Earth. Yet, the fallen Watchers/Angels were all incarcerated, as per Jude and 2 Peter 2, while their spirits roam the Earth as disembodied demons—see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

Josh Peck refers to and asks about, “varieties of these so-called aliens: I mean, there’s grays, Nordics, humanoid lizards, even praying mantis types. Do you believe that these are all different species in a sense or with different agendas or are they all part of the same overall group?” to which the reply includes, “most people, most abduction people or even Christians who are studying this phenomenon, they don’t know either. Most of them, they don’t have a clue. They’re just they’re doing the best they can with the resources they’ve got and they’re just kind of, so, I’m going to hopefully make this clear…The ones that people refer to as aliens, in my opinion, they’re not aliens…I’ve never met an alien.”

He adds, “one lady told me, she says, ‘Mr. Sims, you just don’t understand.’ I said, ‘Well, again, I’m a little thick here, so help me out.’ She said, ‘Well, they’re superior beings.’ I said, ‘How do you know that, sweetie? I’m not attacking you. I’m asking. Educate me.’ ‘But they’re superior.’ I said, ‘Do it. Prove it. Make your case.’ And she said, ‘Well, they made their spaceships.’ I said, ‘Sweetie,’ I said, ‘If you only have three fingers and no opposing thumb, how many things in life do you think that you might be able to construct physically?’”

It’s interesting that he gets myopic on that point since he ignores the various supposed aliens and micro-focuses his critique only on those who allegedly have, “three fingers and no opposing thumb”—see my book Fifty Shades of Gray Aliens.

Of Bigfoot, he claims, “I’ve got a fingernail, a urine sample, and some hair samples since the 1980s.” He refers to, “super beings…one sitting in one room…all the aliens are all lined up. Bigfoot, the little gray, all of them are lined up in a row standing in front of this being. Every one of these aliens are scared to death the guy sitting on the chair.”

He also has very detailed info about IQ levels, “bug-eyed little guys running around here with an IQ of 80…different beings that show up, the prey manis, the reptile, and all these other different seven different flavors, Bigfoot, he’s another one…the taller gray alien that he, that’s his boss, the so-called one who does the surgery…that guy uh he’s got an IQ about 135 or 140. He’s a lot smarter than the other guy. In fact, the other guy’s terrified of it…Then you’ve got this praying manis guy. He’s got an IQ of about 175 or 180. They eat a lot smarter than all of them…Then you got Bigfoot” but unfortunately, we don’t get to learn Bigfoot’s IQ so we don’t know if Bigfoot is Bigbrain.

They also get into, “where did those giants come from?” unfortunately employing that vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants. Derrel Sims’ usage of that term is clearly 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).

That’s because when he argues against the Sethite view of that which I call the Gen 6 affair he states that his dad claimed, “‘the line of Cain married into the line of Seth, and they produce giants’ I said, ‘If that were true, daddy,’ I said, ‘Lost people marry saved people would produce giants today, wouldn’t they?’ Right. Well, he didn’t like that answer at all.’”

The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim. The Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice. Yet, Derrel Sims argument is fallacious since he first has to merely suppose that Nephilim were vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average. Yet, the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.

Derrel Sims stated, “the fallen ones came here and produced mixed with the flesh of women and produced the offspring were giants and that’s, that’s a big one: that was just a program. There were at least four races of them” the Emmim, the Zuzim, the Rephaim and so on that’s, that’s, there are at least four races, that’s the ones we know about. The fact, there are giants all over the planet. I, I’ve, I’ve been tracking the giant story for years and finally found one. Now I’m going now I’m going to go get the DNA from that and he’s deceased of course.”

Well, he’s presenting fallacious linguistics and biology. One problem with chasing the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word giants around a specific and ancient Hebrew Bible is that is un-contextually allows one to mash together data points that don’t belong together.

He doesn’t seem to know that he didn’t refer to 4 but to 2. the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

The first giants are a case of that English term merely rendering Nephilim. Rephaim were aka Emmim and Zuzim—or Zamzummim—so that those supposed 3 are really just 1.

Also, Nephilim are utterly unrelated to Rephaim: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

And note that this takes us back to the issue of his faulty assertion that fallen Watchers are still running about as physical fallen Watchers to have done it all again post-flood so as to create Rephaim. Yet, again, that violates what Jude and 2 Peter 2 tell us and implies that God failed, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., since He flooded the Earth in part go be rid of the offspring of fallen Watchers but they just came right back and did it all over again: that is how fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.

He claims that the late Dr. Michael Heiser, “asked what, he said, uh, the chupacaba” to which Derrel Sims replied, “I caught one….They call me the alien hunter. You, you don’t think that’s just some a moniker, some little title?…I got one in the freezer” which he also didn’t show us but added, “I said, ‘Whatever the thing is, I got it.’ I said, ‘A rancher actually shot it and thought it, thought, he thinks it’s a hybrid or some other kind of animal’…we’re going to have a necropsy done on it at the university and find out what it is genetically. That’s what I want to do” but hasn’t.

He then told Dr. Michael Heiser, “what makes you think that it’s not in the scripture?…you’re a scholar and a brilliant man…I said, ‘I want you to quote me a scripture out of the Book of Proverbs.’ And I said, ‘I want you to I want you to give it to me broken down in Hebrew.’ He said, ‘What scripture is that?’ And I quoted it to him in English. He said, ‘I’d rather not do that.’ I said, ‘Why not?’ And I said, I said, ‘Why are you ambivalent?’ He said, ‘Because I don’t like to, the, the, because I don’t like the meaning of that.’ And I said, ‘I understand that. I get that you sound like me when I was 14 years old asking my daddy stuff. My daddy didn’t like questions either.’ Ask him, ‘What does the horse leech? What are all these different things? So my dad [clears throat so as to indicate being flummoxed and waves his hand to indicate literal hand waving away of the issue] means this.’ ‘It means something else. It’s, it’s all, the old devil is what it is.’ ‘Okay. Well, that’s not an answer. I’m sorry. That doesn’t work for me. I’m older than 14 now.’ So Mike says, ‘Well, uh, I said the scripture says that ‘behold the horse leech and it says she had two daughters.’’ He said, um, I said, ‘Tell me what that means in Hebrew.’ He said, ‘Well,’ I said, ‘Mike, you’re choking up on me here.’ He said, ‘Well, the actual word is vampire.’ ‘Wow, thank you, Mike’ I said, ‘I already know that. What do you think a chupacabra is?’”

He was referring to Proverbs 30:15 which, in the ESV, reads, “The leech has two daughters: Give and Give…” and the vampire statement is due to that the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon notes that עֲלוּקָה / ʿălûqâ / al-oo-kaw’ is a, “noun feminine leech (perhaps Aramaic loan-word; > vampyre-like demon, Ew and others = Arabic ‘Aulaḳ WeHeid. 2, 149, or name of sage, as some Rabbi.” So, sure, a leech sucks blood so that got turned into vampire and then chupacabra since he then just notes that chupa refers to sucking and that cabra means goat thus, as he put it, “to suck the blood out of a goat”—too bad the Bible doesn’t refers to mosquitos since the same argument could have been made.

One of his points was, “I’ve got pictures” which he didn’t show us, “‘of animals that are inside cages that were all, uh, sucked the blood sucked out of them…eight or nine of them.’ I said, ‘How’d whatever it is get inside that cage? They, he couldn’t do.’ I said, ‘My point is he had to have help.’”

But the he then changed to a she for the next point, “I said, ‘So whatever it is, I don’t know.’ I said, ‘But the important thing I think that you ought to consider, Mike, is that that thing has got, it’s female, and it’s got children…I said, ‘God didn’t name it. He didn’t show you every animal in Genesis…the Bible’s a, many times is a, is a, it’s a, it’s a thumbnail sketch…I don’t care whether it’s a chupacabra, I don’t care whether it’s alien or anything else. Uh, it’s like anything I tell people, especially Christians, I said, ‘You’re reading too fast.’”

So, apparently, God created a goat’s blood sucker even though indications are that no one, not humans nor animals, ate animal products, bodies or blood, until post-flood—but I must be reading too fast.

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 and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The Way of Truth site posted an article titled Understanding Genesis 6:4: Giants and Their True Legacy. In part, we’re told, “This site is devoted to proclaiming the eternal truth of God’s Word and upholding its authority against all forms of error, false doctrine, and skeptical attacks.”

The usage of the term “Giants” begs these key questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s the Way of Truth site’s usage? Do those two usages agree?

That which I term the Gen 6 affair is quoted thusly, “‘There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown’ (Genesis 6:4).”

It’s noted, “the account of widespread human multiplication and moral decline…humanity’s wickedness…the presence of ‘giants,’…moral decay and impending judgment…The verse thus prepares the reader for the Flood.”

We’re told, “The Hebrew term nephilim is introduced without explanation, signaling that the author assumes either familiarity or that precise definition is not the narrative priority…Moses does not tell us where the nephilim came from, only that they existed…Genesis 6:4 is not attempting to resolve the origin of the Nephilim.” Yet, he did tell us whence and when they came, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”

Note that when a mere four words are quoted, it’s simple to argue:

The addition “and also after that” is crucial for proper interpretation. This phrase indicates continuity beyond the immediate context of Genesis 6:1–2. The nephilim are not confined to a single generation or event, nor are they portrayed as a unique aberration never repeated. This wording strongly cautions against reading Genesis 6:4 as a one-time supernatural intrusion. Instead, the text presents the nephilim as recurring figures associated with certain cultural conditions.

As we will see, “beyond the immediate context of Genesis 6:1–2…not confined to a single generation or event” not a, “one-time supernatural intrusion…recurring” can only refer to pre-flood days since that’s the only time Nephilim lived.

Of the term Nephilim we’re told, “Later biblical usage, especially in Numbers 13:33, associates the nephilim with fear, intimidation, and perceived invincibility rather than with metaphysical origin” so we will have to see what that’s all about.

We’re told:

Importantly, Genesis 6:4 does not claim that the nephilim are produced by these unions. The nephilim are mentioned before this clause, and the grammar does not link them causally to the relationships described. This sequencing undercuts interpretations that insist the nephilim must be hybrid offspring. The verse instead juxtaposes two realities occurring in the same period.

That “The nephilim are mentioned before this clause” seems to mean that the author of the article is, at that point, ignoring vss. 1-2 and if fixating on v. 4. In fact, later in the article, this is made quite clear, “The verse opens with a statement of fact: ‘There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that.’ Only then does it proceed to describe the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men and the offspring that resulted from that union” yet, vss. 1-2 already, “describe the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men.”

So the, “Only then” is myopically about one single verse, not about the whole narrative. Thus, when that’s followed by, “Nephilim are not introduced as the offspring of those unions…The grammar does not link their origin causally to the unions described” it actually does just that.

The Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.

Yet, based on that basic level error in reading comprehension—fallacious eisegetical hermeneutics—the author’s conclusion is that Nephilim, “are fully human.” The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

Yet, part of that mundane conclusion the premise, “Genesis consistently places moral responsibility on humanity rather than shifting blame to non-human forces.” Yet, that fails to elucidate that Angels, Nephilim, humans, and God are all referred to as man/men. It also fails to note that of course humanity is the Bible’s main focus no matter upon what it touches in passing or detail since it’s an anthology about our creation, our fall, and our redemption. And, it fails to note that Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.

It had been noted that, “Genesis 6:4 is not attempting to resolve the origin of the Nephilim” which is a sentence that continues with, “nor is it presenting them as the central explanatory factor for the Flood” and yet, it literally serves as the premise for all which follows in terms of what led to the flood.

For some odd reason, the article then loops back to, “Later biblical usage, most notably in Numbers 13:33, associates the Nephilim with fear, intimidation, and perceived invincibility” and back to, “Genesis 6:4 does not say that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God” and repeats the same fallacious assertions.

And yet, it then loops within a loop to note, “the text does explicitly connect the union between the sons of God and the daughters of men with the birth of children who later ‘became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.’”

We’re told, “The text does not describe these men as ontologically different from other humans. They are not called angels, hybrids, or divine beings. They are men” and yet, Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that, “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angeloi”: plural of “Angelos”) since they, at the very least, witnessed the creation of the Earth.

It’s noted, “The implication is…the boundary-breaking union” but, pray tell, what boundary is broken when humans mate with humans?

As for, “If the ‘sons of God’ are best understood as angelic beings who transgressed divinely established boundaries” we’re told that, “Appeals to Matthew 22:30 must be carefully qualified. Jesus teaches that angels ‘in heaven’ do not marry, which establishes the normative order of angelic existence, not the impossibility of rebellion or transgression.” That’s very well said (I have to point that out to pop-Nephilologists all the time): that’s why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.

On that view, “Genesis 6, on this reading, depicts angels acting against their created purpose. That does not require Scripture to explain how such rebellion functioned physically” and yet, it did: it was the good ol’ fashioned way.

We’re told, “Scripture nowhere develops a doctrine of angel–human hybridity. It never revisits the idea, never categorizes the offspring as a distinct class of beings, and never grounds judgment in their nature. This silence strongly suggests that Moses’s concern lies elsewhere.”

The reason for that is that Nephilim were done away with via the flood so there was no more to be said: they were a post-flood non-issue—stand by for more on the post-flood Num 13:33.

Back to the fallacy of myopically implying that man/men can only ever refer to hu-mans, it’s noted, “The decisive theological signal comes in Genesis 6:5–7, where God’s judgment is grounded entirely in human wickedness. The earth is condemned because man is corrupt, violent, and continually evil in thought. The mighty men are judged as men, remembered as men, and swept away as men” which ignores the Gen 1-4 premise.

The only thing noted about that is, “The Nephilim form part of the ominous backdrop” but they’re identified as humans in the article so it’s all one in the same

The author of the article then loops back to, “Nephilim are…not identified as the offspring of the unions” as if having to constantly loop so as to keep the reading audience reading in that direction.

We’re told, “Genesis 6:4 never describes…non-human anatomy” but why would it since both sides of Nephilim’s parentage look human: the daughters of men were human women and Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

It’s noted, “From a theological standpoint, Genesis 6:4 also guards against a subtle but serious apologetic error: the displacement of human responsibility. One might be tempted to explain the Flood as a response to non-human interference: angelic rebellion, monstrous offspring, or cosmic contamination. Yet the narrative emphatically refuses that explanation.” What the narrative does is to marry them so neither the extreme of weaving tall-tales of pop-Nephilologists (who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians) nor the extreme of weaving mundane rescue devices tell us the full story.

We’re then looped back to, “When God renders His verdict, the indictment falls squarely on man…wickedness of man…under judgment is a human world, shaped by human choices and values” which include Gen 6:1-2.

The article ends with a long section of sermonizing which is fine for what it is but not within my review context.

Now, we had been told, “the account of widespread human multiplication and moral decline…humanity’s wickedness…the presence of ‘giants,’…moral decay and impending judgment…The verse thus prepares the reader for the Flood…Genesis 6 moves steadily toward divine judgment…a moral narrative moving inexorably toward judgment…Nephilim…are…part of a world that God evaluates as corrupt” and yet, post-flood Nephilim are asserted due to Num 13:33.

As for, “Moses’s concern lies elsewhere” indeed, since in post-flood days, he wasn’t concerned about some tall-tale and that tall-tale was that is that Num 13:33 is:

you needed to mention that you’re relying on:

1.       One single unreliable sentence

2.       From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)

3.       Of an unreliable “evil report”

4.       By 10 unreliable guys

5.       Whom God rebuked—to death

6.       Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible

7.       Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible

8.       Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.

I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

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 and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

On his X page, Paul Tackett (of VerseQuest Ministries, Master’s degree in Pastoral Theology: the, “Meet Out Pastor” section of the, “About” page of his site does not state from where) posted 🚨🚨 NEW VERSEQUEST SERIES RELEASED 🚨🚨 which is titled The Nephilim Were Not Clowns Series 1-22. My previous article about him is Review of Pastor Paul Tackett’s Post-Flood Nephilim Migration.

If you find yourself in the outermost corner of a pop-Nephilology rabbit hole, you will know that the reason to even write Nephilim and Clowns in the same sentence is due to that a certain Paul Stobbs has virtually single handedly turned Nephilology into a literal clown show.

Biblical Nephilology has been coopted by pop-Nephilologists for some time now. Pop-Nephilology sells un-biblical tall-tales (many of which include sci-fi aspects) to Christians.

Pop-Nephilology is where the most ridiculous conspiracy theories and theology proper damaging fantasy tall-tales find new life by being put into a blender and being peppered with assertions about being biblical. Stobbs has taken that cesspool of misinfo and disinfo and made a name for himself publishing a book titled The Nephilim Looked Like Clowns.

Now, the claim that Nephilim looked like clowns is based on a miscomprehension of the relevant linguistics, reliance on faulty sources, folklore, and mere assertions.

Stobbs admitted that it came from him having a hallucinogenic drug flashback.

For a detailed review of claim, see my book Did the Nephilim Look Like Clowns?: A Review of Paul Stobbs’ Theory.

For a succinct review, see the article I published before he published his book Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns? and also the follow-up article ​Anatomy of the making of a modern-day myth: Nephilim looked like clowns.

When it comes down to it, as you will see, Stobbs’ assertion The Nephilim Looked Like Clowns and Tackett’s The Nephilim Were Not Clowns are actually saying much the same thing: both, at once, claim that Nephilim did and also did not look like clowns since they both claim that Nephilim featured clown-like features that have been reflected in clown-like and modern clown aspects.

I found Tackett’s take interesting in that he walks the line between Stobbsian tall-tales and Biblical Nephilology—that is, in the text undergoing review: in my article Review of Pastor Paul Tackett’s Post-Flood Nephilim Migration I demonstrated that, in general, his Nephilology is not biblical since, for example, he asserts post-flood Nephilim, something he does not do in the present text.

In fact, in the text in question he wrote, “The flood erased their bodies…The last time humanity embraced such distortion, God sent a flood…a world humanity once knew and God erased with water…thoroughly that God wiped the slate clean…Nephilim were

Destroyed. The Bible says the flood was God’s judgment…those beings died in the flood” (and this is just a sample of the various times he affirmed such).

Now, logically (and bio-logically and theo-logically) how can that be the case (which it biblically is) and there also be Post-Flood Nephilim Migration? There cannot be thus, that is a fundamental level contradiction and one that implies that God failed, must have missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste.

I am typically loath to critique another author’s writing style since, as I have noted variously, mine style (or lack thereof) leaves much to be desired in part since suffering from some form of dyslexia, English being my second language, and not having an editor makes for a perfect storm for my writings.

Yet, I will note that, at least in the subject text, Paul Tackett is extremely repetitive and he could have produced a more succinct and ergo, more impactfully laser focused text if he condensed rather than having dispersed his claims and data points.

Paul Tackett notes:

One of the strangest symbols the modern world has normalized is the clown — a painted face, an exaggerated expression, a distorted body, a walking inversion of human dignity. Children laugh. Adults pretend to laugh. Yet somewhere deep inside the human soul, something recoils.

Something remembers. Something ancient recognizes something ancient. The face is familiar in a way we cannot articulate — and that is the warning…

Across continents, cultures, languages, and eras, the same grotesque figure reappears: white face, red mouth, oversized features, ritual paint, chaotic movement, mockery of order, mockery of authority, mockery of the human form itself. The world calls it comedy. The Bible believer asks a different question: Why does this symbol survive? And why now?

Genesis 6 gives the first clue: “There were giants in the earth in those days…” These were not merely tall men. They were the offspring of fallen angels and human women — hybrids, distortions, grotesque parodies of the divine order.

The flood erased their bodies, but it did not erase the trauma they left behind. Every post-flood culture carries a memory of distorted beings. Every myth remembers a hybrid face. Every pagan ritual recreates the mask of a fallen god. Humanity forgot the names — but remembered the faces.

Clown-Nephilologists make quite the case regarding clown features and yet, they seem to overlook that there are reasons as to why performers tends towards exaggeration: they need to be seen from afar—whether as spectacles in ancient rituals attended by hundreds, modern day stages which required huge screens to project the goings on to the people in backrows, or under the big top in circus center rings.

It is the reason that Michael Jackson would wear one sequined glove and high water black pants with black shoes and white sequined socks: so you can see his movements from afar. The same reason that opera singers traditionally overdo make up.

And yet, something recoils because they are other: they are unusual, they do unexpected odd things, they jokingly mock, etc., etc., etc.

Tackett’s view is that coulrophobia reflects ancient memories of having seen Nephilim.

He wrote:

The Nephilim were not clowns, but the clown is a faint, distorted reflection…these were not fairy-tale giants with cheerful faces and comedic antics (Genesis 6:4). They were the offspring of supernatural rebellion — the literal children of fallen angels, the product of abomination and transgression. Their appearance would not have been normal. Their faces would not have been pleasant. Their proportions would not have matched human design. They were the distortion of the image of God’s creation.

When a being outside of humanity corrupts human genetics, the result is something human-shaped but not human…

The exaggerated face is corruption. The elongated smile is corruption. The corpse-white skin is corruption. The blood-red markings around the mouth and eyes mimic wounds, death, or predatory expressions. These are not comedic enhancements. These are the echoes of a race that distorted humanity so…A clown is a mockery of humanity. A Nephilim was…A clown exaggerates what God made…

Behind the mask is an archetype — the trickster, the jester, the shaman, the ritual performer, the spirit medium — all descended from the same spiritual pattern: fallen beings masquerading behind distorted human form.

I want to insert a linguistics issue here as he refers to Nephilim as giants which begs the following key questions: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? what is his usage? Do those two usages agree?

The noted:

The King James Bible paints a picture of a world before the flood that was distorted, corrupted, mutated, and spiritually contaminated. “There were giants in the earth in those days”…“And also after that” (Genesis 6:4) was not a

suggestion. It was a warning that the spiritual corruption did not end with the giants’ bodies…Genesis 6 does not describe them in cartoon terms. It calls them “giants” and “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).

That was stated within the context of reference to their, “height, proportion, strength, and shape that did not match human design.” Thus, that informs us that his usage of giants is 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).

This means that his usage does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage since therein, giants merely renders (does not even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

He also refers to them as, “tall” but that is just as vague, generic, and multi-usage as giants.

As for, “offspring of supernatural rebellion — the literal children of fallen angels” indeed, the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

Yet, as for, “Their appearance would not have been normal” that is a speculative argument from silence especially since both sides of their parentage looked human thus, every indication is that their offspring would look human.

Human women look like human women because they are human women.

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.

Could there still have been some abnormal effects from the combination of Angel and human, sure, yet, the dirty little secret is that since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height and appearance is a non-issue—and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical-pop-Nephilology.

We have no reliable indication that, “elongated smile…corpse-white skin…blood-red markings…mimic” Nephilim features since we know not what Nephilim features are.

Now, there is something to be said regarding the issue of, “archetype — the trickster, the jester, the shaman, the ritual performer, the spirit medium” in terms of what Paul Tackett puts as:

…the clown…is the surviving symbol of a spiritual distortion. He is the echo of the Nephilim. He is the cartoon version of something humanity once feared…the same spirit behind the giants is conditioning the world again through imagery, mockery, inversion, and distortion…This is why the clown matters.

This is why the imagery matters. This is why the symbols matter…A clown is one of the strangest contradictions in modern culture. People pretend it’s harmless, pretend it’s comedic, pretend it’s a children’s toy — but the soul knows better…

Satan…needs the world to stop recognizing distortion when it sees it. He only needs mockery to become entertainment…the devil repeats himself. He recycles symbols. He repackages ancient corruption into modern aesthetics.

At issue is the, “the clown…is the surviving symbol of a spiritual distortion” the something to be said about which is that Satan only one untuned stringed banjo card is: copy but corrupt. He does that which God does but upside-down, inside out and backward.

Now, just as Nephilim might have been physically distorted, we cannot ignore that memories—especially cultural memories such as those held by Noah’s grandchildren and beyond who did not actually see Nephilim—and stories in general grow with telling, retelling, re-retelling, etc. as they become tall-tales: taller and taller they grow with time and telling—see my paper How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

Hyped click-bait existed long before clicking and the way to get and keep attention is to keep upping the ante, taking it up a notch, seeking to be unique my making the most outlandishly interesting claims: and now you have a taste of why neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales Nephilology has become a very lucrative cottage industry—an cottage made of straw.

An issue with which we must be very mindful is the ease with which we can water down otherwise solid data points in order to string them together in a manner that is actually not viable.

As for, “He only needs mockery to become entertainment,” Tackett noted, “Hollywood turns demons into superheroes” which is the case indeed especially in terms of the anti-hero who is a technical bad guy and does bad things but it is painted as being pragmatically acceptable since bad is being done for the right reasons, for the good—and I am italicizing terms here since they are being blurred into subjectivism.

And so many superheroes are aliens, hybrids, genetically mutated humans, have superpowers, etc.—Batman is among the only actually 100% non-GMO human superheroes.

We were told of, “white face, red mouth, oversized features…” and:

Nephilim, the hybrids, the corrupted seed, the giants who twisted the natural order. It’s no accident that the earliest giant legends from after the flood — in Canaan, in Bashan, in Native American lore, in Norse mythology — describe beings whose features were unnatural, whose faces were

oversized, whose expressions were monstrous.

It is too simple to vaguely refer to, “Native American lore” for example since Native American refers to many cultures from many locations and with various levels of oral traditions passed on for centuries and millennia with whatever level of reliability: see my article Lovelock Cave Giants: lost or found? for an example of this.

As for, “Nephilim, the hybrids…giants…after the flood — in Canaan” one such example is found in Num 13:33 which reads, “there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

Yet, that was:

1.            One single unreliable sentence

2.            From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse does not even mention Anakim)

3.            Of an unreliable evil report

4.            By 10 unreliable guys

5.            Whom God rebuked—to death

6.            Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible

7.            Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible

8.            Then one has to make up an un-biblical tall-tale about how they made it past the flood, past God.

I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

As for, “Nephilim, the hybrids…giants…after the flood…in Bashan” I would imagine that he is specifically referring to King Og of Bashan about whom we are told, “only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit” (circa 13.5x6ft.).

The only contextually relevant thing we are told about Rephaim, in general, is that they were subjectively, “tall,” in general and that is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days (Victor Harold Matthews, (Hendrickson, 1991 ed.) Manners and Customs in the Bible).

Also, seeking to derive Og’s height from the size of his bed is a non-sequitur based on various mere assumptions. Every indication is that it was a ritual object, not something upon which he slept—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Note that Paul Tackett argues thusly, very specifically:

Many were said to have red hair…

One of the strangest consistencies in giant lore across the world is the description of their physical features…pale skin and fiery, red hair. The Bible itself gives hints of this pattern, not in superficial description but in typology. Esau — the progenitor of nations hostile to Israel — is born “red, all over like an hairy garment” (Genesis 25:25). That is not normal. That is an emphasis.

The Native Americans spoke of the Si-Te-Cah, a race of red-haired giants who were cannibalistic, violent, and godlike in stature. When the Comanches spoke of their ancient enemies, they described them as “white men” with reddish or copper hair, massive height, and unnatural strength.

…red hair preserved in strands, pale bones of abnormal size, and skulls elongated far beyond normal human proportions…The Bible believer calls them evidence of Genesis 6 and its aftermath.

Why does this matter? Because the clown archetype — without consciously knowing it — preserves the same two features. The pale, corpse-like skin. The unnatural, blazing red hair…

Some accounts even describe them as glowing or luminous, not in a divine sense but in the eerie way moonlight reflects off a lifeless surface.

Red is the color of blood, the color of violence, the color of war, the color of sacrifice. It is the color of Esau, who despised his birthright and became a type of carnal rejection and opposition to God’s covenant.

Now, that, “Many were said to have red hair” is clearly a mere assertion and the only citation we have is generically to, “The Native Americans” and specifically to, “the Comanches.”

Worse yet, the argument was myopic and vague when it came down to it: and rather potentially dangerous to red-heads.

It would seem that what Native Americans were depicting are not cultural memories of Nephilim but rather, cultural memories of interacting with Vikings: giant/tall, White, and red-haired.

As for, “hints of this pattern…Esau” if we are to correlate that he was, “red, all over like an hairy garment” coupled with, “progenitor of nations hostile to Israel” we might was well say that King David was likewise (sans, “progenitor of nations hostile to Israel”) correlated to Nephilim since, after all, “he was ruddy” (1 Sam 16:12).

As for, “pale bones,” and he also wrote, “The pale face is the color of death” well, all bones are pale but there are huge issues with appealing to generic bones since that opens us a can of gigantic worms that range from individual bones to skeletons and from those examined by qualified people to unqualified people claiming they saw such.

Some are mere tall-tales without evidence, some are vague assertions, some end up being bones of pachyderm, whales, dinos, etc.—see my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales for a whole chapter featuring newspaper accounts form the late 1800s-early 1900s and, “Appendix: Review of Adrienne Mayor’s The First Fossil Hunters” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

As for, “abnormal size, and skulls elongated far beyond normal human proportions…The Bible believer calls them evidence of Genesis 6 and its aftermath” that is a clearly unfounded mere assertion.

Note that even, “pale, corpse-like skin” is generic and myopic since some people are just pale so the only reason to refer to pale as corpse-like is bias.

Even his, “Red is the color of…” statement is myopic since he could have just as easily have said, “…delicious fruit, beautiful sunsets, gorgeous flowers. It is the color of David, who’s hear was after God’s own heart and became a type of loyalty to God’s covenant.”

Referring to Stephen King’s novel It, Paul Tackett wrote:

Pennywise is not terrifying because he’s a clown. He’s terrifying because he is almost human. The white face and red markings are not scary because of makeup. They are scary because they visually approximate a hybrid face — a face that is human enough to identify but wrong enough to disturb.

Pennywise is not terrifying because he’s a clown. He’s terrifying because he is almost human but ontologically, he is not human and is not a clown.

In fact, he is not a he rather, It was created by what King referred to as other and another which is a Gnostic-style unknown god, deus absconditus, theos agnosticos who created some indescribable something that, for human comprehension, is symbolically described as a spider and which takes on various shapes once it discern that which will scare its victims the most: one such shape is Pennywise the Dancing Clown—for details, see my book A Worldview Review of Stephen King’s “It”: The Mystical, Mysterious, and Metaphysical in the Novel, Miniseries, and Movies.

Thus, as for, “features were unnatural, whose faces were oversized, whose expressions were monstrous” it may be the case that depictions of giants were meant to visualizing such distorted beginnings: rebellion that resulted in offspring that were never meant to be.

For all of his talk about distorted vestiges of humanity, the most terrifying facts of history include that the most terrible actions against humanity (sans weather and genetic related catastrophes) is that humans with normal human features have been some of the most monstrous.

Paul Tackett asserted, “The Bible says demons desire to ‘inhabit’ bodies because they once had bodies. Their former state was hybrid, flesh” yet, that is not the case: which is why it is a mere assertion.

While the Bible does not state that, it is true and yet, he seemed to be arguing that demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim and yet, that is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

Thus, overall, Paul Tackett’s point is that The Nephilim Were Not Clowns but they were, for all intents and purposes since, “Humanity…is haunted by what it remembers…the world before the flood was…preserved not in writing, but in imagery” and that imagery is supposedly based on how Nephilim looked.

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 and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The Answer the Bible site posted an article titled What is the significance of the fact there were giants in those days (Genesis 6:4)? by a certain Aaron Chin.

The site notes that their, “goal is to help you find biblical answers to all of your Bible questions…Our team of researchers dives deep into Scripture to provide clear, concise explanations to your inquiries…We believe every detail in God’s Word matters and can help bring someone closer to Christ.”

The article begins by quoting that which I term the Gen 6 affair thusly, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

Aaron Chin claims, “Nephilim were a race of giants” which begs these key hermeneutical questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s Chin usage (especially since he quoted a version that doesn’t refer to, “giants”)? Do those two usages agree?

Of, “sons of God” he notes, “Some believe this is referring to fallen angels or demons who mated with human women, producing superhuman offspring. Others believe it refers to godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with ungodly Cainites. Either way, the Nephilim were a hybrid race of giants who dominated the pre-flood world.”

I’m unsure how they could be hybrid either way: unless he’s watering down the term hybrid to refer to half-Angel and half-human and also 100% human from two related lineages—and how does the latter result in superhumans?

The former option is the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim. The latter is a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice.

For some odd reason, certainly not the Gen 6 affair, he concludes, “Their physical stature…made them celebrities and legendary figures” and yet, the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.

Thus, his usage of the term giants seems to be 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).

That means that his usage doesn’t agree with the English Bibles’ usage since the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

Aaron Chin affirms that, “they contributed to the violence, immorality and corruption that overran the world, leading to God’s judgment by flood…Nephilim…stoked God’s anger.”

Since his usage of giants isn’t in keeping with the English Bibles’ usage he takes a wrong turn in going on about that, “The fact that giants once existed challenges the popular notion that humanity has been on an upward evolutionary trajectory over millions of years.”

He adds, “It lends credence to the biblical timeline that sophisticated civilizations date back only thousands of years. The prescence of giants also testifies to the reliability of Scripture, as their remains have been unearthed around the world.” Well, “around the world” is a bit of a vague citation but worse of all, that statement is misleading since by this point we’re dealing with such watered down assertions that they’re meaningless and nothing about the hints we can derive from his usage would have anything to do with the Bible.

Following up on his statement about the flood, he adds, “God refused to let these powerful hybrids and their corruption continue indefinitely. He stepped in to destroy their dominion and punish sin, while saving righteous Noah and his family. The Nephilim were wiped out…in the judgment of the flood.”

Now, he then takes a gigantic misstep by asserting, “Genesis 6:4 notes that the Nephilim existed even after the flood, implying some may have survived God’s judgment.”

You read Genesis 6:4 as he quoted it and there was no indication whatsoever that it “notes that the Nephilim existed even after the flood.” As for, “implying some may have survived God’s judgment” which is not only not in the least bit the case, it’s logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible—unless, that is, one want to assert that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

How can a site focused on finding biblical answers to provide clear, concise explanations of every detail in God’s Word to help bring someone closer to Christ claim that a verse states what it doesn’t and then imply that God failed.

Well, one problem is his usage of useless terminology: he seems to be chasing his subjective usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants around an ancient and specific Hebrew Bible.

By making that linguistics error, he can write things such as, “Some believe giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim. However, there is no conclusive biblical evidence for Nephilim coexisting with humans today.”

We aren’t told how many the, “Some” are nor who they are nor where they stated such things nor are they quoted or cited. Yet, I know that he’s referring to un-biblical Nephilology since when it comes to Goliath when one reads of him having been a giant in some modern English Bibles that’s merely identifying him as a Repha: it’s telling us that he was of the Rephaim tribe and not telling us anything at all about his size.

As already noted, the only way it could be that, “giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim” is if God failed. As for, “no conclusive biblical evidence for Nephilim coexisting with humans today” fair enough but, pray tell, why not if they made it past the flood—in some un-biblical manner?

An odd feature of the manner in which pop-Nephilolgists communicate is that one of their MOs is that they make a point, move away from it, come back to it, move away, come back, etc.

Thus, Aaron Chin goes back to, “Giant bones and skulls unearthed at ancient burial mounds in America, particularly the Ohio valley region” which is biblically irrelevant.

And, “Weapons of enormous size belonging to giant warriors found in Greece” which is biblically irrelevant.

And, “Giant footprints fossilized in stone at sites in Africa” which is biblically irrelevant. I’m unaware of plural footprints. I’m aware of this:

Actually, one of the firsts tests to determine if that’s a footprint is whether there are plural footprints: where’s the long line of footprints leading to it and away from it? Apparently, the answer is that there aren’t any. So, that’s a giant indicator of that it’s not a footprint.

And, “Ancient Jewish and Roman historians like Josephus referencing bones of giants being on display in public places” which is biblically irrelevant. Think about it: he asserts that bones of something are on display so, what of it?

He then refers to that:

The Nephilim are mentioned in some ancient extra-biblical sources, which provide additional insights about how they were viewed:

The Book of Enoch (7:2) describes giants 3,000 ells high (around 4,500 feet).

The Book of Jubilees (7:21–25) details that they could kill men with their bare hands.

The Book of Giants from the Dead Sea Scrolls mentions the Nephilim’s height and influence.

The Rephaim are described as giants in Ugaritic texts dating back to 1300 BC.

The first three texts are Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch and The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts. Also, read my How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

As for, “Rephaim are described as giants in Ugaritic texts dating back to 1300 BC” I’m unsure I’ll accept that un-cited assertion but in Ugaritic texts recently deceased kings and heroes are referred to as kings and heroes but after they had been dead for some time, they were referred to as rph, could be summoned from the grave/underworld to attend rituals, etc., see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.

Aaron Chin then writes of, “Nephilim co-existing with adamites” thusly:

According to Genesis 6:4, Nephilim lived concurrently with “daughters of man,” presumed to be the female descendants of Adam. The text portrays these groups intermarrying and producing offspring. This raises some interesting questions if the Nephilim really were giant hybrids:

How could giants and humans reproduce if they were completely different species or creatures?

Were there families that contained both giants and normal-sized people side-by-side?

Did the Nephilim have special abilities or superhuman traits compared to their human spouses?

What happened to the children of these mixed marriages in terms of their stature and skills?

Unfortunately the Bible does not provide this level of detail about Nephilim-human relations. But it does make clear that giants could somehow breed with humans, adding to the biblical intrigue surrounding these ancient colossal beings.

This is a bit messy so, just in case, “Nephilim lived concurrently with ‘daughters of man” having come into being after the daughters of men were around.

They had to be, “female descendants of Adam” by definition.

Perhaps, “these groups intermarrying and producing offspring” eventually but the Gen 6 affair was about the sons of God producing offspring with the daughters of men, not the Nephilim.

As for, “How could” let’s switch to sons of God as Angels, “and humans reproduce if they were completely different species or creatures?” well, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. We were created “a little lower” (Psa 8:5) than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.” See my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

As for, “How could giants and humans reproduce if they were completely different species or creatures?” well, remember the dirty little secret.

How about, “How could” Nephilim, “and humans reproduce if they were completely different species or creatures?” they weren’t completely different.

Note that he appealed to, “giants” and, “colossal beings” which are both uselessly vague terms and while he means something about subjectively unusual height by them, he’s yet to provide us any reason whatsoever to think that Nephilim were such.

Following up on his statement about the flood, he adds, “God refused to let these powerful hybrids and their corruption continue indefinitely. He stepped in to destroy their dominion and punish sin, while saving righteous Noah and his family. The Nephilim were wiped out…in the judgment of the flood.”

Now, he then takes a gigantic misstep by asserting, “Genesis 6:4 notes that the Nephilim existed even after the flood, implying some may have survived God’s judgment.”

You read Genesis 6:4 as he quoted it and there was no indication whatsoever that it “notes that the Nephilim existed even after the flood.” As for, “implying some may have survived God’s judgment” which is not only not in the least bit the case, it’s logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible—unless, that is, one want to assert that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

How can a site focused on finding biblical answers to provide clear, concise explanations of every detail in God’s Word to help bring someone closer to Christ claim that a verse states what it doesn’t and then imply that God failed.

Well, one problem is his usage of useless terminology: he seems to be chasing his subjective usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants around an ancient and specific Hebrew Bible.

By making that linguistics error, he can write things such as, “Some believe giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim. However, there is no conclusive biblical evidence for Nephilim coexisting with humans today.”

We aren’t told how many the, “Some” are nor who they are nor where they stated such things nor are they quoted or cited. Yet, I know that he’s referring to un-biblical Nephilology since when it comes to Goliath when one reads of him having been a giant in some modern English Bibles that’s merely identifying him as a Repha: it’s telling us that he was of the Rephaim tribe and not telling us anything at all about his size.

As already noted, the only way it could be that, “giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim” is if God failed. As for, “no conclusive biblical evidence for Nephilim coexisting with humans today” fair enough but, pray tell, why not, if they made it past the flood—in some un-biblical manner?

Having written, “that the doings of Nephilim played a part in, “leading to God’s judgment by flood…God…destroy their dominion…Nephilim were wiped out…in the judgment of the flood” and then that, “Nephilim existed even after the flood…giants like Goliath were genetic descendants of the pre-flood Nephilim.”

He went on to assert, “A key reason that God judged the world with a flood in Genesis 6 was because of the proliferation of Nephilim giants” which, FYI, biblically contextually would mean, “Nephilim Nephilim.”

And he then circled back to, “The giants known as the Nephilim”—“Nephilim known as the Nephilim”—“were not the only oversized beings mentioned in the Old Testament narratives” of which he hasn’t appealed to a single one, “There were also the Anakim, Emim and Rephaim, who were tribes or clans of very large people described as giants or comparing in height to the Nephilim. The most famous giant was Goliath, the Philistine warrior defeated by David.”

On a basic level of categorical thinking, if, “Nephilim…were also the Anakim, Emim and Rephaim” then, by definition, Anakim, Emim and Rephaim wouldn’t be, “Anakim, Emim and Rephaim” they would be Nephilim.

Yet, he offered no backing for the mere assertion that such was the case, in any case—in any way, shape or form. So, I’ll have to argue his point and then debunk it. The one and only possible way to even imagine arguing that Anakim, Emim and Rephaim were really Nephilim, by any other name, is Num 13:33 which myopically correlated Nephilim with Anakim. Yet, when one appeals to that verse, they needed to mention that they’re relying on:

1.       One single unreliable sentence

2.       From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)

3.       Of an unreliable “evil report”

4.       By 10 unreliable guys

5.       Whom God rebuked—to death

6.       Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible

7.       Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible

8.       Then they have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.

I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

Aaron Chin doesn’t seem to realize that, “Anakim, Emim and Rephaim” are one in the same since Rephaim were aka Emmim and Anakim was like a clan of that tribe. As for, “oversized…very large” well, those terms are as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants and he can only get such an idea from Deut 2 which refers to them as, “tall” which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage: in this case, is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

He added, “Goliath stood around 9 feet tall and his armor weighed over 120 pounds (1 Samuel 17:4-7)” yet, “1 Samuel 17:4-7” where? See that was a myopic assertion since the Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

He also wrote, “Other giants included King Og of Bashan whose huge iron bed was over 13 feet long (Deuteronomy 3:11)” but what does a, “bed” have to do with anything? He committed a very, very common pop-Nephilology fallacy of a non-sequitur. Concluding anything about his personal height from his, “bed” is based on various mere assumptions. And note that he doesn’t appeal to Og’s stated height since we have no physical description of him. He seems unaware that indications are that the, “bed” was a ritual object, not something on which he slept. Yet, even if he slept on it there are various reasons to not jump to a non-sequitur since he was a lavish king and if you measured my bed you’d conclude I’m some five times wider than I actually am. For more, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

As for, “the giant with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot” that’s, “the Repha” and what of it?

He adds, “giants even after the flood. They stood well over seven and even nine feet” but the tallest person specified in the Bible was actually an Egyptian at 7.5ft (2 Sam 23).

He does affirm, “Though not the original Nephilim” but tells a tall-tale about, “later giants were evidence of genetic anomalies producing supersized humans both before and after the flood” for which there’s literally zero indication—granting that supersized is a useless term.

He then focuses on, “Nephilim size…There are no precise details in Scripture about how tall the Nephilim giants actually were” but claims, “a few clues” such as, you guessed it, “Numbers 13:33 says the Nephilim made the Israelite spies look like grasshoppers in comparison.” No, it states no such thing: that’s an unreliable sentence from an unreliable evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked who merely asserted that Nephilim made the Israelite spies look like grasshoppers in comparison.

He then circles back to, “Goliath…about 9 feet” but that’s not only myopic, it’s about a Repha so doesn’t count for Nephilim—odd that he literally wrote, “not the original Nephilim” followed by, “Nephilim size” followed by appealing to the, “not the original Nephilim” Goliath.

Next up is, “Some Nephilim may have had six fingers and toes (2 Samuel 21:20)” but that has nothing to do with, “Nephilim size” and it’s a non-sequitur to take one single Repha who lived centuries post flood and imagine a correlation to pre-flood Nephilim.

Then, “They were descendants of Anakim giants who were described as strong and tall like cedars (Amos 2:9).” Yet, he gets that from the only place he could, non-LXX versions of an unreliable sentence and Amos doesn’t say anything about Anakim.

Amos 2:9 says, “the Amorite…whose height was like the height of the cedars and who was as strong as the oaks; I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath.” He was clearly just saying they were big and strong and not implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation.

In fact, people who do measure cedars and claim Amorites were that tall never get around to a calculation correlating the strength of oaks—since they’re only interested in tall-tales. Plus, if they take it that incoherently literal then they have to conclude that Amorites had fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.

Next, he wrote, “The Book of Enoch claims Nephilim were over 400 feet high” which he wrote after, you will recall, having written, “The Book of Enoch (7:2) describes giants 3,000 ells high (around 4,500 feet).”

His conclusion is, “they potentially ranged anywhere from 9 feet to over 400 feet tall!” which is unfounded. He ended that assertion with, “Even on the low end, they would have towered over average humans” and imagines that, “Their immense stature aligned with descriptions of being ‘mighty’ men and warriors. They must have had incredible strength to match their size.” Yet, history is peppered with mighty men and warriors who weren’t taller than the parochial average.

Aaron Chin then asks, “How did giant Nephilim exist?”—“How did Nephilim Nephilim exist?” yet, that section is premised on un-biblical tall-tales about Nephilim so he focuses on, “Given the much smaller stature of humans both then and now, how could giants like the Nephilim arise? There are several possible explanations” which he states as follows:

Supernatural origin – If the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 were angels/demons, their coupling with humans may have genetically altered humanity’s development, producing unnaturally large offspring.

Genetic anomalies – Rare gigantism disorders could have produced abnormally large humans exceeding seven or even nine feet at times.

Ideal environment – The pre-flood world environment may have been “hyperbaric” with greater air pressure and oxygen levels, promoting larger growth.

Diet/lifestyle – Their diet and living conditions could have promoted greater height and body mass.

While definitive evidence is unavailable, a combination of supernatural engineering and ideal living conditions most likely enabled Nephilim to grow remarkably large in stature compared to humans both before and after the flood.

Why merely assume that, “angels/demons,” it was Angels, not demons, would be “producing unnaturally large offspring” rather than unnaturally small?

There’s no biblical reason to even appeal to something as mundane as, “gigantism.”

Certainly, “The pre-flood world” may have been a factor in, “promoting larger growth” and my only point is that we’ve no data to back Aaron Chin’s assertions and assumptions about Nephilim’s size.

I’m unsure what, “Diet/lifestyle” would have, “promoted” 4,500ft.

“supernatural engineering” is an oddly sci-fi manner to refer to physical copulation. Again, perhaps it’s, “most likely” but we’ve no indication of it: merely un-biblical tall-tales by pop-Nephilologists.

He concludes by listing, “several key takeaways from the brief mention of Nephilim giants in Genesis 6”:

They were real creatures verified by archaeological finds.

They possessed great size and abilities beyond normal humans.

They were hybrid offspring of angelic/demonic beings and humans.

They were associated with violence and evil before the flood.

They significantly influenced the spreading wickedness on the earth.

Their judgment by God in the flood stands as warning about the inevitable judgment of evil.

There’s no way to correlate, “archaeological finds” to Nephilim.

There’s no reliable indication of, “great size and abilities beyond normal humans.”

Indications are, “They were hybrid offspring of angelic” not, “demonic,” “beings and humans.”

Indeed, “associated with violence and evil before the flood” which is part of why they didn’t survive—and there’s literally zero reliable indication that they returned—likewise with, “significantly influenced the spreading wickedness on the earth” and, “Their judgment by God in the flood” which brought them to a sudden and full end.

Sadly, he ends with, “The fact that giants once walked the earth reminds us of the accuracy of Scripture” which is a non-starter so we can’t rely on it do assist in reminding us of the accuracy of Scripture.

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 and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Thinbox Dictator replies to Is it possible atheists see themselves in a righteous battle against God?

A person going by the username Thinbox Dictator replied as follows to the question Is it possible atheists see themselves in a righteous battle against God? How could they not see how mistaken they are?

I don’t see myself in ‘a battle’ against something I don’t believe exists.

I don’t even know where you’ve got that idea.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Why don’t you believe God exists?

Thinbox Dictator

Because every argument for its existence I’m aware about,is really bad.

Ken Ammi

So then it’s about your admitted limited awareness.

It’s also about your merely asserted your subjective personal opinion about those of which you are aware but that’s not a standard.

You seem to imply that presenting arguments is a requirement but how and why is that the case on your worldview?

You also seem to imply that we can only believe in things for which there are successful arguments (which you arbitrate) but how and why is that the case on your worldview?

Thinbox Dictator

Do you think before writing/speaking?

Of course that’s a standard.

How can I evaluate (,or be convinced by) something I’m not aware about?

Every apologetic argument for something supernatural I’ve ever heard,is based on misunderstanding (that’s assuming apologists don’t lie on purpose just to give people like you false confidence) whatever topic it touches/is based on.

What more you expect from me,than to evaluate arguments I’m aware about?

Every time I’ve looked into topics apologists base their arguments on I’ve found out that their arguments can at best be misunderstanding of it, but most likely it’s downright lying to their gullible audience.

They sell their arguments not to convince “unbelievers”, but to give false confidence to those who already believe that stuff.

You are a nice example of it.

You try to hang on “it’s just what I’m aware about” as if it’s some gotcha, because some dumb apologist used it before and you just swallowed it without thinking.

Use your head, just a bit, please.

Ken Ammi

Ok, so, you’re asserting that it’s a standard—ergo, a universal imperative—that all of humanity go by what you personally subjectively find to be, “really bad” or not: fascinating?

Whence did you derive such universal authority?

Indeed, how can I evaluate (,or be convinced by) something you’re not aware about: I was just pointing that out, you’re not omniscient.

Now, when you retort with that, “Every apologetic argument for something supernatural I’ve ever heard…” and then opine, that’s a down the line argument: the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for you to begin with, to first, justify demanding cogent arguments, on your worldview.

Then, justify how and why only believing in things for which there’s cogent arguments is a universal imperative, on your worldview.

What, on your worldview, is wrong with giving, “false confidence” and, “lying”?

See, you began and continue functioning based on merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions: I’m just seeing if you’ll reveal them.

Thinbox Dictator

I understand that you want to change the topic, but you didn’t address the topic you seem to be so angry about.

“””

… that’s a down the line argument: the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for you to begin with, to first, justify demanding cogent arguments, on your worldview.

“””

…to myself,yes.

And it is not the first step,it is one of steps, but deffinitely not the first.

obviously your “steps” are different and our starting points are on different continents, but thankfully that is not the topic you are so angry about.

so could you please explain what you find so upsetting on the fact that you have to evaluate claims based on what you are aware about?

if the claim is insteresting/ important to you , you educate yourself on the topic, but you don’t just trust the salesman that their product is the best,right?

so obviously (to me, I didn’t imagine I would find someone disagreeing on that) , you evaluate claims based on what you know and learned.

what more can you expect from any indivudual?

if you agree with me on that, why are you upset about it?

Ken Ammi

Well, on your worldview there’s nothing wrong with changing the topic.

Yet, that’s not what I’m doing: I’m merely asking you to back up to the very first step: ever wonder why you’re literally incapable of taking it?

At least you agree that you’re no premise upon which to jump to your merely asserted conclusions since you appeal to subjectivism, “starting points are on different continents”—which is a mere assumption in and of itself.

You’re merely assuming that I’m angry and upset.

So, to put it another way: you anachronistically began with the merely asserted conclusion, based on hidden assumptions, that “to evaluate claims” is some sort of universal imperative, on your worldview, and that we are only to believe in thing which have been evaluated.

Let’s go back to my original reply:

“It’s also about your merely asserted your subjective personal opinion about those of which you are aware but that’s not a standard.”

“You seem to imply that presenting arguments is a requirement but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”

“You also seem to imply that we can only believe in things for which there are successful arguments (which you arbitrate) but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”

Thinbox Dictator

Evaluating claims has nothing to do with worldview, are you thick?

That’s why I’m baffled why you have a problem with it.

Everyone does that.

All the time.

Your version might be simple“sounds right, I believe that” and I do that lazy automatic evaluation sometimes too, despite trying not to,or dismissal without further investigation.

I’m just interested why you have a problem with me listening to apologetics and examining their arguments vs stuff I can learn independently about topics they base their arguments on, finding their arguments be invariably just big pile of thrash.

I could understand why you would have problem with my conclusion, but you are complaining about me evaluating their arguments in the first place.

It’s as if you complain that I didn’t just accept whatever they say without thinking about it.

That’s how it looks to me,so you want to change topic because you understand that apologetic arguments you know about, are really bad,I guess.

And sorry, I’m not here to explain my worldview, especially when you seem to be unable to grasp basic questions.

It would be conversation for hours and I’m not doing that, and if I would,it would be with someone who can understand basics.

I’m aware that changing topic is common apologetic tactic when you’re in a corner,but you weren’t even in a corner. You just leaped out with classic distraction when I was just asking the simplest question.

Maybe the question surprised you, because nobody asked that before.

Do you know why? Because nobody has a reason to disagree with it. Even the dumbest apologists would agree with it.

I’m guessing You misunderstood what I meant, and after I’ve made clear what I meant, you can’t just say you misunderstood, so you change topic.

I mean I hope, because I don’t believe you can be that thick with level head.

So it’s either that,or You came here to argue so you can’t think clearly… or you’re really that thick.

Either way,if you can’t answer that, there’s no point in this.

Ken Ammi

My friend, since you don’t seem to be getting the systematic critical thinking point, I’ll stop asking questions and start making statements.

You stated, “Evaluating claims has nothing to do with worldview” based on your worldview. Actually, you’re right about that evaluating claims has nothing to do with YOUR worldview, it’s just your emotively subjective personal preference du jour since your worldview provides you no premise upon which to claim that it’s a universal imperative to evaluate claims.

Yes, “Everyone does that. All the time” but the point is that, on your worldview, doing so is just an emotively subjective personal preference du jour so you disqualify yourself from even complaining about anyone who doesn’t do that.

On your worldview, “sounds right, I believe that” is 100% acceptable as is, “I do that lazy automatic evaluation” and, “dismissal without further investigation.”

I’ve no idea where you got even a hint at that I, “have a problem with [you] listening to apologetics and examining their arguments vs stuff I can learn independently about topics they base their arguments on, finding their arguments be invariably just big pile of thrash.”

On your worldview, there’s literally nothing whatsoever wrong with what you term, “big pile of thrash.”

The only problem I have with your, “conclusion” thus far is that you jumped to it, you incoherently illogically and anachronistically began with your conclusion based on hidden assumptions. Yet, on your worldview you’re utterly welcome to be incoherently illogically and anachronistic.

On your worldview there’s nothing wrong with, “without thinking about it.”

Indeed, “That’s how it looks to me” which you state subjectively.

You don’t have to explain your worldview, I’ve derived it from what you’ve stated and see it’s fundamental level failure of a collapse since it leaves you incapable of taking systematic critical thinking step number one, the very first one.

So, what you subjectively term, “distraction” is actually begging you to do what is clear you can’t do.

So, “Let’s go back to my original reply:” again:

“It’s also about your merely asserted your subjective personal opinion about those of which you are aware but that’s not a standard.”

“You seem to imply that presenting arguments is a requirement but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”

“You also seem to imply that we can only believe in things for which there are successful arguments (which you arbitrate) but how and why is that the case on your worldview?”

Thinbox Dictator

How can you not understand that worldview of individual is independent of the fact that individuals have to process information somehow, evaluate it. Consciously and/or subconsciously.

How do you connect it in your head to being dependent on worldview?

My previous response was deleted, because I wasn’t kind enough to you.

That means,if you don’t get the question,or you have incoherent answer to this,I might just ignore this nonsensical thread.

Ken Ammi

I get it, your tactic is to ignore 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999+1% of everything I point out and ask and continue on as if you haven’t been 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000+1% debunked—by your own worldview.

Let me ask this as a circumlocution to answer your question: in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?

Thinbox Dictator

my tactic is to ignore your irrelevant,wrong assertions and be focussed on one information I am interested in to get from your head.

you know nothing about my worldview,that’s why I’m ignoring your wrong assumptions about it.

to answer your last question: none.

I get that you don’t understand what I’m doing here,you’re stuck trying to win an argument.

I’m not arguing with you. I’m trying to find out where we agree and go from there.

I thought “everyone has to evaluate claims” is something nobody can disagree on,but you showed me wrong.

therefore: I want to know how it works in your head.

if you weren’t stuck in your argument,this could have been already over or we could have gone further with it,but you’re not able/willing to stay focussed on a simple topic.

before it seemed to me that you are upset that I didn’t accept whatever apologetic argument that would feel right,instead I’ve looked into it and found it trash.

to it you replied that I’m wrong:

“””

The only problem I have with your, “conclusion” thus far is that you jumped to it, you incoherently illogically and anachronistically began with your conclusion based on hidden assumptions. Yet, on your worldview you’re utterly welcome to be incoherently illogically and anachronistic.

“””

which was laughably funny,because in your own complaint,you project what you think my worldview allows and you have a problem with how I jumped to a conclusion compatible with what you view as my worldview.

are you upset because apologetics is illogical / incoherent? that maybe my ridiculous worldview therefore should be fine with it?

it just shows me that I was right. you are upset that I’ve looked into it closer than I had to.

I understand that you are confused,but you should understand why you’re upset about this.

you are upset that apologetics don’t survive closer examination.

you can scream and shout how you imagine my worldview fails all over the place,because your preacher says so,but the problem is,that apologetics fail flat and you don’t like it.

I don’t like it too,that’s why I don’t buy what they sell.

so now that we got it out of the way,can we get to the interesting part?

please tell me how in your head the fact that individuals have to evaluate claims/information, is dependant on worldview.

that’s the only piece of information I’m interested in from this nonsensical conversation we have here.

if you want to shout at me with more nonsense,I can stand it,just include answer to that question, ok?

Ken Ammi

If you think that I don’t know anything about your worldview then you should correct me, please.

I actually don’t recall you ever stating, “everyone has to evaluate claims” but the issue is simple: this isn’t about subjectively agreeing but about how there’s a universal imperative that everyone has to evaluate claims, on your worldview. If there’s not, and there’s not, then everyone has to evaluate claims is just a merely asserted positive affirmation, an emotively subjective personal preference du jour rather than a standard.

Still waiting for you to reply to, “in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?”

See, you complain that I don’t know your worldview but when I specifically ask about it in order to understand you better you ignore me—and then you complain that I don’t know your worldview.

Thinbox Dictator

I don’t reply to your belated questions about my worldview, because it’s irrelevant to the question I’m interested in, plus you don’t seem to be able/willing to grasp simple concepts.

I’ve already replied to your question “in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?”

With “”” to answer your last question: none. “”” because that’s how you’ve ended your last nonsensical rant.

Now to your last remark:

“”” I actually don’t recall you ever stating, “everyone has to evaluate claims” “””

Are you kidding?

So little recap:

You’ve asked why I don’t believe in god, to which I replied “Because every argument for its existence I’m aware about,is really bad.”

Then you thought that the problem must be my “limited awareness* to which I replied mainly with “How can I evaluate (,or be convinced by) something I’m not aware about?”

You still didn’t get the question,so I tried to ask different way “How can you not understand that worldview of individual is independent of the fact that individuals have to process information somehow, evaluate it. Consciously and/or subconsciously.”

And then it continues, I’m asking and you try to talk about something else that would steer the conversation somewhere else where you wouldn’t like my answers to your undoubtedly even dumber questions.

If you are trying to just exercise your rethoric, I’m not doing that. I’m not debating someone who doesn’t get simple concepts.

I was asking you, repeatedly,in various ways,how do you in your head think that the fact that everyone has to evaluate claims is dependant on worldview.

I’m on topic of your complaint about my limitations.

Evaluating claims is how worldviews are built, among other things,so I find your complaint absurd. So I’m asking how it works in your head.

It’s not imperative, it’s just a fact. I’m trying to find out how it’s not a fact in your head.

It’s not subjective opinion, it’s not about agreement on that, it’s about topic of your complaint about the fact that I can evaluate only what I’m aware about.

You are trying to get out from it somewhere else.

I’m actually interested how in your head it possibly can be different in any individual.

I’m interested if you actually had a complaint or you were just mindlessly repeating apologetic rethoric with gaping hole in its logic without ever spending second on thinking about it.

So far it looks like you’re just mindlessly repeating.

Ken Ammi

It’s not mindlessly repeating but rather mindfully repeating since you keep missing the point—purposefully or not.

Your worldview is THE point. Your worldview’s core is Atheism and it infects all it touches such that you literally view everything and anything via that dirty lens.

So as to not turn this into trading essays, here it is:

On your worldview, reality is accidental (uncreated, undesigned, not the end result of a volitional plan, etc.).

As is our ability to discern it.

There’s no universal imperative to adhere to it.

Nor to demand or expect others to do so.

Ergo, it’s literally pure subjectivism and all you can tell me is that you emotively subjectively don’t personally like what I’m saying as a personal preference du jour—on the level of level of a, “My dear diary, today I feel…” entry and with the same level of flaccid impotence.

Thus, you discredited yourself by disqualifying yourself from ever condemning anything ontologically since all you can do is express how you feel about things.

Thinbox Dictator

you still don’t understand it.

I don’t care about your misconceptions about how reality works without your magical god, I don’t care what you think it implies.

I’m asking you how it is not a fact that every individual has to evaluate, one way or another, outside information.

I understand that you hear from dumb apologists how reality doesn’t work without god and I don’t care how much you ( want to ) believe it.

it is completely irrelevant.

that’s why I’m ignoring your attempts to steer conversation (I take this as a conversation, I guess you’re trying to win a nonexistent debate in your head) somewhere else,where I would try to explain to you something you must have heard in various forms and shapes before,but you just don’t like it.

what is your problem with a fact that individuals have to process outside information?

not imperative,how you try to frame it. it’s not a command from some magical force,it’s just how it works. a fact.

how in your head it depends on worldview?

just tell me how it is not a fact independent of worldviews. that’s why I’m asking you..

when you don’t address that, your attempts to pin it “on my worldview” are meaningless.

that’s why I’m ignoring them.

Well, that ended it since when I went to reply that I haven’t received the money yet, I got this, “Page Not Found. We searched everywhere but couldn’t find the page you were looking for.”

Yet, I found that this person also posted a reply to the question Do atheists realize the fact that God can see through your lies?

Yes,we realise that if there’s a god that knows everything,that god would know if we would just pretend to not believe in it.

We don’t pretend.

I’m interested how you square abundance of lies in apologetics,which are used to deliberately mislead theists to give them false confidence in their faith, when they say they do believe in said god.

Ken Ammi

Did you delete our entire discussion? Regardless, I have the entirety of it since I kept saving all replies and will post it on my website.

Curious, who are you to literally speak for all Atheists?

Thinbox Dictator

If you mean “we don’t pretend” , it’s just position of atheism.

Atheism isn’t “pretending to not believe”

And maybe you thought discussion under another answer, this one is relatively new.

I didn’t delete it.

Good that you have a backup, maybe you can think about it sometimes.

Ken Ammi

I asked “Curious, who are you to literally speak for all Atheists?” which you ignored but keep speaking as if you do.

It’s low-level Atheism to turn it into an issue of whether you believe or not: that ignores the issue of the reality or lack thereof of God’s existence.

As for “lies”: how do you know they’re lies.

What, on your worldview, is wrong with lying?

The next time I sought to get onto that discussion, the result was, “Page Not Found. We searched everywhere but couldn’t find the page you were looking for.” Seems that Quora is deleting a lot of discussions: I’m seeing it more and more.

See my various books here—including my contra Atheism ones.

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.

If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Aris Manus (“Independent researcher & investigative writer. Obsessed with how power conceals itself. No fixed address, no alma mater – only loyalty to the record. Reads everything, forgets nothing. The most dangerous truths hide in plain sight. He finds them all”) wrote two guest posts for the Ancient Origins Unleashed site but I can only partially review them since I’m not about to subscribe to a site that promulgates faulty info so I can only see portions of the articles—plus, they don’t provide contact info so I can’t even reach out to them to offer a direct critique.

One is titled The Watchers, the Nephilim, and the True Reason for the Great Flood: The Forbidden History of Fallen Angels.

Note the premise in that they were not only, “the…Reason” but were, “the True Reason.”

The employment of the term Watchers alerts us to reliance on 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch since that term is a mere aka for Malakim/Angels from the Second Temple Era (516 BC-70 AD).

Manus asserts, “There is a passage” referring to that which I term the Gen 6 affair, “so profoundly unsettling, that for centuries theologians have quietly glossed over it” even though there’s literally millennia’s worth of focus on it and literally every expositional teacher, preacher, commentator deals with it—for example, see my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s.

He abruptly tells us that the affair resulted in, “a forbidden transfer of celestial technology” which is from the 1 Enoch tall-tale and, “and the birth of a monstrous, bloodthirsty race of giants.” I say abruptly since Manus jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” to the modern generically subjective English word “giants” so 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 Manus’ usage? Do those two usages agree?

Having jumped from Nephilim to giants he then jumps back to Nephilim due to quoting the affair thusly:

“When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose… The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.” (Genesis 6:1-4)

He then asks, “who were the Nephilim, the towering ‘men of renown’” about whom he inserted the vague term towering, “whose existence demanded a global apocalypse to wipe them out?”

Well, “To uncover the truth, we must look beyond the sanitized modern Bible” which I can tell means that the Bible isn’t neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales enough for him so, “We need to delve into the ancient apocryphal texts that the early Church Fathers read, debated, and ultimately excluded from the canon. This includes the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Enoch, and the disturbing account of the fallen angels known as the Watchers, a forbidden history that bears an alarming relevance to the world situation today.”

Thus, rely on anything written by anyone for any reason in any genre at any level of reliability from centuries and millennia after the Torah.

Yet, note the emphasis, “the True Reason for the Great Flood” and, “whose existence demanded a global apocalypse to wipe them out.”

That’s the end of the preview so we’ll move onto the follow-up article preview for If the Flood Destroyed the Nephilim, Why Did Giants Return? Note that asking, “Why Did Giants Return?” (now jumping languages in a single sentence) is the wrong primary question ask, the primary question is, “Did [Nephilim] Return?”

I wrote, “Did [Nephilim] Return?” since pop-Nephilology (which is currently ruled by people who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians) love chasing the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage word giants around an ancient and specific Hebrew Bible.

Again, “the True Reason for the Great Flood” and, “whose existence demanded a global apocalypse to wipe them out” and now, “the Flood was meant to wipe out that corruption.”

To show just how unqualified Aris Manus is to have his work featured on this issue anywhere on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you, he wrote, “one question becomes impossible to ignore: why do giants appear again after the Flood? Why do the Anakim, Og of Bashan, and later Goliath still stand in the biblical story like shadows of a world that was supposed to have been buried beneath the waters?”

1. We need to know his usage of giants or else we can’t answer that question.

2. We get a hint at his usage since he swaps it with Nephilim so his usage seems to be a mere aka for Nephilim—why not just be a consistent communicator that than swapping languages even within one sentence?

3. Yet, his reference to, “Anakim, Og of Bashan, and later Goliath” is to Rephaim, not to Nephilim—Anakim were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe.

Thus, he not only swaps languages but committed a category error that violates the law of identity. That seems to hint at why he swaps languages: he can refer to Nephilim and Rephaim as giants but couldn’t correlate them if he was dealing with the original language.

He added, “if the Nephilim were part of the reason the old world was destroyed, then their story should have ended in Genesis 6” which is where it ended—with two exceptions:

1. centuries post-flood we have a sentence recorded in Num 13:33 about which one must always be aware that it’s:

1.       One single unreliable sentence

2.       From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)

3.       Of an unreliable “evil report”

4.       By 10 unreliable guys

5.       Whom God rebuked—to death

6.       Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible

7.       Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible

8.       Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.

I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

2. centuries and millennia post-flood, post-Torah, all sort of folkloric tall-tales were told about Nephilim, see my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

Referring to, “the biblical record” Aris Manus asserts, “The Judgement and the Flood came, and yet, giant traditions returned” which, again, he’s basing on a bottomless pit of mere unreliable assertions and unreliable assumptions.

He speculates, “Either something of the old corruption survived” which contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5) and implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. or, “the same kind of rebellion happened again” which implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. or, “later giant traditions preserve the memory of that earlier horror in ways most readers have never fully considered” which is quite possible.

Pre-Tower of Babel, humanity lived in relative proximity but thereafter we spread abroad taking with us what was then commonly known and shared history which, with time and telling (and aggrandized augmentation) became myth and legend.

Thus, based on what I could see, Aris Manus made a lot of missteps and relies on the unreliable since he’s not a fan of the un-exciting, “sanitized modern Bible.”

Fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.

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 and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

Someone going by the username The[not so]BrilliantAtheist posted the following answer to the question Is it possible atheists see themselves in a righteous battle against God? How could they not see how mistaken they are?

It would be impossible by definition for us to see ourselves in a battle with god because we don’t believe god exists. How can religious people be so easily duped by fairytales and mythology? How could they not see how mistaken they are?

I, Ken Ammi, replied

The entire Atheist missionary enterprise is “a battle with god” as evidenced by Atheistic books, videos, essays, papers, articles, lectures, etc.

What, on your worldview, is wrong with “fairytales and mythology” and being “mistaken”?

TheBrilliantAtheist

There’s no such thing as an atheistic missionary. You’re not here to have a discussion are you?

Ken Ammi

Unsure why you ignored the parts about:

“a battle with god” as evidenced by Atheistic books, videos, essays, papers, articles, lectures, etc.

What, on your worldview, is wrong with “fairytales and mythology” and being “mistaken”?

As for “There’s no such thing as an atheistic missionary.” Please tell Matt Dillahunty, for one, that he doesn’t exist and let me know what he replies.

Primarily, Atheism is an anti-Christian support group, Atheists are CONSTANTLY merely asserting that Christianity, the Bible, Jesus, God, are all wrong and we should give them up and convert to Atheism. Ergo, missionaries.

TheBrilliantAtheist

Oh you just came to cry I see. Matt would laugh at you, and rightly so.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re very good at incoherently beginning with merely asserted conclusions but you seem to be incapable of discussing them much less backing them.

TheBrilliantAtheist

Was there a point in there somewhere? Gonna need some dressing for that world salad.

Ken Ammi

“world salad”: Atheist-speak for, “I’m literally incapable of dealing with the very issue that I, myself, raised but sense an emotive impulse to still say something.”

So, let’s try again Master Theologian [since this person’s bio reads, “Master Theologian at Earth (planet)”]:

1. Have you had occasion to peruse “Atheistic books, videos, essays, papers, articles, lectures, etc.” as I mentioned to you?

2. “What, on your worldview, is wrong with ‘fairytales and mythology’ and being ‘mistaken’?”

TheBrilliantAtheist

irrelevant.

nothing, if you’re a child.

See? No thesaurus required.

Ken Ammi

Now we’re getting somewhere: I directed you to peruse data that debunks your assertion and you reply with, “irrelevant” so you’re not interested in facts—especially those that discredit you so you purposefully ignore issues that are inconvenient to your view.

Since you’re playing games (at least, I hope you are lest I’m forced to conclude you’re literally incoherently illogical—with which there’s nothing wrong, on Atheism): “what, on your worldview, is wrong with ‘fairytales and mythology’ and being ‘mistaken’?” for non-children?

What’s another word for thesaurus?

TheBrilliantAtheist

Yep. The amount of books, videos, essays, papers, articles, and lectures I have personally consumed has NOTHING to do with whether or not god exists, thus it’s irrelevant to the question. You can keep dodging if you want, everyone can see you came here to cry with your thesaurus. Oh harrumph you’re literally incoherently blah blah blah. Big words aren’t impressive. Evidence is.

Ken Ammi

We already established, “I directed you to peruse data that debunks your assertion and you reply with, ‘irrelevant’ so you’re not interested in facts—especially those that discredit you so you purposefully ignore issues that are inconvenient to your view” followed by your agreement, “Yep.”

As for, “The amount of books, videos, essays, papers, articles, and lectures I have personally consumed has NOTHING to do with whether or not god exists, thus it’s irrelevant to the question” indeed, it has nothing to do with that (neither does Atheism—at least primarily) but that was about your mere assertion, “There’s no such thing as an atheistic missionary” which you now agree has been debunked.

Ok now, since, “Evidence is,” “impressive”—even though that which does or doesn’t impress you isn’t a standard, it’s just an emotively subjective personal preference du jour—then the very first step in systematic critical thinking is that you establish how and why 1) presenting evidence and 2) only believing in thing which have been evidenced is a universal imperative, on your worldview.

TheBrilliantAtheist

So you can’t prove god exists, got it.

Ken Ammi

I totally get it since I’ve literally had THOUSANDS of discussions just like this one with Atheists.

I understand that your view is that thus saith TheBrilliantAtheist equals a universal imperative for all humans.

Yet, I hope you can empathize why even though such a delusion of grandeur is perfectly acceptable on Atheism, I’m still waiting to see any vestige of Brilliant on display.

It’s simple: you come up to me and say “gimme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

I reply “why?”

You utterly collapsed.

See, the problem is that your worldview is such a failure that it fails before it even begins, you’re a witness to how it utterly failed you.

I just asked that you take the very first step in systematic critical thinking and you a literally incapable of doing so because, by now, you surely know that on your worldview there’s no universal imperative to demand proof, to present proof, nor to only believe in things that have been proven.

Thus, since you debunked yourself you discredited yourself and you leave me nothing to do but to just keep holding a mirror up to your face.

If you don’t like what you see, take it out on your worldview’s mirror, not on me.

TheBrilliantAtheist

 · Mar 6

Just so we’re clear, you once again have failed to prove your god exists, ergo atheism is true by default. Got it, thanks for clearing that up with your tantrum.

So again I will ask you Trash Can Man:

Ken Ammi

I’m starting to think that you’re not just trolling, you’re actually literally incapable for understanding the issue, like you actually simply do not get it.

Let’s try again: you’ve given me no reason to even make an attempt at proving (not evidencing?) that God exists because all you’ve done is to yell, “gimme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” and when I asked, “why?” you just yelled, “I said gimme!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Nothing has changed since our very first back and forth since your worldview is such a collapsed failure that you can’t even answer a very, very basic question and all you can do is yell, “GIMME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

TheBrilliantAtheist

You’re still here and you failed now 4 times to prove your god is real. I’m beginning to think you’re as dumb as you have proven here. I’m just gonna sit back and laugh as I add another notch to the old belt. Pathetic. Atheism always wins.

That’s four times now you’ve failed. Wanna try for five? Fucking loser.

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

Since I’ve literally been spoon-feeding you epistemology, we’re beyond that you just can’t understand the situation into which you put yourself.

So, let’s try it this way this time: gimme all your money, you can use the PayPal link here

Donate

TheBrilliantAtheist

You’re still here? Go play in traffic.

Well, that ended it since when I went to reply that I haven’t received the money yet, I got this, “Page Not Found. We searched everywhere but couldn’t find the page you were looking for.”

I’m unsure how or why that happened but it’s very, very common for Atheists on the site in which the discussion took place to rely on censorship as an attempt to hide their failures and run off to their safe-spaces.

See, I told him to send me all of the money since the MO is clearly that merely making a demand, asking a question, etc., means that a person is requited to adhere. Seems that it doesn’t work when the rubber hits the road.

See my various books here—including my contra Atheism ones.

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

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.

If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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