Author: Ken Ammi

The concept of “Do what thou wilt” has a very long history. It can be found in many places and times and stated with variations. For example, the most popular current pop-occultural use of the motto is probably Nike’s motto “Just do it”—not surprising considering that Nike is a Greek false goddess.

We have written on this specific topic in On Aleister Crowley’s Book of the Law motto “Do what thou wilt” and also in Aleister Crowley’s influence on pop-occulture – “Do what thou wilt” wherein we chronicled some of the motto’s history.
As an accretion to the motto’s chronicle, let us note Eckhart Tolle who is the [in]famous guru for Oprah Winfrey (about whom you can learn here), G.A.T.E.-the Global Alliance for Transformational Entertainment.

On p. 72 of his book New Earth he quoted the motto thusly, “Love and do what you will.” So was he endorsing Aleister Crowley’s motto?

Firstly, Crowley (about whom you can learn here) quoted the motto in a few different forms. I do not say he wrote but he quoted as the book from which the motto proceeds is the Book of the Law about which Crowley wrote (1976 AD ed., p. 5):
“This book was dictated in Cairo [Egypt] between noon and 1 p.m. on three successive days, April 8th, 9th, and 10th in the year 1904. The Author called himself Aiwass, and claimed to be ‘the minister of Hoor-paar-kraat.”
A specter of sorts would appear behind Crowley and dictate to him. Ironically, Hoor-paar-kraat aka Harpocrates is a god of silence and his minister, nevertheless, spilled the beans to Aleister Crowley. Thus, if he is to be believed; Crowley was the ghost writer (pun intended) for Hoor-paar-kraat and thus, quoted the motto.

One instance of the motto is, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; love is the law, love under will.” Thus, Eckhart Tolle certainly seems to be quoting Crowley. However, Tolle actually tells us exactly whom he is quoting as in that p. 72 he actually wrote:
“‘Love and do what you will,’ said St. Augustine.”
So, it was that party animal St. Augustine who came up with this motto! The Augustinian motto comes from his Homily 7 on the First Epistle of John which deals with 1st John 4:4-12 which states:
“You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them.
We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us.”

In his homily, Augustine wrote the motto as, “Dilige et quod vis fac”:
“This we have said in the case where the things done are similar. In the case where they are diverse, we find a man by charity made fierce; and by iniquity made winningly gentle. A father beats a boy, and a boy-stealer caresses. If you name the two things, blows and caresses, who would not choose the caresses, and decline the blows?
If you mark the persons, it is charity that beats, iniquity that caresses. See what we are insisting upon; that the deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity. For many things may be done that have a good appearance, and yet proceed not from the root of charity. For thorns also have flowers: some actions truly seem rough, seem savage; howbeit they are done for discipline at the bidding of charity.
Once for all, then, a short precept is given you: Love, and do what you will: whether you hold your peace, through love hold your peace; whether you cry out, through love cry out; whether you correct, through love correct; whether you spare, through love do you spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.”
Thus, the context is that God’s love is sacrificial, self-giving, and God manifested in the flesh as the Messiah Jesus in order to show the ultimate love, “Greater love has no one that this; to lay down one’s live for one’s friends” (John 15:13). With this sort of love as a guide, we can do what we will as what we will to do will be guided by this sort of love.

Is this the very same thing, guide, context that Aleister Crowley employed? Not quite exactly. Here are some examples of Crowley’s/Aiwass’ context:
“I am the Snake that giveth Knowledge & Delight and bright glory, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs whereof I will tell my prophet, and be drunk thereof! Be strong, o man! Lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture: fear not that any God shall deny thee of this.”
One does not need to know much Bible to recognize that this being is identifying itself with satan—the serpent in the Garden of Eden who beguiled Eve to partake of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Thus, by the time the term “God” is used at the end of the quotation, we know that this god is not the one true living God YHVH.

So, there is YHVH’s love and there is the twister self-serving selfish pseudo “love” of satan. In fact, verse 57 of the Book of the Law clues us in to the fact that there are various sorts, or definitions, of “love” (see “Love” and “Hate” – Defining Terminology):
“Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love.”

Verse 21 states, “We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.”

Verse 41 states, “The word of Sin is Restriction.”

Verse 61 states “Ye shall gather goods and store of women…always in the love of me…and drunkenness of the innermost sense.”

Verses 56-59 state that “for beauty’s sake and love’s” cowards and fools are to be despised and “As brothers fight ye!”

We could go on and on and on proving that the “love” guide behind the motto is not YHVH’s love but satanic lack of “love.”

Verses 49-55 seem to put a nail in the coffin:
“I am…the blasphemy against all gods of men. Curse them! Curse them! Curse them! With my Hawk’s head I peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross. I flap my wings in the face of Mohammed & blind him. With my claws I tear out the flesh of the Indian and the Buddhist, Mongol and Din…I spit on your crapulous creeds. Let Mary inviolate be torn upon wheels: for her sake let all chaste women be utterly despised among you!”

So, to what sort of love was Eckhart Tolle referring? He was quoting Augustine however, Tolle’s worldview-philosophy-theology is nothing like Augustine’s. Was it then an underhanded manner whereby to promulgate Aleister Crowley’s worldview-philosophy-theology? It is their shared anti-Christian worldview-philosophy-theology which may answer the question for us.

As a side not which may expose a clue or be a coincidence; recall that for some or no reason Tolle quoted the motto on p. 72. It is a fact that “72” is a very important occult number as it refers to the Goetia, the Lesser Keys of Solomon, wherein there are 72 demons which rule the world. Again, this either means nothing or says it all.

In any case, the love of which Crowley writes and the love of which the Apostle John and Augustine write are direct opposites so—where does Eckhart Tolle lay?

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

Here are some relevant books:

Richard Abanes:
A New Earth, An Old Deception: Awakening to the Dangers of Eckhart Tolle’s #1 Bestseller

William Ramsey:
Prophet of Evil: Aleister Crowley, 9/11 and the New World Order

Aleister Crowley: A Visual Study

Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders (which we reviewed here)

John Weldon and John Ankerberg:
Knowing the Facts about Divination Practices and Occult “Games”

The Facts on the Occult

The Coming Darkness

Walter Martin:
The Kingdom of the Occult

Ron Rhodes:
The Truth Behind Ghosts, Mediums, and Psychic Phenomena

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.

Dr. Tracy E Barnes answered the question Where Do Demons Come From? via a vid by that tiled on his YouTube channel.

I posted the following comment:

Dr. Barnes is correct in that the Bible does not (I will add explicitly) specify whence come demons.

Also correct is that there’s no pre-human-fall war in heaven of fall of any beings: Satan’s fall was during the Gen 3 timeline, the fall of Angels (Satan is a Cherub, not an Angel) was during the Gen 6 timeline, the war is a post-Jesus’ ascension event so does not seem to have happened yet.

To state “A race of giants that are called Nephilim” is misleading and anachronistic since it’s actually “A race of Nephilim that are called giants in some English versions”: and with “giants” not being used to refer to any sort of height whatsoever.

He then notes that demons/unclean spirits “were considered” to be dead Nephilim but didn’t say “considered” by whom—until close to the end.

Only then does he reveal that he means “considered” by what seems to range from theological speculations to folklore from MILLENNIA after the Torah.

And that’s important to note since he referenced, “the ancient texts” but “ancient” is subjective since, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls and 1 Enoch are “ancient” to us but are still from millennia AFTER the Torah—which is much more “ancient” still.

He notes Nephilim had both a body and immortal spirits but every indication is that so did their parents: Angels and humans.

In short, he made a strictly linguistic argument by chasing the term “unclean spirits” around regardless of context.

A much stronger, and actually biblical, case can be made of that demons/unclean spirits are actually fallen Angels—with a twist. Jude and 2 Peter 2 tell us that those sinful/fallen Angels were incarcerated: that was physically chained while their spirits roam the earth as demons/unclean spirits.

For details, search online for my article, “Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?”

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 Video Bible site posted an answer to the question Was Goliath One of the Nephilim?

It begins, “The Bible does not directly identify Goliath as one of the Nephilim, though he was certainly a giant and a formidable opponent of Israel.”

That simple sentence raises a few issues such as:

It directly identify Goliath as a non-Nephil: he’s referred to as a Repha virtually every single time he’s mentioned.

I’m unsure what “certainly a giant” has to do with anything—stand by. For now, keep in mind that biblically contextually “certainly a giant” means “certainly a Repha.” The article notes “Rephaim, a race of giants distinct from the Nephilim” which is quite accurate—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them—but the article’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” appears to be something unspecific about subjectively unusual height. That has nothing to do with the English Bible’s usage since therein, 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.

And that he was an “opponent of Israel” is irrelevant since that has nothing to do with Nephilim who only lived before there was any such thing as Israel.

It’s noted “The Nephilim are mentioned only in Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

We’re also told that Goliath was “approximately nine feet tall” so I’m unsure why it wasn’t mentioned 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. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

At least it’s noted “Goliath’s background, therefore, connects him more directly to the Philistine culture and less to the mysterious Nephilim.”

It’s noted “Ancient Israel encountered various groups of giants during their conquest of the Promised Land” but keep in mind that such is a misuse of one modern word, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.

Noted are “Anakites and Rephaim” but the former were like a clan of the latter tribe.

After some sermonizing that’s not contextual to my review, we’re told “Joshua and Caleb: Unlike the other spies, Joshua and Caleb believed that God could overcome the giants in Canaan, demonstrating faith over fear (Numbers 13:30, 14:6-9)” but that’s focusing on sermonizing and not that the issue is that the 10 just made up a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale due to their fear of what was noted in the first, original, accepted as is report in that chapter: being itinerant wilderness tent dwellers having to confront six strong people groups living in large and well fortified cities.

At least it’s rightly concluded “Goliath was not one of the Nephilim” even if that sentence ends with the linguistically fallacious terms “but a giant descended from the Rephaim.”

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 following discussion too place due to the Right Response Ministries YouTube channels’ vid How Fallen Angels Biologically-Engineered The Giants w Dr. Tim Chaffey when a certain @saintvanguard commented

I think that you are right; indeed, spot on. However, I think the term Nephilim extends outside of “Only” demonic influence i.e. angels of rebellion towards Yahweh.

I think there are angels of obedience towards Yahweh that also bind themselves (Spiritually) with humans that are born again new creations creating a hybrid like believer known as Nephilim. This in turn would point to the scripture where it says that they were “the mighty men of old, men of renown.” I think the term giant is broader than just a physical reality of large bodied individuals.

If demons take what is good from Heaven and God’s creation and pervert it, is it not possible that there is a non-perverse relationship between mankind and angels?

I, @kenammi355, replied

But by definition, “Nephilim” exclusively refers to offspring of sons of God and daughters of men, by definition.

I’m unaware of any indication in all of history that, “there are angels of obedience towards Yahweh that also bind themselves (Spiritually) with humans that are born again new creations creating a hybrid like believer known as Nephilim.”

As for, “the term giant is broader” well, the key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

@saintvanguard

(First i’d like to say i’m reading this mans book currently).

Now addressing your statement in order from top to bottom. I agree with the definition, but I don’t think it’s exclusive. It is very clear that just because something is in the bible, doesn’t mean that if something is not in the bible that it isn’t a reality. For example, a french fry is a reality, but not in the bible. Also, infant baptism isn’t “explicitly” mentioned in the Bible, but one could infer from other details that it is an accurate practice of blessing upon the children of God who obey His commands.

Next the usage of giant. Broader does not mean more generic. Broader, in terms of word usage, means there are more usages of a word specifically; it isn’t singular or explicit. Something can have a broad meaning yet still be specific!

I think giant refers primarily to the spiritual reality, not the physical reality. Angels can take human form, but they also can operate on earth in the spiritual realm. Who says that an angel explicitly must take human form to create offspring? Who says that angels that do such things are ONLY wicked? If demons take what is holy and righteous in Gods creation and pervert it… then that implies there is a right relationship between angels and men which also implies there could be Nephilim that are appropriate and right in the eyes of God.

I base this off of experience as well. I believe scripture supports each believer is prescribed an angel of protection. Once, I had a dream of my guardian angel which happened to be a cherub, and this cherub attempting to draw close to me, but in the dream the angel communicated my habitual sin of masturbation was hindering/impeding his ability to do so… so, I repented. Later that day, my chest began to burn with a ball of fire in my diaphragm and I felt like I had a stream line connection to the heavens…

 ”And there appeared to them tongues like fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.“

Acts 2:3 LSB

Ever wondered why this verse say “they” and “themselves”? In the plural?

we could continue to discuss this, but I will wait for your reply first.

I’d also like to state in Genesis 3:21 Yahweh covered Adam and Eve with “skins.” Now it’s long known that the second definition is “hide” or animal skin, i.e. leather, BUT the first definition is actual skin of man. Now, do I think Yahweh killed man and covered Adam and Eve with their skins? No, absolutely not. However, the first definition is more accurate with the root of the Hebraic word. Therefore, what does this imply? It doesn’t specify that it was animal skin, or man skin, perhaps it was angelic skin in the spiritual realm that they were covered by… why do I say this? Well what’s the difference between leaves and leather skins? One requires bloodshed and another does not. The physical reality of bloodshed of animal is a depiction of the spiritual reality that is at play. So, this could imply that an angel covered their spirits as a sacrifice, clothing their spirits. This wouldn’t be far off as we are called to put on the armor of God and clothe ourselves with the spirit, The Holy Spirit. So, it’s possible that angels could be filling in the gap symbolically acting as propitiation in the spiritual realm signifying that Jesus himself must die and rise acting as the ultimate propitiation for our sins satisfying the Holy Wrath of Yahweh. As far as whether there was leather from an animal, this easily would just be stitches to a heart surgery.

And where do I base the idea that angels sacrifice themselves for our safety and life?…. PSALM 91

@kenammi355

Since you’re reading his book, you will find my name mentioned favorably therein since I assisted him with the research.

Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.

As for, “Angels can take human form” there’s literally zero indication of that: Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. Thus, they not only don’t take human form, they don’t need to nor could they since they are already in human for ontologically.

As for, “my guardian angel which happened to be a cherub” that’s a category error that violates the law of identify.

I’ve no idea what it would even mean that, “it was angelic skin in the spiritual realm that they were covered by…an angel covered their spirits.”

Sorry, I’ve no idea what Psalm 91 has to do with, “angels sacrifice themselves for our safety and life.” But perhaps the issue is what you mean by “sacrificing themselves.”

@saintvanguard

5 days ago (edited)

1. When I say that angels take on human form I mean that they can appear as a human, which they have, multiple times.

2. By guardian angel I don’t mean classification of angel. I mean an angel that protects you personally. In fact I have dreams of MANY angels, and also have had visions of Seraphim and Cherubim. And in one instance had an individual Seraph protect me from  demonic resistance within a seance in a cult gathering.

3. Just like we clothe ourselves with the Holy Spirit, we are putting on His actual Spirit for Armor (Ephesian 6) Angels could potentially be the “skin” or clothing we put on, (By abiding in the wings of the Most High) but I cannot prove this.

4. By sacrifice I mean sacrifice.

@kenammi355

1. Angels don’t just, “appear as a human” that’s just how they look, ontologically.

2. If by “angel” you don’t mean “angel” then don’t say “angel.” You missed the point about that “my guardian angel which happened to be a cherub” is a category error that violates the law of identity since Angels and Cherubim and Seraphim are different categories of being. Thus, a “guardian Angel” can’t be a Cherub since Cherubim aren’t Angels by definition.

What did the Cherubim and Seraphim look like in your dreams (not that it matters but I’m curious).

3. That, “Angels could potentially be the ‘skin’ or clothing we put on” sounds like neo-theo sci-fi.

4. So, “angel covered their spirits as a” death offered up to God: whatever that means.

@saintvanguard

These are technicalities that I did not expect to get into. BUT nonetheless you’re correct. The average person doesn’t understand the classifications of Heavenly beings to the inth degree.

To my understanding angels don’t have wings. The cherubim and seraphim choose to reveal themselves to me in different ways regularly. The most common way they choose to reveal themselves to me is in the form of vehicles. From Lamborghinis, to semi trucks, to vintage fire trucks, to tanks these Heavenly beings reveal themselves to me in this way I would assume because I understand degree of glory and purpose of machine well according to their imagery. In fact the Heavenly being that protects me personally shows up to me as a beautiful vintage red fire truck with gold, silver, snd stainless steel straight exhaust pipes. However they also reveal themselves to me in literal form, in rare instances. For example I’ve seen an individual cherub in the form of a draught horse; Massive creature. It was all black with two wings and had multiple eyes. When he was communicating with me, he relayed that he was bound to me for protection. How do I know that? It was just understood in the dream. This is what I mean by Heavenly beings can bind themselves to humans.   I can talk more about what that implies as well. Another instance of seeing a Heavenly being a (Seraph) was in the unsuspecting seance. He descended from heaven in the form of a man with wings and had a heavenly diadem, he also cracked a whip. Which we can talk about as well.

@kenammi355

Correct, Angels don’t have wings but Cherubim and Seraphim do (what’s one way to distinguish those different categories of being).

There’s zero indication that, “The cherubim and seraphim choose to reveal themselves to me in different ways regularly” but if I missed something, please provide quotations and citations.

There’s no indication Cherubim or Seraphim, “choose to reveal themselves…in the form of vehicles” and claiming that you receive special, private, personal, unique revelations is just gnosticism.

And, friend, when you tell me that you see a car or truck and imagine that it’s a Cherub or Seraph who speaks to you, you appear to be suffering from some very, very serious problems.

You merely assert that the “literal form” of Cherubim is “a draught horse” but that contradicts Ezekiel chaps 1 and 10 so you’re wrong and Ezekiel and God are right.

What do you mean by, “unsuspecting seance”? Are you a necromancer on top of it all?

@kenammi355

I’m merely elucidating that box into which God put those beings—and did so only after familiarizing myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data which I published in my relevant books such as “What Does the Bible Say About Angles? A Styled Angelology” and “What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology” and “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.”

So, please don’t disregard God’s created order and categorizations because of a love for man-made traditions from centuries and millennia after the Torah and Tanakh as a whole.

I’m unsure why you want to move the goalpost to things that have nothing to do with our discussion such as merely asserting I slandered when I merely asked a question about a seance that you referenced.

1. not relevant if you “did not say he looked like a draught horse alone” since that alone debunks our claim since it’s not “constant with Ezekiels account”: if it is then please quote and cite where he described them as “like a draught horse.” Also, it’s not about “If” nor about “If they could appear” but that such is just how they look ontologically. See, you keep finding ways to attempt to have your cake and eat it too but you’re really rejecting the biblical cake and opting for a cake made of artificial ingredients.

2. There’s no “talking horn” in Rev. Daniel’s “beasts” are just symbolic of nations/kingdoms: I mean, it tells you that right there in that book. As for, “angel or cherub or seraph by their classification through the symbolic nature of the visual of a vehicle” now you seem to be confusing them with Ophanim: the “wheels within wheels.”

3. Now who’s slandering? I never even hinted that that, “God only reveals Himself through scripture” but you merely asserted that I actually made that “claim” so that’s what, “inaccurate.” My point is that when God is very clear about His categorization and description of beings, you don’t get to come along millennia later with only admitted partial knowledge and water things down to mash them together and invent new fantasy things. God can do whatever He wants and He doesn’t bend the knee to the likes of “saintvanguard.”

That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming.

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.

UPDATE: by now I have published my book, Did the Nephilim Look Like Clowns?: A Review of Paul Stobbs’ Theory

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

Granting that people discussing that Nephilim looked like clowns represent a very, very tiny little circle of interest, the current assertion that Nephilim looked like clowns has been the brainchild of a certain Paul Stobbs.

For serious research-based Nephilologists such as myself–I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data that I used to write my dozen, or so, Nephilology books–it’s tragic that modern pop-Nephilology is un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales sold to Christians: it’s where the most embarrassingly ridiculous wild conspiracy theories that should die find a new home by being thrown in a blender & are mixed in till they leaven the whole lump.

In Stobb’s case, he represents one of many pop-Nephilologists who essentially didn’t exist online, made an assertion about Nephilim, and are now viewed as the authority on the subject–virtually overnight.

Part of how and why that happens is that the currently dogma/party line is that for a Nephilologist to become popular they have to, at the very least, assert post-flood Nephilim and that they were, “giants.”

Those of us who don’t shake those un-biblical hands aren’t invited to lecture at conferences, to be interviewed for documentaries, to have books published by the big cheeses, etc.

Stobb’s case is interesting since he, purposefully or not playing into the click-bait cottage industry of all things, “Nephilim,” or not, he mixed what I’ll term cultural anthropology regarding, “clowns,” by any other name, along with occultism, and Nephilology.

As I noted in my article, Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns?, he does well regarding the history of clowns and occultism but utterly fails when he plugs Nephilim into the mix.

Therein, I also noted that I’m somewhat uniquely qualified to review Paul Stobbs’ claims due to my Nephilology studies and have done some conspiracy sleuthing, and have researched the history of clowns (specifically for my book A Worldview Review of Stephen King’s “It”: The Mystical, Mysterious, and Metaphysical in the Novel, Miniseries, and Movies).

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

For one, Stobbs made the mistake of relying on and then merely parroting pop-Nephilologist Gary Wayne who committed the category error that violates the law of identify that Nephilim were fathered by, “Seraphim Angels.”

Well, there’s no such thing: Seraphim are Seraphim and Angels are Angels.

Moreover, Wayne and Stobb merely assert that Seraphim are serpentine/reptilian–for which there’s literally zero indication.

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.

Seraphim are described as having, “six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew…Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for” (Isa 6).

I suppose we can say that serpents have faces but not wings, nor feet, nor hands.Yet, Paul Stobbs merely uncritically picked that up from Wayne and used it (abused it) to assert that this accounts for some of the Nephilim’s traits.

Yet, he has much bigger problems since the fact is that we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim–and Stobbs knows this which is why he never make the simple argument that well, he can simply quote the Bible where it describes them. And FYI: the reference to their size in Num 13:33 is invalid since it’s merely recording an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked, see my post, Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

In any case, Paul Stobbs isn’t really concerned about their size but about other physical features such as the shape of their heads, the color of their skin, etc.

He thinks that by appealing to serpent/reptile he can then claim various color schemes, the shape of eyes, etc.

Thus, the making of a modern-day myth that Nephilim looked like clowns is 100% devoid of backing data.

So, how it is that Stobbs could hit the pop-Nephilology ground running, get people to donate to him to write a book, publish books, be invited to all sorts of shows for interviews, etc.?

It’s because pop-Nephilology is un-biblical tall-tales sold to Christians and is also a loos in spiritual warfare when pop-Nephilologists asserts post-flood Nephilim: since post-flood Nephilology began with a, “Don’t do in the woods” fear-mongering scare-tactic meant to dissuade the Israelites to not do what God had commanded them–and it worked, it led to an additional four decades of wilderness wandering.

Given the gullibility and wild-conspiracy theorizing of pop-Nephilologists, they tend to believe first and ask questions later–actually, it’s believe first and only believe without asking questions.

Also, such neo-mythology is self-perpetuating since those who insta-believe him uncritically feed into flaming the fires by making comments such as, “Wow, now I realize why I’ve always been afraid of clowns” or noting, “People are afraid of clowns” which are biased subjective and myopic statements–since clowns have been beloved for years.

Then they will also strain their brain, and search engines, specifically searching for things such, “creepy clowns” and will appeal to any and all such movies, celebrities and serial killers who dressed like clowns, red nose day, etc., etc., etc. and delude themselves into thinking there’s a there there only because they locked their thinking, or lack thereof, into a tight little circle of self-perpetuating seeming verification of the pop-myth: they experience leader-lead tunnel vision as they follow the leader down a rabbit-hole of their own making.

I have told dozens upon dozens (upon dozens [upon dozens]) of people praising Stobbs’ assertions what I noted above, “The claim that Nephilim looked like clowns is based on a miscomprehension of the relevant linguistics, reliance on faulty sources, folklore, and mere assertions. For a detailed review of claim, see, ‘Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns?‘”

The result has been that 99% don’t even bother replying and those who do react emotionally rather than substantively, since I’m daring to critique their hero–now you see how cults, especially cults of personality, are born. Perhaps 1% make a half-baked and fleeting attempt to tackle one thing I noted but then run away to their safe space.

Also, in typical pop-Nephiloloist manner, Paul Stobbs only appears on shows that are just platforms for him to merely assert whatever he wants, in an utterly unchallenged manner.

Thus, that’s a self-licking ice-cream cone, a vicious circle, whereby the hosts, who typically know little or nothing about the subject(s) spend the whole interview just going, “Wow!…Wow!…Wow!…Wow!…Wow!…Wow!…” and henceforth perpetuate the myth and Stobbs gets ever popular as the authority–since no one even challenges him so it seems he can do, or say, no wrong.

Mere assertions absorbed by gullibility and no fact-checking in terms of challenges make for wonderful myths that are tragically devoid of any factual backing whatsoever but they sure do exhibit this sentiment, “the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

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 full question posted to the Quora site is Why has information about giants across the planet been practically erased out of history? Genesis 6 says they were here when Adam was made, and afterwards. Shouldn’t we have more information about them, when they were here also?

The following discussion ensued when a certain Marie-Brigitte Souci, who self-identifies as, “Accredited Biblical Teacher (Christian Ministry & Theology),” replied

Though the Bible briefly mentions these giants in Genesis 6, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6–7, it does not elaborate on the topic. I highly recommend studying the whole Dead Sea Scrolls, especially the Book of Giants, Book of Wars, Book of Jubilees, the Book of Enoch gives all the details on the Nephilim Giants, all the commentaries and homilies of the Early Church Fathers, Apostolic Fathers, and the Ante-Nicene Fathers from 1st Century to 400 AD.

These Giants were earl, but after their death they became disembodied spirits. These are the evil spirits Jesus was casting out of people in the Gospels, and the Apostles continued this ministry in the book of Acts and Epistles. The Church must continue to fight against these principalities of darkness until the consummation.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Well, but 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6–7 don’t contain “information about giants” (whatever that means).

FYI: Biblically contextually, “Nephilim Giants” means “Nephilim Nephilim.

I supposed I should ask 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 of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

As for, “Giants were earl, but after their death they became disembodied spirits” well, 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 “Dead Sea Scrolls, especially the Book of Giants, Book of Wars, Book of Jubilees, the Book of Enoch” please see my books:

“The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts”

And:

“In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

Marie-Brigitte Souci

The Nephilim are the offsprings of the Angels who rebelled against God because of their greed, illegally left their heavenly abode and came to earth to have intercourse with humans. These Angels are also called false teachers. When the Nephilim (visible bodies) died in the Great Flood, it is then that they became disembodied spirits (invisible) or demons.

ANGELS + HUMANS = NEPHILIM

The following verse confirms that their half-parent angels are locked in Tartarus,

2 Peter 2:3-4, In their greed, these false teachers will exploit you with deceptive words. The longstanding verdict against them remains in force, and their destruction does not sleep. For if God did not spare the angels having sinned, but having cast them down to Tartarus, in chains of gloomy darkness, delivered them, being kept for judgment.

Jude 1:6–7, And the angels who did not stay within their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling (heaven)— these He has kept in eternal chains under darkness, bound for judgment on that great day. In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire.

The word Nephilim is derived from the word Naphal.

Strong’s Concordance,

H5303 נְפִיל Nephilim: “giants,” name of two peoples, one before the flood and one after the flood. Word Origin from naphal.

H5307 נָפַל Nâphal: A primitive root; to fall, miscarriage, ruin, carcass. Refuse: What is thrown down as worthless. In a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): To cast, divide, overthrow, present, lay, rot, slay, accept, throw down, fail, cease, die, inferior, light, lost.

The word Giant according to the Strong’s Concordance,

H5303 (Strong) נְפִל נְפִיל Nephı̂yl Nephil: From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: – giant.

Ken Ammi

Most interesting!

Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens and dozens [and dozens and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on and on [and on and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.

I’m unsure where, “These Angels are also called false teachers” but I suppose that’s fair enough.

I’m unsure what you mean by, “Nephilim (visible bodies)” but when I write, “As for, ‘Giants were earl, but after their death they became disembodied spirits’ well, that’s just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah” and you reply by doubling down on that assertion I’m unsure how it helps to reiterate, “they became disembodied spirits (invisible) or demons.”

Did you read my article?

Since, “The word Nephilim is derived from the word Naphal” then it mean fall/fallen/to cause to fall/feller, etc.

As for, “Nephilim: ‘giants,’ name of two peoples, one before the flood and one after the flood” that’s incoherent. Rather, “giants” is just one of the words used to render (not translate) “Nephilim” due to that the LXX used “gigantes” to render “Nephilim” and other words—it literally means “earth-born.” As for, “after the flood” well, that’s merely from one single sentence in an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so it’s irrelevant: it was just a tall-tale.

Such is why, “Biblically contextually, ‘Nephilim Giants’ means ‘Nephilim Nephilim.’”

What of, “2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6–7 don’t contain ‘information about giants’”?

That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming.

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.

You can find all of my articles regarding TJ Steadman here.

TJ Steadman writes, “gibbowr can have other meanings besides ‘giant,’ and Boaz [Ruth 2:1] was certainly not a giant! Gibbowr is the same term applied to Nimrod. So, we are reminded of the problem that the Messiah must deal with – the legacy of the giants.”

This is rather odd since, in a few ways, one is something rather typical of Nephilim related issues researchers and that is employing the vague, generic, subjective English term in an undefined or multi-defined manner.

In other words, we are generally left to pour our own subjective meanings into it since the author is not defining it for us or, the author is actually using it to mean more than one thing in which case we have to attempt to guess what is meant by it at any given time.

Moreover, if it is meant to mean something about unusual height (with “unusual” also being subjective) then we are generally left to guess as to whether what is implied is a few inches taller than average (with “average” being subjective), or a few feet, or a few entire body lengths, or more.

In this case, we are told that “gibbowr can have other meanings besides ‘giant,’” the issue with which is that it never means any such thing to begin with so it cannot have “other” meanings.

TJ Steadman goes on to write:

As we go through the Biblical accounts of David’s exploits, we encounter another use of the term we looked at earlier to denote giants – the Hebrew gibborim, and it gets applied to David’s elite warriors, the ones called David’s “mighty men” (see 2 Samuel 23:8-22 among many other examples).
It even gets applied to David himself (1 Samuel 16:18)! Were they giants?
Many good folks out there in Internet Conspiracy Land would like to say that they were. The truth is, nothing in the text tells us anything of the sort.
“Gibborim” is frequently used to describe warriors, and it doesn’t mean they were big men or demonically empowered or anything like that. But the question needs to be asked, if they weren’t giants, then why use a word that conveys that idea?
This is a prime example of the way Scripture is written with an overall theme of reversing or undoing what is wrong with the world. And since David is the prime example of getting rid of the giants, it makes sense that the author uses David and his men to reverse that problem literarily. David’s (and by extension, God’s) gibborim kill the enemy’s gibborim.
It’s a wonderful irony in true Biblical style. Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor? One of David’s “good gibborim” is especially noted for his heroic deeds in ridding the land of the “bad gibborim.”

This is a case of seeking to solve a problem that one creates for themselves, in all actuality, by beginning with a faulty premise.

There is a reason that Boaz, David himself and his fighting men are referred to as “mighty men” since mighty/might is all that gibborim means. In fact, TJ Steadman claims that “Nephilim” also means giants so, somehow, the very different root words naphal/naphiyla and also gabar both mean the same thing: so that npl and gbr mean the same thing—which they most certainly do not.

Interestingly, he is claiming that giants is a meaning of gibborim and that Boaz, David and his men were not but that Samson well, was and also was not—even though he is not referred to as a gibbor not is he physically described (besides that he wore his hair long), see my article TJ Steadman on Samson: giant or not?

So, “if they weren’t giants” the reason to use that word is that it does not ever conveys the idea of giant: so that is the actual solution to a problem that is not biblical but is concocted by TJ Steadman’s faulty premise.
As far as David “getting rid of the giants” pause: note that since he told us gibbor can mean giants then one would naturally read David “getting rid of the giants” as David “getting rid of the” gibborim, right? Well, he is really speaking of David “getting rid of the” Rephaim and such is the problem with writing vaguely and having us wonder and guess. By the way, some Rephaim were surely gibborim in that some of them were mighty but that is about all.

It is also not just a case of David’s (and by extension, God’s) gibborim kill the enemy’s gibborim” but that God is also a gibbor since he is called “El Gibbor” the Mighty God (Isaiah 9).

Now, what I discern in these claims are not only the results of misunderstanding gibbor but that it forms the basis for TJ Steadman’s prior misunderstanding of what it means for Nimrod to have become a gibbor which is something we shall get in other articles featuring TJ Steadman.

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.

To the 3 of 7 Project YouTube channel’s video Nephilim, Giants, Angels & Humans | Unexplained Bible Accounts, a certain @tonywiggins8073 commented

It’s a lie!  God does NOT do Angel Porn!  Angels did not sleep with women & make them their wives!  There’s Angel kind and human kind!  Separate kinds!  Spirit Kind and flesh kind!  Scripture says things procreate kind after kind. 

Listen to what you are saying! Gods problem was with MAN!  It says man like 5 times.  “I shall destroy MAN” etc..  God’s problem was with man NOT the angels!  Plus it say giants were after the flood! So why would there be giants after the flood if God destroyed them all.  And giants here are warriors they took wives like spoils of war, and they were well known! Nephilim are just a HUMAN race of tall ppl.  Jus like we have today!  There is a tribe in Africa of tall ppl!  Some research has show that how wealthy a nation is has tall people like Sweden. 

You have to go back to Gen 5 when it discusses the genealogy of man!  The sons of God here is the Godly line of Seth and daughters are of the ungodly line of Cain!

God did NOT cap mans age at 120 yrs.  God gave man 120 yrs before His spirit left the Earth!  120 yrs before he unleashed His wrath from His Flood that killed all mankind (save 8)!  And that 120 yrs also gave Noah time to complete the Ark. Scripture says we have 70 yrs and 80 yrs  if we are strong. Psalms 90:10

Jesus himself says in Matthew & Luke that angels do not know sex OR marriage. 

Scripture says scripture can’t be broken!

Book of Enoch is a pseudepigrapha which literally means book of false writings.  They used the names of famous people in Israel’s history for the names of the titles.  The real authors are unknown. 

1 Tim 4

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. 

Angel Porn is a demonic doctrine so don’t get sucked into it!

I, @kenammi355, replied

“Angels did not sleep with women & make them their wives!”

Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).

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.

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.”

“There’s Angel kind and human kind!  Separate kinds!…Scripture says things procreate kind after kind.”

Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”

“Spirit Kind and flesh kind!”

Not the case since Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

“Gods problem was with MAN!  It says man like 5 times.  ‘I shall destroy MAN’ etc..”

Indeed, that’s the Bible’s main focus.

“God’s problem was with man NOT the angels!”

You’re neglecting the premise (Gen 6:1-4) for why Gods problem was with MAN!  I” and neglecting that Angels are referred to as man/men.

“Plus it say giants were after the flood! So why would there be giants after the flood if God destroyed them all.”

The key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

“Nephilim are…tall”

What makes you assert that and who cares–I’m “tall” compared to my wife.

“The sons of God here is the Godly line of Seth and daughters are of the ungodly line of Cain!”

That’s a late-comer of a view based on myth (since there’s zero indication of a “Godly line of Seth and…ungodly line of Cain!”), it’s based on prejudice (since, for example, you’re condemning an ENTIRE “line” based on three sins committed by two people), and which only causes more problems than it solves (so, more than zero) such as why only exclusively males from the “Godly line of Seth” and only exclusively females from the  “ungodly line of Cain!”? (FYI: the Angel view explains why it was exclusively males on one side of the equation and exclusively females on the other).

Also, you’re teaching that the “Godly line of Seth” weren’t actually Godly since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for hte flood.

“Jesus himself says in Matthew & Luke that angels do not know sex OR marriage.”

That’s a mere assertion and Jesus never said any such thing.

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.”

@tonywiggins8073

And Jesus answering said unto them, *Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?* For when they shall rise from the dead, *they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.*

Job 38:7 is indeed referring to spirit realm of angels.  That doesn’t make it so that they slept or took human wives.  Humans are also referred to as Sons of God!  Luke 3:21-38.  Working backwards of The Genealogy of Christ it refers to Adam vs38 as a Son of God.  “the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.”  This is the human sons of God referring to in Gen 6.  There is also another translation or debate that it could also mean the “son of the gods” meaning pagan gods.  Those ppl (humans) who worshipped pagan gods (plural) took women or daughters of men!  We (humans) are also called the sons and daughters of God!

Psalms 82:6

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Gal 3:26

Berean Standard Bible

You are all **sons of God**through faith in Christ Jesus.

Berean Lit Bible

For you are all *sons of God* through faith in Christ Jesus.

KJV

For ye are all the *children of God* by faith in Christ Jesus.

NKJV

For you are all **sons of God**through faith in Christ Jesus.

2 Cor 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be **my sons and daughters**, saith the Lord Almighty.

1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the *sons of God* therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

There are plenty of scripture where we (humans who are made in God’s image) are listed as sons and even daughters of God.  We are listed waaaaay more times as *Sons of God* than the angels!  You should have checked God’s word and the proper way to interpret God’s word before you wrote a twisted book trying to explain a lie!  Now you’ve told all these ppl lies and most will believe it. But God will hold us accountable for what we know and in it teaching correctly His truths!

@kenammi355

Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens and dozens [and dozens and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on and on [and on and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.

Recall that I noted that “Jesus himself says in Matthew & Luke that angels do not know sex OR marriage” was, “a mere assertion and Jesus never said any such thing” and it still is and ever will be. See, you made a generic all-encompassing statement, “angels do not know sex OR marriage” but Jesus was very nuanced having included qualifying terms that you ignored so you misrepresented Him. Just as you quoted it, by missed it, He spoke of, “angels which are in heaven,” and said nothing about “sex,” so He was referring to the loyal ones which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” in order to do so, as Jude put it.

I’ve no idea what, “spirit realm of angels” means. But you admit that the, “sons of God” in Job 38:7 are Angels but then wrote the non-sequitur, “That doesn’t make it so that they slept or took human wives” well, of course not. But what it means is that we can then apply what you admitted to the Gen 6 affair: just as was done by the majority of the earliest writers. Indeed, “Humans are also referred to as Sons of God!” and as per your admission, so are Angels so that’s a non-issue since it’s not about statistics but about usages and the distinction between “sons of God” and “daughters of men” is not only of differing phraseology but about what makes you merely assert that only exclusively males who, “worshipped pagan gods (plural) took” only exclusively female, “women or daughters of men!” The Angel view explains why only strictly males on one side of the equation and only strictly females on the other.

As for your concluding ungraceful worldly failed attempt a mind-reading rant, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself and repent since when you write, “You should have checked God’s word and the proper way to interpret God’s word…” you’re tragically ignorant: I wrote a whole chapter just about “sons of God” in my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.”

As for, “trying to explain a lie!” what makes you merely assert that it’s a lie?

You then merely assert that I’m a liar so what makes you come to that fallacious conclusion?

Please don’t lose whatever witness you may have by going on an incoherent rant that discredits you more than your faulty arguments do: two wrongs don’t make a right.

That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming.

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.

Warren Nozaki (“work at the Christian Research Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina”) authored the article Are there Giants? Identifying the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 for the Love Truth Blog.

He notes that the King James Version of the Bible has Gen 6:4 as, “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” and asks one of the most neglected linguistics questions regarding this issue, “But what does it mean by ‘giants’?” and asks, “Could there really have been giants living among humanity?” which is somewhat of an odd question to ask before answering the first one.

In any case, I’m rather famous and infamous for having asked these key questions to hundreds of people who go on and on and on and on (and on and on [and on and on]) about “giants”:

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?

My experience is that 99.999999% can’t even reply—and couple that did got it wrong.

Nozaki notes, “The Septuagint (LXX), an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, translates nĕpilîm with gigantes, from which is derived ‘giants.’”

Since we’ve getting into linguistics—and I did write the book on that Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010—let’s get a bit more technical: the LXX renders, doesn’t technically translate, gigantes for Nephilim. Yet, it does the same for gibborim and Repha/im. And, if we get giants from gigantes that still begs the question: well, gigantes literally means earth-born.

Nozaki notes, “The idea that nĕpilîm refers to ‘giants’ or humans of significant bulk and stature is a common interpretation; however, it is more intelligible to take nĕpilîm to be tyrants.” Of course, that would be a false dichotomy since they could have been tyrants of significant bulk and stature.

Some derive tyrants from understanding the Hebrew root nāpal/naphal to mean, “to fall upon” (Job 1:15; Josh 11:7) and thus, tyrannical Nephilim fell upon those whom they conquered, etc.

Nozaki references, Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 86–87 who, in turn, quote Martin Luther’s Commentary on Genesis: Volume 2: Luther on Sin and the Flood, “to designate not bulk of body, but tyranny and oppression, inasmuch as they domineered by force, making no account of law and honor, but merely indulging their pleasure and desire. Rightful rulers the Scripture calls shepherds and princes, but those who rule by wrong and violence are rightly called ‘Nephilim,’ because they fall and prey upon those beneath them”—see my books, Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s and The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?

Out of literally nowhere, Nozaki writes of, “The downfall of the sons of God, i.e., the line of Seth” but he’s given us no reason for even imagining that such is whom is referred to by that term—also, apparently there weren’t any attractive Sethite females.

He then notes, “Similar tyrannical Nephilim were presumed to be around even after the flood. Such is intimated in the false report given to Moses and the Israelites by the men who returned from spying out the land of Canaan: ‘The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. 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’ (Num. 13:32-33).”

Once we take a view that Nephilim merely means human tyrant then it seems to not matter whether the only post-flood reference to Nephilim is from false report by 10 guys whom God rebuked or not: oh wait, it does matter since if Nephilim merely refers to tyrants then we’d see multitudinous usages of it throughout the Bible and yet, we don’t and that’s a deathblow to that theory.

Recall what I noted about the LXX rendering Nephilim and gibborim and Repha/im all as gigantes: which was a terrible idea—to render three very different words with very different meanings and very different morphologies all with one single word—well, Nozaki notes, “‘Giant’ is occasionally used to translate the Hebrew noun rəpāʾîm [רְפָאִים]…‘Rephaim.” The English Bibles that do that dropped rendering gibborim like they do Nephilim and Rephaim but it’s another terrible idea to render those two very different words with just one—vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage—word: undiscerning English readers tend to chase that English word around a Hebrew Bible without realizing that Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them—and that, of course, Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood since, of course, God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

As I outlined in my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant? Nozaki goes from noting, “Og of Bashan…of the Rephaim…whose ‘bed was…approximately 13 ft. long and 6 ft. wide…was ‘the same size as Marduk’s bed in the temple Esagila in Babylon’ and ‘beds were not just for sleeping but were often used for reclining on during feasts and celebrations.’” Thus, “One can only guess whether Og was a man of extraordinary stature” since we’ve no physical description of him and the only thing we’re contextually told about Rephaim in general is that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

He adds, “Ishbi-benob, Saph or Sippai, Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who carried a spear ‘like a weavers beam,’ and a six fingered six toed man of great stature who were identified as ‘giants’ (cf. 2 Sam. 21:15-21; 1 Chron. 20:4-8)” which means identified as Rephaim.

Incidentally, as for the spear: tegular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft. Egyptian (the tallest guys in the Bible) and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23).

Keil and Delitzsch are called upon again to tell us of, “Rephaim, an ancient tribe of gigantic stature” but that’s generic and subjective. Nozaki notes, “specified height measurements are never provided for any of the four Philistine warriors” yet, we do get one, in a manner of speaking, for one of the Philistine warriors: Goliath. Yet, I noted the Egyptian is the tallest in the Bible while some were surely shouting, “What about Goliath?!?!?” 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 and Nozaki touches upon this issue.

He also rightly notes, “Scriptures never tell of ‘giants’ reaching fantastical heights like 25 to 30 ft. tall” nor anything even remotely close to any such thing: oops, that alone debunks 100% of pop-Nephilology.

After decades of pop-Nephilologists Gary Wayne asserting Nephilim were giants (by which he means very, very, very big) it just took me asking him one little question, during our debate, to get him to admitting he doesn’t know how big they were, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.)—and then, he went on to say he’ll keep asserting they were “giants.” What sense does it make to refer to the height of someone who’s height you don’t know?

Watch it unfold here during our debate.

Overall, this article was very much a cut above what one generally finds being posted on Nephilology as he touched upon most of the underlying issues that pop-Nephilologists never seem to get around to mentioning—out of pure ignorance or fear that their man-made tradition will suffer in the face of facts—so I ended up finding someone who argues much the way I do……….so, he must be right ;o)

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 Bible Chat’s mission includes, “to spread the Word of God. We connect hundreds of thousands of users to the Bible through millions of meaningful conversations. Our journey started with the vision to enable anyone, anywhere, to ask questions and receive scripturally-based answers within seconds.”

Let us see what, “scripturally-based answers” they have to the question Are the Anakim related to the Nephilim in biblical texts?

Right off the bat, the reply seems like an AI copy and paste job due to that the AI ubiquitously spits out replies about Nephilim related stuff such as, “a fascinating inquiry that delves into the mysterious and often debated passages…we must explore…consider the interpretations offered by scholars and theologians” which inevitably go unnamed, unquoted and uncited as well as, “intrigued and puzzled readers…Some interpretations…point of contention, with interpretations ranging from” and the utterly asserted generic assertion, “Nephilim are depicted as beings of significant stature and strength, contributing to the corruption and violence that precipitated the Flood.”

Such is the stuff of which AI replies are made and I’ve already run across way too many of them being passed off as articles.

So, let’s see just how intelligent the AI is—granting that I’m guessing it’s AI generated but it’s an educated guess.

It’s noted, “The term ‘Nephilim’ is often translated as ‘giants,’ though its exact meaning is uncertain”: that’s not a translation, it’s a rendering and one which 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 article’s author’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

We’re told, “Nephilim are depicted as beings of significant stature” but that’s only in one single sentence from an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: 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.

It’s noted, “The first reference to the Anakim is in Numbers 13:33, where the Israelite spies sent by Moses report seeing giants in the land of 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, ESV). This passage explicitly links the Anakim to the Nephilim, suggesting a direct relationship.”

Right on schedule, we’re expected to actually believe an “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked in part because these facts were left out of the mere assertion that, “This passage explicitly links” as if it’s gospel truth.

It’s also not noted that it’s actually, “The first reference to the Anakim” in non-LXX versions since the LXX lacks reference to Anakim in that verse.

It’s also not generically, “the Israelite spies” but, again, only the 10 unreliable ones whom God rebuked who told that literally impossible tall-tale: impossible since any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper. Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.

This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).

I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales and, 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.

We will have to see how the article’s author, whoever or whatever it may be, gets Nephilim past the flood, past God.

We’re told, “The text in Deuteronomy [2] notes that the Anakim were considered a powerful and fearsome race, comparable to the Rephaim” which isn’t that explicitly stated but they were like a clan of that tribe. That statement continues thusly, “…Rephaim, another group of giants” but that’s just a generic statement and biblically contextually, “Rephaim, another group of giants” means, “Rephaim, another group of Rephaim” so it’s redundant.

It’s then emphasized that, “The connection between the Anakim and the Nephilim is primarily based on the account in Numbers 13:33, where the spies’ report suggests a lineage or association.” Yet, 1) that’s the only such basis, 2) it wasn’t, “the spies’” generically, 3) it’s unreliable, 4) and it can only be from non-LXX versions.

The article goes on to note, “However, this connection is not elaborated upon in other biblical texts, leaving room for interpretation” since, “Some,” unnamed, unquoted, and uncited, “scholars propose that the reference to the Nephilim in Numbers is metaphorical, used by the” 12 unreliable, “spies to emphasize the daunting nature of the Canaanite inhabitants” which is much ado about nothing. And, “Others argue for a more literal connection, suggesting that the Anakim were descendants of the Nephilim or shared a similar origin” which is literally impossible since Anakim were named after Abra’s son Anak, there’s zero indication they have anything to do with Nephilim and God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

Due to the generic terminology, we also don’t know what’s being referred to by, “The presence of giants in the land of Canaan.” Yet, we’re told that whatever that means, “serves as a test of faith for the Israelites, challenging them to trust in God’s promises despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles” which is exactly how and why the 10 showed themselves to be unfaithful and disloyal—as well as contradictory and embellishers—see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

It’s also noted, “From a theological perspective, the accounts of the Nephilim and Anakim can be seen as part of the Bible’s broader narrative of spiritual warfare.” Actually, it’s a case of that from a theological perspective, the accounts of the Nephilim and Anakim within that evil report can be seen as part of the Bible’s broader narrative of spiritual warfare since it was a failure thereof and is why that failure haunts us to this day when the un-biblical tall-tales sold to Christians by pop-Nephilologists (and many scholarly ones, see my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?) has become a very lucrative cottage industry.

BTW: this sort of defeating the giants in your life type of sermonizing is also AI Nephilology 101, “a test of faith for the Israelites, challenging them to trust in God’s promises…the ongoing struggle between good and evil…reminding readers of the reality of spiritual conflict,” etc.

It’s punted that,, “the question of whether the Anakim are related to the Nephilim invites reflection on the mysterious and complex nature of biblical revelation” which is the stuff of which watered down kumbaya is made since Biblically it’s very simple: Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, form, nor by any other name or relationship but centuries post-flood 10 unreliable guys made up a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale about seeing them and were rebuked by God.

100% of post-flood Nephilology is premised on siding with those guys rather than with the God who rebuked them.

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.