He begins by noting, “the oldest extant Jewish document that we have regarding Genesis 6 is the Book of Enoch” a section of which is, “called the Book of Watchers…telling you that the sons of God were Angels and gives them their names. And interestingly, Jude cites [quotes] from this Book of Watchers.”
Indeed, and Paul quotes Greek poets. 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.
He notes that as per 1 Enoch the wives of the Angels, “became pregnant and bear great giants whose height were 3,000 ells, whatever that means.” Well, I provided the measurements in my book, the bottom line is that it has Nephilim, the giants, as being MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality.
He adds, “I am not saying Enoch is inspired, historically accurate, and these details are accurate. No, I believe Enoch contains a lot of historical truth embellished…exaggerated like all myths…myths are not lies, myths are actual historical events that have been embellished and exaggerated.”
Well, certainly, when 1 Enoch mirrors the historical record of what I term the Gen 6 affair it’s accurate but there’s no indication that the additional data it provides is accurate. The term myth is somewhat shifty and so it’s myopic to assert that it can only refer to, “actual historical events that have been embellished and exaggerated” even though that’s within the overall range of the usage of that term.
Sam Shamoun then asserts, “if you read the bible carefully, believe it or not, Goliath was a Nephilim and he was a giant. But if you read the biblical account he was over 9 feet tall. So, the Bible, which is tame calls, these giants giants, not because they are 300 ells but because they were 9 feet, they were not 30, 40, 50, 60 feet. Goliath, the measurement given to him, he had six fingers, six toes and if you measure the cubits he comes out to a little over nine feet that was considered a giant.”
This touches upon the utterly subjective nature of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants. In common parlance, the usage is to refer 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).
Biblically, the usage 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.
For details, see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
The only reason to even imagine (and imagination is all that it could be), “Goliath was a Nephilim” (the proper grammar would be the singular Nephil) is one single unreliable non-LXX sentence from one single unreliable evil report (Num 13:33) by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
That’s because non-LXX versions of that single sentence merely assert that Anakim are related to Nephilim (in some logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible way) and since Goliath was of the Anakim clan of the Rephaim tribe then some jump to such a conclusion.
As per my point above, whenever English readers read of Goliath being a giant they’re reading about him being a Repha, not anything about his size at all.
Also, 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.
Now, even if for some odd reason, one actually believes that sentence (and 100% of pop-Nephilologists do since they’re all post-flood Nephilologists and make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians) they then have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim made it pas the flood, past God. Any and all such fantasies imply that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Now, based on his myopic view of Goliath’s height and his misidentification of him as a Nephil, he concludes that Nephilim, “were…over 9 feet, over 8 feet.” Yet, since the only physical description we have of them is that one unreliable sentence by unreliable guys then 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 un-biblical pop-Nephilology.
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.
He notes, “The word translated ‘giant’ in the KJV is based on the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament into Greek” while others leave “the Hebrew word Nephilim untranslated.” The former case is due to the Septuagint/LXX translating (technically rendering) it as gigantes γιγάντων which literally means Earth-born.
Dr. Mariottini notes, “The KJV uses the word ‘giant’ to translate the word ‘Nephilim’ in Genesis 6:4 and in Numbers 13:33. In addition, the KJV uses the word ‘giants’ several other times, but most of them to translate the word ‘warrior’ (Job16:14 ESV) or the word ‘Rephaites’ (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20 NIV) or ‘Rapha’ (2Samuel 21:22 NIV).” So that is a rendering of a rendering.
Something that my readers may be tired or hearing (or, reading) me state but is of the utmost importance was evidenced in this comment. The word “giant(s)” does not belong in English Bibles because 1) it is a generic term merely meaning taller than average (and Hebrew males of those days averaged 5.5ft.) and 2) it is employed so as to render various Hebrew words making it even vaguer, less helpful and more prone to causing confusion.
Dr. Mariottini further notes, “There were several groups of people who were called giants in the Old Testament…a tall group of people…The word anak in Hebrew means ‘long-neck’ or giants.…all the inhabitants of the land were giants.” Thus, “There were several groups of people who were called” by the same generic English word but different Hebrew ones.
Also, “a tall group of people” presents the same problem which is that “tall” is relative (recall the average 5.5 ft. and that was for males who tend to be taller than females).
Then there is the issue of anak meaning “‘long-neck’ or giants” well no, it means long-neck and not giants even if some render it as such into English—granted that perhaps having unusually long necks made them taller than the average male Hebrew but this still would not mean that this is what the word means in common parlance: 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, when we come to a conclusion such as that “all the inhabitants of the land were giants” we must hear it as stating that “all the inhabitants of the land were” well, some generic thing or another or, rather that “all the inhabitants of the land were” described by different Hebrew words even if Dr. Mariottini wrote, “When Moses sent the twelve spies to visit the land of Canaan (Numbers13), they identified the offspring of the Anakim with the Nephilim of Genesis6:4” and we shall see what is meant by “identified.”
He elucidates:
To the ten spies, the fortified walls of the Canaanite cities were an overwhelming obstacle for their conquest of the land. The spies were so terrified by the size of the inhabitants of Canaan that they concocted a story in order to dissuade the people from entering the land. The spies said to the people:
“The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Num. 13:32-33 NIV).
In their exaggeration of the situation, the spies said that, in addition to being people of gigantic stature, the Anakim were the Nephilim, the dreadful people who lived on earth in the days before the flood.
It is rare that I find anyone who agrees with me—with the Bible actually—on that they “concocted a story.” In fact, the prior verses have them being intimidated by the size of the cities/walls (them being intenerate wilderness dwellers) and that the peoples, in general, were `az: strong (#H5794). They even mention various people groups including the Anakim but say nothing of the unusual size of any of them.
Yet indeed, only once Caleb chimes in to encourage (with Joshua siding with him) the people do the unfaithful/disloyal spies “In their exaggeration of the situation,” and just before we are told that they presented a bad/evil report, they tell of great height and that “the Anakim were” from, actually “the Nephilim”: FYI: Anakim aren’t mentioned in the LXX vesion of that verse.
I also agree 100% with Dr. Mariottini in that “the spies did not see any Nephilim for the Nephilim had died in the flood” which he continues with “The spies saw the Anakim, tall people who lived in Canaan at the time Israel was preparing to enter the land” keeping in mind that “tall” is generic as well and that they were “Dominated by fear and superstition, the spies identified the Anakim with the Nephilim of old. There were no Nephilim in Canaan, only Anakim.”
In fact, in relating this event Moses, Caleb and God Himself affirm that Anakim were in the land but say nothing about Nephilim—as being in the land or that the Anakim are related to them (see Deuteronomy 1, Joshua 14 and Numbers 14).
Dr. Mariottini then goes into more etymology:
Most scholars today derive the Hebrew word Nephilim from the Hebrew verb naphal, which means “fallen ones.” This is the translation adopted by Young’s Literal Translation: “The fallen ones were in the earth in those days…” Some scholars have derived Nephilim from a Hebrew word nephel, which means “miscarriage.”
These scholars understand the Nephilim as unnaturally begotten superhuman beings emerging from miscarriages…some scholars view the Nephilim as the ones fallen from heaven, that is, divine beings or angels.
He adds that “Those who translate ‘Nephilim’ as ‘giants’…fails to deal with the moral issues raised by the commingling of ‘the sons of God’ and ‘the daughters of men’…Those who leave the word ‘Nephilim’ untranslated recognize that…the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were not the Anakim of Numbers 13:33” and he drives this point home, “the Nephilim of Numbers 13:33 are not the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4…the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 were not the Nephilim of Numbers 13:33.” I would emphasize that it is not just a case of that they are not the same but that in Genesis 6 they are actually present but in Numbers 13 they are not.
We then come to a not all together oddity in Dr. Mariottini’s view of this issue which is that “According to the biblical text, it was the progeny of the sons of God and the daughters of men who were ‘the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown,’ not the Nephilim…Genesis 6:1-4 does not say that the Nephilim were the offspring of the marriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men.”
It seems to me that this conclusion is due to a grammatical issue—and also does not make sense. I believe his conclusion is based on v. 4 which reads “There were nĕphiyl 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.”
Thus, some read this as that the Nephilim just so happen to be there when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. It seems that an elucidating reordering of the English translation would be when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, there were nĕphiyl in the earth in those days (as they were the nĕphiyl); and also after that, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”
For me, the key issue is not just that the Nephilim would just happen to be there: where by the way? “in the earth” in general or the general vicinity of where the Genesis 6 affair took place? The key issue is that if they are not the offspring then why mention them? In other words, why say that this is a record of the affair between the sons of God and the daughters of men, their marriages, and their offspring and, oh yeah by the way, the Nephilim were also around at the time—just thought to mention it for no apparent reason: especially as we know nothing about them prior, nothing about them is described. We are not told why they are being mentioned/why referring to them is relevant, not told what the point is, etc., etc., etc.
To one of the articles, someone in the comments section wrote, “The Nephilim were called giants because the sons of God married the daughters of men” which makes zero sense. They also wrote, “sons of God is more apt to denote individuals that had some covenant relationship with God through the line of Adam to Seth and the daughters of Cain” and followed directly with catching themselves in a problem which is “Why this would create ‘giants’ or ‘Nephilim’ is not completely clear.”
They also wrote, “Some have interpreted this as fallen angels marrying human women. However, spiritual beings do not procreate, so this interpretation must be discounted.” But just as common as such comments are made this one was also not elucidated but is a mere assertion. We are merely told that “spiritual beings do not procreate” (note that this is not about spirit beings but about spiritual beings) but we are offered no argument, no quotations, no citations, nothing. Thus, this interpretation must not be discounted based on a mere assertion.
The Sethite view is a late-comber based on myth and prejudice which ends up claiming that individuals that had some covenant relationship with God didn’t really had some covenant relationship with God since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.
This also goes against the view taken in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2. Someone commented that they ran across “an interesting spin on the translation of nephilim from hebrew as ‘those who came down’…could ‘those who came down’ refer to extra-terrestrials…they were still around post flood. they may have ‘come backdown’ when the coast was clear.”
Dr. Mariottini noted “in Hebrew, ‘to come down’ is a word different from the word ‘naphal’ (to fall)” and dismissed the ET idea. The commentator made it clear that they consider the Bible an example of when the Sumerians’ “texts were twisted.” For some details on this sort of view, see Is the Bible an Anunnaki control mechanism?
Another comment was, “ANGELS WHERE KNOWN BEFORE THE FLOOD TO COMMUNICATE WITH US HUMANS…ANGELSHAVE [been] KNOWN TO TAKE HUMAN FORM.…I LISTEN TO CHUCK MISSLER ALL THE TIMEAND HE TALKS ABOUT THIS AND I BELIEVE WHAT HE SAIDS.” Much like the assertion that “spiritual beings do not procreate” the statement that “ANGELS HAVE [been] KNOWN TO TAKE HUMAN FORM” is another mere assertion about which the Bible states nothing. Biblically, Angels look like human males ontologically: in their nature and essence so that they do not “take” human form but are naturally of human form, see my book What Does the Bible Say AboutAngels?
Moreover, perhaps “ANGELS WHERE KNOWN BEFORE THE FLOOD TO COMMUNICATE WITH US HUMANS” but the Bible does not state as much. And Missler has certainly made a lot of good points on this issue and certainly popularized it but he references a “return of the Nephilim” but the Bible knows of no suchthing—see my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.
Along these lines, someone commented, “Does not the Bible teach that Angels are male in outward appearance, character and actions but lack the ability to reproduce(N.T.)? Or, at the least leave a strong impression of this with us.” Yes, the Bible teach that Angels are male in outward appearance, character and actions but no, we are never told that they lack the ability to reproduce—we are only told that the Angels “of God” and “in heaven,” as in loyal un-fallen ones, do not marry (Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25) which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Someone commented, “the SONS OF GOD were men in the Godly line of Seth, and the Daughters of man were women from the un-Godly line of Cain” and referred to this as an “unacceptable union.” Dr. Mariottini noted, “Mixed marriage is not a good reason for a flood that destroyed the whole world” to which the reply was “Mixed marriages were absolutely a perfect reason for the destruction of the world. The intermingled union of Sethites and Cainanites were in direct rebellion to God, that is sin and all sin is worthy of death…God intended for the two lines to remain distinct.”
The main issue here is that the claim that the “line of Seth” and “un-Godly line of Cain” were an “unacceptable union” and that “The intermingled union of Sethites and Cainanites were in direct rebellion to God, that is sin and all sin” and that “God intended for the two lines to remain distinct” are all mere assertions about which the Bible knows nothing.
In any case, Dr. Mariottini followed up with “Genesis 6:11. This is the real reason for the flood” which reads, “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.” The commentator then took a step back with “I never said that mixed marriages were the only reason for the flood” and “it doesn’t mean that the nephilim were a race of giants…Another point is that angels had not been mentioned yet in scripture, however Moses did speak openly against mixed marriages between Cainenites and Sethites.” That against which Moses did speak was marriages between the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews and non-Hebrews/Israelites/Jews.
Dr. Mariottini quoted Bruce Waltke’s An Old TestamentTheology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007):
The “sons of God” are best understood as demon-possessed kings. The perverted psyches of these tyrants allowed this entrance of the demonic. The Nephilim (i.e., “fallen ones”)–who also existed at the time of Moses (Num. 13:33)–were probably their offspring, also called “heroes.” They filled the earth with violence.
Dr. Mariottini is quite rightly blunt in stating, “This interpretation is impossible” and elucidates, “If the Nephilim existed in the time of Moses and if they were the offspring of the ‘sons of God,’ then this means that they survived the flood. The biblical text is very clear that only Noah and his wife, their sons and their wives, eight people, survived the flood (1 Peter3:20)…If all people died in the flood, except Noah and his family, then the Nephilim could not have survived the flood. If the Nephilim could not survive the flood, then, the Nephilim in the time of Moses could not have been the descendants of the ‘sons of God’ since they also perished in the flood.”
He also wrote, “Genesis 6:4 which declares that the Nephilim were on the earth before the flood and also afterward. This editorial comment, and also afterward, written by the writer of Genesis, seems to imply that the Nephilim survived the flood, thus helping the writer of the biblical text identify the Nephilim with the tall people who lived in Canaan.”
Someone commented, “E.W. Bullinger is not exactly a scholarly source, but one thing he pointed out was this: that passage in Genesis 6 says there were nephilim in those days, AND AFTERWARDS. For him, that means that they were destroyed in the flood, then a new batch of them emerged later on, after the flood. Therefore, as far as he was concerned, there were Nephiliim after the flood. And Numbers13:33 calls the inhabitants of Canaan Nephilim.” I actually featured Bullinger in my book Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. III.
Let us review: indeed, the last of the Nephilim died in the flood—period. Note that it is reading into and inserting words and meanings into the text to claim that Genesis 6:4 “declares that the Nephilim were on the earth before the flood and also afterward.” The Bible states that they were “in the earth in those days; and also after that” and states nothing of the flood on this point. But, some ask, to what else could “those days; and also after that” refer?
Well, the text begins by setting a timeline starting point which is “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” which could be as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children. Thus, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” are “those days” and “also after that” means just that: after men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them.
In other words, contextually “those days; and also after that” are both pre-flood. This leads some, such as Bullinger, to propose what is known in pop-research circles as the multiple incursions theory whereby they admit that the last of the Nephilim dies in the flood but then more Angels fell and did the whole thing again.
Yet, the Bible knows utterly nothing about this and it would defeat God’s purpose for the flood in the first place. Also,it is not accurate that “Numbers 13:33 calls the inhabitants of Canaan Nephilim” as the spies were referring to the Nephilim within the context of naming various other people groups such as Anakim, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites (vss. 28-29). Itis rather odd that Dr. Mariottini not only argues that the Nephilim did not survive the flood but that the Bible affirms this but then also claims that “the writer of Genesis, seems to imply that the Nephilim survived the flood” as a technical literary loophole.
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.
Pop-Nephilologist Josh Peck posted a video on his YouTube channel Daily Renegade which is he being interviewed by a certain Pastor Gary Mckibben. The subject matter is Peck’s new book The Return of the Watchers: Ancient Nephilim Technology Revealed.
FYI: I will be reviewing in general what’s stated rather than doing through the very time consuming work of ironing out who said what (since the transcript doesn’t break that down for us).
The reference to Watchers was indicative to me of him taking a pop-Nephilology tactic (pop-Nephilologists sell un-biblical tall-tales to Christians for a living) since it implies he’s relying on 1 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—since Watchers is a Second Temple Era aka for Malakim/Angels.
And right on schedule, within two minutes reference is made to, “the technology of the Watchers” within the context of, “the extra biblical Book of Enoch which” wer’re told, “helps fill in some of the gaps that we get in Genesis.”
Well, I could write a book today which is said to “fill in some gaps” but the issue is of what degree of reliability are those gap fillers. There’s no indication that a folkloric text from that long after Gen offers us any actually reliable historically accurate data—in fact, it has Nephilim as being MILES tall which is great folklore but poor reality.
Reference is made the what I term the Gen 6 affair within the context of the Angel view and it’s noted, “the consequence of that procreation is the giants or in the Hebrew the Nephilim.” Keep that in mind: the usage of giants within this discussion is that it mere renders (doesn’t even translate) the word Nephilim.
We’re then told, “that’s basically the reason for the flood because these things spread all over and basically just consume the entire world.”
We’re told that 1 Enoch, “was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and we know that in the time of Jesus books like the book of Enoch, the book of Jubilees, things like that, were highly regarded because they’re actually quoted in the Bible.”
Well, the DSS are only partially scripture and a lot of it are things like Community Rules, apocalyptic speculations, etc. Paul quoted Greek poets so being quoted in the Bible only accredits what’s quoted, not full texts nor authors, etc.
What 1 Enoch does is to give un-biblical names to various Watchers and specify which taught humanity what forbidden knowledge/technology. For example: metallurgy, enchantments, astrology, and even cosmetics as in makeup.
We’re told that as per 1 Enoch, “there was a civil war among the Nephilim tribes. Whoever didn’t die in that got killed in the flood. So the flood wiped everything out, wiped the slate clean.”
Since there’s no way to get a, “Return of Ancient Nephilim…Ancient Nephilim Technology” from the Bible, they are forced to appeal to anything, written by anyone, at any time, for any reason, in any genre, water it all down, and mash it all together into fantastically exciting neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales.
Thus, they moreover refer to The Apocalypse of Abraham, from somewhere between 70BC-150 AD, and The Book of Giants from circa the same time as 1 Enoch and Jubilees: a few centuries BC—see my book on 1 Enoch and The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.
It’s noted, “the origin of demons…when the Nephilim died, they didn’t go to heaven. They didn’t go to hell. At least not yet. But they became evil spirits. They became demons. This is why we have demons. Yeah.” Yet, that’s just part of the folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
We’re told, “we have a situation where there’s Watchers under the Earth and demons…there is a couple of places where some of these Watchers get released early.” Basically, they’re mashing together biblical eschatology with cherry picked folklore.
We’re told, “I fully believe the antichrist is going to shed his own blood because what more perverse than Nephilim blood? And the reason that I think that the antichrist is Nephilim is because as we saw the punishment for the Watchers mating with humankind was to basically be bound in the abyss.”
Pray tell, where on Earth is the antichrist going to get Nephilim blood since the last of it was done away with at the flood?
See, pop-Nephilologists are all post-flood-Nephilologists and always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus. God must have failed, must have missed a loophole that Peck managed to figure out and the antichrist (or his parents) will figure out, the flood must have been much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. since God got rid of them but they will come back (and/or already have).
Such is why post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim made it past the flood: such as Jubilees containing a quaint story about how post-flood, a recipe was found for how to make hot, fresh, right out of the oven Nephilim—God must have missed that.
It’s noted, “Satan is not bound in the abyss. Satan was not involved in this original 200 Watchers thing. Um he didn’t commit that sin, but apparently he must commit it in the future because he is bound for a thousand years in the abyss. It’s the same judgment that the watchers get.”
The, “200 Watchers thing” refer to that 1 Enoch places that very specific number on how many fell. Technically, those Watchers were incarcerated in Tartarus as per 2 Peter 2—which as per Greek mythology is the lowest place of the Abyss where the worse of the worse go.
The, “must” is speculation and an unfounded non-sequitur. One reason that, “Satan was not involved in” the Gen 6 affair is that Angels look just like human males and so could copulate with human women but he’s a Cherub rather than an Angel and apparently can’t do likewise. Also, Revelation 20 notes, “an angel…seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit [Abyss]…so that he might not deceive the nations any longer” and not so he can’t mate with humans any longer.
We’re told, “all throughout the Bible, the Antichrist is called son of predition: son of, it’s basically, I believe that he’s literally the son of Satan. I believe Satan commits this act one time to create the Antichrist” and then somehow the byproduct of Angels mating with humans is shifted over to the supposed byproduct of a Cherub allegedly mating with a human so that, “what’s more profane than Nephilim blood could there possibly be to defile the temple with?”
Thus, what God apparently missed is that He got rid of Nephilim just to have a Cherub create one post-flood.
Yet, it’s noted, “The Apocalypse of Abraham talks about him being in the garden as a Seraphim” but that’s another category error that violates the law of identity since Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim are difference categories of being and Satan is a Cherub (Ezek 28).
As for, “are still any Nephilim genetics” the reply is, “There might be if there are any Nephilim genetics in anybody’s blood, it’s not, it’s minuscule to the point where like they can still get saved” but that’s just another way of implying that God missed that.
It’s actually a tragedy that a pastor is going along with neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales.
See my various books here—including some endorsed by Josh Peck and to include one in which I feature him 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
The Messenger Church of God ministry’s COGMessenger website’s Rod Reynolds posted an article titled Were There Giants on the Earth?
The title begs the 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?
He quotes that which I term the Gen 6 affair thusly, “There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).
He gets right into the key questions with:
The word “giants” is translated from the Hebrew word nephilim, from naphal, “he fell.” (Clarke’s Commentary). This word does not necessarily mean a person of great stature or size. In the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the pre-Christian era, the Greek word γιγαντες (gigantes) was used to translate nephilim.
The word γιγαντες literally means “earth-born” (Clarke’s Commentary), and also does not necessarily indicate a person of great stature or size.
However, some scholars have pointed out that Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew, has a word that in its plural form would be nephilin, equivalent to Hebrew nephilim, and meaning “giants” (cf “Battle over the Nephilim,” Tim Chaffey, answersingenesis.org, January 1, 2012).
Technically it’s not that, “The word ‘giants’ is translated” but rather rendered from—and it’s a rendering of a rendering.
The rendering of the rendering is that giants renders gigantes which renders Nephilim—yet, be aware that the LXX also rendered gibborim and Rephaim as such (which was a terrible idea).
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.
As for the Aramaic issue, the J. Edward Wright Endowed Professor of Judaic Studies, who is J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. himself, and who is the Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona notes, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants” (Private communique, July 2019).
Indeed, it’s not just that, “This word does not necessarily mean a person of great stature or size” but 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.
I made him aware of 8-9 references he had missed and he made me aware of 2-3 that I had missed. Yet, I also included him 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.
The term “sons of God,” or “children of God,” is used several places in the Bible of those who are sanctified, i.e., who are led by God’s Spirit, not the spirit of the world, or fleshly lusts (Hosea 1:10; Matthew 5:9; Luke 20:36; John 1:12; 11:52; Romans 8:14-21; 9:8, 26; Galatians 3:26; 4:6; Ephesians 5:1; Philippians 2:15; I John 3:1-2, 10; 5:2; Revelation 21:7).
I said myopically since, for example, he didn’t note that 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.
He concludes, “Probably Genesis 6:4 is speaking of descendants of Seth intermarrying with the descendants of Cain” but that’s a late-comer of a view—I wonder why it was only strictly male Sethites who were terrible sinners and only exclusively female Cainites.
He notes that such marriages were, “with the descendants of Cain, or who had not corrupted themselves by rebelling against God in other ways” but there’s no indication of any such thing. That view is based on myth and prejudice.
He notes:
The “nephilim” of Genesis 6:4 were “the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” The word translated “mighty,” gibbôr, implies one who is powerful, and could imply one who is a tyrant, or a bully, a violent man. The word translated “renown” is shêm (pronounced shame), and implies one who is famous, or who is in a conspicuous position. The implication is that these men were the leaders of the society at the time, the rulers, the famous warriors, etc. But they were degenerate morally and spiritually.
Sure, it “could imply…tyrant…bully…violent” but it’s also applied to God (Isa 9) and is typically defined generically as might/mighty.
He notes, “Very likely, some of them were men of great size…what we would call giants in the sense of physical size” yet, he very rightly noted, “although the Scripture does not specifically say that.”
Note that “great size” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as giants.
He adds:
In the New King James version, the word “giant,” or plural “giants,” occurs 20 times. In most of these it is speaking of individuals or groups of men who were of extraordinarily large stature, as can be determined from the context. And this same Hebrew word, “nephilim,” is used in connection with them, as well as other words. Some of the “giants” spoken of in the Bible were famous and were kings.
Note that “extraordinarily large” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as great size and giants.
We will get to what he must have meant by that the, “Hebrew word, ‘nephilim,’ is used in connection with them” since that’s a problematic assertion—stand by.
He then refers to, “gigantic stature” which, you guessed it, is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as extraordinarily large, great size and giants.
He noted:
Internet browser concerning human giants returned a response summed up as follows: “In short, no giant human remains have been scientifically verified, and mainstream archaeology and paleontology reject the idea of a race of giant humans.” An article in Wikipedia states as follows: “Giant skeletons reported in the United States until the early 20th century were a combination of hoaxes, scams, fabrications, and the misidentifications of extinct megafauna” (wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_human_skeletons; retrieved 3-20-2026).
But we need to know the usage of giants and what that has to do with the Bible.
He goes on to refer to, “references to men of giant, or extraordinarily large stature found in the Bible? Were there giants on the earth? Did men like Goliath” to whom we shall yet get—stand by.
Rod Reynolds quoted:
“But the men who had gone up with him said, ‘We are not able to go up against the people, for they are stronger than we.’ And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, ‘The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight’” (Numbers 13:31-33).
It’s rather odd that after quoting that, he concludes:
The word used here, translated “giants,” is the same word used in Genesis 6:4: nephilim. Here we plainly see a report of men of gigantic proportions, much larger than the average Israelite, or other average size men.
He had prefaced that with, “When God had brought the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt, he told Moses to send some men into the land of Canaan to explore, and bring back a report.” They actually brought back two reports: the first is reliable, the second (the one he quoted) is not.
Just how it is that, “we plainly see” that? Or, perhaps I should say that sure, we see that in an unreliable report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
They made five mere assertions that are unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible. And, they created the problem of post-flood Nephilim—which is why post-flood Nephilologists are forced to make up un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about just how the Nephilim made it past the flood, past God.
So, sure, in an utterly false report it’s, “the same word used in Genesis 6:4: nephilim” but it matters not and sure, “we plainly see a report of men of gigantic proportions, much larger” but that was just a tall-tale.
You know it, “gigantic proportions, much larger” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as gigantic stature, extraordinarily large, great size and giants.
Indeed, as per Deut 2 Rephaim who were aka Emmim and Zamzummim the tribe of which Anakim were a clan were subjectively, “tall”—with, “tall” being just as well, you know.
Subjectively that means taller by some unknown degree than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.
He then quotes regarding how, “Og…remained of the remnant of the giants” and ruled, “Bashan…known as the ‘land of the giants.’” He didn’t note to his audience that biblically contextually that means, “Og…remained of the remnant of the Rephaim” and ruled, “Bashan…known as the ‘land of the Rephaim.’”
He then notes, “Og’s bed was at least 13.5 feet long and six feet wide” but what of it? We’ve no physical description of him and jumping to a conclusion about his height based on the size of his, “bed” is a non-sequitur based on various assumptions. Indications are that it wasn’t something on which he slept, it was a ritual object—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
We now come to Goliath whom, or so he myopically tells us, “was over nine feet tall” but he didn’t tell us 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.
He then quotes a long text that I will reduce to, “Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels…Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant…Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam…a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant…These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Samuel 21:16-22).
It’s not as exciting but that actually reads, “Then Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the sons of the Repha, the weight of whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels…Sibbechai the Hushathite killed Saph, who was one of the sons of the Repha…Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam…a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the Repha…These four were born to the Repha in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants” (2 Samuel 21:16-22).
The only reference to height is, “great stature” (assuming that’s not about social stature) and well, “great stature” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as tall, gigantic proportions, gigantic stature, extraordinarily large, great size and giants.
Note that Goliath had a guy assisting with the equipment. 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). Also, you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.
Oddly, Rod Reynolds goes onnote:
The Keil and Delitzsch commentary explains “the giant” referred to in II Samuel 21:16, 18, 20, 22 (above) as “Raphah, one of the gigantic race of Rephaim. Raphah was the tribe-father of the Rephaim, an ancient tribe of gigantic stature, of whom only a few families were left even in Moses’ time.”
We can’t do anything useful with the incessant use of watered down vague terminology. Biblically contextually, “the gigantic race of Rephaim” would mean, “the Rephaim race of Rephaim.”
For more about Keil and Delitzsch and many others, see my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s.
He then goes on to tell us of, “Other than the Bible, is there any evidence that humans of giant stature existed?” but, “Other than” what?
Nephilim: no reliable physical description.
Og: no physical description.
Goliath: most reliably, just shy of 7ft.
A man of generically, “great stature.”
Rephaim/Emmim/Zamzummim/Anakim: taller than 5.0-5.3ft.
It’s not very exciting when we iron out the facts but such is why pop-Nephilologists make up un-biblical fantasy tall-tales for a living: click-bait is exciting and lucrative.
To support, “Other than the Bible, is there any evidence that humans of giant stature existed…Men nine feet tall or taller…These would include fossil remains of, among others, the following: Columbian Mammoth…Dire wolves…Giant Sloths…Glyptodon: A giant armored mammal related to and resembling a large armadillo…Megalodon: The largest shark…Giant Rhinoceros…Megalania (Varanus priscus): A giant monitor lizard…Argentavis: The largest flying bird…Diprotodon: World’s largest marsupial…Deinosuchus riograndensis: Fossilized remains of gigantic crocodiles.”
Now, I’ve no idea what that has to do with, “humans of giant stature existed…Men nine feet tall or taller” but he does tell us: it’s a giant jump to a huge conclusion, “If other creatures existed in families and individuals of extraordinary size, who is to say that the same was not true of humans, as has been reported not just in Scripture, but in many ancient traditions?”
Note that my claim, at least, isn’t that Nephilim weren’t taller than the subjective parochial average, taller than we are today on average, etc. but is rather that we’ve no reliable indication of that. If we’re going to merely speculate then fine, let’s merely speculate but that’s as far as we can take it.
He then reviews claims of taller than average people throughout history but they’re irrelevant to my context: of course taller than average people existed throughout history, the issue is what of it?
For details, see my books What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology and Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales which review the biblical data as well as old newspaper reports and much more that it all the rage in pop-Nephilology circles.
His conclusion is, “There were giants on the earth, as the Bible says” but that really means, “There were whatever I subjectively mean by ‘giants’ with any given usage on the earth, as the one modern English Bible I happen to be reading says” (which is the New King James Version in his case).
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.
I don’t know why I do this to myself but I sometimes read AI vomited articles and one such a one is Goliath: The Nephilim Connection by the Oreate AI Blog which notes, “Read the latest guides, tips, and insights on smart Al writing and presentation generation!” and, “Oreate AI is your all-in-one assistant, helping you write essays, build presentations, and humanize your content—100% plagiarism-free.”
In typical AI fashion, it notes that, “Some” unnamed, un-quoted, and un-cited, “scholars” of an unknown enumeration, “suggest that Goliath could indeed be classified among the Nephilim, those enigmatic beings mentioned in Genesis 6:4” so let’s see how and why those, “Some” claim such an logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible thing.
The question, “could it imply that giants like Goliath had supernatural lineage?” is asked just after noting, “Nephilim…walked the earth before the flood…when divine beings mingled with humans…born from the union of ‘the sons of God’ and ‘the daughters of man’” so that question is a non-sequitur, in a manner of speaking, since nothing about Goliath has anything to do with any of that.
Ah, but here comes Num 13:33 right on schedule—since there’s literally nothing else to which to appeal for such an impossibility and, in typical pop-Nephilology fashion, it’s misread, misrepresented, misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied.
The AI tells us:
Interestingly, Numbers 13:33 adds another layer to this discussion by stating that when Israelite spies entered Canaan, they encountered descendants of Anak—the Nephilim—and felt like mere grasshoppers in comparison. Here lies an important clue suggesting not just physical stature but also an aura of fearsome power surrounding these beings.
1) stating “Numbers 13:33 adds” is merely telling us where to find a statement, it’s just a citation, so it doesn’t answer fundamental hermeneutical questions such as: who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc.
2) Num chap 13 does not record that, “when Israelite spies entered Canaan, they encountered descendants of Anak—the Nephilim.” Rather, there were 12 spies and two reports. This is referring to the 10 unreliable spies who presented an, “evil report” and were rebuked by God.
3) as for, “they encountered descendants of Anak—the Nephilim” that’s only from non-LXX versions since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim.
4) thus, there’s literally zero reliable indication of, “descendants of Anak—the Nephilim.”
5) that mere assertion, premised on a misrepresentation of the text and based on myopia, solves no problems but causes many. Just how did Nephilim, by any other name, get past the flood, past the God who clearly failed since He must have missed a loophole which made the flood much of a waste?
6) what we know of Anakim is that they were named after Anak who was Abra’s son and were like a clan of the Rephaim tribe (Deut 2): zero reliable correlation to Nephilim.
7) as for, “felt like mere grasshoppers in comparison” well, since that metaphor is the only thing that we can even consider any sort of physical description of Nephilim but it comes from one unreliable sentence from one unreliable evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked then 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.
The AI is just generically parroting generic statements, it has literally no detailed solid data to provide.
In fact, it tells us, “many translations lean towards interpreting them strictly as giants due to their size” but we now know that’s a non-issue since we don’t know anything about their size.
The AI also refers to Goliath’s, “portrayal as a giant” but that was just artificially (by two definitions) inserted since nothing had been said about his size. And, the AI doesn’t seem to know 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.
In fact, the AI might even think that the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles is used to mean well, something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is).
Yet, 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.
Get it?
When English readers read in some English versions that Goliath was a, “giants” they’re merely reading that he was a Repha, it’s identifying his tribal affiliation, it’s not identifying anything about his size—and since we don’t know Nephilim’s size then we couldn’t correlate Goliath to them even if he was however tall anyone wants to subjectively claim tall is: the AI generically refers to, “his daunting height.”
The AI tells us that a vague reference to Goliath’s size (without telling us his size), “aligns well with descriptions found throughout biblical narratives where size equates to power and intimidation” but it doesn’t offer one single example and such isn’t even the case.
At least the AI notes, “Scripture does not explicitly label him a Nephilim.”
It also gets correct that what is found recorded in the Bible is that, “it paints him simply as a champion from Philistine ranks known for his…combat prowess.”
The article ends with:
Ultimately, whether or not we classify Goliath among the Nephilim may depend on how one interprets scripture’s rich tapestry woven between earthly realities and celestial mysteries.
Fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper so when it comes down it, it’s really about, “Ultimately, whether or not we classify Goliath among the Nephilim may depend on” one’s view of God: is He a failure or not?
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.
This was an odd double-barreled discussion that ended abruptly since the Quora site deleted the entire discussions. Such is an example of why when I have online discussions I keep Word docs wherein I safe the discussion whenever anyone replies.
So, first up is a reply posted by a certain Anna Legrand who self-describes as, “Bipolar*Addictions*Psychopathy*Behavior”—which, God bless her, may be why she doesn’t make much sense—to the question Is the Bible proof of the paranormal?, which was
A book of unproven claims can’t be a proof of anything. Someone’s fictional stories being written down and published don’t make them true.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
You imply some universal imperatives as hidden assumptions so how do you derive them from your worldview?
Anna Legrand
I never implied the fact that something being written down doesn’t make it real as a hidden assumption in the first place. In fact, I didn’t imply anything at all, I just stated as an obvious primitive truth that for some reason some people fail to understand. My worldview is not something I derived it from – any individual who has a brain and has a cognitive ability to think logically can figure this out. Believers don’t have this ability so they think differently. People can have very different worldviews, but this truth can only be this way, everything else is a lie and a logical fallacy.
Ken Ammi
Sorry if I was unclear: your hidden assumption is that, on your worldview, there’s some sort of universal imperative against believing things in, “A book of” of supposedly, “unproven claims” and that such, “can’t be a proof of anything.”
Those are just merely asserted positive affirmations at this point since you began with those conclusions—and likewise with, “fictional stories.”
See, the very first step in systematic critical thinking is that you begin with, you first, justify how and why it’s the case that your worldview provides some sort of universal imperative to reject alleged, “unproven claims” which implies a universal imperative to demand proof and to only believe in things that are proven.
Likewise with your assertion of an, “obvious primitive truth”: what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative to only believe in things that are true?
That, “My worldview is not something I derived it from” is the problem since otherwise, you opt for, “a brain…cognitive ability to think logically can figure this out” subjectively.
What, on your worldview or subjectivity is wrong with, “a lie and a logical fallacy”?
See, you make a lot of mere assertions, I’m just asking what—besides your subjective say so—premises them.
Anna Legrand
Look, it doesn’t matter because THERE IS NO PROOF of any claims made in the bible concerning anything supernatural. No hard evidence, period. When there’s proof, then we’ll talk. Don’t shift attention from the fact that theists have NOTHING to prove their claims with.
Ken Ammi
Did you ponder why you are literally forced to ignore issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and have to double down on incoherently, illogically, anachronistically begin with merely asserted conclusions?
The merely asserted positive affirmation, “THERE IS NO PROOF of any claims made in the bible concerning anything supernatural. No hard evidence, period” is a conclusion premised on hidden assumptions which are that 1. on your worldview there’s a universal imperative to present proof or evidence (you jump between the two) and 2. on your worldview there’s a universal imperative to only believe in things which have been proved or evidenced.
So, I’m simply asking a basic 101 level question about how and why that’s the case since without that you’re just pretending that there’s a universal imperative to present proof or evidence and to only believe in things which have been proved or evidenced.
And if you’re just pretending then well, why should I be interested much less beholden to your merely subjectively emotive personal preferences du jour?
Anna Legrand
Look I don’t know in what imaginary world you live in, in my world, if you can’t observe, measure, replicate or falsify something, it is not considered to be a hard evidence. I don’t care if you agree with this or not – I am stating here that to me, there is no hard evidence to prove that gods exist, , so it doesn’t matter what anyone wrote in your novel that you think proves something, people who think trust must be earned, not donated, don’t believe in your god.
Ken Ammi
It seems that you’re attempting to feel your way out of the problem you caused by beginning with merely asserted positive affirmations since when I mere asked that you start at the beginning, you realize you can’t do it.
Sadly, rather than taking out your frustration on your collapsed failure of a worldview, you take it out on me who merely asked questions.
So, I’ll stop asking and start making statements:
On your worldview there’s literally nothing wrong with it if I live in an imaginary world so you discredited yourself from implying that it’s wrong to live in one.
Your worldview provides you no premise upon which to imply, as a hidden assumption that we ought to only believe in things for which we have, “hard evidence” so you discredited yourself from complaining about believing in things sans hard evidence.
But you seem to realize that which is why you went full-blown subjectivist, “to me, there is no hard evidence to prove that gods exist” but your subjectively emotive personal views aren’t a standard so you discredited yourself again.
Unsure to what novel you’re referring but you seem to say that if someone has hard evidence and writes about it, you’ll reject it.
So, it seems you’re discrediting every reason (excuse) you have to affirming, “don’t believe in your god.”
Anna Legrand
You haven’t actually read a word of what I wrote, have you? Or you just didn’t get it? I am not affirming anything, I don’t need excuses, I don’t care what you think.
I don’t care who lives in which reality. I never told you what you “ought to believe” – you re putting words in my mouth. I said I don’t believe that something exists unless there’s evidence. I don’t care if you think differently, that’s your business, I never said that living in yours is “wrong”. Your emotional reaction has nothing to do with me and everything to do with you. You talk about me having absolutely no idea who I am. You are making absurd statements that you think somehow stem from my disbelief in gods. Sorry to burst your bubble of arrogance, but not believing in gods is not a worldview, not an ideology; it only means that I don’t believe that gods exist — it doesn’t mean anything else. You are trying to label me because you yourself cannot provide any evidence that your god exists, that it was your god who created the universe, so you blame non-believers for your helplessness. You were trying to find implications in my not believing in a god, but you failed. I still don’t believe that gods really exist — I have no reason to believe so. You’re reading too much into it, you’re trying to find things that are not there. Not believing that something exists is very simple; it implies nothing else, but you created some worldview in your head.
My actual worldview has nothing to do with the fact that I don’t believe in gods, because it is such a minor, boring detail that I am not interested in. It doesn’t even occur to me, because a lack of belief is an empty space, so why even bother thinking about it? You know nothing about my worldview. All your statements are go-to accusations you throw at each and every atheist you encounter, but again, you’re looking for something that is not there and you’re becoming anxious about it. You are making ridiculous conclusions. You don’t understand my posts because you have a prejudice against all atheists caused by your inability to prove that your god really exists. Your faith is so weak and fragile that one unbeliever can make you doubt it, and that’s why atheists make you nervous. I didn’t create any problem, and I’m not trying to get out of it. You have confirmation bias, and that’s why you are finding things that are not there.
Ken Ammi
Since you’re missing the point, I’ll stop asking questions and start making statements.
Your worldview’s utter subjectivism is perfectly encapsulated in your appreciated admission, “I don’t care who lives in which reality.”
So, logically, there’s literally nothing wrong if I’m, “putting words in my mouth” since you’re just interpreting the byproducts of bio-chemical neural reactions to the effect that you emotively subjectively personally don’t like it—which is as impotent and meaningless as it sounds.
So, your subjective personal preference du jour is, “I don’t believe that something exists unless there’s evidence” so that’s not a standard: it’s on the level of a, “My dear diary, today I feel…” entry—yes, I get that.
And I never said a single word about that I, “think differently” you’re just imagining things to distract from that I requested what your justification is for that, on your worldview. The clear reply is that there’s isn’t one which is why it’s just a subjective personal preference that’s utterly irrelevant to anyone but you.
“not believing in gods is” 100% a, “worldview” and, “ideology” but if you insist it’s not then, pray tell, in what area of your thinking about anything and everything whatsoever do you make provision for, actually believe in, God?
I could go on and on and on but I’m willing to wait for your reply to that fundamental issue.
Anna Legrand
“subjective personal preference that’s utterly irrelevant to anyone but you.” are you sure about that? Hundreds of millions of people wouldn’t agree with you, sweetheart.
“not believing in gods is” 100% a, “worldview” and, “ideology” but if you insist it’s not then, pray tell, in what area of your thinking about anything and everything whatsoever do you make provision for, actually believe in, God?”
really? what’s the main idea of this ideology then? And why am I supposed to pray about something? Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking about anything and everything. You are such a typical theist who thinks they somehow shifted attention from the fact they don’t have a shred of evidence to prove that any of their gods exists, you are trying to insert your god into my life but you don’t understand that no g od exists in my life. Gods are simply absent, there’s no single factor in my life that is related to any of the gods. I’ll assume you don’t believe Krishna is real. So ok, “I don’t believe in Krishna” is a 100% your ideology, if we follow your logic. Are you ready to explain what’s that ideology of yours that you don’t believe in Krishna? How deep are you in that not believing in Krishna worldview?Can you tell me more about it? How does it define everything that you do? You see how illogical and childish your whole narrative is? You think something you believe to be true matters so much to me? Well it doesn’t, people believe in all sorts of crazy crap, does my disbelief in aliens or Flying Spaghetti Monster also an ideology? A worldview? What about you? You have no point here, what you doing here is called mental masturbation that doesn’t change the fact that you can’t prove that your god exists. Even if you will be able to prove it, he is a repulsive psycho and a mass murderer, so I will not need him anywhere near me. You’ve been brainwashed so deeply, actually believing those fairy tales became your brain’s defence mechanism and you will fight tooth and nail for them because it is unbearable to realise that you’ve been wasting your life on BS and lies. The truth is that you’ve got nothing, you still haven’t figured out anything about me. So if you want to embrace your delusion, knock yourself out, stop harassing atheists because they don’t owe you anything, there are no gods in their lives, there are gods in yours, that’s why you are becoming so hot and bothered once someone mentions that they are not real. Seems like your faith is very weak and fragile if you feel the need to become so defensive of your beliefs.
Well, when I went to reply to that, the page said, “Page Not Found. We searched everywhere but couldn’t find the page you were looking for.” As it turns out, when I searched for the original post, it said, “Quora deleted this question” meaning that the whole discussion was gone.
So, I will reply here just for the sake of my audience’s interest
Asking “what’s the main idea of this ideology then?” is odd since you already provided the answer, it’s “not believing in gods.”
FYI: “pray tell” is just an old English old fashioned manner in which to say “please tell me.”
That’s why it wasn’t, “pray” but rather, “pray tell.”
Now, you made my point for me, I noted, “‘not believing in gods is’ 100% a, ‘worldview’ and, ‘ideology’” and you proved it by admitting, “Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking about anything and everything.”
Indeed, since, “not believing in gods” is the core of your worldview, its tentacles reach out and corrupt all which it touches so not matter what you’re thinking about, literally, “anything and everything” then, “Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking” since, and now we’ve come full circle, “not believing in gods” is the core of your worldview.
Anything and everything so when she thinks about the cosmogony, mathematic, chinchillas, deep ocean vents, etc., etc., etc., etc., she must adhere to her dogmatheism since she’s not allowed to bring God into anything and everything whatsoever since Atheism is thought restricting.
She just proved that, “‘not believing in gods is’ 100% a, ‘worldview’ and, ‘ideology.’”
If threat of eternal punishment is the only thing that keeps you from raping and killing, then you are not a moral individual – you have no idea why you shouldn’t rape and kill but you don’t do it because you are threatened with punishment in case you do. That’s not morality, that is called being compliant, obedient, fearing perceived authority.
Real moral principles come from compassion, basic rules of human coexistence, empathy, common sense, safety and social experiences – not from threats and fears.
So if you are being coerced into obedience, you are completely immoral, if you don’t understand why you should not rape and kill without the threat of hell, then you have no idea what morality is. Religion creates obedient sheep, not moral individuals.
Ken Ammi
Who is it that “keeps…from raping and killing” due to “threat of eternal punishment”?
What, on your worldview, is wrong with “raping and killing” which I have to ask since you seemed to imply there’s something wrong with it but didn’t bother saying how or why, on your worldview?
As for, “then you are not a moral individual” are you implying that what’s “moral” is absolute, universal, etc. and if so, how’s that the case, on your worldview?
Also, if there are people for whom, “threat of eternal punishment is the only thing that keeps you from raping and killing” then you should fall to your knees and thank God for that.
The history of humanity is literally saturated with examples of “being compliant, obedient, fearing perceived authority” and we should all be thankful of that.
What if someone rejects “Real moral principles…compassion, basic rules of human coexistence, empathy, common sense, safety and social experiences” what do we do to deal with such people?
Anna Legrand
Ok so since you have no idea why raping and killing are wrong, I will give you one example. Say, you do everything you want to do including raping and killing women and children just like you want to do on a regular basis. You are living among billions of other people who are not better not worse than you are. That would automatically untie their hands and give them equal right to do whatever they want to do and that will include raping and killing you because someone might have that idea occur to them at some point, but hey, you wouldn’t want to be raped and killed, would you? Other people would not want to be raped and killed also. That is why humans have a silent agreement not to rape and kill each other – otherwise Homo sapiens wouldn’t have survived as species because they would have killed each other at their primal stage. So this “don’t kill” rule is just a logical conclusion – it’s best that no one kills each other because it’s the most beneficial behaviour for everyone, hurting each other is also bad because it won’t get you far if people don’t trust each other. So that’s just peaceful coexistence logic. This is the most primitive explanation that is usually enough for a primitive mind to stop raping and killing random people.
But there are other layers to that. Like no one has a right to take someone else’s life because it doesn’t belong to them in the first place, because a human life is priceless – that’s an explanation for more advanced humans who are civilised enough to understand the concept of the value of a human life and the concept of basic human rights. These are the concepts of the civilised world and developed (maybe some of the developing) countries, unfortunately, there are still places on Earth where people have no idea about things like that and they are treated like garbage, used once and recycled. For example, according to Islam, if someone gets killed – that’s Inshallah, no big deal, nobody cares. These people are savages, this attitude to a human life should be criminalised.
Civilised cultures and countries have criminal laws for those who don’t have a brain capacity to understand that killing and hurting other people is objectively bad, that it will only bring even worse consequences for everyone, that violence only breeds more violence. For them humanity invented legal systems and punitive measures to keep them in fear of prosecution and jail time, some countries still have death penalty for those who refuse to understand why it is bad to rape and kill. Unfortunately, there are still individuals who just don’t understand that.
In many underdeveloped countries with very low levels of the general population education, people are more religious than in the developed world (statistically, the worse the economical situation in the country, the more religious its population is), so governments are able to have some control over their criminal behaviour by enforcing the fear of a god over them. It can be rather effective on some, it is absolutely not effective on others. Here, it’s not a god people should be thankful to, but those authorities who scare people with it, religion is just a political tool of controlling and manipulating masses, nothing more, it was created as one, and it is used as one, there is nothing more to it. If someone finds religion attractive or useful for anything else – that’s a by-product, not its original purpose.
So If someone misbehaves and doesn’t have a brain to understand morals, society puts them in jail. The laws and law enforcement is not always effective, but that’s a systematic problem, morality can’t fight for itself – institutions have to do it, and they consist of humans who naturally make mistakes and are prone to corruption. So what we’ve got here is an imperfect humanity where there is a good understanding of what’s good and what’s bad, but we have imperfect systems run by not always perfect people. And obviously there are always those who manage to get away.
Personally, I don’t steal or kill anyone simply because I don’t ever get the desire to do so or even anything closely related to that. I just don’t want to do anything like that, and that’s all. And I don’t understand why would anyone would want to take something that doesn’t belong to them, or kill someone, or hurt someone else. It is all so strange to me – why engage in such antisocial activities? There are legal ways to get what you want without hurting anyone, and again, I don’t even have such urges or ideas of damaging something or someone’s life in the first place. And I am not the only one, most people have no desire to hurt anyone, I am sure.
Note that my first sentence in my next reply was due to having thought that, “Quora deleted this question” implied that she did it, that it was deleted from Quora generically. So, I was mistaken, as she’ll eventually point out, as it was literally the Quora admin who deleted it—and I’d love to know why.
Ken Ammi
Just as a reminder, in the post you deleted to hid your failure by relying on censorship: you proved that your worldview is Atheism.
Now, where did you get the idea what I, “have no idea why raping and killing are wrong”? You misread my question which was, “What, on your worldview, is wrong with ‘raping and killing’ which I have to ask since you seemed to imply there’s something wrong with it but didn’t bother saying how or why, on your worldview?” it’s important to keep an eye out for qualifying term, in this case they were, “on your worldview?”
So, your reply is: selfishness. You actually claimed that the only reason that “raping and killing” (you surely meant “murder”) are wrong is that I emotively subjectively wouldn’t want it done to me: wow!
That’s not ethics, that’s selfish self-preservation.
BTW: I have collected together quotes from celeb-Atheists who assure us that rape played a beneficial role in human evolution—and the same can be said even for the most violent mass and serial murders: please argue with them about, “a silent agreement not to rape and kill each other” which clearly, is too silent since many, many, many, many people through history have apparently not heard of it or, they heard but don’t care.
BTW: it, “Homo sapiens wouldn’t have survived” that would be 100% irrelevant, on your worldview. In fact, “a human life is priceless” is just speciesism and your emotively subjective assertion. You might like your life as a personal preference du jour but on your worldview your life is the result of blind accidents that just vomited your out into existence and there no universal imperative to treasure nor defend or protect the accidental byproducts of blind accidents that just vomited human life into existence.
I realize that since your worldview fails to offer any reason to not rape and kill (murder) you have to just make up stuff: on your worldview, you’re just asserting what some groups of accidentally existing apes decided to vocalize.
Thus, accidentally existing, “humanity invented legal systems and punitive measures” that only apply if someone get caught. On your worldview, Hitler enjoyed what he did and…………..and nothing: he literally got away with it while his victim still suffer to this day.
Thus, “Personally, I don’t steal or kill anyone simply because I don’t ever get the desire to do so or even anything closely related to that” but MILLIONS of people do get that desire, follow up on it, and get away with all of it or some of it, on your worldview.
See, again, to you it’s all subjective, “I don’t…I just don’t…I don’t…It is all so strange to me…I don’t,” etc. but as for those who say, “Well, I do, so now what?” you better hope you’re fitter than they, on your worldview.
Before getting to how it ended, I had some interaction with others in that comments section—you’ll note that most didn’t reply to me.
Jared Weeks
If one is to believe the Bible then God is the most immoral entity ever.
It is documented that God is struck down or cast evil upon humanity so many times and in such decimation at times at the count is tens of millions.
That’s not my morality
Anna Legrand
Exactly, Yahweh is not an exemplary moral being, he’s driven by emotions and savagery.
Jared Weeks
Besides there is a right place for savagery and emotions! 😉
Ken Ammi
But it would seem that by referring to “my morality” you admitted that it’s subjective, in which case you disqualified yourself from condemning even “the most” supposedly allegedly “immoral entity ever.”
Kathryn Lea
All religions use shame to control the masses. That’s why most people in the world have shame based mental health disorders. Most disorders need toxic shaming to exist. Religion causes mental health disorders and inturn extreme violence.
Ken Ammi
If you do something shameful, should you not feel ashamed?
Marilyn Bauer
So very true! I had an experience a year or so ago with a branch of Christianity that was founded by Martin Luther in the 1500s. They pretty much welcomed me, or so I thought, into their church but when I complained about a born and raised Lutheran man’s rudeness to me in Bible study they turned on me with a vengeance! Oh! Such awful people! You’re so very right: Christianity does Not equate to morality! Thanks, Mbauer
Ken Ammi
So how ever many people the statistically insignificant number “they” were in the myopic experience (which was a terrible one) and that results in that “Christianity does Not equate to morality!” wow, you’re a hyper prejudice person and wildly maniacle about spewing hatred on thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people whom you’ve never even met: shame on you!
George Johnson
Hello Anna, Your content is impressive, I’d appreciate a follow to stay updated
Ken Ammi
If you take a moment to ponder it, you’ll note that her anti-Christian rants are incoherently illogical: she always begins with merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions to which she merely jumps and if you dare to challenge her, she becomes emotive and relies on censorship by deleting entire posts and the discussions that were had therein to run away to her safe-space and hide her failures.
John King
Thank you that means a lot. I really appreciate the way you engage with ideas so thoughtfully; it makes the conversation feel easy and genuine. It’s refreshing to share reflections where respect and curiosity are the tone. Always happy to meet you in that calm, meaningful space. 😊
Ken Ammi
If you take a moment to ponder it, you’ll note that her anti-Christian rants are incoherently illogical: she always begins with merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions to which she merely jumps and if you dare to challenge her, she becomes emotive and relies on censorship by deleting entire posts and the discussions that were had therein to run away to her safe-space and hide her failures.
Greg Field
Oh, logic and reason? The Kryptonite of religious hypocrisy? Well said! But once again, a fabricated question by the quora AI bots. The more controversially a question is worded, the more hits/clicks, answers, and comments, and the ad revenue stream increases. Notice the wording “How does a thinking atheist view morality”. The implication is that the atheist can’t be intelligent or moral without religion. So it turns out that Quora itself is its own worst troll. Here is what you find when you look for the author and it’s the quora bot, called a “prompt generator”:
(BTW I responded to your other comment earlier – I’m Bipolar II and an artist/songwriter/performer/etc living in Thailand)
Ken Ammi
Good point, “The implication…that the atheist can’t be intelligent or moral without religion” is fallacious since God created us with His ethos within us regardless of “religion” (a tricky term, BTW).
As for, “How does a thinking atheist view morality” well, they’re at least going to be forced by their worldview to consider it the result of a very, very, very, very long series of happy accidents to which no one is required to adhere to well, that’s the end of morality being anything but tentative emotively subjective personal preferences du jour and that debunks Anna’s spewing of hatred.
Kathryn Lea
Yes you need to feel shame when you feel something you did is wrong. You then need to action that shame into better things so that shame can take no further gain. To repent means to acknowledge what you did is wrong and to not do it again. But religions are moving away from teaching repentance and if they aren’t they are telling you what is wrong and right to their own beliefs. Mostly instead of repentance they say that God or whoever they call their Higher Power will instantly just forgive them. That’s not how it works though. And if you shame others to conform to a shameful society that’s when we end up with all sorts of shame based mental health disorders. Most religions are shame based societies. For starters they don’t believe in equality for all! Sadly when we are raised in a religion…we don’t question this.
Thankyou for your question. Hope the day is finding you well.
Ken Ammi
But, “you need to feel shame when you feel something you did is wrong” on my worldview since there’s a premise for it but such isn’t the case on your worldview.
On your worldview shame is just an accidentally existing apes emotively subjective interpretation of the accidental byproducts of an accidental chemical soup in it’s accidentally existing brain—and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to an accidentally existing apes emotively subjective interpretation of the accidental byproducts of an accidental chemical soup in it’s accidentally existing brain, on your worldview.
Thus, on your worldview, “To repent means” the emotively subjective personal choice, “to acknowledge what you did is wrong and to not do it again” but there’s no universal imperative to do that.
I’m unsure to what you’re referring by “religions” (recall I noted “‘religion’ (a tricky term, BTW”) nor to what worldwide study you’re referring but on your worldview, there’s nothing at all wrong with, “moving away from teaching repentance.”
I’m unfamiliar with anyone (besides hyper universalists, perhaps) who teach, “God…will instantly just forgive them” even though on your worldview there’s also nothing wrong with that.
There’s also nothing wrong with “don’t believe in equality for all!” nor with, “we don’t question this.”
See, I didn’t say or ask anything about your feelings. What you did is what in philosophy is called a psychological report, you told me how you emotively subjectively feel about things but what I noted is that on your worldview you’re dealing with, “the result of a very, very, very, very long series of happy accidents to which no one is required to adhere to well” which is why, “that’s the end of morality being anything but tentative emotively subjective personal preferences du jour and that debunks Anna’s spewing of hatred.”
So now, the last I head about that discussion was Anna pointing out, “Oh my, I didn’t delete my post to hide anything, Quora deleted it, no worries, I’ve got nothing to hide sweetheart.”
In case you didn’t catch how she, “proved that your worldview is Atheism” is that I asked, “in what area of your thinking about anything and everything whatsoever do you make provision for, actually believe in, God?”
The point of such an odd question to ask to an Atheist is because it inevitably elicits a reply such as what she offered, “Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking about anything and everything.”
See the point?
Atheism isn’t, as so many Atheists demandingly assert, just one view about one issue. She just proved that it’s more like the core of their worldview and it infects all that it touches to the point that, “Gods or belief in gods don’t exist in any of my thinking about” what? About, “anything” and about, “everything.”
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.
The following discussion took place when someone posted the question Could Noah’s daughters-in-law have carried Nephilim DNA? on the Quora site and a certain L. Budow replied—the self-description is, “Scripture Research & Answers The Oldest Known Scriptures”
If they were pregnant by an angel of GOD and not the sons of Noah, maybe.
Nephilim = female human and male angel DNA together
There were no female Nephilim and no female angels.
At the end of the day it would not change anything either way.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Well, a Nephil on the ark changes plenty since it implies that God missed that loophole so the flood was much of a waste so He failed: fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.
L. Budow
The word Nephil is not written in Torah
The word “Nephil” (נְּפִיל) never appears anywhere in Scripture in connection with the Ark of the Covenant (Ark of the Pact/Ark of the Testimony).
GOD misses nothing
GOD fails no one.
Theology is a made up concept of man.
Ken Ammi
The word Nephil is proper grammar in my sentence since I referred to a singular, “a.”
Friend, contextually, I wasn’t referring to the Ark of the Covenant but Noah’s ark.
Indeed:
“GOD misses nothing
GOD fails no one”
Yet, post-flood Nephilology implies that God missed that loophole so the flood was much of a waste so He failed.
As for, “Theology is a made up concept of man” what of it? You were theologizing.
L. Budow
Since we know GOD misses nothing,
then GOD missed nothing and has no loopholes He failed at.
GOD does not fail as He is perfect without fail.
GOD cares nothing for man’s theology which he makes up.
It is, what it is.
The half angel half human, Nephilim, remained after the flood as they are able to regenerate unless their head is separated from their body.
This is why King David ran up upon Goliath and removed his head as he was described as a Nephilim.
Some Nephilim may have suffered this fate during the flood,
but no one has documented this.
Anything else is speculation and questioning GOD.
This has never worked out well for anyone.
Ken Ammi
It’s odd, I’d think that your reply would have been, “Since we know GOD misses nothing” then of course any and all post-flood Nephilology is false and people who teach it should be rebuked.
Rather, you’re making excuses for them, you’re inventing tall-tales just to keep that un-biblical, theology proper, fantasy story going.
You merely asserted, “The half angel half human, Nephilim, remained after the flood” so the rest of what you say is a non-issue since your premise is faulty and there’s literally zero reliable indication in favor of it.
As for, “they are able to regenerate unless their head is separated from their body” that’s a pure fantasy for which there’s literally zero indication.
You asserted, “Goliath…was described as a Nephilim” but there’s literally zero indication of that. In fact, he’s referred to as a Repha, not a Nephil, every single time he’s mentioned: how did you miss that?
Why are you trying to support the view that God failed, missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste—especially based on made up stories?
Just how did you get Nephilim past the flood, past God?
L. Budow
When you know more than GOD,
please inform Him.
Hope that works out for you.
Ken Ammi
Sadly, you refused correction and when you found yourself literally incapable of defending your views by doing anything besides merely asserting you tapped out.
Please note that post-flood-Nephilologists always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus.
If she carried Nephilim blood then she was a Nephilim by definition.
A survival of Nephilim past the flood, in any way, shape or form, contradicts the Bible five times (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).
It implies that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Yet, literally all pop-Nephilology is premised on that: it’s un-biblical tall-tales sold to Christians.
Besides, there’s literally below zero reliable indication as to why any such fantasy story needs to be invented in the first place.
L. Budow replied
When one questions GOD’s integrity, they question everything about GOD.
This has never worked out well for anyone.
Ken Ammi
GREAT POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Such is why, as I’ve noted MANY times: fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper such as post-flood Nephilology implying that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc.
L. Budow
Theology is a manmade concept, not of GOD.
GOD has failed no one, only man has failed GOD.
Any other points are ego and the absence of GOD.
Ken Ammi
The moment that God started telling us about Himself, He was doing theology by definition.
Indeed, “GOD has failed no one, only man has failed GOD” but, again, fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper so everyone should reject it.
L. Budow
Only GOD corrects me with His Torah, not you or any man.
Ken Ammi – Budow set the discussion to, “Adding comments disabled” so Budow took a hit-and-run parting shot and relied on censorship: I didn’t know that’s how sharpening iron with iron works but then again, when we sharpen iron with iron, someone tends to get cut.
What I do in such instances (and a lot of people on the Quora site use that tactic) is to go to the original question, type @, type the person’s user name, and type a reply—they tend to ignore it but at least it’s on record.
My reply was
Sadly, you went full-blown worldly by taking a hit-and-run parting shot and relying on censorship: your reply was literally incoherent since the Torah is literally saturated of examples of man being corrected with His Torah by man.
If that’s your excuse to run away from your false teaching then please repent.
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.
My most recently published book is titled Did the Nephilim Look Like Clowns?: A Review of Paul Stobbs’ Theory which is available from Amazon and many other book sellers.
What commenced as a hardcore hallucinogenic drug flashback has become one of the latest hip fad trends amongst fans of pop-Nephilology (un-biblical tall-tales sold to Christians).
Paul Stobbs claims to have uncovered that the Nephilim looked like clowns.
Is his conclusion logical, bio-logical, and theo-logical?
Do the many resources to which he appeals paint a cogent picture of them?
Are the linguistics and categories upon which he builds his case viable?
All such questions, and more, are answered in this review of his book, “The Nephilim Looked Like Clowns: Volume I: The History.”
“…I just kind of mashed stuff together…”
—Paul Stobbs
For previous posts regarding Stobbs and his assertions, see here.
The Reformed Arsenal site is actually named after Tony Arsenal and is described as, “a theological blog dedicated to providing Reformed content for the edification of the Church” and Tony as, “a seminary-trained layperson with Master of Arts degrees in Church History and Theology…member of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church.”
Tony authored an article titled When Giants Walked the Earth: The Sons of God and the Daughters of Man (Gen. 6:1–8) the titled of which alerts me to keep an eye out for whether he answers these key questions: what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s his usage? Do those two usages agree?
Within the first paragraph he wrote of, “the dreaded ‘Nephilim’—giants and mighty men of renown” so we will have to attempt to discern what that means.
An utterly on point statement he made is, “we must resist the urge to read the Bible as mythology. We must read it as theology” and since fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper, we will have to seen what happens in this case.
Right off the bat he jumps millennia away from the Bible, right past Ancient Jewish apocryphal books so as to land on and thus begin in 1859 AD with A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens—for whatever reason.
And right on schedule, he asserts that the Gen 6 affair, as I term it, “details the catastrophic moral decline of humanity resulting from the intermarriage of the godly line of Seth and the worldly line of Cain, demonstrating that spiritual compromise inevitably leads to total depravity and necessitates the severe mercy of divine judgment.”
As you just got a taste of, that late-comer of a view is based on myth and prejudice: we will have to see if he provides any reason whatsoever to, at this stage at least, merely assert any such things.
He quotes the affair thusly:
6:1 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 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.
He admits, “‘sons of God’…the book of Job uses this phrase to refer to angels” yet, “the immediate context…just spent two chapters tracing two distinct lineages: the line of Cain (the ‘daughters of man,’ defined by worldly beauty, polygamy, and violence) and the line of Seth (the ‘sons of God,’ defined by calling on the name of the Lord).”
He artificially inserted sons of God and daughters of men since the previous two chapters don’t specify any such thing of those two lineages—nothing anywhere does.
Note how ungracefully prejudice it is to condemn an entire lineage as “defined by,” mind you, “worldly beauty, polygamy, and violence.” I’m unaware of any text that says anything about Cainites and worldly beauty.
We only have one example of one Cainite who engaged in polygamy, Lamech.
As for violence, we have two examples: Cain, who murdered Able, and Lamech who appears to have killed one or two men in self-defense, “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.”
Thus, based on 2 or perhaps 3 maybe sins, Tony condemns an entire lineage: that’s ungracefully worldly, that’s prejudice.
As for Sethites, “defined by calling on the name of the Lord” well, he coopted that and applied it only exclusively to Sethies based on a text which actually generically states, “To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the Lord.” Also, note that he is actually teaching that that entire lineage who was, “defined by,” mind you, “calling on the name of the Lord” didn’t call on the name of the Lord since what Tony is teaching is that Sethites were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood: so, that’s rather odd.
Tony asserts, “Here, the principle of context is your greatest hermeneutical tool. Moses, the author, is not introducing a new cast of supernatural characters out of nowhere.” Yet, there’s no hermeneutical principal that thou shalt not introduceth a new casteth of characters out of nowhereth. It’s not even common sensical since, by definition, any new character that is newly introduced into a text out of nowhere was merely introduced into the text out of nowhere.
Thus, we can make the same impotent complaint any time any text does that: Adam/male and Eve/female are mentioned in Gen 1 and Gen 2 yet the mention of the serpent is introducing a new supernatural character out of nowhere (“the great dragon…that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” Rev chaps 12 and 20). The Bible is peppered with instances such as this.
Tony Arsenal then asserts:
The Nephilim: Tyrants, Not Demigods
This union produced the “Nephilim.” The word comes from the Hebrew verb naphal, meaning “to fall” or “to fall upon.” These were not half-angelic monsters; they were “fallen ones,” or perhaps more accurately, “those who fall upon others”—tyrants, bullies, and warriors. They were “mighty men… men of renown.”
Taken as is, that was merely a false dichotomy: Nephilim could just be said to have been both, “Demigods…half-angelic…tyrants, bullies, and warriors…mighty men… men of renown.”
Since Tony is basing his views on a novel from 1859 AD, he assures us, “the values of the Cainite city: power, weaponry, and the ‘Song of the Sword’…famous warriors like Lamech. They sought ‘renown’ (literally ‘a name’) for themselves” which is pure fantasy.
He then has a section on, “The Depth of Human Depravity” based on, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually…” but his views are based on a novel so that taints his subjective views about who the key players were.
I wonder why it’s only strictly exclusively male Sethies and only strictly exclusively female Cainites.
Why weren’t there any attractive female Sethies nor any attractive male Cainites.
The Angel view actually elucidates why there was such a gender binary: Angels are always described as looking like human males so, by definition, they needed to marry females—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
His conclusion concludes with a mini-sermon about, “a sober warning to the church in every age,” etc.
After concluding, he provided, “Key Terms & Concepts” such as the mythical prejudice, “that identifies the ‘sons of God’ as the godly lineage of Seth” who were terrible sinners, “and the ‘daughters of man’ as the ungodly lineage of Cain” since we have 2-3 possible sins of record for them.
He poisons the well by referring to, “the sensational idea that these were fallen angels cohabiting with human women” and claims for himself, “that they were, in fact, the godly line of Seth intermarrying with the worldly line of Cain” based on myth and prejudice.
Yet, he also claims for himself that, “This is not merely a matter of personal preference or avoiding the supernatural. It is a matter of sound hermeneutics. It is about letting Scripture interpret Scripture rather than letting mythology dictate our theology” so he gives it another go.
He makes a vague passing reference to, “the New Testament’s teaching on the nature of angels, and rightfully places the blame for the flood on human, not angelic, rebellion.”
Well, that’s myopic since there were some three causes for the flood: fallen Angels’ actions, Nephilim’s actions, human actions.
We can know that blame was placed on humans since that’s Gen 6’s focus, after laying out the premise.
We can know that blame was placed on Nephilim since they didn’t make it past the flood.
We can know that blame was placed on Angels 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. So, if they’re not referring to the Gen 6 affair, we’ve no idea to what sin they’re referring.
Fascinatingly, Tony notes, “The Argument from Immediate Context” which pertains to, “The primary rule of biblical interpretation is context. A text cannot mean what it never meant. Before we run to the book of Job or the New Testament, we must ask: What has the author of Genesis been doing for the last two chapters?” but then, pray tell, again, why run off to 1859 AD as a starting point?
Again, what, “the author of Genesis” was, “doing for the last two chapters” was the same thing he did in Gen 1-2 just before mentioning the serpent.
This time, he accuses, “the line of Cain,” mind you (a whole line), as, “a civilization defined by worldly power, technological advancement, polygamy, and violence.”
And, of course, “the line of Seth,” including the terrible sinners, as, “a lineage,” mind you, “defined by the image of God and calling upon the name of the Lord. They are the ‘sons of God’—humanity centered on the Creator” whose since premised the flood.
He then hyperbolically asserts, “When you turn the page to Genesis 6, the text does not suddenly introduce a new cast of Sci-Fi characters” and claims, “To import angels into this narrative destroys the literary flow of the book” so will he say that to import the serpent—Satan, the fallen Cherub—into that narrative destroys the literary flow of the book?
He notes:
Proponents of the Angelic View often point to the book of Job, where the phrase “sons of God” clearly refers to angels (Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7). They argue that because it means angels there, it must mean angels here. This is a word-study fallacy. It ignores how the term is used elsewhere in the Pentateuch and the Prophets.
I’m unaware that any holder of the Angel view is that generic about it. It’s more like that appealing to texts in Job (as well as texts such as Psalm 82), considering the gender binary issue, taking Jude and Peter into consideration, consulting the views of Jews and Christians starting in BC days makes for a combo of biblical interpretation and application.
He then makes an, “Argument from the Nature of Angels”:
Perhaps the strongest argument against the Angelic View comes from the lips of our Lord Jesus Christ. In Matthew 22:30, Jesus addresses the Sadducees regarding the resurrection, stating, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”
If that’s, “the strongest” then it’s an instant KO!
Tony seems to imply that his misreading of Jesus words are that it’s an all-encompassing statement about all Angels, in all places, at all times and, in fact, it’s ontological, it’s about, “the Nature of Angels.”
Yet, note how Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying term, “angels in heaven”—with some 40 English versions adding a second qualifier, “the [1] Angels of God [2] in heaven.”
So, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and, “in heaven” (not on Earth) which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
Tony Arsenal asserts, “argument against the Angelic View comes from the lips of our Lord Jesus Christ” but that’s because he misread, misunderstood, misinterpreted and misapplied.
Furthermore, he asserts, “Angels are spiritual beings; they do not possess reproductive organs, nor do they engage in marriage or sexual relations.”
“Angels are spiritual beings; they do not possess reproductive organs” that’s a non-sequitur since humans can be spiritual but we do possess such organs.
Angels are described as looking just like human males so why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?
I have a feeling that Tony just confused spiritual and spirit. Yet, there’s no indication that Angels are spirits (and one poorly translated modern English word in Heb 1 doesn’t change that) since Tony asserted, “To argue that Genesis 6 teaches otherwise requires us to assume that rebellious angels somehow gained the biological ability to procreate” yet, that isn’t the case. Rather, Angels are described as looking just like human males and performing physical actions and without any indication that such isn’t their ontology.
He can only conclude of Angels, “nor do they engage in marriage or sexual relations” after rejecting the original, traditional, and majority view on the Gen 6 affair, not incorporating Jude and Peter, etc.
He further argues:
Finally, we must look at the judgment that follows. In Genesis 6:3, immediately after this intermarriage begins, God says, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh.” Then, in verse 7, God declares, “I will blot out man whom I have created.”
If the primary culprits were fallen angels, why is the judgment directed exclusively at humanity? If this was a case of demonic invasion where humans were the victims or passive participants, the punishment of a global flood wiping out mankind seems disproportionate and misdirected.
However, if the sin was human rebellion—the godly line willfully compromising with the wicked line—then the judgment fits the crime perfectly. God judges man because the sin was man’s.
That’s myopic: humans, Angels, and Nephilim are all referred to as man/men.
Yet, the Bible is primarily an anthropological text, not a theological one, it’s focus is humanity’s origins, fall, history, and redemption. Thus, any and every text which references anything that’s not human, inevitably and quickly focuses back on humanity: how does any given non-human reference affect humanity.
So, of course after providing the premise for the flood, which includes human corruption, it details the effect upon humanity—leaving it to Jude and Peter to succinctly tell us about the punishment of Angels.
His conclusion emotively includes, “The Angelic View may be sensational and dramatic,” he adds, “monsters from the sky,” “but it fails the test of Scripture” but accords to a late-comer of a view and a novel from the 1800 AD, “It breaks the narrative flow,” just like any and every text that introduces a new character, “contradicts Jesus’ teaching on angelic nature,” which is a misguided assertion, “and confuses the justice of God” which it does not, it just gives a more encompassing view of it so as to not be myopic.
His, “Key Terms & Concepts” this time are much like last time: ungracefully worldly mythical prejudice, “godly descendants of Seth…ungodly descendants of Cain.”
And, he included, “angels who materialized or possessed bodies” for which there’s no indication nor indication that they would need to since they’re already ontologically physical.
Thus, overall, with as many warnings/admonitions to, “read the Bible…as theology” assisted by hermeneutics, we ended up with unanswered questions, misrepresentations and mythical prejudice.
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.
Their self-description includes that it’s an, “academic and education institution…sponsors and participates in archaeological excavations to promote Israel’s biblical archaeology…sponsored by Herbert W. Armstrong College in Edmond, Oklahoma.” Armstong founded the Worldwide Church of God aka Armstrongism which has had a long and sorted history regarding it’s fidelity to God’s Word.
The title, “Did Angels Marry Women and Breed Giants?” and Eames noting that the question is, “asked quite a lot. Did angels marry women and conceive giants?…Did angels marry women and engender a race of 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 questioners’ and Eames’ usage? Do those two usages agree?
This pertains to what I term the Gen 6 affair which he quotes thusly:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. … The Nephilim [or, giants] were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.
His brackets imply that by giants he merely means Nephilim—stand by to see if we get more clues as to his usage(s?).
He notes:
This was posed in the latest issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Jaap Doedens presented the following options:
Crucial to the understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 is the question: Who are these “sons of God”? The history of interpretation shows two main approaches: They are either human or nonhuman. This has resulted in four different explanations: the “sons of God” as fallen angels, mighty men, descendants of Seth or divine beings.
But there is a fifth option. Let’s examine here, first and foremost, whether or not the “sons of God” are human or angelic beings—and then present the evidence for this fifth option as to who these “sons of God” are.
Christopher Eames notes, “Angels or Humans? First question: Were the ‘sons of God’ human or spirit beings?” but such is a false dichotomy: why only those two options? A better, biblically contextual, question would be, “human or Angels.”
He points out, “there is no reference to the word angels anywhere in this chapter…‘sons of God” can refer to two things: angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7) or men (e.g. Psalm 82:6; Malachi 2:10).” I’ll specify that 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.
He asserted, “Angels are spirit beings (Psalm 104:4)” but I opted to swap, “human or spirit beings” to, “human or Angels” since that they’re spirits is not biblical Angelology—yes, even if one includes a citation.
See, he’s being myopic: he’s only reading a version that has, “spirits” in that single verse and asserting that such is the, only, case.
Yet, there are, at least, 46 English versions that have them being, “winds” rather than, “spirits” in that verse and that’s not simply due to a flip of the translator’s coin but due to the context. The context calls for a correlation to natural phenomena since that’s what the whole Psalm is doing and such is also why when that verse is quoted and played off of in Heb 1 it should also read, “winds” for consistency.
He adds that since Angels are spirits but, “women are human beings. They are two different kinds; God established a law that each kind produces only after its own kind (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21).”
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.”
He further notes:
The evidence against the identification as “angels” is also demonstrated by the context of Genesis 6. God says of these unions, “My spirit shall not always strive with man …”(verse 3; King James Version). And the offspring of these “sons” and “daughters” were clearly human: “and they bore children to them [the ‘sons of God’]; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth …. And it repented the Lord that he had made man …. And the Lord said, ‘I will blot out man …’” (verses 4-7). The offspring of these unions were specifically men—not angels, or angel-men.
This is confused and also myopic. He fails to note that humans, Angels, Nephilim, and God are all referred to as man/men.
And, of course the focus is on humans since the Bible is more of an anthropological anthology than an theological (or Angelological) one: it’s about our creation, our fall, and our redemption.
He adds:
The New Testament is even more direct. Jesus said that angels (and spirit beings in general) “neither marry, nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30; also Mark 12:25). The “sons of God” in Genesis clearly did marry, taking “wives.”
Indeed, Jesus continues to describe the Genesis 6 period as one of “marrying, and giving in marriage” (Matthew 24:48). But again, the angels neither marry, nor are given in marriage.
He actually misrepresented Jesus by cutting His words in half—and just when He made the qualifying statement.
Jesus’ statement was very detailed, very nuanced, He employed qualifying terms, “the angels of God in heaven.”
So, not all Angels at all times in all places but the loyal ones, “of God” and “in heaven” which is why those who did marry are considered sinners since they, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it, in order to do so.
In fact, 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.
He then gets into the, “fifth option: the ‘sons of God’ as the line of Cain” which is certainly a unique take on it since the late-comer Sethite view has it that they’re the line of Seth—yet, that view is based on myth and prejudice.
Blaming a son’s behavior on his parents, Christopher Eames asserts, “Given the way Cain turned out…it is clear he was raised a narcissistic, spoiled brat” rather than stating, “Given the way Cain turned out…it is clear he was…a narcissistic, spoiled brat.”
He then quotes, “to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh; then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.”
He adds, “Genesis 4 describes the ‘exploits’ of Cain’s lineage of ‘mighty men.’ These include the first city ever built (verse 17), famous murderers (verses 23-24), a pioneer musician (verse 21), a pioneer blacksmith and weapons-maker (verse 22), and the first noted polygamist (verse 19).”
There’s no reference to, “mighty men” in Gen 4.
The plural, “famous murderers (verses 23-24)” is actually one single person (you can add Cain to the list which would make it 2) since those two verse read, “Lamech said to his wives: ‘Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”
This may have been a case of self-defence so it’d be killing rather than murder since it was, “for wounding me…for striking me” unless it was an unjustified, over the top, retribution.
And, “the first noted polygamist (verse 19)” is that same Lamech.
He then mentioned, “the lineage of Seth. There are no great physical deeds given in this genealogy…prophet, Enoch, ‘taken’ in God’s mercy” and somehow, due to, “Methuselah, whose name appears to be a prophecy of the great Flood” and a different, “Lamech, who peculiarly lived 777 years” means that they were, “A line, then, of more religious-prophetic emphasis, as opposed to Cain’s line of so-called ‘mighties.’” So, this is part of the mythological prejudice—I’m starting to think that, “the ‘sons of God’ as the line of Cain” was a typo and he really mean to assert, “the ‘sons of God’ as the line of” Seth.
So, apparently, 2 or 3 on the record sins for Cain’s entire genealogy is enough to condemn that entire genealogy and Enoch being taken and old guys is enough to praise the entire Sethie genealogy.
Yet, he hyperbolizes and jumps from, “the very different genealogies” to, “the Genesis 6 overview of the antediluvian world” about, “‘mighty’ offspring as the ‘demigods’ of old.”
By appealing to Pagan mythology, he concludes, “Greek and Roman legends help illustrate that the ‘sons of God’ are the human line of Cain.”
One may wonder why there weren’t any attractive male Cainites nor any attractive female Sethites.
The Angel view elucidates why it was only exclusively strictly males on one side of the gender binary equation and only exclusively strictly females on the other: again, Angels look like human males.
He adds:
And as for the “giants”—nephilim—it has been speculated that these were the progeny of the “sons of God” and “daughters of men.” But it is apparent from this verse that giants were not exclusively the progeny of these unions. See our article “Cavemen Are People Too,” discussing the identity of this early race of humans.
That is just watering down terminology and playing word-games. Recall that his usage of giants was as an apparent aka for Nephilim but now it’s also cavemen.
Yet, 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.
For details, see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
Yet, he also seems to mean 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) since he ended with, “Different human groups got together with other human groups: some were giants.”
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.
