Author: Ken Ammi

One of the key issues in Nephilology is the question of whether they made it past the flood.

The only indication that they did so is one single sentence from an, “evil report” spoken by 10 unreliable men whom God rebuked (Num 13:31-33 and on into chap 14). That evil report is ill-logical, ill-bio-logical, and ill-theo-logical. Note that the English Standard Version that I will henceforth be quoting has, “bad” for dibâ/דִּבַּת. Yet, that matters not since the report is not to be considered unreliable due to how it is titled but rather, due to its contents.

Thus, I have embarked upon a research project showing that the report consists of five mere assertions that are unsupported by even one single over verse in the entire Bible. Some assert support but do so only by taking texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts: not even texts, actually, but individual verses/sentences or fragments of such.

I have been publishing articles which target each assertion which I enumerate thusly:

1) “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants…”

2) “and all the people that we saw in it are of great height.”

3) “And there we saw the Nephilim…”

4) “(the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim)…”

5) “and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

In short, Num 13 presents 12 men being sent into the land of Cannan to reconnoiter it.

Upon their return to the congregation of Israelites, a report is presented which is accepted as is.

Yet, it would appear that the reported prospect of confronting six, “strong” people groups, living in what is descried as, “cities are fortified and very large” alarm the Israelites.

The six are listed as Anakim, Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites—note the lack of mention of Nephilim.

Yet, “Caleb quieted the people before Moses and said, ‘Let us go up at once and occupy it, for we are well able to overcome it.’”

But, “Then 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 are.’” Note that the objection agrees with the original, as is, report: the issue is strength.

Only at this point are we told, “So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, ‘The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

The 10 unfaithful, disloyal, unreliable men (10 since Joshua sided with Caleb) made up a, “Don’t go in the woods!” style fear-mongering, scare-tactic tall-tale. Yet, the evil report is literally the foundational premise upon which all post-flood and, “giant” Nephilology is based—especially pop-Nephilology which is un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.

Let us review the six people groups about which the 10 men commented as that they were, “all…of great height”—whatever, “great” means since, of course, that is a vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term.

Anakim

Deut 2 reads:

We…went in the direction of the wilderness of Moab…(The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim…cross the border of Moab at Ar…the territory of the people of Ammon…(It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there—but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim—a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the Lord destroyed them before the Ammonites [Hebrew has, “them”].

A side note to our contextual focus is that Rephaim were a.k.a. Emim (אֵמִים) and Zamzummim (זַמְזֻמִּים, transliterated as Zuzim, זוּזִים in some versions). Also, Anakim (כָּעֲנָקִים) were what we may term a clan of the Rephaim tribe (“are also counted as”).

So, we have data which informs us that Rephaim, by any other name, which includes Anakim were, “tall.”

That is a flaccid designator, it is a usus loquendi: just as, “great,” it is a vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term which, in this case, is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Amalekites

Biblically speaking, the only indication that the Amalekites (לַעֲמָלֵק) were even, “tall” is by extension of the evil report. Thus, we have no reliable indication that they were even, “tall” and/or of, “great height.”

Hittites

Biblically speaking, the only indication that the Hittites (הַחִתִּי) were even, “tall” is by extension of the evil report. Thus, we have no reliable indication that they were even, “tall” and/or of, “great height.”

Jebusites

Biblically speaking, the only indication that the Jebusites (הַיְבוּסִי) were even, “tall” is by extension of the evil report. Thus, we have no reliable indication that they were even, “tall” and/or of, “great height.”

Amorites

Now, this is a unique case since, as pop-Nephilologists will do, when you exclusively quote Amos 2:9, you read that it states, “the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars,” you proceed to suss out the height of the cedars in that region, you conduct a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation, and you merely assert that Amorites were circa 40ft. tall.

As I noted to Eric Rolon when he did this, one way to know that no one who does that actually takes themselves seriously is that they ignore the context and do not bother with the rest of the statement which is, “and who was as strong as the oaks” yet, no one has conducted a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation correlating the strength of Amorites to oaks (see my book The Great Nephilim Debates: Featuring Gary Wayne, T.J. Steadman, Rob Rowe, and Eric Rolson).

But wait, there is more since the statement also goes on to state, “I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath” but I have yet to encounter anyone who is prepared to assert that Amorites had literal fruits and roots growing right out of their bodies.

So, when God, via Amos, was just telling us that Amorites were big and strong, I am unsure why we should assume that God, via Amos, was implying conducting a one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation?

The only answer I have found is that pop-Nephilologists (and many scholarly ones) suffer from that which I term Gigorexia Nervosa: the obsessive desire to see giants, and just making them up where they are nowhere to be seen.

Canaanites

Biblically speaking, the only indication that the Canaanites (הַכְּנַעֲנִי) were even, “tall” is by extension of the evil report. Thus, we have no reliable indication that they were even, “tall” and/or of, “great height.”

Thus, biblically speaking, not even something as mundane as subjectively unusual height can be supported of five of the people groups but only for the Anakim.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

ACTheologian, the “Armchair Theologian,” posted an article titled What’s the deal with the Nephilim? which begins by noting, “This post was published 8/1/16, recently (9/3/17) I’ve come across some information that indicates my interpretation may be wrong, or at the very least incomplete.  I’m going to leave it posted as one possible way of interpreting these passages.  In the future maybe I’ll blog on some of the things I am learning”: it appears that the “maybe” never manifested so I will review what is still posted in order to attempt to suss out what the problems may be.

Key first relevant text is quoted thusly:

“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.” Gen 6:4 ESV 

ACTheologian then quotes three comments on it:

“The conditions before the Flood are further characterized. Wild, lawless men, tyrants there were on the earth in those days, offspring of marriages that did not meet with God’s approval, children of wild passion, men that defied order and authority and became mighty men, whose names were mentioned with bated breath as those of unparalleled champions and heroes. The whole earth was full of outrage and violence. Cp. Matt. 24, 38. 39. This is a picture of our own days, of the period immediately preceding the final Judgment, full of the most impressive warning for all that will heed the signs of the times.” – Kretzmann Commentaries

That’s more sermonizing that elucidating so is essentially irrelevant.

The next one is:

“The Nephilim (“fallen ones, giants”) were the offspring of sexual relationships between the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1–4. There is much debate as to the identity of the “sons of God.” It is our opinion that the “sons of God” were fallen angels (demons) who mated with human females or possessed human males who then mated with human females. These unions resulted in offspring, the Nephilim, who were “heroes of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4).” –GotQuestions

Writing in terms of, “The Nephilim (‘fallen ones, giants’)” is linguistically odd since it mashes together the etymology of the root word naphal with a mere rendering (not even translation) as giants.

Likewise, “fallen angels (demons)” is also odd as it’s a styled category error and anachronistic. The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

Yet, demons didn’t exist at that time as per my Bible based elucidation I wrote in my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

I’ve no issue with the general statement, “fallen angels (demons)” if it generically refers to that demons are fallen Angels—now (even if in a technical sense). Yet, within the Gen 6 affair’s context it can lead to problems since, for example, demons are spirits and couldn’t have copulated but Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology, see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.

As for, “fallen angels (demons) who…possessed human males” well, that’s another problem with mashing those categories together in this context since demons possess but Angels don’t.

The last one reads:

“There were giants in the earth – נפלים nephilim, from נפל naphal, “he fell.” Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by γιγαντες, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just distinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim, the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above; children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints; the former were termed γιγαντες, earth-born, and the latter, ἁγιοι, i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.

The same became mighty men – men of renown – גברים gibborim, which we render mighty men, signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from גבר gabar, “he prevailed, was victorious.” and אנשי השם anshey hashshem, “men of the name,” ανθρωποι ονομαστοι, Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.

It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim, gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured.” – Clarke Commentary

He’s clearly reading, “fallen from the true religion” into the text since it states nothing of it—even if it may be said to be implied by deep implication.

It’s very elucidating to be as technically specific as to note that, γιγαντες/gigantes signifies earth-born whence comes the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants which, by definition given to it by the usage in English Bibles, doesn’t even imply anything about height of any sort whatsoever.

Ergo, the reference to, “without having any reference to the meaning of the word” so that the issue is the meaning(s)/definition(s) of a word versus their subjective usage since, “we,” modern English speakers, “generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature” which, “we” shouldn’t (mis) read into the Bible: doing so would be committing a word-concept fallacy.

Yet, Clarke then misidentifies well, everyone:

It’s not “sons of men” but daughters of men.

It’s not, “the sons of God; those were the nephilim” since Nephilim were fathered by sons of God.

And Nephilim were, “fallen earth-born men” only in as far as biblically, humans, Angels, and Nephilim (half-Angel and half-human) are all referred to as man/men.

I’m unsure to whom he’s referring by, “our translators” but indeed, it was a terrible idea to only use one (vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage word) to render, not translate, more than one word—especially such very morphologically different words.

Now, note that the list seems to identify seven people groups but Nephilim were hybrids. Gibborim is the merely descriptive term for might/mighty. Anakim/“enachim” and Emim were subgroups/clans of the Rephaim tribe and Zamzummim was just an a.k.a. for Rephaim.

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

As for, “not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured” indeed, we’ve actual no reliable physical description of Nephilim (which alone debunks 100% of pop-Nephilology) and all we’re told about Rephaim, by any other name, is that they were, “tall”—which is as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as the word giants—which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Sorry that the commercials keep coming but when I’ve researched so many aspects of this issue, I can’t help it. So, if you’re interested in more traditional “commentaries” such as that of Kretzmman and Clarke’s see my book Nephilim and Giants in Bible Commentaries: From the 1500s to the 2000s. Also, I wrote the book on the relevant linguistics, see Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.

The Armchair Theologian followed up with, “I don’t think anyone can definitively declare what the Nephilim were” but we can keep it simply by noting that they were the strictly pre-flood offspring of the sons of God and daughters of men who were mighty and renown. Yet, that simple observation gets complicated when were ask who were the sons of God, in particular?

For some reason, “I would first categorically rule out the Nephilim as being children of fallen angels” even though 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”).

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. And there’s the bit about the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators.

It’s noted, “God created the bearing of Children as something synonymous with marriage” and the sons of God, “took them wives”—so, at least they got that right.

Now, sadly, ACTheologian plays a typical anti-Angel view card which is to misrepresent Jesus but then quote Him and not noticing that the assertion and quote don’t match. The assertion was generic in the it states, “we find in Matthew that Angels do not get married” but that’s an all-encompassing claim. Yet, Jesus was more specific, more nuanced, and applied qualifying terms, “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (emphasis by ACT). See, He was very clear in that He was exclusively speaking not of all Angels but about, “angels in heaven” (with at least 19 English versions having, “angels of God in Heaven”). Ergo, He was referring to the loyal ones, which is why those who did to are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate,” as Jude puts it, in order to do so.

Now, ACT also wrote, “Angels do not get married, therefore it is fair to say that they likely would not be capable of having children either” but that would be an illogical and ill-biological non-sequitur. We, sadly, have literally millions of examples of having children without the benefit of marriage.

It’s then noted that, “To assert otherwise, you either have to believe that God created beings who could have children but were barred from doing so,  or you just have to start making stuff up” well, ACT made up stuff, knowingly or not (I’ve no problem assuming not as in that it was just an oversight) but as for, “God created beings who could have children but were barred from doing so” well, God created beings who could have children but they barred themselves from doing so such as eunuchs or those who otherwise chose to not have children. Yet, it’s only asserted that there’d be something wrong with creating beings who could have children but barring them from doing so but since it’s a mere implication that’s not elucidated them we know not what the problem is in ACT’s eyes. God also created beings, Angels, who could murder but they were barred from doing so: so, what of it?

After that is when ACT quotes Jesus after reiterating the vaguely generic assertion, “Jesus teaches angels cannot marry or be given in marriage” and actually wrote, “I am including the whole narrative for context” but the context (vss. 23-33) doesn’t assist ACT’s missing key qualifying terms.

So then, when ACT concludes, “I believe I can fairly say that the Nephilim were most likely only of human DNA” that’s based on some erroneous commentary and misrepresenting Jesus.

We then come to, “The Nephilim are mentioned…once again they are brought up in Numbers:

“32 So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. 33 And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.” Num 13:32-33 ESV

ACT’s comment is, “The plainest understanding of the Nephilim based on the above passage is that it is a genetic thing.  Some people are Nephilim and some people are not.  I would compare it to being genetically Jewish, British, or Jamaican.  Nephilim is simply an ancient ethnicity.  Apparently it seems to come with some stereotypical traits, one of which is being really tall.”

Well, of course, “Nephilim…is a genetic thing” and of course, “Some people are [actually “were”] Nephilim and some people are not” and of course, “compare it to being genetically…” this or that and of course, “is simply an ancient ethnicity” yet, when it comes to, “stereotypical traits, one of which is being really tall” we see where ACT has gone wrong. This was stated as generically being, “in Numbers” along with a citation but ACT neglected to inform the readers that, “in Numbers” it tells us that vss. 32-33 are two sentences from an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Ergo, we can instantly dismiss what they merely asserted, post-flood Nephilim are only possible if God failed and the flood was much of a waste, and since the only physical description we have of Nephilim is from one of those sentences then we’ve no reliable physical description of them (that too debunks 100% of pop-Nephilology).

Yet, borrowing from pop-Nephilology, ACT plays the name-game but at least admits, “Though the word isn’t uses specifically in this next passage we can see a very similar theme being conveyed” and then quotes and comments:

“11 (For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.)” Deu 3:11 ESV

“Rephaim is a Hebrew word for giants. Deut. 3:11 declares that his “bedstead” (translated in some texts as “sarcophagus”) of iron is “nine cubits in length and four cubits in width”, which is 13.5 ft by 6 ft according to the standard cubit of a man.” –Wikipedia

Keep in mind that just because his bed was 13.5 feet tall that doesn’t mean he was as well.  It does mean that he was likely tall enough to need such a bed though.  We have tall people like this today who would likely have enormous beds just like King Og.

See, “the word isn’t uses specifically in this next passage” because it’s not about a Nephil, it’s about a Repha so it has nothing whatsoever to do with Nephilim. It doesn’t even have anything to do with their fantasy height since ACT realizes we’ve no physical description of Og so appeals to his bed: which is an error based on various assumptions. Bottom line is that the, “bed” was a ritual object and not something upon which Og slept, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

ACT then posted a photo of Sultan Kosen who is a modern guy that is 8.3ft. tall and that has utterly nothing to do with anything. Yet, ACT notes, “I am pointing out that extreme height is a thing in the human genome” which is irrelevant to biblical Nephilology—no matter if you disagree with the original, traditional, and majority view or not.

ACT then goes back to Gen 6 and notes that before that, “we have two chapters detailing the lineage after Adam” and then invents that, “one lineage is from Cain, very worldly and earthy, and then the other is from Seth.  The line of Seth is marked as those who ‘called upon the name of the Lord’” even though there’s nothing anywhere that states those things—the best one can do is that at a certain time men began to do that, “‘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.’ Gen 4:26 ESV.”

ACT wrote:

…would mark the Nephilim as those who came from the line of Cain in chapter 4.  This is because when we get to 6 we see the following:

“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.” Gen 6:1-4 ESV 

I am arguing that contextually, the sons of God and man are not the same groups of people.  The referent for “Man” would be the worldly line of Cain described in chapter 4, and the Sons of God are those who called upon the name of the Lord.  They are the more noble line of Seth.  You could call them the Christians of this era.

Sadly, ACT also seems to be unaware that, again, humans, Angels, and Nephilim (half-Angel and half-human) are all referred to as man/men. Thus, ACT’s argument is a non-issue, it’s a myopic word-concept fallacy.

Indeed, “the sons of God and” daughters of, “man are not the same groups of people” that one of the key features of the text. But note that, “worldly line of Cain” is just mythical prejudice. Note that this view has “Sons of God are those who called upon the name of the Lord…the more noble line of Seth…the Christians of this era” who weren’t sons of God who called upon the name of the Lord, weren’t more noble, nor Christian since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.

ACT has it that, “It looks like this breaks down though when those of Seth start marrying into the line of Cain” but that’s after hyperbolically caricaturing both sides.

Also, why only strictly male Sethies and only strictly female Cainites? Well, the Angel view answers that since, again, Angels are described as males.

Now, even though ACT rejects the original, traditional, and majority view, a pitfall of typical un-biblical post-flood Nephilology is still appealed to:

One of the things that came about was likely a genetic trait of great height, and likely strength too.  Not long after that the flood comes and wipes everything out.  Clearly there has to be more going on in the text than is actually stated.  But that is what I am putting together.  It does seem clear though that these traits of height and strength still carried to one degree or another through the line of Noah.  Perhaps one of the girls his sons married was related to the Nephilim, which is why we see it later in the land of Canaan.

Is it possible that Goliath was the last Nephilim wiped out by David?  I like the Christological typology that would imply but it’s not something I would be dogmatic about.

Again, no such thing as, “a genetic trait of great height.” Ergo, no, “traits of height…carried…through the line of Noah.” Nor any reason to even imagine, “one of the girls his sons married was related to the Nephilim.” And, Goliath has nothing to do with this since he was a Repah, not a Nephil, and besides: The Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (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.

And, “Christological typology” is like saying: well, I can’t figure it out so I’ll view is as symbolic—in one or another sense.

ACT’s conclusion includes:

I prefer the general understanding that I conveyed at the end is because it is the only rendering I have seen that relies on the most scripture and the least amount of assumptions.  It does still have a fair amount of assumptions though, more than I am comfortable with anyways.  So I hold to it in a state of reverent speculation.

Do I think that other theories are totally wrong?  What about the nifty legends of men born from angels with superpowers?  What about all the stories from the book of Enoch?  Well these stories are fun but they are apocryphal.

I won’t condemn them as heresy but I don’t think they are correct either.  Such tales are based more on assumption than scripture, and with what I have presented I think I am able to rely on the scripture more and assumptions less so.

Rewrite, “I prefer the” currently, “general understanding” which is based on many assumptions, assertions, myths, prejudice, etc.

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.

Now, let’s keep in mind that that was ACT’s view before, “information that indicates my interpretation may be wrong, or at the very least incomplete” so who knows which portions have been augmented. Like I said, I reviewed what’s there and, who knows, perhaps it will assist in sharpening iron with iron.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

On YouTube, the Matt Powell OFFICIAL channel posted the vid “A Christian Response to Atheism” to which a certain @philwhitehouse4290 replied

If this presentation is genuinely directed at atheists, it is mostly an appeal to consequences rather than what’s true.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide sources for your claims regarding drugs, alcohol etc. Is it worth me looking in the video description for the studies you have done on this and the papers you are citing? I expect not.

I, @kenammi355, replied

Well, you got ahead of yourself since you began with a jump to a conclusion of an assertion based on hidden assumptions.

The very first step is for you to justify demanding “provide sources…studies…papers.”

As for, “appeal to consequences rather than what’s true” you seem to only imply there’s something wrong with that but on didn’t say how or why, on your worldview and it may be that on your worldview “what’s true” is accidental.

@philwhitehouse4290

Nice try, Matt Powell is making the claim that alcoholism, drug abuse and taking your own life is more common amongst atheists than other demographics. I suspect he has produced these ‘facts’ from thin air. In his pinned comment he claims that the video contains some ‘hard facts’, I think it’s fair enough to ask where these hard facts come from. It’s standard practice to include sources in the video description when making such assertions.

I’m familiar with the presuppositionalist arguments which are mainly trotted out to shut down any dissenting voices, I won’t be playing along. Here’s an atheist cliche for you “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Do you think Mr Powell has any verifiable sources for his claims? I’ll be happy to withdraw my accusation if any such evidence is forthcoming.

Then @wet-read chimed in with

@philwhitehouse4290 Even if these allegations were true, it would still merely be correlation, not causation. Because atheism by itself has nothing to do with any of those things.

@kenammi355

@wet-read  What Atheism has to do with them is that there’s literally nothing wrong with them on Atheism–nor wrong with anything else, of course, such as (supposedly) making (allegedly) erroneous claims without backing.

@wet-read

@kenammi355 Atheism isn’t about any of that stuff. It is just a lack of belief in God or the belief God does not exist. The likelihood, or intelligibility, or viability of anything else is outside of its domain.

@WhiteScorpio2 opined

@kenammi355  “there’s literally nothing wrong with them on Atheism”

Yes, because atheism isn’t a stance on ethics, but exclusively a stance on the existence of God.

@tye64 noted

@kenammi355  “there’s literally nothing wrong with them on Atheism” This is like saying people who don’t worship fairies can’t have an opinion on cooking techniques.  Just because some people get all their cooking techniques from old fairy tales, doesn’t mean that people who don’t read those tales can’t develop cooking techniques of their own.

@kenammi355

@wet-read  Why do Atheists typically not contemplate the implications of their worldview?

Granting that, “Atheism isn’t about any of that stuff. It is just a lack of belief in God…” then, by definition, “there’s literally nothing wrong with them on Atheism–nor wrong with anything else…”

But having had discussions with thousands of Atheists, I can tell you that they, just like you, demand that they are THE authority to define Atheism. Yet, you were myopic since, for example, you ignored the main and original modern denomination of Atheism which is the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence dogmatheism view.

Still, on your worldview there’s literally nothing wrong with misrepresenting Atheism.

@kenammi355

@WhiteScorpio2  See my reply to Wet since you fell into the same abyss as Wet did.

@kenammi355

@tye64  Oh my goodness, it’s not like that at all. It’s more like, “”there’s literally nothing wrong with them on Atheism” ergo, all you have is emotively subjective “opinion.” But just like I noted to the others, there’s literally nothing wrong, on Atheism, with misrepresenting Atheism.

@tye64

At this point, I’m just trying to figure out if you are just straight up dishonest or have significant difficulty with reading comprehension.  Leaning towards dishonest as most theists have demonstrated a propensity to “lie for the truth”.  Hoping that’s not the case, but not betting on it.

@kenammi355

I see that you’re incapable of dealing with the key issues so you’re opting to move the goalpost to your attempts at mind reading and personal attacks: Atheism 101 tactic I’ve seen 1,001 times.

On your worldview, there’s literally nothing wrong with an accidentally existing ape being (supposedly) straight up dishonest or (allegedly) have significant difficulty with reading comprehension.

So, you see, we’re just going in circles since the prior issue was, “there’s literally nothing wrong, on Atheism, with misrepresenting Atheism.”

This time around, there’s literally nothing with that (supposedly) “most,” please cite the research study, “theists have demonstrated a propensity to ‘lie for the truth.’”

I realize that Atheists have a love-hate relationship with Atheism: you love it for the consoling delusions that it offers you but utterly despise its implications which is why you run away from issues that are inconvenient to it.

But then again, why despise its implication since its implications are only applicable if you’re consistent and since on Atheism there’s no universal imperative to be consistent, Atheist are only ever consistently inconsistent and there’s nothing wrong with that, on Atheism.

@WhiteScorpio2

You’re just repeating the same thing, as if by poiinting out that athesim has nothing to do with ethics is some profound point.

You are aware that there are many more theories of ethics besides the divine command theory, right?

“all you have is emotively subjective “opinion.”

As oposed to your emotively subjective opinion?

@kenammi355

Wait a moment, have you read this thread? It’s the Atheists who are demanding that “athesim has nothing to do with ethics” or morals. But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape repeating itself, being fallacious, only having emotively subjective opinion, etc.?

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Undergoing review is the fifth chapter titled “Giants Nephilim and Anakim” of a book that L.C. Geerts posted on the earth-history.com site (which does not seem to include a bio of him) that is titled or is to be titled, Earths Ancient History, a theory about ancient times and dawn of Mankind (sic.).

He notes something that I discern will be key “the reason why the Gods destroyed most living Creatures on Earth by a Great Flood” which was “a disaster carefully planned by the Gods” and yet, he is writing in the plural of “Gods.”

For more perspective on him, note that he claims “there were at least 3 sunken continents (islands) in ancient times…Atlantis…Lemuria…The Egyptian Keftiu” and is “sure that the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha books should be part of the ‘new’ Bible” since, as is implied, the Apocrypha (whereby L.C. Geerts also mean pseudepigrapha: texts written centuries after the Tanakh closed and millennia after the Torah was written) must contain the actual truth, or augmentations of the bits of truth in the Bible yet, one thing is certain: he would be in charge of determining the canon of the “‘new’ Bible.”

For example, he writes “…the meaning of Genesis 6:3 is wrong translated or it’s a part of the text which does not belong to this part of the story because in The Book of Jasher we can read…” so he is putting the modern day hoaxed fraud cart before the original Torah’s horse—see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.

L.C. Geerts specifies:

“After their descent to Earth, the Watchers indulged in earthly delights with their chosen ‘wives’, Through these unions were born Giant offspring named as Nephilim a Hebrew word meaning ‘those who have fallen’, which rendered in Greek translations as Gigantes, or ‘Giants.’”

I deeply appreciate that he qualifies that “Nephilim” is “rendered” rather than translated “in Greek” as “Gigantes.”

Now, he claims the result of the Genesis 6 affair was “Giant offspring” called “Nephilim” rendered as “Gigantes, or ‘Giants’” which still does not tell us what “Giants” means and if he thinks it has something to do with unusual height then, why is the “Hebrew word” “Nephilim” “meaning ‘those who have fallen’” but the “Greek translations” being “Gigantes, or ‘Giants’”? Well, gigantes merely means “earth-born” with no implication of anything to do with height—usual or unusual.

L.C. Geerts refers to a “mistake made by ‘The Church Fathers’ and the Jews, was that they forgot to erase the verses that contains stories of Gods, Angels and Watchers” but why does he think this? Because then “what is left over of Monotheism?” which cannot be a biblical theological question.

Firstly “Angels” and “Watchers” mean the same thing “Watchers” is just a Second Temple Era (516 BC-70 AD) manner whereby to say “Angels,” a mere aka.

Secondly, Angels and Watchers are ontologically different from the one true Almighty God so that they are in an utterly different category—that of being created beings, beings created by one true Almighty God.
Thirdly “Gods” are likewise in a different category as the term “God”—el, eloah, elohim, elohenu, elyon—is generic and well, we will get into this more as we progress.

L.C. Geerts then appeals to the unholy trinity of pop-researchers’ preferred texts, with a fourth thrown in, and these are Jubilees, Jasher, 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch, and the KJV.

He writes:

“Genetic there was nearly no difference between Satana and his companions and the Daughters of Men this was also the same by ‘The Watchers’ (Children of Seth) and the Daughters of Men, otherwise they were unable to make children together. It is obvious that their Genetic structure was nearly the same because they were all ‘Angels’ and relatives at the beginning” (sic.).

Note the terminology: “Satana” and “his companions” who are “The Watchers” who are “Children of Seth” and “Daughters of Men” were genetically the same because “they were all ‘Angels.’”

Yes, he claims that Satana, Watchers, Sethites, daughters of men were all Angels—for some odd reason and whatever that means. I am granting that no, I will not be reviewing his entire book but regardless of how he arrived that this chaos of category errors, the point is that it is a concoction of category errors.

Now, I will agree that Genesis 6’s sons of God are Angels and that Angels do share genetics with humans, we were made “a little lower” than they (Psalm 8:5), which is evidenced by that they can reproduce with us so that we are of the same basic “kind.”

However, if by Satana he is actually referring to Satan, the Devil, then he is excluded because he is not an Angel but is a Cherub (Ezekiel 14:28).

L.C. Geerts argues:

“These unions between the daughters of Men, Satan and his hosts and the Watchers were:
1. ‘Satana and his companions’ and ‘The Children of Cain’ The offspring of this mingling were called ‘Demons and Monsters’
2. ‘The Watchers’ [sic] and the children of Cain’ called Nephilim The offspring of this mingling was called ‘Anakim’.
Both were called Giants…”

Here he has three groups (apparently within only one category: all being Angels) 1) “Satan” (he either missed an “a” here or vacillates between “Satan” and “Satana”), 2) “his hosts” and 3) “the Watchers.”

He seems to be arguing that Nephilim came about either due to “Satana” and whoever “his companions” may be and “The Children of Cain” (biblically, the “daughters of men”—on a certain very late-dated view) and that Nephilim “were called ‘Demons and Monsters’” even though he tells us not whereabouts.

Or, they are the result of “The Watchers’ and the children of Cain” and that “children of Cain” are “called Nephilim” and that when Watchers mated with Nephilim then “The offspring of this mingling was called ‘Anakim’” which is incoherent (Anakim are post-flood humans).

That “Both”—both whom?—“Demons and Monsters” and “Anakim”? “were called Giants” is essentially irrelevant—and stinks of a word-concept fallacy.

He actually provides a “CREATURE table” which has:

“The GODS, ELOHIM (AN, ENLIL, ENKI and others)” as “GODS.”
“Heavenly and Arch Angels, Seraphim, Nephilim” as “ANGELS.”
“The Fallen Angels: Satana, Adam and Eve, Watchers” as “Naphilim” (sic.). FYI: L.C. Geerts is borrowing this term from Jubilees 7:21-22 which has it that “the fornication” of “the Watchers” resulted in that they “begat sons, the Naphidim…the Giants slew the Naphil, and the Naphil slew the Eljo, and the Eljo mankind, and one man another.”
“The Children of the Devil and Watchers, Cain MAN” as “GIANTS.”
“Adam, Eve (The Children of God), SETH – NOAH MAN, Watchers” as “Nephilim.”
“The Demy GOD’S” (sic.) as “Anakim.”
“DEMONS and MONSTERS, children of the evil Giants” as “DEMONS.”
And “HOMO SAPIENS (MEN) created shortly after the great flood” as “MEN.”

These terms are not only incoherent on its monstrous face but all the more so when he attempts to apply his mis-categorizations.

L.C. Geerts then argues:

“There is another enigma contained within the lines of Genesis 6, for its appears to embody two entirely different traditions. Look again at the words of Genesis 6:2:
Gn:6:2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
They speak of the Sons of God coming unto the Daughters of Men, while in contrast with Genesis 6:4:
Gn:6:4: There were Giants (in Hebrew bible Nephilim) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The meaning seemed clear enough: there were two quite separate traditions entangled here, one concerning the fallen race known to the early Israelites as the Nephilim (mentioned elsewhere in the Pentateuch as the progenitors of a race of Giants called Anakim), and the other concerning the bene ha-Elohim, the Sons of God, who are equated directly with the Angels of God in Jubilees tradition and the Watchers in Enoch tradition.

With other words [sic.]: Nephilim, in Hebrew Bible Giants, is another word for ‘Watchers’, their offspring was called Anakim. The Children of Seth (God) were called Bene Ha-Elohim, their offspring was also called Anakim. Both offspring were Giants or, named in the Bible ‘men which were of old, men of renown.’”

I am unsure how a basic chronology is read as “two entirely different traditions” since “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” and “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.”

At least they did it in the right order: marriage, sex, offspring.
This seems to simply be a case wherein he is misreading 6:4 which just tells us that Nephilim were in the Earth “in those days; and also after” the time “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” so that they first did so (those days) and kept doing so (after that).

So no, there is no way that “Nephilim…is another word for ‘Watchers.’”
No, there is no way that “Nephilim, in Hebrew Bible Giants” since “Giants” is an English word so actually “Nephilim, in Hebrew Bible Nephilim.”

That “The Children of Seth (God) were called Bene Ha-Elohim” is something that was not dreamed up until millennia after the Torah was written, it was after the time of Jesus, in fact: centuries after His time—see my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including notes on giants and the Nephilim.

Note the interesting statement “Both offspring were Giants or, named in the Bible ‘men which were of old, men of renown’” so that biblically, their offspring (not “Both”) were “men which were of old, men of renown” and not “Giants.”

Now, it is because he claims “Nephilim (mentioned elsewhere in the Pentateuch as the progenitors of a race of Giants called Anakim)” that he had asserted “Nephilim The offspring of this mingling was called ‘Anakim’” which is something to which we shall get.

L.C. Geerts claims:

“…the ancestors of the Jewish race that at some point in the distant past a Giant race had once ruled the earth, from the time of Jared until the time of David, the second King of Israel, with other words the offspring of the Anakim existed until historical times.”

He pinpoints “from the time of Jared” because such is the pseudepigraphical time-frame, and it might be correct, Genesis 6 is vague about the time-frame “when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them” which is any time after Adam and Eve’s children started having children.

Now, recall that I noted that “I discern with be key ‘the reason why the Gods destroyed most living Creatures on Earth by a Great Flood’ which was ‘a disaster carefully planned by the Gods’”?

So “The GODS, ELOHIM (AN, ENLIL, ENKI and others)” carefully planned destroying most living Creatures on Earth by a Great Flood but must have missed the “The Children of the Devil and Watchers, Cain MAN” and/or “The Demy GOD’S” aka “Anakim” and/or “DEMONS and MONSTERS, children of the evil Giants” since post-flood they persisted “until the time of David…until historical times.”

This is the same bottom-less pit into which Christian post-flood-pop-researchers fall: they want to claim the flood was meant to be rid Nephilim but that there were post-flood Nephilim so that the implication is God failed and the flood was much of a waste.

L.C. Geerts notes that in Jubilees 7:21-22 “we can read also about the Nephilim (Naphidim) even as in the Bible, even we found a new name for the Giants, namely the Eljo. Even the Giants (Naphidim, Naphil, Eljo).”
Now, these “sinned against the beasts and birds, You can imagine that the enormous number of stories in Myths and Legends about half Men-half Beast and half Men-half bird could be true, and it was true, they lived indeed a long ago and even until historical times”?

Well, this is not about what I can or cannot imagine—an argumentum ad imaginarium—but about even what a pseudepigraphical text actually states.

It states “they sinned against the beasts and birds, and all that moves and walks on the earth” and prepped by his assertions you might think that this was about creating chimeras.

Yet, the text reads:

“…they begat sons the Naphidim, and they were all unlike, and they devoured one another: and the Giants slew the Naphil, and the Naphil slew the Eljo, and the Eljo mankind, and one man another. And every one sold himself to work iniquity and to shed much blood, and the earth was filled with iniquity. And after this they sinned against the beasts and birds, and all that moves and walks on the earth: and much blood was shed on the earth, and every imagination and desire of men imagined vanity and evil continually. And the Lord destroyed everything from off the face of the earth; because of the wickedness of their deeds, and because of the blood which they had shed in the midst of the earth He destroyed everything.”

This tall-tale is about what was being “devoured” so that when they “sinned against” animals, it means they slaughtered them for food “shed much blood.” But why was slaughtering animals sinful? Because this was pre-flood, before God allowed animals to be slaughtered for food.

L.C. Geerts claims of Genesis 6 that “In Enoch we see the most extensive version of the same story” but how is that to be taken? All indications are that someone living millennia after the Torah was written decided to fill in gaps—and whoever wrote is ended up contradicting the Bible so much that I have a whole chapter of such examples in my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

He then writes of “THE GREAT GIANTS in Enoch” and notes that as per 1 Enoch 7:2, they were “three thousand ells.”

Pause: this text mirrors Jubilees and so he comments “Reading this story makes it more understandable what is written in Legends and Myths where is told that the most ‘strange’ beings once existed on Earth.” Yet, he missed the text’s very clear statements about how when the Nephilim “consumed all the acquisitions of men” they then “began to sin against” animals “devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood,” etc.
So now, he reckons 3,000 ells to amount to 900 meters which is 2,952.7 ft. or half a mile. Actually, an ell ranges from 27-45 in./68.58-114.3 cm, this range results in them being 81,000-135,000 ft./24,689-41,148 m. or 15.3-25.6 mi./24.6-41.2 km. tall.

In any case, take half a mile if you want: that is still impossibly tall—they would never be able to grow that tall and if they attempted to even take one step, they would shatter their own bones.

L.C. Geerts claims that “Anunnaki, Igigi and Sebitti,” from “Mesopotamia, in the Sumerian, Acadian and Babylonian stories” (sic.) are “three different Angels” groups, that “were one and the same and we will call them from now on ‘The Nephilim’” which is incoherent—clearly, he is simply watering down literary, historical, and cultural context so as to use the term “Angel” for just about anything/anyone.

He references Genesis 6 and claims “That’s all the Bible tells about ‘The Nephilim’” so it will be interesting to see what he does with Numbers 13:33 since that is the second, and only other, biblical reference to Nephilim—and whence he gets that Anakim has anything to do with any of this (which they do not).

L.C. Geerts references Jubilees and 1 Enoch and, contradictorily, tells us “We can here clearly read that ‘ALL’ Nephilim and Anakim, Demons and Monsters were destroyed from Earth BEFORE THE FLOOD but we will see later that NOT ALL of them were destroyed before the flood because also after the Flood we will meet them again in great amounts” (sic.) so, all but not all and, again, the flood was not successful.

He thinks that these pseudepigraphical texts, perhaps with a little Bible thrown in “Gods created a new ‘race’ HOMO SAPIENS, our real Ancestors” and that “we know” how exactly? “that Homo Sapiens was created shortly before or shortly after the Flood.”

He again emphasizes “the punishment of the ‘Nephilim’…this judgment” whereby “the Gods and the ‘Good Angels’ were extremely wrath to their leaders” but, again, apparently not wrathful enough.
In 1 Enoch, Azazel is the name of a Watcher/Angel but to L.C. Geerts this refers to “one of ‘Nephilim’” which “we can imagine that is because Azazel was the Leader of the ‘Nephilim’” even though he was not—not even, by the way, as per his own misguided definition of “Adam, Eve (The Children of God), SETH – NOAH MAN, Watchers” being “Nephilim.”

L.C. Geerts claims “in spite of the great sins the ‘Nephilim’ made, the Gods told the Angels that their offspring, the Anakim, still would live for 500 years” but I am unaware of wherein the Bible or apocrypha or pseudepigrapha or any text at all states any such thing.

He speculates “It seems that the Gods didn’t have absolute power over ‘The Nephilim’ otherwise they would have destroyed them directly” which is a merely argument from incredulity, and follows with “In the ‘age’ prediction lies concluded that the Flood should not come directly or that several ‘Nephilim’ and ‘Anakim’ should survive the Flood” (sic.)—see what I mean, he got it, any view of post-flood Nephilim (biblical or “The Demy GOD’S” aka “Anakim”) implies failure.

His view is that “a great amount of the Children of The Anakim’ still lived in the time of Moses, Joshua, Saul and David” but biblically, a great amount of the Children of The Anakim’ only lived in the time of Moses, Joshua, Saul and David since they did not exist pre-flood.

L.C. Geerts claims “The ‘Anakim’ and the daughters of men, The Giants, ‘produced’ all kinds of Demons and Monsters, from the knowledge of their ‘Fathers’ the ‘Nephilim’ and they created what ever they liked and so were born the most ‘Strange Creatures’ that ever existed on Earth” which is a pure form of neo-theo sci-fi based on chaotically concocted mis-definitions.

He quotes 1 Enoch 19:1 about “the angels who have connected themselves with women” about that “their SPIRITS ASSUMING MANY DIFFERENT FORMS” and that “the women also of the angels who went astray shall become SIRENS” (emphasis by Geerts). Since, by definition, disembodies spirits have no form, I am unsure how they assume forms or how women became sirens (in certain mythologies this means women-bird hybrids).

He repeats the error that such “hybrid Creatures…demonic hybrids” had to do with “sin against the animals” which I already debunked. He adds that “Many of these ‘children’, Creations were also of Giant stature” which is biblically unknown except that such is what ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies claimed within an evil report for which they were rebuked.

L.C. Geerts ponders “Can you imagine what strength these Giant ‘Nephilim’ had when their body was to 100 meters tall” 328.1 ft. But “imagine” is all we can do since there is no such reliable evidence about Nephilim—especially when you keep in mind that to him, Nephilim means “Adam, Eve (The Children of God), SETH – NOAH MAN, Watchers.”

But he is appealing to such tall-tales to weave a tall-tale of his own based on a basic level non sequitur which is the mere non sequitur of an assertion that large things must have been made to and for large people.
Thus, he argues, that for Nephilim “it’s nearly no problem to carry stones and build Giant structures”—see my video, Ancient Alien Megalithic Builders vs. Wally Wallington & Edward Leedskalnin.

He claims “The Giant ‘Nephilim’ were the builders of most Pyramids in Egypt” in which case, they must be pre-flood. But he also claims “The same conclusion can also be drawn for most great structures build all over the world” sine this is about broad-brush watered-down painting with a generic broom.

In a subsection titled “The GIANT ANAKIM” he writes “The ‘Anakim’ were quite tall and fierce” which is just about the only thing that is accurate—keeping in mind that the term “tall” is as vague, generic, subjective as “giants” especially when considering they were “tall” compared to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.

L.C. Geerts asserts that Anakim “were living…before the destruction of the flood, there was a remnant of them after the flood…The destruction caused by the great flood…was a result of the increasing evil done by the ‘Anakim’ and their children…even after the Flood they still existed until historical times.” Simply stated, Anakim are a subgroup of Rephaim named after a man named Anak whose dad was Arba who lived quite a long time post-flood (Joshua 15:13, 21:11, Judges 1:20).

L.C. Geerts then focuses on “THE GIANT Anakim in the Bible” as per another subsection. Within the context of the subgroup Anakim, L.C. Geerts directs us to “king Og (the Giant)” even though “King Og was a ‘small’ Giant because he needed a length of his bed of 9*46 cm = 4,14 meters, so his real length would be about 4 meters” 13.1 ft. but he does not tell us how the size of a “bed” amounts to the size of a person—and it is not as simple as it seems since, for example, he lived the lavish lifestyle of a sovereign. Yet, the issue is really that it was not a bed upon which he slept but was a ritual bed upon which alleged gods and alleged goddesses supposedly copulated—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

But when Geerts writes “king Og (the Giant)…King Og was a ‘small’ Giant” it biblically means king Og (the Repha )…King Og was a ‘small’ Repha—even though all we know is that some Rephaim were “tall.”
Yet, he insists that “Giant Anakim were the offspring of the Giant Nephilim from before the Flood” and by “from before the Flood” he means having also lived pre-flood, unlike Christian pop-researchers who (also mistakenly) assert that for them “from before the Flood” means born post-flood from Nephilim who somehow impossibly lived post-flood.

He quotes texts from Deuteronomy and Joshua but they are all just about how Anakim lived post-flood, of course, and not a single word about them living pre-flood, of course.

L.C. Geerts writes “In the Bible we can find a large amount of stories regarding the Anakim and their ‘degenerated’ offspring called the children of Anak, Emims and other names.”

He does not seem to realize that it is the Anakim who are the children of Anak. He does not seem to realize that, Emim and Anakim were a subgroup of Rephaim and also “Zamzummim” is an aka for “Rephaim,” “The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants [Rephaim], as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims…a land of giants [Rephaim]: giants [Rephaim] dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims” (Deuteronomy 2:10-11, 20-21).

Thus, the main people group is Rephaim aka Zamzummim which splits off into subgroups such as Emim and Anakim—“were accounted” as Rephaim.”

Yet, he goes on to write “The Emims were as tall as the Anakims and belonged also to the Giants [biblically, Rephaim], and they were Children of the Anakims and Moses referred that these children of the Anakims still lived on Earth in the days of Joshua and later still in the days of David. (Goliath).”

Yet that is because biblically, such is when they lived, of course: they did not come from pre-flood times. Goliath was Philistine who were a subgroup of Ankaim who were a subgroup of Rephaim and nothing to do with Nephilim.

When L.C. Geerts writes “Moses spoke also of Giants in the days of the journey out of Egypt, again proof that the Gods didn’t destroy all of them during the Flood because they still lived thousands of years after the flood” it is readily discernable that he is making a typical pop-researcher error: he is merely reading an English version that has “Giants” in Genesis 6:4, then continuing to read about “Giants” in post-flood texts, and concluding that one word/term/concept can only ever mean one thing ergo, the post-flood “Giants” are the same as pre-flood “Giants”—this is a reading comprehension issue, a hermeneutical one.

Yet, of course and again, in such versions pre-flood “Giants” are Nephilim and post-flood “Giants” are Rephaim and there is no relation between them—and if you are thinking “Hey, what about Numbers 13:33?” well, we come to this next.

I previously noted “He references Genesis 6 and claims, ‘That’s all the Bible tells about ‘The Nephilim’’ so it will be interesting to see what he does with Numbers 13:33 since that is the second, and only other, biblical reference to Nephilim—and whence he gets that Anakim has anything to do with any of this (which they do not).”

Now, he quotes “Nm:13:32: And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. Nm:13:33: And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.”

His comment is “Even the Children of Anak (Anakim) were still of a great stature, still so great that Joshua and his army were like grasshoppers before them, so even after a long period of degeneration the Children of the Anakim were still Giants in their eyes. A strange detail is that is written that these sons of Anak eats the inhabitants of that land, so they were also Cannibals.”

This is typical pop-researcher modus operandi in a few ways. Note that he does not interact with the narrative of the text but merely appeals to two verses. He quoted but ignores that he is appealing to, and trusting, an “evil report.” He reads “it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants” as that Anakim were cannibals when the narrative denotes that they were contradicting the previous, accurate, report (Num 13:32-33) about how the land flows with milk and honey: they were asserting that the land was bad.

Oddly, he focuses on Anakim but ignores that v. 33 also refers to Nephilim. Yet, since he quoted a version that has “there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants” it really does seem that he literally does not realize that here “giants” is rendering “Nephilim” especially since he claimed that Genesis 6 contains “all the Bible tells about ‘The Nephilim’”: he really does not know what he is reading.

Okay but what about the verifiable fact that the Bible says, or Moses said, or God inspired it, or however one may term it. The issue is that God inspired that it be written, Moses wrote it, and the Bible says it and yet, the key issues are always the same: who said what was recorded, why did they say it, how was it taken (accepted or rejected), etc.?

The elucidation of this text is that upon which I focused in post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

In short, that was merely recording a statement by ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies who presented an evil report for which God rebuked them. They made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing: 1) that the land was bad, 2) that all of the people of the land were of great stature, 3) that there were post-flood Nephilim, 4) that Anakim were related to them (at least in non-LXX versions), and 5) that Nephilim were unusually tall.

They also contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God and the rest of the whole entire Bible: all of whom affirm that presence of Anakim in the land but say not a word about Nephilim nor relation to Nephilim—never, ever.

That is merely naming a few of the problems with those two verses.

L.C. Geerts goes on to claim “in the time of Saul and David we can still find the Giants” and quotes 2 Samuel 21:18, 1 Chronicles 20:4-8, 21:1, 1 Samuel 17:4-7, and 1 Chronicles 20:4-8 which prove not his point but rather, prove that he does not realize that he has been reading about Rephaim, of the Anakim or not, and that Rephaim had no relation to Nephilim.

But he is not done yet as he offers “more proof that the Children of the Giant ‘Anakim’ still lived on Earth in the time of Saul and David.”

One such “proof” is “The children of ‘The Nephilim’ and the daughters of Man (the children of Cain) were the Giant ‘Anakim’ with enormous strength and length. (from 10 to 100 meters tall) and their lifetime was about 500 years”: this is merely made-up stuff—period.

“These Giants were the builders of the enormous structures all over the word, including the Pyramids of Egypt, Stonehenge in England and many more structures and ancient cities”: mere assertion based on arguments from incredulity and the non sequitur that large things were built by and for large people. FYI: there is a door where I work that is about 25 feet tall and I have never seen a “giant” walking around the building. This is also based on assuming that them primitives didn’t know how to do that and we are oh, so much smarted and we don’t know so……………GIANTS!!!

He note his theory about “after the flood…creation of a new ‘race’, namely ‘HOMO SAPIENS’” and Anakim “‘created’ all kinds of Demons and Monsters…Strange Creatures” and then writes “Can you imagine why I don’t belief in the theory that all living people on this earth are children of ADAM and EVE ?. People who still belief that story are unwilling to read the Bible and other books as historical books.”

I do not have to imagine, I know by reading his assertions that is because he is very confused, does not know what he is reading, redefines and waters down terms/concepts to force-fit them into his theory, etc.

He concludes that our world is in such a state before we “are unwilling to use our intelligence” so “Let us open our eyes and minds and let us search together for the real history of our Home planet and ancestors then to use a lot of time to fight each other with dogma’s within our religions” which, of course, means that if we accept his dogma, there will be world peace—somehow.

He proposes that we, or he “rewrite the Bible” to “including at least, the book of Jubilees and the books of Enoch.” Yet, he is “sorry to announce that this will not happen because of the reason I mentioned already ‘Monotheism’” but well, also because those late dated folkloric texts contradict the Bible.

He adds that “Our church fathers…deceive the religious people” which L.C. Geerts knows based on “all secret books and scrolls that are stored in the Vatican and other places” which is a form of the claim that lack of evidence is evidence: there are text that we cannot see so they must be there.

He ends his can’t we all just get along—while I besmirch you crusade with “the Bible exists in several versions, (Jewish, Bibles of Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, each differing in some of their contents” and yet, unified in their overall primary message: salvation by grace through faith in Jesus’ sacrifice.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

To the “Matt Powell OFFICIAL” YouTube channel, a video titled A Christian Response to Atheism was posted which led to a certain @chadgautier2864 opining:

Remember Hitler was one of yours. But I am the believer of being who you want to be. To be good to others in life. Be kind to animals.  To love folks like it is your last day on earth. I believe that no what you don’t or do believe in. It is perfect for you. We should respect that in every way. I do not believe in God. But my best most close friend(brother) is a true believer. But I still love him and he loves me. As long as we love and respect each other. We move past all the differences.  I am a former alcoholic (always an alcoholic) I just don’t drink its been 15 years. We need to learn to stop picking sides and picking love and respect.

At this point, YT was shadow banning me as @kenammi355 but I’m sure I wrote about how asserting that Hitler was a Christian is just perpetuating Nazi propaganda, etc.

@eliasjakemoran6434 chimed in with

Propaganda? Dude, Adolf said he was doing gods work and mentioned Christianity multiple times in his book. He was a Christian. Obviously not all Christians are like that, but his belief played a portion into the events of WW2.

You don’t need objective morals to be decent and good to others. They can’t exist anyway, all morality is subjective

If you need an all powerful and all knowing creator to be a good person because of the threat of hell, you are not a good person.

@kenammi355

So, in other words, Adolf said it, you believe it, so it must be true.

You’re just perpetuating Nazi propaganda.

Wow, no wonder the word “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary.

You must really think that he was an honest and trustworthy fellow so whatever he said must be true.

Well, I’m skeptical and Jesus said we would know His followers by their fruit, not their tentative self-identification whenever politically expedient.

You really need to read my book, “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist” (just search it on Amazon under, “Ken Ammi”).

But, of course, if he was a Christian and serial and mass murdered millions of people: there’s literally nothing wrong with that on Atheism plus, he had his fun and got away with it.

And you prove my point since you merely asserted, “all morality is subjective” so you discredited yourself from ever condemning anything.

As for, “If you need an all powerful and all knowing creator to be a good person because of the threat of hell, you are not a good person” 1) who on Earth are you to determine who is and is not good and why, 2) you just discredited yourself from making that statement since you literally said, “all morality is subjective” just before that so your non-sequitur is self-refuting, and if your fantasy mind reading about, “threat of hell” is really what’s making people “a good person” then you should thank God for that.

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

PZ Myers, professor of atheism at the University of Minnesota, took umbrage at statements made by Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, whom Myers refers to as, “profoundly stupid” and “a mindless ratbag” (PZ Myers, “I’m so sorry for you, Indiana,” Pharyngula, December 27, 2009)

Since Mitch Daniels had recommended the book “No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers” by Michael Novak, “which Daniels characterized as responding to ‘aggressive atheism’ with Christian charity” he was promoted to make a statement about atheism.

Sadly, but as per usual, PZ Myers appears to have reacted emotionally and thus not only missed Daniel’s point but peppered his response with an assortment of fallacies. Governor Daniels stated, in part:

People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we’re just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Clearly missing the point, Myers wrote:

…my ideal society would not be led by an autocrat who thought power was a sufficient justification for his actions…nor do I think that a culture built around obedience to tradition, as interpreted by a tribunal of priests, is my idea of a desirable society. And I’m an atheist. Why would a mindless ratbag politician like Daniels think that my dream world would be led by a dictator? I get so tired of being told by the ignorant that my goal is to put a Stalin in power, when they dream of a Palin.

Mitch Daniels did not claim that an atheist’s “dream world would be led by a dictator” nor that their goal “is to put a Stalin in power.” The point is that, whether they want it or not, there are logical conclusions of atheism and the history of the 20^th century are evidence of this as it was the most secular and bloodies century in human history due, almost exclusively, to atheist regimes. The fact that he likens Joseph Stalin, the atheist Communist murderer of some 20,000,000 people, to Sarah Palin is disappointingly indicative of the manner in which PZ Myers concocts his arguments.

One particularly fallacious assertion of Myers’ was that “Equality was an ideal of the Enlightenment…not Christianity.” Let us consider the overarching concept that God created both males and females in His image (Genesis 1:27). Next, consider the following statements:

…the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all (Colossians 3:11).

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28).

In Christ we are all equal as there are no—gender, national or racial—ontological distinctions.

Now, why juxtapose Myers as a priest versus Daniel as a politician?

Firstly, Myers is an adherent of the sect of atheism which positively affirms the non-existence of god(s) and does so by “faith”—without evidence or proof of any sort. In his response to Mitch Daniels he wrote that “There are no gods” and thus, any appeals to “god-given absolute morality” or “theocratic morality” are “false” and something that “we ought to reject” (note the moral imperative, “we ought to”)—and we must reject them as false based upon PZ Myers’ unfounded atheist assertion, upon Myers’ authority.

Moreover, note Myers’ characterization of Daniel’s morality, “how hollow his morality is at the core; he cannot imagine a good life without a priest telling him what is right and wrong.” Yet, in the very next paragraph morality is bequeathed via the Myersian priesthood as PZ tells us what is right and wrong:

In the absence of a, all that matters is how we treat one another in this one life we have. What flows naturally to me is not brutality, which requires an absence of awareness of the suffering of others, but recognition of the fact that my fellow human beings really are my equals: we’re all going to die, we only have these few brief decades of life, and who am I to deny someone else the same opportunities I’ve been given?

However nice this may sound, the fact is that in a God-free universe there is no moral imperative, no “god-given absolute morality.” In fact, Myers’ further asserts that “There is no eternal standard of right and wrong.”

Thus, the priest is excommunicated as a moral guide, Myers takes his place and yet, even whilst promulgating his moral imperatives he admits that there is no eternal standard of right and wrong. Thus, Myers’ morality is merely the fleeting bio-chemically induced assertions of a bio-organism spinning on a little rock in the universe’s backwaters.

They may be appealing moral assertions, they make perfect epistemic sense, he may find other bio-organisms who agree and attempt to put them into place yet, how will they administrate these moral? Either by envisaging an utopian world in which we all “just get along” or by force.

Thus, PZ Myers besmirches Mitch Daniel’s morality whilst promulgating his own, which he admits is not absolute. GK Chesterton’s words ring ever true (from a chapter of his 1908 AD book “Orthodoxy” entitled “The Suicide of Thought”), “…the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything…the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.”

Certainly, PZ Myers is emotive, exiting and knows how to push all of those little buttons that cause his reader’s adrenaline to spike but his words must be considered and dissected so as to consider his actual content and this is precisely where he is weakest.

A much more detailed dissection of his various fallacies in responding to Mitch Daniels at this link.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

It is with some heaviness of heart that I must note that all indications, as evidenced below, are that some extended sections of Steve Quayle’s book “Genesis 6 Giants” have been plagiarized.

Quayle and I are both supposed to be Christians and both supposed to be authors so this is doubly troublesome as both of those labels are supposed to imply something about ethical integrity.

My investigation of Quayle’s book began as research of the latest of my books on Nephilim and giants namely, the 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. wherein that which follows has been published.
I read over various page of Quayle’s website genesis6giants. Along the way I encountered a e-version of a book by another author and discerned similarities.

I contacted Quayle via his website merely to un-accusingly ask if the contents of his website were chapter samples from his book. Yet, I received no reply.
I sought to contact the publisher “End Time Thunder Publishers” but can only imagine that this is the title of Quayle’s own self-publishing endeavor since I could not find any company info and thus, no contact info.
I also reached out to Gary Stearman and Bob Ulrich’s ministry website “Prophecy Watchers” since they carry many of Quayle’s books, DVD’s, etc. and have a longtime relationship with Quayle but I received no reply.
I am granting that our tech being what it is, that I “contact” someone does not mean that they received my email or their own notification via their website, etc. and refused to reply.
All I can state is that I made my attempts.

I my book I only noted that vast portions of Steve Quayle’s website are copied and pasted from another author’s book (with no apparent attribution) and thus, made reference to “DeLoach/Quayle.” I will be updating my book with this new info. And the new info is that I have been able to verify the following.

The first edition of “Genesis 6 Giants” sells online, with Amazon as an example, for $315.01-$468.70 so I was not about to purchase one.
I asked across my 9 or so social networking sites if anyone had that book just so that I could ask them to look up certain things for me but no one had it.
However, someone was kind enough to donate the funds to purchase the 2nd edition which is “Revised, Updated, and Expanded” and sells for $45.00. Thus, I cannot speak of the 1st ed. although a dissatisfied Amazon customer noted that the 2nd edition is just that, the 1st ed. with a few bells and whistles.

Some of the come in the form of 6 whole chapters that are merely copied and pasted from An Excerpt from Edward J. Wood’s “Giants and Dwarfs” (available in e-format here).

Yet, this is not the issue since Wood’s book was published in 1868 and so it is in the public domain and is attributed by Quayle.

Steve Quayle published the 1st ed in 2005. Charles DeLoach published his book “Giants: A Reference Guide from History, the Bible, and Recorded Legend” in 1995 (by Scarecrow Press which was eventually taken over by University Press of America and/or Rowman). Quayle’s website and 2nd ed, published 2015, contains extended sections from DeLoach’s book without attribution and are therefore plagiarized.

Now, Quayle quote and otherwise references various authors and does refer to and footnote DeLoach.

Yet, there is no indication that various chapters of Quayle’s book are copied and pasted from DeLoach’s.

There are times when Quayle’s copying and pasting fail him, on a technical level: the level of the usage of technology, such as when he has it that “at the time of Israel’s invasion, the Anakim, Awim” while DeLoach has the transliteration correctly as “Avvim.”

A least on one occasion, Quayle took a footnote by DeLoach and inserted into the text:

As you can see from the images, I do not have DeLoach’s book in hardcopy but only via Google books.

Google books are extended previews and do not display every single page thus, there are some sections I could not double check.
Moreover, that which follows are merely examples from entire chapters (plural).
Also note that for any statement that I directly point to between the books, that which comes before it and that which follows are also DeLoach’s words pasted into Quayle’s books so there is much more than meets the eye.

Steve Quayle’s book is on the left, DeLoach’s on the right (you can click on the images to enlarge them).

I pondered what some responses may be and thought to note a few:

I am violating the New Testament principle of going to my brother first, then bringing someone with me, and then going to the church if the brother does not repent. Well, that is of primary use for a local church. As noted, I attempted the first step, attempted the second via contacting Prophecy Watchers, and have no idea how to attempt the third step since I have no idea where Quayle attends services. Also, it is acceptable for me to attempt to confront him much as Paul did to Peter—with the exception that I know not where to do it face to face.

But perhaps I am making this public due to well, fill in the blank: envy, hatred, inability to deal with Quayle’s facts-based views, etc. I also noted that this is about our both supposedly being Christians and authors and the integrity which is supposed to come therewith. My book and articles on my site contain the details of why the most problematic portions of Quayle’s book are the part he himself (as far as I know) wrote since they contain many non-biblical claims.

I just want to sell my books. Well, of course authors want to sell their books (and I have also given many away) since a “worker is worth his wages” and I never met anyone who made such a complain who worked for free at their own job.

Overall, any such objections would be to distract from the issue that the ball is in Steve Quayle’s court—even if it is not to me to whom he must give account. If you are disturbed by this information, then please contact him and he may reply. In other words, do not shoot the messenger but attempt to take the New Testament steps and pray that Quayle will set thing aright—for his own sake and the sake of those who reply upon him for wisdom.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Matt Powell OFFICIAL Youtube channel posted a video tilted “A Christian Response to Atheism” which led to me having to tutor Atheists on their worldview and even the linguistics that pertain to it.

@TickedOffPriest commented

I am just typing random letters on my keyboard with no plan as to what the end comment will say.

@jpsammy573 chimed in with

lkjie githe ssiige thoesee.

I, @kenammi355, noted

Just like 99% of online Atheists ;o)

@TestMeatDollSteak

Mass extinctions, congenital birth defects, predation, contagious diseases, parasites, floods, famines, droughts, wildfires, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, reversals of the magnetic poles, tsunamis, pain and suffering in general…I’m just listing various aspects of the apparent “plan” laid out before us.

@TickedOffPriest

You can focus on the rose or the thorns.

@TestMeatDollSteak

No, if you’re going to claim that literally everything that exists came into existence through the deliberate creative act of an omniscient, omnipotent intelligence, then own that belief in full and give him full credit for the vicious thorns as well as the pretty petals.

@TickedOffPriest

Some of that is free will other parts of it are the result of the curse.

However, something tells me that even if I were to answer every single question that you had, you would just come up with more.

@TestMeatDollSteak

Because those are apologetics, not actual answers to anything. The apologetics just beg additional questions and create additional theological problems. Mainly, the problem/question of why your supposedly all powerful, all knowing deity didn’t simply choose to create a world that always fully accords with his own will and intentions. “The fall of man” begs the question that God either isn’t capable or doesn’t know how to create a world that doesn’t “fall”.

@kenammi355

I hate to interrupt but let’s back up since you began by merely jumping to merely asserted conclusions based on mere hidden assumptions so, two issues, at least, come before what you’re asserting:

1) your implying a demand to adhering to logic but on Atheism logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do so. Ergo, that discredits your emotively subjective and impotent demands of adhering to it and you disqualified yourself from complaining about it or basing arguments upon it.

2) you implied that those things you listed are condemnable but only as another emotively subjective personal preference du jour since you neglected the most important part: what, on your worldview, is condemnable about those things? Now, since the only accurate reply is, “Nothing” then that disqualifies you from complaining about them.

And since you disqualified yourself from adhering to logic and ethics (which is the bottom line of that part of the issue) you discredited your rejection of God.

@thesc0tsm4n9 to me

yet again [since I posted on a few threads in that comments section], you’re presupposing nonsense and relying on non-sequitors to infer them as valid. 

you’re making ad hoc assertions without any substantiation for them.

@kenammi355

So then, you’re demanding adherence to logic (which is odd since you merely asserted) but then step one if for you to justify demanding adherence to logic, on your worldview. Without that, you’re just subjectively emoting about that your favorite ice-cream flavor is THE only good one and so everyone must only eat that one.

@TestMeatDollSteak

Wrong. Logic, like mathematics, is a formal description of the way that things appear to operate in the world around us. I am simply pointing out that you can’t make truth claims about things that aren’t at least comprehensible to you.

You’re also wrong about morality. All moral statements, even if they are made by some deity, are ultimately subjective judgment calls. Objective truths are true regardless of what ANY thinking, feeling being thinks or feels about them. Therefore, if there are such things as “objective moral truths”, theists have no better way to account for the existence of those objective moral facts than atheists or naturalists do. Consider the following trilemma:

Is “goodness” defined as anything that God commands? If so, then “goodness” is arbitrarily dictated by God’s subjective whims. Or, is there some standard of “goodness” that God must conform his commands and actions to? If so, then God cannot be the ultimate source of that standard, and he would instead be acting more as a messenger and/or enforcer of that standard. Or, is God himself the standard of “goodness”, such that his character or being is identical to “goodness”? If so, then the statement that “God is good” is rendered meaninglessly circular and tautological, like saying that “God is godly”, or “goodness is good”. From God’s perspective, he would just be doing what he wants to do and giving us arbitrary commands, and people such as yourself would be calling all of that “good” (which itself would just be a synonym for “God”).

No matter how you slice or dice it, the very idea of “objective morality” does not make sense.

@kenammi355

It appears that you bypassed my point by jumping right over it to where you feel comfortable—which is somewhere down the line, where you don’t belong yet since you haven’t worked your way there yet.

“Logic…is a formal description of the way that things appear to operate in the world around us” but you neglected THE key issue: “on Atheism logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do so.” So, you’ve done nothing but double down on a mere assertion.

“you can’t make truth claims about things that aren’t at least comprehensible to you” you first merely assume their incomprehensible to me and then make universal imperative demands about what I can’t do but that only bring us back to the issue you conveniently sidestepped.

Indeed, “Objective truths are true regardless of what ANY thinking, feeling being thinks or feels about them” but, here we go again, on Atheism objective truths are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand that others do so. See, it all goes back to the same problem.

In fact, “there are such things as ‘objective moral truths’” and you prove it since you think it’s objectively immoral to claim to know objective morals and/or to claim “theists” have a better way to account for their existence.

Yes, I’m aware of your parroting of the Euthyphro dilemma but it’s not a dilemma, it’s a false dichotomy. But that’s a down the line discussion since you haven’t yet taken the very first step: justify demanding adhere to logic (and “morals”), on your worldview.

But hey, since you deny “objective morality” you utterly discredited yourself from ever condemning anything so what does it matter?—especially on a worldview according to which nothing objectively matters anyhow.

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

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Andrew Wilson, “Teaching Pastor at King’s Church London, and has degrees in history and theology from Cambridge (MA) and King’s College London (PhD),” wrote an article titled Nephilim, Anakim, and Why We Care for the Think Theology site that I thought to review when it was brought to my attention by someone who had trouble evidencing post-flood Nephilim.

Wilson lays out a view that, “Nephilim (Gen 6:1-4) were the results of sexual relations between angels and women.” The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not? A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

He notes, “Many don’t” hold that view and, “the best counterargument is that Jesus says in Matthew 22:30 that it is impossible for angels to have sex.” That is a very common manner in which to put it, a reference to all, “angels” in general. Yet, 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, “in heaven” and, “of God” (see various versions here) 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.

Unfortunately, he then makes a fundamental error by writing:

I also take it as read that the Anakim, the sons of Anak whom we meet in the book of Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua, are descended from the Nephilim: “And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them” (Num 13:33).

Which is to say that, when Israel first spied out and then conquered the Land, there were very large individuals milling around, who could trace their lineage back to sexual relations between angels and women. Bizarre, admittedly. But biblical.”

Let’s ask ourselves what it means that something is, “biblical.” If it means recorded in the Bible well, sure: so are Satan’s deceptions. If it means biblical doctrine then no, it’s not, “biblical” and neither are Satan’s deceptions.

But there’s a reason why Pastor Andrew Wilson was forced to only quote that one single verse and it’s because 100% of post-flood Nephilology is based on that one single sentence. Yet, he didn’t bother elucidating that he’s appealing to one sentence from an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. He didn’t even mention that he’s forced to rely on non-LXX versions, since that version lacks reference to Anakim in that verse, nor that Moses relates that event in Deut 1 but doesn’t mention Nephilim—on and on and on the problems go by uncritically relying on that one vrse, see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

As for that, “The question is: why do we care?” he notes, “they provide a biblical basis for biological continuity between antediluvians and postdiluvians” but we’re told five times how that happened and it’s due to the 8 people on the ark: Nephilim aren’t mentioned in any of those lists (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5).

Wilson’s biology has biological corruption continuing right past the flood as if God missed that loophole. He merely asserts, “some people on earth, besides Noah’s family, survived the flood” which, again, contradicts the Bible five times.

He asserts that due to misreading, misunderstanding, misinterpreting, and misapplying one single post-flood sentence and making a rookie pop-Nephilology error: reading all the way to Num 13:33 (ignoring the narrative but just reading one single sentence, uncritically picking it up, running with it, and applying it) which then becomes a worldview, a hermeneutic whereby to then misread, misunderstand, misinterpret, and misapply other single verses or even fragments of verses.

See, he asserts, “If everyone on earth apart from Noah’s family had died, then there would be nobody left who was descended from (min) the Nephilim—but the Anakim show that this is not the case.” Indeed, biblical doctrine is, “everyone on earth apart from Noah’s family had died” but then it’s: period, full stop. Yet, centuries post-flood 10 unfaithful, disloyal, unreliable guys just made up a fear-mongering, scare-tactic, “evil report” wherein they made five assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible and contradicted Moses, Joshua, Caleb, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible. But this pastor tells us that if the biblical doctrine is the case, “then there would be nobody left who was descended from (min) the Nephilim—but the Anakim show that this is not the case.”

Again, no, it’s not, “the Anakim show” but that a non-LXX view of Anakim in one single sentence from an utterly unreliable source.

Now, even though, again, we’re told five times—five—who survived the flood and Nephilim aren’t on any list, the pastor tells us, “even from the perspective of Israelites in the Bronze Age, the cataclysmic flood did not wipe out every single person on planet earth outside the ark.” Yet, the logical, bio-logical, the theo-logical conclusion would really be, “even from the perspective of merely 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked (and undiscerning people who actually believe them to this date), the cataclysmic flood did not wipe out every single person on planet earth outside the ark.”

Andrew Wilson then gets into attempting to poke holes not in the, “evil report” but in the reliable Gen 6-7 records since the apparently infallible evil report, “suggests that the scope of phrases like ‘the whole land’ (qol erets) and ‘all mankind’ (qol adam) is limited to the ancient Near East…” etc. Yet, the scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

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

See my books:

Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local?, Vol I: A Historical Survey of Views from BC to AD

And:

Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local?, Vol II: A Historical Survey of Commentaries from the 1500s to the 2000s

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

Now, the moment that my eyes alighted on the term kherem in the article I knew what, at least, part of the problem was, he continued by writing that (supposedly alleged) post-flood Nephilim, by any other name, I suppose:

…provide vital context for the kherem warfare that took place in Canaan under Joshua. This is a point I had never seen until I read Michael Heiser’s The Unseen Realm recently, and in particular his description of the “Deuteronomy 32 worldview,” in which Yahweh has disinherited the nations and assigned them to the rule of lesser gods (Deut 32:8 etc). Heiser explains:

Israel is Yahweh’s elect portion of humanity, and the land of Canaan is the geography that Yahweh, as owner, specifically allotted to his people. In the view of the biblical writers, Israel is at war with enemies spawned by rival divine beings. The Nephilim bloodlines were not like the peoples of the disinherited nations … the target of kherem was the Anakim.

Well, the pastor really should have read the Bible rather than Heiser, on this point. Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—search online for these articles for examples:

Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy

Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”

I also featured Heiser in my book, The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?

In my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and NephilologyI included an entire chapter just on this issues and quoted the many times that God told us why He commanded such things and, hint, He never said one single word about Nephilim, nor relation to them, not biological/genetics/bloodline issues—never, ever.

Andrew Wilson then reviews some of Heiser’s points, “Heiser offers a number of clues that he is right about this. (1) The emphasis on giantism in the initial spying mission (for all that this has since been domesticated in contemporary preaching, the point is not just that the people are large, but that they are descended from rival deities).”

I trow not. 1) there is no, “emphasis on giantism” which is a genetic disorder and 2) the only emphasis on subjectively unusual height for Nephilim is well, guess where: in one sentence form an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

Let’s succinctly review. We’re told that Rephaim, by any of their a.k.a., were, “tall” in general and with that being a vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term which, in this case, means taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Then the more to the point issue is that the 10 unreliable guys where part of the 12 spies who reconnoitered the land of Cannan before moving into it. The original report in the narrative of Num 13 has the problem being various, “strong” people groups (living in large, well-fortified cities). The 10 chimed in to dissuade the Israelites from doing that God commanded them and agreed that the problem was that the peoples were, “stronger.” Yet, since Caleb went on to encourage the Israelites (with Joshua siding with him), the 10 took it up a notch—many tall-tale notches, actually—and only then did they embellish the original report and contradicted it.

Only then did they merely assert something that’s unknown in the whole entire rest of the whole Bible: that Nephilim somehow made it past the flood, that (in non-LXX versions) Anakim were related to them (in some impossible way), and that Nephilim were very, very, very tall.

Wilson complains that, “this has since been domesticated in contemporary preaching” but any and all biblical-doctrine preaching must include that conclude that Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form but centuries post-flood some guys merely asserted seeing them and were rebuked, to death.

Wilsons’ next Heiserian point is, “The explicit statement that the Israelite spies had seen the Nephilim in the Land (Num 13:33).” Yet, one reason for having written the Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal” article was that Heiser admitted that he only reluctantly interacted with that verse due to critical pressure to do so. Think about it, there are only two sentences in the Bible about Nephilim and a scholar who specialized on such issues admitted that he ignored a full 50% of the data only until enough people noticed and critiqued him about it.

In any case, Heiser committed the post-flood Nephilologists 101 level error: he merely picked up that one sentence, ran with it, force-fitted other sentences or fragments of sentences into the mess that one sentence makes, and applied it as if it’s reliable.

And note how this was presented to us, in a generic manner of that it was stated as, “the Israelite spies” in general. Thus, this was really as case of the statement that is explicitly told to us to be a statement within an evil report that 10 of the Israelite spies, the unreliable ones who were rebuked, had seen the Nephilim in the Land when it’s literally impossible that they had.

This point continued with, “The giant-like descriptions of enemies of God who live in the land, from Og (Deut 3:11) to Goliath (1 Sam 17) and beyond (2 Sam 21; 1 Chr 20).” It would appear that rather than sussing out biblical doctrine, the pastor read Heiser, liked it, and uncritically repeated it.

How could there be, “giant-like descriptions of…Og” when we’ve no physical description of him?

Also, just what is, “giant-like” when the term, “giant” is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “tall”?

For Goliath, we actually have a measurement yet, the pastor fails to inform us that the Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.: so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

As for, “beyond” well, the cited texts speak about Rephaim.

So, we have zero reliable correlation to Nephilim and the only reason to even imagine that tall or, “giant-like” has anything whatsoever to do with Nephilim is one single unreliable sentence.

The next point is, “Joshua’s kherem conquests (Josh 11:21-23) focuses on the obliteration of the Anakim.” Indeed, and we know they’re named after Anak who was Arba’s son with zero reliable indication that it’s even possible Arba has related to Nephilim in any way, shape, or form.

The next point is, “the ongoing presence of giants in the land of the Philistines.” Now, notice what has happened here: he has jumped from the specific and ancient Hebrew terms Nephilim and Anakim to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants.” When one does that, they can then chase that English word around a Hebrew Bible and think they made connections between text that actually have no correlation whatsoever.

The key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

Well, biblically contextually, “the ongoing presence of giants in the land of the Philistines” reads as, “the ongoing presence of Rephaim in the land of the Philistines.” Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Wilsons’ conclusion is, “why should we care about the Nephilim and the Anakim? Partly because they help us think through the question of the global/local flood” and we see that he opted for a local flood due to reading all the way to Num 13, exclusively verse 33, and turning that into an infallible hermeneutic—when it is really just eisegesis.

Also, “they provide crucial context for our understanding of kherem warfare” yet, his and Heiser’s assertions about that fail in every possible way.

Plus, “we should care about things that are in the Bible. There’s always that” and what’s in the Bible is that God didn’t fail, He didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, He revealed five time who survived, and He rebuked the guys who merely asserted what Wilson and Hesier take as being infallibly true.

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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