On his Facebook page, a certain Rob Baxter posted the following pertaining to assertions made by the late pop-Nephilologist Rob Skiba:
“This video helps to explain why the (largely misunderstood) ‘GOD of the Old Testament’ had the Israelite’s wipe out men, women and children in some of the villages and cities they conquered… ” A certain Daronius Subdeviant commented
there is absolutely no justification for genocide ever. you know right from wrong and you know what is good and right. genocide is none of them.
it must be noted that there is only one god and god is good. it’s not hard to work out what it is telling you.
Rob Baxter replied
but they weren’t human
Daronius Subdeviant
they were not animals. they were sentient. how is any of that in the spirit of unconditional love and infinite compassion?
Rob Baxter
same reason God sent the flood. Only 8 people left. He sent it to SAVE mankind.
Daronius Subdeviant
the old testament is a late addition to the gospel. it stands in contrast to it. where as jesus taught that the pathway was unconditional love and infinite compassion the old testament is a list of how bad it gets when you do not hold that as the divine principle.
you know the difference between right and wrong. the scripture is not inviting you to make excuses for wrong doing. it is asking you to synthesize from the dialectic.
do you really think that a benevolent, kind and loving god would try to wipe out those he loves like children? of course not. the story is an example from sumeria where they were trying to hold something other than the most high as their divine principle. they don’t even use the same name for it as jesus does.
Alex Sc chimed in by replying to Daronius Subdeviant
How can you show compassion to genetically altered beings that were practically monsters? Those tribes were known to be murderers for ages, and basically they were somehow descendants and the byproduct of the angels who betrayed God… See more
Daronius Subdeviant
it’s clearly not the same entity. the old testament is a list of examples of how not to do it. it’s full of examples of people calling something god that is obviously not good and if it is not good it is not god.
there is a whole theological progression to the fact that there is only one god and it is good.
people these days do not know how to synthesize from the dialectic or read the bible in the spirit in which it was written.
so it raises the important question ‘How can you show compassion to genetically altered beings that were practically monsters?’. it is inviting you to find a way because the divine principle is unconditional love and infinite compassion. no conditions and no boundaries.
The Chosen Few
I, True Freethinker, replied
Rob taught post-flood Nephilim which is un-biblical and so merely asserted why the “GOD of the Old Testament” had the Israelite’s wipe out men, women and children in some of the villages and cities they conquered. God told us MANY times why He did that but never said one single word about Nephilim.
Daronius Subdeviant
you know what is good and what is not, you are not an idiot. when you read something that is not good in the old testament, do not try to make excuses. you know what is good and what is not and if it is not good then it is not god.
by their deeds you will know them. if they were doing it right then jesus would not have had to come and show them the way, the truth or the light.
True Freethinker
Sorry, I’ve no idea what that has to do with the facts I noted.
Daronius Subdeviant
maybe you didn’t try to understand what i just told you then.
True Freethinker
I’m unsure how refusing to elucidate when someone tells you they don’t understand you advances the discussion: that’s more like something cyber Atheists do.
Daronius Subdeviant
sorry, i just assumed if you re-read it you would comprehend. it’s not at all vague. maybe my first assumption was premature.
i am saying that you know what is good and what is not and you know through the teachings of jesus christ that unconditional love and infinite compassion are the highest divine principles.
it seems pretty clear to me that when jesus christ talks about the father he is talking about these principles and not any so called ‘god’ of the old testament.
if you can read the old testament and use it to justify any genocide of any sentient beings then you are clearly not reading it in the spirit in which it was written.
Daronius Subdeviant
that moment a techno-gnostic tries to use cyber-atheism as a pejorative against and actual theist who gives thanks and praise to the most high and not some demiurge who pulls the strings of your mental construct simulation of creation.
True Freethinker
I’m unsure what you’re going on about in part because you misread what I write: you went off about some sort of “techno-gnostic” when I was just noting that, “refusing to elucidate” is, “more like something cyber Atheists do.”
In any case, you are also continuing to be vague since you merely asserted, “if you can read the old testament and use it to justify any genocide of any sentient beings then you are clearly not reading it in the spirit in which it was written” but didn’t get to THE most important part which is via what “spirit” do you deny what it states in favor of whatever you’re talking about?
Daronius Subdeviant
True Freethinker the spirit of the divine principle as taught to us by jesus christ amongst others.
i’m sorry if the blindingly obvious is not for you. that might be a symptom of your techno gnosticism.
i’ll spell it out again. if it is not good it is not god. you are not ignorant of what good is so don’t make any excuses.
True Freethinker
I’ll ignore your ungracefully worldly abuse. So now you’re asserting “it is not good” but it’s just that: an assertion piled atop another. And recall that this pertained to that, “Rob taught post-flood Nephilim which is un-biblical and so merely asserted why the ‘GOD of the Old Testament’ had the Israelite’s wipe out men, women and children in some of the villages and cities they conquered. God told us MANY times why He did that but never said one single word about Nephilim.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
The following are reference examples for giants (Nephilim iנפלים in Hebrew) from The Bible.
Genesis 6:4 NIV
[4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Numbers 13:33 NIV
[33] We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
Deuteronomy 2:11 NKJV
[11] They were also regarded as giants, like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim.
Deuteronomy 2:20 NKJV
[20] (That was also regarded as a land of giants; giants formerly dwelt there. But the Ammonites call them Zamzummim,
Deuteronomy 3:11 NKJV
[11] “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants. Indeed his bedstead was an iron bedstead. ( Is it not in Rabbah of the people of Ammon?) Nine cubits is its length and four cubits its width, according to the standard cubit.
Deuteronomy 3:13 NKJV
[13] The rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, the kingdom of Og, I gave to half the tribe of Manasseh. (All the region of Argob, with all Bashan, was called the land of the giants.
Joshua 12:4 NKJV
[4] The other king was Og king of Bashan and his territory, who was of the remnant of the giants, who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,
Joshua 13:12 NKJV
[12] all the kingdom of Og in Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth and Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants; for Moses had defeated and cast out these.
Joshua 17:15 NKJV
[15] So Joshua answered them, “If you are a great people, then go up to the forest country and clear a place for yourself there in the land of the Perizzites and the giants, since the mountains of Ephraim are too confined for you.”
For Goliath and his brothers, there was no mentioned that they were giants. But from the description, they were.
1 Samuel 17:4-7 NKJV
[4] And a champion went out from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. [5] He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. [6] And he had bronze armor on his legs and a bronze javelin between his shoulders. [7] Now the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his iron spearhead weighed six hundred shekels; and a shield-bearer went before him.
Goliath was 6 cubits and a span, equal to at 9 feet 9 inches tall. He’s a giant, definitely.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
The key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
Those question are key because, for example, it’s actually very, very myopic to assert, “giants (Nephilim iנפלים in Hebrew).”
To review:
Genesis 6:4 is about Nephilim—when they were alive, on the ground.
Numbers 13:33 is about Nephilim—centuries after the last of the drowned in the flood, it’s just part of an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
Deuteronomy 2:11 is about Rephaim—by any other name (not including “Nephilim”) and inform us that they were “tall” on average which is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage “giants.” It really means they were taller than the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.
Deuteronomy 2:20 is about Rephaim.
Deuteronomy 3:11 is about a Repha—offers no physical description of him.
Deuteronomy 3:13 is about Rephaim—who were subjectively “tall” on average.
Joshua 12:4 is about that same Repha—offers no physical description of him.
Joshua 13:12 is about that same Repha—offers no physical description of him.
Joshua 17:15 is about Perizzites and Rephaim—the latter of which were subjectively “tall” on average.
Those questions are key because it’s not accurate that “For Goliath and his brothers, there was no mentioned that they were giants” since that is what they are called but you seem to misunderstand the usage of that term, it’s merely rendering (not even translating) the word “Repha/im.”
“Goliath was 6 cubits and a span, equal to at 9 feet 9 inches tall” as per the Masoretic text yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.
Eddie Lau
Yes, you are right.
No one really knows (except God) whether Goliath was really the same type of Nephilim in Genesis 6.
But one thing I am quite sure is that both of them opposed God and His people. That’s what we need to know. Others are only irrelevant information, I suppose.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.
It’s not accurate “No one really knows (except God) whether Goliath was really the same type of Nephilim in Genesis 6” since Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper. Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.
This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times.
I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, “Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.”
Also, “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.”
[4] The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
God allowed Nephilim (Giants literally from Hebrew) to exist before AND AFTERWARDS. That’s clearly a secret that we can’t understand (just the same as why satan is allowed to deceive in this world) from our wisdom.
But as a believer, we just trust Him to work for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8:28). Goliath was believed to be Anakim who existed even down to Joshua’s time. Were they allowed to help to build in Canaan so that Israelites could dwell in well developed places?
Deuteronomy 6:10-11 NIV
[10] When the Lord your God brings you into the land he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you—a land with large, flourishing cities you did not build, [11] houses filled with all kinds of good things you did not provide, wells you did not dig, and vineyards and olive groves you did not plant—then when you eat and are satisfied,
If you are still puzzled, so am I, that’s normal and need our faith to cover this mystery that God has not revealed to us. I welcome any possible explanations to widen my knowing of my God.
In fact, the secret of dinosaurs is similarly concealed to men.
Praise the Lord, anyway.
Ken Ammi
Oddly, you wrote, “God allowed Nephilim (Giants literally from Hebrew) to exist before AND AFTERWARDS” but didn’t mention the most important part: after when/what? And please based your reply on what the verse says rather than what it doesn’t.
Since you didn’t reply when I asked you to what you were referring by “giants” then when you assert, “Nephilim (Giants literally from Hebrew)” I have no idea what you mean.
Also, since the issue is Nephilim, what does Goliath have to do with it since, as you noted, he “was believed to be Anakim” which was a clan of the Rephaim tribe?
Eddie Lau
You are right. I just understand from The Bible, the secrets of Nephilim has not been completely released.
In Genesis 6:4 ‘in those days’ were obviously the days before The Flood. So ‘afterwards’ should be after the Flood, That’s certain.
Nephilim is the Hebrew word for giants. You can google to check.
Anakim was a tribe of giants. Goliath was obviously a Giant. But whether Goliath came from Anakim, I can’t find the reference. If you have this information, please tell me.
We give witness based on what The Bible mentions, otherwise, we are only empty talk. As there are areas not revealed (or can’t find), I need to tell you just what I find.
Praise the Lord, anyway.
Ken Ammi
But if “the secrets of Nephilim has not been completely released” how do you know about them? And secrets kept by whom and released by whom?
Notice that you were forced to only quote three words from Genesis 6:4 since you realized that it doesn’t say a single word about the flood so you had to artificially insert “The Flood” in there.
Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.
I’m unsure why you advertise for Google but I wrote an entire book about the linguistics so I don’t have to search for the myopic assertion that “Nephilim is the Hebrew word for giants” which only begs the questions: what does “giants” mean? Recall that I asked you about that but you didn’t reply. Please see my book, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010”: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks
So, when you say, “Anakim was a tribe of giants” I still can’t know what you mean and I bet that you don’t know what you mean either—or rather, you don’t know what the English Bible you’re reading means: since you didn’t want to discuss that either.
But when you assert, “Goliath was obviously a Giant” you appear to be referring to his height so that has utterly nothing whatsoever to do with when he’s called “giant” in the English Bible you’re reading: it’s just telling you he was a Repha, and yes of the Anakim clan of the Rephaim, and, BTW, he was just shy of 7ft.
Eddie Lau
Of course, you can say ‘afterwards’ can mean before the Flood, is that ok?🤣
If you want to argue anything not completely reveal, please do so. I don’t have time to argue any thing meaningless.
For me, afterwards is after Flood. That’s allowed by God but in a much smaller scale for His purpose, probably limited to Canaan. If you find it difficult to accept, fine, have your explanation as I don’t have anymore clues to justify.
Thank for discussing this matter.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Well, I didn’t say, “‘afterwards’ can mean before the Flood” rather, I outlined the contextual text to the effect of that it refers to “afterwards” of when “the sons of God” first “saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose” but your reply appears to only be ridicule.
Now, if “afterwards is after Flood” why are there no post-flood Nephilim anywhere (besides in one sentence from an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked)?
How did you get Nephilim past the flood so that God failed when He meant to be rid of them?
What loophole did God miss?
Why imply the flood much of a waste?
Eddie Lau
Well, afterwards is afterwards. Just listen and accept. Don’t argue,
Why God allowed Nephilim afterwards? Ask Him. If anyone knows the reason. Tell me also.
To argue secrets beyond our knowledge is waste of time, I dare not to do so.
Just praise the Lord, anyway.
Ken Ammi
That, “afterwards is afterwards” is incoherent since at issue is afterwards of when, the text tell you very, very clearly when, but you want to reject that since you want to keep holding on to man-made tall-tales, for some reason.
As for, “Just listen and accept. Don’t argue” that is a very clear window into why you’re posting un-biblical tall-tales on the WORLD WIDE, mind you, web: you hear something, accepted it, didn’t argue, and are just repeating it. I, however, reject your pseudo-authority and am being a good Berean.
As for, “Why God allowed Nephilim afterwards?” again: afterwards of when—as per the text and not your tall-tales?
Shalom!
Eddie Lau
Ok. Tell me what’s your view of ‘afterwards’ then? I want to know your answer from Bible. Don’t just imagine something without Bible proof.
It’s easy to criticise others, but without Bible proof. That’s only plain talk from men.
Please respond.
Ken Ammi
Well, that’s a pretty odd MO, that I asked, “…again: afterwards of when—as per the text and not your tall-tales?” but rather than replying you pulled a tu quoque.
Very well then, I just read what the text states (not just half of one verse):
Gen 6:4 states, “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.”
The question becomes: when were those days?
Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.
God didn’t fail when He meant to be rid of the via the flood, He didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste.
Eddie Lau
You seem very considerate of God’s will but no one can exactly know except The Holy Spirit.
However, we can still trace from The Holy Bible.
Your answer to me is simply Nephilim existed before The Flood, right?
But take note of this verse from Numbers 13:33
Numbers 13:33 NIV
[33] We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
What’s your explanation?
So I still remind you better ask The Holy Spirit to tell you the truth.
Explain this to me, please.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Well, “no one can exactly know except The Holy Spirit” and we when He has revealed it to us. Ergo, when we’re told five times who made it past the flood and Nephilim are never on the list then we can know that.
Yes, “Nephilim existed before The Flood” exclusively.
I’m unsure why you tell me to, “take note” and for my “explanation” of Numbers 13:33 since I already told you, “Numbers 13:33 is about Nephilim—centuries after the last of the drowned in the flood, it’s just part of an ‘evil report’ by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.”
Why do you think that you are forced to only exclusively rely on one single sentence for the (supposed) post-flood existence of the most awe inspiring beings on the planet?
See, you can’t just read one single verse, pick it up, run with it, and ignore everything else.
You’re supposed to ask yourself questions such as who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc.
So, are you familiar with the narrative of Num chaps 13-14?—and the whole rest of the entire Bible that doesn’t say a single post-flood word about them?
Eddie Lau
Are you in discussions for something without evidence?
We can only trace from Bible verses to see possible results. Otherwise, just give me your evidence but don’t label me. Everyone can speak from Bible with humility. Ask The Holy Spirit for confirmation of what you comment, I suggest.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
No, I’m not in discussions for something without evidence: I’m just asking you for yours such as, “So, are you familiar with the narrative of Num chaps 13-14?—and the whole rest of the entire Bible that doesn’t say a single post-flood word about them?” which you ignored.
I have had many, many, many, many experiences with post-flood Nephilologists who, when they realize they have zero reliable data to back they’re un-biblical assertions, punt to a gnostic tactic: pray about it. As if the Holy Spirit is going to contradict His revelation that He has already put into our hands.
Eddie Lau
Show me what you have found. Don’t just criticise others.
The Bible is not to talk about giants/nephilim. They are never the subject. Why waste time on them?
We study The Bible to know Jesus Christ. That’s the most important task we need to achieve.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
You noted, “The Bible is not to talk about giants/nephilim. They are never the subject.” Now, for where the Bible does talk about Nephilim please see Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33.
Also, “‘So, are you familiar with the narrative of Num chaps 13-14?—and the whole rest of the entire Bible that doesn’t say a single post-flood word about them?’ which you ignored” and ignored again.
Eddie Lau
You just want to pick my fault, right? But never see the possibility of ‘afterward’ can mean after the flood.
So what’s the point of argument when both of us hold different views.
Would you look at Jesus more closely than Nephilim/giants that were objects of destruction? That’s the only way to grow, sorry.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Oh, I saw that possibility when I was listening to the modern-pop-Nephilologists but not once I researched it for myself.
There are many reasons why afterwards not only doesn’t but can’t mean after the flood.
The point of argument when both of us hold different views is that you’re mistaken and we’re called to correct those in error.
You have a God who couldn’t get the job done, He failed, His flood was much of a waste, etc.
Sorry, I’m unsure what you mean by, “Would you look at Jesus more closely than Nephilim/giants that were objects of destruction?”
Also, “You noted, ‘The Bible is not to talk about giants/nephilim. They are never the subject.’ Now, for where the Bible does talk about Nephilim please see Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33. Also, ‘‘So, are you familiar with the narrative of Num chaps 13-14?—and the whole rest of the entire Bible that doesn’t say a single post-flood word about them?’ which you ignored’ and ignored again” and ignored again.
Eddie Lau
Now this is your problem. Are you going to do works that you think God can’t finish? Why can’t God allow giants to do things for Israelites before they occupied?
So you are limiting God instead of helping Him.
If I were you, I would rather be humble and let Him do whatever He does. Our job is to believe that He is always working for our benefits.
Ask The Holy Spirit to confirm as I always do so to get His secrets.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
I’ve no idea what you’re going on about except that I’ve experienced this many times from people who realize they can’t substantiate their assertions: you ask supposed gotcha questions and play the gnostic card.
Also, you’re still going on about “giants” so you’re clearly not interested in being understood but it is also something some people do so they can keep making vaguely generic watered down assertions: recall that you were incapable of answering the key questions.
Shalom!
Eddie Lau
I told you very early in our discussion that no one can substantiate but just guess.
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.
Such was the title of a vid by Dr. Michael S. Heiser which led to the following discussion when a certain @claytonbigsby commented
All but 8 people died during the flood so where did the giants come from post flood?
@kenammi355
The key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
@claytonbigsby
You mean Nephilim?
@kenammi355
Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied. You used the term “giants” so I’m asking you.
@claytonbigsby
Giants/Nephilim/human hybrids/Elohim : products of a rebellion
@kenammi355
Sorry, I don’t understand: are you asking “All but 8 people died during the flood so where did the Giants/Nephilim/human hybrids/Elohim : products of a rebellion come from post flood?”
@claytonbigsby
I don’t understand why you don’t understand my question,” where did the giants come from post flood?”
@kenammi355
Because I asked what you mean and you didn’t elucidate. I asked three questions and you replied with a question and then with a list of unrelated words so you’re making it hard to understand you.
@claytonbigsby
ok. sorry I didn’t make myself clear.
@kenammi355
Appreciate that. No worries, this issue gets confusing due to some of the popular terms being thrown around not being very specific.
So, let’s back up, “All but 8 people died during the flood so where did the giants come from post flood?” by implication “giants” must refer to Nephilim but there’s zero reliable indication that they came back.
See, that would imply that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed the loophole whereby they returned, so the flood was much of a waste.
Such is the damage that post-flood Nephilology does to theology.
@claytonbigsby
Numbers 13 vs 33 seems to disagree with your interpretation of scripture.
@kenammi355
I would really like to keep this discussion to one thread since we have the same one going on two but for now, I guess, I will note that sure: when you based your views on only one single verse and you ignore the fact that you’re appealing to an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked and who made mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible and whom God rebuked and whom contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the rest of the whole entire Bible, and God then yes, that utterly untrustworthy unreliable sentence disagrees with my interpretation and I’m more than pleased with that since I don’t side with guys whom God rebuked but I side with the God who rebuked them.
@claytonbigsby
verse 33. And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim. verse 34. And Moses said, “What ? That can’t be true cause all them Nephilim fellers died in the flood.” Good catch, I see your point.
@kenammi355
Friend, you don’t seem to be familiar with the relevant data and it may be that you’re been sold a tall-tale by pop-Nephilologists who have taught to you build entire all-encompassing theories upon one single verse and to not read the narrative for context.
If God rebuking them—to death—isn’t enough then I’m afraid that if “Moses said, ‘What ? That can’t be true cause all them Nephilim fellers died in the flood’” (which he already did in Gen 6) won’t convince you to give upon your man-made tradition either.
Please read Deut 1 wherein Moses relates that very same event and tell me where he mentions Nephilim.
Now:
You conveniently ignored, “you based your views on only one single verse”
You conveniently ignored, “you ignore the fact that you’re appealing to an ‘evil report’”
You conveniently ignored, “by unreliable guys”
You conveniently ignored, “whom God rebuked”
You conveniently ignored, “who made mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible”
You conveniently ignored, “whom God rebuked”
You conveniently ignored, “whom contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the rest of the whole entire Bible, and God”
You conveniently ignored, “I don’t side with guys whom God rebuked but I side with the God who rebuked them”
And you didn’t tell me what tall-tale you invented (or parrot) to get Nephilim past the flood, past God who failed when He couldn’t figure out the loophole you found so that the flood was much of a waste.
@claytonbigsby
Numbers 13 vs 33 disagrees with your interpretation of your response to me.
@kenammi355
Friend, if you merely type a profile name on YT it won’t send a notification about the comment, you have to reply to the reply in order for that to happen: I just happened to notice this one now.
You’re directing me to one sentence from an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so, why do you believe them?
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
The following discussion took place due to the Facebook post by the Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series page which is from the nephilimgiants.net which is one of the premier click-bait sites since they merely slap the term Nephilim into 99% of their posts and leave the mere assertions at that—even and especially when challenged, at which point they warn you that they will reply on censorship by blocking you.
The propaganda in this case was, “Three Thousand Nephilim Giant’s Uncovered in Plotted Graveyard in Northern Ohio. Laid Out Like a Modern Cemetery” so they don’t even know that biblically contextually, “Nephilim Giant’s” means, “Nephilim Nephilim’s.”
I, True Freethinker, commented
I check all of the time but still don’t see why you assert that they were Nephilim. “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were”–Gary Wayne (sic.).
Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series replied as they did since I keep asking them basic questions, even just about their usage of the term Nephilim, but all they ever do is threaten and evade
Your comments are getting old.
“Top fan” James McDonald replied
Typical Nephilim specs are given in 1 Sam. 17:4-8. This one (Goliath), was 9’9″. Four others are noted in 2 Sam. 21:16-22. There are references to the Nephilim throughout the O.T.
True Freethinker
I referred to Nephilim but you’re directing me to texts about Rephaim. Can you please provide the citations for, “references to the Nephilim throughout the O.T.”?
Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series
Why don’t you look it up yourself? You are a troll, and the next bull[****] comment is getting you blocked,
True Freethinker to Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series
Please mind your manners. You’re premise is faulty: I don’t ask because I don’t know, I’m asking because I discerned that don’t know and your reply appears to prove my discernment was correct. Now, you merely asserted “throughout” so I can only imagine that to you “throughout” means in two verses, correct?
True Freethinker to James McDonald
Please don’t parrot Gateway to Ancient Mysteries-The Series since I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data which I c, or so, Nephilology books (not counting writing articles and making videos so: what am I missing?
Paul Nichter
Nephilim by definition ARE giants. Its what the word means.
True Freethinker
Hey, I’m glad to be in touch with anyone who also disagrees with Gary. Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens and dozens upon dozens of people who go on and on and on and on about “giants” and literally zero have replied. What two words? I only asked about one word and who are “they”?
Paul Nichter
Nephi and giant
James McDonald
Evidently, the big picture laid out in the Bible.
True Freethinker
Which is?
True Freethinker
Well friend, if you think that “Nephilim” and “giant” are equivalent then that begs these key questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
James McDonald
You need to read it.
True Freethinker
James McDonald Please don’t act online as a stereotypical Atheist: please write cogent sentences. If your hidden assumption is that I need to read the Bible well, been there and done that so, now what?
James McDonald
Believe and receive – or doubt and do without.
True Freethinker
James McDonald “doubt” what?
Paul Nichter
Nephilim by definition ARE giants. Its what the word means.
True Freethinker
So, you disagree with Gary Wayne then. But telling me “giants” only begs these key questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
it’s a simple translation, the two words being equivalent. I am sure they likely had other names in the America’s or in china
True Freethinker
Hey, I’m glad to be in touch with anyone who also disagrees with Gary. Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens and dozens upon dozens of people who go on and on and on and on about “giants” and literally zero have replied. What two words? I only asked about one word and who are “they”?
Paul Nichter
Nephi and giant
True Freethinker
Well friend, if you think that “Nephilim” and “giant” are equivalent then that begs these key questions: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
He describes it as “an in-depth word study reveals…a horrifying conclusion that affects our present day.”
Referring to the Genesis 6 affair (as I term it) he notes, “the ‘giants’ claim would seem to be clear. Other versions give the Hebrew name ‘Nephilim’…the Bible was not talking about giant offspring of angel/human couplings, but abortions.”
He notes, “we must first understand the ‘sons of God/children of men’ passage…It’s the sons and daughters part that has many confused and has driven people to excluded books (The book of Enoch) of the Bible to explain this passage.”
Indeed, for their love of post-flood Nephilim neo-theo-sci-fi, many (such as the top pop-researchers) appeal to 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch even though it was written millennia after the Torah was written, it contradicts the Bible (a lot, see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch), it has Nephilim being miles tall (which is great folklore but poor reality), it has dead Nephilim as unclean spirits, etc.
Robert Wimer notes, “there were two groups of people living on the Earth, the lineage of Cain (sons of God) and the lineage of Seth (daughters of men)….the cursed line of Cain and the sacred line of Seth by the introduction of ‘sons/daughters’ and ‘God/men.’”
However, that Cain’s was a “cursed line” and Seth’s a “sacred line” is actually a myth.
The Sethite view is actually very much of a late comer from a few centuries into AD days: the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christians alike was the Angel view (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).
We may ponder why it was only strictly male Sethites and only strictly female Cainites? I also wonder why marriages between humans was any sort of problem. Well, premised on the myth, one may say that it was because they were unequally yoked so that must mean that God disapproved of such marriages back then (apparently without commanding against it first) but then commanded against it post-flood but did not flood the world over it.
More on this issue to come—stand by.
Robert Wimer notes, “the separation couldn’t be more apparent to the Hebrews at that time” yet, I am unsure how so. Surely, “the separation,” as in not being unequally yoked, “couldn’t be more apparent to the Hebrews at that time” but that is just it, is it not, “at that time” of the writing of that text since by which time there was a commandment against it (even if only in a manner of speaking since, after all, pre-flood there was no such thing as Jews/Hebrews/Israelites who would have been commanded to not marry non-Jews/Hebrews/Israelites).
We then come to subsection, “Could angels breed with humans?”
He writes, “Fallen angels are spirits, and cannot marry, the institution through which God ordained human procreation (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, and Luke 20:35-36, with Genesis 1:28).”
“Fallen angels are spirits, and cannot marry, the institution through which God ordained human procreation (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25, and Luke 20:35-36, with Genesis 1:28).”
Note that the claim that “Fallen angels are spirits” is merely asserted.
The texts he cites also touch upon that, as he puts it (quite rightly), “according to Jesus, holy angels are not given in marriage” which is why those who did are considered sinners, having “left their first estate,” as Jude put it.
Jesus specified that it is the “Angles of God in heaven” who do not marry nor are given in marriage: the loyal ones, the holy ones, do not.
What Robert Wimer wrote is:
“To do so would seemingly require an act of God as their Creator, to allow them or give them the ability to do so, something apparently He did not do by not allowing them to be ‘given in marriage’ prior to their fall (since, according to Jesus, holy angels are not given in marriage [in order to procreate, ostensibly]; therefore it follows that fallen angels, prior to their fall, were likewise restricted from being given in marriage for the purposes of procreation, therefore, ontologically speaking, the ability to procreate would not be added to their nature as spirits, post-fall, except through special divine endowment).”
Yes, “fallen angels, prior to their fall, were likewise restricted from being given in marriage for the purposes of procreation” but it is a non-sequitur to conclude that “the ability to procreate would not be added to their nature as spirits” since, again, it is only an assertion that they are spirits.
We may also understand this issues by arguing that God did not (in His perfect will) want Adam and Eve to partake of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil and yet, it was He who created it and placed it within their grasp.
It is noted, “Noah and his family – the only survivors” thus, “Goliath, the Anakims, Emims, and Rephaims, as giants (Cf. Numbers 13:33), do not appear to be descended from some other especially strange race of human-demon hybrids.”
I would go even further than that “do not appear to be descended from some other especially strange race of human-demon hybrids” to outright state that they were not in the least bit “descended from some other especially strange race of human-demon hybrids.”
Just to review: Anakim were a subgroup of Rephaim, Emim is just an aka for Rephaim, and Goliath was a Philistine-Anakim-Rephaim. Thus, all of those terms refer to Rephaim and Rephaim were good ol’ fashioned 100% human.
Robert Wimer concludes, “If so, these giants then, though gigantic, are still humans only, somehow descended from Noah and his offspring.”
If by “gigantic” is meant something about subjectively unusual height (which is not the English biblical usage of “giants”) then indeed, the only contextually relevant thing we know is that some Rephaim, such as Anakim, were subjectively “tall” (Deut 2): subjective to the average Jews/Hebrews/Israelites male of those days who was 5.0-5.3 ft.
And yes, Rephaim, just like anyone else, would have “descended from Noah and his offspring” since there was no other post-flood game in town (since the sinful Angels were incarcerated and there is only a one-time sin of Angels in the Bible).
Now, what of the one and only reference to post-flood Nephilim in the Bible?
Robert Wimer put it thusly, “Getting into the ‘grasshoppers’ issue of Numbers 13:33. This passage is where the supporters of the angel/human coupling go to support their theories about hybrids living after the flood as well as living in our present age…We need to do a bit of a breakdown as to where the phrase ‘like grasshoppers’ comes from” and ultimately concludes, “the people of that land were not seeing the Israelites as ‘small’ because they were giants, but we’re seeing them as numerous, being able to devour them and everything that they had. The children of Israel also saw them in like manner.”
That may be so but it is unnecessary since the solution is quite a bit more straight forward: Numbers 13:33 is merely recording an “evil report” wherein five assertions are made about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all which was spoken by ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies whom God rebuked. They just concocted a “Don’t go in the woods!!!” type of fear-mongering scare-tactic tall tale.
But now, what has all of this to do with abortions? He notes, “the semantic range for the Hebrew root ‘nphl’ can indicate a miscarriage, or even an abortion…instead of referring to some form of ‘giants’, relates instead to an antediluvian form of abortion?”
Thus, he has it that Gen 6:4 “would begin something like this: ‘[Abortions] were [in] the earth in those days” and since he discerns a problem, he noted, “One might ask, ‘How would you explain ‘mighty men which were of old, men of renown’ if the word meant abortions?’ The answer: They filled the world with their many abortions.”
Yet, indeed, the text has it that “the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.” Thus, the natural reading would be that marriage was followed by sex, sex was followed by having “bore children to them,” who after having been born and grown up became mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
Robert Wimer speculates, “I believe that the men of that day found the pregnancy of their ‘wives’ to be unattractive, so they made ‘potions’, much like the abortion pill, to abort their children.”
It does not surprise me that he states that, after having noted “The book of Enoch” since therein, a sinful Watcher/Angel teaches humanity about abortions.
But, again, the speculation takes us away from the more commonsensical reading of the text and is premised upon “semantic range for the Hebrew root ‘nphl’” which is more generally defined as referring to fall/fallen/to cause to fall, etc.
In conclusion, is pertained to “a horrifying conclusion that affects our present day” in that:
“So, what does this mean for us? Simply put, bringing this all together, means that we’re near the end. Jesus told us as much in this passage: ‘But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.’ ~Matthew 24:37…The ‘days of Noah’ were a time of worldwide judgment. That the people of that day were just going about their business…Looking at the times we’re in now, especially with the passing of legislation in the house (at the time of this article, this is not law) to roll back pro-life laws and to reinforce Roe v Wade, this age could come to an end sooner as popped to later.”
Indeed, “the ‘days of Noah’ were a time of worldwide judgment” and Jesus’ specific emphasis did pertain to “That the people of that day were just going about their business” being unaware or unconcerned about coming judgment.
Jesus said the exact same thing about the days of Lot (Luke 17), “in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.”
Thus, overall this seems to have been a case of employing some basic errors at the level of premise which then lead to some faulty conclusions.
At least we can agree on the utter evil of abortion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
Why Did God Kill Everyone in a Flood?! is the title of a video by David Natali which led to the following discussion when a certain @firekirby1234 commented
Mankind was evil nowhere on the Bible does the Lord have an issue with nephilin
I, @kenammi355, repllied
Except when He ensured they didn’t make it past the flood.
@firekirby1234
also whats your proof for the angels and “nephilim” being eradicated from this planet when we have giants still alive among us people with uncanny abilities that are more proprietary to a non fully human species yet they are for all inteded purposes human seems like “nephilims” werent really the issue
@kenammi355
Sorry, that’s really hard to follow since you jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word, “Nephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” so since I’m unsure what you mean, the key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
I will also need to know to what you’re referring by, “uncanny abilities” and what makes you think that Nephilim possessed such–exclusively so.
@firekirby1234
if you dont see it you dont see it, follow your own digging tunnel
@kenammi355
Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.
@firekirby1234
you seem to think that your knowledge and others lack of care for your lack of knowledge is an indication that you’re on the right path you have no idea what a nephilin is and since the bible doesn’t say anywhere He hated them you go on to claim that lack of care to inform someone that doesn’t care for information is the key to your victory in your argument no debate needed with you sir shame school seems to have been wasted or perhaps not enough emphasis on actually learning to pursue knowledge
@kenammi355
I’m not interested in your ungracefully worldly attempts at mind reading. You assert, “you have no idea what a nephilin is” (which should be “a Nephil” or just “Nephilim ” without the “a”): but I directed you to what we can know about them and you ignored it.
As for, “the bible doesn’t say anywhere He hated them” well, if you mean the Hebrew equivalent of, “He hated them” then sure, but I’m directing you to the narrative’s context which is a complete thought, not disconnected verses, but you ignored it.
@firekirby1234
bottom line you wanna complain about random stuff to make yourself feel saved but the more you fight it the worse it gets, control your ego pride or you’ll burn
@kenammi355
So now you want to act like an online Atheist and go full blown ungracefully worldly by playing mind reader and pretending that you can discern my thoughts and motivations: you should be deeply ashamed of yourself and please repent.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
This time, it led to the following discussion after a certain @bobbyduke777 commented
A 100FT tall giant could not reproduce, with out genetic manipulation. There were fallen angels still involved. the designers of the pyramids, which are giant electric generators, was from the fallen angels. The secrets of heaven given to men. That is why the Egyptians or what ever people were their at the time, called them gods. they did wonders, like electric lights and probably levitation.
I, @kenammi355, replied
There’s zero indication of “A 100FT tall giant.”
“There were fallen angels still involved” until the flood—as far as we can tell.
What do “Mediterranean cedars” have to do with it?
What “first giants”? In fact, that begs these key questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
Who was, “140 feet taLL”?
“As in the time of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of man” has zero to do with this and “Giants are returning now” may imply that God failed and where are they?
Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”
But He kept speaking directly with:
“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17).
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.
The key questions are key since without the answers we can’t know what you mean by “The angel of the Lord…slew those giants.”
@bobbyduke777
The Bible says they were as tall as cedars. “I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars” (Amos 2:9)
Argue with God, I am not in the mood
@kenammi355
Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied. What makes you think that Amorites had fruits and roots growing out of their bodies and whence did you get the very specific “100…140” ft numbers?
@bobbyduke777
I don’t know where i said anything about roots and leafs growing out of their bodies so your making things up from the git. The Bible says they were taller then cedar trees. You need to go argue with God if you have a problem with what I said.
@bobbyduke777
also it was their first born that grew that tall. Because they had to mix with human DNA each time, they got smaller over time.
@kenammi355
Friend, please read a text before conveniently selectively quoting it. You ignored the question, “whence did you get the very specific “100…140” ft numbers?” so I will just have to guess that you imply it has something to do with, “height of the cedars” but if that’s the case then, if you imply that Amos was implying conducting a literal one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation (and if so, those cedars aren’t 110-140ft) then you have to take this literally as well, “it was I who destroyed the Amorite…I destroyed his FRUIT above and his ROOTS beneath.”
As for, “The Bible says they were taller then cedar trees”: as you quoted it, Amos noted, “LIKE the height of the cedars.”
There’s literally zero indication that Amorites had anything whatsoever to do with being non-human who had to “mix with human DNA.”
@bobbyduke777
It’s in the BIBLE GO READ IT! their sons were taller then cedars. tell me to read when you havn’t
@bobbyduke777
They were sons of Anuk, and the Raphaim and a few others, but the first born were titans, taller then cedars. Drinkers of blood who ate all the people could produce, and then started eating the people.
@kenammi355
I’m unsure why you didn’t answer my question.
I get the feeling that you’ve bought into pop-Nephilology which is so based on making vague and generic points by watering things down that you’re not aware of the categorical distinctions in the issue you’re discussing.
For example, you generically referred to, “their sons” but didn’t bother stating who’s sons you’re referring to.
As for, “tell me to read when you havn’t” I’m not interested in your attempts at mind reading and it’s rather odd that you merely assume I haven’t read it when I quoted it.
Also, please stop manipulating God’s word since this is the second time you’ve done it and while the first time may have been a accident, now it’s purposeful. Recall that you asserted, “they were taller then cedar trees” but I noted, “Amos noted, ‘LIKE the height of the cedars’” but you decided to ignore God’s word and doubled down on asserting, “taller then cedars.”
You also ignored everything else I noted such that the issue of the fruits and roots.
As for, “They were sons of Anuk” you are being generic again: who were the sons of “Anuk”?
FYI: the sons of Anak were the Anakim and not “the Raphaim and a few others” since Rephaim were a tribe of which the Anakim were a clan.
You jumped from Amorites to sons of Anuk to Rephaim and others and then to titans: see what I mean about being vague, generic, watering things down, etc.: you’re making category errors but seem unaware of it.
You refer to, “the first born” but were being generic so: the first born of whom and when?
Who were, “Drinkers of blood who ate all the people could produce, and then started eating the people” and when and what makes you think so?
See, the more you deal with people who challenge your views, rather than just being equally vague and generic, the more you’ll realize that you can’t back your assertions, the angrier you will become, the more abusive and less graceful and more worldly you will become when the Godly reaction would be to slow down, sharpen iron with iron, and really ponder the facts and change whatever needs changing in your modus operandi and views.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
Herein I will consider that which many such proponent of the idea of post-flood Nephilim existence claim and that is that God forbade Israelite intermarriage with Goyim/Gentiles due to seeking to keep bloodlines from mixing: in this case, pure human with the literally hybrid genetics of the Nephilim. Also see the sister article,
Was Israelite intermarriage forbidden due to serpent seedline of Satan?
Let us review some of the key texts to which post-flood Nephilim proponents direct us:
Deuteronomy 7: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Joshua 23: Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God. Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you:
1 King 11: But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you…
Ezra 9: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
Numbers 25: And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
Numbers 12: And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
I have quoted these specific portions so as to approximate the manner whereby they are likely to be quoted by post-flood Nephilim proponents. You will note that the texts are very straight forwards and from here the theorists will tell you that this pertains to not mixing bloodlines.
However, let us take a closer contextual look at these very same texts:
Deuteronomy 7: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Joshua 23: Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God.
Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
1 Kings 11: But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.
Ezra 9: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this.
Numbers 25: And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
Do you see how when read within context the whole concept of genetics mixing is utterly discredited? The texts tell you that this is about actions, about idolatry, about spiritual adultery as it were: about the Israelites not being given over to worship false gods due to intermarriage.
Revelation 2 has Jesus speaking to the church in Pergamos and noting that one of the things He had against them is that “thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.”
Also note Exodus 34:14-16:
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Thus, overall this has everything to do with not being unequally yoked, for example:
2 Corinthians 6: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
But what of Moses being spoken against due to taking an Ethiopian wife? Well, the text continues by noting that Miriam and Aaron also stated, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” the ultimate result of which is:
…the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud…And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.
Moses interceded of Miriam who is then healed and the contextual point with regards to my article is that this had utterly nothing to do with Moses’ Ethiopian wife: the Lord says nothing of it and no more of it is said by anyone ever.
The fact is that, God forbade intermarriage when the context implies undue or unbalanced Goyim/Gentile influence.
In fact Galatians 3 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In counter distinction to post-flood Nephilim proponents’ claims, God allows for such intermarriages in general when the influence would be on the side of the godly and not the idolaters:
Deuteronomy 20: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Thus, we have seen that, yet again, with just a little reading for context another post-flood Nephilim proponents claim gives up the ghost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Herein I will consider that which many such theorists claim and that is that God forbade Israelite intermarriage with Goyim/Gentiles due to seeking to keep bloodlines/seedlines from mixing: in this case, pure Sethite with the literally Satanic genetics of the Cainites.
Let us review some of the key texts to which serpent seedline of Satan theorists direct us:
Deuteronomy 7: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
Joshua 23: Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God. Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you:
1 King 11: But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you…
Ezra 9: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
Numbers 25: And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
Numbers 12: And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
I have quoted these specific portions so as to approximate the manner whereby they are likely to be quoted by serpent seed of Satan theorists. You will note that the texts are very straight forwards and from here the theorists will tell you that this pertains to not mixing bloodlines/seedlines since this all pertains to genetics.
However, let us take a closer contextual look at these very same texts:
Deuteronomy 7: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Joshua 23: Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the LORD your God.
Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with them, and go in unto them, and they to you: Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
1 Kings 11: But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;
Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods.
And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded.
Ezra 9: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this.
Numbers 25: And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
Do you see how when read within context the whole concept of genetics mixing is utterly discredited? The texts tell you that this is about actions, about idolatry, about spiritual adultery as it were: about the Israelites not being given over to worship false gods due to intermarriage.
Revelation 2 as Jesus speaking to the church in Pergamos and noting that one of the things He had against them is that “thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.”
Also note Exodus 34:14-16:
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.
Thus, overall this has everything to do with not being unequally yoked, for example:
2 Corinthians 6: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
But what of Moses being spoken against due to taking an Ethiopian wife? Well, the text continues by noting that Miriam and Aaron also stated, “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?” the ultimate result of which is:
…the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud…And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them; and he departed. And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.
Moses interceded of Miriam who is then healed and the contextual point with regards to my article is that this had utterly nothing to do with Moses’ Ethiopian wife: the Lord says nothing of it and no more of it is said by anyone ever.
The fact is that all so called “races” are one since all of us come from Adam and yes, from Eve. God forbade intermarriage when the context implies undue or unbalanced Goyim/Gentile influence.
In fact Galatians 3 states, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
In counter distinction to serpent seed of Satan claims, God allows for such intermarriages in general when the influence would be on the side of the godly and not the idolaters:
Deuteronomy 20: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
Thus, we have seen that, yet again, with just a little reading for context another serpent seedline of Satan claim gives up the ghost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
The BR TEAM published an article titled How Tall Were the Nephilim Giants in the Book of Genesis? Brilliant Read self-identified as, “one of the Leading Online Magazines and a Digital Media Company that publishes the finest content around Personal development, Success Mantras, News, Views, Interviews, Startup Stories, and Entrepreneurship.” It’s utterly fascinating that Nephilology has become such a cottage industry that even contextually irrelevant forums are posting about them.
We’re told of a, “Fallen Angel Nephilim Giant Tall Gods Controversy” which makes me wonder if they realize that biblically contextually, “Nephilim Giant” reads as, “Nephilim Nephilim.” They go on to elucidate, “The Bible describes giants in its content and also groups of giants, including Nephilim, who are mentioned once in the book of Genesis and again in Numbers.” We will have to see to what descriptions they’re referring and whether they tell us to what they’re referring by the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” especially since Nephilim were included in that category.
They note, “many studying the Bible would like to understand is the actual size, how tall the Nephilim really were” and rightly point out, “there is no biblical notation or concrete evidence documenting the exact height of the individuals”: I would go beyond not exact to not at all even generically vaguely—stand by.
For some reason, they next wrote, “Biblical references and North American skeletal remains offer reasonable speculation of the height of giants such as King Og and Goliath. Some specimens not widely spoken of measure between 10 and 18 feet tall.” Yet—I might as well get to the stand by part now—since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim (ok, stand by again for more on that) then there no such, “Biblical references,” especially no in the plural, nor “North American skeletal remains” (referencing an entire continent is a bit of a vague citation) since because we’ve no reliable physical description of them how then could we know even if we were looking right at their skeletons?
Also, we still can’t know to what they’re referring by, “the height of giants” but Og and Goliath were both Rephaim, not Nephilim, so they’re irrelevant to, “the actual size, how tall the Nephilim really were” thus, the, “10 and 18 feet tall” numbers are irrelevant.
As for citations, well, they note, “It was purported that ‘dozens were found between 1850 and 1940’” but we’re not told purported by whom nor where it was purported nor what was found nor where something was found but were only given a decade’s worth of time. It may be of interest that I collected together many (99% vaguely generic) newspaper reports from the late 1800s to the early 1900s in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales (which is one of my dozen, or so, Nephilology books).
It’s noted, “The Masoretic Texts suggest that Goliath spanned ‘six cubits and a span’ which was roughly 9’9” and that King Og slept in a bed of approximately 12’ in length. In 1 Kings 6, the cherubs were ten cubits or 15 feet tall.”
This is a case of that what was not said is more important than what was said so, let’s review:
Indeed, “The Masoretic Texts suggest that” but it’s still irrelevant since, again, he was a Repha, not a Nephil. Yet, moreover, what we weren’t told is that 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.
As for, “Og slept in a bed…” that’s also irrelevant due to the non-Nephil fact but it’s an artificial insertion to merely assert that it was a bed upon which he slept—and a merely assumption that it tells us anything about his personal height (which certainly seems to have been the implication)—a, “bed” of such dimensions was found in the Etemenanki ziggurat and it’s not meant to be slept upon but was an occult Pagan ritual object. For more details, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
As for the Cherubim, they’re also irrelevant to Nephiliology and the implication is that the height describes them physically but what we weren’t told is that the cite text is merely telling us the height of statues of them. And we know that we can’t just take statues of them literally, as in a one-to-one ratio, since another statue of them was atop the Ark of the Covenant, on the sides of the Mercy Seat, and those were much, much, much smaller.
And so, when they get to the statement, “With all of this considered” to come to the conclusion, “Nephilim was likely the tallest of any human, making them range between 10 to 15 feet in height, but that would be speculation” I’m pleased that they included the qualifying term speculation since that conclusion was based on no physical description of Nephilim but only appeals to non-Nephilim—one of whom, Og, for whom we’ve no physical description.
A subsection asks, “What Does Tell Us About Nephilim[?]” the cogently viable answer to which can only logically, and bio-logically, be: nothing.
More on point that they may realize, they note, “Nephilim is mentioned twice in the Bible, in the book of Genesis, and again in Numbers. Specifics on their appearance…size…are not described.” Gen 6:2-4 (is cited but only verses 2-3 are actually quoted) but, indeed, tells us nothing about their physical appearance.
As a side note, since the manner in which they quoted is, “… The sons of God saw that the daughters of mankind were beautiful, and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit will not remain with man forever because he is also flesh; nevertheless, his days shall be 120 years” and a comment is, “Nephilim lived on the earth then and beyond” so apparently, beyond 120 years: whether they mean of age or for 120 years after that statement was made.
And they rightly note, “The great flood wiped out Nephilim. The very distinct DNA of this creature was lost then, and there is no specific description of them living on earth following the flood or Noah’s days” about which I will say AMEN!!!
That sentence actually ends with, “…but were banished to North America. In that vein, there are legends among the indigenous North American people concerning giants described as having ‘six fingers on their hands, double rows of teeth, red hair and owning advanced technology.’” Yet, there’s zero indication that Nephilim exhibited any of those features.
It’s also noted, “Some believe the giants developed a thriving underground civilization” which is a great way of saying that lack of evidence equals evidence. Also, Gen 6:17 notes, “everything that is in the earth shall die.” But indeed, people who, for whatever mis-reason, are post-flood Nephilim obsessed demand that they are still alive but conveniently place them where no one can see them: in underground cavernous caves, in deep underground military bases, in Antarctica, etc., etc., etc.
Another section asked, “Did God Destroy the Nephilim[?]” and answers, “The Nephilim were not included as something to be preserved, meaning these creatures were destroyed with the great flood” which biblically, is the end of them, full stop, since they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
Moreover, “There is no mention of the Nephilim creatures with their distinct DNA, living on the earth following the days of Noah. Any references outside of the Bible to such are myth, theory, or speculation, and nothing more.”
But wait, it had been noted, “Nephilim…are mentioned once in the book of Genesis and again in Numbers” and the, “Final Thought” section reiterates, “Nephilim is mentioned twice in the Bible, both in Genesis and again in Numbers” which is post-flood, and, “there are no specific details describing the giants as far as their appearance, size…” yet, they never delved into the Num reference to them.
Well, that’s no great loss since they are mentioned in Num 13:33 which is merely one of the sentences in an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Thus, there’s zero reason to believe them.
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.
