Author: Ken Ammi

The Biblical Archaeology Society published an article titled The Nephilim and the Sons of God by a certain John Drummond who quotes Genesis 6:1–4 thusly:

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 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.

Interestingly, Drummond notes, “Though centuries of rabbinical and church tradition would say otherwise, the audience to whom the text was intended would have understood the ‘sons of God’ to be the members of the divine assembly mentioned throughout the literature of the ancient Near East, including the Bible (see Job 6:1; Job 38:7; Psalm 29:1; Psalm 82). In the biblical texts, the ‘sons of God’ are usually described as lesser heavenly beings in the service of the Most High.”

I say interestingly since the reverse appears to be the case but then again, it’s unknown to when, “Through centuries” refers. As per the earliest relevant centuries: 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.

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

John Drummond asserts that the word Nephilim, “translated means something to the effect of ‘ancient champions who made a name for themselves” but that’s not the word, that a combination of when they lived and what is said about them: pre-flood being ancient and that they are were mighty men who were of old, the men of renown being the, “champions who made a name for themselves” part. The word itself has its roots in naphal: fall/fallen/to fall/to cause to fall, etc.

Drummond notes, “Every society has myths and legends about gods having children with humans who become epic heroes and legendary kings…Readers of the Bible will be quick to point out the obvious problems with the Israelites’ enjoying the epic tales of demigods’ slaying monsters—they glorify a pagan culture filled with a slew of gods and goddesses…Instead of denying the existence of famous heroes altogether, the author labels them ‘the fallen ones’ and all but blames them for the utter depravity that fell upon the world and necessitated the flood…Just after the flood, in Babel (Babylon)…human beings decided to band together and build a tower to heaven to make a name for themselves (Genesis 11:1–9). Were they trying to create their own legends to cement themselves in history alongside the Nephilim? We can only speculate.”

Now, John Drummond goes on to merely assert, “The legacy of the Nephilim did not end with the flood, however, as the biblical texts go on to attribute them as the ancestors of some of the Israelites’ most feared enemies (Numbers 13:33).”

I say assert even though he threw is an unelucidated citation to one sentence because he threw is an unelucidated citation to one sentence.

Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper. Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.

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

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

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.”

But what about that one sentence? Well, that is the mother of all post-flood Nephilim texts—single verse, actually—because it’s the only one. And it’s one sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked. Thus, the answer to, “Were they trying to create their own legends to cement themselves in history alongside the Nephilim?” regarding the Babel-onians is one issue but the 10 were certainly creating their own legends about Nephilim as a fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale: see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

When Drummond goes on to write, “Another feared group that was legendary by the time the Israelites settled the land was the Rephaim, who were known to be powerful giants (Deuteronomy 2:11, 20, 3:11; Joshua 12:4, 13:12)” he doesn’t seem to be aware that biblically contextually, “Rephaim, who were known to be powerful giants” reads as, “Rephaim, who were known to be powerful Rephaim, who were known to be powerful Rephaim.”

He further notes, “It’s unknown if the Israelites originally equated the Rephaim with the Nephilim, but it is clear that by the Intertestimental period (the fourth–first centuries B.C.E.) the Nephilim were thought to be the monstrous giant offspring of fallen angels and humans, as described in the pseudographical Book of Enoch and Jubilees, as well as others found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.”

If, “Israelites originally equated the Rephaim with the Nephilim” it was due to that one sentence from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: who’s one sentence is literally the premise for all un-biblical Nephilology—and especially 100% of modern Nephilology which is neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.

As for the Intertestimental period; see my books The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Textsand In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch. That is when the 10 guys’ taking the tall-tales up a notch are taken up even more notches since such as who folklore is done—see my How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.

Moreover, Drummond notes, “The authors of the Greek Septuagint even chose to use the word gigantes in their translation of Genesis 6, a word that also invokes the monstrous Titans—the legendary giants that were destroyed by the gods in Greek myth. And like the Titans of old, the legend of the Nephilim only continues to grow in modern times.” Very well but he failed to elucidate that gigantes means earth-born (as in born of the false earth goddess Gaia).

But there’s more to the Septuagint’s sorted translating: that was not a translation but merely a rendering and for some unknown reason, those renderers also rendered gibborim and also Rephaim as gigantes (or, gigas: still a reference to Gaia) and it’s a terrible idea to render three very different words with three very different meanings with merely one word.

The article ends by directing us to Jaap Doedens’ paper Biblical Profile: Exploring the Story of the Sons of God wherein it’s noted, “Crucial to the understanding of Genesis 6:1-4 is the question: Who are these ‘sons of God’?…They are either human or non-human….fallen angels, mighty men, descendants of Seth, or divine beings.”

While, “the oldest explanation is that the ‘sons of God’ are angels” and, “The earliest Christian exegetes essentially took over this view. It is around the fourth century C.E. that the tide turns” to, “godly Sethites…who mingle with the daughters of the godless tribe of Cain” so that the Sethites weren’t so godly after all since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood—go figure. The Sethite view is not only a late-comer, it’s based on prejudice, on myth, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

It’s notes that (an overwhelming minority: would that be underwhelming?), “Already from the second century C.E. on, Jewish exegesis had also exchanged the angels interpretation for an explanation of the ‘sons of God’ as judges, rulers, or the elite who marry morally inferior women.” Since when does that, which includes the Sethite view, result in worldwide floods anyhow?

Jaap Doedens notes, “an historical kernel of this narrative about marriages of divine beings and human…can possibly be connected to archaeology. Perhaps the presence of megalithic tombs…dolmens…gave rise to tales about fallen giant warriors…This may be one of the functions of the narrative in Genesis 6:1-4.”

But he employed the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word, “giants” without defining it and correlated it to Gen 6:1-4 in some unstated manner.

And that, in essence, brings an end to the most contextually relevant portions of what John Drummond and Jaap Doedens had to say regarding my focus as a Systematic Biblical Paranormologist.

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.

Such is the title of a video by Right Response Ministries which led to the following discussion when a certain @redraven1410 commented

The Word Giant means Earth Born, not Huge of Stature, .Many Nephilim may very well have been huge of Stature.

I believe the gene that limits growth is contributed by the Father in some species and the Mother in others .

The Canaanites viewed the Joshua and Caleb and the  10 spies as “grass hoppers” ( very small).

If you lack a growth limiting gene, you would continue to grow for your entire lifetime

I, @kenammi355, replied

The Word gigantes means Earth born.

There’s no indication “The Canaanites viewed the Joshua and Caleb and the  10 spies as ‘grass hoppers’ ( very small).”

@ketubah857

Giant means…GIANT

[note how this person ignored the second correction]

@kenammi355

That’s incoherent since it begs the question it proports to answer. Let me put it this way, 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?

@ketubah857

I use the Hebrew definitions. Not my opinions or any ones opinions

@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. BTW, “Giant means…GIANT” isn’t Hebrew.

@ketubah857

The fallen angels are able to morph or shape shift. They can appear as a handsome man and deceive the women.  The offspring of the fallen angels and the human are called nephalem.  You are correct in that giant is not Hebrew. That is an English term.  But there are skeletons of the nephalim they are huge, as in giant huge.

@kenammi355

Well, but there’s actually zero biblical indication that “fallen angels” or any Angels, “re able to morph or shape shift. I’m unsure how you can identify “skeletons of the nephalim” since we’ve no reliable physical description of them.

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.

The question What is the theory on what happened to the Nephilim and their place in history? was posted to the Quora site and led to this discussion when L. Budow, “Scripture Questions & Answers Research For Life,” commented

The Nephilim and mans evil, due to the Angels and the resulting Nephilim and Rapha (Giant Nephilim), were the cause for God’s flood on earth to wipe them out.

This did not wipe them all out, as they had regenerative power as half angel and some were not exposed to the devestation of God’s flood.

It is stated in the scripture, during the time of David as King, they attempted to wipe out the giant Nephilim, (the Rapha)

There were still normal size Nephilim, but it is unknown what happened to them.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

The phrase “Nephilim and Rapha (Giant Nephilim)” appears to be a category error.

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?

As for “due to the Angels and the resulting…Rapha[im]” there’s zero indication of that.

It’s odd that you have it that they “were the cause for God’s flood on earth to wipe them out” but God failed, He couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste since, “This did not wipe them all out.”

You very specifically asserted, “It is stated in the scripture, during the time of David as King, they attempted to wipe out the giant Nephilim, (the Rapha)” but I would imagine that you can only assert that due to the incoherent non-biblical term “Nephilim, (the Rapha).”

I’m unsure to what you’re referring by “There were still normal size Nephilim.”

As for, “it is unknown what happened to them”: it is know, the last of them died in the flood—the problem is that you’re swapping “Nephilim” for “Rapaha[im]” but Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

1. Budow

Now you can disagree with the scriptures below if you disagree with the words of God.

Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakites, Giants

1. Genesis 6:4

It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth — when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring.

They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.

2. Genesis 14:5

In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim at Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim at Ham, the Emim at Shaveh-kiriathaim,

3. Genesis 15:20

the Hitites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim

4. Numbers 13:28

However, the people who inhabit the country are powerful, and the cities are fortified and very large; moreover, we saw the Anakites there.

5. Numbers 13:29

Amalekites dwell in the Negeb region; Hittites, Jebusites, and Amorites inhabit the hill country; and Canaanites dwell by the Sea and along the Jordan.”

6. Numbers 13:32

Thus they spread calumnies among the Israelites about the land they had scouted, saying, “The country that we traversed and scouted is one that devours its settlers. All the people that we saw in it are men of great size;

7. Numbers 13:33

we saw the Nephilim there — the Anakites are part of the Nephilim — and we looked like grasshoppers to ourselves, and so we must have looked to them.”

8. Deuteronomy 2:11

Like the Anakites, they are counted as Rephaim; but the Moabites call them Emim

9. Deuteronomy 2:20

It, too, is counted as Rephaim country. It was formerly inhabited by Rephaim, whom the Ammonites call Zamzummim,

10. Deuteronomy 2:21

a people great and numerous and as tall as the Anakites. The LORD wiped them out, so that [the Ammonites] dispossessed them and settled in their place,

11. Deuteronomy 3:11

Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remaining Rephaim. His bedstead, an iron

bedstead, is now in Rabbah of the Ammonites; it is nine cubits long and four

cubits wide, by the standard cubit!

12. Deuteronomy 3:13

The rest of Gilead, and all of Bashan under Og’s rule — the whole Argob district, all that part of Bashan which is called Rephaim country — I assigned to the half tribe of Manasseh.

13. Deuteronomy 9:2

a people great and tall, the Anakites, of whom you have knowledge; for you have heard it said, “Who can stand up to the children of Anak?”

14. Joshua 14:15

The name of Hebron was formerly Kiriath-arba: [Arba] was the great man among the Anakites. And the land had rest from war.

15. 2nd Samuel 21:20

Once again there was fighting, at Gath.

There was a giant of a man, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in all; he too was descended from the Raphah.

16. 2nd Samuel 21:21

When he taunted Israel, Jonathan, the son of David’s brother Shimei, killed him.

17. 2nd Samuel 21:22

Those four were descended from the Raphah in Gath, and they fell by the hands of David and his men.

18. 1st Chronicles 20:4

After this, fighting broke out with the Philistines at Gezer; that was when Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai, a descendant of the Rephaim, and they were humbled.

19. 1st Chronicles 20:5

Again there was fighting with the Philistines, and Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite; his spear had a shaft like a weaver’s beam.

20. 1st Chronicles 20:6

Once again there was fighting at Gath. There was a giant of a man who had twenty-four fingers [and toes], six [on each hand] and six [on each foot]; he too was descended from the Raphah.

21. 1st Chronicles 20:7

When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of David’s brother Shimea killed him.

22. 1st Chronicles 20:8

These were descended from the Raphah in Gath, and they fell by the hands of David and his men.

Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakites, Giants / Overview

Nephilim = angel human hybrids in Enoch

Nephilim = angel human hybrid in Genisis

Rephaim = giants Deuteronomy, 2nd Samuel, 1st Chronicles

Anakites = very large men, descendants of the Nephilim and human, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua,

1. the Nephilim appeared on earth — when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring
2. defeated the Rephaim at Ashteroth-karnaim
3. the Rephaim
4. very large; we saw the Anakites there.
5. Amalekites dwell in the Negeb region
6. one that devours its settlers. we saw in it are men of great size;
7. we saw the Nephilim there — the Anakites are part of the Nephilim —

and we looked like grasshoppers

8. the Anakites, they are counted as Rephaim; but the Moabites call them Emim
9. It is counted as Rephaim country.

formerly inhabited by Rephaim, whom the Ammonites call Zamzummim,

10. a people great and numerous and as tall as the Anakites.

The LORD wiped them out, so that [the Ammonites] dispossessed them

11. Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remaining Rephaim.

His bedstead, an iron bedstead, it is nine cubits long and four cubits wide,

by the standard cubit!

12. under Og’s rule — the whole Argob district, which is called Rephaim country —

I assigned to the half-tribe of Manasseh.

13. a people great and tall, the Anakites, of whom you have knowledge;
14. the great man among the Anakites
15. There was a giant of a man, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes

on each foot, twenty-four in all; he too was descended from the Raphah.

16. Jonathan, the son of David’s brother Shimei, killed him.
17. Those four were descended from the Raphah in Gath,

and they fell by the hands of David and his men.

18. Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Sippai,

descendant of the Rephaim, and they were humbled.

19. Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite;

his spear had a shaft like a weaver’s beam.

20. Jonathan son of David’s brother Shimea killed him.
21. These were descended from the Raphah in Gath,

and they fell by the hands of David and his men.

Ken Ammi

Appreciate it, friend.

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.

Nothing that you posted is relevant since you appear to be reading those texts without being categorical about what you’re reading so I will jump to the “Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakites, Giants / Overview” part:

Indeed, “Nephilim = angel human hybrid in Genisis.”

“Rephaim = giants…”: that’s myopic.

“Anakites = very large men, descendants of the Nephilim and human” there’s zero indication of any of that. We are told they were “tall” (not even “very”) which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as “giants” and they were named after a man named Anak, Abra’s son.

Is this supposed to mean something? “4. very large; we saw the Anakites there” and were is “there”?

This, “7. we saw the Nephilim there — the Anakites are part of the Nephilim” replies exclusive on one single sentence from only non-LXX versions of an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked: why do you side with them rather than with the God who rebuked them?

Indeed, “8. the Anakites, they are counted as Rephaim; but the Moabites call them Emim” and aka Zamzummim but Nephilim have absolutely nothing to do with any of that.

I’m unsure what Og’s “bedstead” has to do with anything.

Please answer the key questions since you will then understand that, “15. There was a giant of a man, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes” biblically contextually reads as, “15. There was a Repha, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes.”

That’s why most of what you posted is irrelevant to the issues I noted which were:

The phrase “Nephilim and Rapha (Giant Nephilim)” appears to be a category error.

As for “due to the Angels and the resulting…Rapha[im]” there’s zero indication of that.

It’s odd that you have it that they “were the cause for God’s flood on earth to wipe them out” but God failed, He couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste since, “This did not wipe them all out.”

You very specifically asserted, “It is stated in the scripture, during the time of David as King, they attempted to wipe out the giant Nephilim, (the Rapha)” but I would imagine that you can only assert that due to the incoherent non-biblical term “Nephilim, (the Rapha).”

I’m unsure to what you’re referring by “There were still normal size Nephilim.”

As for, “it is unknown what happened to them”: it is know, the last of them died in the flood—the problem is that you’re swapping “Nephilim” for “Rapaha[im]” but Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

1. Budow

This is Scripture Questins….. & Answers.

My opinion is insignificant to God, as is anyone elses.

Ken Ammi

Am I supposed to know to what “Scripture Questins….. & Answers” refers?

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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The About Pastors site is actually a.k.a. 24H News and published a List Of Giants In The Bible. Due to the formatting of the article and that the whole site appears to be lists, I get a feeling it’s basically an AI generated site. It’s said to have been written (or posted) by a certain Evangelist Shadrach.

The article’s title and opening line, “Giants in the Bible are very interesting and mysterious characters. They are mentioned in different parts of the Bible” begs 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 Shadrach’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

We get a taste of the answer to question two via this statement, “The word ‘giants’ makes us think of very tall and strong people, and that’s exactly how these characters are often described in the Bible.” We will have to see if we are provided with any backing for that statement.

We’re told that in the Bible, “stories are mentions of giants…These giants are not just in one part of the Bible but appear in several places” which is repetitive of an already made statement.

Now, keeping in mind that we were told, “very tall…people,” we are next told:

One of the first times giants are mentioned is in the Book of Genesis, which is the very first book of the Bible. Here, giants are called “Nephilim.” The Bible says that these Nephilim lived on the Earth both before and after a big flood that covered the Earth. People have different ideas about who these Nephilim were. Some think they were the children of angels and human women, while others think they were just very big and strong people.

Shadrach then moves away from Genesis so I’m unsure how it’s relevant since it doesn’t physically describe them at all.

There’s literally not on single statement in “The Bible” which, “says that these Nephilim lived on the Earth both before and after a big flood that covered the Earth”: in fact, 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.

Back to, “very tall…people” well, “very” and, “tall” are just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as “giants”? Next we’re told, “Goliath was a giant” so I supposed that he was subjectively, “tall” and perhaps even, “very” since he was just shy of 7ft. compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft. in those days.

We’re then told of, “other groups of giants mentioned in the Bible, like the Anakim and the Rephaim…known for their size” but the only thing we’re told about their size is that they were, “tall” on average (Deut 2). Also, Those were all Rephaim since Anakim were a clan of that tribe.

We’re then taken back to Nephilim, “The Nephilim are some of the earliest giants mentioned in the Bible, appearing in the Book of Genesis.” Now, oddly, “Genesis 6:4” is cited but not quoted rather, it’s merely asserted, “This verse tells us that the Nephilim were on Earth before and after the great flood” but such isn’t the case since it reads, “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.”

In fact, the flood isn’t even mentioned until a full 13 verse later.

It’s noted, “The Hebrew word Nephilim is often translated as ‘giants,’ suggesting they were much larger and stronger than normal humans. Their great size…” yet, that’s not a translation but is a rendering and to jump from that word to, “much larger” is a word-concept fallacy. The bottom line is that the answer to key question three is, “No” since, “giants” merely renders “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.

It’s then specified that, “The Anakim are another group of giants mentioned in the Bible, specifically in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. They are often described as the descendants of the Nephilim, making them part of the giant lineage.” Yet, that is only accurate if, “often” means once—and never in the LXX. It’s only in one single sentence of an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked that such a correlation is made and the LXX version lacks any reference to Anakim. Thus, there’s no logical, bio-logical, nor theo-logical reason to accept that they are related. Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim, such as Anakim, were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

It’s then reiterated, “The Anakim are said,” failing to note that it was said one time and by unreliable guys whom God rebuked, “to come from the Nephilim, linking them to the mysterious giants mentioned in Genesis…Nephilim, the Anakim were noted for their impressive height…” yet, Anakim were, “tall” and we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim since they only one we have comes from the, “evil report” which was just a tall-tale.

“In Numbers 13” is then cited and we’re rightly told, “Moses sends twelve spies to explore the land of Canaan” but then we’re mislead by being told, “The spies report back that the land is filled with giants, specifically mentioning the Anakim.” See, what’s happening here is the we’re led to believe that ten 12 reported that but that was not he case, the citation is to the, “evil report” I noted but the trustworthy Caleb and Joshua didn’t report nor support any such thing.

We’re then told, “In the book of Joshua, the Israelites, led by Joshua, finally enter Canaan and battle the Anakim…The Anakim represent significant physical and psychological obstacles” in part due to their, “intimidating size” but, again, they had nothing to do with Nephilim.

We’re then told, “Rephaim are another group of giants…described as a formidable…in size…being as tall” and one of them is identified, “the most famous Rephaim was King Og of Bashan, mentioned in Deuteronomy 3. He was noted for his enormous bed made of iron, suggesting his great size.” Yet, that’s a non-sequitur based on various assumptions: we don’t have a physical description of Og—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

I’m getting the feeling that this was a AI generated article, a word generator copy and paste job: I suspect that due to the meandering, repetitive nature and that it’s very vague and watered down.

Having said that, we’re circled back to Goliath and told, “Goliath is described as standing over six cubits and a span tall, which would make him about nine feet nine inches tall.” Yet, that’s 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.

We’re then told of, “The Emim and the Zamzummim: Lesser-Known Giants” but Shadrach (or the AI) seems to be unaware that Emim and Zamzummim or Zuzim are merely a.k.a. for Rephaim.

We’re then repetitively circled back to King Og.

The article, and many like is, also pepper homiletical sermonizing statements such as, “a powerful symbol of overcoming great challenges through faith and divine support…representing the triumph of the underdog and the importance of divine aid in achieving victory…themes of divine support and victory over seemingly insurmountable odds,” etc., etc., etc.

Well, we got a tase of watered-down misused terminology along with citations to text that don’t say what it was asserted they say along with assertions peppered throughout the various repetitive statements.

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.

Hilda Scott, from The Holy Script site, posted an article titled Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From?

The immediately important key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

Those questions are key since, for example, Scott begins by noting, “Most of us are familiar with the term ‘giants’ in the context of the Bible, since they are mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments” but we’re forced to guess to what, to whom, he’s referring much less whereabouts whatever giants are can be found in the NT.

She notes, “The word ‘giant’ is derived from the Latin word ‘gigentes’, which means ‘terrifying monsters with great strength’. These giants were believed to have been descendants of the Nephilim, the offspring of the union between the ‘sons of God’ and the ‘daughters of men’ mentioned in Genesis 6:2-4. According to tradition, the Nephilim were not just ordinary humans, but superhuman creatures with immense power.”

It’s also noteworthy that the word “giant” is derived from the Greek word “gigantes,” which means “earth-born.” Since she didn’t cite anything, I unsure what she was quoting regarding the Latin.

Now, as for the second key question, she noted, “giants were believed to have been descendants of the Nephilim” but I’m unsure who that would have been although sure, there were surely such personages around—strictly pre-flood, of course.

As for, “immense power” well, I suppose one could get that from the Biblical statement, “mightly.”

Now, since she defined, “giant” as per Gen 6:2-4 (only v. 4 refers to them) then by, “giants” she means, “Nephilim.” This actually is half of the answer to the first key question: in the Bibles which employ that English word it’s merely rendering, not even translating, “Nephilim” in two verses and/but, “Rephaim” in 98% of all other verses—Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Hilda Scott then notes, “These giants were thought to have inhabited Canaan and other areas of the Promised Land. As related in Numbers 13:31-33 and Joshua 14:1-15, the spies that Moses sent to survey the land before the Entry of the Israelites noticed that the land was populated by an unusually large number of intimidating peoples. Of particular note were the descendants of Anak, who were described as ‘giants.’”

Well, that is actually a case of watering things down in order to make them seem to fit so let’s review:

“were thought to” by whom?

“inhabited Canaan and other areas of the Promised Land” that’s impossible since they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

“As related in Numbers 13:31-33” which is just an, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so there’s no reason to believe them.

“and Joshua 14:1-15” there’s not a single word about Nephilim in that text.

“the spies that Moses sent” is too generic since it was the 10 unreliable ones who merely asserted that.

“descendants of Anak, who were described as ‘giants’” well, to say that they were described as such is part of the incoherent tall-tale—and it means, “were described as Nephilim” since they were fallaciously correlated to them.

Scott then tells us, “The incident of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17 provides further evidence of the existence of giants in the land.” Yet, he was a Repha, not a Nephil—nor could he have been, so that’s a non issue.

Moreover, “The Philistine giant Goliath is described as being ‘six cubits and a span’ in height, which is equivalent to around nine feet today.” Keep in mind that as per Scott’s definition, “The Philistine giant Goliath” reads as, “The Philistine Nephilim Goliath” but, again, there’s zero indication of that.

As for, “around nine feet” well, I’m unsure what that has to do with anything but that’s as per the Masoretic Text but the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus, which is the preponderance of the earliest data, all have him at four cubits and a span, just shy of 7 ft.—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Hilda Scott then asks and answers, “Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From”—even though she already told us—“The giants also featured prominently in the books of Joshua and Ezekiel” but there’s no indication of any such thing. Okay, let’s get this out in the open: it’s pretty obvious that Scott offered us a definition of, “giants” as a mere reference to, “Nephilim” but has shifted her usage without telling us to something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height.

So then we are being given the homework of attempting to figure out what she’s talking about with any given usage which is just not the right thing to do to one’s readers. For example, translating her with this in mind, the assertion was, “The subjectively unusually tall personages also featured prominently in the books of Joshua and Ezekiel.”

Example one is Joshua 13:12’s reference to, “Og and Sihon, both of whom were referred to as ‘giants’” but 1) Scott doesn’t seem to realize that it means, “who were referred to as ‘Rephaim,’” 2) we don’t have a physical description of either of them and 3) even with the misusage of, “giants” as meaning subjectively unusually tall so merely jump to the conclusion that someone who is referred to as a giant must have been subjectively unusually tall regardless of genre, context, etc., is a word-concept fallacy.

We then come to, “giants” (whatever that means) in the NT, “In the New Testament, Jesus mentions the giants as a warning to his followers not to fear their enemies or be afraid of their own shortcomings (Matthew 16:18). He also speaks of the giants as a reference to people’s capacity to overcome whatever challenge they may face (Mark 8:36).”

We now have to do more homework so here are the actual quotations:

Matthew 16:18, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[a] I will build my church, and the gates of hell[b] shall not prevail against it.”

Mark 8:36, “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”

What those have to do with Nephilim or Rephaim or subjectively unusual height is certain mysterious—I’m getting the feeling that the article was the result of an AI word generator farm.

Scott then tells us, “we may never really know the true origin of giants in the Bible” but she already told us about the origins of Nephilim, Rephaim originated form their parents, and subjectively unusually tall people are just subjectively unusually tall—due to better nutrition, a pituitary gland issue, etc.

We’re generically told, “While some” unnamed, “believe that the Sons of God were human kings or rulers, others consider them to be angels, who descended to earth and intermingled with human women.” The, “human kings or rulers” view might be ancient but it’s historically virtually unknown and it’s incoherent since there’s not a single word in the whole Bible about there being anything wrong with kings or rulers marrying hoi polloi—commoners. That is what the view is but there’s no indication that there was anything wrong with that, much less wrong enough to result in the flood.

Another reason I suspect this was an AI article is that it’s tragically repetitive: I’m sparing you most of that—as well as being generic and anachronistic.

Scott, or the AI, tells us, “Some,” somebodies, “believe that the Nephilim were descendants of the wicked nations that existed pre-Flood, such as the people of Canaan and other ancient tribes.” Well, that’s literally impossible since, “the people of Canaan” didn’t even exist until centuries post-flood, and neither did Canaan as the name of a region.

Hilda Scott-AI then tell us that, “their extraordinary size and strength remain evidence of their tremendous power” but the only reference to their, “extraordinary size” is one sentence from an evil report that no one should believe.

Yet, we’re told, “There are several explanations for why the Nephilim were so physically large…bigger and stronger than humans…much larger size” but this is a literal non-issue.

For some out-of-left-field reason, we’re told, “Nephilim were actually significant in terms of innovation, particularly in terms of technology and science.”

It’s then asserted, “Archaeological evidence suggests that the Nephilim existed in many regions around the world…The Nephilim were also credited with introducing new and unique methods of construction, medicine, and even weapons…Nephilim were credited with building the Great Pyramid at Giza” but since we’re give zero citations we can merely dismiss those are tall-tale: for example, what, “Archaeological evidence” is there of pre-flood personages for whom we’ve no reliable physical description?

At this point, I’m disinterested in continuing to read merely watered down assertions such as, “Christianity, believed that the Nephilim were a blessing to humanity…even regarded as divinely inspired”: having familiarized myself with over two millennia of relevant data (with which I wrote my dozen, or so, Nephilology book) I can tell you that literally no one has ever claimed such a thing—although, the innerwebs is a big place so I grant so someone in some blog might have made such a mere assertion.

Scott/AI then noted, “the origin of giants in the Bible remains a mystery” so you see how such artificial articles loop round and round and round.

We’re then, generically, told of, “The phenomenon of giants…Evidence of giant populations…superhuman creatures…giants on earth…giants are descendants of aliens…giants of the Bible remain an enigma” and on and on and on the vagaries go.

Round we go again with, “Where Did The Giants In The Bible Come From…Biological Aspects of the Giants…giants are described as having superhuman strength – possibly due to the fact that they had twice the amount of DNA than an average human” with zero indication of whence came that merely asserted supposed, “fact.”

More tall-tales follow with, “hurling large boulders” and then a reference to, “In light of this evidence” which is utterly detached from the article since it presented no evidence but merely generic assertions.

On it goes with, “incredible strength and size….Their physical might…” and so we come to the end of what the future of Nephilology holds: circular assertions repeated over and over again lacking citations and based on watered down vague, AI generated, statements.

FYI: Hilda Scott is described as, “an avid explorer of the Bible and inteprator [sic.] of its gospel. She is passionate about researching and uncovering the mysteries that lie in this sacred book. She hopes to use her knowledge and expertise to bring faith and God closer to people all around the world.” If such is the case, she needs to stop (allegedly) relying of AI and do some serious and seriously detailed research and writing.

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

A Christian Response to Atheism is the title of a vid posted to the “Matt Powell OFFICIAL” Youtube channel.

A certain @PA9052 commented

1. 00:00 – “It’s (Atheism) the idea that everything came from nothing, with no god”

            The definition of Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deity (god). It has nothing to do withhow they believe how the universe started. Yes, some atheists do believe that, but, if you’re talkingabout atheists who follow science like me, the short answer for how the universe started is simply that we don’t know. Scientists do have hypothesis about what could be there before the Big Bang happened, but we still, and might never know for sure what there was, or even how it happened, and they certainly do not claim that “everything came from nothing”. And, as a side note, just because we don’t know does not confirm that not only a god has created the universe, but that the god of your religion did. Every claim has to stand on its own.

2. 00:22 – “I’ve actually asked certain atheists: “Would you become a Christian if Christianity were true? And they will say no”.”

            Have you asked them why that was their answer? Maybe you have, if so could you share their answer(s) to that? You can not just make an assumption of why they would not become Christians if this religion was true.

3. 00:31 – “They’re (atheists) more about emotions, they’re more about feelings and experiences, instead of demonstrated facts”

            Could you provide what “demonstrated facts” you are talking about?

4. 00:39 – “Look if you’re an atheist, there’s no way to determine what’s right and wrong”

            How so? Do you have any concrete evidence for this claim? I’m assuming you are talking about morality, and if not please correct me, but morality has been explained by science. Explained simply and to my understanding, it’s benificial for a group of individuals to not harm eachother, i.e. assault, kill, r*pe, insult among other things. Infact, morality has been observed on other animals, even other apes.

5. 01:04 – (Hitler was an atheist)

            From what I could read, this is most likely false. The things is, no one knows for sure what was the “last” religious stand, if any, of Adolf Hitler. However, according to Wikipedia, he criticised atheism. If that is the case, I would think it’s unlikely that he was himself and atheist. I do also want to point out that, even if he was an atheist, it was nothing to do with the horrors that he committed. He has never declared that his action were “in the name of atheism” or anything like that. It is frankly disgusting to implicitly compare atheists to one of the most horrible person in history. And I could make this argument against christianity; the Crusades happened, and the reason for these wars was religion. So by your logic, I could say that if you’re a christian, you must endorse war and thus don’t have (good) morals.

6. 01:24 – “They (atheists) lead the world in school shootings”

            I have honestly not found any statistics or any other forms of information regarding this claim. And also, if this was true, it would not necessarily mean that being an atheist would make you more likely to commit such a crime. For example, there might be an area in the world where people commit this crime often, and it just happened that they were atheists. Again, it seems that you want to make us seem like we’re some evil beings and turn your (christian) viewers against us. If that is the case, and I’m not saying it *is*, but if it is, I ask you: “Why?”

7. 01:44 – “Atheists also lead the world in drug abuse”

            From what I could find, this seems to be true. I do have an answer for that: being religious often involves being in a community, where it’s more likely to have more people who care about you, and want to help you. If you’re an atheist, you’re less likely to be in a community like that, making it easier to fall into substance abuse. Now, I want to make it clear that that was purely my opinion and should not be taken as the absolute truth. Also, just because atheists are more likely to fall into substance abuse does not mean your god exists. And another point, people that are part of any religion are less likely to fall into substance abuse, not just christians.

I currently do not have any more time to answer your later points, I might come back tomorrow to answer more.

I, @kenammi355, replied

I will make a comment on your first point and see if we can take it from there:

“The definition of Atheism”: I’m unaware that there’s only one but I am very aware that every individual Atheist demands that they are THE authority on Atheism and only their myopically subjective definition counts.

“It has nothing to do withhow they believe how the universe started”: of course it does, by definition in fact, since according to dogmatheism that God created the universe is anathema, it will get you excommunicated, it’s not allowed since Atheism is thought restricting.

So, you’re cosmogenic myth is “we don’t know” with “we” being “atheists who follow science” but “Scientists do have hypothesis” and there are very strongly evidenced science-based theories–which finally caught up to Gen 1:1, BTW.

I would have to know to what you’re referring to, “know for sure” since different scientific fields have different standards of what can be known with what level of certainty and hiding behind “sure” while ignoring the strongest hypothesis is no way to do world-view–which according to Dawkins, et al, is what Atheism is.

As for, “they certainly do not claim that ‘everything came from nothing'” well, the “they” must refer to a very, very myopically limited few on whom you rely since you can bore yourself reading/listening to how another “they” have been asserting for many, many decades that “everything came from nothing” by nothing to nothing for nothing–even if they have to play word-games by claiming that nothing isn’t nothing but that nothing is something (go figure).

Indeed, “just because we don’t know does not confirm that not only a god has created the universe” nor does is mean that He didn’t but, again, the latest science (not scientist) finally caught up with the Bible.

But, BTW, what does it matter, on your world-view, if an accidentally existing ape made erroneous claims about what a historically few accidentally existing apes believe about accidental reality?

@PA9052

1. “The definition of Atheism”: I’m unaware that there’s only one but I am very aware that every individual Atheist demands that they are THE authority on Atheism and only their myopically subjective definition counts.

            How I described atheism is, as far as I know, the official definition. Your point that every individual atheist demands that they are the authority on atheism is false. Yes, some atheists do think that, it might even be the majority for all I know, but saying all think like that? That’s dishonest, or ignorant at best.

2. “It has nothing to do with how they believe how the universe started”: of course it does, by definition in fact, since according to dogmatheism that God created the universe is anathema, it will get you excommunicated, it’s not allowed since Atheism is thought restricting.

            I might not have been precise enough on that, I apologise. Yes, obviously, atheists do not believe that God has created the universe, which I guess does count as a belief on how the universe started. What I meant is that every atheist does not have the same belief on how it did start, and a lot simply admit that they don’t know.

3. So, you’re cosmogenic myth is “we don’t know” with “we” being “atheists who follow science” but “Scientists do have hypothesis” and there are very strongly evidenced science-based theories–which finally caught up to Gen 1:1, BTW.

            I could not find the theories you’re talking about for what caused the Big Bang. I’m also not really sure what you mean by “which finally caught up to Gen 1:1, BTW.”; English is not my first language, my apologies.

4. I would have to know to what you’re referring to, “know for sure” since different scientific fields have different standards of what can be known with what level of certainty and hiding behind “sure” while ignoring the strongest hypothesis is no way to do world-view–which according to Dawkins, et al, is what Atheism is.

            An hypotesis is just that, an hypothesis. It is far from a fact or even a scientific theory. One hypothesis you might have heard of is the Big Crunch, a scenario in which the universe will eventually collapse on itself, eventually recreating the Big Bang. From what we know it could have happened, but we cannot say that we know that’s what happened, hence why I said that we don’t know for sure.

5. As for, “they certainly do not claim that ‘everything came from nothing'” well, the “they” must refer to a very, very myopically limited few on whom you rely since you can bore yourself reading/listening to how another “they” have been asserting for many, many decades that “everything came from nothing” by nothing to nothing for nothing–even if they have to play word-games by claiming that nothing isn’t nothing but that nothing is something (go figure).

            Yes, a lot of atheists do believe that “everything came from nothing”, and it could be a possibility. Honestly, if they assert that it is true, either they have a misunderstanding of science, are ignorant on the matter or are simply being dishonest. Personally, I don’t know if everything came from nothing or not, as nothing as been proven so far.

6. Indeed, “just because we don’t know does not confirm that not only a god has created the universe” nor does is mean that He didn’t but, again, the latest science (not scientist) finally caught up with the Bible.

            Again, I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “caught up with the Bible.”, but if you meant that science finally has an explaination for the beginning of the universe like the Genesis, here’s my answer. The Bible having an answer to the begining of the universe does not mean that they were even close to right. Science evolves and changes over time, as we create new tools and discover new information. Please let me know if I misunderstood your question.

7. But, BTW, what does it matter, on your world-view, if an accidentally existing ape made erroneous claims about what a historically few accidentally existing apes believe about accidental reality?

            It is another question that I’m not sure I understood fully. Who exactly is the “accidentally existing ape” and who are the “historically few accidentally existing apes”?

I do want to thank you for your response.

@kenammi355

Wow, you wrote an essay—so glad I only focused on one of your paragraphs ;o)

But I do appreciate the detailed elucidation.

“official definition” as per what or whom?

How could it be that “every individual atheist demands that they are the authority on atheism is false” since I’ve experienced that hundreds of times—and I’m still experiencing it with you right now? But I see that you just wasted time about the word “all.”

As for, “dishonest, or ignorant” I’m not interested in you playing mind-reader sine you’re not good at it. But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with dishonesty and ignorance?

Appreciate the elucidation on the “God has created the universe” thing but the meta point is that Atheism is a world-view so that it does demand that you view the universe, and thus utterly everything in it, in a certain way. Granted, “every atheist does not have the same belief on how it did start” but all of you have the same belief on how it did not start.

As for, “finally caught up to Gen 1:1, BTW” well, the latest hypothesis or theory or evidence about the universe is that it had a beginning and is a time, space, matter continuum. Now, Gen 1:1 states, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” as in, “In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].” The oscillating model was debunked back in the 1930s, from what I recall.

Guess that: English is not my first language either.

By “accidentally existing ape” I was referring to a typical Atheist claim about what humans are.

@PA9052

I’m sorry for writing such a lengthy response, I’m kinda new to argumenting online.

For the definition of atheism, I got it from Wikipedia, Oxford Languages and Cambridge dictionary. Granted, it also states that atheism can be the belief that there is no god, not just the lack of belief in a god/gods.

I’ve also never said that I was the “authority on atheism”. I’m sorry if you felt that way, but I’m just a random guy argumenting online. Some people are much more qualified in talking about this topic than I am, and in no way do I qualify myself as an “authority” on the subject. I’m still standing by my point that not all atheists act like that, as that is objectively not true.

It is true that we have the same belief on how the universe did not start, but that’s because, get this, we don’t believe in a god. Why would we/some atheists believe that there was a creator created the universe if we don’t believe in a creator in the first place ?

Again, I’m really not qualified to talk about this subject, but from what I understand, the universe itself did not have a “beginning” that we know of. The universe as we know it did, it started from the big bang, but it’s possible there was something before that, we just can’t “see” further back because the laws of physics as we know them break at a certain point. Also, just because a 2000 year old book described what loosely sounds like what we know of today does not in any way mean that it has any credibility. Also I find it farfetched to say that “earth” could mean all matter, just my opinion.

For the oscillating model, which I assume you mean the Big Crunch, it was indeed debunked, I admit I did not know that. However there seems to be new “oscillating models” that have sprung up recently, which I honestly don’t really understand so you might have to do your own research on that.

Also, humans, like pretty much every living thing, aren’t really accidental. How we evolved was due to random mutations, yes, but the ones that did “live” on did not do so accidentally. The bad mutations resulted in the organism’s death while the good ones resulted in more procreation and thus said mutation stayed. Give that millions of years and we eventually got humans.

And it did not really clear up your previous question. I meant to ask who are the “accidentally existing ape (human)” and “historically few accidentally existing apes (humans)”.

@kenammi355

When you refer to THE definition of Atheism you’re asserting it’s authoritative. You’re, at least, ignoring one of the main denominations of Atheism which, in fact, was the major modern one.

So, now you can admit what I noted which is that you have a worldview and it tells you how to think about things so that, “we have the same belief on how the universe did not start” so I appreciate you backing me up on that. Atheism is thought restricting by definition.

But let’s get to the bottom line since I’m not interested in trading essays anymore: on your worldview humans are accidentally existing apes since we were not created/designed but are just byproducts of a very, very, very long series of accidents.

Ergo, there’s no universal imperative, on your worldview, for accidentally existing apes to exercise their accidental discernment about accidental reality and so there’s literally nothing wrong with (allegedly) misrepresenting Atheism nor (supposedly) misrepresenting (accidental) reality.

@PA9052

I appreciate your response.

From my understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong, you seem to be conflating atheism and nihilism. I believe you’re saying that since from an “atheist worldview” life is meaningless (which is nihilism, not atheism), it doesn’t matter if one group misrepresents another group, whether maliciously or not.

Except it does: it hurts people and turns them against each other. Believe it or not I do care about other people. Just because I believe we were not created for a purpose and a meaning does not mean there are no morals or good or bad. We evolved to have morals for a reason, it helps the survival of our species.

Also, could you please tell me what those “main denominations of Atheism” are? I’m not familiar with those. Again, I used official definitions for atheism, all of which say roughly the same thing, so I can do nothing but assume they are correct. I also realise that I am more of an agnostic than an atheist, as I do not know for sure that a god doesn’t exist, I just live my life as if there was not one due to the lack of evidence.

@kenammi355

“from an ‘atheist worldview’ life is” objectively “meaningless” which is why Atheists insist that they get to find their own subjective meaning and I can do the same: oh, as long as you only do what they impotently demand are ethical dogmas.

You’re an example, “Except” don’t hurt people.

But note that you merely asserted, you merely posted an emotively subjective personal preference du jour, a, “My dear diary, today I feel…” level entry since you jumped to, “it hurts people and turns them against each other” but didn’t bother getting around to THE key issues which are 1) why is there anything wrong with that?, 2) that’s just you but doesn’t proceed forth from your worldview, 3) on your worldview harm is just an accidentally existing organism’s emotively subjective interpretation of accidental byproducts of an accidental mixture of neural-chemicals within their accidentally existing brain and there’s no universal imperative to not do things that might result in such interpretations ergo, you discredited yourself from complaining about it.

It’s not ontologically wrong, you’re just telling me that you personally don’t like it just like you might say you don’t like a certain ice-cream flavor. As you put it when you hit the nail on the head, “I DO care” indeed, that’s your emotively subjective person preference: what of it?

As for, “Just because I believe we were not created for a purpose and a meaning does not mean there are no morals or good or bad” actually, it means exactly just that. Yet, technically you’re right but that’s only because “morals” refers to the “mores” which are mere descriptions of whatever people happen to be doing. So, for example, if a culture decides that causing harm is a good then that’s the morals, the mores, by definition.

As for, “We evolved to have morals” when did we stop?

But you only ever seem to jump to merely asserted conclusions such as, “it helps the survival of our species” but you didn’t bother saying why it’s some sort of universal imperative to help the survival of our accidental species and, BTW, on your worldview our survival instinct is also accidental so there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it.

Feel free to search online for, “Atheism’s Sects – TrueFreeThinker.”

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

To this Quora site question, John Smith (who describes himself as “A Bible guy”) replied:

Q2A: What happened to the children of the Nephilim?
They are alive today. Here is proof that they survived the flood:
Genesis_6:4 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.
Numbers_13:33 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.” (ESV)
Numbers 13:33 was well after the flood. These Nephilim lived in Canaan, and the Canaanites were dispersed along with the Israelites throughout the world. They are everywhere.
It is a myth that the Nephilim were the offspring of angels and human women. The scriptures are clear; the Nephilim were on earth before and after the sons of God married the daughters of men (see Genesis 6:4 above).
Here is a reference: Sons of God saw the daughters of men

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Friend, one thing you did not do is to quote the texts that affirm that 8 people and some animals survived (Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5) thus, it cannot be that “the children of the Nephilim…survived the flood.”
Genesis 6:4 states nothing of it.
Yes, “Numbers 13:33 was well after the flood” but when you say “These Nephilim lived in Canaan,” etc. you are basing that on one single verse and are building an entire, all-encompassing, theory “today…They are everywhere” upon one single verse.
The narrative of that chapter is clear in that you are relying exclusively on 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers, who were said to present an “evil report” wherein they many five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing, whom God rebuked (to name some of the problems with just picking up one verse and running with it).
As for that “Nephilim were on earth before and after the sons of God married the daughters of men” well, the text is about the relationships of the sons of God and daughters of men so it would be quite odd, in terms of narrative, to artificially insert a mention of Nephilim that is 1) unrelated to the narrative and 2) about whom the author says nothing more.
Also, the texts reads that “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward when” as in as a result of when “the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
Now, if “They are alive today” where are they?

John Smith:

They are in our DNA. Let’s say that the Nephilim had 10 genes that made them very tall. These genes would be in many of those who lived before the flood. Some maybe had one gene, some perhaps 5 genes, and some perhaps had all 10 genes. So the key is how many of the genes resided in the 8 people who survived the flood. It is simple genealogy.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, I’m shocked that “A Bible guy” would ignore all of the various problems with his assertions and simply jump to that “They are in our DNA.”
But why “Let’s say that the Nephilim had 10 genes that made them very tall” when we have no reliable indication that thy were very tall, or even tall, or even any reliable physical description of them at all?
“So the key is” that zero Nephilim “genes resided in the 8 people who survived the flood.”
Thus, this is not “simple genealogy” since you have no genealogy of anyone post-flood going back to pre-flood Nephilim.
Did the flood have anything to do with Nephilim?

John Smith:

No, the flood had nothing to do with the Nephilim. They were here before the flood and after the flood. Their genes were in Noah’s family.
Study gigantism, and you will see that there are 10 genes associated with it.
After Adam and Eve sinned, the genetic mutations began. This was one of the first as documented in Genesis.
This is my opinion after studying it for many years. Maybe I am wrong, but I always take my best shot. Perhaps soon, I will find out the absolute truth, but now we all enjoy the discoveries.

Ken Ammi

Nephilim were here before the flood and but there is no reliable indication that they were here after the flood.
There is no indication whatsoever that “Their genes were in Noah’s family” someone just made up that anti-biblical tall tale when they wanted to demand that there were post-flood Nephilim but realized that the Bible said nothing about it.
Why “Study gigantism” when we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim and so no reason to assert that they were even one inch taller than average?
Appreciate the discussion since I love dealing with these issues.

John Smith:

I do think there is reliable information concerning Nephilim after the flood.
Genesis_6:4 There were giants (H5303) 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.
Numbers_13:33 And there we saw the giants (H5303), the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: (H5303) and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
**********************************************************
Here is Strong’s dictionary input:
H5303
נְפִל נְפִיל
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel’, nef-eel’
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: – giant.
*************************************************
The Bible uses the same word for both the Genesis and Numbers entries. It can mean giant or bully, but the Numbers verse strongly implies that they were very big making the Israelites look like grasshoppers.
I will have to stick with my original statements, but whatever you believe is fine with me. We are all doing our best and enjoying the journey.
E-sword is a Bible study tool that is great and available on the internet for free. Rick Warren produced it.

Ken Ammi:

Genesis 6:4 is pre-flood, not from “after the flood.”
As for Numbers 13:33, I already noted, “you are basing that on one single verse and are building an entire, all-encompassing, theory ‘today…They are everywhere’ upon one single verse.”
You need to interact with that text and not just pull one single verse out of it, run with it, and apply it.
There are so many problems with that verse that during an opening statement to a debate, it took me about 10 minutes to review them.
So, when you say “The Bible uses the same word for both the Genesis and Numbers entries” you are not asking the key questions: who said, it why did the say it, what was the reaction to it, etc., etc.
You are basing your views on one single verse that merely records an “evil report” by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who made five statements that can’t be backed by anything else in the whole Bible and whom God rebuked: why do you believe them?

John Smith:

You may be right, but I don’t think so. Sorry, but we have a friendly disagreement. Some day we will know for sure. If you are right, I will rejoice with you.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, I’ve written 7-9 books (depends on how you count them) on these issues alone and have discussed them with hundreds of people and it’s sad when God’s word is very clear but people opt for neo-theo-sci-fi.
I’ll leave you with this: the 10 spies on whom you rely utterly and exclusively for your Nephilology contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible.
I will side with Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible and urge you to do likewise.

John Smith:

Sorry, but I am firm. You are also firm; that’s good. Some day we will know the truth, and we can have a heavenly cup of coffee together.

Ken Ammi:

So, just so that I understand: are you really parting on a note that you side with a guys whom God rebuked and who contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible?

Well, that was the end of that.

The following discussion took place when someone on the Quora site asked: Is it possible that the Nephilim still affect the human government through the spiritual realm ever since Noah’s flood?

A certain Steve Leonard took the insta-jerk approach by commenting

Well, lookie here…

Marc Bloemers yet AGAIN asking me yet ANOTHER baseless, ridiculous, and irrelevant question!

I feel so special!

Are the Nephilim those alleged giant humans that allegedly existed before Noah’s flood?

If so, that is the extent of by knowledge concerning these mythical creatures…

Look, sonny…

My suggestion to you is to quit huffing spray paint while reading your bible…

Another bedazzling A2A by the legendary MARC BLOEMERS!

sheesh!

I, Ken Ammi, replied

You seem to be experiencing some psycho-emotional problems. Probably better to not (pseudo) “Answer” such question. However, I agree that Nephilim were merely “alleged giant” (supposing you were implying that modern usage of “giants”) since we’ve no reliable physical description of them.

A certain Jason Shearin chimed in with

You seem confused. This is what happens when theists ask us M I L L I O N S of ridiculous questions based on proven lies. It’s called being annoyed.

Ken Ammi

If you can ever go beyond jumping to conclusions which you merely assert, please let me know.

For now, I’ll note this:

“seem confused”: mere assertion since you don’t’ even bother saying confused about what, how so, etc.

“ridiculous”: subjective assertion and that which seems ridiculous to you isn’t a standard.

“proven lies”: another assertion, you say “lies” but don’t bother proving it, don’t bother saying how you know they’re lies, don’t bother telling me what’s wrong with lying, on your worldview, and don’t bother elucidating the alleged proof.

“annoyed”: that which seems ridiculous to you or Steve (who is always annoyed that anyone dares to question him) isn’t a standard.

Jason Shearin

Ok then. Prove to us that a global flood wiped out half angel half human giants.

Begin with showing us a global genetic bottleneck event in every terrestrial species, as well as geologic evidence on all 7 continents.

So far nobody in human history has managed this. This is why the global flood and everything related to it are myths and not facts.

Ken Ammi

I’ll take “Ok then” as an admission that your previous comment was utterly fallacious (do fallacies matter, on your worldview?).

Now, you’re continuing to begin with conclusions so the first step is that you justify demanding me to “Prove” on your worldview.

Meanwhile, before answering, I would also need to know what you mean by the generic, vague, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined modern English word “giants.”

Then, move on to telling us what would be wrong if it were true (is adhering to truth a universal imperative, on your worldview?) that some people believe “myths and not facts” (is adhering to facts a universal imperative, on your worldview?)

Steve Leonard

I will continue to answer questions however the hell I choose to answer them, bubba…

Ken Ammi

In typical Atheist form, you have somehow managed to stick a perfect balance of ignorance and arrogance—and childishness.

I mean, you literally have zero idea what you’re talking about but, by golly, you’re very, very zealous for your Atheist worldview—even though it utterly discredits you, of course.

Steve Leonard

Obviously, your whole flock doesn’t know what they are talking about

Ken Ammi

“Obviously, your whole flock doesn’t know what they are talking about” is a half-thought of an assertion since you didn’t elucidate how so, nor do you have a premise upon which to condemn that.

So, this is very simple then: since you’re supposed to be, what, more evolved than thou and enlightened to the one truth of Atheism then why are you literally incapable of actually doing anything but being a childish jerk—other than that’s an Atheist 101 tactic?

Steve Leonard

Magical forces aren’t part of reality, so, magical entities aren’t part of reality…

That’s the bottom line, and claiming otherwise is a childish fantasy..

Ken Ammi

So, you’re saying that magical forces aren’t part of reality then you surely gave up believing that the universe, and all it contains, was magiced up accidentally—including “reality” and your thoughts, of course. Thus, you complain about “a childish fantasy” but you never bother saying what would be wrong with that, on your worldview (not your subjective personal preference).

Steve Leonard

Obviously the eternal universe has always existed in one form or another, considering it’s commonly accepted by physics that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, which makes creation or formation unnecessary

Ken Ammi

That which you subjectively consider to be obvious is neither a standard nor evidence. That the eternal universe has always existed (the “Steady State Theory”) was disproven in the 1930s AD. There’s literally nothing in physics about that “that matter cannot be created nor destroyed.” If you re-read about that issue you’ll see how you just made a simple error: see if you catch the qualifying term you missed and then we can discuss.

Ken Ammi

That’s a positive affirmation so you must prove it. But what, on your worldview, does it matter if someone believes that myths are actually real?

Jason Shearin

It’s harmful to the collective human IQ

Ken Ammi

You seem to not realize that you are merely pilling up assertions. So, I must now as, what, on your worldview, does it matter if the collective IQ of accidentally existing apes (supposedly, since that was merely another assertion of yours) is harmed?

Ken Ammi

You seem to be experiencing some psycho-emotional problems. Probably better to not (pseudo) “Answer” such question. However, I agree that Nephilim were merely “alleged giant” (supposing you were implying that modern usage of “giants”) since we’ve no reliable physical description of them.

Steve Leonard

I will continue to answer questions however the hell I choose to answer them, bubba…

Jason Shearin

You seem confused. This is what happens when theists ask us M I L L I O N S of ridiculous questions based on proven lies. It’s called being annoyed.

Ken Ammi

If you can ever go beyond jumping to conclusions which you merely assert, please let me know.

For now, I’ll note this:

“seem confused”: mere assertion since you don’t’ even bother saying confused about what, how so, etc..

“ridiculous”: subjective assertion and that which seems ridiculous to you isn’t a standard.

“proven lies”: another assertion, you say “lies” but don’t bother proving it, don’t bother saying now you know they’re lies, don’t bother telling me what’s wrong with lying, on your worldview, and don’t bother elucidating the alleged proof.

“annoyed”: that which seems ridiculous to you or Steve (who is always annoyed that anyone dares to question him) isn’t a standard.

Jason Shearin

Ok then. Prove to us that a global flood wiped out half angel half human giants.

Begin with showing us a global genetic bottleneck event in every terrestrial species, as well as geologic evidence on all 7 continents.

So far nobody in human history has managed this. This is why the global flood and everything related to it are myths and not facts.

Ken Ammi

I’ll take “Ok then” as an admission that your previous comment was utterly fallacious (do fallacies matter, on your worldview?).

Now, you’re continuing to begin with conclusions so the first step is that you justify demanding me to “Prove” on your worldview.

Meanwhile, before answering, I would also need to know what you mean by the generic, vague, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined modern English word “giants.”

Then, move on to telling us what would be wrong if it were true (is adhering to truth a universal imperative, on your worldview?) that some people believe “myths and not facts” (is adhering to facts a universal imperative, on your worldview?)

Wayne Fiddler

How about this, You prove Nephilim even existed, and I’ll concede your right about whatever you want. Just remember The bible is the claim, not the evidence.

Or the Flood, go ahead and provide evidence that entire globe was underwater, despite us having historical records from China, Egypt, North and South America all saying they were never underwater for a year.

Prove literally anything you’ve been talking about, no more spin the burden of truth game, if you’ve got any real evidence, Put up or shut up

Ken Ammi

Apparently, I have to take, “How about this” as that you’re going to keep running away from issues that are inconvenient to your worldview.

Let’s review this one:

“You prove Nephilim even existed”: 1. running away from making positive affirmations you can’t prove, 2. pulling a tu quoque fallacy (does that matter, on your worldview?), 3. implying an assertion that proving things is some sort of universal imperative on your worldview without a premise.

“The bible is the claim, not the evidence”: implying an assertion that evidencing things, and doing so as per your subjective standards, is some sort of universal imperative on your worldview without a premise.

So, wait, “The bible is the claim, not the evidence” but “us having historical records from China, Egypt, North and South America” is evidence?!?!

Finally, “Put up or shut up” is your ways of demanding that I play your games by your subjective rules.

Oh, I get it: the Atheist 101 tactic is that the Atheist shows up, yells “Jump!” and expects—nay, demands—and I only reply with, “How high sir?!” yet, I replied, “Why?” and you fell apart and can’t recover.

Yet, you can’t recover because your worldview is a collapsed failure: that’s why you’re incapable of replying to the many, many, many questions I’ve asked.

Steve Leonard

I probably don’t even have a “worldview” because I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean

Ken Ammi

A “worldview” is a view of the world.

Steve Leonard

I don’t have a detailed view of the world

Ken Ammi

I’m not aware of anyone having a detailed view of the whole world (with “world” meaning anything/everything) but you do have very, very strong opinions (that you can’t support) about many things and it is about those things that I have been asking you.

Example: you make positive affirmations but can’t support them so a best practice is to note make them.

Otherwise, you just keep discrediting yourself by showing that all you can do is express your feelings.

Steve Leonard

Look, professor Bozo..

If or when you can provide a testable method to officially verify that magic is an integral force at work in the universe, because your entire “worldview” centers around the existence of deities that cannot exist without magic, I will most certainly stfu…

But until you can accomplish this, you should just stfu because all you’re doing is blowing hotair and embarrassing yourself…

Oh, btw, any alleged feelings I might have are totally irrelevant to any parts of this discussion, champ…

Ken Ammi

It’s fascinating that since you’re literally incapable of dealing with the issues, you seem to just say: hey, other people demand that I also demand so it must be okay for me to demand it as well.

So, again (and again and again) what premise (besides that you say so and what you say goes) do you have for demanding that I “provide a testable method to officially verify” and that “until you can accomplish this” you’ll just keep being childish?

I’m merely begging you to engage in critical, systematic, chronological thinking/argumentation.

Wayne Fiddler

Oh for [****] sakes, you keep blatantly misunderstanding burden of proof.

The Bible or whatever religious text of choice is making a claim that Nephilim existed. That is the Claim being made that I am demanding proof for.

Whatever Religious claim is being made “God exists” “Bible is True” “Nephilim are real” “there was a worldwide flood” those are all Claims that I’m demanding proof for.

This entire time I’ve wanted proof for the Positive claims you and your religion have been making for 2,000 years and have been unable to provide for 2,000 years

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

It’s fascinating that you are literally incapable of comprehending your situation—even and especially when I point it out to you time and time and time again.

The place to start isn’t for you to demand proof, the very first step is for you to elucidate how and why, on your worldview, there even is any such a thing as a BoP.

How and why, on your worldview, is there a universal imperative for accidentally existing apes living in an accidental reality with accidental truth to bare the BoP?

You’ve consistently decided to avoid that inconvenient issue and are just getting increasingly emotive—which is actually, the one and only thing your worldview has for you.

Likewise, what, on your worldview, is the problem if an accidentally existing ape (supposedly) “keep[s] blatantly misunderstanding burden of proof.”

But what you don’t seem to understand is that making a positive affirmation of non-existence is just that: a positive affirmation. Since you can’t prove it then a best practice is to just stop claiming to know things you don’t know.

So, when you merely continue to assert the likes of, “That is the Claim being made that I am demanding proof for” indeed, and that’s my point: you begin with a demand, I’m just asking that you back up one step and provide a justification, a premise, for your demand. As far as I can tell, your only reply is “Because thus saith Wayne!”

Thus, “This entire time I’ve wanted proof…” is yet down the line, the delay is that you utterly refuse to take step number one: please do so.

Jason Shearin

Try an education. If a global flood occured the geological evidence for it should be on every square nanometer of the earth. None exists anywhere.

There should also be a global genetic bottleneck in every species in recent history. There is not.

So if this event happened, the entity that caused it is inherently deceptive and dishonest for erasing all evidence of the event via magic.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’ve encountered your Atheist 101 tactic 1,001 times: you utterly ignore issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and just keep right on with your talking points as if these issues don’t prove your worldview is collapsed—that’s why you can’t reply in the first place.

So, here we go (again):

“Try an education”: what imperative is there, on your worldview, for an accidentally existing ape to “Try an education” so as to adhere to accidental truth in an existence wherein there’s no universal imperative to adhere to accidental truth?

“If a global flood occured the geological evidence…”: what imperative is there, on your worldview, for an accidentally existing ape to seek and elucidate such evidence.

“If a global flood occured the geological evidence…”: what imperative is there, on your worldview, for an accidentally existing ape to base it’s views on evidence?

“None exists anywhere”: that’s a positive affirmation you must prove.

“There should also be a global genetic bottleneck in every species in recent history”: like every living thing, including animals, insects, etc., all going back to a “common ancestor”? There is a bottleneck.

“…the entity that caused it is inherently deceptive and dishonest”: what, on your worldview, would be wrong with deception and dishonesty—or for “erasing all evidence” for that matter?

See, again, those are your very first steps: why do you refuse to take them?

Jason Shearin

Prove a global flood

Ken Ammi

Well, at this point it’s clear that you realize that you’re literally incapable of dealing with issues that are based on critical, systematic, logical thinking/arguing so you are simply ignoring issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and are just playing a game of demand, demand, demand.

Jason Shearin

Let’s try things a different way.

You prove “nephilem” and a oral flood existed. No claims, proof. No bible verses, proof. No “thr lord your god says so”, proof.

Ken Ammi

By this point I’ll assume that you realize that your worldview is such a collapsed failure that it leaves you incapable of even taking the very first step in even just having a cogent discussion which is why you demand, “Let’s try things a different way” since you can’t handle systematic critical thinking—but it’s not your fault, it’s that your worldview fails before it even begins—and so you utterly ignore everything and just circle back around to demanding proof.

Thus, I’ll follow your circle and ask that you first justify your demand for proof from your worldview.

Now, since you’re supposed to have been enlightened and have access to the real true truth then that shouldn’t be a problem for you.

Jason Shearin

Prove a global flood occured. Stop dodging, [****]O

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’ve interacted with thousands of Atheists so I know how this goes, I point something out, you realize your worldview is a collapsed failure so you’re literally incapable of replying, you get increasingly childish, and you’ll just run away.

Jason Shearin

No.

You’re a claimant.

Claimants owe evidence of claims

So, magic flood claimant, provide evidence of a magic flood.

This “atheist tactic” you speak of encountering thousands of times is not a tactic.

You just don’t live in reality. It’s time to join us in reality. Big boys prove their words. Be a big boy for a change.

Ken Ammi

You’re still just playing a game of demand, demand, demand because, surely, by this point you realize that’s all you can do since your worldview failed you since it collapsed.

See, you merely assert on your own (pseudo) authority, “Claimants owe evidence of claims” but that’s a conclusion: where’s your argument? You don’t and can’t have one which is why you always merely impotently demand, demand, demand.

Moreover, what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape not living in accidental reality which it accidentally discern in an existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to adhere to accidental reality?

Jason Shearin

Lying in the name of jesus christ is still lying

Ken Ammi

What makes, besides pure and literal prejudice, you merely assert that I’m lying?

What, on your worldview, is wrong with lying?

Steve Leonard

Logic and critical thinking have led me,among other things, to determine that the ability to bring forth elements of existence from total nonexistence by shouting out magic words (magic) is not an integral force at work in the universe, which leads to the existence of an eternal enity that invariably relies on magic, to be an impossibility…

Prove me wrong, padre!

Ken Ammi

I see.

Do you think it’s accidental that in the very first verse of the Bible we get an accurate most up-to-date cosmology?

In any case, you’re getting ahead of yourself since the issue is still what, on your worldview, wrong with an accidentally existing ape believing that God has, “the ability to bring forth elements of existence from total nonexistence by shouting out magic words (magic)” within an existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to adhere to accidental reality which it accidentally discerns.

Likewise for to where, “Logic and critical thinking have led” you since, on your worldview, logic and thinking are both accidental and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them.

As for “prove”: what universal imperative is there, on your worldview, for an accidentally existing ape to prove anything within an existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to prove anything?

Steve Leonard

The bible contains NOTHING that could ever be considered accurate or up to date, padre…

That’s hilarious that any numbskull could be so hoodwinked!

Yeah…

Let’s go ahead and “create” light in chapter 3 and then finally get around to creating light sources in chapter 14…

Even a young child wouldn’t make such a glaring mistake as that!

The anonymous [expletive removed] that scrawled out genesis had the brains of a turnip!

Well, anyway, padre…

I’m completely comfortable with my logical possible probabilities and am not searching further to expand on them,and furthermore, I’m not the least bit envious of anxiety ridden [expletive removed] that are obsessively grasping at imaginary superstitious straws to explain an alleged purpose and cause for their existence…

Oh, and btw, padre…

There isn’t too many combinations that are utterly useless throughout the world as the combination of religion and philosophy!

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

Just because you’ve never actually thought systematically about something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make sense, it just means that you’re expressing very strong opinions about something you’ve never actually thought systematically about before.

I suppose you made it so that I have to be the one to inform you that there are more sources of light in the universe than our Sun.

Oh, that you’re done thinking “…am not searching further to expand…” is crystal clear: you’re clearly not interested in letting facts cause trouble to your false and failed worldview.

But you seem to keep running—very, very fast—away from something still: what, on your worldview (not your subjective feelings du jour) is wrong with, “The bible contains NOTHING that could ever be considered accurate or up to date” being a “numbskull” being “hoodwinked!” believing in “a glaring mistake” and in things written by someone with “the brains of a turnip!” or “obsessively grasping at imaginary superstitious straws,” etc.?

Steve Leonard

An arrogant schmuck has told me to mind my manners…

How quaint!

Ken Ammi

Is asserting your subjective opinion that I am arrogant a case of you projecting?

Also, what, on your worldview, is wrong with being arrogant?

Well, that did it the insta-jerks didn’t reply anymore.

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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

This discussion took place due to the Right Response Ministries’ Youtube video Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today | with @hauntedcosmos_

A certain @LocatedLeech commented

Just a question why would it not be likely that noahs sons wife didnt have giant dna in her?

Also something really cool is this is how dinosaurs came to be. Thing it talks about how when the fallen came down they intermingled with daughters of men and the beasts of the field. These giants had to have something to eat. A chicken would be like a roach to us. So they had to dna splice and make a food source for themselves.

I, @kenammi355, replied

“why would it not be likely that noahs sons wife didnt have giant dna in her?” because God didn’t failed by missing that loophole when He meant to be rid of Nephilim. Who or what is “Thing” that “talks” dinos?

@LocatedLeech chimed in with

Your Correct in that God didn’t make a mistake. However what if I told you that God allowed his wife (apologies can’t remember which son off the top of my head) to survive so that they could repopulate the earth. We know that Noah wasn’t sitting on any daughters though so they had to come from somewhere. It doesn’t say God created them either. So one presume they each had to find wives. God said all flesh was corrupt so they had to be to unfortunately.

To answer the second question in the bible Genesis 6:7 and 6:12 are examples of what I meant when answering about dinosaurs. In these 2 verses it explains what “Flesh” means and who it contains, and that it was all corrupt. We know corrupt is not just a thing for violence or an action, however it is a blood issue. It’s a corrupting of God’s image. So we know that the beasts of the field were corrupted just like man was. God said that all of the earth was corrupt at that time other than Noah and his family. We also know dinosaurs exist, and it so happens that they are smothered under the earth. This would also explain that. Meaning when the flood when it happened it was so powerful it ripped the earth apart shoving massive parts of the earth up and throwing it over the these dead dinosaurs bodies. This would explain why we are digging up a lot of dinosaurs. Unfortunately Science is terrible at dating. I’ve seen several scientists debunk it and why in great detail. I’m not an expert though and would recommend watching them instead of me.

I would highly recommend reading the book of Enoch. Specifically the first one. This goes way into more detail about it. We know that the apocrypha books aren’t biblical but we know their historical. The book of Jude specifically quotes the First book of Enoch to just give an example.

All that said we can definatelly deduce that the Giants wouldn’t of had much to eat if it weren’t for something bigger then our modern day creatures. We know that these Giants specifically not to be mixed with the later ones in David’s day were the tallest of the Giants. Could be argued how tall but still. So they needed something, but satan’s game is to corrupt the image of God. He did it first to himself, then mankind, and also the species.

So this is what I’ve deduced through many years of studying I hope it makes sense. Any other question I’d be happy to answer, and would love to hear your thoughts too.

@kenammi355

Appreciate the detailed reply.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by “Noah wasn’t sitting on any daughters” but the “what if” means that the flood was much of a waste. Also, we’re told five times who survived the flood and Nephilim aren’t on any list.

And merely inventing a tall-tale about a genetic survival of them is just that: inventing un-biblical tall-tales that make the flood much of a waste for no reason whatsoever since there’s no such thing as post-flood Nephilim so no reason to artificially insert stories into the Bible.

“God said all flesh was corrupt” with exceptions, “corrupt at that time other than Noah and his family” as you put it.

You assert, “corrupt is…a blood issue” and that might be part of it but secondary, if anything, since, for example, what we’re told about Noah mirrors what we’re told about Abraham and that is that he was uniquely righteous.

You could have genetically “perfect” twin lambs but if one suffers even one cut then it’s no longer kosher for sacrifice even though it’s still genetically “perfect.”

As for the flood, 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.”

As for Enoch, see my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

Sure, it “goes way into more detail about it” but without any indication that any of the addons are accurate. It’s really just Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. Sure, “Jude specifically quotes the First book of Enoch” and Paul quotes Greek poets.

As for, “Giants” 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?

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.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.

The question If atheism holds water, why does atheism only attack religious people, and why doesn’t atheism play along with atheism and leave us alone? was posted to the Quora site and led to this discussion beginning with when a certain Dirk Theurer took aim at a certain “Curiosity Killed the Cat” who posted the question.

Now, Theurer had written a reply and then edited to include that the Curiosity guys, “is just a jejune little [****]wit troll:

He then noted, Blocked, muted, reported for bigotry” yet, he failed to elucidate the most important part: what, on Atheism, is wrong with bigotry?

In any case, this was Theurer’s original reply:

Hey “Curiosity Killed the Cat” (link),

Hmmm… I see by your profile:

that you “like thinking and reading”. This question doesn’t necessarily say anything about the latter, but the veracity of the former is decidedly cast into doubt by it:

If atheism holds water

I’m baffled as to how answering “No.” to the question “Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?” can “hold water” — even metaphorically. Disbelief (in whatever) is a statement of fact; it doesn’t “hold” anything.

why does atheism only attack religious people

Atheism doesn’t “attack” anything or anyone, never mind “religious people” or “only”. Mind you, atheists don’t “attack” anything or anyone either.

why doesn’t atheism play along with atheism

Um, what?

leave us alone

Seeing as you aren’t specifying anyone, I’m unsure who “us” is. I can only assume (though, as anyone who knows the teensiest thing about me knows I horribly loathe assuming anything — particularly not about anything that someone might feebly be inferring) that you mean “leave theists alone”. If my (loathingly couched) assumption holds water, I can assure you those who sincerely answer “No.” to the question “Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?” only ever respond to those who are attacking them.

Hope I’m not making you think … or read … too much…

I, Ken Ammi, ignored the drama and replied

But “answering ‘No.’ to the question ‘Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?’” is myopic since you’re ignoring, at the very least, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.

As for, “atheists don’t ‘attack’ anything or anyone either”: you’re living in a fantasy world (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).

Just set yourself up a profile pretending you’re a Chrisitan, ask a few Atheists a question, and watch the attacking fireworks.

Also, Atheists set the world’s mass and serial murdering records in mere decades—even when competing, as it were, against “religions” that had been around for millennia.

But you neglected THEY most important part: what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape misrepresenting your worldview within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against an accidentally existing ape misrepresenting your worldview?

Dirk Theurer

Ken Ammi: “But “answering ‘No.’ to the question ‘Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?’” is myopic since you’re ignoring, at the very least, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.

As for, “atheists don’t ‘attack’ anything or anyone either”: you’re living in a fantasy world (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).

Just set yourself up a profile pretending you’re a Chrisitan, ask a few Atheists a question, and watch the attacking fireworks.

Also, Atheists set the world’s mass and serial murdering records in mere decades—even when competing, as it were, against “religions” that had been around for millennia.

But you neglected THEY most important part: what, on your worldview, would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape misrepresenting your worldview within an accidental existence wherein there’s no universal imperative against an accidentally existing ape misrepresenting your worldview?”

Now, at this time, if you go to the discussion you will see, “Adding comments disabled” and my reply is the last of it because Theurer relied on censorship and deleting his further reply but I had been keeping a record of the discussion in an Word doc: which I learned to do after dealing with enough Atheists who ran away after hiding behind deleting and locking down the ability to reply to them directly.

His reply was:

“But “answering ‘No.’ to the question ‘Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?’” is myopic since you’re ignoring, at the very least, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.”

Except atheists don’t claim god/God/gods doesn’t/don’t exist.

Aside: I have precisely zero [****]ing clue what:

denomination of [the sincere answer “No.” to the question “Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?”]

could possibly mean. …and your pretentious capitalizing of “atheism” (here and elsewhere) when it does not start a sentence has been noted as merely your pathetic attempt to suggest atheism has religiosity of some form.

“As for, “atheists don’t ‘attack’ anything or anyone either”: you’re living in a fantasy world (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).”

Except atheists don’t claim god/God/gods doesn’t/don’t exist.

Aside: Of course, there are some people who like to demonstrate exactly how ludicrous various claims of god/God/gods existing are, but it seems the most egregious are theists attacking all god/God/gods except their own. (Atheists — the few who do demonstrate precisely how ludicrous various god/God/gods existing claims are — just don’t exercise such prejudice.)

“Just set yourself up a profile pretending you’re a Chrisitan”

Sorry, Bubba; I leave the lies and pretending to theists.

“ask a few Atheists a question, and watch the attacking fireworks.”

Those “attacking fireworks” are not because atheists believe god/God/gods doesn’t/don’t exist, Ken; they’re because theists are being moronic about their claims — you know, like those asserting atheism is something it isn’t.

“Also, Atheists set the world’s mass and serial murdering records in mere decades—even when competing, as it were, against “religions” that had been around for millennia.”

Citations? …but note that the citations must indicate that those murders occur because of the murderers’ lack of belief of claims of god/God/gods existing and not just because they have a screw or five loose.

“But you neglected THEY[sic; I’ll assume you meant THE] most important part: what, on your worldview”

Atheists’ worldviews differ from those of theists’ in precisely one specific way: their worldview isn’t [****]ed up by fairy tales.

But, let’s get back to your specious bullcrappery minus your false claim that worldviews are somehow dramatically different between theists and atheists:

“what [] would be wrong with an accidentally existing ape”

Um, what? Please do present us with “an accidentally existing ape”. I’ll wait…

…though note that if “accidentally existing ape” comprises some aspect of your worldview, you may need to check with reality and produce your “accidentally existing ape”. Then maybe we can continue this … well … I’ll call it a “conversation” but we both know that you’re just [****]ing with words.

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

Why did you quote virtually everything I said? A best practice would be to opt or just writing cogent sentences.

If you think that “Except atheists don’t claim god/God/gods doesn’t/don’t exist” you’re tragically unaware of Atheism and Atheists. For example, see my article, “Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence…without evidence, of course.”

https://truefreethinker.com/atheists-who-positively-affirm-gods-non-existence-without-evidence-of-course

I’m not interested in your attempts to mind read about what is really just you emotively subjectively misinterpreting me as being “pretentious” due to the grammatic features of one single letter.

But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with being pretentious?

Likewise with “it seems the most egregious are theists attacking all god/God/gods except their own” which is only topped by Atheists attacking them all. But note that it’s another case of you being emotively subjective since your premise was, “it seems” but what seems or doesn’t seem to you isn’t a standard.

But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with theists attacking all god/God/gods except their own?

You then make a vaguely generic mere and grossly prejudice assertion about “lies and pretending.”

But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with lies and pretending?

Likewise with “being moronic about their claims.”

But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with being moronic about their claims?

Citations? Sure, the history of the early to mid-ish 1900s or, for a shortcut, read my book, “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist.”

https://www.amazon.com/Zeitgeist-Poltergeist-Consideration-Regarding-Communism/dp/1548475645

But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with making uncited comments, or with murder?

And when it came down to THE most important part: you literally fully collapsed by not even trying to make an attempt at a reply.

But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with holding to what you merely asserted are fairy tales?

As per the thousands of Atheist with whom I’ve interacted and those to whom I have listened and read, they view humans as “accidentally existing ape[s].”

Dirk Theurer

“Please mind your manners.”

Why? You’re not minding yours.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’ve literally seen this 1,001 times: you make assertions, are called on them, realize you can’t back them, you run away: Atheism 101 tactic.

A best practice is to consider that the reason why you’re literally incapable of backing them is that your worldview is a collapsed failure, it’s not just that there might be something amiss without you personally.

Dirk Theurer

Ken Ammi: “Friend, I’ve literally seen this 1,001 times: you make assertions, are called on them, realize you can’t back them, you run away: Atheism 101 tactic.

A best practice is to consider that the reason why you’re literally incapable of backing them is that your worldview is a collapsed failure, it’s not just that there might be something amiss without you personally.”

Ken, your opening comment starts with:

But “answering ‘No.’ to the question ‘Do you believe claims of god/God/gods existing?’” is myopic since you’re ignoring, at the very least, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence denomination of Atheism.

There are two falsities and one specious reference in this:

“the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence”

Atheists don’t “positively affirm God’s non-existence”. They simply don’t believe others’ affirmation of “God”’s (and god’s and gods’) existence.

“denomination of Atheism”

“denomination of Atheism” is a nonsense phrase. There is NO SUCH [****]ING THING as a “denomination of disbelief”.

“Atheism”

“Atheism” is only ever capitalized when starting a sentence. Any other capitalization is a specious attempt to cast some importance to that word that isn’t there.

Starting off your “commentary” with two false assertions and a pretention of your own lends you exactly zero credibility, Ken.

Ken Ammi

Please mind your manners.

Friend, another things I’ve literally seen this 1,001 times—especially on Quora—is that Atheist make assertions, are called on them, they make assertions, they’re corrected on them, they utterly fail to back their assertions, they rely on censorship by no longer allowing replies to them, and so they hide away in their safe spaces—only to do it all again and again.

[I noted this since he did just that, in which case I just go to the original question, type in their name with an “@” before it and still get my reply to them ;o)]

Friend, I realize that you demand on avoiding issues that are devesting to your worldview but a best practice would be to give up on your worldview that can’t handle those issues.

Key example, you merely jumped to the mere conclusion of a mere assertion based on merely hidden assumptions that, “Starting off your ‘commentary’ with two false assertions and a pretention of your own lends you exactly zero credibility, Ken.”

Now, that’s not in the least bit the case, on your worldview, since on your worldview there’s literally nothing wrong with an accidentally existing ape making (supposedly) false assertions an nor (allegedly) being pretentious (which is just an emotively subjective misinterpretation of yours). Thus, since you discredited yourself from complaining about those non issues, it’s a non sequitur to jump to, “lends you exactly zero credibility.”

Those are the implications of your worldview so will you accept them? You made the bed, will you sleep in it? Of course, that assumes that you’re consistent but since there’s no universal imperative to be consistent, on your worldview, Atheists are only ever consistently inconsistent. I have found that, sure, Atheist utterly abuse Atheism for self-serving pragmatic ends, but they utter despise it.

Note that I qualified my statement, “the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence nomination of Atheism” about which you demand, “Atheists don’t ‘positively affirm God’s non-existence’” but that only means that you’re tragically ignorant of your own worldview’s history.

Worse still, I ALREADY told you:

For example, see my article, “Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence…without evidence, of course.”

Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence…without evidence, of course

Yet, you obviously don’t want to expose yourself to verifiable facts that will burst your myopic bubble. In fact, the reason that Huxley coined the term “Agnostic” is that he noted that theist positively affirmed God’s existence and Atheists positively affirmed God’s non existence so he sought a middle position: a.k.a. “weak” Atheism versus the “strong” Atheism you deny exists—hey, you positively affirm the non existence of strong Atheism, beyond all demonstrably verifiable facts (that you conveniently ignore).