Ken Ammi – Page 26 – TrueFreeThinker

“What happened to the giant people (Nephilim) mentioned in Genesis before Noah’s flood? Did they survive the flood like some other animals did?”

The question What happened to the giant people (Nephilim) mentioned in Genesis before Noah’s flood? Did they survive the flood like some other animals did? was posted to the Quora site and I replied

The last of them died in the flood. Centuries later, some unreliable guys made up an “evil report” about having seen them and were rebuked by God (Num chaps 13–14).

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 that you found, 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.”:

https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks

A certain Heidi Hart posted her own reply, which reads

The Hebrew Nephilim means simply unbelieving very tall person. So yes, all the unbelieving giants died in Noah’s flood. However, I think all humans before the flood were giants. So Noah and his wife and three sons and their wives would also have been giants, but not Nephilim because they were believers. And they survived the flood in the ark. I know that the rabbinical tradition and some translations interpret this otherwise (the book of Enoch is made up of added rabbinical traditions after the very first section that Jude quotes), but read the relevant verse again.

”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” (Genesis 6:4 ESV).

The first phrase is an aside, Oh, yes, there were giants then. But it goes on to say that it was after that when the believing humans men were seduced by the daughters of the unbelievers. Everyone was a giant. It was only later that the believers were seduced.

The sons of God cannot be fallen angels because sons of God are believers.

The angels in Jude 6 who left their first estate were the angels who were deceived in the original rebellion in heaven. Does NOT mean they mated with humans. Jude 6 says NOTHING about mating.

”And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth” (Revelation 12:3, 4).

These stars of heaven are the angels who left their original estate in heaven when they were deceived, and were banished to earth with the adversary, the rebel.

So Noah and his three sons and their wives would still have been of that giant race before the flood. There were a few tribes who were still much taller than the rest of humans at the time that Israel was conquering Canaan. Examples are King Og, and Goliath and his father and 3 brothers. They were Nephilim – unbelieving giants.

Ken Ammi

There is no linguistics nor context for asserting “The Hebrew Nephilim means simply unbelieving very tall person,” it actually means fall/fallen/feller/to cause to fall, etc. See my book, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010”: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks

If “all humans before the flood were giants” then none of them were giants by definition. Yet, 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?

You asserted that Genesis 6:4 “there were giants then” (we will need to await your replies to the key questions) “But it goes on to say that it was after that” but you didn’t say “after” what, “after” when.

As for “The sons of God cannot be fallen angels because sons of God are believers” I’m unsure where you got that but the fallen Angels are referred to as such for the sake of identification, of course, but never again thereafter.

You assert “The angels in Jude 6 who left their first estate were the angels who were deceived in the original rebellion in heaven. Does NOT mean they mated with humans. Jude 6 says NOTHING about mating” but Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

I will guess that by “giants” you’re implying subjectively unusual height but then the answer to the third key question is “No.”

King Og: we have no physical description of him.

Goliath was just shy of 7 ft.

“his father and 3 brothers” we’re told that one of them was of “great stature” and that’s all.

Jo Pearce chimed in with

The book of Enoch is not Biblical. It was written by various people and then changed by others. It is not Gid Breathed.

Ken Ammi

1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks

Barry Ellis

the bible states the nephilim were around in the days of the flood AND after

king og and Goliath were of the raphaim there is debate as to weather they were descendants of the nephilim or another group of giants…..there is archeological evidence of a group of peoples around the canaan area that were 7–10 foot tall that other culters even recorded trading with, i assume THESE are the raphaim of witch were conquered after the exodus in the bible..their defeat would have left a few stragglers “king og” and his son “Goliath”…..just fun observations if u r interested

Ken Ammi

Can you quote and cite where “the bible states the nephilim were around in the days of the flood AND after” (just ensure that the quote refers to the flood).

“king og and Goliath were of the raphaim” and there can’t be a cogent “debate as to weather they were descendants of the nephilim” since any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole that you found, 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.

As for “nephilim or another group of giants” well, that begs these key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

Jo Pearce

DNA passed down.

Ken Ammi

Passed down to whom and when?

Barry Ellis

I sense alot of hate in a sentiment I am learning about and may be incorrect but the reference of in those days and afterwards being mere paragraphs away from the flood cannot be speaking to anything but the days before and the days after the flood,

IMAGE

genises 6,4

the raphaim have been supposedly claimed to have been nephilim or descendants of such, there is no real decision as to where they came from other than og and Goliath being raphime, also this I may be mistaken about.

the flood was to wipe the earth of sin, and sinners and abominations and the living…witch it did as it was supposed to.

who’s to say these angel offspring aren’t immortal? who’s also to say these angel offspring are ALL evil and served NO PURPOSE? your demand that god must have failed I believe are the faults of a closed mind….we werent there we don’t know.

that is my OPINION given the information I have readily available. it seems to make sense that since there are no giants today that all giants in the Bible must have some commonality or ancestry….regardless the flood wiped the earth clean of sin and abomination as it was supposed to to allow noah to reapear….

Ken Ammi

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

Sorry, I don’t know what this means, “I sense alot of hate in a sentiment I am learning about…”

You’re reading Gen 6:4 but you already know “those days and afterwards being mere paragraphs away from the flood” so you’re actually reading ahead rather then reading the verse for what it states. In fact, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.

Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

The question becomes: when were those days?

Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”

The next question becomes: when was afterward?

Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”

Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.

By whom are “raphaim have been supposedly claimed to have been nephilim or descendants of such”? Whoever supposed that does so upon zero data and, again, any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed.

See, you assert, “the flood was to wipe the earth of sin, and sinners and abominations and the living…witch it did as it was supposed to” but then Nephilim (by any other name) just continued on and you also have to invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.

As for “who’s to say these angel offspring aren’t immortal?”: God. He revealed five times who survived the flood and Nephilim aren’t on any of those lists.

Now, you once again used the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage modern English word “giants” but since I asked you what you meant by it and you didn’t reply then you not only make it difficult for me to understand you but you are making even more statements that I can’t understand such as, “there are no giants today.”

Barry Ellis

whay iv done is begin to research a myth about the nephilim and have given you the information that I have as to the coincidences involved.

witch from your point of view isn’t going to lineup with your biblical teachings and you will use whatever bias opinion was fed to you.

“god” has never said anything in the Bible about the nephilim other than that they were abominations and evil…there’s no discription of lifespan or even visual appearance.

that comes from the book of Enoch witch you would claim is non biblical

you said

When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”

Thus, the began doing it then( and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.)

this statement here is where I draw issue it doesn’t state that it was pre flood, it also doesn’t state when those days of and afterwards was.

in the days man began to multiply and afterwards?

if they were Around in the time we began to multiply who was the first? Lilith?

I mean there are unanswered legends all over

Ken Ammi

I’m not interested in your failed attempts at mind reading. You can either deal with the issues or not.

I’ve no idea why you’re telling me, “there’s no discription of lifespan or even visual appearance.”

You asserted, “it doesn’t state that it was pre flood, it also doesn’t state when those days of and afterwards was” but it does both.

That’s from Gen 6:4 and it’s only in verse 17 that we’re first told about the flood. Ergo, it’s pre-flood by chronological definition.

Also, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” is pre-flood by chronological definition.

And, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” was pre-flood when “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives” so that “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days” which was pre-flood, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” “and also afterward” of the pre-flood days “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” which was when “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man” so that, “they bore children to them” and it’s all pre-flood.

They began doing it “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them” and continued doing it but the flood brought it all to a full and final end—lest God failed and the flood was much of a waste.

“they were Around in the time we began to multiply” as per God’s word.

“Lilith” is just a folkloric non-biblical character.

Barry Ellis

mind reading? ya lost me, I’m taking details of canonical and noncanonical origin and looking at the whole to formulate my own opinion, the opinion of god failing if the nephilim were not all killed in the flood is if your own assertion. there are origins of stories and billions of views on the story. I am not indoctrinated into accepting unanswered questions that I hold.

that being said I have seen your opinion and thank you for it. good day

Ken Ammi

Yeah, failed “mind reading” when you claimed to know that there’s a “bias opinion was fed to” me so, please deal with the facts on the table rather than attempting to mind read.

Ironically, “god failing if the nephilim were not all killed in the flood is” the logical, theo-logical, and bio-logical conclusion.

How do you get Nephilim past the flood? And note that you’ll have to invent something and that you really have no viable reason for inventing something in the first place.

Barry Ellis

your biased opinion over the book of Enoch not being canon. I merely found a book that claims to be of biblical content and was assessing it’s possibilities….there is no mind reading there.

dealig with facts?

your claiming that the offspring of angels and man are ALL the same, your also claiming that they were NOT immortal as their angel parentage are….the logical course of nature for me than would be to rule out these very inconsistencies.

I mean if your looking for facts, those are them.

if nephilim are immortal as their angel parentage were than god DIDNT kill them in the flood…. cause I mean…there immortal….no?

Ken Ammi

Not interested in reading you denying that you did what you did so, let’s focus on the issues.

I’m unsure how anyone in all of human history claimed that “the offspring of angels and man are ALL the same” since the former would be offspring of Angels but the latter not. So, how could they be the same since they’re different?

As for, “they were NOT immortal as their angel parentage are” well, such is why they died but the Angels were incarcerated.

Barry Ellis

lol! again no mind reading, no denial, no made-up facts.

I stumbled across myths and legends and non canonicle biblical liturature and was following it.

it’s clear in your other comments to other users that you don’t see the book of Enoch as cannon biblical liturature…

and finnally let’s deal with the facts that I have noticed, there is no physical discription, there’s no information other than “giants” available that iv seen that claims these half immortal half human offspring ARENT immortal…..so I was looking into peoples opinions who are more fluent in the bible.

you sir have clearly MISSED the ball on every point accept my first comment of the days of and after.

peace be with u.

Ken Ammi

I’m unsure why you didn’t answer the question but perfectly admitted, your views are un-biblical because you “stumbled across myths and legends and non canonicle biblical liturature and was following it.”

So, I’ve only been attempting to assist you in seeing how those, “myths and legends and non canonicle biblical liturature” contradict the Bible.

Of course, I, “don’t see the book of Enoch as cannon biblical liturature” why would I?

I’m unsure what, “no information other than ‘giants’ available” means.

The issue of “days of and after” was the question of when.

Shalom.

Barry Ellis

question? I believe you have forgotten why we started this comentary

IMAGE

OF COURSE I’m chasing a “non biblical” myth and legend from the book of Enoch witch you stated you don’t see as biblical…but there are cultures that do see it as biblical in ETHIOPIA. so I commented on coincidences I found that weren’t answered.

and other than opinion and blame you have provided NO such assistance or claim otherwise if biblical explination….

I am curious as to the biblical understanding of what Enoch speaks about….that’s it

peace be with u.

Ken Ammi

Sorry, I don’t know what this means, “question?”

That 1 Enoch is in the Ethiopian cannon doesn’t make that one cannon uniquely correct but rather, uniquely incorrect since 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah (see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch”) in fact, that cannon also contains a text titled, “The Life of Adam and Eve” which claims that when God created Adam, God commanded the Angels to worship Adam.

“the biblical understanding of what Enoch speaks about” is that it (referring to the key portion of 1 Enoch and not the rest of it nor 2 Enoch nor 3 Enoch) was clearly written a few centuries BC, someone just slapped the name “Enoch” on it, it contradicts the Bible a LOT, it tells tall-tales, but at least it doesn’t have physical post-flood Nephilim so at least on that point, it agrees with the Bible.

Barry Ellis

is the Torah NOT old testiment basically?

Jo Pearce

Wow! Who is king og? Definitely not Biblical.

Ken Ammi

King Og is mentioned circa 22 times in the Bible but we don’t have a physical description of him.

ESV Search Results for “og” (blueletterbible.org)

Jo Pearce

Scriptures please. I like to read it for myself.

Ken Ammi

I literally provided you the link to every scripture so you could read it for yourself.

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.

On the claim that “Understanding who the Nephilim are in turn helps you to better understand the Hebrew conquest of the Holy Land…Dr. Heiser touches upon all of these topics”

On Facebook, a certain Michael Shawn Kirby posted the following, in part:

…I honestly can’t recommend this book enough, or for that matter any work by Dr. Michael Heiser. I’d go so far to say that if you don’t understand the influence that the Book of Enoch…

Understanding who the Nephilim are in turn helps you to better understand the Hebrew conquest of the Holy Land…

Dr. Heiser touches upon all of these topics, and they all lead back to the Book of Enoch, as well as the fallen angels descent onto Mt. Hermon in order to seduce and cohabitate with the daughters of men.

I started a YouTube channel a while back where I discuss such topics as the elongated skulls…My hypothesis has been that they were descendants of the Nephilim, and I think Dr. Heiser’s work strengthens that hypothesis…the Nephilim Apkallu also occupied a similar position in Babylon, and as the Bible makes note of, so did the Nephilim Rephaim in Canaanite society.

I, True Freethinker, replied

There’s no such thing as “Nephilim Rephaim.” That’s a category error that violates the law of identity because Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids and Rephaim were strictly post-flood 100% humans.

Michael Shawn Kirby

No they weren’t, and the most obvious rebuttal to your assertion is that King Og was the last of the Rephaim, and he was noted by the OT writers to be a Nephilim giant whose bed was 9 cubits long (he was probably between 10 to 13 feet tall). He and the rest of the giant clans in Canaan were probably propagated by the post-flood Babylonian Apkallu who were two-thirds “divine” and one-third human. They were giants like King Og, with Gilgamesh being the most famous example (i.e. the Sumerians probably weren’t lying when they depicted him as a giant easily strong-arming a fully grown lion, just like the ancient Egyptians probably weren’t lying when also depicting their “gods” as giants that towered over homo sapiens).

Please also note that Dr. Heiser is not the only one that advocates that hypothesis. I’m an Orthodox Christian and a famous Orthodox Christian Podcast is The Lord of Spirits, which is hosted by Father Andrew Stephen Damick and Father Stephen De Young. They also have the exact same theory that the way the Nephilim survived the flood was through the hybridized Apkallu. In regards to how those Nephilim were created, Father Stephen De Young points to ancient Ugaritic texts that speak of kings voluntary surrendering themselves to demonic possession and having ritualized, sexual intercourse with demonized Ishtar priestesses (i.e. temple prostitutes) as the vector by which the Nephilim were re-introduced into the world after the Flood. But what’s interesting is that Dr. Heiser was a Protestant and these guys are Orthodox, yet their combined research made both of them zero in on the post-flood Apkallu as the primary vector by which the Nephilim were reintroduced to Humanity after being wiped out by The Flood.

My friend I find your attempts at self-promotion to be very dishonest and disingenuous. In your other post (which I have deleted), you claimed I said that Dr. Heiser was infallible. I never said Dr. Heiser was infallible, no man is infallible. Furthermore, posting random websites that ask for both private and financial information from my friends list smacks of spam and gives off a very “scammy” vibe. It’s also a very dishonest way of building up your readership not through the quality of your content (because you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about), but instead trying to piggyback off of others with disingenuous libel and spam.

True Freethinker

That’s odd, I could have sworn that I wrote a reply to this already but don’t see it now.

In any case, indeed “King Og was the last of the Rephaim” but if “he was noted by the OT writers to be a Nephilim giant” (“Nephilim giant” is a redundant term) then please quote and cite where they did so.

As for, “bed was 9 cubits long (he was probably between 10 to 13 feet tall)” that’s a non sequitur based on various mere assumptions, please see my book, “The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?.”

As for, “Nephilim giants” and “giant clans”: the key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

I’m unsure why we should take ancient sculptures literally.

As for De Young, please search online for my article, “Critical Review of Fr. Stephen De Young’s ‘Here There Be Giants.’”

“the exact same theory that the way the Nephilim survived the flood” is just another way to claim that God failed: He must have missed that loophole and the flood was much of a waste. Besides, Nephilim are half-Angel and half-human, by definition, not half-(only one of the various myths about)Apkallu and half-human so that’s also a category error that violates the law of identity.

Likewise, by definition Nephilim are physical offspring of Angels and humand and not the product of a ritual recipe that can be followed post-flood to make home-made Nephilim. Besides, we should not incorporate Pagan mythology into biblical theology.

What you emotively subjectively “find” after making failed attempts at mind reading are not a standard. Now, tell me what De Young said when you told him, “My friend I find your attempts at self-promotion to be very dishonest and disingenuous.”

Also, please don’t make up stuff just to argue with me or maybe you give evidence as to why you hold to an anti-biblical Nephilology due to a reading comprehension problem. See, you asserted, “In your other post (which I have deleted)” since you rely on censorship “you claimed I said that Dr. Heiser was infallible. I never said Dr. Heiser was infallible” and I never said that you said that.

I’ve no idea what you’re going on about “random websites that ask for both private and financial information.”

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming and Michael Shawn Kirby relied on censorship to hide his fallacies since not that page reads, “This content isn’t available right now. When this happens, it’s usually because the owner only shared it with a small group of people, changed who can see it or it’s been deleted.”

See my various books here.

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 Metal Bible Podcast asserted “There are 6 NAMED Nephilim from after the flood”

The Facebook group The Metal Bible Podcast posted that about which I have, in turn, posted a few times (here initially) which was appeals to Chuck Missler and especially Michael Heiser regarding Nephilim.

The podcaster then devoted a post to besmirching me wherein he wrote:

Dude commented this 1.8 million times on one of my posts so I thought I would quickly debunk it in one post…. This is probably the easiest thing to debunk in about 3 seconds… The post flood Nephilim isn’t a biblical doctrine? Do you READ the Bible? There are 6 NAMED Nephilim from after the flood…

Someone needs to go watch my 2 part 3 1/2 hour episode with The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast on this topic and come back educated… But here’s a quick debunking anyways. True Freethinker

[Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

Its almost as if the Bible very clearly says there were Nephilim AFTER the flood in the land of Canaan where the Israelites were supposed to claim the promised land as their own…. [followed by five hands up shrugging emojis]

Rather than dealing with the factoids, a certain The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast opined

He’s just trying to get attention. Unfortunate to seek attention instead of Truth…

The Metal Bible Podcast

He just copied and pasted this same comment to every person on my post that wasnt even about the nephilim at all

The Christian Theological Dark Web Podcast

he’s probably controlled opposition for the nephilim

True Freethinker

Why do post-flood Nephilologists act just like stereotypical Atheist online? You ignored the substance and played mind reader–and failed at it. So, please opt for engaging in sharpening iron with iron.

Michael Holdren

You spend A LOT of time posting about things that have zero relevancy with The Great Commission.

The Metal Bible Podcast

If you dont know the ENTIRE Bible you dont know God…. and if you watched my 3 1/2 hour episode on this topic you would know WHY this topic is important for every believer to know about….. but of course you would rather complain all of the time instead…. Go start your own page and you can bore people with your nonsense in your own way

True Freethinker

But friend, you have a god that failed.

Michael Holdren to The Metal Bible Podcast

dude, all I’m saying is you have a platform that could help bring salvation to others, or embolden or prepare believers to share the gospel, but instead you want to go down a rabbit hole to chase your own self interests.

MemeVangelists ·

The Metal Bible Podcast Dude realizes he is spending time commenting on a Facebook post, in a Facebook page, using Facebook… instead of IDK, carrying out the Great Commission?

Bethany Pendley to Michael Holdren

are we not allowed to talk about anything else in scripture except the gospel?

Pretty sure the whole Bible is relevant to today, and is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and training in righteousness.

Chrisanthy Thymis Carbajal

Wow, yes!! The evidence is right there in Numbers 13:33!! I think many just don’t want to admit that there were actual giants (“Sons of God” mixed with human).

True Freethinker

Ever wonder why you can’t cite even one single other verse in the whole Bible? Please read the narratives in Num chaps 13-14 to find that you’re appealing to unreliable guys who invented an “evil report” and were rebuked by God: they contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible, and God. Also, the discussion is about the specific ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” so please don’t move the goal post to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants.”

Chrisanthy Thymis Carbajal

relax, bro

and as for me not being able to “site another verse”, I am just getting into researching on the Nephilim and the verse that was posted says it all!! You’re acting like I am struggling to find the evidence for Nephilim being the giants and fallen angels/mixed human race!! Stop making assumptions.

True Freethinker

Friend, you’re projecting since you’re making assumptions. Let’s go through this so as to clear the air.

You noted, “The,” singular, “evidence is right there in Numbers 13:33!!” which is a single verse.

Thus, this was about asserting post-flood Nephilim—and you threw, “actual giants (‘Sons of God’ mixed with human)” in to the mix.

Contextually to your exclusive appeal to, “The,” singular, “evidence is right there in Numbers 13:33!!” which is a single verse, I replied, “Ever wonder why you can’t cite even one single other verse in the whole Bible?” and kept it within context by referring to, “the narratives in Num chaps 13-14.”

Thus, this had nothing at all to do with, “evidence for Nephilim being the giants and fallen angels/mixed human race!!”

Did you read those narratives rather than just one single verse?

I don’t ask just to take a jab but because, especially if you’re just getting into this research and most of what you will encounter about it is un-biblical tall-tales, it’s very, very important to not just pick up one un-contextual verse, run with it, and literally build an entire all-encompassing theory on it.

True Freethinker to the Metal Bible Podcast

Please don’t mislead your audience by being conveniently vague. I commented that to various people when it was applicable.

Oddly, you claim that you “would quickly debunk it” but you didn’t.

You asserted “There are 6 NAMED Nephilim from after the flood” but didn’t even list one—nor could you since none are.

As for, “Num 13:33 NASB20” I told you multiple times that I don’t base my doctrine on one single verse and that you’re quoting an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible, and God. Why do you side with them rather than with Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible, and God?

As for, “Its almost as if the Bible very clearly says there were Nephilim AFTER the flood” well, I suppose that it’s a case of “Its almost as if” because it’s not: there’s no such statement in the Bible.

Robert Watkins

The reason why Saul is commanded to destroy every man, woman, child, and beast of the Phillistines is to obliterate the generational evil that follows the descendants of the Nephilim, and the reason why David, after slaying Goliath of Gath, is tasked with picking up Saul’s slack, and finishing the mission of destroying the remaining Nephilim. By the way, these are the named “giants” he was referring to, in addition to Goliath and Og.

”Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel. And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.“

2 Samuel 21:15-20, 22 KJV

True Freethinker

But friend, you merely asserted, “The reason why Saul is commanded to destroy every man, woman, child, and beast of the Phillistines is to obliterate the generational evil that follows the descendants of the Nephilim, and the reason why David, after slaying Goliath of Gath, is tasked with picking up Saul’s slack, and finishing the mission of destroying the remaining Nephilim.”

Can you quote and cite support for those very specific multiple assertions?

As for, “named ‘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?

I’m unsure what “Goliath and Og…Ishbi-benob…Saph…the brother of Goliath…a man of great stature” have to do with “Nephilim from after the flood.”

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

See my various books here.

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.

On Rob Skiba “explains NEPHILIM, the ANCIENT GIANTS”

This discussion took place due to the video @RobSkiba explains NEPHILIM, the ANCIENT GIANTS | Scientism Exposed 2 (Bonus Interviews) that was posted to the Celebrate Truth Youtube channel

A certain @MyChihuahua commented

People in general before the flood were larger in stature.

Gen 6 does not teach angel hybrids of large stature, but of ‘tyrants, bullies and fellers’ (RockeFELLERs), MEN of renown, those of the line of Cain that lorded it over others in power. Compare to Jasher 4.

I, @kenammi355, replied

What makes you assert “People in general before the flood were larger in stature”?

Indeed, “Gen 6 does not teach angel hybrids of large stature” but the “angel hybrids were the “MEN of renown.”

But I’m unsure what makes you assert that the daughters of men were exclusively of the line of Cain.

As for Jasher: that’s just a modern day hoaxed fraud–see my book “The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.”

@cdmajesty4803 chimed in with

Lots of very large Giants in the not-so-distant past also

@kenammi355

That begs these key questions:

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

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

Do those usages agree?

@MyChihuahua

‘giants’ is from the Greek ‘gigantes’ and refers to excellence, skill and social status not physical stature. So, the word is used correctly in Gen 6 to describe the tyrants that were in power at that time. Same as we say today ‘Steve Jobs was a giant in the electronics field’. Using ‘giant’ to describe physical stature is a metaphor.

@kenammi355

‘giants’ is from the Greek ‘gigantes’ and refers to “earth-born” as in born of Gaia not physical stature. So, the word is rendered for some unknown reason in Gen 6, et al., to describe the might and renown Nephilim. Using ‘giant’ is using a vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word.

@MyChihuahua

the reason is not ‘unknown’, I explained it in my comment. In the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon it states that it is also used to mean ‘fallers (fellers), rebels, apostates’ by Hebrew interpreters, referring to those who fall upon to attack or bring others low. Strong’s gives the definition of ‘nephal/nephilim’ as ‘tyrants, bullies, fellers’, but it is translated as ‘giants’. We still have it today in names like ‘RockeFELLER’, a modern tyrant in the financial realm.

@kenammi355

Friend, recall that this began when you made assertions you still haven’t supported.

Since you claim to know the reason that please quote and cite the ancient source that tells us why they did that.

Recall that my observation was the fact that, “’giants’ is from the Greek ‘gigantes’ and refers to ‘earth-born’ as in born of Gaia not physical stature. So, the word is rendered for some unknown reason in Gen 6, et al., to describe the might and renown Nephilim…”

As for, “fallers (fellers)…fellers”: first recall that I noted that “giants” is a rendering, it’s not a translation and also, “RockeFELLER” has nothing to do with any of this whatsoever. Please don’t make jumps in meaning or implication based on modern English transliterations of words: Rockefeller refers to an open country, from a German word, and came about due to describing someone the village called “Rockenfeld.”

@MyChihuahua

I already cited the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon for the word ‘giant’. I also referred you to the parallel account to Genesis 6 in Jasher 4. These are 3 witnesses to the truth of what Scripture clearly teaches in it’s whole counsel without adding sensational ideas (angels mating with women) to the text. At the end of the day, it seems we are in agreement on this point that ‘giants’ does not mean here what most are claiming.

@kenammi355

Friend, I wrote an entire book about the linguistics and have read dozens upon dozens of dictionaries, encyclopedias, lexicons, etc. called Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010. A best practice isn’t to just take one isolated definition and run with it but to determine what they mean by “giants,” why they think that, how that applies to the actual context in which the word is found at any given usage, etc. But most “Nephilim giants” obsessed people merely read the word “giants” merely assume they know to what it refers, and run with it.

Recall that I already told you, “As for Jasher: that’s just a modern day hoaxed fraud–see my book ‘The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.’”

Oddly, you assert, “These are 3 witnesses” but one isolated definition and one hoax don’t among to even one. At least, indeed, “‘giants’ does not mean here what most are claiming.”

@MyChihuahua

@kenammi355

What you are saying is that Genesis 6 and the modern day hoaxed fraud Jasher 4 are about “fallers (fellers), rebels, apostates…those who fall upon to attack or bring others low…tyrants, bullies” and sure, no problem: that doesn’t mean they weren’t half-Angel and half-human. Indeed, “‘giants’ does not mean here what most are claiming.”

@MyChihuahua

Correct. And no where are angels even mentioned in that passage.

Jasher is the only Apocryphal text actually referenced in Scripture. Parts of it may have been corrupted, but the parallel passage of Gen 6 matches the same info.

@kenammi355

“Correct” about what?

Now, you noted “no where are angels even mentioned in that passage” but it doesn’t matter since it’s just a “modern day hoaxed fraud” and the “fallers (fellers), rebels, apostates…those who fall” refers to Nephilim (due to the root word naphal) and not to the Angels who fathered them.

As for, “Jasher is the only Apocryphal text actually referenced in Scripture” nope, there’s some 33 of them. And just because Scripture refers to a book of Jasher doesn’t mean that the modern-day hoaxed fraud is that book.

@MyChihuahua

‘not to the angels that fathered them’ – again, there is NO mention of angels in relation to the Gen 6 account.

@kenammi355

At least you accept that Jasher is a modern day hoaxed fraud so what it states is irrelevant.

It’s a bit unclear what you mean by, “there is NO mention of angels in relation to the Gen 6 account.”

Do you mean that the English word “angels” doesn’t appear in the version you’re reading?

Do you mean that the Hebrew word “Malakim” doesn’t appear in Hebrew versions?

Just in case you’re fixating on one word (in either language) I’ll just note that there’s no grammatical, reading comprehension, literary, or hermeneutical rule that only one word can ever be used to refer to any one thing.

For example, in Job 38:7 it’s clear that “bene ha Elohim”/“sons of God” can refer to non-human beings.

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

See my various books here.

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.

Claim that “the ‘the ten spies lied’ idea which is silly” regarding the Nephilim “evil report”

To The Metal Bible Podcast Facebook post, a certain Robert Lindblad commented

John Piper made me care about doctrine and theology, Mark Driscoll made me care about applying that to real life, but Mike Heiser is by far the one who has impacted me the most. Reading his work and listening to his podcast gave me so much deeper understanding, and the tools to study the Bible for myself and actually know what I’m doing.

I, True Freethinker, replied

Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—see these articles for examples:

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

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

Robert Lindblad

The vast majority of Heiser’s work is well established in academia and has tons of scriptural support. The Nephilim is a small corner piece of that puzzle, and doesn’t really effect the greater big picture that much. I could concede that Heiser was wrong about Nephilim without it effecting my opinion on most of what he did.

However I will not concede. I agree with Heiser that the whole “the 10 spies were lying” can’t be taken seriously as an argument. The text doesn’t say they lied about what was in the land, it says they didn’t trust God. Caleb and Joshua don’t accuse them of lying, they simply exhort Israel “do not fear the people of the land”. The implication there being that there *is* a reason to fear, but they should trust God instead.

True Freethinker

I learned a lot from Heiser and aren’t blind to his shortcomings.

I’m going to guess that you didn’t read the articles and wonder why not.

There’s no logical nor linguistics nor literary imperative for a text to tell you the words, “the 10 spies were lying” for you to understand that such was the case from the context.

Also, as I noted in the article you didn’t read, it wasn’t a formal moderated debate for which we have a full transcript so by relying exclusively on an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked for your post-flood Nephilology, you’re only creating a lot of problems for yourself such as having to invent a story about how the made it past the flood—something about God failing, missing a loophole, the flood being much of a waste, etc.

Robert Lindblad

I ‘m not creating any problems. The “problems” you are seeing are there regardless, and cannot be solved by wishful thinking and/or eisegesis. The text also doesn’t say they are problems. You presuppositions are why you think they are problems, and thus feel the need to create an eiegetical alternate narrative that is not in the text.

True Freethinker

It’s simple: the “evil report” consists of five assertions unbacked by even one other text in the entire Bible and they contradicted Moses, Joshua, Caleb, the entire rest of the whole Bible, and God so, why do you side with them?

Why is post-flood and “giant” Nephilology literally based on one single sentence that they stated?

Proof of this is that you exclusively rely on the unreliable rebuked guys’ “evil report” to assert that, “examples of nephilim descendants after the flood, including numbers 13:33” so you see what I mean and also, you’re not only wholly relying on one single sentence but on exclusively non-LXX versions of that one sentence.

As for, “multiple examples of nephilim descendants after the flood” please quote and cite those.

Also, please elucidate how they made it past the flood–although I see that you call your own view, “utter nonsense” and I couldn’t agree more.

Robert Lindblad

I read enough to know you were proposing the “the ten spies lied” idea which is silly. I’m familiar with the concept, and I don’t have to read your specific article in it’s entirety to know that I think it’s bogus. There’s no reason to believe that that is the case based on the text, and there are multiple examples of nephilim descendants after the flood, including numbers 13:33. It specifically says the Anakim were descended from the nephilim. How did they descend from nephilim post flood, if they were all destroyed, and none were left after the flood? It’s utter nonsense.

True Freethinker

Well, that which you subjectively find to be “silly” isn’t a standard and rejecting the conclusions which you haven’t read from an article you claim to have read part of via merely typing out the single word, “bogus” is the sort of thing that Atheist do online (and post-flood Nephilologists).

Now, you asserted (but didn’t quote nor cite) “multiple,” plural, “examples,” plural, “of nephilim descendants,” plural, “after the flood” but you are going in a circle since you one and only bit of (pseudo) evidence is doubling down on a appealing exclusively to one sentence in the “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked and who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible and God.

As for, “It specifically says the Anakim were descended from the nephilim” not “It” but rather, “they” and the day are guys whom you rely on 100% for an all-encompassing theory.

Also, please check the LXX for that verse.

And fascinatingly, when it come to THE key point which is, “How did they descend from nephilim post flood, if they were all destroyed, and none were left after the flood?” you again exclusively appeal to your emotive subjectivism, “It’s utter nonsense.”

And that’s all you will ever be able to do because post-flood Nephilology is exclusively based on that one sentence which is why you must hold on to it—“my precious!”—not matter what, no matter that you imply that God failed, not matter that there’s zero reliable indication of what they asserted, no matter that you side with guys whom God rebuked, etc.

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

See my various books here.

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.

Atheist comments on “the depth of your indoctrination”

Such was the case when one of my Facebook Atheist trolls, Charlie Reid, commented as follows on this post:

Repeating “i have a book and you don’t” isn’t an argument, it merely reveals the depth of your indoctrination. Amazing how you can contradict yourself in a sentence without realising.

True Freethinker:

How does your worldview 1) provide a premise for truth, logic, and ethics, 2) for adhering to them, and 3) for demanding that others do likewise? Please understand that without such premises your complaints about supposed indoctrination, contradictions, etc. are literally impotent: they are merely the interpretation of haphazard bio-chemical reactions with the brain of a temporarily and accidentally existing ape.

Jerome Jerry Reiter, chimed in with this to Charlie:

I answered that question he posed to you – in depth and detail. He deleted it because he could not find an honest reply. Ken Ammi, the real name of this fundie wingnut, is very scammy.

True Freethinker to Jerome:

Evidence, please. [which I requested since I had deleted nothing at all]

Charlie Reid to Jerome:

i don’t interact with him much nowadays as he has no coherent answers and disingenuously ends up inanely repeating ‘i have a book’ whilst being unable to demonstrate how is contradictory book provide him with anything. He doesn’t think it’s possible to have a worldview that doesn’t include his god, so much so that he thinks his god is part of my life! Though he, and his ilk, still intrigue me alas his tiresome banal rhetoric has grown tedious.

True Freethinker:

I realize that Charlie has no premise upon which to condemn lying since he has never provided one but he just lied to you Jerome as I have never once written “I have a book” and even if I did and even if it was contradictory then you have provided no premise upon which to condemn that either.

Another deception of yours is the statement “He doesn’t think it’s possible to have a worldview that doesn’t include his god” when, in fact, I have referred to Atheism as a worldview to you many, many, many, many times and guess what: you are the one that always denies the fact that you hold to that “worldview that doesn’t include” God.

Charlie Reid:

Let me explain for the umpteenth time, I do not condemn lying as i’m not an indoctrinated child.

Over the centuries as morals and ethics have evolved, the non indoctrinated understand lying is merely a tool that can be used for good and bad with possibly equal consequences.

I have lied far more times for good reasons than bad as i have a premise, based on reality, that lying to cause harm isn’t good.

Do you understand the difference between Elmer Gantry saying “this snake oil will cure cancer” and Anne Frank saying “there are no Jews in my house”?

Do you honestly think any rational god would stop a parent preventing harm to their child by forbidding lying to them? I’m sure you’ll cite your ‘morally justified reasons,’ ‘works in mysterious ways,’ ‘finite minds cannot understand an infinite gods mind’ or whatever other cop out when unable to insert your square christian peg in a round reality hole.

Perhaps, like your mythical, invisible, lying, genocidal god you like to sit and watch suffering when lying would prevent it.

See above for premise, interesting you deny claiming the bible is your source for truth, logic, and ethics as that’s a lie.

Well through your ignorance you are actually partially correct as, unlike you, my worldview doesn’t include considering fairy tales that are demonstrably false as part of it.

You feel the tooth fairy, Dracula, Santa, god, leprechauns, demons, giants, talking animals etc are considerations when ascertaining an opinion whereas I haven’t been indoctrinated into believing false premises.

You are mentally incapable of conceiving of a reality without your sky daddy’s existence nor your book for a crutch.

You are so indoctrinated you are unable to contemplate the ‘no christian god’ possibility yet you flippantly dismiss other gods? Your life is a hypocritical, illogical shambles.

True Freethinker:

I stated “Charlie has no premise upon which to condemn lying” and you agreed with “I do not condemn lying” but that such is “as i’m not an indoctrinated child” is a world-class non sequitur.

You also make a category error in correlating “morals and ethics” and claim that they “evolved” past tense so how do you know that they have stopped evolving? Also, that means that you have disqualified yourself form condemning anything since they evolve.

Now, since you believe that “lying is merely a tool that can be used for good and bad” then we should just assume that you are lying and so you have discredited yourself again.

But when you say that you “have lied far more times for good reasons than bad” you are inserting the concepts of “good” and “bad” without definition but then again, you did define them since “morals and ethics have evolved” then good and bad also evolved and are also just as subjective so you have discredited yourself again plus, if you believe that you are commenting here to do good then you can excuse lying and have discredited yourself yet again.

You do not seem to understand what a premise is and you merely insert the unjustified concepts of “based on reality” and that “lying to cause harm isn’t good” as mere assertions—base on subjectivism, of course.

But since I distinguish morality from ethics then I, just as does the Bible, recognize the difference in Gantry’s statements and can justify them with something beyond subjective pragmatism based on speciesism.

But since you have no premise for logic than you complaints are just the acting out of an ape—as per your views, not mine.

You positively affirmed that God is “mythical…lying, genocidal” and must now prove it.

The Bible is one of my sources of some truth.

But when you state, “that’s a lie” guess what? You stated, “I do not condemn lying” so you discredited yourself again.

So we agree, Atheism is your worldview.

Also, correlating God with “the tooth fairy, Dracula, Santa…leprechauns, demons, giants, talking animals etc” is a category error.

What makes you think that I “flippantly dismiss other gods” especially when you flippantly dismiss all gods—except the one you see in the mirror.

Lastly, you have often claimed that I am indoctrinated, I have often asked you for proof, you have always failed—at least on a theological level. We both agreed that we were both indoctrinated into evolution, it is just that I have outgrown thinking that I am an ape and you still act like one.

Charlie Reid:

You may be the most indoctrinated person i’ve ever come across, your rhetoric is so ingrained you’re unable to understand simple English. I would have to have a premise to either condemn or not condemn something otherwise my comment would be arbitrary. This is your brain restricting rational thought.

You cant even demonstrate how your book is, or logically can be, a premise to condemn lying as your contradictory god, which you falsely believe you base premises on, lied numerous times, according to your fairy tale.

What does that gibberish mean?

<“as i’m not an indoctrinated child” is a world-class non sequitur.>

Again you display your a misunderstanding of terms, please explain why it’s a non sequitur?

Surely even you aren’t dumb enough to not see the correlation! Ethics derive from morals and as you cannot demonstrate how objective morals exist, ethics and morals change with time, or are you still stoning adulterers?

I won’t accuse you of dishonesty as, due to your indoctrination, you are unaware of cherry picking,

You really don’t have a very good grasp of the English language do you. Even your attempt to misconstrue is pitiful as I actually said “as morals and ethics have evolved” which is present tense and doesn’t even imply they’ve stopped evolving.

<Also, that means that you have disqualified yourself form condemning anything since they evolve>

Why? Over the centuries people have constantly condoned then condemned things, it’s called being intellectually honest, where you can change your opinion as new information arises. You’re stuck defending a goat herders guide to the galaxy, which is not only irrelevant but damaging to society.

<Now, since you believe that “lying is merely a tool that can be used for good and bad” then we should just assume that you are lying and so you have discredited yourself again.>

Why should you assume I am lying when i’ve never lied to you before?

This may be the most contradictory convoluted gibberish you’ve ever concocted and this has embarrassingly been explained numerous times to you my friend.

Good and bad are subjective terms people apply to circumstances pertinent to the action being described. You think an incestuously raped 12 year old being forced to conceive a disabled child is a good thing where as people not indoctrinated with a death cult may think it’s a bad thing.

I presume you adopt?

So reality is an unjustified concept now but god is? What planet are you from mate!

Yes I think lying to cause harm isn’t good. When god commands you not to lie why do you think that is?

Of course and until you can demonstrate this objectivity you continually fail to demonstrate exists subjectivity is all we have, no matter what your book says.

Try reading my comments before commenting, i quoted two lies with differing objectives but please justify whatever straw man you are inventing using your objective premise.

Another fine example of your indoctrination is your poorly constructed phrase “just as does the Bible” as the reality is it’s “coz the bible sez so”

But since you have no premise for logic than you complaints are just the acting out of an ape—as per your views, not mine..

“acting out of an ape” is not only grammatically lacking but a futile attempt at an ad hom, deny science and reality all you like we’re all primates.

than you complaints = then your complaints?

There are many reasons I believe your god doesn’t exist, i’d explain but you’ve shown you are incapable of understanding such simple concepts but, his actions contradict his attributes unless you think murdering innocent people or sitting watching children die every 5 seconds of preventable deaths ….

I’d never have known.

Explained above but once again, I don’t condemn ALL lies, like your book it’s ok to lie sometimes.

My point exactly, you’ve been brainwashed into believing god is a necessity, like oxygen so you may never understand how silly your assertion is.

Have explained this numerous times, atheism isn’t even a part of my ‘worldview’ any more than leprechaunism, Santaism or Draculaism, because a nonsensical, illogical concept exists doesn’t mean it has to be considered.

An interest and dislike of religion would certainly be part of it as religion is an every day reality, atheism is merely an answer or an opinion on one question, do you see the difference?

<Also, correlating God with “the tooth fairy, Dracula, Santa…leprechauns, demons, giants, talking animals etc” is a category error.>

You keep saying this without ever demonstrating why, they are all mythical entities where’s the category error?

Don’t you?

You think i’m a god?

<Lastly, you have often claimed that I am indoctrinated, I have often asked you for proof, you have always failed—at least on a theological level.>

So what level didn’t I fail on, reality?

No, you’ve been indoctrinated into believing the bible, you had trouble fitting evolution into your worldview so reverted back to type. Were you 18, going through a tough time, have a special revelation …..

Yes we do have characteristics of an ape, it’s because we’re related.

True Freethinker:

You are finally coming close to probably getting it when you say “I would have to have a premise to either condemn or not condemn something otherwise my comment would be arbitrary.” I have told you time and time again that since you have no premise that proceeds forth from YOUR WORLDVIEW, you beg, borrow and steal from mine. Thus, you do not have a premise that is your own but you do appeal to a premise that is mine, and do so unjustifiably. And so, on your worldview, your comments (plural, all of them) are (all) arbitrary. Yes, indeed.

You then appeal to logic but guess what: your worldview also fails to provide you a premise for that so your condemnations are arbitrary. Yes, indeed. But you still condemn illogicality (or, your subjective opinion of what such is) by stealing from my worldview (again) even as you (failingly) attempt to discredit my view (for no apparent reason except that you have a lot of free time) so that if you are successful, you will discredit the very method via which you succeed which means that you would have defeated yourself.

Now, you also cannot complain that I (supposedly) “cant even demonstrate how your book is…” since I already proved that you cannot even justify demanding evidence or demonstrations.

Moreover, you actually complain that God (supposedly) “lied numerous times” after having stated “I do not condemn lying”: friend, I do not have to do anything, I just ensure you have your say and you discredit yourself.

You then positively affirm that God and/or the Bible is a “fairy tale” so you must now prove it. But just because I am feeling charitable, you writting “I do not condemn lying…as i’m not an indoctrinated child” is a world-class non sequitur because the one statement does not and cannot lead to the other. Unless you care to elucidate how (supposedly) not being indoctrinate leads to you not condemning lying (but then going on to condemn it anyway).

When it comes to morals and ethics I am speaking technically so that your low hanging fruit claim that “Ethics derive from morals” is just that. I am referring to the mores vs. the ethos, mores are what “change with time” since they merely describe that which people do while the ethos is absolute and thus, never changes.

But you discredit yourself again by demanding that “ethics and morality change with time” but then still condemning unethical and immoral behaviors such as lying: which you do not and also do condemn.

So you have decided that “morals and ethics have evolved” and you somehow know that they have stopped evolving well, I guess I did not get the memo—whence did you get it?

By referring to “goat herders” you are committing a logical genetic fallacy.

But you “have disqualified yourself from condemning anything” if “they evolve” even if people have taken it upon themselves to change their minds due to intellectual honesty or, by the way, intellectual dishonesty. Your problem is that you were indoctrinated into believing in your thoughts, your brain, life, the Earth and the universe being accidented into being and so you merely follow wherever the zeitgeist may lead—but, of my, wait until that zeitgeist becomes a poltergeist. Also, I am unsure how a “goat herders guide…is not only irrelevant but damaging to society” when the majority of humans hold to it as their worldview and the most successful first-world cultures have been premised upon it. But then again, you are stating all of that upon hidden assumptions (stolen from my worldview) and without premises from your worldview—so you discredit yourself again.

I discern vicious circularity when you ask “Why should you assume I am lying when i’ve never lied to you before?” when there is no reason for me to think that you have not, especially when you claim that “lying is merely a tool.”

So when you write that you “have lied far more times for good reasons than bad” you then admit that “Good and bad are subjective terms”: you have utterly discredited yourself again—can you really not even see that?

I presume you abort.

No, reality is not an unjustified concept on my worldview, but on yours: reality is an accident as is you (supposed) ability to discern it. Plus, I referred to your “unjustified concepts of ‘based on reality’” so you took me out of context.

You then have the chutzpah to actually type out the words, “Yes I think lying to cause harm isn’t good” after admitting that you believe that “morals and ethics have evolved” and “Good and bad are subjective terms” so you discredited yourself again.

The phrase “until you can demonstrate this objectivity you continually fail to demonstrate exists” is hardly legible but if will interpret it to mean that you are demanding demonstrations without a premise from your worldview which means that you are unjustifiably demanding demonstrations (yet again). But whey di I think that God commands us not to (maliciously) lie? Because God is holy and so the ethos proceeds forth from His very nature and essence as an eternally relational conflict-free being.

On those instances that you subjectively decide to claim we should not lie, you do so based on subjective interpretations of accidental biochemical reactions within your accidentally existing brain.

When it comes to being primates well, I am personally not impressed by manmade taxonomy—especially not when someone who holds to your worldview has done it.

You really hit rock bottom when I note the logical fact that you must prove that God is “mythical…lying, genocidal” since you positively affirmed it without evidence and all you can muster regarding this utterly key issue of your worldview is to run away claiming that you are just too smart and I am “incapable of understanding such simple concepts.” Your arrogance is not proof so you discredited yourself again.

But, you did offer a few one-liners “his actions contradict his attributes unless you think murdering innocent people or sitting watching children die every 5 seconds of preventable deaths” which you ended with “….” which means that you cannot even complete a one-liner. You really need to learn how to read your own comments so try this: “his actions contradict” an unjustified appeal to logic, “murdering innocent people” an unjustified condemnation of murder, “sitting watching children die every 5 seconds of preventable deaths” (something, something, something) another unjustified vague and generic comment. Thus, your open-ended one-liner is merely a string of assertion based on hidden assumptions so you discredit yourself again. But, of course, you just condemned illogicality, murder and sitting watching children die after admitting that you think that “morals and ethics have evolved” and “Good and bad are subjective terms” which means that you have utterly discredited yourself beyond repair.

Now only is “Bible is one of my sources of some truth” but yours as well: as is quite evident.

You wrote “He doesn’t think it’s possible to have a worldview that doesn’t include his god” which implies that it is possible to have a worldview that does not include God. If I have been “brainwashed” (for which you have no evidence) “into believing god is a necessity” then so have most of the most brilliant philosophers in history as they recognize that God is a “necessary being”: and you also prove that God is a necessity by constantly and exclusively appealing to His revealed ethos and Word in order to argue again His revealed ethos and Word.

So, let us play your game again since the first few dozen times did not stick: in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you make provision for God’s existence—accept and admit the actual existence of God?

Yes, since “Pure religion and undefiled before God the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27) you “dislike” this and “atheism is merely an answer or an opinion on one question” about which all Atheists can do is make unevidenced assertions—got it.

You are being circular when you claim that “the tooth fairy, Dracula, Santa…leprechauns, demons, giants, talking animals etc…are all mythical entities” since you have not proven that God is such. Thus, the category error is that you are categorizing a philosophically necessary being with philosophically unnecessary beings.

No, I do not “flippantly dismiss other gods.”

No, I do not think that you are God but you place yourself in the place of ultimate authority which makes you a (very much lowercase) god in your own eyes made in your own image.

So I again (and again and again and again and again) ask for proof of your talking point that I am indoctrinated and you once again (and again and again and again and again) fail.

Ah, but you then claim that I have “been indoctrinated into believing the bible” which is so utterly laughable that you if you know anything whatsoever about my life you would scurry off with your tail tucked between your legs in utter shame—you do not have a single clue of what you speak in this area and the fact that you are actually going to tell me about my private personal life without knowing a thing about it speaks VOLUMES as to why you are so stunningly wrong so shockingly often: this opens an enormous window into your modus operandi.

If you wasted less time playing grammar police and typing our allegedly clever put-downs, you might be able to actually engage in reasoned discourse. But that is part of the problem: your worldview tells you that you are in a long line of apes who settled arguments by tossing fecal matter at each other so you act accordingly.

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

See my various books here.

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.

Is it the case that “the fallen angels in 2 Peter 2:4 that are in chains of darkness the Watchers or Nephilim, and how do they compare to Satan and his angels that fell?”

Such as a question posted to the Quora site which led to the following discussion after Scott Salvatore commented

The angels in chains are they that fell from heaven with Lucifer.

Revelation 12:4

King James Version

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven.

Take my advice and leave the book of Enoch alone it is full of lies theres no such thing as watchers or nephilims who people say are the children of angels and humans. This fable is conjured up from people who don’t understand the scriptures the same can be said about the trinity believers.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Just a technical point: not “with Lucifer” since his (a Cherub, not an Angel) fall was as per the Gen 3 timeline while theirs was as per the Gen 6 timeline.

1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

Scott Salvatore

Overall Lucifer is a angel the scriptures refers to him many times as angel or fallen angel. Cherub is a rank within the angelic army that’s it.

Ken Ammi

Can you provide the quotations and citations from where, “the scriptures refers to him many times as angel or fallen angel”?

I will note that there are zero and the only time he is referenced as any such thing is when we’re told that he pretends to be a Angel of light.

There’s also zero indication, “Cherub is a rank within the angelic army” that’s just a category error that violates the law of identity and is just a man-made tradition that someone just invented. But again, maybe you can provide quotations and citations.

Scott Salvatore

Sure the scriptures never said it plainly that Lucifer was a angel that’s because the scriptures are a book of mystery only those who patiently seeks God and gains favor will unlock it’s mysteries.

Revelation 12:7-9 – And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels.

Michael a angel led army of angels against Lucifer a angel and his army of angels.

Revelation 12:9 – And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

This scripture refers to Lucifer falling to earth after Michael defeat him in heaven proving he was a angel in heaven. No one else but God the angels and few humans like Enoch who was translated are in heaven currently. Heaven is not a place people can invade spirit or humans remember the tower of babel story?

2 Peter 2:4 – For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

All that was cast out according to scripture were angels Lucifer including because the scripture did not make a separation between Lucifer and angels.

Ken Ammi

“scriptures never said it plainly that Lucifer was a angel” because he’s not and we’re told that he is a Cherub (the one in the Garden: Ezekiel 28:14) thus: mystery unlocked.

It’s a non-sequitur that since, “Michael defeat him in heaven” this is, “proving he was a angel in heaven” since Angels and God are not the only residents of heaven: there are, at least, Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim (if they count).

When you assert, “Heaven is not a place people can invade spirit” you must be thinking about the New Heavens rather than the intermediate heaven, which is where the war took place.

In asserting, “All that was cast out according to scripture were angels Lucifer including because the scripture did not make a separation between Lucifer and angels” you’re ignoring, “You were in Eden, the garden of God…You were an anointed guardian cherub…guardian cherub,” “I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God…I cast you to the ground” (see Ezekiel 28).

Debbie Harrington chimed in with

Son of the Morning – Isaiah 14

Satan, the personification of evil, was once one of God’s most beautiful angels in Heaven. This evil angel was originally called Lucifer, which means son of the morning (Isaiah 14:12). He was the prince of angels, the bearer of light. God created him to be perfect in wisdom and beauty, a spectacle of flawlessness. But this was not enough for him. For He wanted to sit on the mount of God and be like God.

Debbie Harrington

Nephilim are in the Holy Bible so is the Godhead/Trinity😊

Scott Salvatore

The Godhead is different from the trinity which is a pagon belief practice by pagon religions all over the world before Christianity existed. The pagon Roman Catholic church is responsible for introducing the trinity doctrine to Christianity. Religion like Egyptian for example believe in the Trinity garbage.

Nephilims do exist in the scriptures but they are not what people say they are. People believe that they are giants who were the sons and daughters of human and angel parents but they are not. Angels never lusted after humans because the nature of angels are spirit and spirit doesn’t feel the desire for sexual intercourse the flesh does. Also spirit cannot impregnate flesh because they don’t have what’s needed to fertilize a woman’s egg that being things like blood for example. Seek God for yourself and stop swollw every pill you hear.

Debbie Harrington

Guess the Holy Bible is wrong and you are right hna lol

Ken Ammi to Scott

But you’re merely asserting, “Satan…was once one of God’s most beautiful angels…was the prince of angels.” I just directed Scott to one of the relevant texts that you’re paraphrasing but misapplying: Ezek 28.

Ken Ammi to Debbie

The Godhead is a Trine being.

You asserted, “Nephilims do exist in the scriptures” so please check Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33.

You then merely assert, “people say they are…the sons and daughters of human and angel parents but they are not” and merely assert, “Angels never lusted after humans” and merely assert, “angels are spirit.”

So, since you’re Angelology is faulty, you ague, “spirit cannot impregnate flesh” when that has nothing to do with the Gen 6 affair.

Scott Salvatore

You clearly lack understanding of scriptures so I’ll humor you a bit

Show me a scripture in the bible that says God is three in one or that the Godhead is the trinity.

Show me a scripture that said angels begat offsprings from humans and I’ll debunked it for you. I could now but I rather do so after you’ve provided the scriptures that you misinterpreted friend

Ken Ammi

It would appear that you’re unfamiliar with hermeneutics in terms of basic reading comprehension when you make challenges such as, “Show me a scripture in the bible that says God is three in one or that the Godhead is the trinity.” A formulation is a formulation and is meant to formulate. Feel free to check out my book, “The Trinity Texts: Does the Bible contain Trinitarian Theology and if so, where?”

It’s fascinating that you admitted that if I could show you scripture, you would debunk it: what more proof do we need that your defending man-made tradition?

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

Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

Indeed, “there was no angelic guard at the gates or in Eden.”

I’ve no idea what you mean by, “believe that Cherub and the others don’t fall under the title of angels”: I only “believe that Cherub and the others don’t fall under the title of angels” because they don’t, because that is a category error (in at least three ways) and because it violates the law of identify. Just because someone came along centuries after the Torah and made up man-made claims doesn’t change those biblically verifiable facts.

It’s also a fascinating window into your modus operandi that you demand, “The scriptures said anointed cherub not guardian cherub” exclusively based on your subjectively preferred version. Please familiarize yourself with a subject before commenting about it on the WORLD WIDE web for all to see, here are very many versions for you to peruse: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Ezekiel%2028:14

“God casting Lucifer to the ground” is a post-Jesus’ ascension event.

Scott Salvatore

Ofcource you would start with disrespectful comments because it’s obvious people like you would see every criticism as an attack. I don’t have the time to read all the none sense you wrote so I refuse to read it all so please make known what scriptures you want to debate on or just go away.

Feel free to check out my book, “The Trinity Texts: Does the Bible contain Trinitarian Theology and if so, where?” NO I WILL NOT READ YOUR GARBAGE. MAYBE WE SHOULD DEBATE ON THE TRINITY IF YOU WANT THAT IS.

Ken Ammi

There’s a difference between my comment and your emotively subjectively malicious misinterpretation of it. You’re comporting yourself like Atheists do: getting angry and literally judging a book by its cover.

Scott Salvatore

Believe whatever you think of me I’m not bothered nor do I care for your opinion. If you’re not willing to discuss scripture and instead wants to argue do it somewhere else. And if you’re reply is still none sense I will not responding again

Ken Ammi

You may be projecting since all I’ve been doing all along is attempting to get you to engage.

Scott Salvatore

Then ask your question if you need something or just want to prove me wrong to scratch your ego.

Ken Ammi

See above.

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

See my various books here.

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 Metal Bible Podcast on Chuck Missler and Michael Heiser regarding Nephilim giants

The Metal Bible Podcast posted on Facebook in order to ask and answer, in part, “Who has been the most influential person for you who has helped you in your understanding of scripture? For me it started with Chuck Missler…and then moved to Dr. Heiser after that…Missler introduced me to the concept of Nephilim and then Heiser took that baton and sprinted with it…”

Sandy Mueller commented

Ken Ham was the first, then my local pastor Steve Wilson, then Ray Comfort, now it’s Chuck Missler and Bible project. I’ll have to look up Heiser. For apologetics Greg Koukl, and Hillary Morgan Ferrer. For mothering Abbie Halberstadt.

I, True Freethinker, replied

One thing Missler and Heiser had in common was un-biblical Nephilology if for no other reason that they both taught post-flood Nephilim but that’s not a biblical doctrine.

Sandy Mueller

I haven’t researched the nephilim much but I believe they are talked about in numbers when the spies give the report about the land. From what I understand there isn’t much about them in the Bible so I’m not going to be upset if someone I listen to is … See more

The Metal Bible Podcast

True Freethinker Numbers 13:33 literally says there were post flood Nephilim… it uses that exact word…

[Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

The Metal Bible Podcast

Sandy Mueller Michael S. Heiser is an AMAZING source for this kind of stuff… one of the few you can actually trust to give you the truth on this topic without taking away from what the Bible actually says about this topic

True Freethinker to Sandy Mueller

But friend, we could talk about George Washington right now but that doesn’t mean he’s alive or that I’ve actually seen him.

Yes, “they are talked about in numbers” but it wasn’t the generic, “spies” but ten of them: the ten who presented an “evil report,” were unreliable, and were rebuke by God. The reason why one single sentence from them is the entirety of post-flood references to Nephilim is that they just made up a tall-tale—and they contracted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the entire rest of the whole Bible, and God.

I hate to be self-serving but I’ve written some dozen Nephilology books, many, many, many, many, many articles and many videos.

Just beware since 100% of pop-Nephilologists tech un-biblical tall-tales.

True Freethinker to The Metal Bible Podcast

Actually when you say, “Numbers 13:33 literally says” that’s a reification fallacy and no one would have understood to what you’re referring until a full ¾ of the way through church history.

So, the key question are: who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc.

Now, I can use the exact words “George Washington” and claim that I just saw him so “it uses that exact word” has nothing to do with the facts of the matter.

What you’re doing is quoting one single sentence from an “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked so, why do you believe them? They made five mere assertions and contracted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the entire rest of the whole Bible, and God.

As for Heiser, by definition when it comes to demonology and Nephilology he die take away from what the Bible actually says.

Here are a couple of examples:

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

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

Matthew Vancil

The two you said and Rob Skiba.

True Freethinker

One thing Missler, Skiba, and Heiser had in common was un-biblical Nephilology if for no other reason that they taught post-flood Nephilim but that’s not a biblical doctrine.

The Metal Bible Podcast

Wrong [Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

True Freethinker

Since I don’t base doctrines on one single verse, can you tell me who said that, why they said it, if it was accurate, what the reaction to it was, etc.?

Fred Shewmake

Craig keener, nt wright, David desilva, William lane Craig and Michael Heiser

True Freethinker

Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—see these articles for examples:

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

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

The Metal Bible Podcast

Wrong…. [Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

True Freethinker

If you read the articles, especially the one about “…Flawed Nephilim…” you wouldn’t be merely asserting “Wrong” and merely posting one verse.

MemeVangelists ·

Heiser hole gooooooo

True Freethinker

Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—see these articles for examples:

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

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

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

NOTE: my repetitiveness will become an issue in the follow-up to this post. I tend to do things such as this because I never know who will want to engage in discussing it, who will actually read the articles, who will ignore me and them, etc.

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

The Metal Bible Podcast

Wrong [Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

True Freethinker

If you read the articles, especially the one about “…Flawed Nephilim…” you wouldn’t be merely asserting “Wrong” and merely posting one verse.

The Metal Bible Podcast

See? I can copy and paste my same comment too….

Wrong… [Num 13:33 NASB20] 33 “We also saw the Nephilim there (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

True Freethinker

Friend, I already elucidated why your MO is fallacious. Now, we can play FB reply ping-pong for months but why not save ourselves some time: let’s have an iron sharpening iron discussion on your YT channel or mine?

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

[NOTE: I never received a reply to that and followed up some weeks later nicely noting that I was still awaiting a reply]

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

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

See my various books here.

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.

On the “Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today”

The following discussion took place due to the Right Response MinistriesYouTube video Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today | with @hauntedcosmos_

A certain @user-ft5qc4ls3v replied

Hi guys, thanx for the truth. What we also should understand is that “THE GIANTS WILL RETURN”. Revelation 12 – when Satan and the fallen angels are thrown out of the heavens on to earth. The beginning of the time of the anti-Christ and or 7 year Tribulation.

I, @kenammi355, replied

The key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

@user-ft5qc4ls3v

Giants, man of renown and sons of God, are all the same for the fallen angels that came to earth.

@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.

By “Giants” you seem to be referring to Nephilim but then be mindful since in the Bible you’re reading, that’s only the case in only 2 verses.

Now, Nephilim were ” man of renown” but “sons of God” and “fallen angels” are the ones who fathered them so it’s not the case that Nephilim “man of renown and sons of God, are all the same for the fallen angels.”

@user-ft5qc4ls3v

You are right, giants are usually referred to the ofspring of the Nephilim or fallen angels. But that doesn’t mean that the fallen angels who came to earth before the flood were not and can not be called giants. The offspring giants were very small compared to the fallen angels or giants.

@kenammi355

Since you didn’t want to help me understand you better by answering the key questions, I will work the accurate data into this reply.

I can’t be “right” that “giants are usually referred to the ofspring of the Nephilim or fallen angels” since that’s a confused statement and I never said any such thing so let’s review:

“giants are usually referred to the ofspring of the Nephilim”: Nephilim may have had offspring but they’re not mentioned, biblically speaking.

“giants are usually referred to the ofspring of…fallen angels”: not so since that’s only the case in a mere two verses. The other 98% of the time it refers to Rephaim and they have utterly nothing to do with Angels nor Nephilim.

“the fallen angels who came to earth before the flood” are never called “giants.”

If by “The offspring giants” you’re referring to the offspring of Nephilim then, again, we’ve no such data.

“very small compared to the fallen angels”: what makes you assert that, especially when Angels are described as looking just like human males so then you must be asserting that “offspring giants” were little people.

“very small compared to the…giants” but the word you’re reading, in your English Bible, “giants” has utterly nothing to do with size of any kind. Ergo, the answer to the third key question is, “No.”

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

See my various books here.

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.

Dealing with someone who notes “I totally agree” with LA Marzulli on “Thoughts on hybrids and alien impregnations”

On Facebook, LA Marzulli posted Thoughts on hybrids and alien impregnations.

A certain Ed Blunk commented

I totally agree with LA [Marzulli].

I, True Freethinker, decided to take it in a particular direction

So you also imply that God failed when He meant to be rid of Nephilim but couldn’t get the job done, must have missed the (fictional) second incursion that LA figured out, and so the flood was much of a waste due to teaching the un-biblical tall-tale about post-flood Nephilim?

Ed Blunk

REALLY – What Part of Gen.6:1-4 – which says the Giants / Nephilim were on the earth in those days ( Noah’s day) and also AFTER that ! ——– God didn’t Fail , Scripture is Clear what happened — Actually study ALL of God’s word , and see there were Giants / Nephilim on the earth after the Flood : – Wake up to truth :

True Freethinker

Well, note that you said, “those days ( Noah’s day) and also AFTER that !” but you artificially inserted “( Noah’s day)” into God’s word so your resultant implication that “AFTER that !” is after Noah’s day (which continued post-flood) refers to after the flood is based on a faulty premise that you invented.

T Ron Coates

Criticize and mock something you have never encountered. Perhaps you never will. Sad.

Ed Blunk to True Freethinker

So you are going to throw out many Old Testament Scriptures after the Flood of Noah – which speaks of the Giants / Nephilim : How sad for you :

True Freethinker to T Ron Coates

To what are you referring by “encountered”?

True Freethinker to Ed Blunk

It’s very simple then, please quote and/or cite “many Old Testament Scriptures after the Flood of Noah – which speaks of the…Nephilim.”

As for, “Giants / Nephilim,” 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?

T Ron Coates to me

Lack of evidence doesn’t prove something doesn’t exist.

Ed Blunk to me

If you are to Lazy to look up the Scriptures in the Old Testament on the Giants after the Flood , then that’s on you : David and Goliath come to mind ! And Sasquatch are Giants , and most likely Off- Breeds of the Nephilim Giants :

True Freethinker to T Ron Coates

Post-flood Nephilologists don’t understand that neither that lack of evidence doesn’t prove something does exist.

True Freethinker to Ed Blunk

Let’s slow down since, consciously or not, you’re playing a game you learned from pop-Nephilologists like LA.

I noted, 1) “you also imply that God failed” 2) “when He meant to be rid of Nephilim but couldn’t get the job done” 3) “must have missed the (fictional) second incursion that LA figured out” 4) “and so the flood was much of a waste” 5) “due to teaching the un-biblical tall-tale about post-flood Nephilim?”

You conveniently ignored all five points.

Now, I specifically referred to the ancient Hebrew word “Nephilim” but you moved the goalpost to the vague, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” so, I have to ask these key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

As for, “to Lazy to look up the Scriptures” you’re being ungraceful and literally prejudice since I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data that I used to write my dozen, or so, Nephilology books.

Again, the context was “Nephilim” so when you appeal to “Giants after the Flood” such as, “Goliath” you’re referring to a Repha, not a Nephil. So, you just made a category error that violates the law of identity. Pop-Nephilologists tend to speak in generically vague watered down terms to fast-talk you into believing them and now you’re doing the same thing you learned from them so, let’s sharpen iron with iron.

As for, “Sasquatch are Giants , and most likely Off- Breeds of the Nephilim Giants” I don’t base my view, my doctrine, especially when it implies that God failed, off of crypto-zoological beings and a “most likely”—and neither should anyone.

Ed Blunk

God did not Fail — And you will learn the truth when we get to heaven :

True Freethinker

I’m unsure why you tell me that God didn’t fail. Indeed, but post-flood Nephilologists imply that He did. And I don’t need to wait until we get to heaven since God spoke very clearly about this in His Word.

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

See my various books here.

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.