Uncategorized – Page 27 – TrueFreeThinker

“What is the definition of Nephilim? Are they always bad?”

The following discussion took place after a certain Janet Morrison replied as follows to the following question, What is the definition of Nephilim? Are they always bad?

She noted

Genesis 6 said fallen angels took human women as wives and produced giant hybrid offspring called the Nephilim. Nephilim means the fallen. They corrupted humans genetically and spiritually. Enoch said they were cannibals. The Bible said they were called Emin meaning the men of terror, Anakim the king necked ones, Zamzummin, the sight of whom made the heart faint, and Rephaim meaning the terrible ones.

Enoch wrote that when a Nephilim died, their human body died, but their immortal angelic part lived on as a disembodied evil spirit.

God used the cataclysm of the flood to wipe out the Nephilim. God told Israel to respect it’s boundaries with human nations. But God always told Israel to wipe out the Nephilim like how Joshua led Israel to wipe out the Anakim giants. Goliath and his brothers were Rephaim. giants who David and his men killed.

If God had not of wiped out the Nephilim, then

The human race would have ceased to exist a long time ago. So yes, the Nephilim were bad.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

There’s zero reliable indication that Nephilim were “giant” (assuming you’re misreading you Bible as referring to height).

There’s zero indication that “The Bible said they were called Eminmeaning the men of terror, Anakim the king necked ones, Zamzummin, the sight of whom made the heart faint, and Rephaim meaning the terrible ones.”

As for what is in 1 Enoch well, that’s just Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

Note that you claimed, “Gid used the cataclysm of the flood yo wipe out the Nephilim” but then you imply that He failed since you invented that “God always told Israel to wipe out the Nephilim” for which there’s zero reliable indication.

Yes, “Goliath and his brothers were Rephaim” not Nephilim.

Janet Morrison

If you study the Bible in the ancient Biblical Hebrew language, you will find the original Hebrew words and their dictionary meaning. That is how I found out the meaning of those different Nephilim titles for giants.

Numbers 13 talks of the Anakim ( long necked ones who wore lots of necklaces) giants being Nephilim. The 12 Israelite spies said the Anakim Nephilim were so tall they felt like grasshoppers on their site. Og the king of Bashan was a Rephaim giant with an iron bed over 13 feet tall. Goliath of Gath was a Rephaim giant 9’8” tall.

Ken Ammi

Shalom!

You may recall that we’ve had various such discussion already.

As for, “If you study the Bible in the ancient Biblical Hebrew language” well, I wrote the book on that, I wrote the book titled, “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010”: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks

There’s not one single word in the Bible about “those different Nephilim titles for giants” but if so, please quote and cite—just ensure the quotations correlate them to Nephilim.

There’s nothing in the ancient Biblical Hebrew language about “those different Nephilim titles for giants” but if so, please elucidate.

There’s nothing in the original Hebrew words and their dictionary meaning about “those different Nephilim titles for giants” but if so, please elucidate. But note that I didn’t just quote definitions in my book but investigated why those definitions were presented and thereby, found some faulty premises that led to faulty mis-definitions.

When you assert, “Numbers 13 talks of” you’re being too generic since you’re supposed to ask questions such as: who said it, why was it said, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc.

In this case you assert, “the Anakim ( long necked ones who wore lots of necklaces) giants being Nephilim” but it doesn’t say “Anakim giants.”

Also, check the LXX for that verse and check Duet 1 wherein Moses relates those events but utterly ignores Nephilim.

It wasn’t “The 12 Israelite” but it was the 10 unreliable ones who presented an “evil report” on which you’re exclusively relying and were rebuked by God.

When you say, “Og the king of Bashan was a Rephaim giant” I’m unsure you understand the linguistics since “Rephaim giant” is redundant so I should 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?

But indeed, he was a Repha, not a Nephil.

I’m unsure what his “bed” has to do with anything.

As for, Goliath yes, he too was a Repha and most reliably, was just shy of 7ft. Note that you’re referring to his height as if he had anything to do with Nephilim, which he didn’t of course, based on actually siding with men whom God rebuked.

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.

Why can’t someone relying on Michael Heiser, Judd Burton, and Douglas Van Dorn answer simple Nephilim giants questions?

To a Facebook post by The Metal Bible Podcast, a certain Andrew Nusz commented as follows in order to protect others in the comments section from the issues I was raising

don’t waste your time. This one’s like a nagging bot. Pastes the same stuff to everyone they disagree with but never has alternatives to engage the conversation. Saying it’s not a biblical doctrine without giving evidence… Guess what? I CAN GIVE EVIDENCE. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus both have stuff to say on this. But here’s one other thing. Does doctrine trump the Bible?

True Freethinker
Then it’s simple: please elucidate how the Nephilim made it past the flood, as a starting point.

Andrew Nusz

First, the Bible isn’t an exhaustive book of events, neither is Genesis 6 but has been proven what it means by extra biblical material the authors clearly interacted with as well as Peter and Jude. And yet, none of this material is IN the Bible. So trying to prove this point would be meaningless. Instead, focus on what the Bible points to and says.

In Numbers it says the Anakim were descendants of Nephilim, great and tall. Genesis 6 says the same thing. Dr Judd Burton, a professor of anthropology, and other things, plus Douglas Van Dorn show that when Israel goes against the people of Bashan, associated with Mount Hermon. There’s a reason Gog’s bed measurements are important.

It’s the same exact measurements given in rituals done in ziggurat temples. The bed is the same dimension where the god would come down and have sex with the temple priestess in a ritual ceremony. Gog is shown to be a violent beast of a giant who’s lord of this evil place. Throughout history of the bible and outside, this place is marked as the gateway to the netherworld, hades, etc.

And Gog was lord of this region. Throughout bible history, scholars recognize Gog as more than mortal but supernatural. You can’t just go, the Bible doesn’t mention specific details so therefore it doesn’t exist or never happened. That gives way to extremely bad theology, open to major secular professors proving the Bible is filled with errors (this being one of them).

You’re asking to prove something the Bible doesn’t explain but shows in way of narrative. It’s like demanding proof Nephilim were hybrid by way of explaining how sex works between elohim and human.

Explain the virgin birth of Jesus. Explain salvation. You can’t but it’s explicitly part of the narrative. So is Nephilim because it says so. Arguing the how is meaningless. I’m done

True Freethinker

Friend, I’m afraid that you’ve taken on the fallacious MO of pop-Nephilologists (and some scholarly ones) but as to not merely assert, I will elucidate.

I very specifically simplified it to, “please elucidate how the Nephilim made it past the flood, as a starting point” but you ignored that.

Be careful when you generically refer to, “extra biblical material” since that ranges very, very wildly in dating and genre.

And merely implying that it it’s “extra biblical” then it must be true or if it’s “extra biblical” and interacted with by biblical writers ergo the entire text is true is fallacious. Example, Paul quotes Greek poets but no one assumes that their poetry is all true.

As for, “focus on what the Bible points to and says” indeed, I’ve been doing that all along so take it slowly and I will show you your generic MO.

“In Numbers it says” is tragically generically vague. You tell me that an entire books says but some key questions are: who said it, why was it said, what was the reaction to it, was it true, etc.

So, when you authoritatively demand, “Anakim were descendants of Nephilim” you first need to check the LXX for that one verse, you then need to consider that you’re relying on unreliable guys, then that you’re believing their “evil report,” and ignoring that God rebuked them, plus the issue of, “how the Nephilim made it past the flood” and many, many more problems that the one single verse on which you rely creates.

You asserted, “Anakim were descendants of Nephilim…tall. Genesis 6 says the same thing” but that’s simply fallacious since it says no such things.

Burton and Van Down teach un-biblical Nephilology. I was emailing back and forth with Burton but the very second that I merely asked him if I could ask a challenging question he literally ghosted me. That’s how these guys keep giving off the air of being know-it-alls: they will not appear on any platform where they might be challenged, they hide away in the safe spaces.

You may want to read the relevant parts of the article, “Derek Gilbert on how ‘Giants in the Bible are Weird… and Important’”: https://truefreethinker.com/derek-gilbert-on-how-giants-in-the-bible-are-weird-and-important

Also see, “My review of Zachary Garris’ review of Douglas Van Dorn’s book ‘Giants Sons of the Gods’”: https://truefreethinker.com/my-review-of-zachary-garris-review-of-douglas-van-dorns-book-giants-sons-of-the-gods

It had disappeared off of my site due to a backup issue so I just reposted it just for you.

It’s not “Gog’s bed” but Og’s (just a slight typo) and I’m well aware since I wrote an entire book just about Og, “The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?” but you made a category error that violates the law of identity since our context is Nephilim but he was a Repha, not a Nephil.

Now, when you assert that Og , “is shown to be a violent beast of a giant who’s lord of this evil place” I know that you’re appealing to folklore from centuries after the Torah. Plus, you’re not just actually incorporating Pagan mythology into biblical theology.

As least you admit that, “Bible doesn’t explain” “how the Nephilim made it past the flood” and it doesn’t because they didn’t which is the part you’re jumping right over. When you read what the Bible does tell us about that issue you’ll realize that you making up stuff to fill in gaps is unnecessary since there are no gaps:

1) God didn’t fail when He sought to be rid of them via the flood.

2) The flood wasn’t much of a waste.

3) That THE one and only post-flood reference to Nephilim comes from an “evil report by unreliable guys whom God rebuked are GIGANTIC red flags.

4) The many, many, many, many problems with that one single verse can’t just be conveniently ignored.

5) The Bible isn’t mistaken the FIVE times it tell us who survived the flood without list Nephilim even one single time.

6) There’s not even a hint at a return of them, ever.

7) Nor any need to invent such a thing.

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.

Discussing “The tallest person In the Bible was 10 feet”

Such was noted as a reply to the video, “Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today | with @hauntedcosmos_” posted to YouTube by Right Response Ministries.

A certain @RichieDubbz commented

The tallest person In the Bible was 10 feet. Anyone telling you anything bigger than that is selling fantasy and almost always selling books. Nephilim isn’t true. Men and angels aren’t able to procreate. One is spiritual the other fleshly.

Hebrews 1:5 makes it clear God never called an angel his son therefore the sons of God cannot be angels unless you believe the God wrote contradiction

@kenammi355

The tallest person In the Bible was 7.5 feet.

Modern Nephilology is un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales–and yes, very lucrative.

But as for, “Nephilim isn’t true” well, you must reject the Bible then.

As for, “Men and angels aren’t able to procreate” your premise “One is spiritual the other fleshly” is doubly faulty. Firstly, humans can be spiritual but can procreate. Secondly, both are fleshly since Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

As for Hebrews 1:5 well, that’s not about Angelology, it’s about Jesus so contextually, God never called an Angel His son in the self-same manner as Jesus is His Son since Jesus is uniquely authoritative.

Or, do you deny that Christians are God’s sons since, after all, Jesus is God’s “only” begotten Son?

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.

The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view”–and yeah, I wrote a book about that ;o)

@RichieDubbz

angels are not fleshly thats where the scripture that says there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial comes in

@kenammi355

Friend, you hit the nail on the head without realizing it. Notice what you wrote, “”there are bodies…and bodies” exactly!!! That’s what I noted as well: 1) Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) performing physical actions, and 3) without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

@RichieDubbz

it’s not my words it’s scripture

@RichieDubbz

angel means messenger. And they’re sometimes described as human looking. SOMETIMES. Then there are the seraphim and the cheribum… Which are not human in appearance at all. The fallen angels are all seraphim and cheribum. Some angles are literally human and some have a shape shifting ability due to the fact that they are not fleshly but spiritual. You seem to be conflating the human messenger and the spiritual entities

@kenammi355

Well, yes, indeed, “it’s scripture” just as you quoted it, “there are bodies…and bodies,” that’s been my point all along–and since you appear to imply disagreement (even now that you agree with me) then you would need to debunk points 1-3.

exactly!!! That’s what I noted as well: 1) Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) performing physical actions, and 3) without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

As for, “they’re sometimes described as human looking” well, whenever they are described they are described as human male looking.

Indeed, “Then there are the seraphim and the cheribum… Which are not human in appearance at all” but they’re non-issues since they’re not Angels by categorical definition.

Ergo, there’s literally zero indication whatsoever anywhere that “The fallen angels are all seraphim and cheribum” and I wrote the book, “The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon” so I can tell you that you’re the only person in the history of humanity who asserts that. Ergo, you’re either the greatest biblical scholar in human history or you’re mistaken.

As for, “Some angles are literally human” if that’s a linguistic claim then, okay, sure, humans can deliver messages. But if that’s an ontological claim then it’s a category error that violates the law of identity.

As for, “some have a shape shifting ability” there’s literally zero indication of that.

As for, “shape shifting ability due to the fact that they are not fleshly but spiritual” but humans can be spiritual but we can’t shapeshift so that’s a non sequitur.

We can make this very, very simple: just provide quotations and citations for your assertion–but I want to save you time, don’t bother attempting it since you will be unable to.

@RichieDubbz

all non “human messenger” angels

(spiritual beings) are either cherubim or seraphim. that’s the only 2 classes of ethereal angels were taught about. they have the ability to shapeshift according to our perception since they’re spiritual in nature. the devil is a cherubim.

he can show as a man, or as a beast, or dragon, or serpent, but he is a cherubim

@kenammi355

I’m unsure why you appear to disregard 99% of everything I write.

You’re making category errors that violate the law of identity (do you know to what I’m referring by that?).

You refer to, “non ‘human messenger’ angels (spiritual beings)” but humans can be spiritual. Are you confusing “spiritual” with “spirit”? If so, there’s no indication Angels are spirits and recall that I noted:

“Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.”

And:

“That’s what I noted as well: 1) Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) performing physical actions, and 3) without indication that such isn’t their ontology.”

And:

“you would need to debunk points 1-3….1) Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) performing physical actions, and 3) without indication that such isn’t their ontology.”

As for, “angles…are either cherubim or seraphim” again, that’s a category error: if Angles were Cherubim then they wouldn’t be Angles, they would be Cherubim and if Angels were Seraphim then they wouldn’t be Angels, they would be Seraphim.

Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim are three different categories of being distinguished from one another in at least three different ways. So, you can’t just violate the law of identity and un-biblically mash them all together with zero biblical backing and due to some sort of fallacious man-made tradition.

There’s zero indication that Angels or Cherubim or Seraphim “have the ability to shapeshift.

“the devil is a cherub,” singular.

You assert, “he can show as a man, or as a beast, or dragon, or serpent” but there’s zero indication of that. He’s called various things such as dragon or serpent but there’s zero indication he took on those shapes.

I’m afraid that I will have to start asking for biblical quotations and citations since you assert a lot but those assertions aren’t biblical and it’s important for you to face that by being unable to back your assertions rather than by me just telling you about that.

@RichieDubbz

I’ll reread everything hang on

@RichieDubbz

ok point by point, in order> one angel is a broad term. angelic beings are spiritual beings, not flesh as we know it. they’re called ministering spirits. they have the ability to effect the physical realm, but that doesnt mean theyre the same as us, and nature tells us that you need to be very similar genetically to procreate. God didn’t call them sons and then say when did I ever call an angel my son. that’s absurd, angel can also mean human messenger, like in revelation the seven letters to the churches. those are written to human messengers of the churches described. youre conflating the 2 uses of the term angel if you think theyre human like. there are 2 types of angelic beings and neither look like man when in their true form.

humans can be spiritual, but are not spiritual entities we are fleshly beings. carnal. we see that angelic beings can masquerade as human, but that doesn’t mean they can procreate with man. that’s faulty logic.

saved people have become the sons of God according to the scrpiture, thats why Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN son, and not the only son.

job 38:7 is about the souls of saved men rejoicing at the coming of Christ nothing about angels in there. sons of God is always the saved. thats a key doctrine to refute the catholic teaching that Jesus opened the gates of heaven and that before that we went to “the good side of hell” or “Abrahams bosom” or whatever other false nonsense they teach. that’s saved souls rejoicing for Jesus plain and simple.

there are sinful angels, the fallen ones about 1/3 of the angels fell along side lucifer. there is no plain reading of text that implies a sexual nature to that sin. kept not their first estate does not mean they procreated that’s absurd. estate has to do with their realm or residence. they will be kicked from the heavenly realms in the course of Revelation. kept not their first estate.

“Angels are always described as looking like human males”

this sounds like a human male to you?

5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.

6 And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.

7 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass.

8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.

9 Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.

10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.

11 Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.

12 And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not when they went.

13 As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning.

14 And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.

15 Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.

16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.

17 When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went.

18 As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.

19 And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.

thats an angel my friend. it can appear as a man but thats its true form

@RichieDubbz

points 1-3 are invalid because point 1 is flat out false, point 2 is irrelevant, they can effect the natural that does not preclude them from being supernatural, and point 3 is false.

did i miss anything? you said alot. i tried to cover a few key points initially but there ya go

Ken Ammi

Bruh, you cracked me up with, “…hang on” as if it’s a live discussion so that was a riot and I love you for it. I really appreciate you reviewing our discussion and the detailed reply.

“angelic beings are spiritual beings, not flesh as we know it” be careful here since, as I noted, “humans can be spiritual” and we are “flesh as we know it.” The caution is that you are technically confusing and thus are compounding “spiritual” with “spirit.”

So, to rewrite that, “angelic beings are SPIRIT beings, not flesh as we know it” but, again, Angels (actual Angels) are always described as looking like human males and the only way to dance around that is to claim that non-Angels are Angels which discredits itself since, again, that would be a category error that violates the law of identity (do you know what I mean by that?).

As for, “they’re called ministering spirits” well, only in certain English versions and they’re mistaken. That’s based on three verses that really collapse into one since it’s based on Psalm 104:4 which many versions rightly have as “winds” rather than “spirits”: see here https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20104:4

Now, it’s not that they flipped a coin and opted for “winds” but that the context of the whole Psalm, which are correlations to natural phenomena, demand a reading of “winds” rather than “spirits.” So then, when Hebrews 1 quotes that and then comments on it, that too should read “winds” rather then “spirits.”

But this isn’t just about a single word but about concepts since one single word doesn’t change the variously demonstrable that, again, actual Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that SUCH ISN’T THEIR ONTOLOGY.

As for, “doesnt mean theyre the same as us” no they’re not but they are similar enough. See, 1) actual Angels are always described as looking like human males, 2) we were created “a little lower” than them, and 3) we can reproduce with them so, by definition, 4) we’re of the same basic “kind.”

As for, “God didn’t call them sons and then say when did I ever call an angel my son. that’s absurd” well, it’s absurd to abuse Hebrews 1 since I already noted, “that’s not about Angelology, it’s about Jesus so contextually, God never called an Angel His son in the self-same manner as Jesus is His Son since Jesus is uniquely authoritative.”

Do you notice that I’m just having to repeat the very same things I’ve already said to you. See, rather than debunking them you’re just going in circles and are repeating yourself.

As for, “angel can also mean human messenger” well, that’s irrelevant to our discussion.

As for, “there are 2 types of angelic beings and neither look like man when in their true form” again, you’re just mashing non-Angels into the Angel category which is a fallacy. You’re violating categories in at least three ways when you do that.

You say, “angelic beings can masquerade as human” but there’s zero indication of that.

But you argued, “angelic beings can masquerade as human, but that doesn’t mean they can procreate with man. that’s faulty logic” indeed, it is and I never even hinted at any such thing so you’re no longer arguing with me about that.

As for Job 38:7 friend, you have to manipulate that text so badly just to protect your man-made tradition that it seems you didn’t really pay attention to what you said. You’re saying that it’s “about the souls of saved men rejoicing at the coming of Christ” but that’s doubly mistaken: did you even read it (and FYI: the LXX has “Angelos” there)? You took a text about “when” the Earth was created and that was witnessed by the sons of God to refer to the salvation of certain humans which didn’t happen until millennia later and something to do with the coming of Christ.

As for, “angels fell along side lucifer” well, it was not “along side” since his fall was as per the Gen 3 timeline but theirs was as per the Gen 6 timeline.

As for, “no plain reading of text that implies a sexual nature to that sin” well, I already also told you, “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.”

Thus, when you emote, “kept not their first estate does not mean they procreated that’s absurd” you’re once again arguing against a strawman.

Indeed, please pay attention to the actual argument and not your fallacious paraphrase: “correlate it to sexual sin which occurred AFTER the Angels, ‘left their first estate’…” They left their “realm or residence,” heaven, in order to come to Earth and sin.

As for, “this sounds like a human male to you?…thats an angel my friend. it can appear as a man but thats its true form” I already noted that you have zero scriptural backing for that mere assertion. You’re just merely asserting that Angels are Cherubim are Seraphim but that’s illogical, it’s ill-bio-logical, and it’s ill-theo-logical. You’re merely saying that but there’s literally not one single verse to back up that mashing of categories and, again, at least three ways in which to prove that your claims are not the case.

Now that, “point 1 is flat out false” is a merely assertion so it’s dismissible.

“point 2 is irrelevant” due to “they can effect the natural that does not preclude them from being supernatural” well, I would have to know what you mean by “supernatural” since God is the only supernatural being but “they can effect the natural that does not preclude them from being” embodied in a flesh of their own such as how they are described.

“point 3 is false”: is a merely assertion so it’s dismissible.

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: Nephilim don’t have a complete double helix DNA. Part is single strand DNA

The following discussion took place due to the video Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today | with @hauntedcosmos_ by the Right Response Ministries Youtube channel since a certain @williammarks3421 commented

The Nephilim don’t have a complete double helix DNA. Part is single strand DNA.

People who have come forward loose their businesses and are threatened and they try to discredit them.

The info exists, you just have to dig, pay attention to the details, the big picture of what is going on on this planet, and read The Bible! Ask GOD to allow you to see things through HIS eyes!

Minister, William Lorne Marks

YAHWEH Ministry CHRIST

I, @kenammi355, replied

I’m curious as to how you know that “Nephilim don’t have a complete double helix DNA. Part is single strand DNA.”

@williammarks3421

I did my homework.

@kenammi355

Please don’t be like Atheist online who waste time by being generically vague. I’m curious as to how you know that “Nephilim don’t have a complete double helix DNA. Part is single strand DNA.”

@williammarks3421

Hello, before I was Born Again I studied that topic for years. I didn’t keep the sources of the information, so I can’t tell you. I don’t get involved in that anymore.

I am called by The LORD to follow HIM now.

@kenammi355

I see. Then a best practice would be to not post about it on the WORLD WIDE web. I’ve published some dozen Nephilology books and can tell you that there’s literally zero indication that “Nephilim don’t have a complete double helix DNA. Part is single strand DNA.”

Shalom.

@williammarks3421

Hi Ken, you might be correct, but maybe there are more sources for you to find. I spent over 20,000 hours studying the subjuct in a 5 year period myself, incuding some on UFO’S. What kind of DNA do you think a fully materialized angel has, fallen or not ( that’s a rhetorical question ). I choose to forget, if you understand.

I am curious, does The LORD call you to write all of these books? That’s alot of time focused on the enemy. I did mine before I was Born Again.

Shalom.

@kenammi355

Someone after my own heart! I wrote the books “Fifty Shades of Gray Aliens” (and other alien and UFO related books).

As for, “What kind of DNA do you think a fully materialized angel has” the one with which God front loaded into them when He “materialized” them at their creation, I supposed, especially since Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

I would certainly like to think that the LORD has called me to write all of these books.

Shalom aleichem.

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.

Houston Press on Nephilim and Other Reasons Someone Wanted to Kill Dade Phelan

Jef Rouner (one “f” and self-identifying as, “not cis, he/him”) wrote an article titled, Man Who Threatened Speaker Phelan Mired in Christian Conspiracism and/or Nephilim and Other Reasons Someone Wanted to Kill Dade Phelan for The Huston Press (“and/or” since it seems that sometime an article is posted but then the title is edited to the URL’s title differs).

This pertains to that, “Daniel Troy LeBlanc…was indicted for terrorist threats against Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont)” when he posted this, in part, on Facebook, “ONE SHOT… ONE KILL…2500M AWAY…0230… IN YOUR RIGHT TEMPLE… TAKING OUT THAT Al MUSKY GYM SOCK SMELLY CAT SOCK DARK HOLE RA MIND YOU HIDE WITHIN…Come at me… let’s get this ASS WHOOPIN over with Baphomet Cowardice, you just act as if like Victoria you convinced… SICKO.”

Apparently, his, “rants…have obvious ties to QAnon, the Men’s Rights/Incel community, flat earth conspiracy theories, anti-Catholic propaganda, and more. One of the more esoteric posts linked to a two hour ‘documentary’ about the Nephilim.”

That documentary, is by Trey Smith who’s Nephilology isn’t biblical.

Jef Rouner noted, “Nephilim are a race described in the Hebrew Bible that existed around the time of Noah. They are definitely minor characters, only being mentioned a handful of times” which his fair enough—yet, it’s more like half a handful: in two verse, actually (reliably in Gen 6:4 and unreliably in Num 13:33).

“they were tall” that’s subjective but still, that assertion comes from the unreliable verse which was a tall-tale by unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

“liked to mate with human women” well, perhaps: they were half-human but Jef is clearly confusing them with their Angel dads.

“Some translations render them as giants” but that doesn’t in the least bit even imply anything about height whatsoever: such isn’t the usage of that subjective term in some English Bibles.

“angels, or fallen angels” no, neither.

I’m unsure why Jef decided to focus in on Nephilim (except that they’re great click-bait) but he notes “Nephilim conspiracies have existed for decades, but they were supercharged after Ancient Aliens launched on the History Channel in 2009. Suddenly, there was a host of slickly produced nonsense based on misrepresented archeology and unscientific speculation that helped weld together many things into one vague conspiracy theory involving visitors from above. The internet took it from there.”

It’s to the point that I refer to modern Nephilology as lucrative un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.

Jef Rouner even touched upon the modern day hoaxed fraud brought about when the plagiarist Steve Quayle and, “L.A. Marzulli claimed he spoke to a man that had encountered Nephilim as part of U.S. military operations in Kandahar, Afghanistan.”

He also makes a good point about that, “The Nephilim are a malleable part of many conspiracy theories. They tie in easily with aliens, angels, or combinations of the two” and more with people like the aforementioned Marzulli coopting cryptozoology as well by asserting a correlation between Nephilim and Big Foot.

He gets around to pondering, “why does something like Nephilim work its way into the mind of someone like LeBlanc?” and replies, “I believe it’s because of the rise of Christian conspiracism as a mental defense mechanism.” Indeed, in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al. I found myself having to write a very troubling chapter titled, “Nephil Kampf.”

That’s because pop-Nephilologists establish “ministries” based on such stuff and must continually make much ado about nothing so as to keep producing a product and much keep upping the ante and most go so far as to invent (or parrot) that Nephilim are here or are retuning and we will have to battle them. Yet, they now look like, guess what, regular people.

Ergo, the astonishingly dangerous delusion is that you can identify Nephilim by someone who looks just like a person and you will have to destroy them. This is plane old maliciously maniacal.

Jef then rants about, “an increasingly secular and fact checked world” such as that, “some aspects of Christianity buckle under the pressure” and something about, “Biblical literalism” and, “Young Earth Creationists,” etc., etc., etc.

There’s not much more of interests regarding Nephilology but just to leave off with some of his words about LeBlanc, for those interested, “he references…all the ways humanity will be punished if they fail to be obedient to God…he lost unsupervised contact with his children…blame for these things at a cabal of sinister forces, including Speaker Phelan for setting up a committee to study gun legislation…He invokes hidden tunnels and Satanic pedophile rings,” etc., etc., etc.

But this was not just about LeBlanc and just reporting the facts ma’am. No, Jef Rouner decided to insert a merely subjective assertion of a positive affirmation in declaring, in the guise of doing news reporting, “Nephilim aren’t real.”

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.

Discussing “Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today

Right Response Ministries posted a vid to their Youtube channel that is titled Sizes of Biblical Giants & Where They Could Be Hiding Today | with @hauntedcosmos_ and which led to the following discussion after a certain @bobbyduke777 commented

A 100FT tall giant could not reproduce, with out genetic manipulation. There were fallen angels still involved. the designers of the pyramids, which are giant electric generators, was from the fallen angels. The secrets of heaven given to men. That is why the Egyptians or what ever people were their at the time, called them gods. they did wonders, like electric lights and probably levitation.

I, @kenammi355, replied

There’s zero indication of “A 100FT tall giant.”

“There were fallen angels still involved” until the flood—as far as we can tell.

What do “Mediterranean cedars” have to do with it?

What “first giants”? In fact, that begs these key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

Who was, “140 feet taLL”?

“As in the time of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of man” has zero to do with this and “Giants are returning now” may imply that God failed and where are they?

Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His points, His context, were:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”

But He kept speaking directly with:

“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17).

Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.

The key questions are key since without the answers we can’t know what you mean by “The angel of the Lord…slew those giants.”

@bobbyduke777

The Bible says they were as tall as cedars. “I destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars” (Amos 2:9)

Argue with God, I am not in the mood

@kenammi355

Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens [and dozens]) of people who go on and on (and on [and on]) about “giants” and literally zero have replied. What makes you think that Amorites had fruits and roots growing out of their bodies and whence did you get the very specific “100…140” ft numbers?

@bobbyduke777

I don’t know where i said anything about roots and leafs growing out of their bodies so your making things up from the git. The Bible says they were taller then cedar trees. You need to go argue with God if you have a problem with what I said.

@bobbyduke777

also it was their first born that grew that tall. Because they had to mix with human DNA each time, they got smaller over time.

@kenammi355

Friend, please read a text before conveniently selectively quoting it. You ignored the question, “whence did you get the very specific “100…140” ft numbers?” so I will just have to guess that you imply it has something to do with, “height of the cedars” but if that’s the case then, if you imply that Amos was implying conducting a literal one-to-one ratio based mathematical calculation (and if so, those cedars aren’t 110-140ft) then you have to take this literally as well, “it was I who destroyed the Amorite…I destroyed his FRUIT above and his ROOTS beneath.”

As for, “The Bible says they were taller then cedar trees”: as you quoted it, Amos noted, “LIKE the height of the cedars.”

There’s literally zero indication that Amorites had anything whatsoever to do with being non-human who had to “mix with human DNA.”

@bobbyduke777

It’s in the BIBLE GO READ IT! their sons were taller then cedars. tell me to read when you havn’t

@bobbyduke777

They were sons of Anuk, and the Raphaim and a few others, but the first born were titans, taller then cedars. Drinkers of blood who ate all the people could produce, and then started eating the people.

@kenammi355

I’m unsure why you didn’t answer my question.

I get the feeling that you’ve bought into pop-Nephilology which is so based on making vague and generic points by watering things down that you’re not aware of the categorical distinctions in the issue you’re discussing.

For example, you generically referred to, “their sons” but didn’t bother stating who’s sons you’re referring to.

As for, “tell me to read when you havn’t” I’m not interested in your attempts at mind reading and it’s rather odd that you merely assume I haven’t read it when I quoted it.

Also, please stop manipulating God’s word since this is the second time you’ve done it and while the first time may have been a accident, now it’s purposeful. Recall that you asserted, “they were taller then cedar trees” but I noted, “Amos noted, ‘LIKE the height of the cedars’” but you decided to ignore God’s word and doubled down on asserting, “taller then cedars.”

You also ignored everything else I noted such that the issue of the fruits and roots.

As for, “They were sons of Anuk” you are being generic again: who were the sons of “Anuk”?

FYI: the sons of Anak were the Anakim and not “the Raphaim and a few others” since Rephaim were a tribe of which the Anakim were a clan.

You jumped from Amorites to sons of Anuk to Rephaim and others and then to titans: see what I mean about being vague, generic, watering things down, etc.: you’re making category errors but seem unaware of it.

You refer to, “the first born” but were being generic so: the first born of whom and when?

Who were, “Drinkers of blood who ate all the people could produce, and then started eating the people” and when and what makes you think so?

See, the more you deal with people who challenge your views, rather than just being equally vague and generic, the more you’ll realize that you can’t back your assertions, the angrier you will become, the more abusive and less graceful and more worldly you will become when the Godly reaction would be to slow down, sharpen iron with iron, and really ponder the facts and change whatever needs changing in your modus operandi and views.

Shalom!

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.

Answering: Are the Nephilim created by the Seraphin angels?

The following discussion took place due to the question Are the Nephilim created by the Seraphin angels? (sic.: it the male plural Hebrew ending is actually “im” not “in”) which was answered by a certain G Gregore (“Author and student of the Bible for decades”)

Hello,

There are those who believe the word “giants” used in Genesis 6: 4 refers to Nephilim – who are supposed to have been the off springs angels who are responsible for intermingling with humans to produce some sort of half human half angel Beings. But nowhere in the Bible is any evidence of angels having the ability to reproduce or have sex with a human female.

God word it truth – John 17:17

In speaking of the angels when it comes to marriage – which also involve the act of producing children, Jesus plainly points out that angels are not given in marriage (Matt. 22: 30). When God created the human pair of Adam and Eve, he told them to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). Yet, if you look throughout the entire Bible, you do not see any place where angels are capable of reproducing themselves or having any ability to mingle with humans so as to produce demi-god or half human half angels.

Who were the Giants?

Carefully notice what Moses wrote in genesis 6:4: “There were giants in the earth in those days.” (those days mean that there were giants or men of great size living before the great flood had occurred at the time of Noah). The scripture goes on to say, “and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” If you have eyes to see, you will notice the scripture is telling you that the giants were not the progeny or descendants of the marriages – because they actually lived before the marriages occurred; this means that the descendants were not the giants but were the “mighty men, which were of old, men of renown” (Gen. 6:4). In other words, they were physical human beings and not angels. The sons of God are mortal men; an are called sons of God because by the fact that God created man in his image, men are called the sons of God; for example, Malachi 2;10 says, “Have we not all one father? hath not God created us? …”

The remains of these giants and mighty men have been found by geologists and archeologists. Just about all of us grew up hearing about cavemen or Neanderthals, and far from being some kind of sub-human – they were simply men of gigantic size who once lived on the earth. These archeological findings actually attest to the truth of the Bible.

(Just an illustration)

Satan, who is a deceiver and liar has deceived people to think this passage of the scripture is saying angels can co-habit with mortal women to produce children is a lie; no doubt, Satan hates the fact that God has given humans the ability to reproduce themselves, that he will seek to corrupt it with lies – influencing people to misinterpret the Bible.

Ken Ammi

It appears that you reject were the Bible evidences Angels having the ability to reproduce or have sex with a human female so as to conclude that “nowhere in the Bible is any evidence of angels having the ability to reproduce or have sex with a human female.”

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

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.”

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

You vaguely generically asserted, “Jesus plainly points out that angels are not given in marriage” but the verse you cited, “(Matt. 22: 30)” doesn’t say that.

You artificially inserted, “giants or men of great size” but whence did you get any such info?

If you have eyes to see, you will notice the scripture is telling you that the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.

I’ve no idea to whom you’re referring by “The remains of these giants and mighty men have been found by geologists and archeologists.”

G Gregore

Hello, you quoted Job 38:7 using the reference to “son of God” as proof or evidence that it refers to angels; Of course it refers to angels: I do not disagree that this passage of the Bible refers to angels, but does this reference to sons of God mean they can reproduce – have sex? It does NOT. The reason the angels are called sons of God is because they are son of God by the fact that God created the angels; they are sons of God by creation. Hebrews 1:5 proves this when it says, :For unto which of the angels said he at anytime, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee ….” The angels are not called son: Jesus became the Son of God by his birth and resurrection – being conceived by the Spirit of God in the womb of Mary and was later changed from flesh to Spirit- becoming a literal Son of God. In respect to the angel, this kind of sonship is not promised to them; they are called sons of God by the fact that God created them; and they are not created to reproduce themselves.

Notice Genesis 6:2: “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives …” Now consider this: The word “sons” of God” is used in different ways in the Bible: First, if one has received and is led by the holy spirt of God (Romans 8: 14), then he is now a begotten son of God (I John 3: 1). The converted Christian is a begotten son of God.

Second: figuratively speaking, the Bible refers to all of mankind or natural human beings as sons of God; We are all the sons of God by creation – so says Malachi 2:10.

If you also read 1 Peter 3: 19,20, it speaks of angels being bound, imprisoned; When? The Bible says, “When once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.” Notice it! Before the flood destroyed the land, while the ark was still under construction, the angels who are spirits, were already imprisoned, “in hell”- tartaroo – meaning they were not at liberty to co-habit with human women.

Fallen angels could not have sexual relation as some falsely believe in regard to Genesis 6 because you also see here in 1 Peter 3 that the angels were put in a place of restraint even before the flood of Noah’s day had occurred.

You quoted Matthew 22:30 saying, “You vaguely generically asserted, Jesus plainly points out that angels are not given in marriage” but the verse you cited, “(Matt. 22: 30)” doesn’t say that.

Jesus clearly made known that the angels do not marry; we know that God gave marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman from which the man and the woman is able to reproduce their own kind – through the means of sexual intercourse. But in relation to the angels, who do not marry, it is clear to see that Jesus was making it known that angels do not and are not capable of reproducing themselves; God has not give the angels such power; they cannot reproduce themselves or have sex with mortals.

People tend to overlook the fact that God has set forth or placed in motion the inexorable law that man can reproduce himself and angelic beings cannot do so. There is no place in the Bible where an angels of God has been shown to produce another angel; no such thing has even been mentioned in the Bible, and spirit beings that angels are, does not have the power to defy God’s law that says it is human that who have been given the power to reproduce after their kind and not angels intermingling with humans to reproduce some kind of half angel half human. With Satan and all his demons, has anyone ever seen a half human half angels walking around in this world? NO, YOU have not – because Satan and his demons cannot reproduce, but instead, try in every way to corrupt sex – by way of lust, pornography, sex outside of marriage – causing people to hurt one another by cheating on their spouse; Satan is envious that man has the ability to reproduce through sex.

Ken Ammi

Appreciate the elucidation.

You first noted that the Gen 6 “sons of God are mortal men” and now that in Job 38:7 “son of God’…it refers to angels” and then “angels are called sons of God” but then in Heb 1:5 “angels are not called son” and “Angel…are called sons of God”: so it’s no, yes, yes, no, yes-ish.

Now, that Angels “are not created to reproduce themselves” doesn’t mean that they can’t only that they weren’t supposed to.

When it comes to 1 Peter 3: 19-20 you asserted “angels who are spirits” but Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

Also, you asserted, “while the ark was still under construction, the, were already imprisoned…they were not at liberty to co-habit with human women” but your chronology is off since Gen 6 states “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” which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children first started having children yet, it’s still clearly before “the ark was still under construction.”

I already pointed out, “You vaguely generically asserted, ‘Jesus plainly points out that angels are not given in marriage” but the verse you cited, “(Matt. 22: 30)” doesn’t say that” and in reply you merely doubled down on vaguely generically asserting “angels do not marry…angels, who do not marry” and then you jump to “angels do not and are not capable of reproducing themselves” and invented “God has not give the angels such power; they cannot reproduce themselves or have sex with mortals.”

I said “vaguely generically asserted” because it’s an all-encompassing statement but Jesus’ wasn’t. Rather, He qualified His statement by emphasizing that He was referring to, “angels IN HEAVEN” ergo, the loyal ones. Such is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it.

See the point? You referred to all Angels but Jesus didn’t.

As for the “inexorable law” it’s not “that man can reproduce himself” but rather that kinds reproduce. Now, Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”

So, it’s only after not applying Job 38:7 (et al.) nor Gen 6 nor Jude, nor 2 Peter 2 that you can then conclude “There is no place in the Bible where an angels of God has been shown to produce another angel; no such thing has even been mentioned in the Bible.”

As for, “has anyone ever seen a half human half angels walking around in this world?” yes, in pre-flood days. I don’t know what you mean by “With Satan and all his demons.”

G Gregore

YOU SAID: “You first noted that the Gen 6 “sons of God are mortal men” and now that in Job 38:7 “son of God’…it refers to angels” and then “angels are called sons of God” but then in Heb 1:5 “angels are not called son” and “Angel…are called sons of God”: so, it’s no, yes, yes, no, yes-ish.”

Yes, I noted angels are the sons of God spoken of in Genesis 38:7. I also noted that Genesis 6:4 reference to “sons of God is not to angels but to mortal men. For example, Luke 3:38 says, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Also, Hosea 1:10 speaks of mortal men or people as “… sons of the living God.”

Also, I simply pointed out that angels are sons of God by the fact that God created them, but that they can never become begotten sons of God as we human being can – as revealed in Hebrews 1:5; this becomes possible only by the atoning sacrifice of Christ; Through his sacrifice, Jesus became the Firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29); many brethren mean others are to follow Christ to be changed from flesh to spirit just as Christ was changed from flesh to Spirit, and to be born as sons of God by the resurrection. This is all I was saying; I was not saying angels are not called sons of God.

YOU SAID: “Now, that Angels “are not created to reproduce themselves” doesn’t mean that they can’t only that they weren’t supposed to.”

I stand by what was said, God has not created the angels to reproduce themselves; they cannot reproduce. In Matthew 22:28-30 you see the context is about having a wife in the resurrection; having a wife is a mean by which a man produces a child, and Jesus plainly reveals that in God’s kingdom there will be no need for a man and wife relationship, therefore, there will be no reproduction of a sexual nature – because in the resurrection, those who are born of God will be like the angels; this is so plain to see that God is saying angels do not reproduce; they do not have sex – much less to believe that they can have sexual intercourse with mortals. I have emphasized this before and you disagree, but you are free to do so.

I know your point is that this does not apply to all the angels –not the righteous angels in heaven, but to the sinning angels. Well, if the angels in heaven were not given in marriage, then would God not have applied this to all the angels when God created them? All the angels, including Lucifer – before they sinned, were not created to be given in marriage; they too were righteous angels at one point; The Bible said Lucifer was perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him. Did God, at a certain point in time – after the creation of the angels, decided they were not to be given in marriage or were they created not to marry? Based on what Jesus said, I choose to believe the latter- they were all created to not marry and reproduce; and cannot do so.

YOU SAID: “When it comes to 1 Peter 3: 19-20 you asserted “angels who are spirits” but Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.”

The Bible reveals that angels do appear in human form to God’s servants, but the bible reveals – especially, in the book of Ezekiel that they are not made in the image of God as we humans are; they are described as powerful ox and dragon like creatures even having wings (see Ezekiel 1). God said man was made in his image, and nowhere in the Bible does it say angels are made in the image of God.

YOU SAID: “Now, Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”

No, we are not of the same basic kind; angels are spirit beings, we are mortal subject to death and decay; angels are more powerful and far wiser than we are. Satan and his demons are so powerful that mortal human have to place reliance on God to be able to resist them. Ephesians 6:12 makes known we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against spiritual wickedness in high places. We poor humans have not yet grasped the scope and power of Satan and his demons possess with their ability to deceive the human mind; it takes the power of God for us to stand; we are NOT same basic kind!

YOU SAID: “Also, you asserted, “while the ark was still under construction, the, were already imprisoned…they were not at liberty to co-habit with human women” but your chronology is off since Gen 6 states “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” which could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children first started having children yet, it’s still clearly before “the ark was still under construction.”

You say this based on your belief that the “sons of God’ are fallen angels cohabiting with women.

If you examine the sixth chapter of Genesis more closely, you will notice that daughters were born when the human race began to multiply rapidly (verse 1). Why the mention of daughters only? What about the sons that must have been born? The answer is that the sons are spoken of but most readers overlook it.

If you go to the last chapter of Genesis 4: 25,26, it tells you that men began to call upon the name of the Lord. These men who called upon the name of the Lord were the sons of God – before the flood, who appeared religious or acted as if they were righteous men who served God but they were rebellious and unrepentant; this was why God said, … my Spirit would not always strive with man …” (Gen 6:3). What had they done that was evil in God’s sight? Notice it was the males who professed God, but with whom God would not continue to strive, were the ones who married the “daughters of men; it is they and not sinning angels that married the daughters of men. These men (sons of God) wanted to have their own way and married their neighbor’s daughters – who were most likely beautiful women who were also sinful and most likely led these men (sons of God) further away from God.

Again, Genesis 6:2 reveal the sons of God (mortal men) “took them wives of all which they choose.” God was not happy that these men were randomly marrying any women that they wanted to marry, and God then said, “… My spirit shall not always strive with man … (verse 3). Notice it was man (the sons of God) that God was displeased with.

God has set laws in motion that each produces after their own kind (Genesis 1). Two different Biblical kinds (human and angels) cannot gender sexually. This is one of the most thoroughly established laws of science. God did not make it possible for angels to reproduce with human beings.

Ken Ammi

Appreciate the detailed interaction, friend.

Indeed, “sons of God” has many usages so since Gen 6:4 distinguishes them from “daughters of men” so if the latter are “of men” then the former must not be.

You asserted, “God has not created the angels to reproduce themselves; they cannot reproduce” but that’s all that was: assertions and assertions that violate Jude correlating their sin to sexual sin and 2 Peter 2 placing their sin to pre-flood days besides that 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.”

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

You can write commentary on Matthew 22:28-30 all you want but as long as you keep ignoring Jesus’ very specific qualified statement it will not assist you. In fact, you did it again when you wrote, “will be like the angels” so, again, you’re being generically vague but Jesus was being specific.

So, you just assert, “angels do not reproduce; they do not have sex” and as for, “much less to believe that they can have sexual intercourse with mortals” but that’s just an assertion, it’s an incomplete statement in fact.

Indeed, “angels in heaven were not given in marriage” but did you note the qualifying term “GIVEN” so when it comes to “would God not have applied this to all the angels when God created them?” yes, He never GAVE any of them in marriage which is why those who did so are considered sinners, they “left their first estate” in order to take it upon themselves to do so, “TOOK as their wives any THEY chose.”

As for, “All the angels, including Lucifer” well, he’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub.

You then refer to, “Based on what Jesus” but keep in mind that you’re not basing it on what Jesus said, you’re ignoring what He said and are basing it on your misrepresentation of what He said via your vaguely generic paraphrase.

Just as with Satan, you made another category error since I very specifically noted, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology” but you went on to refers to Cherubim.

I’m unsure why you just ignore biblically verifiable facts and then just continue arguing. Again, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology ergo, it’s not accurate to merely assert, “angels are spirit beings.”

Also, since I noted, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created ‘a little lower’ than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic ‘kind’” you ignore these facts and asserted “No, we are not of the same basic kind” based on your mistaken assertion that Angels are spirits.

That we are not the same point-by-point is a non-issue, there are humans who are “more powerful and far wiser than” other humans: we’re all still humans of the same kind.

As for, “against spiritual wickedness in high places” you seem to be equivocating on “spirit” vs. “spiritual” and besides, that’s likely a reference to demons (who are spirits) not Angels.

As for your chronological error when it came to, “your chronology is off since Gen 6” it’s too bad that you ignore that by punting to the goalpost moving, “You say this based on your belief that the ‘sons of God’ are fallen angels cohabiting with women.”

As for, “daughters only? What about the sons that must have been born?” well, it states, “When man began to multiply” (about which for some odd reason you inserted “rapidly”) and with the single exception of Adam (physically/biologically speaking) every single man in history has been a son.

So, if “men began to call upon the name of the Lord…appeared religious or acted as if they were righteous men who served God but they were rebellious and unrepentant” then we don’t know who the sons of God were, on that view.

So, for some unknown reason it was only strictly males, not one single female, who were pseudo-sons of God who married women, not one single man.

“sinning angels” explains why only exclusively males on one side of the equation and only exclusively female on the other: your view has that being accidental, I guess, and statistically virtually impossible.

As for, “married their neighbor’s daughters” I have no idea how you invented that nor how it matters nor what would possibly be wrong with it.

Now, as for “produces after their own kind” I’m not interested in having you ignore what I say and then go in circles as if I never even said it so, again, “Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created ‘a little lower’ than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic ‘kind.’”

G Gregore

There is a scripture in Amos 3:3 which asks the question: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed? It is quite clear we are not in agreement; therefore, I say that even as you are free to believe what you will – even so do I have the freedom to do the same.

Ken Ammi

But we don’t agree because you’re teaching false things on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you, and you refuse correction.

G Gregore

I said it is quite clear that we are NOT in agreement.

Ken Ammi

I agreed quite clearly that we are NOT in agreement. But you ignored the other part.

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.

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

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 a question answered by a certain Tyron Van Rooyen after he replied and I commented in turn.

He noted

Only Noah and his sons with their wives survived the flood.

The Nephilim were the product of the union of watchers (angels) and females of the human kind.

They were all destroyed in the flood. Though some of that mixed DNA passed through the flood by one of the wives of the sons of Noah.

This explains the origin Og of Bashan and Goliath and his kin.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

You imply 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.

As for “This explains the origin Og of Bashan and Goliath and his kin” but they were Rephaim, not Nephilim.

Tyron Van Rooyen

True/false is merely your bias.

What the Lord of Hosts did was rid the earth of them, their technology, their depravity, while still saving a remnant to start the human race afresh without their intervention.

All the Bible tells us is that they were about before the flood and that they came around again a little later.

It makes sense that they are not Nephilim, but that’s just splitting hairs if you glossing over the important stuff.

Ken Ammi

Sorry, I don’t get is since, for example, you appeared to have written “What the Lord of Hosts did was rid the earth of them [Nephilim], their [Nephilim] technology, their [Nephilim] depravity, while still saving a remnant [of humans] to start the human race afresh without their [Nephilim] intervention. All the Bible tells us is that they [Nephilim] were about before the flood and that they [Nephilim] came around again a little later. It makes sense that they are not Nephilim…”

So then, you weren’t referring to Nephilim after all so about whom were you referring?

Who “came around again a little later”?

And that “they are not Nephilim” but explain “As for ‘This explains the origin Og of Bashan and Goliath and his kin’ but they were Rephaim, not Nephilim.”

Tyron Van Rooyen

Read the original question. It was about the men of renown, the giants of old.

I was drawing a distinction between the “Nephelim” and giant men.

One (Nephelim) is the direct result of the unholy union of man and angel, while the other (human) is a spill-over of the genome that was carried though those who survived the flood.

Ken Ammi

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

Some 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?

Without those answers, I can’t know what you mean by “giants of old…giant men” except that you refer to “spill-over of the genome that was carried though those who survived the flood” which implies that you think that God failed, is that the case? He meant to be rid of them via the flood but must have missed their genetic survival so that the flood was much of a waste.

Tyron Van Rooyen

Let God be true and every man a liar. The Lord of Host, the Almighty, the Creator of all life and the Judge of the universe cannot fail or make mistakes. This must be your first point of departure, and any shortfall is that of your ability / inability to comprehend His glory.

When I first became a Walker of the Way, I resigned within myself that everything that I read in the Bible to be true, and whatever I do not understand or exceeds my perception will be my fault and something the He alone can resolve for me.

When one takes that position, you be open for teaching and not stuck in your pride, that will hinder growth.

Throw as many doubts as you like at the Word of God and you will never grow in the knowledge of your Creator.

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.

Friend, I’ve had similar discussion with dozens upon dozens upon dozens upon dozens of people like you who make faulty assertions, are called to back them, realize they can’t, and so they turn worldly and dismissive.

Please repent.

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.

Answering: Are there any references to giants named Nephilim (such as Goliath) in the Bible?

The question Are there any references to giants named Nephilim (such as Goliath) in the Bible? led to the following discussion after a certain Mike Godden replied

Goliath wasn’t big enough to be a Nephilim, besides they were wiped out years earlier by the flood.

The bible says of the Nephilim, ‘They were the heroes of old, men of renown’. Possibly even Zeus, Odin, Thor etc, but i’m not sure

I, Ken Ammi, replied

I’m unsure how you can assert “Goliath wasn’t big enough to be a Nephilim” since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim in the first place. But yes, the fact that Nephilim “were wiped out years earlier by the flood” discredits 100% of pop-Nephilologists.

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

Mike Godden

thank you for your input, I need to be careful I don’t stray from the Scriptures & to remember that the answers & Glory belong to Jehovah. The Nephilim were giant bullies, tyrants who filled the earth with violence. (Genesis 6:13)

We know Goliath was over 9 feet, but that’s only a few inches taller than the tallest recorded man in history, Robert Wadlow of the United States (1918–1940), at (8 ft 11 in). We have women at 8 foot. The Nephilim had to be real Giants, not just acromegaly cases, they could kill any man, whereas Goliath was killed by a shepherd boy, although a sling is a powerful & accurate weapon

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’m unsure what you mean by “Nephilim were giant…Nephilim had to be real Giants” since I already noted, “we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim” so I must 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, “We know Goliath was over 9 feet” well, the Masoretic text has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.–compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Mike Godden

simply put, they were a race of real giants, not odd individuals like Goliath & others since who were mutants, please look up acromegay (giantism)

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.

Now, since I asked what you mean by “giants” to as to understand you better but you didn’t reply, when you double down by referring to “real giants” I still don’t know what you mean.

So, what “race” and what “real giants” and there’s zero indication that “Goliath & others…were mutants.”

Mike Godden

Goliath & the others I mentioned are one offs, not a giant nation like the Nephilim – Acromegaly???

Take no notice of me & do your own research

Ken Ammi

Friend, I asked to what you’re referring by “giants” so as to understand you but you refused to elucidate so now, when you double down on using that term, it’s the opposite of helpful.

As for, “do your own research” well, I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data with which I published some dozen Nephilology related books so, what am I missing?

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 utter incoherent of 1611 KJV-onlyism

Right Response Ministries posted a Youtube video How Fallen Angels Biologically-Engineered The Giants w Dr. Tim Chaffey which led a certain @bobproctor-ne9tg to trollingly moving the goalpost by commenting

There is no other book in which Father God has put His Holy Word at, other than the 1611 KJV. Try as 1 may, 2 say otherwise and they shall fail. Amen and Alleluia

I, @kenammi355, replied

Too bad for those billions of people who aren’t fluent in English.

@bobproctor-ne9tg

Well it’s apparent you can read English, so read it. 😎

The Gospel is 2 be taught 2 all people. Here you go. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 } Christ Jesus died on a cross for your sins, He was buried for 3 days, and rose on the 3rd day. He has the keys 2 Hell, Death, and the Grave. He is Alive forever more. Believe by the Grace of Father God, in Faith that He did, and you are Saved. Now go and teach someone that as well. Amen and Alleluia

@kenammi355

I don’t blame you for running away from your exclusionary view of God’s inspired word although, you should develop enough integrity to deal with it. Your second comment isn’t from the KJV.

@bobproctor-ne9tg

Yes, Revelation 1:18 } This scripture speaks for it’s self. 18-I am he that liveth, and was dead: and, behold, I am alive for evermore,

Amen; and I have the keys of hell and of death. } Don’t be ignorant

You don’t like Truth

I never ran from nothing, I gave the scripture from the KJV and you give your opinion.

@kenammi355

Let’s review:

I noted, “Too bad for those billions of people who aren’t fluent in English” and “I don’t blame you for running away from your exclusionary view of God’s inspired word…”

Does the fact that you know English make you some sort of first class Christian and so specially privileged in God’s sight?

@bobproctor-ne9tg

You must be Troll.

@kenammi355

I always suspected that there might be an arrogance issue with English fluent people who think God’s word has only, conveniently, been preserved in English and you appear to lend weight to that suspicion.

@bobproctor-ne9tg

The KJV comes in all languages. Now go Troll someone else.

@kenammi355

Friend, you very specifically asserted, “There is no other book in which Father God has put His Holy Word at, other than the 1611 KJV…” By categorical definition it’s impossible that “The” 1611 or any other iteration of the “KJV comes in all languages” since those KJVs are in English–by definition. Once you translate it, it’s no longer the 1611 or any other iteration of the KJV.

@bobproctor-ne9tg

Are you alright 🤷Get a grip on yourself.

@kenammi355

Ok, it’s as I thought: your statements work when you tell them to fellow English readers who merely assert, “There is no other book in which Father God has put His Holy Word at, other than the 1611 KJV” but you can’t back anything you assert.

@bobproctor-ne9tg

Nope, I can’t back nothing up. That’s a 10/4

You win, have a nice day. 🤷

@kenammi355

Very well then, I will post this discussion to my website as another example of the utter incoherent of 1611 KJV-onlyism. Shalom!

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.