Category: Uncategorized

Are 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? was a question to which a certain Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk replied and which led to the following discussion

Hi friend, First of all the watchers is non other then the same fallen angels that fell with Satan-they disguise themselves and called them even elders-when they deceived Cain’s descendants, when they tricked Jared- father of Enoch that was taken up, that was just a lie invented so Satan can hide his involvement- I did a study on this in my space- unlearn the lies of religion-The lie of the watchers exposed. Now, those that was bound up is both- those who slept with the woman and their off spring and this was after the flood, Satan ask for a 10th of the angels to be left with him because how will he mislead the people if he is all by himself.

So the Father allowed the 10th of the spirits to stay with him and the rest was bound up-Ref book of Jubelees, The secrets of Enoch: 10, 3rd book of Adam and Eve,

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Well, “Watchers” is just a general 2nd Temple Era aka for Malakim/Angels thus yes, it include, “the same fallen angels that fell” but it wasn’t “with Satan” since he, a Cherub not an Angel, fell first (Gen 3 timeline) and they thereafter (Gen 6 timeline).

No indication “they disguise themselves” nor that they exclusively mated with “Cain’s descendants.”

Jude and 2 Peter 2 tell us about that “those who slept with the woman” but nothing about “their off spring” nor that it “was after the flood” even if it was.

1/3 were cast down by Satan and we can’t know if that’s “a 10th.”

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.”

Also, see my book, “The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.”

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

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

hi friend there was no second lot that was cast out of heaven there was only one war-and they all were cast down. that second incident was to sow confusion, this revelation I got on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to understand everything from the beginning- those book , well some of them is vital to the understanding of the old testament. You see Genesis is not complete in the bible that we know, a lot of information is missing, but it is all part and parcel to sow confusion and to make these new age which is actually old age religions believable. And ye the book of Enoch has been changed so much and all those sinful put in to make astronomy and hell real, but if you know the laws of the Father, you would know the difference from stuff that was added or left out- they corrupted those books just as they did the bible.

Ken Ammi

Indeed, “there was no second lot that was cast out of heaven.”

But as for, “there was only one war-and they all were cast down” well, the, “war,” as per Rev 12, is a post-Jesus’ ascension event.

I’m unaware to what you’re referring by, “second incident.”

As for, “Genesis is not complete in the bible that we know, a lot of information is missing” a lot is missing from every single book ever written by anyone, by definition.

You asserted, “they corrupted…the bible” but who are, “they” and what makes you assert that?

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

I am referring to Satan’s seed- the explanation would be because of the translating from one language to another that’s why there are differences but people that time where very intelligent, but we just have to look at Daniel 7, he talks about the little horn that would come to change times and the laws, but they did a lot more than that- the pope changed the 10 Commandment, the Sabbath day and the Father’s calender, The Vatican’s library sit with a lot of books that would give us lots of proof of the old days. But what I find interesting is the spreading of the lie that those lost books is not scriptural but they give us a more clear understanding of what happened-after the fall, before and after the flood, the book of Enoch of course have been corrupted. But I think I understand now why Satan would want to hide that, cause we are in the last days and it becomes “like in the days of Noah” by having the people in the dark about their doings- people can easily be dooped with the aliens and other strange beings,making their lie more believable,

Ken Ammi

Satan’s seed refers to those who commit ungodly actions, the great news is that they can repent.

How do you know what’s in the Vatican’s library?

It’s been the “last days” for two millennia already.

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

He’s seed is also a literal seed, not only those who choose not to do what is right, I believe looking at their history of being in charge of information, they have all the necessary scrolls that is so called lost because of the huge fire that burned the library in Alexandrea, yes last days but people did not look or understand the prophecies cause there is certain things that must happen first, just like now they already preaching the end is here and “Jesus is coming and there is a lot of prophecies not being fulfilled yet.

Ken Ammi

I’m unsure what makes you think that, “He’s seed is also a literal” because, “their history of being in charge of information.”

I don’t follow, “yes last days but…certain things that must happen first”: first of when?

Okay so, you don’t know what’s in the Vatican’s library.

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

No, I just know they have a lot of information stored up there, that would make things very clear for us in many ways.

Ken Ammi

Okay then, so we’re back to “But as for, ‘there was only one war-and they all were cast down’ well, the, ‘war,’ as per Rev 12, is a post-Jesus’ ascension event” and “I’m unaware to what you’re referring by, ‘second incident’” and so are you since you appealed to sources but now you note that you don’t know if those sources contain the data you turned to them for containing.

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

the first time they were thrown out was before the creation of the world, and that is explained in the first book of Adam and Eve, in the book of Enoch, where it explains about the fallen angels that taught the people forbidden knowledge, and slept with the women, Satan’s name is mentioned but not as Satan but as Gad’re’al. And he tried to hide it and make as if that angel was insignificant, and make another angel the look like he is the chief that decided to rebel. So as the angel told Adam, if he would have stayed longer, Satan would have corrupted all angels-that’ how powerful his power of deception was. So, the angels that was fighting Satan and his followers saw the repercussions of disobedience, so why would they want to sin after what they have seen happened and loose their light as punishment for being separated from the Almighty’s glory? That is why the influence of sin was removed from them. Therefore the second incident of the “watchers” is a fabricated incident to take the focus away from Satan.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you don’t seem to be interacting with my comments but are just bypassing them to keep asserting things.

For example, “the first time they were thrown out was before the creation of the world” for which there’s literally zero Biblical indication.

And you surely know that since you appeal to folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah.

The First Book of Adam and Eve claims that when God created Adam, He commanded the Angels to worship Adam so that book is trash.

1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

My friend, every book was corrupted but that does not mean some is “trash” like you said, if you know the attributes of the Father, you would know how to judge the books according to scripture and his attributes, Satan was not gonna leave the truth laying around, and yes for the most part of Enoch- it is trash cause you can clearly see the “hell” agenda being forced to be believed and the “heavens and the souls” the “folklore” like you describe have the missing parts that should be in the old testament, and why that was also removed? to hide the truth about the beginning, how people spread, Adam and Eve were in the garden for a hundred years before the fall, Satan and his fallen angels sleeping with the women, the earlier life of Noah-his birth, Abraham’s birth and history before Isaac, the full story of Isaac and Esau, the fact that after the flood they discovered cities that was of before, the timeline of before and after the flood, just so many things that was kept from us to have a better picture of what happened- why because to push their new age religions and alien agendas.

Ken Ammi

What makes you think that book was “corrupted”?

Since I know “the attributes of the Father” then I “know how to judge” a book that claims He commanded Angels to worship a human.

Well, sure, you can refer to “for the most part of [1] Enoch” as “trash” but I referred to The First Book of Adam and Eve as such.

So now you claim that God failed since there are things that should have been in the OT but He couldn’t get them therein and you figured out those things that He missed.

But it worse than that, you claim it was in the OT but was “removed”—for which you have zero evidence, of course—so now God couldn’t manage to keep His revealed inspired word in the canon and mere humans defeated God.

Bottom line, you are relying on folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah that make non-sense of theology proper and contradict the Bible. So, why do you do that? There’s literally zero indication that those late-comers provided us any reliable data.

I’m unsure how you so very specifically know “Adam and Eve were in the garden for a hundred years before the fall.”

There’s literally zero indication of “Satan…sleeping with the women.”

There’s also zero (non-late-comer sci-fi folklore) indication that “Noah-his birth” had anything to do with Angels.

So, when you wrote your concluding list it shows me more and more that you are unable to discern God’s Holy Word from whatever it is: historical fiction, folklore, frauds, delusions, etc.

You seem to just read anything written by anyone at any time in any place of any genre and then mash it all together.

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

To be straight with you, if you believe in a trinity of 3 in one, there is no point trying to make you see, because you are still covered with the veil. I’m under the instruction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, so what Satan distorted and hid away- I am being shown it. You telling me I believe in folklore, but fist look at yourself Sir, believing you have a spirit, your going to heaven or hell when you die, “Jesus” died on a cross, keeping easter, christmas, halloween etc, drinking blood and agreeing the Messiah was a sinner, is that not believing in frauds and fiction, delusions?

Ken Ammi

I should have guessed. Whenever a Christian makes assertion and I ask them to back those assertions but they realize that they can’t, they pull the gnostic card: they have received personal, private revelation and so as a convenient side product, anyone who disagrees with them is actually disagreeing with the Holy Spirit and they think they are so enlightened that they can’t even reveal the self-made cult’s secrets to those who aren’t initiated.

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

my friend that’s the truth unfortunately, the veil has to be lifted, and I can’t do it for you, as long as you look at these things with a human eye-well you will never get to understand the deeper secrets of the Kingdom. the truth is really plain and simple to see, but you have to start by going through the right channel, there is no short cuts to enlightenment. PS: I’m not a Christian there is a big difference,so please don’t judge me under the same comb. And it’s not a gnostic card that I pull, those books are not lies, they are riddled with lies just like the bible, but you need the Holy Spirit to show you but like I said the veil has to be lifted otherwise it’s useless.

Ken Ammi

That perfectly supports my point with the single exception that you’re not a Christian.

Now, since you already moved the goalpost from the context of this thread and have now moved it again by merely asserting, “riddled with lies just like the bible”: 1) how do you know they are lies, 2) what are the lies, and 3) what, on your worldview, is wrong with lying?

Also, what non-biblical “Holy Spirit”?

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

lying is one of the things the Father detest’s and believe me, I abhor it aswell- it was removed from the 10 commandments and replaced with false witness. Lies- meaning scripture has been changed and been replaced with lies to fit the belief system which is other commands, feast days, rituals, time keeping,sabbath day, calling amen, lead us into temptation is wrong, there is so many things, please feel free to scroll through my page- unlearn the lies of religion- I have already done study and revelation on some things, your welcome to have a look, and see, I just don’t make a statement without proof- that is biblical proof.

Ken Ammi

I asked, “what, on your worldview, is wrong with lying?” you denied being a Christian and stated, “lying is one of the things the Father detest’s” but what “Father”? And you didn’t reply to, “Also, what non-biblical ‘Holy Spirit’?”
Also, when you say, “I abhor it aswell” that doesn’t answer, “what, on your worldview, is wrong with lying?” since all you told me is your emotively subjective personal preference du jour based on hidden assumptions.

You generically asserted, “it was removed from the 10 commandments and replaced with false witness” but removed from what and when and how so?

Cara Paulsen-Van Niekerk

my friend, my world view? what good has lies brought the people? Do you liked being lied to? I’m not a Christian because the system don’t follow the biblical commands and laws, and if you really wanted to know or understand my reason for believing different, I suggest you have a look at my page-unlearn the lies of religion- with all the respect I don’t have the time to try and make the picture clear for you or make you understand, cause clearly you believe in something else/or you look at this trying to understand spiritual things with a worldly view-it will never work. The events of the world is rolling towards the final event, and in all seriousness, my focus is now on other things.

Ken Ammi

Well, they say that good lawyers only asks question for which they already know the answers so I do that sometimes for the sake of confirmation.

In this case, you have a whole page about “the lies of religion” but your proved that it’s whole premise is faulty or rather, being without a premise but only an vague emotively subjective assertion.

So, towards what final event?

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

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

The following discussion took place when the Artefactum Youtube channel posted a video titled The Nephilim: Biblical Giants Evidence Found in Israel!

A certain @edwardconnor3268 commented

There were giants in the earth ,in those days and afterwards.

@bdawg-qj9bq replied

No. No there wasn’t.

@edwardconnor3268

theres more evidence to the contrary.

I, @kenammi355, asked

“afterwards” of when?

@mike_MT_jonez

Before and after the flood.

@franroxburgh6055

The origin of the nephilim is given in Genesis 6:4. Some commentators say that one reason  that the  Israelites were told to destroy everyone in Canaan was to rid the earth of these diabolical creatures.

@kenammi355 to @franroxburgh6055

Those commentator are demonstrably mistaken. In order to merely assert that they first have to invent an un-biblical manner whereby to get Nephilim past the flood (which implies that God failed and the flood was much of a waste), then they have to literally invent that Israelites were told to destroy everyone in Canaan to rid the earth of Nephilim by ignoring the many times that God told us why He commanded those things but never said one single word about Nephilim.

@kenammi355 to @mike_MT_jonez

I see. Well, since that’s not from the Bible: whence did you get that idea and how did you get Nephilim past the flood?

@mike_MT_jonez

come on!

Genesis 6:4

King James Version

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

@kenammi355

Sorry friend, I don’t get it. I asked, “whence did you get that idea and how did you get Nephilim past the flood?” and the only verse you quoted doesn’t say anything about the flood so, that’s rather odd. In fact, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.

@mike_MT_jonez

I gave you the verse. You break it down , what is the “ after that”? . How did they make it past the flood? That’s a mystery to me. Could be dna or some survived some how.

@kenammi355

Friend, please slow down this this is an example of how pop-Nephilologists manage to make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians.

I noted, “the only verse you quoted doesn’t say anything about the flood” but rather than affirming that verifiable fact and wondering why quoting that ever occurred to you, you noted, “I gave you the verse” but I asked, “whence did you get that idea and how did you get Nephilim past the flood?” and the only verse you quoted doesn’t say anything about the flood so, “the verse” doesn’t count.

As for, “How did they make it past the flood?” what makes you think that they did? See, that’s the place to start.

As for, “Could be dna or some survived some how” but that 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 the genetic loophole you figured out, and the flood was much of a waste. See what damage fallacious Nephilology does to theology?

As for, “what is the ‘ after that’?: good question!

I just read the text (not just two words):

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.

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

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

The question Are atheists sure their atheism is not a religion? Otherwise, why would they feel the need to proclaim their atheism? led to the following discussion after a certain Jonathan Willis replied

Newsflash !!!! Contrary to what the writer of this question says or thinks ,Athists unlike Christians don’t proclaim Atheism at all. But Christians constantly proclaim their belief in a God they can’t prove exists,in a desperate attempt to get more people to believe in him , and that Athists are wrong not to believe in the same God they do,even though as. Christians they’re no more successful in life because they believe in him than they would be if they didn’t believe in him. And despite christians claim that when they die they’re going somewhere special, the truth they can’t face is that when they die they’re going into a wooden box and then either into a furnace or a 6ft deep hole just like atheists do as the place they think they go just like the one they claim atheists will go to if they don’t start to believe in God doesn’t exist except in their heads

Ken Ammi

Fascinating, I’ve oft noted that Atheism is an anti-Christian support group and you piled more evidence atop that.

The question was, “Are atheists sure their atheism is not a religion? Otherwise, why would they feel the need to proclaim their atheism?” but you incoherently moved the goalpost to a rant against Christianity.

As for, “Athists…don’t proclaim Atheism at all” friend, you must live under a rock—with another rock on top of it: there are TONS of Atheist missionaries all over the place. Just set up an account pretending to be a Christian and interact with some Atheists, you’ll see my point in circa 1 nano second.

As for, “can’t prove exists” well, the very first step is for you to justify demanding proof (not evidence?) on your worldview—if, that is, you believe in systematic critical thinking.

As for, “when they die they’re going into a wooden box and then either into a furnace or a 6ft deep hole just like atheists do” well, that’s what happens to the body, it’s also you asserting a positive affirmation, and it’s one of Atheism’s consoling delusions.

At least you informed us of to which Atheist denomination you adhere, the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence mere assertion of a positive affirmation demonization, “God doesn’t exist.”

As for, “…except in their heads” well, that’s just another merely asserted positive affirmation.

Jonathan Willis

You never see atheists shoving their none belief down peoples throats in the high street the way you do Christians shoving the bible down peoples do you…..no but you can regularly see Christians doing it desperately trying to get people to think the way they do about a God they cannot prove exists.

The point of our going into a wooden box and into a 6ft hole or furnace when we die whether Christians or atheists is a point of fact that anyone with a brain can prove can you prove them wrong . Do you know of anyone who’s body has physically gone somewhere else or can you prove heaven exists and people go there as opposed to being buried in a grave or put in a furnace when they die.which apart from. In some Christians who firmly believe heaven actually exists heads you can’t prove can you

Ken Ammi

So, it’s accurate that you moved the goalpost to rant against Christians.

Is there anything wrong with logical fallacies such as moving the goalpost, on your worldview?

Now, you asserted, “Athists…don’t proclaim Atheism at all” but backed up so as to add an arbitrary qualifier, “shoving their none belief down peoples throats in the high street” and also turned that into a besmirchment of Christians.

Now, what, on your worldview, would be wrong with what you caricature as, “shoving their none belief down peoples throats in the high street…shoving the bible down peoples.”

Also, I noted, “the very first step is for you to justify demanding proof (not evidence?) on your worldview—if, that is, you believe in systematic critical thinking.” So, it seems that you’re not interested in systematic critical thinking since you merely doubled down with, “God they cannot prove exists” and added “can prove can you prove…can you prove…can’t prove.” So, you’re getting ahead of yourself.

Now, I understand why you reject systematic critical thinking since there’s no universal imperative to adhere to systematic critical thinking, on your worldview. And, obviously, none to provide proof (not evidence?) either. So, if you were interested in systematic critical thinking you would realize you can no longer complain about (supposedly) not being provided proof.

Yet, as I noted, you make a knowledge claim in terms of a merely jumped to mere assertion of a mere positive affirmation based on mere hidden assumption, “God doesn’t exist.”

Jonathan Willis

I’ve yet to see an Atheist standing up in any High Street shoving their lack of belief in God and trying to people to think they way they do have you seen them doing it, but you regularly see Christians doing it, because they cannot accept or 4 some reason believe that its perfectly possible to live a happy, successful life without believing in a God you can’t prove exists.and that’s despite the fact that most of the most successful people in the world don’t believe in God. And 4 some reason Christians think that when they die something magical happens and they don’t actually die get buried or cremated, they get eternal life.

Christian or atheists what’s meant to happen in your life happens, praying doesn’t change that, but Christians think things happen because they’ve prayed about it ,they refuse to acknowledge that it would have happened anyway, seriously ill people only survive because of prayer apparently, not because of the skill of drs or becauseyou werent meant to doe yet & if you die its because God intended you to.

Ken Ammi

I see you base your view upon what you subjectively see or don’t see—or cover your eyes and then assert what you see and don’t see. Firstly, take a look around then maybe consider that Atheists set the world’s mass and serial murdering records in mere decades even when competing, as it were, against “religions” that had been around for millennia: that’s beyond “Atheist standing up in any High Street shoving their lack of belief in God,” that’s just wiping out accidentally existing apes and there’s literally nothing wrong with it on Atheism.

In fact, there’s also nothing wrong with what “you regularly see Christians doing.”

But it’s already been clear that you invented some dogmathism and can’t step an inch beyond it since you conveniently ignore what I say and just keep doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. down on assertions such as, “a God you can’t prove exists” which, again, is an issue that only comes upon AFTER you justify demanding proof, on your worldview.

Jonathan Willis replied to your comment on an answer to: “Are atheists sure their atheism is not a religion? Otherwise, why would they feel the need to proclaim their atheism?”

I don’t ignore what you say ,l just don’t happen to agree with you,if you want to believe God actually exists and answers prayers and your life is totally guided by him and you do whet he says rather than what you want to do that’s your choice,me l will live in the real world where things happen or don’t happen because they’re meant to happen 4 goodcor 4 bad ,not because l prayed about it or didn’t . My life hasn’t done whet it did regardless of whether I believed in God or not,and if there is a god who decides our lives then why are their atheists out there more successful in life than most Christians are.youd have thought it would be the other way round wouldn’t you.

Oh and BTW Christians murder people too, for example HITLER, MUSSOLINI, who were both Christians and othersxtoo through the centuries have done & still do

Ken Ammi

Friend, it’s bad enough you’re literally incapable of engaging taking step number one, do you really have to attempt to talk me into believing that you’re not doing what you’re doing? Of course you ignore what I say and part of the proof is that this discussion goes around and around and around and around in the tiny circle of waiting for you to do that.

Ever stop and ponder why you’re literally incapable? You and the literally hundreds of Atheists with whom I’ve had the same discussion.

Now, you refer to the “real world” but on your worldview that world is accidental, as is your ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do so.

Now, how could it be that in that accidental world “things happen or don’t happen because they’re meant to happen” since there’s no objective meaning therein?

As for, “4 goodcor 4 bad” there’s no such objective thing in such an accidental world, there’s only emotively subjective interpretations of accidents and likewise with “successful.”

As for, “Christians murder people too” that’s a tu quoque fallacy (not that logical fallacies matter, on your worldview) but you must be the reason why the word “gullible” isn’t even in the dictionary when you say “HITLER, MUSSOLINI…were both Christians.”

Seriously, don’t you ever think about what you say, or ponder your worldview’s implications, or engage in critical thinking before just parroting Atheism 101 talking points?

Jonathan Willis

To start with I’m not your friend, 2ndly you can preach what you like and say you can prove God exists the facts remain the same Christians try to get people to believe in a god they themselves can’t actually physically prove exists but insist does because a book called the bible says he does & thry believe what that book says & stall when ever they’re asked 4 proof by telling people to prove he doesn’t. The fact is Atheist can’t prove he doesn’t any more than Christians can prove he does ,but I’ve never seen anyone stand on a street corner trying to claim he doesn’t the way I have Christians claiming he does. Why can’t Christians just shut up & respect people’s right to decide whether to believe in God or nor rather than spouting crap about them ending up burning in hell if they don’t believe in him,rather than being in paradise if they do when they die. When any intelligent human being knows that Christians or atheists you end up in a 6ft deep hole or in a crematorium furnace not in hell or paradise.

As for Hitler & mussolini thry were both Catholics there fore they believed in God and thus they were Christians

Ken Ammi

Not my friend well, we’ll have to change that. As for, “fact”: have you not been paying attention since you’re so loyal to your dogmatheism? On your worldview facts are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand that others do so. I realize that you utterly despise the implications of your worldview but in that case, a best practice would be to give up that miserably collapsed failure.

Another instance of your dogmatheism trance is that you still utterly refuse to engage in systematic critical thinking and I know it’s because your worldview can’t handle it. Thus, you—yet again and again and again and again—begin with the jumped to conclusion, “actually physically prove exists” whatever that means” but failed time and time and time again and again and again to take the very first step.

Why can’t Atheists just shut up & respect people’s right to decide whether to believe in God?

But you merely asserted yet again since it’s a merely emotively subjective personal preference that Christians stop doing that so that’s not a standard.

As for, Hitler & Mussolini again, you’re the reason that “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary. Also, you pulled text-book classic worldclass reductio (good thing for you there’s nothing wrong with logical fallacies on your worldview): since you utterly ignore Atheists all over the planet mass and serial murdering MILLIONS of people at world record levels and desperately point to two guys.

So, your point seems to be that you find Hitler & Mussolini to have been such upright and trustworthy fellows that, by golly, if they claimed to be Catholic then they were: wow!

You can believe that based on their self-identification but I’m not that gullible since Jesus said that we would know His followers by their fruit.

It’s also fascinating that you think that Hitler, the world’s most infamous anti-Semite worshiped a Jew as his Lord, God, and Savior: wow! I see that Nazi propaganda is alive and well—and still working on people like you.

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.

A certain Elaine Cristina, self-identified as “Former Learning Advisor,” replied to the Quora site question Can atheists logically defend atheism? thusly:

Atheism is all about logic, being rational and asking for proofs. The majority of atheists have no interest in “defending atheism”, which is exactly the opposite of the religious folks.

Let us dissect this learning advisor’s advice:

“Atheism is all about logic, being rational”: on Atheism this means that Atheism is all about adhering to byproducts of accidents as emotively subjective personal preference du jour.

That’s because on Atheism logic, for example, is just an accidental aspect of the accidental universe and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it so logical fallacies don’t matter.

As for, “asking for proofs” well, the very first step in systematic critical thinking is for the Atheist to justify asking for proof (not evidence?) on their worldview.

My experience, of having noted as much to literally hundreds of Atheists, is that they are literally incapable of taking that first step, and 99% don’t even make an attempt but just say words to the effect of, “Gimme proof ’cause thus saith I.”

I would like to see a citation to the study which resulted in the conclusion that, “The majority of atheists have no interest in ‘defending atheism.’”

Yet, I have no problem believing that since try and try and try as I might with hundreds of them, I can verify that it’s not only that they have interest but that they are literally incapable.

Now, jumping from, “atheists have no interest” to, “the opposite of the religious folks” is an interesting admission: religious folks seek to defend their views, Atheists don’t—very well then, I’ll go with that.

But note that apparent implication that something is wrong with, “the opposite of the religious folks” but she neglected to note THE most important point: what, on her worldview, is wrong with “religious folks” doing something that is, “the opposite” of that which Atheist do—or don’t do? So much for logic and reason.

Now, she followed that rant with embarrassingly childishly incoherent memes so let’s review those:

That one seems to depict Atheists lining up to adore their consoling delusions.

That one a merely jumped to conclusion of a mere assertion based on mere hidden assumptions. Any logical thinker would note as much rather than parroting it uncritically.

I did think about it and don’t need much time: this is simply 1,001% inaccurate, “Adam…had other sons and daughters” (Gen 5:4).

Another merely jumped to mere assertion of a positive affirmation based on mere hidden assumptions. But it seems to imply a view whereby it’s ridiculous to believe that we came from Adam, Eve, and their three sons only but came from the byproducts of a very long series of happy accidents to include life from non-life.

If there’s clarity in it, the has failed to elucidate any of it.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

This is the audio of my appearance on the Raiders of the Unknown (Mystic-Skeptic Radio) podcast/radio show.

I’m not crazy about the background image but such is how the vid was produced.

You can find my main critiques of Heiser in my book and articles as follows:

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”

Truefreethinker’s entries on Michael Heiser

See my various books here.

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

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

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

Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

The following discussion took place when a Facebook page called Charismatic Cheetah posted Sethite view is lame.

I, True Freethinker, noted

Sethite view is a late-comer, based on myth and prejudice, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

Randy Singleton replied

Correct. Not enough people do real research on 1 Enoch.

True Freethinker

Some of us do and know that 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah: see the book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

Randy Singleton

“Bible contradicting folklore?” — Unquote.

I don’t know how free your thinking is.

The Book of Enoch is older than the Book of Job.

The Ethiopian Church considers it canon equal to the rest of the Bible.

It was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Jesus Christ quoted from Enoch.

Enoch references God’s Word in many places.

Free your mind so that you will be more free thinking.

True Freethinker

I’m disinterested in your childish taunting: I get enough of that trash from Atheists.

Let us review:

“Bible contradicting folklore?” you didn’t address that it contradicts the Bible.

“The Book of Enoch is older than the Book of Job” mere assertion since there’s zero indication that it existed prior to a few centuries BC.

“The Ethiopian Church considers it canon equal to the rest of the Bible” and that canon is unreliable since, for example, it also contains the Life of Adam and Eve which claims that when God created Adam, He commanded the Angels to worship Adam.

“It was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls” irrelevant since a LOT of literature spanning various genre were found therein and that doesn’t make all DDS inspired, infallible, etc.

“Jesus Christ quoted from Enoch” that’s an assertion and also irrelevant since, for example, Paul quoted Greek poets but that doesn’t make Greek poets inspired, infallible, etc.

“Enoch references God’s Word in many places” irrelevant since, for example, so does the Qur’an but that doesn’t make the Qur’an inspired, infallible, etc.

Randy Singleton

You like that word, “irrelevant.” So something is true only if you say so? Okay. I hope this helps.

The Ethiopian Bible is the oldest and most complete Bible on Earth. That Bible includes the Book of Enoch. It also includes Esdras, Baruch, and all three books of Maccabees.

Early Christian scholars believed Enoch wrote and preserved the book aboard Noah’s Ark!

According to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Enoch is the oldest book. The first apocalyptic literature that was ever written! For 700 years following our Savior’s death, burial, and resurrection, this book was revered and read by ministers to their congregations. Many books, including Enoch, disappeared when the Dark Ages set in, and Bibles were chained to the pulpits.

For centuries, the Book of Enoch was lost — only to be rediscovered in the 18th-century communities of Jews and Christians in Abyssinia, an Ethiopian region. In 1773, a famous English traveler named James Bruce obtained three copies of the book and brought them to Europe.

I believe God kept the Book of Enoch in the “shadows of history” until the last generation. The generation that “would not see death” and would see “the coming of the Son of Man.”

This book helps us to understand the antediluvian world before the Great Flood. (Try to find another book that can do that. 🙂 ). You will find a description of the celestial vehicle that Enoch traveled in. You will see how Enoch described 7,000 years of world history and what would happen in each of the ten divisions of 700 years. And this makes sense since the year of the Great Flood was 4,990 B.C.

Though not in the traditional canon, I trust Enoch’s words completely, especially since there are many biblical references to Enoch and his life.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/enoch

True Freethinker

I’m unsure if you’re myopic on purpose or not but you forgot to mention that the Ethiopian Bible also contains the Life of Adam and Eve which asserts that when God created Adam, God commanded the Angels to worship Adam: you accept that as God inspired, correct?

That and that it contains the Bible contradicting 1 Enoch is enough to conclude that the fact that it’s a unique canon doesn’t make it uniquely accurate but uniquely inaccurate.

Can you name even one single early Christian scholar who, “believed Enoch wrote and preserved the book aboard Noah’s Ark!”?—keeping in mind that it would only prove what someone believed (based on a Bible contradicting folkloric text, of course). There’s literally zero indication of its existence prior a few centuries BC.

As for the rest of your sermonizing, I wrote the book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch” so I’m aware that you’re mixing near accuracy with assertions.

As for, “helps us to understand the antediluvian world before the Great Flood. (Try to find another book that can do that. 🙂 )”: okay, the Bible.

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

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

The following discussion took place due to Dr. Michael S. Heiser’s vid, “Where do Evil Spirits Come From?” since a certain @earlysda commented

2:11 When he said “All of the traditions you will find are again unanimous”, any true-in-heart listener could ascertain that this man is not basing his words on biblical truth, but is just spouting worldly information.

Angels cannot marry.

So we can be certain that the Nephilim were what ancient followers of God always believed: that the righteous sons of Seth saw the wicked daughters of Cain and decided to marry them, giving rise to terrible giants.

I, @kenammi355, replied

That’s a non sequitur since you focused on “All of the traditions you will find are again unanimous” but then ignored that point and merely asserted, “Angels cannot marry.”

Also, 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.”

What makes you also merely assert, “righteous sons of Seth” (who were clearly not righteous) and “wicked daughters of Cain” and what makes you assert that there no female Sethites that married male Canites?

As for, “giants”: The key questions are:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

@earlysda

ken, I quote Jesus, and you get upset.

The onus is on you and others who hold to this doctrine of Satan that his angels can marry humans.

@kenammi355

I didn’t realize that you quoted Jesus: can you please provide the citation and the quotation with quotation marks around it, please?

@earlysda

ken, I was referring to what I had written you on a different thread on this video.

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

@kenammi355

BTW: it’s fascinating that 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, let’s compare:

You made the all-encompassing assertion, “Angels cannot marry.”

But Jesus was very specific in that He made a qualified statement, “angels of God in heaven.”

So, you referred to all Angels, but Jesus to Angels “of God” and “in heaven” thus, the loyal ones which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it.

@earlysda

Ken, Jesus said angels cannot marry.

You not only say that fallen ones can, you say that God’s chains on the evil angels are no chains at all, and that the evil angels only go after human females, and that somehow God allowed angel DNA to intermingle with human DNA.

You are in serious error on every count.

@kenammi355

Friend, you’re projecting and it may be because you just realized that your Angelology is just a man-made tradition that contradicts the Bible but then, rather than continuing to teach fallacious Angelology on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you, you really need to update your Angelology.

You once again asserted, “Jesus said angels cannot marry” but you will be unable to quote one single such statement and I already noted, “You made the all-encompassing assertion, ‘Angels cannot marry.’ But Jesus was very specific in that He made a qualified statement, ‘angels of God in heaven.’ So, you referred to all Angels, but Jesus to Angels ‘of God’ and ‘in heaven’ thus, the loyal ones which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having ‘left their first estate’ as Jude put it.”

But you ignored all of that.

When someone, especially Jesus, speaks in qualified terms, it behooves you to be mindful of that and not repeat their statements as a vaguely generic all-encompassing assertion.

Now, since you want to move the goalpost to chains: how and when did I “say that God’s chains on the evil angels are no chains at all”?

“evil angels” don’t “go,” present tense, “after human females” but went, past tense after them.

How and when did I say “somehow God allowed angel DNA to intermingle with human DNA”?

See what I mean about you projecting when you assert, “You are in serious error on every count”? You not only manipulated Jesus’ words (maybe out of ignorance originally but now purposefully) but you manipulate my words—and invented words I never said.

Why do you have to do that just to push your view?

@earlysda

ken Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Why do you keep trying to refute Jesus’ words?

Why do you imagine that the evil angels are not bound in chains like it says in  2Peter 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;?

Why do you say they only marry human women (and not men)?

Why are you fighting God on this matter?

@kenammi355

Since I have produced many, many videos and many, many articles and many, many books on this subject, can you inform me as to when I have ever been “trying to refute Jesus’ words” or “imagine that the evil angels are not bound in chains” or am, “are you fighting God on this matter?”?

As for, “Why do you say they only marry human women (and not men)?” I don’t, I just quote God’s word, “sons of God” males, “saw that the daughters of man” females, “they” males, “took as their wives” females, “sons of God” males, “came in to the daughters of man” females.”

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

FYI: 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”

I also included him in my book The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?

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.

Every now and then comes a wave of contra circumcision arguments which are answered, go away, and yet, only to return time and again.

In this case, I was watching a live stream of the video titled, “Author Bruce de Torres discusses his book God, School, 9/11 and JFK…” when a certain “nivad17” commented this in the live chat:

Trauma Based Mind Control, goes all the way back to the beginning of human history, circumcision rites, whole congregation gathered together to watch slaughter and sacrifices, etc.

And posted another comment straight away which read:

causes disassociative consciousness

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Non sequitur to jump from circumcision to slaughter and sacrifices

nivad17:

how so?

Ken Ammi:

Because circumcision is in another category than slaughter and sacrifices

nivad17:

how so?

Ken Ammi:

Circumcision is not slaughter and sacrifices

nivad17:

but it is trauma and induces disassociative consciousness

Ken Ammi:

But that’s not what you said and so not that to which I was replying.

nivad17:

but that IS what i said

Ken Ammi

Whereabouts?

NOTE: Now, given the nature of a live chat—the rapidity with which it moves along being based on how many people are posting comments—I made a slight mistake here and did not scroll up in the discussion in order to double check nivad17’s original comment. Thus, lesson learned.

In any case, nivad17:

two different examples of ancient rites that are trauma based

Ken Ammi

Now you’re just serving some under cooked red herring.

NOTE: That was mostly based on my slight mistake but still, correlating circumcision rites with watching slaughter and sacrifices even if in terms of “Trauma Based Mind Control” is still a stretch—to say the least.

In any case, I followed up with:

If I may: are you male and circumcised?

NOTE: I was going to ask if he, assuming that nivad17 is a “he” suffered from “disassociative consciousness” due to circumcision but, alas, we never got that far.

nivad17:

i’m not trying to be a troll, i am genuinely not following why you think i introduced a non-sequitr and a red herring

Ken Ammi:

No worries and I’m not either. Let’s move to: are you male and circumcised?

nivad17:

so a non-sequitr is something that does not follow from logic, correct? i don’t understand where the non-sequitr was in the comment in question.

it would be helpful to me to understand this before moving on

Ken Ammi:

A non-sequitur is a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the premise. Perhaps you can categorize circumcision as traumatic but then again, so is childbirth.

nivad17:

(i am thinking of leviticus) the sacrifices themselves were not trauma, it was food production, but the fact that the levitical priests gathered the whole congregation to watch (women and children) as well, is what i am calling trauma based

Ken Ammi:

Then go ahead and say that childbirth is trauma based.

nivad17:

i am not following. childbirth is definitely traumatic, but it is not an unnecessary action done to someone else with the purpose of inducing trauma

Ken Ammi:

Ah, so your hidden assumption is that circumcision is done “with the purpose of inducing trauma” so that’s a faulty premise.

And you might as well say that men get women pregnant with the purpose of inducing the trauma of childbirth.

nivad17:

yes that is assumption and premise i was operating under.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed and since that’s just a prejudicial assertion it was, after all, as I noted: a non-sequitur.

nivad17:

if that is not correct, then what is the purpose?

Ken Ammi:

Since [you] appealed to the Torah, I figured you’d know. Now, will you say that about men impregnating women?

nivad17:

an assumption i formulated that included studies outside the Torah. but anyhow, what is the true purpose?

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, yours was a mere assumption. It is a sign that the child is being declared a part of God’s chosen people, a member of the congregation, etc.

NOTE: At this point, the video was about to end and so I left

nivad17 with:

Got nothin’ but love for you, appreciate the interaction.

NOTE: nivad17’s reference to “included studies outside the Torah” pertains to that other cultures also practiced circumcision and did so for their own purposes: perhaps even as a means of “Trauma Based Mind Control” so as to cause “disassociative consciousness,” such is why I was arguing my side of the argument based on my point of view as a Messianic Jew.

For more details, see my relevant books.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

Undergoing consideration is the article by The Limited Times site titled Evidence of the existence of the Nephilim, the giants from the Bible, was found in the Golan Heights? – Voila!

Upfront, we’re told “Evidence of the existence of the Nephilim, the giants from the Bible, was found in the Golan Heights.”

Now, the phrase “Nephilim, the giants” 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?

To one of the sentences in the article, I will add a much needed qualifier by having it begin with a rare few and incoherently inaccurate, “Believers argue that these giants were real and that their descendants may have survived for long by intermingling with human populations.” Yet, perhaps the first question should be, “survived” what? If the flood is meant then that contradicts the Bible five times: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

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

This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times.

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

Also, Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.

Supposedly, “alleged discoveries and strange findings” led to that an, “investigation was opened here in the Golan Heights.”

Now, we get a taste of the answer to the second key question via this statement, “In ancient times there were stories about huge creatures called the Nephilim” but while there were some such tales in, “ancient” times we must keep in mind that the term ancient is vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage. That’s because they may be ancient to us today but they are still from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah.

Yet, that’s with the exception that the Torah itself, in Num 13:33 which may have been the beginning of mere tall-tales about Nephilim being, “huge” (which is also vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage) since it merely records an, “evil report” by some unreliable guys whom God rebuked: see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

We’re told, “stories of the fallen giants came from ancient myths and religious texts. One known mention is found in the book of Genesis (chapter 6, verse 4).” Yet, that’s incoherent since there’s no reference to the article’s misusage of, “giants” which is in terms of, “huge” in that text. Such is why we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim, the only one we have is in the unreliable evil report ergo, we don’t have one.

Yet, it’s merely asserted (via a quotations merely of, “sons of God” from the text) that what I term the Genesis 6 affair, “resulted in the birth of powerful beings of unusual size or shape known as the Nephilim” but again, that’s a mere assertion.

Yet, we’re told, “according to what is told in Genesis and some of the midrashi[m] of the Sages if we accept the description literally, were angels or the offspring of a marriage of the sons of God or angels with human daughters. In the midrashim and the external books written in the days of the Second Temple, the Nephilim are identified with the angels who betrayed God, violated their duty and were banished or descended to the earth.”

I have a feeling that the article was spat out of an AI word generator farm.

Midrashim are not strict Bible commentaries but are sermonizing homiles. Also, the range widely in terms of when they were written, from centuries to millennia after the Torah, so lack of citations doesn’t help.

To get a taste of the Midrashic folklore, “Other midrashim describe the Nephilim as legendary creatures, each of whom required a thousand camels, a thousand horses and a thousand oxen to satisfy his mighty hunger, and when God decided to destroy the earth with a flood, the Nephilim tried to show their strength in a form of defiance towards God, they sent their hands to heaven and tried to block the chimneys of heaven and with their feet to plug the abysses, but God boiled the water and threw them away.”

We then move on to that, “people wonder if the blood of these ancient giants continues to exist…their descendants may have survived for long by intermingling…with these descendants likely also inheriting unique traits from their giant ancestors.” And with that bit of illogical, ill-biological, and ill-theological assertion in place, we are quickly moved on to that, “Proponents of the theory point to alleged discoveries and strange findings as possible evidence of the Nephilim’s existence. These include finding extremely large skeletons” (with, “large” also being vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage).

Then comes the purpose of the vague and generic article, the sales pitch, “The docu-series of The Inspiration Networks, a religious family entertainment network, called Angels & Giants, The Watchers & Nephilim…includes four hour-long episodes that are a serious investigation of the theories in question.”

“Rudy Landa, executive producer and director” noted, “The Bible describes the Nephilim in several places” which is quite accurate—if, that is, “several” refers to two and, “places” refers to mere verses.

He also referenced, “Nephilim, a race of giants” so, here we go again, 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 Landa usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

For support, “He enlisted the help of author Douglas Van Doren [“Dorn,” actually], who had just written a book on the subject, to guide the project.” Please see my articles:

Review of Paul “Dr. Reluctant” Henebury’s review of Douglas Van Dorn’s book “Giants: Sons of the Gods”

And:

My review of Zachary Garris’ review of Douglas Van Dorn’s book “Giants Sons of the Gods”

For Landa’s oddly and extremely specific assertion, “It makes sense to start in Israel, in the place where the story of the Nephilim began – and that is in the Golan” we’re told that, “Book of Hanuch [“Enoch”?] 1, an apocryphal source from the second century BC…describes the Nephilim and claims that the name of Mount Hermon…According to the book of Enoch 1, the Nephilim were expelled from heaven and sent to Mount Hermon. The area, known as Bashan, is The place where King Og came out against the Israelites when they entered the Promised Land.”

1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah (“second century BC,” see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch) and Og has nothing to do with any of this since he was a Repha, not a Nephil, and was born centuries post-flood.

Yet, we’re told, “the Gemara teaches that Og, king of Bashan, was alive during Noah’s time but escaped the flood by clinging to the side of the ark using a ladder.” Well, that refers to the Talmud Bavli, the Babylonian Talmud which was put into writing 300-500 AD, it anachronistically has Og being alive centuries before he was born and has him surviving the flood which, again, contradicts the Bible five times—oh, and it has Noah contradicting’s God’s purpose for the flood.

We’re told, “Landa’s search for the truth led him to Gilgal Rafaim (Wheel of the Giants)” and we can see the name-games being played as, “Rafaim” is typically transliterated as, “Rephaim” it’s then merely rendered as, “Giants” and it has nothing to do with, “Nephilim”—but wait, there’s more!!! Landa decides to term it a, “ghost wheel” since, apparently, that’s sexier.

We are also told, “Og also appears in Deuteronomy 3, verse 11, as the only person left from the ghosts” whatever on Earth that incoherent assertion is supposed to mean. Well, okay, I know to what it refers: since according to Pagan mythology, the Ugaritic equivalent of Repahim were long dead kings and heroes who could be summoned from the grave to appear at rituals then some are so utterly fascinated with the un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales of which modern Nephilology consists that they are willing to actually incorporate Pagan mythology into biblical theology—or, Nephilology, or Rephaology, etc.

We are also told, “A rough estimate of Og’s size can be made based on reference to the size of his bed” but note that we don’t have a physical description of him (not until wild folklore from millennia after his time) that we can reckon it via his, “bed” is based on various assumptions, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

So, Nephilim or Rephaim or giant or ghost—it’s all under the big top folks, hurry, hurry, step right up!!!

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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

Randal Rauser (“a systematic and analytic theologian of evangelical persuasion…BA (Trinity Western University) and an MCS (Regent College)”) posted an article titled The Problem of Canaanite Genocide and Michael Heiser’s Solution which begins by noting that since his book, “Jesus Loves Canaanites was released, I have been asked on several occasions about Michael Heiser’s claim that the Canaanite conquest should be viewed as an attempt to eradicate subhuman descendents of the nephilim.”

Now, the bottom line of Rauser theses in Jesus Loves Canaanites is that such instances of conquering aren’t Christ-like so they didn’t happen. It’s basically a world-class text-book classic case of hyper-eisegesis (reading one’s preconceived notions into texts).

Ergo, he takes issue with the exegetical (letting texts speak for themselves) and with Heiser’s view which is actually also a case of eisegesis.

As my recent readers will know from my article Review of Micheal Heier’s “The Giant Clans and the Conquest”, Michael Heiser argued as follows (and as Rauser quotes it):

My view is that it wasn’t indiscriminate at all, and that wholesale genocide wasn’t the point of the conquest. Rather, the command of to “devote to destruction” (herem/kherem) was focused on the giant clans (denoted by words like Anakim, Rephaim, and, occasionally, Amorites).

That is, I believe the rationale for the herem was to eliminate the Anakim, the vestiges of the nephilim (.Num 13:32-33), since those peoples were perceived to be (and were, in some way, according to the OT) raised up by rival gods hostile to Yahweh (and thus their own purpose was to prevent Yahweh’s people from kickstarting the kingdom of God on earth).

Other people were certainly killed, since the giant clans were scattered among the general population, but I contend the conquest rationale was framed by the urgency to eliminate the nephilim bloodlines.

This is textbook “mythic history” (actual historical events framed by, and articulated in light of, theological rationale / beliefs).

Rauser’s view is that Heiser’s view is, “a genocide sourced in ontological inferiority” since it’s a case of that it’s a-okay because they weren’t fully human. Ergo, this comes down to, “what evidence is there that the Canaanites were subhuman and dangerous descendents of the Nephilim?”

His first point only causes problems, “I am aware of no fossil evidence from paleoanthropology to support the claim that there was a large group of subhuman giants living in the midst of Homo sapiens in the Near East.” That is a jump to a merely asserted vague conclusion.

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

Do those two usages agree?

The same could be asked of Heiser (and I asked—and answered—in my article about him). We don’t get an answer from Rauser so I will infer that he implies something to do with subjectively unusual height of some or another level.

Ergo, the answer to the third question is, “No.” That is because the answer to the first one is that it is merely rendering (note even translating) “Nephilim” in two verses and “Repha/im” in 98% of all other instances—and never even hints at anything to do with height whatsoever.

Thus, biblically contextually, “group of subhuman giants” would read as, “group of subhuman Nephilim.” The problem with that, for Randal Rauser’s argument, is that it would mean that he’s unaware of fossil evidence of personages whom we could not identify from such evidence since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim and so no reason to assume they were taller than the subjective average (with the additional problem of how much taller if we even grant that).

He also argue, “the Canaanites could clearly procreate with Homo sapiens…That would certainly support the conclusion that they were human beings.” Yet, that is a non-issue since 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.”

Jude correlates the sin of Angels to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

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

He also notes, “descendents of the Canaanites live today throughout the Near East and they are definitely human. Just look at their DNA.” Thus, part of his point is that, “Human beings have a long history of dehumanizing human out-group populations and seeking to justify that dehumanization by attributing to the out-group a range of circumstantial factors” such as, “ontological factors (e.g. ‘They are less than human!’).”

He is correct on this point and how it ties in with Heiser’s assertions. Those who appeal to the not fully human angle in order to defend God from ethical charges make thing doubly worse: they first deny what the biblical texts actually say, they invent things they don’t say, and those whom they seek to convince that God’s not a bad guy can suss it out and end up (flaccidly) condemning God and the person to misrepresented Him.

See my various books here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

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