Uncategorized – Page 30 – TrueFreeThinker

Before the Flood: WHAT WAS THE WORLD LIKE BEFORE THE FLOOD

The Grace Digital Network YouTube channel posted a video titled Before the Flood: WHAT WAS THE WORLD LIKE BEFORE THE FLOOD which led to the following discussion after a certain (YT user name) @dragonhawkeclouse2264 noted

In the passage you quoted from Job, it doesNOT say angels…..you ADDED that word in there to be able to claim that the “sons of god” were angels

There is far more reason to believe that they were humans, NOT angels……you are twisting passages……and if you have to twist passages, what does that say about your beliefs

TRASH

@kenammi355

Job 38:7 makes it clear that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings and the LXX has that as “Angelos.”

@dragonhawkeclouse2264

i don’t really care what a greek or latin translation of the text says. There is nothing in the book of Job that says that they are angels

it references their existence before the foundations of the earth, and if you know judaism, judaism says that the souls of Israel existed before such

so, fail

@kenammi355

Friend, you jumped right past the context to complain about Greek and Latin. So let’s back up: you say, “There is nothing in the book of Job that says that they are angels” but I noted, “Job 38:7 makes it clear that ‘sons of God’ can refer to non-human beings” so: who are they? I’m going to guess that by “Judaism” you really mean “Rabbinic Judaism” and if that’s the case then I’m unsure what Rabbinic Judaism has to do with a pre-Rabbinic Judaism text.

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

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

@dragonhawkeclouse2264

I will be honest here, i didn’t remember everything i said here….and from looking at the post that you are responding to…..Judaism-what?……Judaism is NOT mentioned ANYWHERE in that comment…..once again you are twisting things to try to make things fit what you want…..you deemed Judaism, not me…..i don’t know why you deemed it to be Judaism, but, oh well

i disagree with Judaism and christianity in MANY places…..and, how am i complaining about the greek and latin?…..i do think that they are inferior…..but, i said nothing about that

i go with the Hebrew, as, the Hebrew is the oldest we have

if we are going to critique the idea of rabbis having anything to say about a pre-rabbinic text, that is all well and good…..the sons of elohim then are other gods, the sons of EL, not angels……Yahweh is one of the sons of EL…….Yahweh was later conflated to be EL….but Yahweh was originally one of the sons of EL

And if you are going to disregard what Rabbis say about Job, why are you going to give any credit to what Jude says, or what Peter says?

I would suggest you look up Dan McClellan, his channel, and an additional channel, Data over Dogma

If you are wanting to go with an Enochian type trandition, that is fine…..i merely present that other doctrines should not be used to support such ideas, when the other doctrines do NOT outrightly and directly say the same things

how about you try dealing with my critique, rather than trying to dismiss it with FALSE claims of rabbinic this and that crap

@kenammi355

Well, one great thing about comment section threads is that you don’t have to remember anything, you just have to read and you wrote, “if you know judaism, judaism says that the souls of Israel existed before such.”

Thus, maybe don’t be so very, very quick to make enemies and make demonstrably false accusations such as, “you are twisting things…”

As for, “how am i complaining about the greek and latin?” well, you said, “i don’t really care what a greek or latin translation of the text says” so, again, stop turning this into you moving the goalpost anywhere and everywhere and please focus on the issue.

You merely assert, “Yahweh is one of the sons of EL…….Yahweh was later conflated to be EL….but Yahweh was originally one of the sons of EL” which is merely a linguistic hop, skip, and jump devoid of substance.

I never claim that I “disregard what Rabbis say about Job” but only pointed out your generic statement.

Now, since you, “i go with the Hebrew, as, the Hebrew is the oldest we have” well, the Hebrew the Hebrews were reading and writing in the first few centuries BC concluded in the Angel view.

How about you try dealing with my critique, rather than trying to dismiss it with emotively moving the goalpost based on faulty memory?

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.

Atheist says reading the Bible, “It’s great if your a fan of fiction”

The Atheist, a certain Cliff Gearhart, stated that in answer to the Quora site question Is the Bible full of serious or minor contradictions?

He noted

The bible is loaded with contradictions, both minor and major.

Read the book. It’s great if your a fan of fiction.

Or simply google the question.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

You’re getting ahead of yourself, or so it seems, since it seems that you’re hidden assumption is that there’s something wrong with (supposed) contradictions but you didn’t say what or why, on your worldview so that would be step number one.

Cliff Gearhart

There are contradictions in the bible.

That’s my answer to the question.

Whether there is “something wrong “ with contradictions has nothing to do with me answer or the question.

Poor, poor Christian victim.

Ken Ammi

Cliff Gearhart

Repeat yourself as many times as you need. Your statement still makes no sense.

Ken Ammi

That which subjectively makes sense to you or not isn’t a standard.

One reason we humans apply laws of logic, systematic critical thinking, etc., is so that you don’t come along, just make up stuff, and demand that we must adhere to you.

You appear to think that it is a universal imperative to begin with a conclusion and jump through your emotively subjective arbitrary hoops because thus saith Cliff.

Yet, your every reply merely piles more proof that your worldview is a collapsed failure since you can’t even take the very, very first logical step.

Cliff Gearhart

It took you this long to come up with this bull[****]?

Contradictions abound in your book of fables. Do you assume that you are the only one who’s read it?

Show me the evidence. Show me how your Bible has no contradictions. They’re everywhere within it.

Have you read it?

Ken Ammi

I understand why you utterly refuse to engage in systematic critical thinking: you can’t.

And you can’t because, again, “your worldview is a collapsed failure since you can’t even take the very, very first logical step.”

Don’t you think that’s odd: I thought that as an Atheist you were supposed to be more evolved than us mere hoi polloi and enlightened to the one real truth about reality and yet, why is it literally impossible for you to just take one single step in the direction of systematic critical thinking.

So now we are at the stage of that since you can’t justify condemning (supposed) contradictions then you can’t complain about them and can’t reject them Bible due to (allegedly) containing them.

But, of course, that’s only if you’re consistent but since there’s no universal imperatives on your worldview then you don’t have to be consistent—which is why Atheists are only ever consistently inconsistent.

Cliff Gearhart

“thought that as an Atheist you were supposed to be more evolved than us mere hoi polloi and enlightened to the one real truth”

I never stated this.

“justify condemning (supposed) contradictions”

The OP asked if the were contradictions. There are. Are you really this thick?

I’m sorry about your indoctrination and/or mental illness.

I really am.

Profile photo for Cliff Gearhart

More word salad.

Try again.

Ken Ammi

“word salad”: Atheist-speak for, “I’m literally incapable of dealing with the issue that I, myself, brought up but I feel an emotion and must lash out in anger at anyone who dares to disagree with me since I’m an Atheist missionary after all.”

Since this time, you merely asserted, “There are” I didn’t realize that you mean, “There are and It’s 100% perfectly acceptable” since I, mistakenly, thought that your hidden assumption was that there was something wrong with contradictions.

Well, at least you’re consistent since on your worldview, there’s literally nothing wrong with contradictions nor any fallacy at all.

Cliff Gearhart

Embracing hypocrisy…

What a typically christian value..

Ken Ammi

Wait so now you want to move the goalpost to you beginning with a merely asserted positive affirmation that I’m hypocritical? Well, is your hidden assumption an implication that there would be something wrong with that? If so then condemning hypocrisy only comes after you elucidate how and why it’s wrong, on your worldview, please.

Cliff Gearhart

Ken, I do (finally) get your concept regarding the acceptance of biblical inconsistencies.

Written by man, though begotten from god. Man is fallible, hence inconsistencies are excusable.

Am i correct? Its a valid and acceptable argument.

I appreciate the goal post reference, btw. Especially today. 😉

Ken Ammi

Moving the goalpost will not help you—even though there’s nothing wrong with logical fallacies such as moving the goalpost, on your world view.

The issues are:

“So now we are at the stage of that since you can’t justify condemning (supposed) contradictions then you can’t complain about them and can’t reject them Bible due to (allegedly) containing them.”

And:

“your hidden assumption an implication that there would be something wrong with that? If so then condemning hypocrisy only comes after you elucidate how and why it’s wrong, on your worldview, please.”

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.

Who are the Nephilim mentioned in the Bible that God wiped out during the flood?

The question Who are the Nephilim mentioned in the Bible that God wiped out during the flood? led to the following discussion when a certain Milan Woodson, “Ordained minister since 1989,” replied

The Nephilim were hybrid sons of angels that had materialized as humans that mated with women on earth. These Nephilim grew as unusually tall, huge and strong men. They were notorious for there feats of strength and violence. Their violence is partly what increased the violence amongst humans at that time before the global flood. The flood wiped out all the Nephilim.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

There’s no indication at all that, “angels…materialized as humans” nor that, “Nephilim grew as unusually tall, huge” nor that, “They were notorious for there feats of strength and violence.” But yes, “The flood wiped out all the Nephilim” which is why there’s never been any such thing as post-flood Nephilim.

Milan Woodson

Angels are sons of God who existed when God founded the earth, long before mankind was created.

“Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?…when…all the sons of God began shouting in applause? Job 38:4, 7

These same sons of God began noticing nearly perfect beautiful women on earth. Human men were already quite familiar with the daughters of men since the beginning since they were their mothers, aunts, cousins, sisters and wives. So the angelic sons of God started taking notice of the beauty of women in a desirable way, which they previously had not done.

“the sons of God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking” Ge 6:2a

This desire motivated them to take women as wives to mate with and bear offspring. The only way for this to happen is if angels transformed into human form, as physical men are. Angels do have such ability as described throughout the Bible.

“and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.” Ge 6:2b

The Nephilim were unusually tall and strong as the Hebrews knew from the stories past down to them from their ancestors, from Noah, his wife and his sons and their wives. They also had the account in Genesis chapter one as a reference. But this was an exaggeration and a lie out of fear, since all Nephilim drowned in the great flood. But their description reveals that the Nephilim we’re usually tall, mighty and strong.

“The Nephilim…the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men and they bore sons to them, they were mighty ones who were of old, the men of fame.” Ge 6:4

“the people that dwell in the land are strong, and the fortified cities are very great…the people are stronger than we are.” Nu 13:28, 31

“all the people whom we saw in the midst of it are men of extraordinary size…the Nephilim” Nu 13:32

Ken Ammi

Friend, I appreciate the detailed reply.

FYI: I literally wrote the book on Angels, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.”

Now, you are quoting and applying scripture but note that you then just assert, “The only way for this to happen is if angels transformed into human form, as physical men are. Angels do have such ability as described throughout the Bible” but the problem is that you stop there and don’t provide quotations or citations for that.

You wrote a very cryptic paragraph since I’m unsure what you mean by, “The Nephilim were unusually tall and strong as the Hebrews knew from the stories past down to them from their ancestors, from Noah, his wife and his sons and their wives” for which there’s zero evidence.

“They also had the account in Genesis chapter one as a reference. But this was an exaggeration and a lie out of fear” but that chapter doesn’t state anything about Nephilim at all.”

“since all Nephilim drowned in the great flood. But their description reveals that the Nephilim we’re usually tall, mighty and strong” yet, Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood but we’re never reliably told whether they were “unusually tall” or not: we just don’t know.

Recall that I noted:

Milan Woodson

“There’s also no indication “Falen angels…materialized.”

Yes there is. In order to impregnate a woman they had to have had been in physical form as men.

“There’s no indication “angels are spirit creatures”

Yes there is, read the Bible.

“And he came riding upon a cherub and came flying, and he came darting upon the wings of a spirit.” Ps 18:10

“Making his angels spirits” Ps 104:4

“because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens” Col 1:16

“every creature that is in heaven” Re 5:13

Angels also can transform into human form and back to angelic form.

“When he raised his eyes, then he looked and there three men…At this point the men turned from there and got on their way to Sod′om…Now the two angels arrived at Sod′om by evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sod′om” Ge 18:2, 22; 19:1

“The angel of the true God…vanished from his sight.” Jg 6:20, 21

“I’m unsure whence you got the idea that “They naturally look like the body silhouette of a man but shine with the brilliance of a star…a human of fire or plasma.”

I get my information from the scriptures. I don’t know where you get your notions from. They are not human, but the human form, specifically the male form, exemplifies their natural form. But, angels also have wings.

“when I founded the earth…the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause” Job 38:4, 7

“there was the likeness of four living creatures, and this was how they looked: they had the likeness of earthling man.” Eze 1:5

“he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire” Heb 1:7

“stars mean the angels” Re 1:20

There are more Scriptures that reveal this. I just provided a few for you to read.

Ken Ammi

Note the disconnect, you know that, “In order to impregnate a woman they had to have had been in physical form as men” so you invent, “Falen angels…materialized” but the biblically verifiable facts are that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology. Thus, there’s no need to invent an un-biblical story about that, “Falen angels…materialized.”

For some reason you moved the goalpost when I commented, “There’s no indication ‘angels are spirit creatures’” but you replied about, “a cherub.”

Also, note that it matters since you committed a few logical fallacies, but please read various versions of that verse which actually follow the context and right have “winds” rather than “spirit”: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%2018:10

Likewise with Ps 104:4, you don’t seem to be reading for context but are just searching for a single word and are then just copying and pasting. That Psalm’s context is obviously constant correlations to natural phenomena thus, it should read “winds” rather than “spirits”: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20104:4

Col 1:16 and Re 5:13 clearly have nothing to do with this.

You also invented, “Angels also can transform into human form and back to angelic form” which you then read into texts that say no such thing: again, you’re making up pseudo-data points that are also unnecessary. You began with the wrong premise so you feel the need to inset an assertion where none is needed.

See, “there three men” but you invent they transformed back and forth even though there’s zero indication of that.

“angel…vanished” didn’t change form: they can be visible or invisible, appear or disappear but you insert that they’re not material and must materialize into a text that states no such thing.

Indeed, “the male form, exemplifies their natural form” which is what I’ve been saying and you argue against me when I say it so you’re arguing against yourself.

When you insist, without any indication, “angels also have wings” you are making a category error that violates the law of identify since you appear to be referring to non-Angels in order to wrongly assert Angels have wings.

You appear to think that the celestial balls of gas we call “stars” are Angels but if so, that’s shockingly incoherent. Indeed, “stars mean the angels” in the text you’re reading, not in the universe.

You don’t seem to be aware that Heb 1:7 is quoting Psalm 104:4 so that was already dealt with.

And overall, none of this changes the biblically verifiable facts are that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

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

See my various books here.

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

Dealing with, “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?”

The question 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? led to the following discussion

Scott Spears

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?

Since you mentioned “Watchers”, the Book of Enoch is a fraud and so do not take it as scripture. One assume that the Book of Enoch was quoted in Jude but the Book of Enoch plagiarize that verse from Jude. Ask Jesus for discernment because that verse in Enoch reads as scripture but not in the same style as all the other writings in that same Book of Enoch.

Enoch chapter 18 is about God punishing certain aspect of creation that did not come forth for when He had called and that alone opposes the truth in verse 11 in the accepted scripture below.

Isaiah 55: 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

The Book of Enoch is a lie and therefore a fraud for there can be no lie of the truth.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

Jesus said this about angels….

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

So the sons of God in scripture were never angels, let alone “fallen angels” because why would God perform an unholy union for the women to be called “wives” to them in His words? He would not and so the sons of God were of the godly lineage of Seth which is the roots of Israel’s family tree that married outside of that godly line of Seth with other lineages from Adam, even Cain’s.

Since Israel were also known as the “sons of God” but no longer as only Christians are known as “sons of God” when born again of the Spirit.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

One day in the future, the Jews of Israel will believe in Jesus Christ and become the sons of God again.

Zechariah 12:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

11 In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

Ken Ammi

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

Please be careful about generically stating, “Jesus said this about angels” when He was much more specifically speaking about, “the angels of God in heaven” thus, the loyal ones.

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.

As for, “the godly lineage of Seth…godly line” that’s a myth based on prejudice and you appear to be saying that only exclusively males of that godly line were such terrible sinners (what was their sin?) that their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.

Scott Spears

Hi Ken Ammi, One should consider that if the angels in Heaven were never created to reproduce, then the same applies to fallen angels.

And the irony is that God would never perform a union with daughters of men with fallen angels if you think about it. He would be aiding and abetting in their sins if that be the case; a rather unholy matrimony. By the way, He is not marrying same sex couples nor human beings to animals either. So it is not happening for the women to be called wives in His words to “fallen angels”.

And certainly, fallen angels cannot be identified as the sons of God.

So now for Job 38:7, when the sons of God got together, and Satan was among them, Job was among the sons of God both times for God to point him out twice to Satan in John 1:8 & Job 2:3.

Do we not worship God in creation? Then so were the sons of God and Job was among them. God reminding Job of what he sang with the sons of God in Job 38:7 regarding how God laid the foundation of the earth was a pivotal moment for Job to eat his own words.

Now for proving the godly lineage of Seth as Israel’s family tree. You can read the genealogy in Luke 3rd chapter but the connection is here in this verse below.

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

So that is evidence of Israel’s family tree. They used to be known as the sons of God by blood lines and by conversion to Judaism, but now that Christ has come, we, the believers, are known as the sons of God.

Romans 8:14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

So hardly a myth for how the sons of God were before Christ came.

Maybe, God be willing, you can put out a second book correcting your first book? It just might sell more than the first book.

Ken Ammi

Well, the fallen ones did something they were never created to do, they weren’t supposed to: that’s what makes them sinners.

Indeed, “God would never perform a union with daughters of men with fallen angels” which is why they, “left their first estate” in order to do so, as Jude put it, and, “took them wives.”

Thus, that does away with, “He would be aiding and abetting in their sins” but be careful since I could much more easily argue, “God was aiding and abetting in the sins of Adam and Eve by placing a forbidden tree in the garden.”

As for, “fallen angels cannot be identified as the sons of God” I’m unsure why you assert that but, fine, Angels are identified as such before, right up until, they sinner but never as such after their sin.

Careful, you mashed together Job chaps 1, 2 and 38 but you can’t do that since 38 is about how the sons of God witnessed the creation of the Earth so Job was definitely not “among the sons of God” in that case, it’s just not the case that, “Job…sang with the sons of God in Job 38:7” since it’s not, “regarding how God laid the foundation of the earth” but rather, “when I laid the foundation of the earth” which was, “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy.”

I’m unsure how Luke 3 proves an entire, “godly lineage of Seth” and also unsure by whom, “They used to be known as the sons of God by blood lines” or how they had a, “conversion to Judaism.”

I didn’t refer to, “a myth for how the sons of God were before Christ came” and I understand that “sons of God” refers to more than one thing. The myth is that an entire lineage was godly and another entire lineage was ungodly.

But if Sethites were so godly, why were they such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood?

Also, why only exclusively male Sethites and only exclusively female Cainites?

Scott Spears

Hi Ken Ammi;

You should consider that their first estate is being of the kingdom of Heaven and not suddenly, they are able to make themselves able to reproduce with mankind when God did not make them that way in the first place.

Plus His commandment is for man to multiply as He commanded the living things to reproduce after their own kind. If a dog mated with a cat, nothing is going to happen because His word says only after their own kind are they able to reproduce.

The fact that in spite of this union of the sons of God with the daughters of men, they were still men, men of renown, giants for some, but still men.,, and they died like men.

Celestial beings cannot reproduce with terrestrial beings.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Now if they were sons of God as angels, and yet not fallen yet, then why would God marry them off when angels are not marrying nor given in marriage as Jesus testified?

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

If the sons of God were fallen angels, why identify them as sons of God in His words? If He would not marry the angels with mankind, then surely He would not marry fallen angels with mankind. God is not an idiot.

And yet the daughters of men were called wives to these sons of God in His words and so God did join them, thus leaving them with only one conclusion in truth that the sons of God is a term the Israelites used as a family reference to their godly family tree tracing them back to Seth.

God is not joining couples in same sex marriages. God is not joining human with an animal in a marriage ceremony either.

God is not going to perform an unholy union for why your application of putting that tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden as being the same thing when it is not.

What God joins together in a marriage covenant by His action is not the same thing as putting that forbidden tree in that Garden of Eden & telling Adam not to eat from it.

Sons of God cannot refer to anything else other than Israel’s family tree otherwise that would be confusion in His words. They would just call angels as angels.

The godly lineage of Seth before the flood as that sons of God, married outside of the godly lineage as the daughters of men entails other children by Adam & Eve besides just Cain.

If you consider for when Israel became a nation, it was forbidden to marry immediate family members then but not before since Abraham married his half sister, Sara.

So you can see the usage of the sons of God back then to learn from history not to marry outside of the 12 tribes of Israel. But history did repeat itself when marrying Philistines and learning their ways and their gods for why Israel has backslidden so many times, and punished by God for it too.

So not a little metaphorical foot note at all but real history.

As for mixing Job 1 & 2 chapters with 38, how can you rectify 38 with Job 1 & 2 when Job was mentioned among the sons of God TWICE in Job 1 & 2?

Therefore you and many like you are misunderstanding what God is saying to Job in shaming him by that reference in Job 38 as the only way He can shame Job is because Job was with the sons of God when they sang songs of worship about Him laying the foundation of the earth even though Job nor the sons of God were there when it had happened.

May God cause the increase… as I know I cannot.

Ken Ammi

Indeed, “their first estate” was, “being of the kingdom of Heaven” which is from where they absconded in order to sin.

I’m unaware of any indication of such as thing as, “suddenly, they are able to make themselves able to reproduce” and that, “when God did not make them that way in the first place” is a merely invention.

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.”

Angels and Nephilim are called man/men so that’s a non-issue.

“Celestial beings cannot reproduce with terrestrial beings”: I’m unaware of anyone in all of history who claimed that any and all “Celestial beings” can reproduce with terrestrial beings, this is about Angels.

It appears that you’re no familiar with the material you seek to comment upon (which is okay since we all have to learn sometime) since you say, “why would God marry them off” when the whole entire point is that God did no such thing, such is why they’re considered sinners. I already told you, “Indeed, ‘God would never perform a union with daughters of men with fallen angels’ which is why they, ‘left their first estate’ in order to do so, as Jude put it, and, ‘took them wives.’”

As for, “angels are not marrying nor given in marriage as Jesus testified” there’s no indication of any such thing. Please re-read what you quoted since you missed the point. You asserted, “angels are not marrying nor given in marriage” as an all-encompassing statement. Yet, you missed Jesus’s words, His emphasis, His qualifying statement, His point since he spoke of, “angels of God in heaven” ergo, the loyal ones.

You will have to ask God, “why identify them as sons of God in His words?” All I can tell you, again, is that as per Job 38:7, as a direct route, it can refer to non-human beings.

Agan, you keep writing in terms of, “He would not marry fallen angels with mankind” but you discredit yourself when you keep doing that since, again, now one ever claimed anything like that.

You then pose a non-sequitur since you merely assert that, “wives” has to only mean “God did join them” which is incoherent. You just argued that the word “wives” has to only mean “God did join them” but the word “wives” is used in lesbian same sex marriages but now you say, “God is not joining” those so your argument collapsed.

Now, please stop arguing just to argue by looping back to issues I already addressed but ignoring those and merely repeating your assertions. As you did above, you repeat, “godly family tree tracing them back to Seth” but you merely sidestepped, “As for, ‘the godly lineage of Seth…godly line’ that’s a myth based on prejudice and you appear to be saying that only exclusively males of that godly line were such terrible sinners (what was their sin?) that their sin served as the premise for the flood so, that’s rather odd.”

Since you’re arguing based on a faulty premise, your point about the tree is a non-issue.

You then invented that God is only allowed, by you, to only refer to any one thing by only one word but that’s incoherent. In fact, you say, “They would just call angels as angels” but why would God or ancient Israelites use a modern English word? In fact, “Angels” are called Malakim, bene ha Elohim, ben Elim, elohim, ‘ir.

Yes, I know you hold to a late comer of a view based on myth and prejudice so merely continuing to assert your assertion doesn’t answer any of the questions about it that you ignored.

Yes, many centuries post-flood, “it was forbidden to marry immediate family members” but what of it, especially when you admit, “but not before since Abraham married his half sister, Sara.”

Friend, please read a text before appealing to it as some sort of defeater: there’s zero indication that in, “Job 1 & 2…Job was mentioned among the sons of God.”

So, you ignore issues that are inconvenient to your man-made tradition, you invent stuff and then argue against yourself, you manipulate God’s word (hopefully out of literal ignorance and being slopy), and then you engage in (subconscious?) projection when you complain, “you are misunderstanding what God is saying…”

But as for Job 38: it states what it states, as I proved to you, but you invent a fantasy scenario in order to protect your late-comer of a man-made tradition: please repent.

Scott Spears

Hi Ken Ammi.

You should consider that original heavens and earth was a part of that kingdom of Heaven as God did walk among Adam & Eve in creation and so when Adam had sinned and thus brought death and decay into creation, the heavens and the earth was separated from that Kingdom of Heaven along with the serpent that was in it for how Satan did fall from his place from that Kingdom of Heaven.

Now for the angels; Jesus plainly sated that they do not marry nor given in marriage thereby testifying to the purpose of the creation as not formed to reproduce at all.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Now think about that for a moment; if angels can change their state then what assurance will we have that we will not change our state and be able to reproduce again? And if we could do that, then why mention that we will be like the angels that never marry nor given in marriage for that would make God a liar if in turn angels can marry & be given in marriage?

And why would Jesus testify to the power of God in regards to the firstfruit of resurrection if angels can marry & be given in marriage? It would be an empty vain boast, and again a lie, would it not?

You should consider that the Book of Enoch is a lie for how it mirrors Greek & Norse “gods” mingling with mankind.

In Enoch 18th chapter, in the heavens in God’s throne there are supposedly stars and things in creation that are being punished for not coming forth when God commanded them to come forth.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

A lie and therefore the Book of Enoch is a lie as there can be no lie of the truth in scripture.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

No way are angels. let alone fallen angels, would be married by God to mankind for them to be called “wives’ in His words for neither one marry nor are they given in marriage as a celestial being cannot reproduce with a terrestrial being.

But if you are sold on that mentality of the mythical gods mingling with mankind, it will take a miracle from the Lord to set you straight since you are not applying His words in His discernment to reprove good from evil teachings by His words in rightly dividing the word of truth.

Ken Ammi

I’m unsure how, “original heavens and earth was a part of that kingdom of Heaven as God did walk among Adam & Eve in creation” since the actual original heaven was whence the sons of God witnessed the creation of the Earth.

Thus, “the heavens and the earth was separated” ontologically.

But then again, you refer to “heavens” plural and the first heaven is the Earthly atmosphere.

Thus, “Satan did fall from his place” in the third heaven.

Note that you spoke generically but Jesus spoke very specifically:

You, “Jesus said this about angels” in general, “angels are not marrying nor given in marriage” in general, “angels; Jesus plainly sated that they do not marry nor given in marriage” in general.

Jesus, “the angels of God in heaven” specifically so, the loyal ones which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first estate” as Jude put it.

The reason why, “we will not change our state and be able to reproduce again” is because we’re told we won’t. Again, this was not about, “be like the angels” but be like, “the angels of God in heaven.”

I’m unsure why you tell me, “You should consider that the Book of Enoch is a lie” when I already told you, “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.’”

I’m unsure why you tell me, “celestial being cannot reproduce with a terrestrial being” when I already told you, “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.’”

It seems that you’re not interested in the biblical data anymore and will just ignore it and will just repeat yourself as if you haven’t been replied to.

But if you are sold on that mentality of the late-comer of a mythical and prejudicial view, it will take a miracle from the Lord to set you straight since you are not applying His words in His discernment to reprove good from evil teachings by His words in rightly dividing the word of truth.

Scott Spears

You are mistaken about the reference in Job as if the sons of God were there when He laid the foundation of the earth when God was just pointing out to Job being among the sons of God that sang about what He had done in creation weekly in their presentation to the Lord, that Job was not there; even though he should know better because he was singing songs about that with the sons of God.

As for selling that mentality, the Book of Enoch is a fraud and because of its existence is why you are influenced by that false teaching in seeing the sons of God as angels rather than the godly lineage of Seth.

Since Christians are now the sons of God, then so was Israel by blood and Gentiles converted to Judaism before Christ came for how believers in Jesus Christ are now the sons of God.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

There is no reason for God to use a term sons of God to represent angels when it is a reference for Israel’s family tree. I have shown more than enough scriptures to you that traced lineage back to Adam as signifying him as a “son of God” but you seem to gloss over it as if it has no effect on your belief.

So before you judge me as being of that mindset as if influenced by teachings outside of the Bible, you should “discern” with Him that you are the one because of that fake Book of Enoch as scripture cannot go against scripture for why Enoch is not accepted as scripture.

May the Lord help you see the truth in His words.

Ken Ammi

You, “You are mistaken about the reference in Job as if the sons of God were there when He laid the foundation of the earth.”

Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements—surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

You, “God was just pointing out to Job being among the sons of God that sang about what He had done in creation…”

Job, “______________________” (as in, nothing).

As I already noted, there’s zero statements about Job being among the sons of God.

So, you’re making up stuff, again, just to protect a name-made tradition.

I’m unsure why you’re playing mind reader regarding “its existence is why you are influenced.” So, why influences got you to believe a late-comer of a view based on myth and prejudice?

You say, “There is no reason for God to use a term sons of God to represent angels” but, again, Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).

Now, since Jude and 2 Peter 2 refer to a sin of Angels there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible: what and when was their sin?

Of course, “scriptures to…traced lineage back to Adam as signifying him as a ‘son of God’…has no effect” because I already know that one word, term, or phrase can refer to more than one thing and be used in more than one way.

Scott Spears

It is this part here you are not discerning “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy”. That is nowhere written in scripture for Job to know that nor us either. So the only way that point can be for Job was Him addressing how he was among the sons of God that shouted for joy over His wonderful acts of creation even though they were not there when it had happened. They as well as we can see the wonders of creation and we sing songs to that effect as well even though we were not there either.

All His questions to Job was that he was not there when He did all of those acts of creation and yet Job was there with the sons of God singing about it.

Like Job should have known better.

Ken Ammi

Friend, it’s utterly incoherent that you know about, “when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy” which was told to Job but then you claim that neither we nor Job, “know that.”

As for, “the only way that point can be for Job” was, “the Lord answered Job…and said.” Please, please just read God’s word can manipulating it and discrediting yourself in the process for your love of protecting a man-made tradition.

Indeed, “All His questions to Job was that he was not there” so God is telling Him about what happened, “when” it happened.

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 Solomon Island Giants and The 4 Giant Brothers of Goliath

The Consciousness YouTube channel posted a video titled The Giants From The Solomon and The 4 Giant Brothers of Goliath which led to the following discussion.

@karenbrummond8507

The military knows where they all are.

@master2uall88

The United States military has Nephilim bodies and the resurrection chamber of Gilgamesh and the body of Gilgamesh from the 2003 archaeological dig that they kicked the German archaeologists out of there when we invaded and that was 2003 that they found that Resurrection chamber and Gilgamesh body and other Nephilim bodies experiments on those bodies when they got them back to the United States at military classified bases. The email about this find in Iraq in 2003 is still on our own government website

I, @kenammi355, chimed in with

And how do you know that?

@doomfathertm8771

Some not all.

@kenammi355

@doomfathertm8771 So then, “The military knows where” some “are”? Where are those some?

@doomfathertm8771

@kenammi355 there’s one inside a mountain in Alaska they found using remote viewers, probably how they found the one Phil Schnieder talked about and the one they took the Lazar crafts from. Most of the bases are automated and never anyone actually there

@kenammi355

@doomfathertm8771 In the spirit of iron sharpening iron, let’s use this thread as an example of the incoherent manner in which pop-Nephilologists (who make a living by selling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians) have people discussing such issues:

1: the vid is about, “Giants and The 4 Giant Brothers of Goliath”: referring to subjectively unseal height as “Giants” is to not agree with the usage of the word “Giants” in English Bibles and there’s no indication that Goliath’s brothers were “Giants.”

2: the vid notes, “there exists a race of giants – descendants of the biblical Nephilim” which is impossible since they didn’t make it past the flood (since, you know, God didn’t fail). Moreover, if the vid is about Goliath and his brothers then that’s a category error since they were Rephaim, not Nephilim (again, nor could they have been).

3: the vid notes, “the biblical account of the Nephilim to the depictions of such in ancient architecture and cave writings” but what “depictions” since we’ve no reliable physical description of them?

4: the vid notes, “the Nephilim and the subsequent appearance of giants in various parts of the world” which, besides the misuse of the term “giants,” is not verifiable due to what I noted in 3—as Gary Wayne put it, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.).

5: karenbrummond asserted, “The military knows where they all are” which is as generic as it sounds.

6: master2uall told us about , “The United States military…2003 archaeological dig…German archaeologists…when we invaded…2003…the United States at military classified bases…find in Iraq in 2003” and the citation was, “our own government website” without any indication of a url or record title.

7: I kept asking for supporting data (even some citation) and doomfathertm replied, “there’s one” but one what: Rapha, Nephil, what?, “inside a mountain in Alaska” which is a bit of a vague citations since Alaska is a pretty big place. And we can know that because some unnamed, unquoted, and uncited, “remote viewers” said so when some unnamed, unquoted, and uncited “they” apparently said so—somewhere, at sometime, in some place. And it must be true because the mental patient Phil Schnieder, “talked about” that even though I don’t recall him talking about Rephaim nor Nephilim but only, “aliens.” And also because, of something to do with the convicted pimp and fake pseudo-scientist, Lazar. Plus, doomfathertm is well informed enough to inform us that, “Most of the bases are automated and never anyone actually there” whatever that has to do with anything.

And so we learn that it’s fun to merely assert tall-tales but the only fact we learned is that such tall-tales are told premised on being vague, watering down and misusing terms, and attempting to top the previous tall-tale teller—oh, and that zero of this has anything at all to do with the Bible whatsoever.

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 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?”

The question posted to the Quora site was 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? to which a certain Sam Dragut replied

the word Watchers is interchangeable with the word messengers & angels but not Nephilim

the main reason for this is because the angels main function on earth is to watch & witness, & record the goings on in this earth. they don’t get involved unless ordered to

however once a watcher leaves his job working for god they no longer classify as a watcher

The Nephilim are not angels. they are the children of a mixed union between a human and other sons of god who moved to earth . however despite the false claims of the book of Enoch these are not angels but humanoids very similar to us from other planets who sided with Satan in his rebellion & were ousted from their own home and moved here to make earth their new home. this is why we have so much evidence of extra terrestrial activity & advanced technology because some of these came from advanced technology planets. Some used their knowledge for selfish purposes & did much evil. this is the purpose of the flood. it’s a reset of earth. humans are now creating similar technology.We’re no different. we’re using it to create weapons to destroy each other instead of helping each other. we are returning to the state of the earth before the flood. Jesus coming is another reset.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Actually, “angels main function on earth is to” deliver messages: that’s the literal meaning of their job title, Malakim.

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

I’m unaware of any “other planets who sided with Satan…”

Sam Dragut

What was the last time you received a message from god using an angel?

there are billions of angels on earth. that’s a lot of messages. what was the last time you met anyone who saw an angel delivering a message? your “literal” meaning is so far removed from reality it would make me laugh if it wasn’t sad.

your information comes from mythology & fantasy. Messengers doesn’t mean what you think it does. they deliver the will of god, they are not a post office. your understanding is very basic. as to Nephilim being half-Angel and half-human that is as far from humanoids as it gets. you try to cross mosquito with human DNA. i can guarantee it won’t be a humanoid . you can’t cross the wind with flesh except in fantasy.

Ken Ammi

It would be fairly tricky to know when I would have received a message from God via an Angel since, by definition, it’s be tricky to know who is an Angel, “some have entertained angels unawares” (Hebrews 13:2).

As for, “‘literal’ meaning” that’s not mine, it’s been the standard understanding for millennia: please see my books, “What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology” and “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010” and “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” [all found here]

Oddly, I noted, “deliver messages: that’s the literal meaning of their job title, Malakim” and you seem to agree but just feel like arguing, for some reason, so you affirm that but opt for a synonym, “deliver the will of god” whatever that means.

I’m unsure how, “half-Angel and half-human” wouldn’t be “humanoids” (feel free to throw that word out if you want) since both of their parents look just like humans. I’ve no idea what you’re going on about “mosquito with human DNA.”

Sam Dragut

God is not ambiguous like Satan. if god sends you a message using an angel that angel will identify who he is, who sent him & why. He will not make you guess. When God has a message for you i promise you that you will know it comes from God. deception is not his style.

i’m saying that you can’t mix fire with timber & expect another tree to grow except in fantasy.humans share approximately 98% of their DNA with pigs, and house cats share about 95.6% of their DNA with tigers, but you can’t have sex with a pig & expect children. Angels are made of fire & energy. we’re not DNA compatible by gods standards especially given what their creator said. Angels are not given reproductive or creation ability. this is pure human invention.

the bible description of angels as messenger or servants Hebrews 1:14 & protect the righteous (Matthew 4:6, Luke 4:11). They dwell in the heavens (Matthew 28:2, John 1:51), act as God’s warriors (Matthew 26:53) and worship God (Luke 2:13). In the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, angels behave as psychopomps.

it is presumptuous to choose one & assume this is their job. it is not presumptuous to assume they are created to serve their creator in whatever task they are given. i can tell you that on this earth their main function is as observers & record keeping not delivering messages.

The views of early Jewish and Christian commentaries spanning from 250 BC to the 5th century AD regarding the “sons of God” of Genesis 6 that includes notes on giants & the Nephilim. From Adam to Christ, is 3974 years, six months, & 10 days;. these commentaries are at best a guess based on cultural beliefs at the time. I find it amazing how humans are so ignorant & prefer to believe human lies rather than the creators own words. Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection neither do men marry nor are women given in marriage, but they are like angels in heaven [who do not marry nor produce children]. AMPC.

Ken Ammi

FYI: when you urge me to ignore God’s word for your say so, it’s not a difficult choice.

I’m unaware of any indication that “Angels are made of fire & energy.”

You also merely assert, “we’re not DNA compatible…Angels are not given reproductive or creation ability” but 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.”

I’m unsure to what you’re referring by “what their creator said.”
I’m unsure why you assert “it is presumptuous to choose one & assume this is their job” after I noted, “‘angels main function on earth is to’ deliver messages”: there’s a categorical difference between “one” and “main.”

You’re merely asserting “these commentaries are at best a guess based on cultural beliefs at the time.”

You’re also merely asserting they are, “human lies.”

You seem to not have paid close enough attention to Matthew 22:30 since Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His qualifying term, His point was about, “angels in heaven” ergo, the loyal ones, which is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate,” as Jude put it.

Friend, just making up stuff is no way to rightly divide God’s word.

Sam Dragut

you add up 2 plus 2 and come up with 13. its not even worth replying. your mind is closed to understanding the truth. your understanding is so warped that if a dead person came from the grave to correct you i think you’d prefer to believe the lies you’ve been taught. do your research. angels are not made of the same DNA material & Matthew 22:30 is not talking about the place of residence but about sex & reproduction. you remind me of someone who was so warped they twisted the bible to try to prove homosexuality is biblical. do you even know what Jude means by “first estate”? good luck

Ken Ammi

I see that your man-made tradition has failed you so terribly that you’re going to pull a tactic like the Atheists do and run away from issues that are devastating to it with a mere, “its not even worth replying.”

As for, “do your research” well, I’ve familiarized myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data so, what am I missing? For example, I wrote the following books:

“What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.”

“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.”

“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.”

You say, “angels are not made of the same DNA material” but it’s biblically demonstrable that 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.” But see, I already told you that but you find it inconvenient to you merely repeat yourself rather than arguing against facts.

As for, Matthew 22:30 Jesus’ words, His emphasis, His qualifying term, His point was about, “angels in heaven” ergo, the loyal ones, which is why those who did marry are considered sinners. But see, I already told you that but you find it inconvenient to you merely repeat yourself rather than arguing against facts.

And I’m not interested in your styled gnostic parting shot.

When your modus operandi it what it is it just proves that your man-made tradition fails you which is why you have to manipulate and ignore God’s word and merely double, triple, quadruple (or whatever number you’re on) assertions.

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.

Could there be descendants of fallen Angels today?

The following discussion took place due to the Quora site question: Could there be descendants of fallen angels today?

A certain Paul Manning, self-identified as, “A keen Bible student,” replied

The idea of fallen angels has its origins in the rather salacious fiction known as the Book of Enoch but many people have been convinced—without evidence—that it is supported in the Bible.

It’s popularity can thus be put down to none other than the human desire for corruption and intrigue among celestial beings. If the story was in the Bible we could safely consign the entire gospel message to the scrapheap because the implication would be that God’s trusted immortal servants are as corruptible as any human being, thus no proclamation from heaven could be relied on.

The bemusing aspect of the whole charade is that for centuries highly qualified scholars have failed to correctly interpret the ancient idiom “fallen from heaven” as an astrological term but choose to read it as commentary on events for which they have to manufacture the backstory.

In his Book of the Watchers, Enoch fills in what he imagines to be the missing details from Genesis 6, another trap for those who without batting an eyelid, boldly lay charges of spiritual wickedness on the doorstep of heaven itself.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

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

Paul Manning

Using a passage in Job to interpret Genesis 6 is an interesting tactic to give you a quick answer.

The argument that Peter and Jude speak of angelic misdemeanor is a huge assumption given that aggelos is a Greek word carried over into English. Again, it gives you a quick answer without disturbing the truth out of its muddy puddle.

Ken Ammi

Using a passage in Job to interpret Genesis 6 is an application of hermeneutics.

I’m unsure whence you got the concept of “misdemeanor”: misdemeanors traditionally don’t get you eternally condemned. Nor do misdemeanors serve as premise for a flood.

Yet, it’s not an assumption but that which both Jude and Peter told us about the sin of Angels.

Paul Manning

So that went over your head.

Peter and Jude spoke of leaders who went astray, and cited Old Testament examples. There is no such example of angels doing anything, so you cite Peter as proof that your version of Genesis 6 is true, then cite Gen 6 as proof the other way, in blatant circular reasoning. I informed you that aggelos is not limited to God’s messengers but you don’t seem interested in anything that gets in the way of your good story.

Aggelos means messenger or envoy, and the Old Testament reference is clear because of their notable fate.

Ken Ammi

Peter and Jude spoke of leaders who went astray, and cited the Old Testament example of the Angels who went astray.

Who were the Gen 6 and Job 38:7 sons of God?

By “fate” did you mean “feat”?

Paul Manning

Hi Ken, the sons of God in Genesis 6 were the descendants of Seth and Job 1 refers to God’s angels. Peter and Jude cite the rebellion of Korah from Numbers 16.

Ken Ammi

Well, that “the sons of God in Genesis 6 were the descendants of Seth” is a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice and which only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

I didn’t ask about Job 1 but, sure, plus 2 and 38.

I’m unaware that Korah engaged in sexual sin.

Paul Manning

Korah’s sin was an example of judgment on rebellious teachers usurping authority. Jude covers the same ground, dealing with false teachers coming into the ecclesia who badmouth the apostles, deny the true Christ and preach licentious doctrines. He specifically mentions Korah.

Both Peter and Jude mention that these leaders ‘revile angelic majesties’ which implies they teach the crass novel, the Book of the Watchers as if it were true. That is where the ‘sons of God’ is taken to mean God’s angelic host, entirely without evidence. The ‘Enoch’ book was a bestseller because people love that kind of thing.

The two genealogies are in chapters 4 and 5. Context is important in Bible interpretation. Did it not occur to you that there were just two major tribes in those days separated by some distance overland?

Ken Ammi

Yes, he “specifically mentions Korah” and specifically mentions Angels and the sin of the two specify one key difference: there’s no indication of sexual sin in the Korah scenario but there is regarding Angels.

I’ve no idea how you jumped from “Both Peter and Jude mention that these leaders ‘revile angelic majesties’” that that this “implies they teach the crass novel, the Book of the Watchers as if it were true”: that’s not an implication, that’s an inference and an unviable one.

It’s flummoxing that you asserted, “‘sons of God’ is taken to mean God’s angelic host, entirely without evidence” after having admitted, “Job 1 refers to God’s angels.”

Indeed, “The ‘Enoch’ book was a bestseller because people love that kind of thing” and it’s Bible contradicting folklore form centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah, see my book, “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch”

What make you think that only exclusively males from one of the “major tribes” married only exclusively females from the other and what was so very wrong about it that it served as the premise for the flood?

Paul Manning

Korah is an example of “gainsaying” and usurping authority which was the problem in the ecclesias Peter and Jude had to address.

Peter and Jude refer to wayward leaders who ‘revile angelic majesties’. One can’t say specifically what reviling he refers to, but it is certain that the ‘Watchers’ story is a long, detailed, and fictional blasphemy against heaven itself.

Peter mentions aggelos, so whether he means divine or human is open to interpretation. “Angels”, in English, suggesting God’s host, is entirely supposition.

You should not be flummoxed by my criticism of scholars who insist that ‘sons of God’ must must be interpreted according to Job 1 usage. It must be interpreted according to context. The context of Genesis 4-6 has not a single mention of angels but is linked to the previous chapters which provides the genealogy of the sons of Adam, and states that they “called upon the name of the Lord”.

Ken Ammi

Korah is only one of the many things mentioned by Jude and Peter so I’m unsure why you’re fixated on him.

You just merely asserted that the overwhelming of Christians for millennia, including the earliest ones for centuries, held to “fictional blasphemy against heaven itself” are you thereby condemning them all to eternal damnation based on an issue that doesn’t even make it to secondary?

“Peter mentions aggelos, so whether he means divine or human is” made clear by that he and Jude combined place their sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual since which fits the Genesis 6 affair.

As for, “The context of Genesis 4-6 has not a single mention of angels” you’re just missing that in that case, “sons of God” is an a.k.a. for Angels.

You bypassed, “there’s no indication of sexual sin in the Korah scenario but there is regarding Angels.”

You bypassed, “I’ve no idea how you jumped from ‘Both Peter and Jude mention that these leaders ‘revile angelic majesties’’ that that this ‘implies they teach the crass novel, the Book of the Watchers as if it were true’: that’s not an implication, that’s an inference and an unviable one.”

You bypassed, “What make you think that only exclusively males from one of the ‘major tribes’ married only exclusively females from the other and what was so very wrong about it that it served as the premise for the flood?”

Paul Manning

Korah is only one of the many things mentioned by Jude and Peter so I’m unsure why you’re fixated on him.

Not fixated; your red herring/adhominem. (Considering our discussion so far, your comment is hilarious).

The blasphemous accusation against angels of God continues to this day based on an the most popular of two possible interpretations of scripture. You have a choice. #2 You brought damnation into it, not me.

That’s funny because you invoke an ‘order of mention’ rule to establish it yet Jude places the event after the Exodus, just where it should be if he refers to Numbers 16.

As for, “The context of Genesis 4-6 has not a single mention of angels” you’re just missing that in that case, “sons of God” is an a.k.a. for Angels.

That is an assertion. You can’t create a rule of interpretation to cover all contexts. ‘Sons of God’ is also an a.k.a for believers.

You bypassed, “there’s no indication of sexual sin in the Korah scenario but there is regarding Angels.”

There is no sexual sin listed in Genesis 6:1–5. The offenders in v 2 ‘took wives’ which is not an offence unless there is a caveat; specifically marrying outside their believing community. Angels are never implicated either before or after the event. The sin in Genesis 6 is listed as ‘wickedness’ and ‘evil thoughts’, but one can assume the general run of murder, robbery, oppression, bisexuality, and beastiality were on show.

Explain why it is unviable. “Watchers” happens to be blasphemous against the angels and lewd at the same time. There are subtle links in the letters to that book. The leaders Jude refers to are ‘ungodly men’ marked out for condemnation. It isn’t stated exactly what they taught.

The record says that the offenders ‘saw’ that these women were ‘beautiful’. Of course they were males, it is only their identity in dispute. You now have to answer why angels waited until this time to ‘see’ that women (all?) were ‘beautiful’, and explain why they, as immortal beings (who neither marry nor are given in marraige) came under the spell of sexual desire.

You are the one who has asserted that this brought the flood, whereas we already know that wickedness and anarchy was rife on Cain’s side of the border, and that there were Nephilim there.

Genesis 6 informs us that those two different worlds came together snuffing out any remaining righteousness.

Ken Ammi

Friend, please don’t argue just to argue and observing (which I’m about to prove correct) that you’re fixated on him isn’t a red herring/adhominem by definitions.

I appealed to Jude to for the contextual reason that he (and Jude) reference sinful Angels (and tell us the when and why of their sin). You fixate on Korah exclusively and ignored, “Jesus Christ…James…God the Father…certain people…ungodly people…God…Master and Lord, Jesus Christ…Jesus…people out of the land of Egypt…angels who did not stay within their own position of authority…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities…glorious ones…the archangel Michael…the devil…Moses…The Lord…animals…Cain…Balaam…clouds…winds…trees…autumn…waves…foam…Enoch…Adam…the Lord…holy ones…grumblers, malcontents…loud-mouthed boasters…the apostles…our Lord Jesus Christ…scoffers…the Spirit…beloved…the Holy Spirit…God…Lord Jesus Christ…God, our Savior…Jesus Christ our Lord,” etc.

And, you neglected to tell me why you think that Korah engaged in sexual sin. It is the Jude text that corelates the sin of Angels to sexual sin.

So, what does your pastor think about you maliciously and ignorantly condemning hundreds of thousands of Christians through the centuries to eternal damnation based on as issue that isn’t even secondary?

Clearly, Peter wrote chronologically, Jude didn’t: what of it? There’s no logical nor hermeneutical requirement to write chronologically. You’re still left with having to ignore Peter just because what he said, under inspiration, doesn’t fit your man-made tradition.

Indeed, “‘Sons of God’ is also an a.k.a for believers” and “Sons of God” is also an a.k.a. for non-human beings.

You still bypassed, “jumped from ‘Both Peter and Jude mention…’” to that this, “implies they teach the crass novel, the Book of the Watchers as if it were true.”

I’ve no idea what you mean by, “‘Watchers’ happens to be blasphemous against the angels”: Watchers is just an a.k.a. for Angels.

Okay, I see what you’re saying: you’re merely asserting that there were no “beautiful” Sethie women.

I don’t have to, “answer why angels waited until this time to ‘see’ that women (all?) were ‘beautiful’” since they saw that when they saw it. You might as well answer as to why Sethite males waited until this time to see that Sethite women weren’t beautiful but Caininte women were. But, pray tell, when was, “this time”?

See, you’re not only prejudice against the character of Sethites and Cainites, you’re also prejudice again their appearance.

I’m unaware of how, “immortal beings…came under the spell of sexual desire” is any sort of issue since humans are immortal beings and come under the spell of sexual desire on a regular basis. As for Angels, “neither marry nor are given in marriage” please stop manipulating Jesus’ words, especially after having been corrected.

What makes you merely assert, “we already know that wickedness and anarchy was rife on Cain’s side of the border”?

“Genesis 6 informs us that those two different worlds came together snuffing out any remaining righteousness”: indeed, well said, sinful Angels and humans.

Paul Manning

Sorry I can’t follow your reasoning.

Ken Ammi

I’m starting to understand why you hold to a late-comer of a view that’s a man-made tradition.

How about just answering the question then?

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.

Video review: “How Tall was Goliath?”

This review is of a video titled, How Tall was Goliath? (feat. Toasters)

Of the “fearsome Philistine giant,” the video notes, “no one can quite agree on the giant’s size.” This is an issue because the vague, subjective, generic, and multi-usage English word “giant” is being used in an undefined manner which leaves the audience to guess the usage.

Now, the context, “How Tall was Goliath?” stacks the usage deck to imply something about unusual height but then “giant” is as subjective a word as “unusual.”

In any case, we are told, “where the Bible sees Goliath at approximately 10 feet tall, there are other arguably more plausible sources that have him a bit shorter at the more realistic height of about seven feet in.”

This is actually hyperbolic in both directions 1) how “the Bible sees Goliath” and 2) “other arguably more plausible sources.” Let us see who this pans out.

We are told, “in the first book of Samuel chapter 17, scroll down to verse 4 and it will describe the giant Goliath as six cubits and a span…a monstrous nine foot nine inches.”

Note that biblically, “giant Goliath” is to be read as “Repha Goliath” since when English Bibles use the word “giant” it implies nothing about height whatsoever but is either rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” or “Repha/Rephaim.”

It is noted that, “as with many of the tallest people who have lived is often the result of certain growth disorders. Gigantism is a condition when the human body over produces a certain hormone” and on it goes but we should see the height related rest of the data before getting into that.

Yet, it is noteworthy that “Goliath measuring at nine foot nine inches would have put extreme pressure on his body due to the structure and density of human bones.”

In part, this is due to that growth is exponential and so a person who is, say, as tall as a telephone pole would not be as slim as one: they would also grow in width and depth, in girth. Thus, “he simply would not have been able to stand upright with such mobility issues it’s doubtful that he would have made such a good warrior as depicted in the Bible story.”

The video then moves on to that “Goliath isn’t the only giant in the Bible. In fact, there’s a whole slew of them, some of whom may even be his ancestors…in the book of Genesis we are introduced to the Nephilim…appear again in the book of Numbers where they are described as being so tall that normal humans look like grasshoppers in comparison.”

So “giant” which contextual to Goliath is to be read a Repha is now being used contextual to Nephilim to mean just that yet, both usages are left to imply something about unusual height when such is not the case in either case.

Note that generic nature of the statements in that “in the book of Genesis” and “in the book of Numbers” and moving on to “where they are described as…” without interacting with the narratives and asking key questions such as in those books but who said it, in what context, how where the statements received, etc.

In the case of Genesis, the context is a historical narrative but in the case of Numbers the reference is to the contents of an “evil report” by embellishing, contradictory, disloyal, unfaithful men whom God rebukes: in short, they present five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows absolutely nothing.

But wait, there’s more!!! “there are actually plenty of other giants in the Old Testament like the Rephaim, the Zamsumim, and the Anakim” (see Deuteronomy chap. 2).

This, sadly, denotes an utter lack of detailed research. The video makers do not realize that they cannot say “other” ones include Rephaim since they began with a Repha.

They also cannot say “other” ones including “Zamsumim” since that is merely an a.k.a. for “Rephaim.”

They also cannot say “other” ones including “Anakim” since they were a Rephaim subgroup—and guess what, Goliath was a of the Philistine (regarding locale), Anakim (subgroup), Rephaim (main group).

The video makers recognize some of this, “in the book of Joshua we are told this last group of giants” Rephaim, “the Anakim settled in Gaza in the Philistine city of Gath and you know who else came from Gath? Goliath. It may explain his great height.”

But in order to show that he was a “giant” of the proposed height since we have only been told Anakim were “giants.” The only Biblical data we have about their height is that they were “tall” and that is subjective to the average Israelite male who, in those days, was 5.0-5.3 ft.

Continuing, “In the Bible we learn that Goliath has a brother Lami who is also a giant some have seen this as proof of gigantism in Goliath’s family” but what that proof is, is never elucidated—this is another merely generic assertion.

Based on what, as you will see, is partial data, the video makers speculate that Goliath’s recorded height, “could just be artistic license exaggerating the height of this mythical warrior” or “an error in the transmission of the text.”

We are told, “the version of the Old Testament that we’ve got today is called the Masoretic text…the Masarites who lived from the 7th to 10th centuries CE” with “CE” being an anti-Christian manner of saying, “AD.”

Of course, that “the,” as in singular, version we have being the Masoretic is myopic: I mean, I, myself, published a version of the Septuagint/LXX.

The video notes something about it, “a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint…around the 3rd to the 2nd centuries BCE,” anti-Christian for “BC, “this older Greek version…offers a different height instead of six

qubits and a span he’s now four cubits and a span doing the math again that puts him at the height of six foot nine inches.”

Indeed, yet, the claim was, “the Bible sees Goliath at approximately 10 feet tall” versus “other arguably more plausible sources that have him a bit shorter” but this is about one set of Bible manuscripts versus another set of Bible manuscripts not “the Bible” vs. “other…sources.”

Indeed, the older than Masoretic manuscripts of the Septuagint/LXX have him at the shorter range as do “other…sources” such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and also Flavius Josephus.

Thus, his height was not outlandish, it offers no hint of necessitating physical problems, and is still contextually quite tall—even though the real issue with Goliath was that he was a “champion”: a trained, experienced, and successful warrior.

The video then speculates about simple textual errors from the LXX to the Masoretic.

Thus, overall, a good conclusion is reached even if based on missteps along the way.

For more details, see my relevant books.

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 Future of Atheism, Internal Critiques, and Nuance

Future of Atheism:

Future of Atheism will be “Christian Atheism.”

Since Atheism can only copy but corrupt, forms of “Christian Atheism,” by any other name, have been around for a long time. This includes Atheist “churches,” by any other name such as “Humanism.”

In fact, arch-Atheist Richard Dawkins has self-identified as a “cultural Christian.”

Since when Atheists argue against Christianity—in fact, against the biblical theology as a whole—they are sawing off the branch on which they sit then some Atheists are starting to experience rare moments of clarity and so they beg, borrow, and steal from the very worldview-philosophy-theology they seek to discredit.

As G. K. Chesterton put it in his book Orthodoxy’s chapter “The Suicide of Thought”:

But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything.

He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist.

And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything.

For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

Neo Atheism will be a Christian whitewashed sepulture filled with a worldview that failed before it even began, a thing that is utterly collapsed and merely upheld with as much believability as was Bernie in the movie Weekend At Bernie’s—a dead thing made to seem alive.

Internal Critiques:

Along with such rare moments of clarity there comes neo-Atheists demanding to conduct internal critiques: basically, momentarily taking on a worldview which one does not hold in order to critique it from within.

For example, during my debate (aka the night of 1,001 interruptions) with Skylar Fiction, he was forced to admit time and again something that he has been forced to admit time and again (and again [and again]) that while he has literally made a name for himself by condemning the Bible and thus, Christianity, he actually cannot condemn anything (viably) because he is a moral relativist.

Now, consistency is not a universal imperative on Atheism but from some whereabouts he seems to have gotten the idea that if he was consistent than that would end his career as an Atheist missionary.

Thus, during a recent debate, he began by stating that for the purposes of the (contra Bible) debate he would grant objective morality.

It was both a brilliant move as well as one that utterly discredits him beyond repair.

It was brilliant because—since his interlocutors simply accepted it—he would not have to deal with all of that bothersome consistency stuff and have to admit that he cannot actually participate in the debate because he wants to fire and brimstone condemn but know that he cannot do so (cogently).

Yet, it also utterly discredits him beyond repair because when a debater begins by abandoning their position then, by definition, by default, they have instantly lost the debate.

Now, here is when it can get a little tricky. You see, it is actually not uncommon for a debater to say words to the effect of, “If I momentarily grant you that X, then…” This denotes a temporary internal critique.

Yet, it is quite a different matter altogether when one begins by granting because otherwise, they have no manner in which to critique based on their own worldview.

The issue is just what it is to do internal critique and I will add to the initial definition that it is much like putting on a glove. The glove is this lifeless, unanimated thing that is collapsed and just laying there. I then pick up the glove and insert my hand into it in order to see what it can do or rather, what can be done with it, what I can do with it, in fact.

Thus, for example, when I momentarily grant an Atheist’s worldview I am actually sneaking in my worldview into it. I suppose that theoretically, an utter, complete, 100%, unbiased, neutral internal critique may be possible. However, since on Atheism, for example, logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there is no universal imperative to adhere to logic, nor to demand others also adhere to it.

This means that if I truly fully and exclusively grant, as in take on, an Atheist worldview then the whole procedure comes to a grinding halt since the moment I grant it I need no longer be logical and so there is nothing left to do.

Yes, even though Atheists will beg, borrow, and steal from the biblical worldview since otherwise, they can only assert that they will adhere to logic as an emotively subjective personal preference du jour (now this, of course, would still be based on the Atheist’s hidden assumptions which must still be exposed). Yet, this means that the Atheist cannot then demand adherence to logic since demanding adherence to logic would, in this case, mean demanding adherence to an accident based on the Atheist asserting conforming to their emotively subjective personal preference du jour.

For more, see my article An Internal Critique of Internal Critiques.

Nuance:

The future of Atheism, internal critiques, and nuance form one package. In this case, due to what I noted in the previous two points, Atheist are attempting to be more nuanced, to find a niche, to lubricate their views so they become much more slippery and hard to pin down.

For example, during a recent discussion (see video here) with a well, whatever he may choose to call himself—that was part of the issue—I noted to a certain chap that he was sounding like a materialist, he objected that he is not a materialist, and I noted that I did not claim he was one but that he sounded like one—this is actually part of nuancing a discussion.

He sounds exactly like a materialist, just like an Atheist missionary, but claims that he is not because way far down in .0000000000000001% of his mind there may possibly be an inkling that Atheism is not true, God is real, etc.—at least that is how I am characterizing it.

You see, if he actually is a materialist then I can aim various arguments against materialism yet, he argued exactly like a materialist but did not want to be held to it—did not want to sleep in the bed he was making.

The way I will put it is that he is a 99.9% materialist but since he is not 100% then anti-materialism arguments just bounce off of him. In other words, he is nuanced enough—at least conceptually even if not functionally—that he has some wiggle room, or so it seems to himself.

Another example is Skylar, again. Now, his opening statement was essentially that since he experiences feelings then (relative) morality is based on his feelings. Since he self-identifies as Atheist and evolutionist then I was arguing that he is asserting that (relative) morality is to be based on what on his view is an accidentally existing ape’s accidental ability to interpret accidental feelings, etc. but he cut me off to claim that I could not hold him to what are his views, after all, because he used to be a Christian and was then a deist.

Now, as utterly incoherent as that is, his point was to attempt to be so nuanced that I could not hold him to his current position because he used to hold to different positions—or something. The impression I got was more along the lines of that since he has changed his mind before, he might do so again at some point so that he could not be held accountable for his current position—or something.

Conclusion:

These are merely three examples of the way things seem to be going with Atheist who—at some or another level of consciousness—seem to discern that their worldview is a fundamental level collapsed failure but are not ready to give up their Atheist missionary endeavors—aka, want to keep rebelling against God.

For more details, see my books on Atheism.

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.

Rev. Michael Coren claims Jesus would wave the Pride rainbow flag

Having written the books In Consideration of Rev. Dr. Mel While on Christian Homosexuality and The Occult Roots of Postgenderism: And a History of Changes to Psychiatry and Psychology I was fascinated to read Rev. Michael Coren’s article What would Jesus do during Pride? Simple — he’d wave the rainbow flag and march in the parade (June 21, 2021).

Coren describes himself as “straight, married, ordained Christian cleric” an “Anglican cleric” specifically. Yet, he is merely borrowing the long debunked assertions of homosexual ordained clerics and laypersons.

What I found most fascinating is the window into his thought (or rather, feelings) process and noting the many relevant facts that he did not bother including. Now, I am granting that he, for example, wrote a book titled, “Epiphany: A Christian’s Change of Heart & Mind over Same-Sex Marriage” which surely includes more details and yet, having written such a book, he should ergo be that much more aware of the importance of working in certain factual details into writing even an article (an article to which one cannot post comments, by the way).

He goes on to describe himself as “one who until around eight years ago opposed equal marriage and was considered an opponent of the LGBTQ community. But people change, thank God. Literally in my case, thank God.” This tells me that his opposition to traditional Jewish and Christian views on homosexuality began when condemned, corrupt, fallen, and secular and pagan (at once) culture kicked its pro-homosexual PR marketing campaign into turbo-high-gear and told him it was acceptable.

And yet, this is not just about “Same-Sex Marriage” but about “the LGBTQ community” as a whole. Thus, this “ordained Christian cleric” approvingly celebrates homosexuality and bisexuality and transgenderism which must mean that he not only approves of “Same-Sex Marriage” but also of “marriage” between more than two people since such is what bisexuals would do and also “marriage” between people who self-identify as a genders other than their birth one because they are at whatever stage of supposed transitioning. Is there any sexual practice that this “ordained Christian cleric” opposes?

But why claim that Jesus would supposedly “wave the rainbow” “Pride” “flag and march in the parade”? After all, it is clearly a sin!!!

How could this “ordained Christian cleric” not know that it is a sin?!?!?!

Well, Coren claims, “the theology is entirely clear” and it is, just not the way he conveniently selectively appeals to it. We are very, very clearly told, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18, RSV). This is merely one of many, many biblical statements about that pride is not a virtue but is a vice, it is sin!!!

Note that Coren capitalizes it since he is referring to an activist movement that calls itself after a blatant sin, “Pride.” This alone is a major issue and a troubling window into Coren and that activist movement that he celebrates.

We have an “ordained Christian cleric” openly celebrating a sin, and a movement that identifies itself with sin!!! Speaking of Rev. Dr. Mel White, he has stated, “I am gay, I am proud, and God loves me without reservation.”

That being said, we will have to see what Coren has to say about homosexuality (he, conveniently, does not bother discussing B and T in the article but only L, G, and Q—which all refer to homosexuality).

One reason that Jesus would supposedly wave the rainbow Pride flag and march in the parade is that “Jesus doesn’t refer to what we now define as homosexuality (a word not coined until the 19th century), and lesbianism is never mentioned in the Old Testament.”

There are at least three issue with which to deal here (which denotes how simple it is to make generic assertions and yet, how cumbersome to review them):

“Jesus doesn’t refer to what we now define as homosexuality”: actually, Jesus does not refer to any form of homosexuality—not directly.

Yet, Christianity is not, I repeat not, based exclusively on what Jesus did or did not say but upon what circa 40 authors wrote, which is found in an anthology called The Bible.

What did Jesus say that is contextually relevant? Well, when He was asked a question about marriage, He replied:

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.”

Thus, the gender binary was created since God “made them male and female.” This is God’s created order for genders (which were traditionally called sexes). This was also God’s created order for marriage since “a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to” whom? To “his wife,” meaning no shacking up but only living together once married. And that is when God’s created order for sensual and sexual relationships are to be engaged in since, that is when “the two shall become one flesh.”

Thus, indeed, “the theology is entirely clear” in that Jesus made it crystal clear that such is God’s created order for the genders/sexes and for marriage and living arrangements and for sex and ergo, for families—did you note that “a man shall leave his father and his mother…” was stated to Adam and Eve who did not have parents? Thus, it is clear that this was establishing a template. Ergo, any deviation from this template is unacceptable. This is Jesus’ concept of gender/sex, marriage, households, sex, and family.

“(a word not coined until the 19th century)”: we should ponder what his points is in noting this. I happen to know that it is not just linguistics nerd trivia since that features a such a major part of pro-homosexuality propaganda that an entire film is being made about it, see my Is “1946: The mistranslation that shifted culture” the misconception that discredited a claim?

The bottom line is that 2.a) we Jews have understood that homosexuality is a misguided acted out desire for millennia before the 19th century AD and for millennia before the New Testament was written (since that statement is about one word in the NT) and 2.b) that a word was coined to express a concept denotes that the concept already existed thus, homosexuality existed long before the word homosexuality was coined. Knowing these issues, I discern that his point is that “Jesus doesn’t refer to what we now define as homosexuality” since how it is “now defined” (an example of his disregarding of the original historical, cultural, and grammatical contexts in favor of neo cultural influence) as perfectly acceptable committed same-sex couples (so he must condemn unmarried/uncommitted same sex couples, right?).

“lesbianism is never mentioned in the Old Testament”: this is irrelevant but informs us that Coren does not seem to be engaging in the meta issues (to the level of Jews who had Shabbos Goyim to do for them what they were not allowed to do) since he is not affirming that God’s created order, as elucidated to the first two people who ever existed, is the template whether every single deviance was elucidated or not.

In fact, Coren will go on to refer to “men using boys for sex” which is not condemned in any such words in the Bible but which is conceptually condemned due to it being a violation of the template since 3.a) that is not about a man and a woman but a man and a boy (in terms of age) 3.b) and is also about two males rather than a male and a female.

See what I mean? All of that was just to reply to one sentence.

Coren also wrote, “When St. Paul writes on the subject, he condemns straight men using boys for sex — usually in pagan initiation rituals — and not people of the same gender having loving relationships.”

Anyone who has read the Bible know that it states nothing about “men using boys for sex” not about such during “pagan initiation rituals” nor about “people of the same gender having loving relationships” (this is what I meant by his neo cultural influence).

Again, knowing this territory, I know that what he is doing is seeking to sidestep what it so very clearly stated in the Bible by appealing to invented imaginary (and illegitimate) loopholes.

He is so very aware that the Bible condemns that which he seeks to approve that he must find ways to massage it to the point that it is actually approving of that which it really condemns: Coren is urging us to derive a meaning from texts that is the 100% exact opposite of that which the texts are actually really stating in their own contexts, concepts, and contents.

He offers another such example but this time, with actual biblical backing (a quotation):

“As for the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it wasn’t linked to homosexuality until the medieval period. If you doubt me, read the Bible.

Ezekiel: ‘This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.’”
Indeed, such was the statement about it in Ezekiel and it denotes that Sodom and Gomorrah had multiple problems. In any case, their sexual issue would have not been homosexuality anyhow but bisexuality—or so it would seem—or a combination of the two (or more sexual issues, actually, since they engaged other sexual deviances as well).

Thus, to exclusively appeal to Ezekiel is to engage in Coren’s modus operandi: being selectively conveniently myopic.
He then admits biblical condemnations of homosexuality but seeks to wiggle around them:

“Those few prohibitions that do exist in the Hebrew Scriptures are part of an ancient guide for an ancient people, and also restrict certain combinations of cloth and the eating of various foods — all considered irrelevant in modern Christianity.”

Now, of course, “few” is subjective and, as I chronicle in my book contra Mel White, the Bible condemns homosexuality more often than it condemns murder.

Now, he seems to emphasize “ancient” in order to then emphasize (his generic statement) “considered irrelevant in modern Christianity.”

Thus, he is throwing out the ethical baby with the ritualistic bathwater. It is not true, or should not be, that “modern Christianity” considered such created order violating prohibitions to be irrelevant. Yes, Coren’s brand of “modern Christianity” does consider it that way but such is part of what discredits it, and he.

The NT is specific about food laws no longer being in place (Mark 7:19, Galatians 2:14, Acts 10:9-16, etc.) but no such thing is ever stated about the created order, the template, no longer being in place: in fact, we saw that Jesus was very specific about that it most certainly is.

Coren spikes this by adding, “They also, by the way, justify selling one’s children into bondage” whereby he seems to be disapproving of the Old Testament. Yet, he is merely being emphatic without telling us that he is referring to having one’s offspring (he seems to use the term children for emotive effect) work for someone to whom the family was in debt when the family was unable to pay the debt back monetarily.

Coren notes, “If we’re to take the Bible seriously, which I most certainly do, we can’t always take it literally” and, apparently, his modus operandi about determining when to take it literally and when to not do so is that we should not take it literally when it is literally very clearly condemning that which condemned, corrupt, fallen, secular and pagan (at once) culture tells him is actually acceptable—and worth to be accepted, praised, celebrated, paraded about with waving flags, etc.

He goes on to write:

“There is one story in the Gospels, however, that might be relevant. Jesus is approached by a centurion; the Roman explains that his slave, whom he loves dearly, is dying. Would Jesus heal him? He does so, and praises the man’s devotion.

Based on the specific Greek words used, and the mocking attitude 1st-century Jews had toward their oppressors regarding their sexuality, it’s highly likely that those who witnessed this, and those who read about it in the early church, would have assumed that the two men were in a same-sex relationship.”

This is clearly made up stuff—and based on that which he subjectively considers, “highly likely” and “would have” been if.

Yet, what is the point? That because Jesus healed the slave He therefore approved of a supposedly alleged “same-sex relationship”? That would certainly be an incoherent conclusion and a misapplication.

Also, why say “the early church, would have assumed” rather than quoting anyone within the “early church” who actually assumed any such a thing—or, for that matter, anyone before June 21, 2021.

Yet, again, I am aware of the desperate attempt to read homosexuality where it is clearly not: in my noted book I deal with assertions that David and Jonathan and even Ruth and Naomi were homosexual—bypassing that it would actually mean they were bisexual and yet, there is no indication of any such thing and if they were then it would be spelled out utterly bluntly in the Bible itself.

Coren rightly notes, “Isn’t it interesting what happens when we understand the context and history of scripture, and read it without preconceptions and prejudice?”

Yet, we have been seeing what happens when he initially understood the actual context and actual history of scripture but gave those up for postconceptions postjudices (as in post hoc) that Coren has brought into it as an exercise in eisegesis rather than exegesis.
Another direct claim as to why he can even imagine that Jesus would wave the rainbow Pride flag and approvingly march in the parade is that “He stood with the oppressed, the rejected and the marginalized…He preached a shining new message of love, justice, tolerance and change.”

Yes indeed, Jesus did those things. Yet, the key issue is that He stood with the oppressed people, the rejected people and the marginalized people.

In other words, Jesus befriended such people, even such blatant sinners like prostitutes yet, He never once approved of their sin, nor accepted their sin, not celebrated their sin, nor paraded in favor of their sin whilst waving a flag denoting their sin.

Coren misses this fact 100%. No amount of emphasizing, “shining new message of love, justice, tolerance and change” can change this fact.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 reads, “neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Now, I am not quoting this for the reason you may think. Note the correlation, in terms of not inheriting the kingdom of God by adulterers and homosexuals.

Now, John 8:3-11 notes:

“The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?’

This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.

Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.’

And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.

Jesus stood up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.’”

Now, besides what may have been going on in the background—Jesus writing on the ground and then referring to which of them were without sin—what Jesus did not do is to call for His apostles and disciples to sew an adultery flag and parade around for adultery acceptance.

Note that due to the circumstances (such as there is more in the background since “they said to test him”) Jesus does say “Neither do I condemn you” (as actually “no one condemned” her—not legally anyhow) but He does say “sin no more” and not, something to the likes of that “Well, if it is true that you were committing adultery then go right back to it, be proud of it, and I will demand that everyone accepts it, approves of it, celebrates it, and parades in favor of it.”

Coren ends with many emotively exaggerated and utterly generic statements against traditional Christianity (virtue signaling at its worse).

He wrote that Jesus “criticized the legalists, the judgmental and the pedants who twisted holiness into hatred,” even as Coren is being judgmental and is employing un-holiness into hatred for traditional Christianity.

Also, “The time will come when organized Christianity will look back to its homophobia with shame, just as it looks to racism as a filthy stain and sometimes an open wound.” May the time come when people within Coren’s circles will look back to its homosexual approval with shame.

Disapproving of homosexual has always been and still is biblical, racism is not since, for example, “behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (Revelation 7:9).

Coren’s circles consist of what he puts as that, “Many churches have already moved on, apologized, and now work to repair the damage they caused.” Yet, this is part of the generic and emotive nature of his assertions. He might as well write of “the damage they caused by condemning heterosexual adultery.”

He then takes it up a notch with a series of emotional bombs, “people have suffered for too long…horrendous persecution and violence…This outrageous obsession shames Christianity….reactionary bigotry…”

He also ads, “there are many in the church — some of them with political influence even in Canada — who believe that people can be ‘converted’ from who and what they are, as if there is something wrong and bad about them. God forgive such malice!”

He live in Canada (which explains a lot) but what of people “in the church…who believe that people can be ‘converted’ from who and what they are” in terms of sexual deviances?

Well, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, that I stopped quoting at “neither…will inherit the kingdom of God,” actually goes on to state, “And such were some of you.” Coren cannot seem to conceive that as real as abusive persecution of homosexuals (or any in the LBGTQIIAPPR+ groups) has shamefully been at time, part of that suffering has been because they have chosen to carry out sinful lifestyles—and are proud of it.

Coren leaves us with that “authentic faith is about acceptance, not exclusion” which is shockingly incoherent in part because it is uselessly generic.

His ultimate take away point is, “Pride should remind Christians of that” rather than, apparently, that we all have sins that we love oh, so very much but of which we must repent.

I will leave you with a quotation which helps to evidence that the greatest danger to a person tends to come from their in-group and not from without.

The following was stated by long-time homosexual activist Harvey Fierstein (Op-Ed for The New York Times entitled, “The Culture of Disease,” July 31, 2003):

“So we produced advertising, created enlightenment programs, spent endless hours making certain that having AIDS or being H.I.V. positive was nothing to be ashamed of. We did a great job. Maybe too great a job. After all the effort exerted to convince the world that AIDS is not a gay disease, we now have a generation embracing AIDS as its gay birthright…Many of our young men see infection as a right of passage [sic], an inevitable coming of age. I hear of them seeking the disease as entree into the cool, queer inner circle that being negative denies them…

Unlike the photos in the ads we see, most of my friends who are on drug cocktails [to treat H.I.V.] are not having the time of their lives. They spend mornings in the bathroom throwing up or suffering from diarrhea. They spend afternoons at doctor’s appointments, clinics and pharmacies. And they spend endless evenings planning their estates and trying to make ends meet because they are not well enough to support themselves and their new drug habit. And those are just the friends for whom the drugs work. For many women the cocktails are nothing but a drain on finance, internal organs and stamina…

We have done a terrific job removing the stigma of having AIDS. But in doing so we’ve failed to eliminate the disease. H.I.V. is an almost completely avoidable infection. You need to be compliant in some very specific behaviors to be at risk. In fact, if every person now infected vowed that the disease ended with him, we could wipe out the ballooning number of new infections. Instead, we’ve sold our next generation into drug slavery and their destiny to medical researchers because we’d rather treat each other as sexual objects than as family…stop minimizing the infection with cute little names like ‘the gift’ or ‘the bug.’” [emphasis added for emphasis].

Postscript:

I emailed this to Coren:

“Good day,

I pray I find you well.

Hoped to request a bit of elucidation since it was not clear to me, after having read your article ‘What would Jesus do during Pride? Simple — he’d wave the rainbow flag and march in the parade’ why you think that Jesus would celebrate Pride.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Ken Ammi”

His reply was:

“Here’s my book. Enjoy.

[The url to his book being sold at Amazon]

Thanks and blesings [sic.].”

I replied:

“Thank you so much for the speedy reply.

So, if I read it: will I find out why Jesus would celebrate Pride even when, as one mere example, Proverbs 16:18 informs us ‘Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall’?”

Yet, that was all since he never replied again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, for more details, see my book In Consideration of Rev. Dr. Mel While on Christian Homosexuality and also The Occult Roots of Postgenderism

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.