Category: Uncategorized

One reason that I didn’t include Ryan Pitterson in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers—which, after all, is subtitled: A comprehensive consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.—is that I could only spend so much on gathering books to review and I did end up perusing circa 80 of them.

I may have to publish a follow-up to that book as some researchers are becoming more pop. I decided to write a bit of a review of the The Wolf AND The Shepherd PODCAST show Episode 134 – Judgment Of The Nephilim With Ryan Pitterson.

He notes, “a Nephilim in scripture, so the term itself is an Aramaic term that was borrowed into the Hebrew language and it really means giants” and no, he doesn’t define giants.

Some technical linguistic notes: “a Nephilim” is compounding singular and plural since “a” is singular but “Nephilim” is male plural thus, the statement should have been “a Nephil.”

Now, that word was not borrowed into Hebrew and that it’s Aramaic in origin is speculative.

He’s actually referring to the etymology so, the root, not the word. If form Hebrew then Nephilim has its roots in naphal which refers to fall/fallen/to cause to fall, etc. and if from Aramaic it has its roots in naphiyla which, well, Dr. Michael Heiser, in particular, claims that it means giant which raises two issues:

1. When he tells us it means giants he, like Pitterson, doesn’t tell us what he means by giants. Yet, he’s come to the same conclusion as I which is that no one, no giant, mentioned in the Bible is taller than right around 8 ft.
2. This becomes battle of the credentialed scholars since Dr. J. Edward Wright notes, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants.”

Pitterson refers to, “Genesis chapter 6 is where they’re introduced…the Nephilim, and they were giants they were super human sized.” Yet, Genesis 6 neither states nor implies any such thing. He’s committing two errors:

1. He’s committing the word-concept fallacy whereby if someone is called a giant (or naphiyla) then they must be subjectively unusually tall. Yet, such is a non-sequitur as well since, for example, I’ve been called giant many, many, many times and I’m 6 ft. even.
2. The second one is what we will get into next which is actually relying on an evil report.

One of the interviewers noted this to Ryan Pitterson, “the next mention of the Nephilim is, I think, Joshua and this is when Moses has led the Israelites out of Egypt…they send the spies into the promised land and the spies come back and they say we saw the Nephilim…there are certain people that say well, they look at [like?] Nephilim because of the old stories as like the boogeyman.”

Pitterson replies:

“I think they were really giants, that they were actual Nephilim and, you know, when you think about that, like, you set it up perfectly right, so: this is Moses and Joshua now, they’ve, this is at right after the exodus…they see three Nephilim giants in the promised land and the spies come back and say there’s no way we can take the land right?

They come back and say God cannot give this land to us so that tells me right there that this wasn’t just that they saw a boogeyman or a real tall guy, that these were true giants and also the great detail about that chapter…Numbers chapter 13 is that when they scout the land they brought back fruits.

And it says the grapes, they have a bunch of grapes, and two men it takes two men carrying one bunch of grapes on a pole on their shoulders that they have to carry back. That’s how, that’s how large they were. So, even the agriculture of this area from where the giants were inhabiting was supernaturally large.

So I think that these, uh, these were real Nephilim giants hybrid offspring and it wasn’t just that they exaggerated or they were scared of a boogeyman or anything like that.

And I think that’s why the scripture calls them, in Hebrew, Nephilim is the word, as you said…the root of the term is giant, the meaning, the original meaning, of Nephilim in Aramaic is giant and so I even talked about how in the oldest version of the Old Testament we have today, the oldest version is the Septuagint, which, of course, is a Greek translation from paleo Hebrew, from the old ancient Hebrew and the word they use is gigantes in that chapter, so they’re just calling them again giants.”

Let us unpack this:

One issue is the generic nature of the references such that we’re told that it was about “the spies…They…say” but he fails to distinguish, at least that this point, between the spies: two, Caleb and Joshua, stated no such this as that “God cannot give this land…,” that was the ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and whom God rebuked for presenting an evil report.

Thus, all indications are that the Israelites saw no such thing as giants, Nephilim, nor giants, Nephilim (except they did deal with Anakim who were “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft.), it was just the ten who merely asserted they saw them.

As for the grapes, note that he jumped form what the text stated, which placed emphasis on the “bunch” to that “that’s how large they were.” Now, if he means that the bunch was large then by I’m unsure how a large bunch from a fertile land flowing with milk and honey can be said to have been supernaturally large. Thus, I suspect he was actually taking the pop-pop-research view that the individual grapes were supernaturally large, which is something about which the text does not even hint—see chapter, “Here Be Giant—Grapes!” of my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

Just as generic is that Ryan Pitterson states, “the scripture calls them, in Hebrew, Nephilim …” but “the scripture” makes it clear that such was merely recording an utterly unreliable evil report.

As for the Septuagint, gigantes means earth-born which is part of why when certain English versions render (do not even translate) Nephilim as Giants neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic nor Greek nor English imply anything about height at all.

Moreover, the Septuagint renders (do not even translate) Nephilim and Rephaim, and also gibborim all as gigantes—which only caused problems. FYI: you don’t have to know any language very well to realize that words as different as Nephilim, Rephaim, and gibborim all mean the same thing—especially when gibbor is merely a descriptive term that might/mighty.

Now, Ryan Pitterson’s assertion of post-flood Nephilim raises another question, which he was asked, which is, “how did they survive the flood?”

He replies, “my belief, definitely, is that the Nephilim DNA traveled through on the ark and specifically through the wives of Noah’s sons and even then more specifically Noah’s son Ham.”

There’s actually no need to even delve in this since such a tall tale was invented by people who asserted post-flood Nephilim but had to evidence to back that thus, they just invented a way to get them through the flood—that must have been a loophole that God missed.

This is how he argues the tall-tale-loophole:

“…all flesh had corrupted himself and corrupted itself. So, by the time Noah’s sons were old enough to take wives and had their own children, the odds of finding a woman who was pure blood human were probably slim to none.

And even the way, uh, Noah is described in Genesis, it says that he was a just man and perfect in his generations and that term perfect, in Hebrew tamim, refers to physical perfection. It’s the same term you use for a sacrificial lamb as, to be a lamb without blemish, that sacrificed to the temple that that without blemish is tamim.

So, I think what the Bible is telling us that Noah was perfectly human whereas these whereas the wives would not have been.”

I got into this issue in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology—and archeologist and author Dr. Heather Lynn too particular note of it in that what I wrote “on Noah’s genetic ‘perfection,’ what it really means, and all it entails is a must read.”

In short, perfect pertained to Noah’s righteousness, not his genetics. As for the genetics of his family well, recall that this is all about inventing post hoc tall tale and one that implies God failed.

Ryan Pitterson also notes, “when you look at the giants, like the three giants, the sons of Anak you [the interviewer] mentioned in, in the Book of Numbers, and the other post-diluvian giants, they can, their lineage can all be traced back to Cannan, who was the son of Ham, Noah’s son Ham, they can, all that, their lineages in scripture, can be traced right back to him. So, it all goes back to the ark and I think the wife, the wife of Ham.”

This is multitudinously fallacious:

1. The “three giants” were Anakim and as I noted, they were just subjectively “tall.”
2. One reason for his correlating of Anakim with Nephilim is subjectively unusual height but that fails due to point 1. and also because we’re no reliable physical description of Nephilim and so can’t equate them with subjectively unusual height.
3. Another reason for his correlating of Anakim with Nephilim is, exclusively, Numbers 13:33—one single verse which was part of the evil report and is also apparently a gloss since the Septuagint of that verse doesn’t contain any reference to Anakim.
4. This is premised upon the post hoc tall tale.

Pitterson is asked about Atlantis and replies, “in Genesis you have the same account of angels taking human women as wives giving birth to Nephilim or demigods and then the world is flooded.”

Now, of course, one of the reasons for flooding the world would have been to be rid of Nephilim—even if just because of the general corruption of the times.

Pitterson states:

“…there’s a prophecy in Daniel that says that in the end times they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men. So again, this idea of mingling the seed and that even the Angels who committed this sin, right, like I said, it was a, it was a subset of the fallen Angels who committed this sin of fathering, of marrying, taking human women and fathering the Nephilim.

In the judgment of the flood they weren’t killed, they, the Bible says they were locked in an Abyss. They were dragged down to the Abyss which is in Hell and imprisoned there for millennia. Well, in Revelation they are released. So, they return, the fallen Angels return to Earth and so there will be a second attempt at trying to again mingle our seed corrupt human DNA so I think all this will repeat again uh in in the details of the Book of Revelation.”

I must again punt to a book of mine, this time it’s chapter “Daniel’s ‘They’ and the ‘Seed of Men’” of What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?

Pitterson moved much too fast as he painted a narrative yet, he painted with with a broom. The entire book of Daniel states nothing about Nephilim nor any such thing—he implies that the “they” refers to Angels but there’s no textual indication of that. Daniel was telling us of two people groups that would do business with each other but would not intermarry.

There’s also no indication that “it was a subset of the fallen Angels who committed this sin” since Jude refers to “the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left…” and 2 Peter 2 to “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them…” thus, “the angels…cast them” rather than only some of the Angels.

On a technical note, is was not “dragged down to the Abyss which is in Hell” but rather; into Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) which is in the Abyss (as per the cultural context of Greek mythology).

I agree that “Revelation [chap. 9] they are released” but there’s no indication that there will be “a second attempt…” Rather, we’re told they wreak havoc on Earth, they fight a war in heaven, and end up in what some term hell. Thus, anything beyond this is speculation—and may also imply a loophole that God missed.

Ryan Pitterson was (clumsily) asked, “is there any correlation from Goliath being a Nephilim?”

He replied, “Yeah, absolutely for sure, yeah…he was a descendant of the Anakim who fled to Gath during the wars in Canaan. In the Book of Joshua they said the last of the Anakim fled to Gath which is where Goliath is from. The Anakim, you know, were the descendants of the sons of Anak who the spies saw in Numbers, you know, when most of the 12 spies” made that assertion.

This is another case of the folly of actually believing some of them most reliable people recorded in the Bible since the one and only way for him to correlate Goliath to Nephilim is exclusively via one single verse in the evil report—and, again, he could not do that from the Septuagint.

Thus, this is a non-issue—but at least he was more specific about the spies with that it was “most of the 12.”

Ryan Pitterson notes, “Jesus is called the son of David in the, that’s a, it’s a messianic title, battling a Nephilim right, so, battling an offspring, a half hybrid, fallen Angel offspring so that to me it’s a total foreshadow of Christ versus antichrist.”

Yet, since there’s no correlation between Goliath and Nephilim there’s no such correlation between David fighting Goliath and Jesus “versus” antichrist—except, perhaps, in the loosest of symbolic manners.

Beyond that non-starter, he argues, “the antichrist will be a literal Nephilim, he will be the literal offspring of the Devil. And I think the fallen Angels, again, Daniel says that they’re going to try to mingle their seed with, this, they’re going to try to mingle with the seed of men.”

Here we have the problem of that there’s no indication that the Devil could father genetic/physical offspring even if he wanted to. Recall that he argued that fallen Angels did and will father genetic/physical offspring but the Devil is not an Angel, he’s a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14).

Also, note how specific he is in asserting, “fallen Angels…Daniel says that they’re going to…” but Daniel specifies no such thing.

He was asked, “I want to do a lot of research about the Nephilim…other than maybe your books and, of course, getting the Bible out and starting to read this you’d kind of alluded to earlier, how there’s a lot of misinformation and all that so, other than obviously your books and the Bible where would you point somebody to say, you know, ‘I just gotta learn more’?”

He recommends Michael Heiser: he teaches post-flood Nephilim, but the Bible does not. He also teaches that unclean spirits (demons) are the spirits of dead Nephilim, but that’s folklore from millennia after the Torah was written.

He recommends Gary Stearman: while I’m unsure if he’s published on the subject, I do recall that he taught that Adam and Eve were not naked pre-fall.

He recommends Rob Skiba (R.I.P.) and notes that when he met Rob, he was a “fanboy”: he also taught post-flood Nephilim, that they were very, very tall, giant grapes, etc.

Thus, ironically, reference was made to “a lot of misinformation” and the recommended reading is of some of them men responsible for such misinformation.

For more details, see my relevant books.

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

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

This is a podcast review that’s actually titled, “The Bible Project on God Question & Response God, Abraham, Demons, & Giants” but my focus will be the latter subject.

The podcasters are Jon Collins, Tim Mackie, and Bryce Linda.

Tim notes, “the sons of Elohim sleeping with women. And that’s connected to the presence of giants in the biblical world.” This begs the key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

He then states, “The giants are called by many titles in the Old Testament. They are called the Nephilim. They’re also sometimes called the Rephaim. And the Rephaim, was both a name for ancient giants and for the spirits, the deceased life presence of these beings in the underworld, in the grave” and he replies in the affirmative when asked, “So Rephaim is just a synonymous term to the Nephilim?”

This is a basic level category error since Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Of course, this still doesn’t answer question 2—or does it? Stand by.

As for, “Rephaim…a name for ancient giants and for the spirits, the deceased…in the underworld, in the grave” well, that’s based on two things:

1) The root word rapha ranges in meaning/definition or usage from healing to death. Thus, some read it as a reference to the dead and mistakenly apply it to the 100% human Rephaim people groups—see my whole chapter about them in my book, What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

2) Some actually incorporate Pagan mythology into biblical theology—or biblical Rephaology. For the Pagan mythological background, see my article Dead Kings and Rephaim The Patrons of the Ugaritic Dynasty.

Tim Mackie continues thusly, “We’re told in the book of Deuteronomy, that the Nephilim are also called the sons of Anak” and, “called them the Rephaim” plus that, “We conquered one of them. Moses did. His name was Og. And he had this gigantic bed, big iron. It’s Deuteronomy 2. Go read it. He says, ‘Big iron bed.’ Moses says, ‘You can still go see it to this day.’ Dude, this is so crazy.”

I would suppose that one reason why Deut wasn’t quoted in support is that it states no such thing. What it does say is that Rephaim had various a.k.a.s by peoples of different regions: it doesn’t say a single word about Nephilim whatsoever.

As for, “the sons of Anak,” the Anakim, they were a clan of the Rephaim tribe.

As for Og: he was a Repha and I assume that his, “gigantic bed” is mentioned as some sort of appeal to his personal size. Yet, that there’s a correlation between the two is based on various assumptions and we don’t have a physical description of Og—a least not until fantastical folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after his death—see my book, The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Jon references, “Nephilim, the half breeds” with Tim chiming in with, “half divine half human…half god half man” and Jon, “they’re connected to these warrior giants” apparently because they’re referred to as, “mighty” in Gen 6.

The way I will put it is that having watered down the very specific concept of, “Nephilim” to, “giants” and, “warriors” allows for that they then can (mis) identify various characters as such. For example, Tim notes, “warrior giants that founded the kingdoms of old. Babylon’s founding legends are about them being founded by these half god half human warrior giants…Gilgamesh was a warrior giant. Nimrod in Genesis 10, is a warrior giant. Totally.”

Yet, Gen 10 doesn’t identify Nimrod as a giant nor as a warrior. He’s identified as a regular guys who became mighty and established kingdoms. Very well then, we may assume that someone who established kingdoms was a warrior but then again, many establishers of kingdoms had their warriors do the warrioring for them and we’ve no physical description of him.

Jon then asserts, “these guys are all over the place, and then Joshua has to fight them.” Now, if they’re consistently referring to biblical Nephilim then absolutely not, there’s not a single reliable data point to back that. Yet, when we’re dealing with name-games such as referring to giants and warriors then the issue becomes much more complex since it’s watered down: did Joshua fight warriors? Sure. Did Joshua fight giants? We’re back to what that word means. Did Joshua fight Nephilim? No. Did Joshua fight Rephaim and Anakim? Yes. Did Josphua fight personages that were taller than the subjective average? Sure but what of it?

Now, Tim Mackie takes a view that, “Genesis 6…is trash talk story against Babylon founding mythology.” That’s a known view in scholarly circles but note that it implies something that’s simply not evidenced: it implies that some form of Genesis existed but it was during one of the dispersals to Babylon that someone decided to inserts trash talk into it and we simple don’t have pre and post manuscripts that show no Gen 6 affair pre and an appearance of it post. For more on this specific issue, see in my, “Appendix: Review of Amar Annus’s On the Origin of Waters” book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?

They then circle back and adds some spice with Tim referring to, “These mutant giants,” Jon stating, “They’re called the Rephaim” and Tim noting, “Eventually, one of their titles is called the Rephaim. And the Giants exist in the Bible to be killed off by just three sets of heroes: by God and the flood, by Joshua in the conquest” but we know by now that all of that is mistaken.

Not surprisingly, reference is made to that, “Michael Heiser has done a lot of this in [his book] ‘Unseen Realm’” well, Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—see these articles for examples:

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

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

But, again, the problem is being unspecific since Tim notes, “the whole conquest story in Joshua, if you do your homework, they’re targeting the giant clans in Joshua” so, apparently, “giant” claims means Nephilim/Rephaim/Anakim/tall/warrior and well, they were all of those sans Nephilim since they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form—lest God failed and the flood was much of a waste.

Well, Tim notes, “It’s a giant purge,” whatever that means, and emphasizes that it, “makes perfect sense, because it’s God bringing another flood but through Joshua” which, by definition, means that God failed the first time and the actual flood was much of a waste. And there’s still no indication of just how they made it through: one can’t simply assert, especially something as important as this.

He notes, “Goliath is the final ultimate giant” but he was a Repha, not a Nephil: yet, such technical facts inconveniently get int the way of merely asserting that Reaphim is an a.k.a. for Nephilim. Also, as it if matters since we’ve no reliable reason to think that Nephilim were any taller than the subjective average—oooh, I know that debunks virtually all of modern pop-Nephilology: as uber pop-Nephiologist Gary Wayne put it, “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.)—the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Flavius Josephus, which is the preponderance of the earliest data, all have him at four cubits and a span, just shy of 7 ft.—subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

In keeping with the faulty etymology and Pagan mythology, it’s noted, “they’re divine and human…so the Rephaim becomes a title for evil spiritual presences that live on to terrorize people. These are the beings Jesus is encountering in the Gospels.” Yet, that’s not the case and you can see how it’s not in my article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?

And we can see their error in that Jon noted, “in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Rephaim are described as evil spirits” with Tim supporting that with, “It’s in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 32. They are spiritual beings that are the remnant existence of these warrior mutants of old”: yes, those are references to the dead and to dead warriors and/or kings but what’s missing is the specific correlation to the 100% human Rephaim people group.

As for, “Jesus and his encounter with these demons,” Jon notes, “I just figured it was like the angels that rebelled with the Satan, but they seem different in some way and Tim asks, “But why are they called impure spirits?” and offers the generic reply, “they emerged from the dead corpses of the giant warriors.” Well, that’s too generically vague: the issue is that folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah asserts that the unclean spirits are the spirits of dead Nephilim (which the podcasters watered down to also include Rephaim and giants) but why apply such an assertion to biblical demonology? The texts are namely and mainly Jubilees and the Bible contradicting 1 Enoch: see my books In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch and The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts.

Jon actually asserts, “Demons or the leftover spirit remains of the half breed giants. Welcome to your Bible” but not so: it’s welcome to late-dated folklore.

Tim and Jon the essentially example why I refer to modern Nephilology as un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales in terms of that Tim notes, “Jesus meets that guy in the graveyard [Legion], it’s a crew of these” to which Jon add, “It’s a battle” and Tim elucidates that the, “military title, legion…Clue you back into Goliath and Og and the Nephilim and all that” with, “all of that” being a perfect way to described how once you water things down enough, you can basically force fit that water into any mold you can imagine—and imagination is all that is going on at this point.

And that essentially brings the podcast to a close.

For more details, see my relevant books.

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

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

I thought to relate that the reason that won’t be on an Atheist’s podcast is because the Atheist doesn’t want me on the podcast and here’s why.

Now, since this discussion too place behind the scenes, I won’t divulge who it is nor the name of the podcast.

I simply noted, “I am a Bible believer and have written some contra Atheism books: I wondered if you may be interested in having me on as a guest (not to sell books, just to have a discussion).”

The entirety of the reply was, “No thank you. Not our format.”

I replied, “Appreciate you letting me know. So it is more about Atheists speaking to Atheists about Atheism without being challenged in public?”
The reply began with “Honestly, I recommend you listen to a show before you ask to use someone else’s platform.” Yet, whoever said that formats are written in stone? I thought to nudge them outside of their in-house comfort zone.
The rest of the reply was:
Having you on doesn’t offer us or our listeners anything I find compelling and doesn’t benefit my show since you appear to have limited reach of your own.

That you are unfamiliar with the show and you are still trying to be a guest tells me that your goal here is to use my platform and audience as a shortcut to broadcast your message, and that you are too lazy to bother researching our shows format and style before trying to use our reach for your benefit.
Your books on Amazon have very few reviews, the same is the case for Goodreads. If my reach surpasses yours, you have to offer me something compelling to gift you access to my platform. You didn’t do that.
It’s not that I am concerned about being publicly challenged, it’s that you’re trying to use my public in the absence of your own to do so.
Pass.

I replied:

You jumped to a conclusion of what my goal is based on my limited reach so when you positively affirm that I am trying to use your public in the absence of my own you are playing mind reader.

You are literally claiming to know things you simply do not know–I suspect that is a window into why you converted to Atheism.

How about this: have me on as “Anon” and don’t share my website or any contact info?

I figured that would solve all of the invented problems, right?

Not quite because since I received no reply, I thought to contact them again to, or so it seems to me, pinpoint the one remaining problem, “Well then, I will, sadly, conclude that it is a case of you not wanting your views challenged in public.”

UPDATE:

Now, due to what any reasonable person would just call and “Oopsy!” and move on with their lives: since I have been attempting to have discussions on Atheists’ own shows I looked up any that I could find and did not realize that I accidentally contacted the one in question again. I initially receive a very nice reply of:

At this time, we are not interested.

Thus, I replied as I had done above:

So sorry to hear that.

Out of curiosity: is it a matter of not wanting your worldview challenged in “public.”

Do you know of any likewise shows who may be interested?

Anon:

We already went down this road. We had this exchange the first time I turned you down.

We are not a debate show. It’s not our structure, it’s not an interest of ours.  We don’t do debates. Other people do. We don’t.

Debate is not how scientific questions are tested.   It’s a format that presumes that it is reasonable to choose from one or the other position. I disagree with the premise that debate has value in evaluating scientific claims.

Mostly though, and I want to be very clear here, you, specifically and personally, don’t add any value to our show. You have no reach , no audience.   So far as I can tell, all your press is self generated. You offer nothing I want in exchange for giving you a platform.   I want nothing from you and never will because I don’t value you.

I think an interview with you would bore me and the audience, though I don’t know which would happen first.

You can’t even be bothered to keep track of the fact that I already rejected you a few months ago, which also means you are either lazy or disorganized.

Ken Ammi:

Oh yes, sorry: I’ve been reaching out to so many Atheist shows that I lost track and didn’t realize that, that was you.

Well, it’s too bad since you really need to discuss such issues with someone who can challenge you since, for example, your statements are not only merely asserted jumps to conclusions based on hidden assumptions but this has nothing to do with science.

As for that I don’t add any value, etc. keep in mind that I solved that problem for you by offering to come on the show anonymously and not mentioning my site, etc. so you clearly have other reasons for refusing to engage.

Anon:

We do. And we list them in previous messages.

Perhaps the most important one that you keep intentionally ignoring is that we are not a debate show you daft [a very crude word for a women’s private parts].

Ken Ammi:

Wow, you seem to be exhibiting some psycho-emotional problems.

Well, that was the end of it this time: I would rather be disorganized than being so saturated with hatred that it spills out the side—capiche?

See my various books here.

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

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

The question What are the angels’ true form? was discussed as follows at the Quora site.

Milan Woodson (self-identified as “Angels studies through the Bible for over two decades”) replied:

The true form of angels is exemplified in the physical human form. But angels are metamorphic, being able to change their appearance, shape or form and size. Naturally they are much larger than stars, so when the visit the earth they normally reduce their size to human size.

The angelic form is of supernatural or superior natural forces and energies, which are beyond physics. Their true form is naturally invisible to physical sight. But they can also transform into visible and tangible form like as a human and vanish instantaneously as well.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Biblically, Angels only ever look just like human males. There’s no indication that they’re “metamorphic, being able to change their appearance, shape or form and size…much larger than stars” nor that they “reduce their size to human size.”

Milan Woodson:

Biblically angels are depicted like human males when they are in the presence of humans. Otherwise they are depicted simply as a human form. There is indication of metamorphic ability. They transform from angelic form into human form. In revelation chapter one, one spirit is said to have held seven stars in one hand and at another time an angel stood on land and sea with his head above the clouds.

At other times angels are depicted in human size. In heaven other angels are depicted as living creatures with four heads and animal features and that of man. Angels also have wings, yet when they transform into human form they do not display wings. All of this indicates that they can change their appearances, shapes and sizes. Shortsightedness and taking things at the surface appearance prevents one from understanding this.

Ken Ammi:

Appreciate the elucidation.

Appealing to Revelation is tricky since so much of it is visionary/symbolic. Jesus is the one who holds the seven stars, not an Angel, and clearly, the stars are symbolic of churches—not that He’s holding celestial objects like the Sun.

The “other angels” who are “In heaven” are not Angels at all, they appear to be Cherubim (see Eze chaps 1 and 10). Likewise, Angels don’t have wings: that’s either Cherubim or Seraphim (see Isa chap 6).

Thus, there’s no indication at all “of metamorphic ability. They transform from angelic form into human form” nor that “they transform into human form.”

Milan Woodson:

Thanks for your reply. But although there is symbolism it also holds true in a literal sense. Whatever God reveals is often true in both a spiritual and literal sense when disclosing something in either sense. What God says in truth, through and through.

Jesus is the Son of God, and the angels are sons of God. They are all naturally much larger in form than humans, even planets and stars in the spirit realm, for they can transform both their size and appearances.

Actually, cherubim and seraphim are ranks of angels. Cherubim are royal guardians and seraphim are royal attendants of God. All angels have wings and fly. While the common angels are messengers with two wings, cherubim have two wings but form four when they merge into one as one of the four living creatures. Seraphim have six wings but when they merge as one of four living creatures they maintain six wings.

There indication of metamorphism throughout the scriptures in plain sight which can easily be overlooked or pass over one’s head. First, angels can transform into a single living creature by merging with one another and produce more wings than each individual may have, with multiple eyes because of the merger of so many. Second, angels can transform into human form. Third, angels can be as small as a human, a giant on earth or even larger than solar systems, to hold several stars in one hand. Angels do more than most realize, for most simply take things at face value as is written and do not see the hidden information right before there eyes.

Ken Ammi:

Thanks for your reply as well.

Now, the issue was “There’s no indication that they’re ‘…able to change their appearance, shape or form and size…much larger than stars’ nor that they ‘reduce their size to human size.’”

So, replying by merely repeating an assertion will only lead to me stating that, again, there’s no indication that “They are all naturally much larger in form than humans…they can transform both their size and appearances.”

Since Cherubim and Seraphim aren’t Angels, how could they be ranks of Angels?

Also, “common angels are messengers” but there’s no indication they have “two wings.”

Also, “cherubim have” four, as you note, but never described as having “two wings.”

There’s also no indication that “angels can transform into human form.”

I already noted that you are misunderstanding the issue of holding stars.

Milan Woodson:

You say: “There’s no indication that they’re ‘…able to change their appearance, shape or form and size…much larger than stars’ nor that they ‘reduce their size to human size.”

The Scriptures indicate.

TRANSFORMING APPEARANCE.

“Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light.” 2Co 11:14

TRANSFORMING SIZE.

Tall enough to have a cloud around him, to have his head under a rainbow and the have one foot on the sea and the other on the surface of the earth.

“like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus.” Ga 4:14

“he had in his right hand seven stars” Re 1:16

(Likely Jesus as a spirit, was participating in the vision from space about a seven star group, likely the Pleiades. Jesus was not on earth nor in heaven when John got a vision of heaven. Hence, Jesus must have been in space. Re 5:2, 3

His one hand could span a seven group of stars, which are light years apart from one another.)

“angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as the sun…set his right foot upon the sea, but his left foot upon the earth.” Re 10:1, 2

At other times they take on human size, the size of men.

“he looked and there were three men…the men got on their way to Sodom” Ge 18:2, 22

“Now the two angels arrived in Sodom by evening” Ge 19:1

You say: Since Cherubim and Seraphim aren’t Angels, how could they be ranks of Angels?

The Scriptures reveal that angels are spirits and public ministers of and for God.

“Making his angels spirits, his ministers a devouring fire.” Ps 104:4

To say cherubim and seraphim are not angels is a an assumption and presumptuous statement without any proof behind it.

God is orderly and has his angels in order.

“God is a God, not of disorder” 1Co 14:33

All his angels make up his heavenly army. Armies have ranks in its membership with different positions and roles.

“Praise him, all you his angels. Praise him, all you his army.” Ps 148:2

Archangel, means chief or principal angel. Yet, the archangel is still an angel. He is also the Prince of the heavenly army of other angels. Hence, archangel is a title of and rank of angel. Therefore, there are ranks and positions of angels, with titles.

“Michael the archangel” Jude 9

The archangel is also…

“the Prince of the army” Da 8:11

Michael, one of the foremost princes” Da 10:13

“the Prince of princes” Da 8:25

Hence, there are angels that serve as princes, that sit on thrones. Da 7:9, 10; Re 4:4, 9–11

You say: there’s no indication they have “two wings.”

The Scriptures reveal that individual cherubim have two wings

“the cherubs must spread out their two wings” Ex 25:20

You say: Also, “cherubim have” four, as you note, but never described as having “two wings.”

The Scriptures early on reveal, as noted above, that individual cherubim have two wings. But a conglomerate of merged cherubim manifests four wings. The Scriptures call this formation of angels as a living creature.

“the living creature…were cherubs…each one had four wings” Eze 10:20, 21

While individual seraphim have six wings, a merger of seraphim as a living creature still has six wings.

“Seraphs…Each one had six wings” Is 6:2, 3

“around the thrown there are four living creatures…each one respectively has six wings” Re 4:6, 8

Angels, transform and have different ranks and positions. Those that have higher rank than messenger are often called by their rank when being specifically considered. Otherwise they are all angels just as all are humans, although we hold different ranks and positions. Saying a cherubim and seraphim is not an angel is like saying a security guard and a court attendant are not humans or men just because they are not called that but by their title.

The Scriptures are where the answers are found.

Ken Ammi:

Most interesting, I love it!

Please be mindful to never base a view on just one verse.

For example, you should have quoted 2 Co 11 vss. 13-15 which would have made it clear that what you quote as Satan “transforming himself” does not refer to shapeshifting. It goes on to say, “Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works” regarding what it began by noting which are humans who were “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ” and humans don’t shapeshift.

That was about Satan pretending to be a messenger of God.

It also won’t help when you make a claim, I shows you how it’s mistaken, and you just repeat the claim.

FYI: atop certain mountains at certain times of the day or during certain whether phenomena any of us can “have a cloud around him” so this is not about being “Tall” since there are a lot of times when clouds are low-hanging.

Also, by definition everyone on Earth has “his head under a rainbow” after certain rains since the rainbow is above us.

And I’ve been to many beaches and rivers and have had “one foot on the sea and the other on the surface of the earth.”

But more specifically, the verse you quote elucidates it for us, “angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head” so he was tall enough to reach the sky but was coming down from the sky, “and his face was as the sun,” “as” is but not near it, “set his right foot upon the sea, but his left foot upon the earth” just like you can do any time at any waterfront.

Again, don’t just read one single verse, Re 1:16, and invent a “Likely” story about “the vision from space” but keep reading to find out that the stars are symbolic of churches and/or the Angels watching over those churches.

It’s a matter of categorization and the law of identify that, by definition, Cherubim and Seraphim aren’t Angels and so aren’t ranks of Angels.

The proof behind it is that we are never told that they are Angels and that Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim have different job titles, different job functions, and look different from one another. In fact, why argue that Cherubim and Seraphim are Angles rather than that Angels and Seraphim are Cherubim or that Angles and and Seraphim are Cherubim?

Also, there’s no indication that “angels are spirits”: the one single version of Ps 104:4 should have read, according to the context, that they are “winds” as many versions right have it: Psalm 104:4 – Bible Gateway (https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20104:4)

So, the ranks are Seraphim, Cherubim, Archangel, and regular Angels—not necessarily in that order.

Just because Michael is “one of the foremost princes” doesn’t mean he sits on a throne.

I have no idea what version you’re quoting that states, “the cherubs must spread out their two wings.”

There’s no indication that “Angels, transform and have different ranks and positions” since, for example, we’re never told that Michael sometimes is and sometimes is not the Archangel nor that a regular Angel ever becomes an Archangel.

It’s not the case that “Saying a cherubim and seraphim is not an angel is like saying a security guard and a court attendant are not humans or men just because they are not called that but by their title.”

Rather, it’s saying both a security guard and a court attendant are humans but have different job titles and functions.

Likewise, Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim are all creations of God meant to serve Him but are different categories of being.

And that was all since 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.

There are, sad, reasons why I coined the term Gigorexia Nervosa which I defined as an obsession with seeing giants and just making up tall tales where there are none to be seen.

In this case, during our debate Gary Wayne made a very specific claim, “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody—that’s what the Bible says.”

Think for a moment, or look it up now, what the Bible does and does not say in this regard. The claim was that what “the Bible says” is that “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody.”

Well, I chimed in thusly, “It doesn’t say he was selected because he was taller, it says he was selected and points out that he was tall, there’s no statement that he’s selected because of his height, that’s not there.”

Wayne replied, “They wanted to have a king like the other nations, right?”

Now, this is accurate so I noted, “Because the other nations had kings and they didn’t so they wanted a king.”

He replied, “They wanted to have a king like other nations and he was a head taller, right? Okay so, they didn’t call him a giant though. They did not. But, they wanted to have a king like the other ones not only in a monarchy but somebody who was a warrior-like, which Saul, was a warrior-king. Just as David was, but they were happy to have somebody that was, you know, a little taller so that he would lead them, but they didn’t call him a giant.”

He replied, “They wanted to have a king like other nations and he was a head taller, right? Okay so, they didn’t call him a giant though. They did not. But, they wanted to have a king like the other ones not only in a monarchy but somebody who was a warrior-like, which Saul, was a warrior-king. Just as David was, but they were happy to have somebody that was, you know, a little taller so that he would lead them, but they didn’t call him a giant.”

Note that what we didn’t get from that counter-argument is that “the Bible says” that “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody.” Rather, when called on it we got the watered down version, “he was a head taller…who was a warrior-like…a little taller.”

This is refocusing on what the text actually stated and is where our focus should remain—or, quickly return.

Now, if “They wanted to have a king like other nations… a head taller” that implies, and asserts, that the other nations had such tall kings—with “tall” being a subjective term—but we’ve no such data. Thus, his premise is faulty.

But let’s grant it: other nations had kings that were a head taller than the subjective average, what of it?

But perhaps we should first ask exactly which “other nations,” plural, had kings that were, “a head taller?”

Well, to Gary Wayne subjectively unusual height (even if slightly unusual?) has something to do with Nephilim—even though he admits he doesn’t know how “big” they were—with “big” being a subjective term—and yet, still insists of calling them “giants”—with “giants” being a subjective term—so that he ponders how “giants” returned after the flood even whilst admitting the last of the Nephilim died in the flood.

Now, if “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody—that’s what the Bible says” but the case is that he was a “warrior-like…warrior-king” why was David not a head taller than the average Israelite (who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.), nor Solomon nor, apparently, any other Israelite king?

That “they didn’t call him a giant…they didn’t call him a giant” is interesting because if they did then what word/term or phrase would they have used?

I don’t mean which modern vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English word we would use but they would use?

“Nephilim” doesn’t mean nor imply subjectively unusual height.

“Rephaim” doesn’t mean nor imply subjectively unusual height.

“Gibborim,” if you’re reading the LXX, doesn’t mean nor imply subjectively unusual height.

So, they would have said what’s translated as “tall” or “great height”—with both of those being subjective, of course.

But still, we’ve no indication that such was an issue at all.

We know why it was specified that Saul was taller than average but there’s no reason to think that “Saul was selected as king because he was, at least, a head taller than everybody” and can certainly and specifically know that “that’s” not “what the Bible says.”

One of my concerns about such assertions is that if I had not been there to counter-argue, then some would have uncritically, without double checking, simply believed that the Bible says something that it never does.

I give Gary Wayne lots of credit for being willing to debate since, as far as I know, he’s the only pop-researchers of Nephilology, giantology, etc., who was willing to do so.

TJ Steadman was willing as well but he’s not very pop—and he made the same argument as Wayne so if you want to see the relevant texts regarding this issue, I quoted them in the article TJ Steadman on Saul as a king like unto the “Giant” Rephaim kings.

Now, ask yourself why if, say, you get on YouTube and search for “Christian debate” you’ll encounter Christians debating many, many, many subjects except that the only one, as far as I know, featuring a pop-researchers of Nephilology, giantology, etc. will be Wayne.

Where are the ones, the many, featuring pop-researchers whose entire “ministries,” livelihood, and popularity, are based on Nephilology, giantology, etc. defending their views, having them challenged—not just their lectures, videos, and interviews were they are merely given to assert whatever they want in an unchallenged matter?

I can only tell you from experience of having contacted such pop-researchers that they want nothing to do with it and if they discern that you may want to challenge them they, suddenly, just stop replying.

This has to change.

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.

Internal Critique refers to critiquing a worldview (philosophy, idea, etc.) from within, internally, based on its own standards.

Yet, is this even actually possible?

For example, I’ve internally critiqued Atheism many, many, many times in order to show how it fails before it even begins.

Yet, I can’t actually do that from within since it contains no premise upon which to even be concerned about whether or not it fails, at any stage for that matter.

Thus, an internal critique always, or will tend to, contain a foreign substance, a premise that one brings with them so that the internal critique is not necessarily 100% internal.

The very premise of internal critique implies setting out to critique from within so that the concept of critiquing comes with the territory, comes into the exercise.

When I debated Skylar Fiction, I did a lot of internal critique so as to show him the Atheist bed he had made and in order to see if he would sleep in it. Yet, that one ought to sleep in the bed one has made is premised on consistency as a universal imperative but Atheism lacks any and all universal imperatives.

This is why Atheists are always consistently inconsistent—although I will say that TJump aka Tom Jump was very, very consistent when I noted to him that on Atheism, reality (truth, facts) is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand/expect others adhere to it.

TJum ended up agreeing with me and took the fallback position that it all comes down to having fun based on subjective personal preferences du jour.

Now, Skylar Fiction is an exclusivist moral relativist/subjectivist but not long after our debate, he debated someone else about the evils of some events recorded in the Old Testament.

See what I mean about lack of consistency? An exclusivist moral relativist/subjectivist (pseudo) condemning anything is incoherent—good thing, for him, that being coherent is not a universal imperative, on Atheism.

He did so by beginning the debate by stating that for the debate he was granting “objective morals.”

Now, it’s one thing to do an internal critique, especially temporarily (for the duration of the critique) but it’s a wholly other thing to literally abandon one’s worldview at the get-go and argue against another worldview via that other worldview’s views and never appeal to one’s own again.

In other words, since internally there’s no way to condemn the debated some events recorded in the Old Testament then he couldn’t condemn them regardless. Thus, he lost the debate from the get-go and did so on various levels.

See, if he were to say that, say, the conquering of Canaan narratives contradict the concept of an all-loving God then 1. he can’t argue that because such is not the case, internally 2. nor can he argue that based on his own exclusivist moral relativist/subjectivist. Thus, he failed regardless—in typical manner, he merely emoted (not that there’s anything wrong with that on Atheism).

Now, back to the specific point about internal critiques: it’s like trying on someone else’s glove which you can put on and move around but it’s your hand doing the moving.

When I internally critique Atheism, for example, I’m bringing into my internal critique my worldview according to which reality is purposeful, as is our ability to discern it, there’s a universal imperative to adhere to it, and to demand/expect others to do so as well. Thus, when I point out Skylar Fiction’s failure that is as per my worldview that I snuck into his because strictly within his, there’s no premise upon which to condemn well, anything at all—not even logical inconsistencies such as contradictions.

In his book Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton noted the following about literally insane people “The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory” meaning that their explanations are internally consistent.

He goes on to write, “Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable” since it is internally consistent.

He continue directly with, “this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do” which is internally consistent since, “His explanation covers the facts as much as yours.”

Moreover, he continues thusly, “Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ’s.”

He concludes, “A madman is not someone who has lost his reason but someone who has lost everything but his reason” which is the case since it can be said that the madman’s worldview is internally consistent to one cannot claim there’s anything wrong with it strictly from within.

See my various books here.

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

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

The assertion was discussed due to the Quora site question, Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?

Charles Fiott (whose self-description is, “studied The Bible”) replied:

Since the Bible says that humanity was destroyed by a flood, are we technically biblical humans?

The Bible is not history. It’s mythology. So if we were “biblical humans” we would not be real humans. We would be mythological characters just like Noah.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Friend, that “The Bible is not history. It’s mythology…would not be real humans…mythological characters” is just a list of assertion, they are positive affirmations so you must prove them.

Charles Fiott:

Friend, the Bible is not history. Neither is the Quran. Or Bhagavad Gita. or any other scripture. That’s by definition.

Ken Ammi:

How is doubling down on positive affirmations without proof any sort of intellectual reply? BTW: I don’t accept your self-appointed (pseudo) authority to merely assert, “That’s by definition” as a manner whereby to escape the fact that you have no proof?

Charles Fiott:

You can be as malcontent as you want to be about it, Ken, but you are not going to find Noah or any other pre-Davidian character of the Bible in any modern history book.

Ken Ammi:

So then you’ve surveyed every modern history book (of course, you’re merely asserting that modern history books are the standard)?

But you’re just punting: how is tripling down on positive affirmations without proof any sort of intellectual reply?

BTW: I don’t accept your self-appointed (pseudo) authority to merely assert, “That’s by definition” as a manner whereby to escape the fact that you have no proof?

Charles Fiott:

Here are a few things you should know, Ken, if you want to make this meaningful. Modern historians, like modern scientists, are peer-reviewed. People can’t write whatever their imagination tells them to any more. They have to keep notes and references and prove that they have the necessary evidence and documents before they publish anything.

In ancient times it wasn’t like that. Josephus could write anything he wanted with little or no scrutiny. Same for the biblical writers. The unknown authors of the gospels could say that Jesus said this and Jesus did that without any evidence or documentation or witnesses or anything.

So I am not asserting my own authority. I am asserting the authority of serious, responsible historicity as opposed to the quackery of the Bible

If you think I am incorrect when I say that Noah is a mythological character and the great flood is a myth, you have to provide evidence. You have to provide facts. Without those, your opinion means absolutely nothing.

The only thing factual about the myth of Noah is that it was copied from Gilgamesh.

Ken Ammi:

Well, that caricature of peer-reviewed is clearly idealistic. I’d love to believe it but there are some very, very well known problems with anything put into human hands such as schools of thought biasedly ruling journals as gate-keepers.

As for “without any evidence or documentation or witnesses or anything”: you’re just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative but how so, on your worldview?

Also, how are the documents nor documentations? And they do appeal to many witnesses.

I’ve had discussions with various secular history professors who utterly debunk the typical pseudo-historical methods of people who, contextually, say thing such as, “quackery of the Bible.”

You don’t get to just make a positive affirmation and then ask me to prove you wrong, you made the positive affirmation and now realize you can’t prove it so, a best practice is to stop positively affirming things you can’t prove.

You also demand, “You have to provide facts” but as a merely asserted jump to a conclusion based on hidden assumptions so how and why, on your worldview?

As for “The only thing factual about the myth of Noah is that it was copied from Gilgamesh” have you ever done any reading on that subject on a scholarly level? Besides, that’s just a genetic logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism).

Charles Fiott:

Jesus once reportedly said, Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast. I think this applies to you, Ken. You find fault with serious, peer-reviewed, documented histories based on evidence and written by qualified people while accepting without question totally unproven writings by uncertified, mostly anonymous iron-age and first-century authors! You don’t see anything wrong with this picture?

That said, I will answer all your questions.

Question. As for “without any evidence or documentation or witnesses or anything”: you’re just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative but how so, on your worldview?

Answer. That IS actually a universal imperative, yes. All judicial systems around the world are based on evidence and witnesses. Are you saying that all courts are wrong?

Question. You also demand, “You have to provide facts” but as a merely asserted jump to a conclusion based on hidden assumptions so how and why, on your worldview?

Answer. You like the word “worldview,” don’t you? I like facts because facts matter and beliefs don’t.

Question: As for “The only thing factual about the myth of Noah is that it was copied from Gilgamesh” have you ever done any reading on that subject on a scholarly level?

Answer. Yes. And you can too. You can go to the British Museum to see the original Tablet XI of Gilgamesh for yourself or you can go online like I did and compare that tablet with the biblical version.

Further to what you wrote, I did not ask you to prove me wrong. I asked you to prove yourself right. If you can prove that Noah existed, I will accept him as history. Otherwise he will stay in mythology where he was created in the first place

Ken Ammi:

Yes, I see plenty wrong with that picture?

1. Friend, you don’t know nearly enough about me to merely assert that I “find fault with serious, peer-reviewed, documented histories based on evidence and written by qualified people” as if they’re omniscient and infallible, BTW, “while accepting without question totally unproven writings by uncertified, mostly anonymous iron-age and first-century authors!”
2. You refer to “unproven” but haven’t bothered to establish how, on Atheism, 2.a. there’s a universal imperative to prove anything nor 2.b. there’s a universal imperative to only base our views on what has been proved.
3. “uncertified” yet, God inspiring them certifies them.
4. “mostly anonymous” a pseudo-standard that even secular historians would correct you on—believe me, I’ve interacted with a bunch of them.
5. “iron-age and first-century authors”: genetic logical fallacy (not that it matters on Atheism).

Note that you doubled down on “just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative” by merely punting in the style of well, someone else does it so it must be okay, “All judicial systems around the world are based on evidence and witnesses” which does nothing counter the fact that you are “just asserting that providing such is some sort of universal imperative” but only provides more evidence for it.

No, you are missing the point: this is not about me “saying that all courts are wrong?” but asking you about your worldview.

Most excellent reply that hits the utter Atheist subjectivism nail on the head, “I like facts because facts,” which are accidental on your worldview, as a subjective personal preference du jour.

You then say that you hold to that subjective personal preference du jour because accidental facts “matter and beliefs don’t” so it’s your belief that beliefs don’t matter. But when you refer to “matter” you do so as an assertion without a premise or conclusions: matters how, why, as per what, to what, etc.?

As a shortcut on what I meant by “have you ever done any reading on that subject on a scholarly level?” please see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZZzuweVEs

Another fascinating window into that you recognize, at some level, your collapsed word view is that you say “I asked” regarding “you to prove yourself right” since you know you can’t say it’s incumbent upon me, can’t say there’s a universal imperative for me to do so, I ought, I must, etc. It’s just another subjective personal preference, “I asked.”

Now, as for “prove that Noah existed” how do you suppose one would go about to “prove” (not evidence) that?

Charles Fiott:

All that is irrelevant, Ken. You complain a lot, but you have no argument. My comment was very short — so short that I will repeat it in full for you: The Bible is not history. It’s mythology. So if we were “biblical humans” we would not be real humans. We would be mythological characters just like Noah. That’s all I said. And it’s true. The Bible was written by iron-age religious solicitors, and that makes it a mythology, by definition. If you can’t understand that simple fact, get a dictionary. History, on the other hand, is written by qualified, accredited, peer-reviewed historians — not by uninformed malcontents like you. Grow up.

[This following comment displays thusly to me when I view the Quora page, “This content has been deleted and is only visible to you.”]

Ken Ammi:

So, just so that I understand, every point that utterly devastated your worldview and M.O. are irrelevant?

Indeed, you merely asserted a bunch of stuff and when called on it, can only make vague appeals to generic historians.

Lesson learned: when you can’t back your positive affirmations, just don’t make them.

And that “History…is written by qualified, accredited, peer-reviewed historians” is shockingly myopically ill-informed.

Charles Fiott:

Ken, I removed your latest comment because, again, you are neither addressing the question nor my answer. You’re just talking nonsense.

Ken Ammi:

So, you’re running away from your inability to reply by becoming a censor. Well, that’s okay I have a copy of this entire discussion on my computer and will post it on my website in whole.

BTW, “just talking nonsense” is a mere assertion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that with pointed comment, it was done since no replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

The subject question actually came from a slightly more detailed one from the Quora site Do atheists separate themselves from other atheists in their forms of atheism as far as motive is concerned?

A certain Nev Anderson replied:

“Do atheists separate themselves from other atheists in their forms of atheism as far as motive is concerned?”

Simple rule, when religions assert anything to their own benefit, it is guaranteed to be WRONG.

Atheism is a word that relates a Non Belief in gods.

Like the word Tall, it has one association, and does not define any individual.

The test for Atheism is: “Do you believe in gods?”.

The answer “No” equates to Atheist status.

How many forms of Atheism arise from the word “No” ?

Atheists do not tend to gather as Atheists, just as Non Golf Players do not gather together. There is no incentive to do so.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Your simple rule is not only based on merely asserting implied hidden assumptions but is a form of the genetic logical fallacy (which, I realize, does not matter on Atheism).

Also, that “Atheism is a word that relates a Non Belief in gods” is myopic since the other Atheist denomination would insist that Atheism is a word that relates a positively affirming God’s non-existence. Thus, there are two main forms and various sects.

Friend, that you actually assert, “Atheists do not tend to gather as Atheists” means you are shockingly unaware of Skeption, Reason Rally, Humanist “churches,” and many other Atheist celebrity events, lectures, etc., etc., etc.

As for “There is no incentive to do so” sure there is, for example the basic Atheist modus operandi which is that Atheism is essentially an anti-Christian support group.

Sarah Dillon replied:

As atheists don’t believe in any gods (just one more than the number you don’t believe in), I struggle to see why you think they’d be actively against just one of the many religions.

Ken Ammi:

Odd, it seems that there’s no way to reply to your reply so I’m attempting a reply by replying to your original comment again.

I’m unsure what “atheists don’t believe in any gods” has to do with what I wrote but that “the basic Atheist modus operandi which is that Atheism is essentially an anti-Christian support group” is just a fact (not that facts matter on Atheism).

Well, that was that since neither one ever relied.

See my various books here.

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

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

The following discussion took place since I was invited to review Joe LoMusio’s paper Exegetical Notes on Genesis 6:1-4, he is the Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Haven University, California’s Graduate School of Theology.

Mondo Gonzales chimed in to make LoMusio about one of his papers and I ended up writing a review of it: A review of Mondo Gonzales’ paper, “A Brief Survey of the Pre-flood and Post-flood Origins of the Nephilim.”

At the time, I replied, “Mondo, you wrote of, ‘Moses writing that there were Nephilim before and after the flood (Genesis 6:4; cf. Numbers 13:33)’ but he did not write any such thing.” Yet, He didn’t reply.

Earlon Carsley wrote:

Ken, I would appreciate a more complete elaboration of your rejection of Mondo’s thesis.  His article seems to be very reasonable in its logic and thorough in its treatment of the relevant texts.  His conclusion is quite well supported, it seems to me:

“The Biblical theological evidence shows that Nephilim/Rephaim/Anakim tribes still remained to be fully exterminated. They reappear in the text of Scripture centuries later in the time of David. Goliath was from Gath, one of the cities mentioned in Joshua 11:22 where some Anakim remained. The Bible gives the final summary that David and his servants eliminated the rest of Nephilim/Anakim tribes (1 Samuel 17:4, 7; 2 Samuel 21:16-22; 1 Chronicles 20:4-8).

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Most interesting.

In terms of the Angel view: I don’t rejection of Mondo’s thesis in the least bit and have, in fact, taken and defended the same view in circa nine of my books.

Yet, there is no reliable indication that “Nephilim…tribes still remained to be fully exterminated” but only that “Rephaim/Anakim tribes still remained to be fully.”

Now, saying “They reappear” is incoherent since only Nephilim could have re-appeared (but they didn’t) since Rephaim/Anakim also could not have since they were not around before they were around, of course. They appeared, not re-appeared.

Goliath was a Gathite, Philisting, Anakim, Rephaim: nothing to do with Nephilim.

Now, you specify “Nephilim/Anakim tribes (1 Samuel 17:4, 7; 2 Samuel 21:16-22; 1 Chronicles 20:4-8)” but none of those texts states a single word about Nephilim.

Earlon Carsley:

Mondo points out that Moses identified the “giants” seen by the spies in the Land of Canaan as Nephilim (Numbers 13:32-33).  In that text Moses also identifies the descendants of Anak with these Nephilim.  A substantial part of Mondo’s thesis is that Moses wrote the “sons of God” account in Genesis 6:1-4 with his own contemporary experience in mind.  Hence it makes sense for Moses to state that the Nephilim were in the earth both before the Flood “and also afterward” (Gen. 6:4).

I believe his point is that Moses viewed both the Nephilim of Genesis 6 and those of Numbers 13 as beings having the same nature – not necessarily related by descent but having similar origins in illicit angelic/human relations.  Would you see that as a possibility?

Ken Ammi:

Appreciate the continued interaction.

Moses did not such thing: he merely told us that 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers presented an “evil report,” for which God rebuked them, wherein they, not Moses, “identified the ‘giants’ seen by the spies in the Land of Canaan as Nephilim” which, BTW, is a phrase that biblically would read, “identified the ‘Nephilim’ seen by the spies in the Land of Canaan as Nephilim.”

Likewise, Moses never “identifies the descendants of Anak with these Nephilim” that was the 10, again. And many scholars claim that portion is a gloss since it’s utterly missing from the LXX for that verse.

Moses never wrote, “that the Nephilim were in the earth both before the Flood ‘and also afterward.’”

Thus, there’s zero indication that “Moses viewed both the Nephilim of Genesis 6 and those of Numbers 13 as beings having the same nature” since the ones recorded in Gen 6 were alive, on the ground, at the timeline of the record but the ones merely referenced in Num 13:33’s evil report weren’t.

There’s also zero indication of post-flood “illicit angelic/human relations.”

Thus, no: I would not see that as a possibility.

Earlon Carsley:

I also appreciate your willingness to interact on this question, Ken.  Concerning Numbers 13:33, I agree it is possible to see the spies’ report of Nephilim in Canaan as being a false report and hence not necessarily endorsed by Moses in the text.  However the statement that the descendants of Anak came from Nephilim cannot reasonably be seen as coming from the spies themselves.  Clearly it was either Moses who provides this parenthetical bit of information or else it was a later scribal gloss as you suggest. This passage by itself  then leaves us with no certainty on the matter.

But your adamance that “Moses never wrote” that the Nephilim were in the earth both before and after the Flood requires more explanation.  Mondo provides a very detailed grammatical analysis of this verse (Gen. 6:4) which is quite convincing to me.  Additionally he notes that most scholars recognize that the demonstrative “those” in line 1 (of verse 4) along with the complex preposition “also afterward” is a reference to the days both before and after the Flood.

Please explain why you are so certain that this analysis is erroneous.  I’m sure you agree it isn’t enough to simply assert that something is wrong without clearly explaining why.  Thanks very much.

Ken Ammi:

The narrative of Num 13 screams utter tall tale at 13:32-33, as does the whole entire rest of the Bible, and when Moses relates that events in Deut 1 he utterly ignores Nephilim but mentions Anakim: he’s too concerned with the realities on the ground to bother reiterating made up stuff.

“the statement that the descendants of Anak came from Nephilim cannot reasonably be seen as coming from the spies themselves” but seems to be a gloss: it’s utterly missing form the LXX.

As for “Nephilim were in the earth both before and after the Flood…(Gen. 6:4)”: I just posted a review of his paper. Since he uncontextually accepts 13:33 as factual, he runs with it, applies it, and then uses it to (mis) read Gen 6:4, see here.

Earlon Carsley:

You may be right, Ken.  I’ll read your review.  Thanks.

Geoffrey Tolle chimed in with:

Ken Ammi, “The narrative of Num 13 scream utter tall tale at 13:32-22”. I can’t disagree with you, there, however, there are other elements of the story that I think point in a direction beyond tall tale. Two points in the story that I’ve seen very few people comment on are:

1. A) Num 13:32 “The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eats up the inhabitants thereof”
2. B) Num 13:33 “And there we saw the giants… and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

In a stalled work that I have been working on, I propose reading the OT (especially) through the light of what we, now, classify as shamanism. An common aspect of shamanism is the sky journey, where the participant’s spirit travels across (usually) the spirit world. This is exactly what we see in many of the prophet (not prophetic) visions. Given the wide variance of what these men told from the reality of Canaan, I propose that they were on a sky journey. Note the surrealistic aspects of the 40 days of exploration (tur): Giant grapes (possibly associated with the vine of immortality); a people-eating land; and people who they perceived as giant just as they perceived themselves as giants. Such phantasmagorical imagery is not unheard of in dreams and trance states.

Thus, I suggest that this was not a real journey but a spiritual (note: 40-day) one which would mean that the Anakim and cities that they encountered were other-worldly much as was the Nineveh through which Jonah wandered and preached. A tall-tale, yes, but one that would have been understood very differently by the people hearing the story in the early years of its existence.

Ken Ammi:

Fascinating “sky journey” theory—like Muhammad’s upon a winged horse

Yet, I’d appeal to the mundane nature of the narrative: combining both reports, the original and the evil, they’re about spying out “the land,” describing its features, its produce, its peoples, its cities, and what they saw therein—its features, its produce, its peoples, its cities. After all, it was an “evil report about THE LAND.”

As for “wide variance,” recall that the 10 originally agree that the issue was strong/stronger but that only after seeing themselves backed into a corner did they present an “evil report which is their statement that varied.

So, you refer to “the reality of Canaan” but that’s just the issue: every indication—logical, theo-logical, textual, etc.—is that they didn’t relay reality. This is why the key features of post-flood Nephilim theorizing—that post-flood Nephilim existed, that Anakim were related to them, that they were very, very tall—is literally based on one single, very problematic, verse.

There’s no indication of “Giant grapes” at all.

Recall that “a people-eating land” contradicts the original report—and circa 20 other texts.

So, I suppose we’d have to conclude that unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, emebllishers who were specified to present an evil report—a spiritual vision one not—whom God rebuked are to be considered reliable mystics and yet, what they claimed is still utterly unreliable.

There’s also no reason to think that “the Anakim and cities that they encountered were other-worldly” nor was Nineveh, since they then have instance after instance of actual on the ground, real-life, battles with Anakim—et al.

Geoffrey Tolle:

Thanks for the reference to your critiques. I have some issuof es my own problems with Heiser’s “scholarship” (mentioned in my Amazon reviews of some of his books). I’ll have to see what yours are.

Colen Poeppelmeyer:

Heiser’s work is what launched me into this kind of research. One should use his work as part of research. I have found so many papers, white papers as well as thesis papers that have confirmed many items. Like I said there a pattern of evidence pointing to the Nephilim and Watchers. Exploring the Temple writings is a great help as well.

Geoffrey Tolle:

Colen, Heiser has been insightful but I don’t rely on him for anything. A book that isn’t directly about the Nephilim, Rephaim, etc. but, rather, about Royal Judaism (Saul, David, Solomon) instead of Temple Judaism (the editors of the OT) is “the Older Testament” by Margaret Barker. It’s a very dense read but it will provide you many, many insights into obscure parts of the OT that you never knew existed including some of the many times that the meaning of words in the OT are simply uncertain or unknown.

Ken Ammi:

Gents, I would doubt that anyone in Nephilology related fields would dismiss Heiser out of hand yet, he’s not omniscient nor infallible.

FYI: I included Heiser in my book “The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants.” [also see my articles Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy and Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal”]

Geoffrey Tolle:

A point that most commentators miss, in these passages, is the discontinuity between many of the lines.

The marriage context of 1-2 seems to have nothing to do with the spirit context of 3. The introduction of Nephilim in 4 seems to have no necessary connection with 1-2, 3 or even 4b or c. And, to move just outside this selection, 5 (wickedness of man) has no necessary connection to 4 (men of reknown). This strongly suggests that this passage is a grouping of originally disconnected line connected, by the editor, within an anti-angelic context later given much more unified context in “Enoch”.

I point this out because many of the conclusions proposed for understanding this passage are based on assuming that these lines originally occurred together. Separated, we have:

1) (1-2) The mingling of the divine (sons of god) with the mundane (daughters of earth).

2) (3) Yahoweh declaring a lifespan for men.

3) (4a) Introduction of the Nephilim.

4) (4b + c) Mingling of the divine and mundane with the birth of men of reknown.

5) (5) Intro to the wickedness of men.

Topic 2 appears to be completely disconnected from the other topics. This may have been included to highlight a conflict in the source of holy men in the ancient world. Although it is explicitly about reducing men’s lifespans by removing the ruach, it seems implicitly about the conflict between the Ruach Yahoweh and ruach from other ‘elohim.

Topics 1 and 4 do seem to be connected and seem to, originally, have been explaining how the semi-divine men of the world (Gilgamesh, Herakles, Samson, Saul, possibly Nimrod) came from. Note that there is absolutely nothing in these lines assigning any negative quality to these “hybrids”. Indeed, the term ha-shem (“of name”) was used, much later, as a title for God. Thus, there is also nothing to connect these men to the later “wickedness of man”.

In this context, topic 3, the Nephilim, stands out as disconnected. There must, however, have been an understanding of Nephilim that was understood by the editor. That is probably embedded in the phrase ba-‘eretz (“in earth”) which probably implies these were a people linked to the shaddim (earth or underworld gods).

Although we can more easily speak of later understandings of the beings mentioned in this passage, it is worth considering possible variant understandings of the original editor and even the underlying texts from which the editor took these lines.

Ken Ammi:

It seems to me that, by definition, the introduction of Nephilim in 4 seems to have utter connection with 2 which has connection to 1.

Also, wickedness of man would seem to relate to any and all men, of renown or not.

Since Gen 6:4 is the one and only reliable biblical reference to Nephilim then it’s tempting to agree that, “there is absolutely nothing in these lines assigning any negative quality to these ‘hybrids’” yet, with the exception I just noted, that they are actually connected to the later “wickedness of man” by (chronological and linguistic) definition.

I’m unsure that ba-‘eretz specifically implies “in” (as in “inside of” as in the underworld).

Geoffrey Tolle:

Ken, I don’t disagree that a connection can be made between the lines. I am simply pointing out that we may see the connections because the editors combined the source lines with that intent. The abrupt jumps between topics certainly suggests a significant possibility of a fusion of disconnected material or a loss of connecting material. It should, therefore, be considered when extrapolating from the passage. Small pertubations in the understanding of the original material can lead to extremely different conclusions about the nature of the original material. The divine, royal, and sethian interpretations presented in this paper are a good example of this.

And I agree that interpreting ba-‘eretz as a subterranian reference is only a possibility but, with so little other information on the Nephilim, different interpretations of the translation of the preposition “ba-” must remain in consideration.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, good point about the “Small pertubations.” Biblical Nephilology is quite simple: they lived pre-flood, were parented by sons of God and daughters of men, for some reason they became mighty and well known, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form—period.

FYI: I just posted a review of Mondo’s paper.

Ginger Hayes:

Hi Joe LoMusio.

I happen to love studying Gen. 1-6 with all its complexities. I also have followed Dr. Heiser for several years. Your paper states the arguments well. Thank you for mentioning the ancient texts. I am curious about your take on the phrase “In those days.”

Blessings!

Joe LoMusio:

Genesis 6:1-4 just may be the most controversial text in the entire Bible. Who were the “sons of God,” the “daughters of men,” and the “Nephilim”? And was the Flood brought about because of them?

Robert B Lewis:

If I want to investigate some matter in the Hebrew Bible, I consult the Hebrew Bible. If I cannot unearth anything of value from that effort, I consult the ancient pre-biblical texts from Ugarit or lower Mesopotamia. Otherwise, I consult (when I can) the PhD with no religious ax to grind. I see that LoMusio has indeed quoted some very esteemed scholars to make his case; I’m not certain that all of them agree with LoMusio’s larger point, however, that these sons of God were angels, and he might have noted this.

The writers of the New Testament, and the later Church Fathers, were not in the business of biblical exegesis, rather, they were in the business of building their religion; in order to do so, they would necessarily need to perform their own version of eisegesis, a charge that LoMusio has leveled at modern exegesists. The fact is, that neither the word angels, nor the phrase angelic beings, can be found in Genes9s 6:4. Nor is there any support anywhere in the Hebrew Bible for angels capable of sex, in heaven or outside it. If the authors Genesis 6:4 had meant angels, why didn’t they just say angels?

That LoMusio chooses to concentrate his study on the meaning of the phrase “daughters of men” is unique to say the least, but not so helpful I’m afraid. One might better contemplate the word “divine”, since in terms of ancient pre-israelite religion, there were several categories of divine beings, including the deified kings in the various city states of the ancient Near East – in particular, the deified kings Ugarit.

It’s ironic that this section of Genesis is considered to be a snippet of ancient pagan myth, when in my estimation, Genesis 6:4 represents one of the least mythical parts of the primeval history; and seems to recount quite sucsinctly what looked like history to the Israelite scribes, i.e., kings (Nephilim, sons of God, warriors off old, men of renown; all the same category), who, according to the Sumerian Kings List, were on the Earth in those days, before and after the flood. The parsimony of Occam’s razor applies here.

KJ Soze:

Thank you for you paper, Joe. I think there is also a 4th view which is a hybrid of Merideth Kline’s divine kingship and Sons of God as angels. This is a demonic view of fallen angels who are joined with the physical realm through sex rituals such as sacred marriage rites. There remains occult rituals to this day that are used to contact the spiritual realm for greater power. The 4th view depicts “non-physical” intercourse of humans and angels.

The resulting offspring are mighty men such as Nimrod who was a mighty man, but still a man, not a hybrid demi-god. Also, we need to consider Numbers 13 with the sons of Anak as men, even though as giant stature. The leaders of clans and tribes in the ancient near east were often considered as sons of god, perhaps because of the rituals they performed as priest-kings.

Pharaoh was the son of Horus, Alexander was the son of Zeus, etc. They were not “physical” sons but sons in a spiritual sense to claim divine kingship. In other cases, in order to claim greater control over land regions and peoples, kings took for themselves multiple wives from many tribes. In any case, whether angels physically mated or indirectly mated through humans, it was a relationship between humanity and angels that caused judgment based upon this unholy union.

Joe LoMusio:

Hey KJ… Yes, thank you, and in fact I read your paper “Who are the Sons of God in Genesis? (Humanity’s Relationship to the Spirit Realm of Fallen Angels), and found it to be very well done, and I gained personal insight from it.

This is a provocative topic that solicits responses that are all over the map. But that’s what makes this site a great platform; one in which we all get to share our views and research and interact with one another. Thanks for your comments.

Ken Ammi:

Replies to those in this thread-segment:

Robert B. Lewis,

If I may: I discern an imbalance in your implication of placing trust in “the ancient pre-biblical texts from Ugarit or lower Mesopotamia” and “Phd with no religious ax to grind” (who’s that?) vs. “New Testament, and the later Church Fathers.”

This also touches upon that you seem to suppose you can know the motivations of various personages.

As is common to any and all languages, in terms of reading comprehensions skills and hermeneutics, “word angels, nor the phrase angelic beings” need not be “found in Genes9s [sic.] 6:4” for it to be speaking of just that.

It seems that you can only state, “Nor is there any support anywhere in the Hebrew Bible for angels capable of sex, in heaven or outside it” only after denying that such is precisely what Gen 6 is telling us.

Also, why would the Hebrew Bible say more about a done deal? When we plug Jude and 2 Peter 2 into this, we learn that the Angelos that sinned were incarcerated so, again, it was a done deal.

Asking about why “the authors Genesis 6:4…didn’t they just say angels” goes back to linguistics, reading comprehension, hermeneutics, etc. There’s no reason to restrict an author to using only those words we want to see post hoc. All languages offer many manners wherein to refer to any given thing.

Contextually, why “contemplate the word ‘divine’, since” it doesn’t appear in the text in question.

Biblically, there’s no reliable indication of post-flood Nephilim.

KJ Soze,

Referring to “a demonic view of fallen angels” creates a category error of sorts (this can actually get very technical, see: https://midwestoutreach.org/2019/10/03/demons-ex-machina-what-are-demons).

Actual sex rituals would have to be between physical beings, such as humans and Angels, but not between one physical party and one spirit one such as demons. So, I empathize why you had to refer to “‘non-physical’ intercourse of humans and angels,” whatever that means, but again, by definition intercourse of humans and Angel would be physical.

Now, Nimrod has nothing to do with any sort of intercourse between humans and Angels nor demons.

Numbers 13’s reference to what you have as “sons of Anak as men, even though as giant stature” is just part of an unreliable “evil report” that no one should believe.

Joe LoMusio,

FYI: I’ve written nine [circa a dozen by now] books on such issues.

Jonathan Poletti,

No, that was the Holy Spirit. Jude is most direct about it, or so it seems to me, by likening the sin of Angels to those of Sodom and Gomorrah. 2 Peter 2 chronologically places their sin to pre-flood days, which fits the Gen 6 timeline.

Meanwhile, Creig Marlowe noted:

Joe,

Think my previous reply was in the wrong place. Anyway I only mention Eek 28 and Isa 14 because they are always used by those who promote the sons of God as angels view. You did not to your credit.

Ken Ammi:

Those two texts are not about an Angel, but about a Cherub, see my elucidation here.

Colen Poeppelmeyer chimed in thusly:

There are many aspects in ones view of Gen. 6. There is a pattern of evidence found in the scriptures regarding the Watchers (fallen ones (angels), the giants and so forth. One needs to read Ps 82, Deut. 32 as well as other places. At times one must look at the 2nd Temple Writings, the Pseudepigrapha Writings, as well as the Book of Enoch. Do not be afraid to study these books. After all Enoch mentioned twice in the NT (2 Pet and Jude). I find what was written to be very helpful in understanding on the Jewish belief system regarding these beings. A couple of additional books may help” The Unseen Realm, by Michael Heiser and God at War by Gregory A Boyd. There is more to this subject as it is all through the Bible. Enjoy the research, as I am still studying about it.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, see my book “The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.”

Heiser tends to create more problems than he solves: for example, see my two critiques of his views in my profile [the two I included above].

Edmund Lazzari:

There are many people here who have said many things. I just want to highlight several things I noted in my thesis chapter https://www.academia.edu/43930637/Bene_ha_Elohim_in_Genesis_6_1_4_MA_Thesis_Ch_1_ (please forgive the introductory style) that seem to be missing here, which is a good overview of scholarship, if missing a few contemporary perspectives. I am inclined to the Sethite position, though I consider the angelic position to be a plausible one for the reading of the text.

1. These approaches make no mention of the Greek bias that shifts interpretational probabilities. Septuagint manuscripts sometimes had οι αγγελοι (“angels”) replacing בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ (“sons of God”) and οι γιγαντες (“giants”) replacing הַגִּ בִּרִ֛ים (“the gibborim/the mighty ones”). Those early Christians who had υιοι του θεου (“sons of God”) in their text overwhelmingly choose the Sethite interpretation (only Tertullian is excepted) and those who have οι αγγελοι choose the angelic position. οι γιγαντες (“giants”) rather than הַגִּ בִּרִ֛ים (“the gibborim/the mighty ones”) massively changes the interpretation, especially if you read הַנְפִלִִ֞ים (“the Nephilim”) as incidental to the passage.
2. The Greek bias continues in assuming that divine beings intermarrying with human beings is common in non-Greek Ancient Near Eastern Mythology. There are only three possible candidates in non-Greek Ancient Near Eastern mythology: Gilgamesh, Egyptian “god’s wives,” and the Ugaritic “Dawn and Dusk,” only the latter of which has an unambiguous divine being marrying human beings, noted for its strangeness. Gods just don’t do that in ANE mythology like they do in the Greco-Roman tradition.
3. An important point in favor of this interpretation is that the construction בנ with a noun can denote membership in a category, even ontologically (Holladay Concise Aramaic Lexicon (Brill 1988), 42) However, outside of the construction בנ־האלוהים , both Solomon and the people of Israel are called sons of THE LORD in 2 Sam 7:14 and Deut 14:1, respectively, without necessarily entailing ontological membership in divinity.
4. Read contextually, the narrative of Genesis shows the line of Seth and the line of Cain in roughly equal populations by the end of Gen 5. At Gen 6:5 and the undisputed start of the flood narrative, suddenly only eight righteous people are left on the face of the earth. Contextually, Gen 6:1-4 is the explanation for how everyone got so wicked. Coupled with the borrowing of language from the Atrahasis myth, where a flood wipes out a third of humanity after “humanity spreads on the face of the earth” and the continuity of vocabulary, it makes linguistic sense to read Gen 6:1-4 as a part of the larger Gen 6:1-7 introduction to the flood. What could the line of Seth have done to be so wicked? Contra your (LoMusio’s) point, intermarriage between the righteous and the wicked almost inevitably leads to the worship of false Gods in the narrative of the Hebrew Bible. Marrying people the narrative already knows are wicked is the most elegant way of accounting for the narrative change and respecting the integration of the passage to what follows.
5. Obviously the biggest problem is the different use of הָֽאָדָָ֔ם (“ha-Adam/humanity”) in verse 1 than in verse 2. This, however, is mitigated by similar points where the Hebrew Bible sets apart a subgroup in contrast to a group that it is a part of. Judges 20:3 contrasts the sons of Benjamin to all the tribes of Israel and Jeremiah 32:20 contrasts the Israel with all of humanity. Similar imprecise use of groups as a Semiticism occur in Judg. 16.7; 1 Sam. 13.6, and Ps. 73.5 and most strikingly in Gen 6 when all of humanity is called wicked (verses 5 and 12) but Noah is excluded, despite being a part of humanity (verse 8)! Since this is right after our passage, it is fair to use it to interpret the preceding four verses.

For more details (and citations), see my thesis chapter, but I think these are the relevant lacking points from this approach. Again, I see that the angelic interpretation is a reasonable one, but you give rather short shrift to the Sethite position, which deserves more consideration than these scholars give it.

Geoffrey Tolle:

In your examples of ancient middle eastern divine children, don’t forget to include Cain (possibly – “I have gotten a man from Yahoweh. Gen 4:1), Samson, Isaac, and, of course, Jesus.

Robert B Lewis:

Ken Ammi, there is no “imbalance” in my choice between the 1st century Christian writers of the New Testament, and the original Israelite writers of Genesis 6:4. What you see as an imbalance, is simply a critical choice on my part. I do not trust that Christians of that time were simpatico with the ancient scribes on this issue; I am under no obligation to suspend my skepticism of Christian apologetics.

In fact, as scientists, we under a true obligation to be skeptical of all view points, even those we might agree with. And there are quite a few PhDs with a religious ax to grind, do you really need me to tell you that? They’re all over youtube.

As far as “understanding the motives of various personages”, I think it’s pretty clear what the motives of the New Testament authors were: salvation. That’s not the business we are working on here, is it? If the word “angels” is not in the text of Genesis 6:4, why would you assume that the text meant sex with angels and daughters of Men? The text is telling us nothing of the sort. It relates of sexual relations with “sons of God”, i.e. deified kings, who in terms of various ancient Near Eastern religious thought (Ugarit etc.), were understood to be sons of El; no angels need mentioning at all.

No doubt you would direct me to Job 38:7, but Psalm 82:6-7 seems more apt here, and leads me to ask: do angels die “like one of the princes”? Do you believe these sons of God are angels because of Jude or 2nd Peter?

These books have long been outed as pseudoepigraphs, not written by Peter or Jude, and you seem to be asking me to be “fair and balanced” toward texts which themselves seem anything but.

Ken Ammi:

Most interesting.

I didn’t imply an imbalance between “the 1st century Christian writers of the New Testament, and the original Israelite writers of Genesis 6:4” but, as I put it, “an imbalance in your implication of placing trust in ‘the ancient pre-biblical texts from Ugarit or lower Mesopotamia’ and ‘Phd with no religious ax to grind’ (who’s that?) vs. ‘New Testament, and the later Church Fathers.’”

Oddly, you note, “there are quite a few PhDs WITH A religious ax to grind” but I commented about “Phd WITH NO religious ax to grind” and merely asked, “who’s that?”

I meant that you accredit one side and discredit the other seemingly based on bias or prejudice—plus a touch of mind-reading.

In what field are you a scientist? Also, have you a premise form your worldview for assuming that skepticism is some sort of universal imperative?

Now, “why would you assume that the text meant sex with angels and daughters of Men?”: Job 38, Psalm 82 (“die ‘like one of the princes’” seems like losing their position, power, etc.), Jude, 2 Peter 2 (“outed as pseudoepigraphs, not written by Peter or Jude” is just a genetic logical fallacy—do those matter on your worldview?), the majority of the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators, etc.

You say, “‘sons of God’, i.e. deified kings” so I suppose I’ll ask: if the words “deified kings” is not in the text of Genesis 6:4, why would you assume that the text meant sex with deified kings and daughters of Men?

Robert B Lewis:

Why would I place more trust in the earlier, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts? Because they were written earlier and without all the “modern” religious concerns. Yes, they had their own religious concerns, but those shouldn’t interfere with our understanding of them much, and can and have been used quite effectively by lots of scientists for decades, to shed more light on the canonical Hebrew Bible.

As for PhD’s, sorry about the misunderstanding, but yes, there will be a number of PhD’s with and without religious axes to grind; I simply prefer the ones who do not have said axes. And it’s because of this alone, if for no other reason, that we scientists and scholars of the Bible (you included), especially, must take a skeptics view of scripture by default; unless what one is doing is avowedly not science, in which case, do as you please.

And no, I am not “crediting” or “discrediting” based upon prejudice, but upon, as stated, critical and thoughtful deliberation. How is that mind reading? By the way, isn’t playing “armchair psychologist” with Augustine, sort of prestidigitatious in its own right?

As for Psalm 82, no, Psalm 82 is quite explicit. They die….”like one of the princes”. Period. No wiggle room, unless everything is just willy nilly symbolic whenever you need it to be; in which case, I suppose any conclusion is possible. I think it’s interesting, the word “princes” here. It’s almost as if Psalm 82 is talking about royalty.

On Jude and 2nd Peter, yes, “gospels” written in bad faith, matter to my world view, since I always try as best I can to base my scientific conclusions on the best (and most honest) evidence possible. And yes, genetic logical fallacies matter to my world view as well. That these texts are pseudepigraphic in character, however, is no genetic logical fallacy, it’s contemporary scholarly consensus. You accept what you claim is early Jewish and Christian consensus. But is that true? And even if that were true, does that make these early sources right? Is there any danger of a genetic logical fallacy here?

You say “sons of God”, i.e. “angels” so I suppose I’ll ask again: if the word “angels” is not in the text of 6:4, why would you assume that the text meant sex with angels?

Ken Ammi:

I’m empathetic with wanting to assert that earlier is better by definition but well, they were written earlier and/but also with their own “ancient” religious concerns.

As for PhD’s, no worries but just be careful because if you show me an unbiased person, I’ll show you a corpse.

I’m unsure why anyone “must,” as a universal imperative, “take a skeptics view of scripture by default” nor why we do so or would be changed with “avowedly not” doing “science”—it seems you’re using that term to mean any sort of investigation or something.

I only referred to crediting/discrediting and mind reading since you seemed to claim to know private motivations.

My armchairing Augustine is based on knowing that one individual enough to seemingly be able to know why he was doing what he did.

You did likewise but with “the ancient pre-biblical texts from Ugarit or lower Mesopotamia” and “New Testament, and the later Church Fathers,” some of which pertains to utterly unknown personages.

But I’d wonder if there’d be an issue, on your worldview, if I was being hypocritical.

As for Psalm 82, I’m just applying the real-life, on the ground repercussions since, for example, it could have said they would die like your average Joe but specified princes—that’s all. And if we must discuss how ontologically incarnated Angels could “die” well, all we could do is speculate.

Keep in mind that in Daniel, the Archangel Michael is referred to as a “prince.” Yet, I do hold to that behind human sovereigns are spiritual sovereigns so that at time both are being addressed simultaneously or interchangeably.

Now, I asked about your worldview and you refer to that “‘gospels’ written in bad faith,” which is just an assertion, “matter to my world view” but you then make a subjective statement, “I always try…” which is not about your worldview but about your personal preferences du jour (based on hidden assumptions).

Of, perhaps you can elucidate how your worldview provides a premise for you to “base my scientific conclusions on the best (and most honest) evidence possible” as a universal imperative.

So you say, “genetic logical fallacies matter to my world view as well” but don’t say how nor why.

Dismissing their contents due to labeling them “pseudepigraphic in character,” based on an argument ad populum or not, is a genetic logical fallacy.

Indeed, I noted the early Jewish and Christian consensus which doesn’t necessarily prove anything but that there was a consensus. Thus, such is why I argue from the texts for the Angel view.

You ask again but you didn’t answer your own question and I already answered you.

Shalom!

Creig Marlowe:

Since Elohim is plural the translation could be “sons of the gods” and possibly refer to followers of idols (polytheists). You give no proof that the author of Genesis 6 had any knowledge of fallen angels. And a text like Isa 14 or Eek 28 has nothing to do with Satan. Intercourse between humans and spirit beings has always belonged to mythology.

Joe LoMusio:

Thanks Creig for your feedback. Your point on the literal translation of the plural of the phrase “Sons of God” is well-taken. The proof of the author of Genesis 6 may have been self-evident, and regarding your reference to Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, I never once brought them up. Not sure why you did? One further comment is you might have missed my point towards the end of the paper that mythology may have borrowed from this story (rather than the other way around), especially given the antiquity of it. Indeed, as Larkin suggests, this is where pagan mythology may have originated their stories, and of course, adding to and elaborating to fit their ever-expanding pantheons. It is an interesting idea.

Ken Ammi:

“could be” being the qualifying term.

As for Isa 14 or Ezek 28, please see this article.

Intercourse between humans and Angles does not equate intercourse between humans and spirit beings since Angles are not spirit beings.

LoMusio makes a good point which I would put as that after the Tower of Babel event what had been commonly known and shared history was spread around the world and eventually came to be called myth and legend.

Geoffrey Tolle:

Mr. Marlowe, I’m not sure how you intended the phrase “has always belonged to mythology”. I feel that it is more appropriate to say “has always belonged to religions”. There are myths that are not explicitly religious (though they may be spiritual) but many myth are religious beliefs from religions not your own.

Derek P Gilbert:

This is a fascinating topic that touches on all of Christian theology. The Nephilim, and the demon spirits that proceeded from them, influenced the pagan neighbors of Israel across the Mediterranean, from the Amorites to the Romans. Amar Annus showed in his 1999 paper “Were There Greek Rephaim?” that the demigod heroes venerated in Greece and Rome were the Rephaim of the Amorites and Canaanites. Even the name “Titan” derives from the Amorites–the Tidanu/Ditanu tribe mentioned in Ugaritic and Sumerian texts. By the time of the judges in Israel, they were believed to be an underworld assembly linked to the Rephaim. A temple to the “council of the   ” is mentioned in Ugarit.

The main issue with the Nephilim is not that they were exceptionally large, it’s that the neighbors of Israel venerated them, and drew the Hebrews into that cult of the dead. See Psalm 106:28–the sin on the plains of Moab that provoked God to send a deadly plague was not just the worship of Baal Peor, a name which meant something like “lord of the opening to the netherworld,” it was that the cult involved eating sacrifices offered to the dead.

Sharon and I focus on this in our book ‘Veneration.’ References to a cult of the dead are scattered throughout the Bible. The Rephaim Texts of Ugarit describe a necromancy rite that summons these “warriors of Baal” to the threshing-floor or tabernacle of El, the summit of Mount Hermon, where “the blessing of the name of El” would “revivify” the heroes. It seems unlikely that their arrival at the threshing-floors at dawn of the third day (KTU1.22:ii:21–25) is a coincidence. It gives new meaning to 1 Corinthians 15–the fallen realm wants the resurrection that has been promised to us and bought for us by Jesus Christ.

Ken Ammi:

Most interesting.

Yet, all indications are that the assertion that, “demon spirits that proceeded from” Nephilim is just folklore from millennia after the Torah was written.

For a Biblical view of who/what demons are, see “Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?”

In noting, “the neighbors of Israel venerated them, and drew the Hebrews into that cult of the dead” you seem to be confusing Nephilim with (one of the usages of) rephaim.

Derek P. Gilbert:

Rephaim were venerated by the pagan Amorites as a sort of intermediate tier in the cosmological order between humanity and the great gods. At Ugarit, they were linked to the “council of the Ditanu,” who were believed to be the ancestral kings of several Amorite royal houses including that of Hammurabi of Babylon.

Isaiah describes the Rephaim as “leaders of the earth” and “kings of the nations.” Ezekiel refers to them as “chiefs of the gibborim.” The familiarity of Peter and Jude with 1 Enoch suggests that they held a favorable view of that text and its explanation of the origin of demons (which was shared by Hesiod, although the ancient Greeks had a much higher opinion of “daimones”). The “Travelers” of Ezekel 39:11 are probably the Rephaim, as that was an epithet of those spirits in one of the Ugaritic Rephaim texts (KTU 1.22 again).

That is at least circumstantial evidence that the Rephaim and Nephilim are the same group of disembodied spirits–demons–and that was the consensus belief among the early church until the time of Augustine.

Ken Ammi:

Recall that I noted “you seem to be confusing Nephilim with (one of the usages of) [the plural root word] rephaim.”

Yes, “Rephaim were venerated by the pagan…” but contextually, the Ugaritic sources inform us that recently deceased kings and heroes were referred to as such: kings and heroes. Yet, when they had been deal for a while, they were referred to as Rephaim. They were once living 100% humans who were later called by a different term—and the Pagan mythology was that they could be summoned.

Peter and Jude may (possibly) have “held a favorable view of that text and its explanation of the origin of demons” but such is never stated anywhere in the whole Bible. Yet, as you saw: I have constructed a Bible based theory about who/what they are.

If I really, really, really push it then perhaps maybe sort of, “Rephaim and Nephilim are the same group of disembodied spirits” but when alive, they had utterly nothing to do with each other, had no connection, no correlation at all in any way, shape, or form.

Also, I literally wrote the book but am unaware that “Rephaim and Nephilim are the same group of disembodied spirits–demons…was the consensus belief among the early church until the time of Augustine.”

See “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” and “What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities?: A Styled Paranormology” and “What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?: A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.”

Creig Marlowe:

Exegesis has to include the cultural context. In a case like cherub in Eek 28 what is in view is the sphinx of the king that guarded an entrance to the garden of his palace. Such statues with the body of a lion or bull and wings with the head/face of the king are well documented in the ANE. The original  audience would never have come away from the text thinking about Satan, only the King of Tyre.

Colin Hamer:

Hi Creig,

But the audience of Ezek 28 will have understood that Ezekiel was referencing events in Eden (as he says) and thus might well have connected the cherub/king of Tyre  to the serpent. John Ronning states (others say similar): “The figure of a supernatural serpent, or dragon, who is at enmity with God, was well known to the Hebrews and used without hesitation or introduction.” John L. Ronning, ‘The Curse on the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics’ (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1997), 141. Furthermore  gentile nations (e.g. Tyre) were thought to be ruled by other gods, thus Deut 32:8-9. And certainly Egypt – Pharaoh wore a serpent on his headgear. Ezek 25-32 seeTyre and Egypt on a par.

Edwin Stok:

In my humble opinion the Biblical Nephilim narration touches the foundation of our perception of all Biblical text, because it urges us to take a stand in a very fundamental discussion :

Should we take Biblical text literally ? Or is it open to different interpretations  -depending on if it suits our intentions- ?

Can one state that the Laws of Moses should not to be taken literally ? Are we free to put aside the First and Second Commandments if the content doesn’t suit us ? Can anyone state that the words of the Prophets should not be taken literally ? Ought we not take the teachings of Jeshua of Nazareth literally ?

It is my humble opinion that there is no way of not taking the Law (of Moses) and the Prophets literally.

I am just a layman on Church history and documentation. Plus I am not a native English speaker -thus making errors in choice of words and grammar. So, for me this is a balancing act. I consider it wrong to read anything else in the Bible texts than what is written. Even the term “Fallen Angels” is already a step aside from “Sons of God”.

The hard part is perhaps not that there were multiple Sons of God in Biblical History  (although the Christian Creeds, whether Protestant, Caltholic, Baptist, or else, are telling us that there is only one Son of God), but accepting that Biblical History only tells of Evil offspring of the Sons of God.

No mentioning of Good offspring of Divine creatures, but only evil ones. It brings to memory 2 Bible texts :

1 Sam 15:2-3  “Go and destroy Amalek. Kill everything and everyone; Man and women, children and baby’s.”

Josh. 6:17 “The whole city of Jericho and all that is in the city is for the Lord and has to be killed”.

Really ? Killing defenseless baby’s and children as an order of a mercyful and righteous God ? What moral value is left ? It contradicts one of the Laws of Moses : “Thou shall not kill”.

What is mankind worth if it spills innocent blood and even says it was a directive of God ? What is the moral value of a God who orders to spill innocent blood and leave no child or baby alive ?

My point is this : Perhaps we should not at all be surprised if the Sons of God had an evil offspring. At the same time, we should be grateful that God restored the balance after this offspring.

As it is repeated in every (kind of) war, at the end evil powers are defeated and mankind gets (again) a new start. And that closes my comments ;

Violence, bad genes and bloody disbalances are of all times, unfortunately. Not only Biblical history, but all of mankind’s history is full of it. It does not set aside my beginning argument :

The Bible, the Prophets and the Law are to be taken literally.

Ken Ammi:

1 Sam 15:2-3 and Josh. 6:17 have nothing to do with evil offspring of “Divine creatures.”

Categorically, there’s no commandment against killing but only against murdering.

Victor Hill:

It should be noted that some of the early church fathers (c AD 100‒400) made use of the writings of the Book of Enoch, either on a par with the Scriptures (marked with an *) or at the very least a suitable source of quotations, namely:

• Justin Martyr*, born c AD 100 ‒ died c 165;
• Tatian*, born c AD 110 ‒ died c 180;
• Irenaeus of Lyons, born c AD 140 ‒ died c 202;
• Clement of Alexandria*, born c AD 150 ‒ died c 215;
• Quintus Tertullian*, born c AD 155 ‒ died c 220;
• Origen, born c AD 184 ‒ died 254;
• Lucius Lactantius, born c AD 250 ‒ died c 320;
• Commodianus, lived c AD 250;
• Minucius Felix, died c AD 250;
• Methodius of Olympus/Philippi, died AD 311; and
• Ambrose of Milan, born c AD 340 ‒ died 397.

The popularity of the Book of Enoch among the church fathers was chiefly due to its use in supportive arguments (polemics) with the pagan Greeks and gave tentative support for Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah/Christ with the Hebrews.

It is interesting to note that the Ancient Greeks had similar stories, whether these derived from Babylonian or Hebrew influence is uncertain, but the parallels are certainly interesting to note, for example:

• Azazel, a demon leader, became Prometheus;
• Shemihazah, a demon leader, became Kronos, the king of the Titans;
• Enoch, the netherworld trekker, became Orpheus;
• giants (i.e., Nephilim), the people of renown, became gigantes, the demigod heroes (and after death the dactyls, e.g., daimon, i.e., demons);
• Nimrod, the king of Babylon, became Apollo;
• fallen watchers, the angels who sinned became Titans; and
• Yahweh, God the Father, was replaced by Zeus (Satan), the father of the (pagan) gods.

Later this affinity with Greek mythology and its doubtful authenticity would be used to criti-cise 1 Enoch which led to its later fall from grace within the church and subsequent rejection and obscurity.

The usage of 1 Enoch was opposed by Jewish teachers who believed that the giants were famous people such as rulers or judges, and this view was upheld by rabbis:

• Simeon ben Yochai, born c AD 100 – died c 160;
• Shlomo Yitzshaki, born AD 1040 ‒ died 1105; and
• Moshe ben Nachman, born AD 1194 ‒ died c 1270.

The usage of 1 Enoch was opposed by later church fathers who believed that the sons of God were the descendants of Seth (Sethites) and the daughters of men were the descendants of Cain (Cainites) producing halfcast (e.g., mongrel, bastard, half-breed) offspring and corrupt-ed people’s beliefs (their heresies), an idea that was proposed by Sextus Julius Africanus (born c AD 180 – died c 250),  and this view was upheld by:

• Hilary of Poitiers, born c AD 300 – died c 368;
• Philastrius of Brescia, born c AD 330 – died c 397;
• Jerome of Stridonium, born AD 347 – died 420; and
• Augustine of Hippo, born AD 354 – died 420.

Refer: Book Enoch Victor Hill in Academia.

Ken Ammi:

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

And “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?”

Barnabas Yisa:

In answering any questions that arises from Gen 6:1-4, I suggest that the starting point should be the questions viz: Apart from Adam and Eve did God  create other living beings before the earth was created and are these beings granted access to humans: Are beings created by God apart from humans made to procreate through sexual process either endogenously or exogenously; and finally what was the nomenclature humans give to their leaders before the flood? Also should Gen. 6:1-4 be literally interpreted? If one can answer these questions honestly, then it may be understandable how to interpret  the verses in reference.

benth castberg:

Gen 1:1

In the beginning

God created

the heaven

and the earth.

Job 38:

4 Where were you

when I laid the earth’s foundation?

Tell me, if you understand.

5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!

Who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its footings set,

or who laid its cornerstone—

7 while the morning stars sang together

and all the angels shouted for joy?

Matt 11:

Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

🙂

Ken Ammi:

The other verifiable living beings God create before the earth was created were “sons of God” and “morning stars” who witnessed the creation of the Earth, see Job 38:7 (as Benth noted and wherein the LXX has as sons of God/bene Elohim as Angelos)—perhaps Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim.

It would appear that Angels were not “created by God…to procreate through sexual process” but they did so nevertheless.

Unsure about the nomenclature question.

There’s no reason to not take Gen. 6:1-4 as literal.

Ken Ammi:

Indeed, “the most ancient view…is the angelic/semi-divine interpretation”: pardon the pseudo-spam but I chronicled this fact in my book “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?”

Indeed also, “the Sethite view gained acceptance mostly from the time of Augustine around the fourth-fifth century A.D.”: and if I may play armchair psychologist with Augustine, he converted to Christianity from Manichaeism and sought to divest himself off vestiges of it. Thus, since Mani held to the Angel view, Augustine rejected it.

One question to pose to the Sethite view is: why exclusively male Sethites and exclusively female Cainites?

The Angel view elucidates why exclusively male sons of God since, “we should understand that all angels are ‘male.’”

It was noted, “Jesus says that angels do not marry, but doesn’t say they cannot marry”: indeed and yet, we need not even go in that direction since His statements were specifically about the loyal, “Angels of God in heaven.” Such is why those who did marry are considered sinners, having “left their first” estate, as Jude put it.

This brings us to “the normal order of procreation, ‘everything after its own kind,’ is just that—normal. And what we are reading in Genesis 6 is clearly NOT normal!”: here I would argue that humans and Angels are of the same “kind.”

Angels look just like human males—without any indication that such is not their ontology, no indication they take on bodies, etc.

We were created “a little lower than the” מֵאֱלֹהִים / ἀγγέλους (Psalm 8:5).

And, granting the Angel view (backed most directly by 2 Peter 2 and Jude) we can produce viable offspring.

We’re of the same kind but they were not to mate with us—much like I’m the same kind with every woman on the planet but am not to mate with any except my wife.

Indeed, “both humans and the angels [and Nephilim] were punished”: and the term man/men covers them all since they are all referred to as such.

“Heiser sees the term however originating in Aramaic, from the term for ‘giants,’ which, of course, coincides with the Septuagint translation of gigantes”: yet, that begs the question “What does the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English term ‘giants’ mean?”

Gigantes means “earth-born” (born of Gaia).

Heiser is using “giants” to refer to (subjectively) unusual height and/but to no one taller than circa 8 ft., which is in keeping with very, very few biblical references to height.

On the other hand, J. Edward Wright, Ph.D. (Director of the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona) notes, “The term traditionally translated as ‘giants’ in both the Greek Septuagint (γιγαντες) and now in English is נפילים nephilim, a term based on the root נפל npl meaning ‘fall.’ It has nothing to do with size” and specifies that this goes for both Hebrew and Aramaic as “The root npl in Aramaic also means fall and not giants.”

franns diletta maceda:

Dear Joe,

Thanks for the invite.

Here’s a hasty and short observation – I agree the contrast between ‘daughters of men’ and ‘sons of God’ provides strong suggestion of sexual activities between human females and fallen angels.  This raises an interesting inquiry when i read’ It raises again the worst fears expressed at the close of Gen 3 (‘the man

has become like one of us. . . and now he might . . . eat, and live forever’) but in the new shape of gross physical contact between the sons of God and the beautiful daughters of humans. On the face of it, the human race could now be immune from mortality’

This suggest the tree of life (which many Christian analysts and regular believers believe as a symbol/gift of eternal life for accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior) was not the only source of immortality for humankind, which appears strongly inconsistent with the basic biblical truth that the God-man Jesus is the only author of eternal life.

Or the immortality conferred by the tree of life is different qualitatively from the immortality of the spawns between women and fallen angels, preserving the same conclusion of sexual congress between divine and n0n-divine beings

Second I do not understand how Coxen came to the suggestion of immortality of the products between women and angels.

A plain and simple reading of the text clearly does not imply any form or state of immortality , ‘3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide

in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.’

The text suggests these Nephilim can live beyond 120 years but not immortal and God limited them to 120 years.

Though French woman Jeanne Calment holds the longest documented human lifespan at 122 years so the view Noah build the ark for about 120 years simultaneously warning his wicked neighbors of the first rain for 120 years, is preferable and consistent God always tells the truth – the 120 years in Gen 6 is not about the limit of human lifespan.

Looking forward for more of your contributions

God bless your work

God bless your loved ones even more,

Franns Diletta

Creig Marlowe

see “Gen 6:1-4 as a Chiasm,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology 30:1 (2016): 129-44. Also in Other Voices in Old Testament Interpretation

Joseph Biddulph

First, we must acknowledge that this is by no means the only difficult passage in the Scriptures! They abound – in fact, some things appear to be scandalous. Without this difficulty, however, we might gloss over the text and not wrestle with it like wrestling Jacob, and I think that this wrestling becomes a valuable part of Scripture study – we are not required to find a complete, water-tight conclusion, any more than we can fully grasp the details of the Book of Job. See how the discussion makes us look closely at the Hebrew and grapple with the meanings of words! Would we do this if these difficulties were not there to challenge us?

The other element is mythology. Some commentators try to eliminate dragons, the Lamia, satyrs, Leviathan as neither hippo nor crocodile, etc. from the Scripture texts, but anyone with an understanding of the principles of heraldry will see the emblematic or heraldic significance here. If a dragon can symbolise everything inspiring it means to be Welsh, can’t a Scriptural dragon symbolise or indicate a similar truth or phenomenon?

If “symbolise” is the right word here?

Which brings us on to poetry – creative literature, if you prefer. I am working through a commentary on Proverbs which so far has not once stated that the proverbs are in metrical form in the Hebrew. The proverbs of many nations are often deeply literary – one might almost say, untranslatable. I have a book of Tamil proverbs (with “translation”) that indicates this. Just as the poetry of Robert Browning can be musical without us grasping the full meaning, so the Hebrew poetry can live outside semantics pure and simple: some of the effect is aesthetic. This aesthetic experience is defined in some Sanskrit sources as RASA, and exists independently from “what it’s supposed to mean”. Hebrew poetry achieves this in part through a very subtle system of sound harmonies – not simply alliteration and assonance, but much more – that I have dubbed the Hebrew Cynghanedd, after a similar if distinct system in Welsh. Another way of achieving it is through word pictures – the heraldry aspect – presenting to us vivid images which can be interpreted either in a number of different ways, or in many ways all at the same time. The Nephilim – even the word is pure music – may be seen as representing one of these?? (Please dismiss this thought if unacceptable!)

If therefore we attempt to juggle with these ideas without having a complete faith system to, so to speak, put Scripture in its place, we can run into the literalism and insistence on a narrow interpretation as found by many 19th century commentators. Once we see that Scripture is the LITERATURE of the Faith, we can be more tolerant of these difficulties, and enjoy them for themselves, knowing that the Almighty One whose Book this is has a relationship with us more immediate than this, and that the authentic teachers he has raised up for us can be trusted, in our search for Himself. To call Scripture literature is not to belittle it: it is to infuse it with another element on top of whatever else it is supposed to be. We are not only allowed to read carefully, we are also allowed to SING, and if wine gladdens men’s hearts, then we can feel free to be inebriated by the beauty of the utterance at the same time!

This may all be just a lot of rubbish, so please disregard as appropriate.  Happy Scripture Reading, everybody!

Joseph Biddulph, Pontypridd

Victor Hill

In the Old Testament the term ‘sons of God’ is only used to refer to angels. It is not until the New Testament that Christians are referred to as ‘sons of God’, bore there is no ambiguity regarding its usage in Genesis.

And that brought the discussion to an end.

See my various books here.

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

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

The statement by the Atheist came about due to the following discussion to the question, “Do atheists separate themselves from other atheists in their forms of atheism as far as motive is concerned?” that was posted to the Quora site.

A certain, “Francis, Raised as a Christian, experimented, and ended an atheist” replied:

Atheists are no more one unified body who believe the same thing than Christians are. There are, however, some common types.

Most atheists just want to be left alone and get on with our lives without being hassled by people claiming to be on a mission from god. We don’t particularly care about the nuances of why we don’t believe.

Some atheists think that theology is one of the best parlour games ever invented. We enjoy teasing out the differences between atheists and agnostics even if they don’t actually mean much.

Some atheists reject and oppose the specific religion they grew up in. Nietzche, for example, was a “Catholic Atheist”; he was an atheist – but agreed with the Catholic church on just about everything other than the existence of God (which is pretty big, admittedly) and where Catholic philosophy says “The world would be this way without God” Nietzche agreed and said that’s how the world is.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

I’d say that one thing that unifies Atheists is that Atheism is primarily an anti-Christian support group. They have two main denominations and various sects—based on certain commonalities, of course. Likewise, the three main Christian groups—Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism—all agree on the Nicene Creed, as an example of across the board agreement on main issues.

I’m unsure to what research study you are referring for your assertion about what “Most atheists…want” but the activist ones are utterly obsessed with hassling people by comporting themselves as Atheist missionaries.

Now, of course, that “The world would be this way without God” is utterly incoherent since without God there would be not world.

Francis:

I’m unsure to what research study you are referring for your assertion about what “Most atheists…want” but the activist ones are utterly obsessed with hassling people by comporting themselves as Atheist missionaries.

I’m unsure what research study you are referring to – but I’ve yet to be woken up by an atheist knocking on my door to share the good news that there is no god. I’ve yet to be yelled at by an atheist street stall or atheist street preacher. I’ve yet to see an atheist tell people they deserve to be tortured forever because of their beliefs.

In my experience even the most ardent “activist atheists” are no more obsessed with hassling people than your average run of the mill church going Christian. I would be interested to see your evidence of the existence of atheist street stalls and atheist street preachers – or atheists going on tour to spread the word.

Ken Ammi

No worries, you referenced that which, “Most atheists…want” but that was just a wild guess—I’m sure I generalize from time to time as well and also, like you, based on my personal experiences.

Fascinatingly, you admit that (at least some) Atheists assert, “that there is no god” so that is one of the denominations of Atheism—the one that makes positive affirmations that are unproven.

But oh, I’ve been yelled at by Atheist cyber preacher plenty of times—my website it saturated with examples of my discussion with them.

I see your point about “tortured forever” since Atheists set the serial and mass murdering world’s record in mere decades and opted to believe that they were not transcendently accountable. They enjoyed doing that they did and simply got away with it—this is part of why evil, pain, and suffering are some of the best reasons for rejecting Atheism.

Now, I don’t mind setting all of that aside so as to just deal with the issue of that on Atheism truth/reality/facts are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand/expect others to do so either ergo, why get bent out of shape if, say, someone misrepresents Atheism or believes in things that are even demonstrably untrue/unreal/un-factual?

Francis

You aren’t Humpty-Dumpty. Words don’t mean what you want them to just because you pay them extra.

1: Atheism does not have denominations with a non-trivial size. (You could argue the Satanic Temple and a couple of other tiny organisations). A denomination isn’t just a belief, it’s an organised group.

2: You have not been yelled at by atheists on your website unless they’ve uploaded an audio file. Words have meanings. You might have been flamed for all the arrant nonsense. I’m talking about yelled at in real life. How many times have you seen an atheist on the street corner with a microphone, amplifier, and speaker? Because for me it’s never. While it happened almost every week from a Christian down my high street.

2b: They aren’t “atheist cyber preachers” unless you want to count every single Christian who ever tweeted anything about Christianity even if they would never have the nerve to do it fave to face as a preacher which is … an unusual definition of words.

3: Hitler professed to be a Roman Catholic (what he was in his heart isn’t very relevant) and the Wehrmacht had “Gott mit uns” on their belt buckles. The continual either ignorant or dishonest attempts by Christians to deny what the Nazis believed and professed to believe is tedious.

4: Torture forever is the doctrine of hell. Most Christians openly worship a being who set up and rules a system where people are tortured forever. And Christian writers and preachers at least as far back as Tertullian and continuing through Aquinas into the present day have openly claimed that one of the greatest pleasures of heaven will be watching the suffering of the damned in hell. If evil, pain, and suffering are a reason to reject atheism it is because large branches of Christianity embrace all three and call them good.

5: Atheism is where you get if you actually think that facts matter. Which is a big part of why the overwhelming majority of those who honestly and passionately study the world and the way the physical world works for a living (scientists) are atheists.

But as you say there is no universal imperative to adhere to the observable facts of the world – which is why not everyone is an atheist. There is also no universal imperative to have conversations on Quora and if you keep ignoring the observable facts you may be blocked.

Ken Ammi

Indeed, words don’t mean what you want and the history of Atheism informs us of various meanings and usages.

So, if “Atheism does not have denominations” then since you positively affirm God’s non-existence then you must prove it.

Pretending to know the private details of my life is utterly embarrassing as I have, in fact, been yelled at in person, in real-life (and you may be aware that one can YELL VIA TYPING just like that or like this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

So please, don’t waste time pretending to know what you could not possibly know (no wonder you’re an Atheist) and playing mind reader such as when you refer to my “arrant” nonsense as if you can read my mind, heart, motivations, feelings, etc.

It is also fascinating how utterly myopic and subjective you are that if you have not experienced it then no one must have either.

No, “atheist cyber preachers” does not refer to “Christian who ever tweeted anything about Christianity”: that is utterly incoherent.

What does it matter if “Hitler professed to be a Roman Catholic”? Also, are you saying that if I wear a National Rodeo Association belt buckle then that means I’m a bull rider?

But friend, you are only constantly merely jumping to asserted conclusions since, for example, you write, “worship a being who set up and rules a system where people are tortured forever” but don’t bother elucidating why you seem to imply that something is wrong with that—on your worldview.

As for “evil, pain, and suffering are a reason to reject atheism it is because large branches of Christianity embrace all three and call them good” that’s merely a tu quoque logical fallacy (not that logical fallacies matter on Atheism).

The scientific method is premise on biblical theology.

The point about “if you actually think that facts matter” is part of what I’m getting at since on Atheism facts are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, not to demand that others do so. Thus, you just dug your own grave.

And you actually admit that with “there is no universal imperative to adhere to the observable facts of the world” so you just obliterated everything you have written.

But then you contradict your own moment of clarity by writing about that you will run away and censor me (block me) if I (allegedly) “keep ignoring the observable facts” so you are now speaking incoherently and are contradicting your own worldview which is cognitively dissident (not that being cognitively dissident matters on Atheism).

Well, that ended it since Francis never replied again—and I do find that Atheists generally don’t when they get too close to exposing their hidden assumptions which turn out to be a bottomless pit of subjective assertions.

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.