Satan is not a demon. He is a fallen angel. Read Ezekiel 28 : 12 : 19 to learn more about him. The origins of Demons/Evil Spirits/Ghost is in Genesis 6 : 1 – 4. Another group of fallen angels called Watchers who’s job was to watch and assist early humans who had illicit sex with women and produced an offspring called Nephilim. These giants were bullies, evil, cannibals and caused havoc on the earth against humans. Their disembodied spirits are the Demons that are plaguing mankind. Their abode is the Abyss. Read Revelation 9 : 11. Satan is their leader and is over all the other fallen angels. Read Revelation 12 : 4.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
Satan is not a fallen Angel, he’s a Cherub.
Charles Jackson
Mr. Ken, Aren’t Cherubs are a higher order of angels?
Ken Ammi
Mr. Jackson, the main three categories of being in God’s court are Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim.
They have different job titles, different job functions, and look different from one another.
Cherubs can’t be anywhere in the order of Angels since they are not Angles since they are not messengers.
I am aware of un-biblical categorizations such as “Cherubs are a higher order of angels” that are based on tradition, but that is a category error that violates the law of identity.
Charles Jackson
Mr. Ammi,,,,,,Cherub >> Shorten form of Cherbium. Read Ezekiel 28 : 14, it says: You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. This verse is talking about the Satan. Thanks! Please don’t take offense as this not my opinion, but from bible. What ever you write I take note of.
Ken Ammi
Mr. Jackson,,,,,,Indeed, that is why I noted that Satan is not an Angel but is a Cherub. You will find that such technical accuracy is important when, for example, you think about what topped the Ark of the Covenant, how Satan could “enter” Judas, etc. Check out my book on Satanology, if you are so inclined: https://www.amazon.com/What-Bible-About-Devil-Satan/dp/1790181674
That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
On his Facebook page, a certain Jerry Locklair posted a notification about:
A conversation about the Bible’s account of Giants on Earth! Nephilim giants did exist before the Flood of Noah. Was the Giant that David killed with his sling and rock, a Nephilim also, created after the Great Flood of Noah’s time? Those who know the Scriptures, please respond.
Darrell E. Smith responded:
We have evidence from all over the world…but because of scientists clinging to the debunked theory of evolution(DNA and Microbiology debunked it in the mid 1980’s)…hundreds of giant skeletons were destroyed. The largest destruction of giant skeletons came in 1910 when The Smithsonian hired a new curator(an evolutionist) who had all their collection of giant bones and skeletons destroyed. Evolution wrongly teaches that man was small and got larger over 2 million years. Lol. We know better than that…and The Smithsonian had proof. However…the Old newspaper articles from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s still tell of the excavations of these giant skeletons…all over the US and the world.
I, as True Freethinker, had to spoil the fun with questions and facts:
Darrell E. Smith “all over the world” is a bit of a vague citation.
What makes you assert “hundreds of giant skeletons were destroyed”?
What the citation for the specific assert of 1910?
Regarding “Old newspaper articles” have you double checked them?
In any case considering the reference to “the Bible’s account of Giants”: The key questions are: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your and Jerry’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”? Do those two usages agree?
I have to ask because they certain don’t agree.
“Nephilim giants” biblically contextually reads as “Nephilim Nephilim.”
As for “Was the Giant that David killed with his sling and rock, a Nephilim also, created after the Great Flood of Noah’s time?” no, he was a Repha, not a Nephil, and most reliably just shy of 7 ft.
Darrell E. Smith
Actually I never said Goliath was a Nephilim…and his stature according to scriptural accounts was just over 9 feet. If you care to do research about the Smithsonian…you will find that one of its employees at the time of the bone disposal kept some of the records and a few of the bones. The fact that these giant bones have indeed been found “all over the world” is not a disputed fact…except in the minds of evolutionists.
Jerry Locklair
True Freethinker, reread what I wrote! I’m asking questions about giants, after the flood! I never said they are the same kind of giants as the pre flood giants!
True Freethinker
Darrell E. Smith I was just grouping together your comment with the post’s comment.
When you refer to Goliath’s “stature,” whatever that has anything to do with anything, “according to scriptural accounts” it’s ironic that you refer to accounts, plural, since you’re myopically appealing to the Masoretic text but the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and even the earlier Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft and so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
When I ask people about their assertions about the Smithsonian I get the same vague non-quotation and non-citation you offered.
Likewise with following up my noting, “‘all over the world’ is a bit of a vague citation” by doubling down with, “giant bones have indeed been found ‘all over the world’”
Tracy Jayne
I’m Genesis 6, I’ve been taught that the the term,”sons of God” refers to those of the lineage of Jesus and the term, “daughters of men” refers to women who were not of the lineage of Jesus. It was not God’s plan for the sons of God to marry with unbelievers but they did and that is why evil proliferated before the flood. He urges us Christians today as well not to marry an unbeliever.
This passage is not about angels and humans getting together, it’s about believers and nonbelievers. The confusion comes from the book of Enoch which is not a part of the cannon of the protestant Bible.
Darrell E. Smith
Tracy Jayne I agree…but this does not negate the Nephilim…and The Bible’s statement that “There were giants in the earth in those days”.
True Freethinker
Tracy Jayne Job 38:7 allow for understanding “sons of God” to refer to non-human beings—which the LXX has as “Angelos.”
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined set the sin of Angels to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin.
Such is how the overwhelming majority of Jews and Christians understood it from BC days well into centuries into AD days.
Until, that is, someone decided to tell a myth such as that, “This passage is not about angels and humans getting together.”
1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah.
Tracy Jayne
Darrell E. Smith Have you seen Shaquil O’Neil in person?
Tracy Jayne
True Freethinker Don’t agree with you, respectfully.
Darrell E. Smith
Tracy Jane and Freethinker, It is a distinct possibility that all Antedeluvians were Giants…considering the earth’s very different conditions…with people living to be over 900 years old. We know there was 50% more oxygen and greater air pressure which would have pressurized both oxygen and Co2 to fauna and flora. This is why we find fossil remains of insects that are ten times their normal size.
True Freethinker
Tracy Jayne Are you asserting that he’s not fully human?
True Freethinker
Darrell E. Smith But if “all Antedeluvians were Giants” then none of them were giants. The key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
Darrell E. Smith
True Freethinker Lol!
True Freethinker
Darrell E. Smith Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens upon dozens upon dozens of people who go on and on and on about “giants” and literally zero have replied to them. That’s part of why Nephilology has become the cesspool of un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales which it is.
Darrell E. Smith
True Freethinker I just look at the bone evidence…and know they existed. I have no way of determining their origin. When Christ returns I will ask him.
True Freethinker
Darrell E. Smith But you look for “bone evidence” of people who’s bones you don’t know what they looked like.
Darrell E. Smith
True Freethinker That is true…which is why I said: “I just look at the bone evidence and know they existed…even though I don’t know their origin”. That would include “what they look like”.
True Freethinker
Oh, I see. Origin would be ontology, looked like would be morphology but, no worries. That still gets us to that we wouldn’t know their bones even if we were looking right at them. And, of course, the answer to, “a Nephilim also, created after the Great Flood of Noah’s time?” is no.
Phil BeePositive Burrell
Goliath was a descendant of the off spring of sons of GOD and daughters of woman..
True Freethinker
Phil BeePositive Burrell There’s literally zero reliable indication of that and only one single sentence in its favor that was spoken by unreliable guys who presented an evil report and were rebuked by God. Also, now you have to invent a way to have God fail since He clearly would have missed a loophole and the flood was much of a waste.
Phil BeePositive Burrell
True..OK if you say so..
True Freethinker
Phil BeePositive Burrell I don’t say so: it’s literally in the Bible : just read the narratives of Num 13 and 14. And yes, post-flood Nephilologists have to invent a way to have God fail since He clearly would have missed a loophole and the flood was much of a waste.
Olga Flemen Kievitt
There were people on the earth long before Adam. When God turned the earth upside down there were people and animals . Plenty of reference to that in the bible. Yes there were giants. Why does it tell us in Genisis to REPLENISH the earth 🌎 if it had never been plenished before. The answers are all there in the bible
True Freethinker
Olga Flemen Kievitt If there is “Plenty of reference to that in the bible” I’m surprised you didn’t offer any—except, I suppose one single word “REPLENISH” which you appeal to misread because it contains the letters “RE” but back when that word was used it didn’t mean to re-do, re-fill, or anything like that. Please don’t assert an entire all-encompassing theory on two English letters.
And well, that ended the discussions with these individuals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Two of them note, “The word angel means ‘messenger’ and this word expresses the nature of angelic service to the human race” and “The word ‘angel’ means ‘messenger’ and this word expresses the nature of angelic service to the human race.” Moreover, “the word angel means ‘messenger’ and implies service to God and to mankind” and “messengers or heralds of the will of God, guides for people and the servants of their salvation” and “Angels are the messengers and deliver only that which God reveals” and “execute God’s will, functioning as our guardians, and as messengers of God” and “angels are a reflection of God’s glory and exist to serve as God’s messengers.”
As we shall see, these simple statements will actually become very important in terms of categorization, in terms of the law of identity.
This is because, “Angels are organized into several orders, or Angelic Choirs” and “Before the visible world was created God had created the angelic orders.”
We are told, “The most influential of these classifications was that put forward by pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (not to be confused with Dionysius the Areopagite, who was baptized by Saint Paul and lived in the first century, and from whom pseudo-Dionysius took his name) in the fourth or fifth century in his book The Celestial Hierarchy.”
Note that this is a pseudo source and one that dates to circa the late fifth and early sixth century AD: some half millennia after Jesus’ time.
We are specifically told that pseudo-Dionysius, “interpolated several ambiguous passages from the New Testament, specifically Ephesians 6:12 and Colossians 1:16” so let us read those, “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” and “by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.”
Thus, “ambiguous” was a key qualifier since we are Paul does not specify to whom he was referring no who belongs in which category.
Now, pseudo-Dionysius developed these categorization:
First Hierarchy: Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones
Second Hierarchy: Powers, Dominions, Principalities
Third Hierarchy: Virtues, Archangels, Angels
How Seraphim and Cherubim got added to the mix is certainly mysterious but they surely belong therein, somewhere.
Now, the Bible only reveals a fall or sin or casting out of Angels (1/3 of them—Rev 12:4) and something will become very important: one Cherub.
Note that Paul referred to how “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against…” which tells us that at least some of the rulers, authorities, cosmic powers, spiritual are malevolent—or, became that way. Again, who these are is un-elucidated.
Not only is this mostly based on pseudo-Dionysius from half a millennia after Jesus’s time but, “The idea of there being ten initial Angelic hosts is taken from Judaism, this number possessing a very deep significance in Jewish mysticism, being the numeric value…” but keep in mind that this does not refer to the Old Testament religion but to Rabbinic Judaism.
Thus, we are told, “one should be a bit cautious about taking pseudo-Dionysius’ model too concretely, as he is the only source we have for such a classification system. The author himself was a fairly early advocate of apophatic theology” and “many have accused the writer of wavering somewhere in between Orthodoxy and Neoplatonism.”
We are told, “When Adam was expelled from paradise after his fall, one of the cherubim with a flaming sword was set to guard the gates of Eden (Gen. 3:24)”: it was actually two Cherubim—and we will see that there was a good reason for this—or so it seems.
We are told, “By their nature, angels are active spirits…They are incorporeal spirits…Angels are the most perfect spirits…incorporeal spirits…being incorporeal spirits, are capable to the highest degree spiritual development…The Apostle Paul writes: ‘Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?’ (Heb. 1:14).”
This is a very, very common view and it is a very, very unbiblical view—but a very technical one that must be handled carefully.
The term “incorporeal spirits” is actually a very important one. Many would think that it is redundant since, by definition, spirits are incorporeal. Yet, while a spirit, proper, is incorporeal (Luke 24:39), spirits can take on a corpus. For example, God breathed into the mud/dust/soil man the spirit of life and he became a living soul: body, spirit, and soul. God is spirit, proper, but incarnated.
But Angles are described as looking like human males, the perform physical acts, and there is no indication that such is not their nature, no indication they shapeshift/morph, take on bodies when need be, etc.
But what about Heb. 1:14? Well, that was quoting Psalm 104:4. Now, what is interesting is that in both Hebrew and Greek one word can refers to/mean spirit of breath/wind: ruach and pneuma, respectively. The context of the Psalm is correlations natural phenomena thus, that statement is to be translated (as many have done) as that they are winds rather than spirits. Since the Psalm should read winds then so should Hebrews when it quotes it—I went over this in detail in my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
While there are some spirits, proper, God created a physical/material realm and just because Angles, et al., have access to realms/dimensions to which humans have not access (whilst alive, anyhow) does not mean that those realms/dimensions are not physical/material—even if exhibiting characteristics of physicality/materiality that are unusual to us humans.
We are told, “They are incorporeal spirits, and because they belong to the invisible world” but Jesus was very physical when He resurrected and yet, could literally chose to stop interacting with the visible world when He wanted: He would become invisible—or, disappear (Luke 24:31).
Also noted is that, “St. John of Damascus writes: ‘When it is the will of God that angels should appear to those who are worthy, they do not appear as they are in their essence, but, transformed, take on such an appearance as to be visible to physical eyes’” which is an assertion.
Also, “In the book of Tobit,” an apocryphal or deuteron canonical text, “the angel accompanying Tobit and his son says of himself: ‘All these days I was visible to you, but I neither ate nor drank, this only appeared to your eyes’ (Tobit 12:19).”
Thus, we either establish our entire Angelology upon this one single statement or we base it on what I noted about how Angels are described (many times) and what is not said about them.
Now, “St. John of Damascus also writes: ‘An angel can only be called incorporeal and non-material in comparison with us. For in comparison with God, Who alone is beyond compare, everything seems coarse and material, only the divinity is totally non-material -and incorporeal.’”
That is closer to my view which is that Angels are ontologically like or much like Jesus is post-resurrection: physical/material enough to be touched, seen, eat, etc. yet, with access to other realms/dimensions so that He seems to walk through a closed door, can become invisible/disappear, etc. As we are told about humans, “Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels” (Psalm 8:5).
Now, getting back to the issue of categorization, we are told, “St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes: ‘…there are various degrees of perfections and therefore various ranks or a hierarchy of the heavenly powers. Thus Holy Scripture calls some angels and others archangels (I Thess. 4:16, Jude v. 9).”
Indeed, when it comes to Angels, proper, “Holy Scripture calls some angels and others archangels”—actually, not “others,” plural, “archangels” since only Michael is referred to as such (in fact, it is an issue whether there could be more than one arch).
We are told, “St. Dionysius the Areopagite, divides the world of the angels into nine ranks,” so this source was not detailed and accurate enough to note that it was actually “pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (not to be confused with Dionysius the Areopagite…”
Also, “St. Gregory the Dialogist writes: ‘We accept the existence of nine ranks of angels, because from the evidence of the Word of God we know about angels, archangels, powers, authorities, principalities, dominions, thrones, cherubim and seraphim. The existence of angels and archangels is witnessed throughout Holy Scripture; it is principally the books of the Prophets which mention cherubim and seraphim.”
Now, I referred to “Angels, proper” since, sure, “Holy Scripture calls some angels and others archangels” when, that is, Angels are actually being referenced. Dividing “the angels into nine ranks” means that Cherubim and Seraphim do not belong therein.
If the Orthodox Church wants to insist in specifying nine ranks they will need to stop referring to nine ranks of Angels since some therein are not Angles, by definition.
Recall that we were told (and not the emphasis added for emphasis), “The word angel means ‘messenger’…means ‘messenger’…angelic service to the human race…means ‘messenger’ and implies service to God and to mankind…guides for people…messengers…our guardians, and as messengers…serve as God’s messengers.”
Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim 1) have different job titles, 2) different job functions, and 3) look different from one another thus, they are three separately distinct categories of being and ergo, it is a category error which violates the law of identity to lump them all together.
In fact, why assert that Cherubim and Seraphim are kinds of Angles rather than asserting that Angles and Seraphim are kinds of Cherubim or that Angles and Cherubim are kinds of Seraphim? See, it is an arbitrary mis-categorization.
For example, Angels are, “messenger…messenger…messenger…messengers…messengers…messengers,” as we were told, but Cherubim and Seraphim are not messengers.
Moreover, we were told they are in “service to the human race…service…to mankind…guides for people…our guardians” but there is no indication that Cherubim and Seraphim do any such things.
As for rulers, authorities, cosmic powers, spiritual forces, thrones, dominions, etc., we are told, “some Fathers of the Church express their personal opinion that the division of angels into nine ranks covers only those names and ranks which have been revealed to us in this present life; others will be revealed in the world to come.”
We are told, “In Holy Scripture we find the names of some of the highest angels. There are two such names in the canonical books, ‘Michael’ (‘Who is like unto God?’ Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude v. 9; Rev. 12:7-8) and ‘Gabriel’ (‘Man of God’ Dan. 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19-26)” but they missed one or two. “They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon” (Rev 9:11) and one that is a maybe, “a great star fell from heaven…The name of the star is Wormwood” (Rev 8:10)—and I said “maybe” since star can sometimes refer to Angels, “I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit” (Rev 9:1).
Note that this source rightly ignored Lucifer aka Satan aka Devil aka etc. I say rightly because the fact is that he is not an Angel but is a Cherub. Now, I noted that Cherubim do not deliver messages but this one actually does yet, not from God: try as he may to pretend they are from God, “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14): he disguises himself as an Angel, a messenger, and as one of light, from God.
This takes us back to the Cherubim guarding (being guardians is their job function, unlike Angels) guarding the way into the Garden of Eden: a Cherub had caused a ruckus therein, so two were stationed: 2 vs. 1.
Lastly, one source includes a “Prayer to our Guardian Angel.” While there are guardian Angels (again, see my book for details on every points I have made herein) in the Bible there is prayer to God and prayer to false gods—period, full stop.
Thus, it should be at least concerning when someone comes along later on with a tradition about doing something no one in the Bible seems to have realized they could do. This also potentially opens the door for Angles that are not our guardians—fallen/sinful/cast out ones who became demons—to answer our prayer, in a manner of speaking.
For more info, see the aforementioned What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology as well as the book wherein I deal with Cherubim and Seraphim What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities? A Styled Paranormology and also 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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
I’ve literally written dozens and dozens (and dozens) of articles and circa a dozen books about giant and Nephilim related issues. This includes having read what the Bible says about them, what apocryphal and pseudepigraphic text say about them, what Bible commentaries say about them, what dictionaries and encyclopedias say about them, what scholars say, what pop-researchers say, what anonymous cyber posters say, etc., etc., etc., etc.
And yet, people constantly send me links to articles and videos assuming I know not of what I speak, or just so happened to miss the one person who has the insight, just because they’re unused to being asked to back their assertions and so it comes down to that someone else must have the data but well, no one seems to have it.
I’m keeping the genre—that it’s an article—in mind when I do still note that we get typically generic statements beginning with, “the early 18th century tale of Jack and a cannibalistic giant called ‘Jack the Giant Killer.’ The origins of that can be traced through oral histories to prehistoric England.”
So, an early 18th c. tall tale based on tall tales from some generic time.
Then, “The 16th century scribe, Raphael Holinshed, wrote in ‘Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland,’ that Britain’s oldest acknowledged name was taken from a prehistoric king named Albion, who ruled a race of giants that dominated the UK for hundreds, possibly thousands of years B.C.”
So, a 16th c. tall tale based on some generic time.
We are told, “The Bible is filled with stories of Middle Eastern giants, including the Nephilim tribe that spawned the Amorites, Emim and Anakim, who the Sumerians called the Annunaki.”
So, another usage of the generic, vague, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined (in the article) English word “giants.”
The Bible is so not filled with stories of giants from anywhere that it only provides us two specified heights of people and unusual height is essentially a non-issue.
Now, there’s zero indication that, “the Nephilim tribe that spawned the Amorites, Emim” and no reliable indication that they spawned Anakim—this latter one is based solely based on one sentence only from non-LXX versions of unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers who presented an evil report and were rebuked by God.
Now, listing Nephilim, Amorites, Emim, and Anakim is a sort of popular manner whereby to, purposefully or not, aggrandize the issue. This is because Nephilim are their own category: they exclusively existed pre-flood.
Amorites are their own people group.
Emim and Anakim are just clans/subgroups or the Rephaim tribe/main-group.
But what of all of these being whatever is meant by “giants”?
We’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim.
We’ve no physical description of Amorites.
Of Emim we’re told, “The Emim formerly lived there [“the wilderness of Moab”], a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.”
Thus, Emim were as tall as Anakim so, how tall were Anakim? Well, we’re told they were “tall.” Now, tall is as generic, vague, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined as giants. Moreover, Emim and Anakim were tall subjective to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.
As far as that Anakim are they “who the Sumerians called the Annunaki” well, I’ve seen that asserted various times but there’s utterly zero support of that and it seems to be exclusively based on that the words look similar—but only when transliterated into English: also, Anakim is just the male plural (im) of Anak which is a man’s name.
We’re then told, “Marco Polo wrote of encountering giants in Zanzibar who were ‘so strong they can carry as many as four ordinary men.’”
So, the actual quote, from circa 1271-1295, refers to strength, not height.
Another reference speaks to points I’ve made, “Mid-20th century journalist Glenn D. Kittler said of the Watusi tribe east of the Congo, ‘Men towering 7 or 8 feet are a common sight.’”
See, “towering” speaks to a comparison to the subjective average.
Now, this was really a PR marketing ad for a book disguised as an article and next notes, “Reputable accounts of giants come from all over the world” say the authors of the book for sale, Hugh Newman and Jim Vieira, but why think any of these have been “Reputable” and then there’s the ongoing issue of the vagaries with employing the term “giants.”
Newman notes that Denisovans, “are known to be very, very tall” but since we’re not told subjective to what then, guess what, it’s yet another generic throw-away statement.
A Q&A with Hugh Newman follows. Now, this photo is displayed, captioned as, “Hugh Newman appears at an exhibition of a 15th century giant sword found in Scotland.”
Now, there are a few things to consider before we jump to an assertion about giants:
Such long swords were meant to keep one’s opponent well away rather than engaging in close range fighting.
Such long swords were meant to be used against people on horseback, so as to reach an opponent atop a house.
Such long swords were made for honorific and decorative purposes—such as, conversely, one can buy very small replicas of the Eifel Tower.
Newman was asked “when did giants roam the earth?”
Sadly, rather than beginning with “What do you mean by giants?,” he replied, “We’re looking at different eras” along with a generic reference to that “giants have been witnessed.”
Yet, we then come to specific since he was asked, “How tall are we talking?” and replied, “Anywhere between 7-foot…up to 18 feet, but we don’t think that’s for real. Probably about 14 foot.”
He was then asked about whether “giants [were] a different species of Homo sapiens” and replied, “Not really, no…”
Hugh Newman was also asked, “So, you’re saying the giants weren’t different from ancient humans, just taller?” and replied, “I believe so, yeah. But we don’t really know because we can’t get access to (many) bones or DNA because of the NAGPRA Act – the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (requiring institutions that receive federal funding to return Native American cultural items to their descendants).”
But what has that regional issue to do with, “all over the world…around the world” which I’m quoting from the article?
In any case, Hugh Newman make a common sense yet important point which is that, “we had to use the records as the evidence rather than the bones” which is part of what makes this issue, their field of study, ridiculously vague—that and because many authors write vaguely about it.
Another issue is that he refers to, “legends and oral traditions of the Native Americans” as if what they say is not only literally true but it’s infallible—same goes for any people’s tall tales.
Hugh Newman claims, “We have red-haired mummies found in Lovelock Cave in Nevada (discovered in 1911 and corresponding to Paiute oral history about a tribe of giant cannibals)” but “We have” where? Well, “We have” no such thing well, “We have” tall tales, is all we have. Also, see my article, Lovelock Cave Giants: lost or found?
He then tells of, Ross Hamilton who “was in touch with Vine DeLoria Jr.” who “had access to all these elders who shared their stories going far back … 12,000 to 13,000 years ago” (ellipses in original) about generic “giant humans.”
So, Newman said that Hamilton said that DeLoria Jr. said that elders said that “stories going far back … 12,000 to 13,000 years ago” said something about “giant humans.”
Regarding “evidence of giants in Peru,” Hugh Newman notes, “They found these giant long skulls, but they’re not giants” wait, so “They found these giant long skulls, but they’re not giants”?
Well, he elucidated, “They’re standard-sized humans but their skulls are very long. It’s mainly cranial deformation.” This reminded me that LA Marzulli claims that Nephilim were giants and claims to have their skulls but can only ever show us regular sized skulls.
He refers to, “the Watchers…angels…were said to be giants” who fathered, “Nephilim, who were the well-known giants” yet, there’s no such claim about Watcher/Angels and, again no reliable physical description of Nephilim.
Regarding “evidence…of giant human beings” Hugh Newman appeals to “over 7 feet tall” which, again, speaks to the uselessness of the word giants: useless except that employing it leaves enough wiggle room to make very exciting sounding assertions that are the backbone of the whole neo-theo-sci-fi pop-researcher’s cottage industry.
He also relates, “a fossilized bone that was found in South Africa (from) someone who was twice the height of a human being” but a human being of South Africa from an estimated “40,000 years” ago so, what was that average height?
He touches upon something that is very pop to say in certain circles, “why is this important chapter in human history being completely and utterly covered up?” which many people will follows up of by claiming to know what’s hidden away in places they’ve never been or seen or may not even exist.
He also claims, “if you look around the world, there’s always a connection between megalithic construction, mound culture-type sites and the giants” but how so? Well, “That was part of their traditions: building these sites.”
Well, it’s a little bit generic for my taste to all-encompassingly assert that “around the world” all such “traditions” refer to giants (remember to not ask what that means) were the ones “building these sites.”
Well, in my experience, this is really based on a non sequitur that jumps to the conclusion that large things must have been built for and by large people—as well as some tall tales.
Hugh Newman notes, “If you go back to the time of the Bible, and the Anunnaki and the Watchers and the Nephilim, we have stories that recount that they were obsessive megalith builders and stone masons and metallurgists.” I’m not aware of “time of the Bible” stories about Watchers or Nephilim doing any such things.
Going back to “use the records as the evidence rather than the bones,” he notes, “there is evidence actually emerging that this is actually, genuinely a thing. We have 1,500 newspaper accounts in North America of giant bones and skeletons being unearthed.”
In my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales I have a chapter titled “Giant skeleton reports in old newspapers” wherein I included many such reports. Well, there are many issues with such a claim as that newspaper accounts are “evidence…actually, genuinely” since fake-news is not a new phenomena, by their nature newspaper reports are a very momentary bit of data usually without follow-up, and most people can’t tell you if a bone is dinosaur, whale, pachyderm, etc., so it’s due to homologous structures (similar looking morphologies) it’s all too simple to merely assume there are giant human/humanoid bones—if, that is, there were any bone at all.
Back to the issue of to what giant refers, again, Hugh Newman refers to “accounts of 7- to 8-foot giants in the Smithsonian’s own scientific annual reports. The Maryland Academy of Science is talking about 9-foot giants” and “universities in Texas finding 36-inch circumference skulls and so on” but we have to assume he means (and knows) they are human/humanoid.
He soberly notes, “There’s too much data to ignore that this is reality and the people who try to tell us that this is all sensational newspaper stories or exaggerated measurements are completely wrong.”
Now, we humans tend to function in extremes and in this case the extremes are people who try to tell us that the newspaper stories are absolutely, literally, and infallibly completely right and what he noted.
Yet, somewhere in the middle there are those who would say there’s something to such accounts, but we must be skeptical.
Hugh Newman was told and asked, “It seems like giants are always associated with the bad guys. How did that happen? Was it because of Goliath?” Yet, most reliably, Goliath was just shy of 7 ft.
He also refers to “man-eating cannibalistic giants…cannibalism linked to giants…cannabilistic savage giant tribes” which is biblically unknown, FYI.
Hugh Newman was asked, “How do you deal with skeptic people?” and replied that since “They always say, ‘Where are the bones?’” then “We say, ‘The academics took them away.’ I suggest they go and talk to the Smithsonian.” Now, bones are generally always taken away by someone or other for some reason or other. Yet, this speaks to the generically vague assertion that it’s all about the Smithsonian even though 99% of such asserters just say that they heard someone say that someone said that they heard someone say that someone said something about it so, go ask someone who knows someone who heard, etc., etc., etc.—see chapter “Did the Supreme Court prove that the Smithsonian destroyed giant skeletons?” of my Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not! book.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Continuing my series reviewing movies with UFO and alien themes from a worldview-philosophy standpoint.
You can find the whole series on Amazon—here—or other book sellers.
In this volume, all of the Blob movies are reviewed as well as H.P. Lovecraft’s story Color Out of Space as well as Richard Stanley’s movie by the same name.
“You’re a half-tailed philosopher,
a one-eyed platypus,
you gotta take your beard off, man,
you don’t believe in a hereafter or anything like that,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
Username “Try to use Facts, not Hearsay” who self-identifies as, “Full Time Atheist and Realist, Open Minded. at Freedom and Tolerance (1962–present)” commented:
Angels do not exist,
Therefore Seraphin Angels do not exist,
So it goes without saying Nephilim do not exist,
Maybe try looking for some Leprechauns at the bottom of your garden instead.
I, Ken Ammi, replied (to those interested in the actual topic I noted there’s no such thing as “Seraphim angels”: that’s just a category error that violates the law of identity):
That’s just a series of merely jumped to mere assertions of mere positive affirmations based on hidden assumptions.
Try to use Facts, not Hearsay replied:
Phew I had trouble getting my tongue around your comment brain saw it mouth didn’t want to co-operate
LOL
Ken Ammi:
I know the answer before I ask it but is that what a “Full Time Atheist” does, make a series of merely jumped to mere assertions of mere positive affirmations based on hidden assumptions and leaves it at that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
Undergoing consideration is a paper by Susan Lynn Schmidt M.B.S. M.A. which is titled The Nephilim: Satan’s Seed from Creation to the Great Tribulation and subtitled Transjordan and Golan as Their Habitation (2016 AD).
Up front, she noted, “the seed of Satan, namely the Nephilim, and Rephaim” so we shall have to see how she elucidates these personages but for now, note that she foresees that, “these ‘fallen ones’ may be loosed upon mankind during the time of the Great Tribulation.”
Schmidt wrote:
The understanding of the geography, biblical text and the cosmological significance of the area of Transjordan, and specifically “Bashan” in the Bible, give valuable understanding to what Jesus expressed:
“And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot:
They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”
I infer that she implies that, “as it was in the days of Noah” correlates to the, “may be loosed” statement I noted. Yet, how would, “days of Lot” relate?—especially when these were examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment. We will get to that.
She also notes:
God gives a Messianic prophecy against Satan of what was to come in Genesis 3:15: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”
Just as the Messiah would one day fatally destroy Satan, the text also states that Satan will have seed and try to damage or interfere with the seed of the woman.
She then asks and answers, “who are the seed of Satan?” thusly:
The Days of Noah: Genesis 6 “Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” There were Nephilim [Author’s direct translation] on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.”
I’m unsure why she specified, “Author’s direct translation” at the word Nephilim since that’s not a translation at all but is just a transliteration: merely writing the Hebrew word with English letters.
In any case, she takes the Angel view of the Genesis 6 affair, as I term and noted, “‘the sons of God’…in the Tanaach refers exclusively to angelic beings” citing Gen 6:2, 4, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7, Psalm 29:1.
That view was the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days as I proved in my book, On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.
Susan Lynn Schmidt wrote:
It was the “sons of God” who had to give account to God, including Satan himself, in the first chapters of Job. These angelic beings are called sons of God because they were directly created by God Himself and worked in his presence in the heavenlies.
These beings are translated “giants” in the text, but literally they are “fallen ones” or “Nephilim” in Hebrew.
There are a few category errors here such as that, “Satan himself” is referred to as one of the, “angelic beings” but he’s not an Angel, he’s a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14).
Also, there’s no indication that, “These beings,” referring to, “Satan himself…angelic beings” are, “translated ‘giants.’” Rather, the sons of God fathered Nephilim—for which giants isn’t a translation but is a rendering—since, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose…The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward” clearly as a result of, “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
If we designate Angels as X then we can see that the text doesn’t read, “The X were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the X came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.” Rather, personages, “Nephilim were on the earth” and contextually came about due to personages, “sons of God” who, “came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”
We are then told:
These fallen ones mated with women and bore children (v.5). The product of these angelic fallen ones and their offspring are called giants, and other names, which will be seen later: Gibborim, Rephaim, Zamzumim, Emim and Anakim. These hybrid peoples could not be redeemed from sin because angels could not be redeemed.
Mistakenly turning Nephilim and sons of God into a.k.a. for the same beings, Angels, plagues the paper.
There’s no reliable (and only one very problematic sentence’s worth of unreliable) indication that, “Gibborim, Rephaim, Zamzumim, Emim and Anakim” were, “hybrid” nor that they had anything to do with Nephilim, Angels, etc. That is an assertion my Schmidt that she repeatedly repeats but never establishes: although, she makes a vague attempt.
But before continuing, note that, “Gibborim” is not a people group but is merely a descriptive term for might/mighty. As for, “Zamzumim, Emim” those are just parochial a.k.a. for Rephaim and Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe.
Thus, Zamzumim, Emim, and Anakim are all Rephaim and Gibborim is a non-issue—in terms of genealogy.
She notes, “God would destroy the inhabitants of the earth, who were genetically being corrupted by the ‘sons of God’” and, “Noah…was godly and even more important for that time, was genetically pure in his generations. This would include his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, who accompanied him on the ark and became the fathers of all peoples of the earth.” Thus, that would be the end of Nephilim (as it is in the Bible—stand by).
Yet, she continued directly with, “But this genealogical purity would not necessarily include the wives of these men. They would likely have carried some of the genetic hybridization that is seen later in the biblical text.” But why likely? After all, that implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but must have missed a genetic loophole and so the flood was much of a waste.
But note that an utterly key portion of Schmidt’s premise is a subjective, “likely.”
She goes on to note, “The fallen angels, who came to earth, were destroyed in the flood and these Nephilim have never again mated with the daughters of men since that time…But their offspring are giants after the flood.”
I wouldn’t say, “destroyed” since as per Jude and 2 Peter 2, they were incarcerated. At this point, she increasingly employs the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants.” Thus, the key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Schmidt’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those usages agree?
The answer to the last question is yes and no, actually. Yes because she recognizes that, “giants” merely translates (renders) “Nephilim” yet, no because she doesn’t stick to that but also employs it as a reference to height (which it is not in English Bibles) and also admits that it refers to, “Rephaim” and so we will have to clean up that mess as we progress.
In English Bibles, “giants” merely renders, “Nephilim” in two texts and, “Repha/im” in 98% of all others.
Now, we must focus on the one very problematic and unreliable sentence to which I referred since she wrote, “their offspring are giants after the flood” but that damages theology proper (as fallacious Nephilology inevitably does) since it has God failing, it fails to distinguish that it refers to Rephaim who have nothing to do with Nephilim, and is based on Num 13:33 which (only in non-LXX versions) has Anakim related to Nephilim (in some unelucidated and impossible way) but that was stated by unreliable guys whom God rebuked: they just told a tall-tale—see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Now, to her attempt at answering, “How did this come to pass?” which is:
After the flood, Noah and his children multiplied on the earth. Shem and Japheth were godly sons and loved God like their father, but Ham was different. Noah became drunk with wine and Ham looked on his father’s nakedness and told his brothers outside.
There is no evidence that Ham repented of his behavior and the text is ambiguous as to the nature of the act. Noah puts a curse on Ham’s youngest son Canaan, to be a servant’s servant to his brothers. It is through the line of Ham, and especially Canaan that the Biblical giants originated.
That’s from a subsection titled, “The Descendants of Ham and the Curse on Canaan.” Some of the clean up to which I referred comes at the key point, “It is through the line of Ham, and especially Canaan that the Biblical giants originated” since what she means, or should have meant, is, “It is through the line of Ham, and especially Canaan that the Biblical Rephaim originated.” And yet, that still leaves us without any correlation at all between Nephilim and Rephaim—no matter how she (mis)identifies Nephilim.
Susan Lynn Schmidt wrote:
These became the nations that God commanded Israel to utterly destroy during the conquest of Joshua. While some may think that this was a harsh, cruel measure, God was working to ensure that the Messianic line would stay intact, as well as the rest of mankind.
If by, “These” we biblically understand a reference to the 100% people group, “Rephaim” then, sure.
If by, “These” we misunderstand post-flood hybrids related pre-flood Nephilim then, no—in no way, shape, or form.
God told us why He commanded such conquering but never said a single word about Nephilim nor relation to them nor hybridization nor any such thing—see chapter, “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim?
Schmidt notes:
Here are the generations of Ham (Gen.10) with yellow highlighting those of Scriptural notable mention: Ham seemed to be in disobedience with his father, and perhaps there was physical evidence already that Ham’s wife’s children were hybrids. Ham’s grandson through Cush, was Nimrod, who was a “Gibbor” (same as Gen. 6:4) and led the world to build Babel to become like God through building a tower. His name in Hebrew means “rebellious one.”
I’m quite unsure how this makes Rephaim related to Nephilim—in any way—since all we have for this key piece of the argument is going from, “likely” to, “seemed to be…perhaps” and that Nimrod’s can be rendered as, “rebellious one.”
Note how she noted, “Nimrod, who was a ‘Gibbor’ (same as Gen. 6:4)” but didn’t bother telling us that it merely means that he was mighty. Gibbor/im is used of Nephilim and Angels but also some of David’s soldiers, Boaz, God, etc.
Yet, Susan Lynn Schmidt goes on to build her case thusly, “The Philistines were descendants of Ham’s son Mizraim. They were notorious giants even up until the time of David, as the story of the battle against Goliath relates.” But, again, biblically contextually, this reads as, “The Philistines…were notorious Rephaim…”
She also notes, “During the conquest in Joshua’s day, Israel was to destroy the numerous clans of Canaanites [Josh 3:10] Many of these clans were giants” which, again, means, “Many of these clans were Rephaim.”
She wrote:
In Genesis 6, the fallen angels were called Nephilim. These were destroyed during the flood. Their DNA seemed to come through one or more of the wives of Noah’s sons and were giants. Their offspring are called Rephaim (Rafa-singular) or Rephites in the Bible. In Hebrew, the root רפא can refer to “shaded ones or spirits” or another meaning of the root can be “healing.”
This is essentially a biased word-concept fallacy: if Rephaim were, “shaded ones or spirits” then we might as well also call them, healers. One issue is that the root word rapha has that wide a range of meaning and usage but many confuse the root’s meanings and usages with the people group, the quite human tribe.
Again, it’s not the case that, “fallen angels were called Nephilim” nor that they, “were destroyed during the flood” nor that, “Their DNA seemed to come through one or more of the wives of Noah’s sons and were” whatever she means by, “giants” at this point—she appears to mean, “Rephaim” and that’s also mistaken.
Moreover:
In the context of the geographical Old Testament, Rephaim were clearly giants…of great stature and were not as our concept of giants today, who are weak, and recessive genetically. Imposing in strength and height, they were associated with violent rebellion to God.
Do you see what I meant by cleaning up: we just went from the word, “giants” merely rendering, “Rephaim” to, “Rephaim were clearly giants” in terms of, “of great stature” in one single sentence (and, of course, biblically contextually, “Rephaim were clearly giants” reads as, “Rephaim were clearly Rephaim”).
But there’s more to this sorted tale:
Rephites (Rephaim), Zuzites (Zamzummim), Emites (Emim)…giants…“The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. They were also regarded as giants, like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim…regarded as a land of giants (Heb. Rephaim); giants (Heb. Rephaim)…Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim.
Indeed, Rephaim were generally, “tall” but that’s just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as big, huge, enormous, giant, etc. And that’s all parochially subjective the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft in those days.
That text, which is Deut 2, is how we can know that, “Rephites (Rephaim), Zuzites (Zamzummim), Emites (Emim)” are just a.k.a. for Rephaim. And note another admission that, “giants” is merely, “(Heb. Rephaim)” and nothing to do with size.
Having set up what amounts to a house of cards, she reiterates, “God commanded that these clans be dispossessed and destroyed…this strategic command by God was to limit and destroy the seed of Satan.” Yes, “God commanded that these,” Rephaim, “clans be dispossessed and destroyed” but that had utterly nothing to do with, “to limit and destroy the seed of Satan.”
Schmidt unfortunately bypasses the various assumptions involved in jumping from, “Og king of Bashan…his bedstead was an iron bedstead…Nine cubits is its length and four cubits” to concluding, “making Og about thirteen feet or four meters in height.” For details, see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?
She then makes it to the only post-flood reference to Nephilim:
…twelve men went to spy out the land. Two of these were Joshua and Caleb, who brought back a report that it was possible to overcome the inhabitants. The others, however, expressed that they were grasshoppers in the site of the inhabitants and in their own sight.
That was vague since it was not that, “Joshua and Caleb…brought back a report that it was possible to overcome the inhabitants” but the others, “expressed that they were grasshoppers in the site of the inhabitants” but only of Nephilim—who didn’t even exist at that time, of course.
Her takeaway is, “God exerted severe judgment on these spies for bringing a bad report back to the people, because what was at stake was the preservation of human-kind.” By, “severe judgment” what is meant is rebuked to death and it had nothing to do with, “what was at stake was the preservation of human-kind” but because they were unfaithful and disloyal, the encourage the people to not trust that God would give them success, and that led to the additional 40 years of wilderness wandering.
For some odd reason, Schmidt thinks that the Num 13 narrative’s, “mention of the oversized cluster of grapes may suggest a knowledge of biological engineering on the part of the Anakim” which is incoherent.
She then quotes, “And they went up through the South and came to Hebron; Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, were there” and notes, “The LXX translates this as γίγαντας, gigantes or giants” but it does not, it has the man’s name, Anak, as Εναχ. In any case, the γίγαντας part is from v. 33 referring to the Nephilim, not the Anakim (which are not in that verse in the LXX version). And while she gets close to elucidating that the way that the word, “giants” ended up in English Bibles is due to rendering γίγαντας, this means earth-born and not, “giants” as per one of her usages, something about subjectively unusual height.
Yet, Susan Lynn Schmidt points out:
Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews [5.2.3]…reported that the bones of these Rephaim could be seen, even in his day in the first century CE: “There were, till then, left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men.”
The term, “reported” is interesting in that indeed, he merely asserted that—and for all we know, it’s because that’s what he was told. Yet, we know that Rephaim were, “tall” so what of it? Yet, Josephus was not an expert anatomist so even if he saw the bones (however many there may have been), would he be able to distinguish human or humanoid hybrid (as per Schmidt’s tall-tale) from whale or dinosaur or pachyderm, etc., bones?
She also notes, “Goliath was a giant” based on what she myopically quotes as, “six cubits and a span” which is myopic due to that it’s as per the Masoretic text which has him at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier good ol’ Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.—which, again, is compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
She follows that with:
Ishbi-Benob, who was one of the children of the giant (Heb. rafa)…Saph, who was one of the sons of the giant (Heb. rafa)…At Gath, there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number; and he also was born to the giant (Heb. rafa).
Note again that we see that, giant (Heb. rafa)” even if one of them as subjectively, “of great stature.”
This gets her back to:
God orchestrated the protection of Messiah and mankind from the seed of Satan, which was biologically transmitted through the sons of Ham and particularly through Canaan.
For which a case has still not been made—all we got is qualifying terms and watered down terminology.
Moreover:
…enormous size…These giants had many names…the giants of Transjordan were dispossessed first. Sihon and Og…The giants were called by different names such as Gibborim, Rephaim, Zamzumim, and Emim. They were of superhuman size…and had genetic features to identify them, such as extra fingers and toes…They seemed to possess wisdom from of old and knew about genetic manipulation…Rephaim, who practiced genetic modification…
Again, “enormous…giants” refers to height, is vaguely generic, and just spices up, “tall.” And note that she’s basing, “superhuman size” on Og’s bed, on a latter range for Goliath’s height, on, “tall” and on unreliable guys referring to grasshoppers.
Also, she correlates whatever, “superhuman size” means to, “genetic modification” due to what is, in reality, one single person being said to have had, “extra fingers and toes.” And that’s besides the fact that there’s zero indication that, “Rephaim…practiced genetic modification.”
She notes, “The concept of mixing together differing species, was borne out of the Nephilim” but species isn’t a biblical category rather, kinds are.
Referring to, “folklore regarding gods, titans and giants” she quotes a particular English version—surely for effect—, “Genesis 6:4, ‘There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.’”
This is then used as a springboard via which to note:
Gigantomachy, from the Greek word “gigantes,” which is the battle fought between the Giants and the Olympian gods for supremacy of the cosmos…Those in Olympus lust after the beautiful women of the earth…hybrid beings borne of these relationships, who are endowed with extraordinary strength or size.
Perhaps some such myths are based on post-Tower of Babel retelling of pre-flood days. Yet, the Titans of Greek mythology (of which there are more than one generation and anatomically vary—which she doesn’t note) were designated, “gigantes” due to that in this case, being “earth-born” refers to having been born of Gaia—the false Earth goddess whence comes the giga part of the word. And Susan Lynn Schmidt is well aware of this since she went on to write, “giants, the offspring of Gaia, mother earth.”
She quotes Jesus and comments thusly:
“I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells.” [Rev. 2:12,13]
Why did the Lord describe this altar as the “throne of Satan” and “dwelling of Satan?”…because of the Gigantomachy and its relationship discussed previously to the seed of Satan, by the Nephilim and their offspring…
We still don’t know why she refers to, “the seed of Satan” when referring to (her misidentification of), “the Nephilim and their offspring.”
She also notes, “extra-Biblical sources, primarily the Books of Enoch and Jasher, which are quoted by biblical writers [Jude 14 quotes Book of Enoch, Joshua 10:12-13, 2 Sam.1:18-27 referencing Book of Jasher].” 1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah—see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch. And while a Book of Jasher is noted in the Bible, that does not mean that the modern day hoaxed fraud that has been titled as such is that book.
She notes, “The Book of Enoch relates…the disobedient Watchers/Nephilim…produced giants…great stature” which has them as having been MILES tall, which is great folklore but poor reality.
Schmidt adds:
The Epic of Gilgamesh, refers to scorpion men who guarded the underworld…In Revelation 9:1-11, John the Apostle describes that when the fifth angel sounds, the bottomless pit, or abyss will be opened…Scorpionlocust men…have human heads, wings and tails of scorpions.
She jumped from, “scorpion men” to what Rev 9 has as, “the locusts were like horses prepared for battle: on their heads were what looked like crowns of gold; their faces were like human faces, their hair like women’s hair, and their teeth like lions’ teeth; they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle. They have tails and stings like scorpions” which is very much unlike, “scorpion men” when we add the parts she left out.
Well, that is about all and the paper left us with nothing upon which to even cogently assume that post-flood Rephaim had anything to do with pre-flood Nephilim even as sons of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
Now, the title begs questions to which we shall get but for now, note that, “Ancient Giants” are said to pertain to, “a fascinating debate among scholars regarding whether Goliath was one of the Nephilim.”
We will find out that the answer to the second question is something to do with subjectively unusual height.
Thus, the answer to the third question is, “No.”
That is because the answer to the first question is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) “Nephilim” in 2 verses or “Repha/im” in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
Ergo, biblically contextually, “The Nephilim are mentioned in the Bible as a group of giants” actually reads as, “The Nephilim are mentioned in the Bible as a group of Nephilim.”
Likewise, when Adam Phillips writes, “Goliath, described as a mighty warrior and a giant” it biblically contextually means, “Goliath, described as a mighty warrior and a…” well, here we come to the issue of, “whether Goliath was one of the Nephilim” so we will momentarily put a pin on the grenade as to how it biblically contextually reads—stand by.
Adam Phillips notes, “Some scholars believe that Goliath’s immense size and strength suggest that he may have been one of the Nephilim” but the only reason (thus far?) we have for thinking that such is anything but a non sequitur is a misused for the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants.”
Thus, based on nothing (as of yet?), he notes, “To understand the debate surrounding Goliath’s connection to the Nephilim, it is important to explore the biblical references to these ancient giants” and so he focuses on, “Who Were the Nephilim?”
He tells us, “The term ‘Nephilim’ actually means ‘fallen ones’ or ‘giants’ in Hebrew” but the latter is not the case in the least bit. That is based on various mere assumptions based on sloppy linguistics and good ol‘ fashioned fallacies: besides, if “Nephilim” means, “giants” that only begs the question, “What does the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word ‘giants’ mean?” For details on the linguistics, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
Adam Phillips then refers to Nephilim’s, “impressive size” but again and still only based on one misused word.
For some reason, he repeats his premise, “Some believe that Goliath, the formidable opponent of David, may have been one of the Nephilim due to his immense stature and strength” so that (at least thus far) we have zero reason to correlated Nephilim with, “giant [as per Philips’ usage]…size…stature.”
Adam Philips then relates the story of David and Goliath in sermonizing terms so I will bypass it since I’m seeking cogent data.
He again refers to, “Goliath’s size” but has not yet told us what that size was.
We are then told about, “Characteristics of the Nephilim” which include, “the Nephilim were a group of giants” and we reviewed how to read that biblically contextually (which results in a circularly redundant statement) and does get specific, “Giant Size: The Nephilim were said to be giants, known for their extraordinary height” and tell us that, “Some,” unquoted and uncited, “sources indicate that they were around 9-12 feet tall!” Well, “Some sources” also have them as 100% human so that’s nothing upon which to go.
For some unknown reason, Adam Philips asserts, “Nephilim were not just a one-time occurrence. The Bible mentions their presence both before and after the great flood” but he does not provide us any reason—logical, bio-logical, or theo-logical—for believing in any such thing.
After repeating previous statements, he gets down to it with, “Was Goliath one of the Nephilim?” and re-repeats, “The Nephilim were a group of giants mentioned in the Bible” along with the assertion, “These giants were known for their exceptionally large size” which he has only based on, “Some” unknown anonymous, “sources.”
Recall that we’re still on, “stand by” about what he now put as, “Goliath was a giant” means biblically contextually.
He then sermonizes about, “The story of David and Goliath” once again but adds, “it does not directly imply Goliath’s connection to the Nephilim” but notes, “whether Goliath was a Nephilim or not remains uncertain.”
He then repeats himself again and concludes, “whether Goliath was one of the Nephilim remains unanswered…Nephilim are mentioned in the Bible, their connection to Goliath is not explicitly stated.”
So, we actually already have the answer to that when Adam Phillips writes, “Goliath, described as a mighty warrior and a giant” it biblically contextually means, “Goliath, described as a mighty warrior and a Repha.”
Now, when it comes down to it the only way to even imagine (and imagination is all that it is) that Goliath was a Nephil would be to take giant leaps of logic, biologic, and theologic.
One has to begin by actually believing an, “evil report” (Num 13:32-33) stated by unreliable guys whom God rebuked—a report wherein 10 guys merely assert that they saw Nephilim centuries post-flood. This was their assertion (they actually made five assertions but I will focus on the key one—for more, see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal), “we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”
Now, Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe so one must actually side with guys whom God rebuked rather than with the God who rebuked them, one must merely assert that if one clan was related to Nephilim then then whole tribe must have been, one must only appeal non LXX versions sine the LXX doesn’t have Anakim mentioned in that verse, and one has to invent tall-tales about how Nephilim made it past the flood—and are the most awe inspiring beings on the planet but no one bothered ever mentioning them again in any context.
Incidentally, we saw that Adam Philips misused the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” linguistically speaking and note that since the only physical description we have of Nephilim comes from the, “evil report” by unreliable guys whom God rebuked that means that we have no reliable physical description of them.
Thus, there’s zero reasons to correlate Goliath with Nephilim in any way, shape, form, or language.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
The 120 years was referring to how long humanity had left before the great flood would occur. This was God, as usual, allowing a grace period for people to repent and get right before their destruction.
The particular sin was humanity’s wilful invocation of fallen angels to enter mens’ bodies in order to impregnate their women, thinking they would achieve divinity in this way, and the abominable offspring these unions created. Noah’s bloodline was pure of this corruption.
Those Nephilim existed before the flood, and after the flood, because — although those which existed in Noah’s day were indeed drowned — such unions between fallen angels and humans did not cease to happen, as referenced by such later peoples as the Sons of Anak, Emim and Rephaim.
These inherently wicked and unredeemable people were later concentrated in the land of Canaan and threatened to corrupt the bloodlines of the rest of humanity, and this goes a long way toward explaining the otherwise hard-to-accept massacres of the inhabitants of that territory.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Friend, there’s zero indication of anything even like, “humanity’s wilful invocation of fallen angels to enter mens’ bodies”: in fact, Angels are described as looking like human males doing physical things without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
You say, “Noah’s bloodline was pure of this corruption” but that seems inaccurate since his wife and his sons’ wives were unlikely from his bloodline.
In any case, that seems to imply such is why God only preserved those eight people.
Yet, you assert, “Nephilim existed…after the flood” which implies that God failed. He meant to be rid of them but, “such unions between fallen angels and humans did not cease to happen” so the flood was much of a waste and they found a loophole that God missed, right?
But you think the evidence is, “as referenced by such later peoples as the Sons of Anak, Emim and Rephaim” but indeed, it was Anakim, Emim, and Rephaim: not Nephilim.
In fact, you don’t seem to realize that those three are Rephaim: Anakim were a clan of Rephaim and Emim is just an a.k.a. for Rephaim.
Indeed, those, “people were later concentrated in the land of Canaan” but not Nephilim.
You say, “this goes a long way toward explaining the otherwise hard-to-accept massacres of the inhabitants of that territory” but God told us many, many times why He commanded such, “massacres” but never said one single word about Nephilim.
MyTwoCents replied:
>Friend, there’s zero indication of anything even like, “humanity’s wilful invocation of fallen angels to enter mens’ bodies”: in fact, Angels are described as looking like human males doing physical things without indication that such isn’t their ontology.
In looking at Genesis 6:1 through 5, given that the very next verse after the statement that those Sons of God took wives of whomever they chose says that God declared that he would only tolerate humanity for another 120 years, it demonstrates that God was laying blame (not only on those angels, but also) on mankind for those unnatural unions, which could only mean that mankind willfully participated in them. This is plausible, from the standpoint that the angels took “wives”, and not concubines.
Now, although the word translated as “wives” (nā·šîm) in Genesis 6:2 is not really any more specific than “female”, clarification on this point seems to be made, in hindsight, in passages such as Luke 17:27 which emphasize how mankind continued feasting and marrying and being given (i.e. the daughters by their parents) in marriage right up until Noah stepped into the ark; which does seem to emphasize the precise transgression that the people wantonly continued to commit (agreeing to marry and the conceive offspring of angels, possibly in exchange for promised hidden knowledge from them) which resulted in their destruction.
Otherwise, it would seem peculiar, would it not, for Luke and Matthew to focus on the event of MARRIAGE as the important-to-mention life activity of the people that led up to their demise rather than some more daily routine activity, e.g. kept tending their flocks, kept buying and selling, or perhaps, some more obviously evil activity, e.g. murdering and thieving, or the like.
>You say, “Noah’s bloodline was pure of this corruption” but that seems inaccurate since his wife and his sons’ wives were unlikely from his bloodline.
In Genesis 6:9, where it says that these are the “generations (tō·wl·dōt)” of Noah, the word can be translated as “geneology”. Naturally, we can assume that this referred at least to his ancestry and, perhaps also, at most, included his sons who were alive at the time (Noah’s wives being excluded from his geneology, albeit part of his sons’).
It is then stated that he was “blameless (tā·mîm) in his generations”, which word conveys the sense of “healthy”, “wholesome”, “sound”, and “unimpaired”. The fact that this is pointed out using this choice of phrasing tends to support that the major sin did concern genetics.
>In any case, that seems to imply such is why God only preserved those eight people.
Yet, you assert, “Nephilim existed…after the flood” which implies that God failed. He meant to be rid of them but, “such unions between fallen angels and humans did not cease to happen” so the flood was much of a waste and they found a loophole that God missed, right?
God preserved only those eight people so as to eliminate the supernaturally-corrupted human bloodline. The Bible asserts that the Nephilim existed in those days and afterward. This is not a supposition of my own (cf. Genesis 6:4). God is infallible, lest He might choose not to fully succeed.
Taking this as an absolute, it can only be understood that it was not God’s intention through the flood to prevent any future such transgressions between angels and men; that would probably have required permanent termination of humanity, as angels like men — have free will to sin and might do so again after the flood; and did, it seems.
The flood was a sweeping solution at the time to remedy a problem that had reached a level that God found unacceptable.
>But you think the evidence is, “as referenced by such later peoples as the Sons of Anak, Emim and Rephaim” but indeed, it was Anakim, Emim, and Rephaim: not Nephilim.
In fact, you don’t seem to realize that those three are Rephaim: Anakim were a clan of Rephaim and Emim is just an a.k.a. for Rephaim.
What I realize from Numbers 13:33 is that Anakim were, according to scripture, descended from the Nephilim, although they were also called Rephaim, just as were the Emites who were “as tall as the Amakites” (cf. Deuteronomy 2:10). So, these passages support that they were all Nephilim stock.
>Indeed, those, “people were later concentrated in the land of Canaan” but not Nephilim.
You say, “this goes a long way toward explaining the otherwise hard-to-accept massacres of the inhabitants of that territory” but God told us many, many times why He commanded such, “massacres” but never said one single word about Nephilim.
Yes, not every aspect of the history given in the bible is stated outright. It’s a relatively compact volume; it tends to support its deeper statements by relying on the reasonable inferences of the reader.
Ken Ammi:
Hey MyTwoCents, the comedian Stephen Wright said, “If it’s a penny for your thoughts and you put in your two cents worth, then someone, somewhere is making a penny” ;o)
Of course, “mankind willfully participated in them” since the daughters of men married them.
But you skipped the point that there’s, “zero indication of anything even like, “…invocation of fallen angels to enter mens’ bodies.”
You say, “The Bible asserts that the Nephilim existed in those days and afterward” but afterwards of when?
As for, “future…transgressions between angels and men” He took care of that by incarcerating the sinful Angels and there’s only a one-time sin of Angels in the Bible besides that there’s zero indication of any such a thing reoccurring post-flood.
When you say, “I realize from Numbers 13:33” you’re appealing exclusively to one sentence from an “evil report” by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked: why do you believe them?
As for, “Anakim were, according to scripture, descended from the Nephilim” that’s doubly problematic: 1) “according to scripture” is generic since you have to ask who said it, whey did they say it, was it accurate, what was the reaction to it, etc. so, what scripture is telling you is that you should NOT believe them because they just made it up and 2) check the LXX for that verse, it utterly lacks reference to Anakim plus, in Deut 1 Moses relates that event and his retelling lacks reference to Nephilim—he’s concerned about the real problems on the ground, not concerned about some tall-tale.
It’s not just a simple case of dismissing facts by stating, “not every aspect of the history given in the bible is stated outright” since, again, the fact is, “God told us many, many times why He commanded such, ‘massacres’ but never said one single word about Nephilim.”
And that was the end of it since no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
The page on which the sermon was posted quotes Pastor Pensiero thusly, “We have the truth about these subjects. We need to be ready to give nonbelievers a real, biblical answer – not ridicule them for asking about it.” Fair enough but what if rather than ridiculing it, we seek to sharpen iron with iron regarding actual biblical answers? I ask because I find that when we seek to sharpen iron with iron, someone tends to get cut. He begins by referring to a TV show, “Fallen debuted in 2007 on the ABC Family Network as a mini-series…the tagline: 18 year old Aaron Corbett struggles to come to terms with his newly discovered identity that he’s half angel. In fact, they call him Nephilim in the show. Turns out he is the Nephilim savior.”
Interestingly, he notes, “while Hollywood has discovered these things and is banking on apocalyptic themes…the church is starting to shy away from prophecy.” Now, it’s technically a non-sequitur to jump from Nephilology to prophecy. I say technically since there’s not a single word about Nephilim in prophecy. Yet, what’s interesting is that another reason that, “the church is starting to shy away from,” let’s say such issues is that Nephilology has turned into un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
Pastor Gene Pensiero comes to note, “what’s going to happen in the end of the world” and that, “we can interpret the times for them now before we finish out the days of Noah.” For him, this, somehow, pertains to, “things like giants or signs in the heavens.”
He notes, “it’s incredible there’s a there’s almost a, well, there is there’s a backlash: talk about the Nephilim even directly from the Bible and you are labeled by other believers as fringe or conspiratorial” and rightly notes, “there’s a lot of weird stuff out there. I mean, yeah, I don’t even want you to Google any of this stuff because there’s so many crackpot websites.” Indeed, the crackpots are running modern Nephilology and make their living selling un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales that tickle itching ears.
Thus, he notes, “I, at least, am trying to rectify our shortcomings here” as am I.
He jumps into the subject by noting, “I have one more insight, I think, into the days of Noah for us to consider. So, we saw in Genesis 6 1-4 that certain sons of God married and mated with the daughters of men…the sons of God can really only be a reference to Angelic beings…their offspring were renowned mighty men of old called the Nephilim.”
So far so good yet, he continues directly with, “they were men of great stature, they were in fact giants…how big they might have been: 10, 12, 15, feet tall…we’re talking about Goliath who we normally say is nine feet nine inches tall but depending on the cubit measure that you use, he could have been as much as 12 feet tall.”
Well, sadly, Pastor Gene Pensiero is well on his way into the un-biblical tall-tales side of these issue.
So, at this point: he proposes post-flood Nephilim, Nephilim’s, “could have been” height, referenced someone who wasn’t a Nephil and for whom he gave a myopic view of his height.
He went on, directly, to note, “When Jesus said that the days of Noah were characterized by eating and drinking he wasn’t talking about a wedding reception his audience would have understood that he meant the Nephilim were notorious as insatiable cannibals, eating people and drinking blood.”
There’s no indication that Jesus implied any such thing and the only reason to think that, “Nephilim were notorious as insatiable cannibals, eating people and drinking blood” is due to folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah.
What Jesus said, His words, His emphasis, His context, His point was:
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”
But He kept speaking directly with:
“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed” (Luke 17).
Thus, this was about examples of being unaware/unconcerned about coming judgment.
Pastor Gene Pensiero then elucidates:
“…after the global flood…Nephilim were prominent again in the promised land the children of Israel refused to go into the land primarily on account of the fact that they said there are giants in the land. Remember? They saw a giant fruit they, you know, grape clusters that had to be carried on, uh, you know, on a, uh, between two men and they said, ‘Hey there are giants in the land, we are like grasshoppers in their sight.’”
Note how, at this point, he has jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word, “Nephilim” to the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants.”
What’s Pastor Gene Pensiero’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those usages agree?
Well, we know he means something about subjectively unusual height and that his usage doesn’t agree with the English Bibles’ wherein giants merely renders Nephilim in two verses but Rephaim in 98% of all other instances—and so never even implying anything about height whatsoever.
Now, in order to claim post-flood Nephilim—without telling us how that’s even a possibility, how they made it past the flood—he is forced, consciously or not, to water everything down (flood pun intended) and speak vaguely generically. He claims, “Nephilim were prominent again” but then why are they only mentioned in only one single post-flood sentence? Indeed, “the children of Israel refused to go into the land primarily on account of” and account is a very interesting qualifying term that I’m sure he realized is quite accurate but which he missed—stand by.
He refers to, “the fact that they said there are giants in the land” but by referring to, “They saw…they said” he’s creating a category error. The narrative of Num 13 denotes that 12 were sent into the land but then 2 are faithfully loyal (Joshua and Caleb) but 12 become scare-tactic fear-mongers. Thus, “They saw” refer to the Israelites as a whole, but, “they said” only refers to the 10 unfaithful, disloyal ones who were said to present an, “evil report” about the land and were rebuked by God: why anyone, much less a pastor, believe and sides with them is certainly odd.
Moreover, there’s no indication that anyone, “saw a giant fruit” (whatever that would have to do with anything anyhow) but rather, the text refers to that the cluster, not the individual grapes, was large.
He then states, “there were…many different groups of giants continued to resist the Israelites” but he doesn’t seem to realize that now he’s referring to the Rephaim tribe, not Nephilim, and clans of the Rephaim such as the Anakim. Such is what happens when one relies on the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants.”
Yet, he then gets a bit more specific with, “Gaza was a stronghold for the Anakim and the Anakim were a race of giants.” Well, read biblically this means, “Anakim were a race of Rephaim.” Yet, read Pensierocally it mans, , “Anakim were a race of subjectively unusually tall personages” which is quite right since Deut 2 refers to them as being, “tall” (so, taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.) about which I will ask: so what, what of it?
But see, he prepped his audience with an assertion about Nephilim’s height so thereafter, any subjectively unusual height can be further asserted to be Nephilim related but that, of course, is a multi-level non-sequitur.
He went on to say, “when Jesus said it will be as in the days of Noah, could He have meant giants would again roam the Earth? Could Nephilim appear again in the last days?” no, that’s all un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
In favor of the sort of ill-conceived fringe conspiratorial stuff against which he initially warned, he refers his audience to, “a lot of anecdotal stories about there being giants on the Earth right now, both dead and living.” He then refers to, “just give you a couple of the most credible incredible stories and these can’t be verified” so it’s a waste of time—interested readers can consult my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.
One of them is, “a report,” can he be vaguer?, “that Gilgamesh was retrieved from Babylon…Hittite sources places height at 11 cubits that would be about 18 feet tall…the life-size statue of Gilgamesh at the Louvre in Paris gives us an idea of his strength and size he holds a lion by the neck which looks like a small house cat” and, for some reason, we should, apparently, take statues—ancient and modern—literally. Moreover, that uncited report was about that, “his remains were removed from Babylon by the U.S military prior to the outbreak of the war in Iraq” and you can’t get much more conspiratorial than that.
The second one is, “a more recent incident called the Kandahar giant” but now, he has a source (for what it’s worth: which is nothing), “I’ll quote from World Net Daily, they say…United States Special Forces engaged and killed a red-haired giant in Afghanistan.” He actually said, “it’s being reported by multiple sources, several eyewitnesses claim…” but reposting a tall-tale is not multiple sources and the fact is that it’s just an internet hoax based on a couple of anonymous guys making vague claims about generic regions and promulgated by two guys whom make their living selling tall-tales: LA Marzulli and the plagiarist Stephen Quayle—see my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.
Thus, this is bottom of the barrel low hanging fruit fringe conspiratorial stuff.
He notes, “we can’t verify those accounts, I’m not telling you they’re true, it’s out there though and this is the kind of thing people are hearing they can’t help us answer our question about whether or not the Nephilim will make a reappearance.” So, get excited about these tall-tales but don’t actually incorporate them into your eschatology—even though that was the entire reason for appealing to them. Also, his premise is: Nephilim subjectively unusually tall, Gilgamesh subjectively unusually tall, Kandahar giant subjectively unusually tall ergo, Gilgamesh and the Kandahar giants were Nephilim which is beyond the bottom of the barrel, it’s a bottomless pit of mere assertions.
But if there’s Bible for it then there’s Bible for it so Pastor Gene Pensiero takes us to God’s word with:
“…there is, however, a Bible verse that may help us. It doesn’t seem at first to directly mention the Nephilim but what it does say perhaps points to them or something like that…we’re in Daniel 2…as you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they will mingle with the seed of men, they will not adhere to one another just as iron does not mix with clay…”
Again, this is about prepping and having prepped his audience to us his premise as a hermeneutic, he can read things that are utterly unrelated to his point but give the appearance that it does.
His subjective misinterpretation is, “…it sounds eerily similar to Genesis chapter 6…one commentator then asked could this be a hint of a return to the mischief of Genesis 6” and I can tell by the term mischief that he’s referring to Chuck Missler. Missler’s vast influence means that he took the tall-tales that came before him and popularized them but his Nephilology wasn’t biblical—and neither is Pastor Gene Pensiero’s. I wrote about Missler in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology, I noted above and put him close to the beginning of the neo-Nephilology chronology.
I wrote a whole chapter just about how post-flood Nephilologists misread, misunderstand, misinterpret, and misapply Daniel since he was merely telling us about two people groups who would engage in commerce but wouldn’t intermarry. There’s not a single word of context in that chapter or in the entire book that would allow for that the one verse had anything to do with Nephilim or anything even remotely related. This is a case of taking a text, a verse, out of context to make a pretext for a proof-text.
He goes on to, yet again, refer to, “it’s going to be like in the days of Noah” and I wrote an entire chapter just about that as well in that book since that’s another favorite to misuse amongst post-flood Nephilologists.
Again, Jesus didn’t say a single word about what Pastor Gene Pensiero puts as, “one of the chief characteristics of them [of, “those days”] were fallen Angels mating with human females” and that somehow has something to do with that with which he followed directly, “meanwhile in the real world in 2015, it’s ancient times now two years ago Popular Mechanics said this U.S adversaries are already working on something. America is reluctant to enhanced human operations…entail modifying the body and the brain creating what some have called super soldiers.”
He then goes on and on about, “the Defense Department’s future research…artificial intelligence…Gilgamesh…Kandahar giant…DNA…super soldier” and on it went. At least, after taking his audience 99% of the way towards (a biblically unknown and biblically impossible) return of Nephilim, he doesn’t take the very last step and punts to, “whether or not the Nephilim will return, I don’t know.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
