Category: Uncategorized

The host of the YT channel Eyes Open in California Dreams wrote this to me in the comments section of one of my videos:

Ken Ammi I remember our little back and forth a while back about a dream that God showed me pertaining to the Giants. I had another dream about the Giants. This is the 4th time God showed me about the Giants. I know that the word “Giants” triggers you because it is a new word in comparison to the ancient Hebrew text, which I understand you point of view completely, but at this time, it’s the best I can do.

Nephilim is a common term that people also use today but I did understand your grievance with THAT word’s usage as well. So after watching this video, I have the understanding that you don’t believe that there were BIG people or creatures in the land after the Flood, regardless of what anybody calls them. I get that part. You are totally entitled to your own opinion about how you read the scriptures (this is why God gave us intellect). I do have to make you aware of one really important detail concerning the BIG creatures: they WILL be coming out of their subterranean caves systems soon.

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. There were BIG creatures in the land in the days of Noah and there will be BIG creatures in the land again prior to the Rapture. Here’s a link to the latest dream that I had. In the description boxes of my dreams videos pertaining to the Giants, I have linked the other dreams about the Giants. Check them all out. Start here. https://youtu.be/k7Fjd52Ae74

This is the 4th dream in which God has shown me about them. In the 1st dream, I hid from the BIG creature under a pile of leaves indicating that the season will be Autumn. In the 2nd dream, I was actually a US Marine on a special mission to assault their cave system “hive.” In the 3rd dream, I was shown that they secrete some sort of flammable liquid from their skin which means that THEY themselves are flammable. In the 4th dream, I saw their cave entrance under a mountain road in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA. God has definitely gotten my attention with these dreams. One of the biggest details I’d like to point out is that I don’t ever think about them.

Well, now after dream #4, I am actually thinking about those BIG things a lot. The reason why I’m writing you is not actually to debate whether or not they were here after the Flood, nor that they WILL return soon and that there WILL be a war fought with them with conventional weapons of war, but I am actually wanting to know WHAT people should call them to be “biblically” accurate? I am just curious as to WHAT you would call them? Raphaim? Nephilim? Giants (Lol)? Anakims?

 

Ken Ammi

Yes indeed, I recall: you asked your viewers for help researching, I assisted, and you were a jerk to me—mostly because you feel that your dreams are authoritative, more authoritative than the Bible.

I’m pleased that you reached out. One important thing is that God is certainly not giving you those dreams since their inaccurate: they’re what I term “neo-theo-sci-fi.”

Well, if you watched the video then you wouldn’t conclude that I “don’t believe that there were BIG people” but only that since we’ve no reliable physical description of them (no, not even from your dreams) then we can’t know they were big (which is a subjective term) and can’t know they weren’t big: we simply can’t say one way or another.

But indeed, they were not around “after the Flood.” Now, you say they were “BIG,” whatever that means and that, “they WILL be coming out of their subterranean caves systems” even though Gen 6:17 says, “every thing that is in the earth shall die.”

But hey, why argue: you say they’ll be around “soon,” whatever that means, so I’ll just keep a lookout. But maybe narrow down what you mean by “soon” so that I know when you inform you that you were either right or wrong.

Now, you took Jesus out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext. When you read what Jesus said, in His own context, via His own emphasis, to make His own point then you’ll realize that He said the same thing about the days of Lot (Luke 17) so you don’t get to force Him to say whatever you want to hear. His point was to offer two examples of people being unaware or unconcerned with coming judgment. Thus, it has utterly nothing to do with “BIG creatures.”

So, how many hours are you expecting me to listen to you waking up in the morning and asserting private, personal, special revelation?

I’ve already heard of something similar to “US Marine on a special mission to assault their cave system ‘hive’” which is clearly based on an internet hoax about Kandahar.

“THEY themselves are flammable” what a coincidence, so are we.

Since you “saw their cave entrance under a mountain road in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA” then it’s very, very easy: you can just go there and get all of these discussions over with instantly.

“WHAT people should call them,” the “BIG” “giants” of your dreams? They should say, “thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Do not let your prophets and your diviners who are in your midst deceive you, nor listen to your dreams which you cause to be dreamed” (Jeremiah 29:8).

Raphaim? Nope, since all we’re contextually told about them is that some of them were “tall” (a subjective term) compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Nephilim? Nope, since we’ve no reliable physical description of them.

Giants? Only if you define what you mean by that vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term—and since you’re implying something about height then it no longer has anything to do with the Bible.

Anakims? They were a subgroup of Rephaim, like a clan of a tribe, and were the subjectively “tall” ones.

Shalom ol’ friend!

 

 

 

Well, that ended it right then and there.

 

 

See my various books here.

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

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

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

 

Hereinafter are some notes and comments from and about the self-professed “possessed” professor Jeffrey Kripal’s essay The Traumatic Secret: Bataille and the Comparative Erotics of Mystical Literature (if you are interested in hearing his own possession story—and how he is a-okay with it—see here.

Kripal refers to “trauma as a psychological correlate or catalyst of the mystical state of consciousness” and yet, that “it does not follow that the mystical life so catalyzed is ‘nothing but’ a symptom of the earlier sexual trauma, any more than a life transformed by a near-death experience of transcendence and Light is ‘nothing but’ an expression of the car accident or open-heart surgery.”

Now, everyone knows that “you meant it for evil, but God meant it for good” (Genesis 50:20) which we know from the fact that good can come from evil. For example, the pain of muscle fiber literally ripping during a weight-bearing exercise results in bigger, stronger muscles.

However, there is a very, very long history of weaponizing our natural reaction to various forms of trauma. For example, the CIA’s MK experiments such as MK-Ultra whereby alter personalities/identities were created via dissociation due to trauma and then hidden behind amnesia walls.
Kripal quotes his buddy Whitley Strieber as stating, “Had I not as a child been brutalized by whoever this was, I don’t think that I ever would have been able to perceive the visitors” (Whitley Strieber (Solving the Communion Enigma: What Is to Come)—for more, see my Whitley Strieber’s Traumatic Initiation.

Aldous Huxley elucidates it thusly:
“Nothing in our everyday experience gives us any reason for supposing that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen; and yet when we subject water to certain rather drastic treatments, the nature of its constituent elements becomes manifest.
Similarly, nothing in our everyday experience gives us much reason for supposing that the mind of the average sensual man has, as one of its constituents, something resembling, or identical with, the Reality substantial to the manifold world; and yet, when that mind is subjected to drastic treatments, the divine element, of which it is in part at least composed, becomes manifest.” (Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1962), v-vi)

Kripal plays off of this in noting:
“We could easily switch scientific metaphors here and make the point even more contemporary. Nothing in our everyday experience gives us any reason to suppose that matter is not material, that it is made up of bizarre forms of energy that violate, very much like spirit, all of our normal notions of space, time, and causality.
Yet when we subject matter to certain drastic treatments, like CERN’s Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, then we can see quite clearly that matter is not material at all.
But—and this is the key—we can only get there through a great deal of physical violence, a violence so extreme and so precise that it cost us billions of dollars and decades of preparation to inflict it.”

In application to human trauma, Kripal writes:
“Whitley Strieber…is as blunt and frank about the sexual and even rape dimensions of his abduction experiences as he is about how his later adult encounters with subtle beings, whom he calls simply ‘the visitors,’ were somehow related to a horrendous physical trauma that he believes he suffered on a military base as a young child (as a subject in an experiment).”

In passing, I will note that the quite disturbing 2004 movie “Mysterious Skin” is premised upon alien abduction experiences as a result of sexual abuse—as a way of escapist dissociation form the trauma.
Likewise, the 2016 movie “A Monster Calls” and the 2017 “I Kill Giants” both feature children who have experiences with giants that are not real but are byproduct manifestations brought about by trauma: both are about children dealing with a terminally ill mum.

The way that Strieber puts it, “physical and sexual trauma can ‘crack open the cosmic egg’ and so reveal a ‘hidden reality’ of unimaginable scope.”

Kenneth Ring elucidates:
“My argument begins with the proposition that a history of child abuse and trauma plays a central etiological role in promoting sensitivity to UFOEs and NDEs [the “E”s refer to “Experiences” and the “ND” refer to “Near Death”]. My second assumption…is that growing up under such conditions tends to stimulate the development of a dissociative response style as a means of psychological defense….
By doing so [that is, by “tuning out”[this bracketed statement was by Kripal]]—and this is my third assumption—he is more likely to ‘tune into’ other realities where by virtue of his dissociated state, he can temporarily feel safe regardless of what is happening to his body. In this way,…dissociation would directly foster relatively easy access
to alternate, non-ordinary realities.” (Kenneth Ring, The Omega Project: Near-Death Experiences, UFO Encounters, and Mind at Large (New York: William and Morrow, 1992), 144)

Jeffrey Kripal notes, “there are some definite patterns in comparative mystical literature” such as “Bernini’s Saint Teresa…moaning in mystical ecstasy. Or in orgasm. Or both” and “erotic patterns generated by male sexual orientation and religious desire, the privileging of homoerotic structures within male mystical literature, and the exiling of male heterosexuality as heretical within the same.”

Kripal references, “a series of links…between childhood and early adult trauma, mostly of a sexual nature, and the saint’s later and most remarkable ability to dissociate in almost any context in order to enter various, extremely positive ecstatic modes of consciousness and altered states of energy.”

Furthermore, “Another pattern…I have never quite named, but I would like to do so now. I want to call this pattern within my comparative erotics the traumatic secret.”

For example, “a history of sexual trauma can and sometimes does help create the psychosexual foundations of a great mystic.” Yet, he elucidates “an ontological reason, a psychological reason, and a moral reason” that “such a traumatic secret has generally remained secret.”

One is that such experiences are “are literally ‘beyond
Language’ and ‘beyond culture’ and so ‘unspeakable’ or ‘secret.’”
Another is that the experiencer is “vaguely aware of the connection between the earlier trauma and the later mystical event.”

Jeffrey Kripal notes that Georges Bataille wrote, “Nothing binds me to a particular religion…I have to pick my way along a lonely path, no tradition, no ritual to guide me, and nothing to hinder me, either. In this book of mine I am describing an experience without reference to any special body of belief, being concerned essentially to communicate an inner experience—religious experience, as I see it—outside the pale of specific religions.” (Georges Bataille, Erotism: Death & Sensuality (San Francisco: City Light Books, 1986))

Kirpal took the words right out of my mouth in commenting thusly on this, “His was a religion of no religion.” Not being bound to a particular religion means being firmly bound to his very own manmade religion made in his own image. Thus, it is not accurate to claim “no tradition, no ritual” since the traditions to which he holds are his own, the rituals his own, etc. and they most certainly guided him as anyone’s worldview does: “religious experience, as I see it indeed.

Jeffrey Kripal observed, “Bataille sees the Hegelian dialectic as essentially mystical in structure and intent.” This make a lot of sense considering the context. The Hegelian dialectic is, to put it simply: 1) thesis, 2) antithesis, 3) synthesis. Thus, it may be weaponized thusly within the MK-Ultra context: if you want to create an alter personality/identity then you subject someone to trauma (thesis), the person have been designed to react in a self-preserving manner via amnesia within which personalities/identities are housed (antithesis), and thus, you have created personalities/identities that can be called up via, for example, post-hypnotic suggestions (synthesis).

Kripal observes that “Bataille observes that transgression derives its power from the taboo, that the transgression does not remove the taboo but suspends, completes, and transcends it.”
I seem to recall that a little while before Bataille observed that, Paul the Apostle wrote:
“I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7).

An example that is offered is that “sexual taboos must not be misunderstood as simple superstitions. We cannot get rid of them, as our humanity depends on them” for, for example, “the construction of a social order.” You can very plainly see that today within the USA which his literally falling apart culturally by the utter disregard of sexual taboos—and the turning one man and one woman (yes, male and female) in a committed marriage into a taboo.

Kripal, only somewhat cryptically, references that “some of these ecstatic states were explicitly connected to what the saint himself [the 19th c. Hindu, Ramakrishna] described as a kind of haunting of his bowel movements and the related fashion in which he described the path of Tantra as the ‘dirty path,’ the path of the latrine. One can enter the house of mystical experience, the saint pointed out, through many means. The front door works, but so does the back latrine…Ramakrishna’s dogged insistence that the House of Mystical Experience can be entered through something as horrible as a Latrine.”

Many, such as black magickians, have picked up on this uhm, well, backdoor to enlightenment (actually endarkenment), the haunted bowel movements and such (I feel bad for that ghost). For example, Michael Aquino, former priest of Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan who went on to establish the Temple of Set, wrote the following regarding to the legal battle between another military man, US Army Maj Grady McMurtry, and Kenneth Grant regarding the legitimate chartered of the US Grand Lodge of the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO):
“While sitting in the courtroom watching Judge Legge preside sternly over the slug-out, I couldn’t help wondering if he had any idea he was ruling on which group had legal claim to anal sex as the supreme religious sacrament in the United States” (Scroll of Set, Vol. XII no. 5, Oct. 1986 AD).

The band Led Zeppelin just got right to the point by titled one of their albums “In Through the Out Door” which is probably more marketable than, say, “We Love Sodomy.”

Kenneth Ring also notes something I covered in Whitley Strieber: A Complex Messianic Complex? which is that “extremely common move in the alien abduction literature, that such traumatically transformed individuals may well represent ‘the next stage in evolution.’”

Jeffrey Kripal tells us that “Ramakrishna, by the way, was similarly mystically transformed, in an ocean of Light, amidst a suicide attempt, probably for very similar psychosexual reasons” and he specifies that the attempt was via “a knife” which knowing Kripal’s mindset, is specified so as to invoke a phallic symbol.

In his book Kali’s Child (and Kripal claims to be possessed by the black blood false-goddess Kali), he refers to “uncontrollable bowel movements” and that there ‘were texts that talked about ghosts connected to the saint’s bowels, sexually aggressive ‘mothers,’ holy men stripping a little trusting boy desperate for a father figure, village women worshipping this same little boy as their mythical lover…a boss whose ‘demonic’ presence could send a young priest into prolonged states of unconsciousness, and a phallic guru whose unexplained departure was connected with half a year of more unconsciousness and some very bloody bowels.”

He also references “Ramakrishna’s rejection of Tantra” (which was not a “categorical rejection”) “as the latrine of the house.” Ironically, Kripal also relates the tale of how comic book author Grant Morrison also became possessed in India, like Kripal himself, whilst engaging in Tantric rituals, see here.

Lastly, “The Master’s body, like his mind, was continuously expelling the world out through his bowels.” Well, so, okay, wow.

See my various books here.

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

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

The following discussion took place due to my video Dr. Sylvester James Gates makes Neil DeGrasse Tyson desperate to hold on to Atheism.
See my book

juan cenobio commented
Ken Ammi look if you fantasy belief’s keep you warm great, but know this your God is but many in our history. In our future if we still have one, we’ll have others. An yours will be wash by another set of believer’s and fanatics.

I, Ken Ammi, replied
juan cenobio look if you fantasy belief’s keep you warm great, but know this your worldview is but many in our history. In our future if we still have one, we’ll have others. An yours will be wash by another set of unbeliever’s and fanatics.

juan cenobio
Ken Ammi dude what a way to prove me right
I hope you truely understand that what you did , your religion has done to others. That was childish but then again your religious. You Sir Suck

Ken Ammi
Indeed, I understand what I did: I proved that your statement was generic enough to be meaningless when aimed at one particular worldview which is why it fitted yours so well, as well. Now, if you are an Atheist you have disqualified yourself from condemning anything at all including what a “your religion has done to others.” Also, that was a logical personification fallacy as “religion” is not a person, has not mind, no volition and thus does nothing.
I would love to keep going round and round but as it is, due to time constraints, I only devote one day to replying to comments and it is taking me hours to do so.
I am wondering why any of this is an issue for you. If you really believe that we are temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms then what does it matter how we interpret random bio-chemical reactions within our brains?
If theism is a Darwinian survival mechanism then why do you seek to decrease the survivability of others?
How does your worldview provide you a premise for even holding others to standards of truth, ethics, logic or for you to condemn anything?

juan cenobio
Ken Ammi because plagiarism is serious sir, its because your not human you cant say what I put down, people died in the name of Science. We’ve progress because education is a human right every one can calculate and people deserve their human pride.

Ken Ammi
I would love to keep going round and round but as it is, due to time constraints, I only devote one day to replying to comments and it is taking me hours to do so.
I am wondering why any of this is an issue for you. If you really believe that we are temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms then what does it matter how we interpret random bio-chemical reactions within our brains?
If theism is a Darwinian survival mechanism then why do you seek to decrease the survivability of others?
How does your worldview provide you a premise for even holding others to standards of truth, ethics, logic or for you to condemn anything?

juan cenobio
Ken Ammi you solved your own question. WE CAN ALWAYS FIND IT OUT JUST LIKE EVEYTHING ELSE WE USE TODAY.

Ken Ammi
I can see that you are attempting to avoid issues that cause your worldview trouble but again, how does your worldview provide you a premise for even holding others to standards of truth, ethics, logic or for you to condemn anything?

Vladimir_Bone Spur_tRump chimed in with
Nothing new here. A pattern sleeking mammal goes looking for patterns and….. Lawrence Krauss has talked about this before. Life may be a computer simulation but how the [****] does that have anything to do with a god? It doesn’t. If true, it means there is a superior life force beyond us. We can surely hope this is so since humanity is no more than an advanced ape. All you religiotards can chill. It’s no proof of your silly god.

Ken Ammi
Wow friend, you seem to have anger problems: please mind your manners. Is your argument the following? 1) A pattern sleeking mammal goes looking for patterns (Lawrence Krauss has talked about this before so that settles it), 2) a pattern sleeking mammal finds patterns, 3) ergo, there is no patter.
By definition God is the ultimate being so that the “superior life force beyond us” to which you refer is that which we call God. And now I see why you behave the way you do since you believe that you are just an advanced ape, you conducted yourself in the manner of an ape tossing its fecal excreta at others. Ironically, if you actually do believe that you are a temporarily and accidentally existing ape then what do you care what other apes believe: do you go to your local zoo and yell at the apes that you are right and they are wrong?
God has better for you than seeking subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence.

Vladimir_Bone Spur_tRump
Let’s cut to the core. You are an evolved ape. All humans are. Your life has no purpose other than what you give it. There is no sky daddy watching you. Telling you who to have sex with, how and when, what to eat, what clothes to wear, what days of the week you can work..Use your [****]ing brain and try thinking. The existence of your god … which I must assume is the christian god because you were probably indoctrinated (brainwashed) into that religion, can not be defined. Period. Until that happens, all your methaneous outgassings have the relevancy of smoldering dog [****] on the pavement on a hot summer day. Because even if you could define your silly impotent psychotic sky daddy, that doesn’t prove that he/she/it exists. So get to work. Maybe you’ll win a Nobel Prize. Doubtful. Your ilk have been banging their tin drums for thousands of years and all you’re left with is holding an empty shoe. Idiots like yourself have chosen to abandon reason and act on faith. A sure sign of mental illness. Seek psychiatric help and then get back with me. I show no courtesy or respect for people who denigrate human intellect and grovel at the feet of man made deities.

Ken Ammi
Friend, please mind your manners. Let’s cut to the core. Merely asserting that humans are evolved apes is just that: an assertion based on your worldview philosophy.
Do you know who else thought that your life has no purpose other than what you give it: Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pot, etc.
You positively asserted that “There is no sky daddy watching you” so you must now prove it. However, that tells me something about how childishly undeveloped your theology is.
Did you know that someone is telling you who to have sex with, how and when, what to eat, what clothes to wear, what days of the week you can work? It is you or your family or your government or your culture, etc. so you are on the same boat.
I bet that you were indoctrinated (brainwashed) into evolution but no, I was 100% not indoctrinated (brainwashed) into Christianity.
I am unsure what you mean by that “The existence of your god…can not be defined” but the argument from contingency might help you there.
You condemn psychopathy but upon what premise does your worldview give you the right to do so?
You also seem unaware of what “faith” means and just how does your worldview provide you a premise upon which to appeal to reason?
Friend, you clearly have a lot of work to do as, in typical Atheism fashion, you just directly to condemnation and chest thumping without a premise.
But you really did hit upon something
If we are all really just temporarily and accidentally existing evolved apes then what do you care what temporarily and accidentally existing evolved apes believe? In fact, what we believe is merely the result of random bio-chemical neural reactions which are “methaneous outgassings” which “have the relevancy of smoldering dog” excreta “on the pavement on a hot summer day.” So why insist that your smoldering pile is more accurate than mine?

MrGrownman455 chimed in with
Well everyone knows about this supreme being on a deeper level but most people are train away from it via school, entertainment and other distractions. Meditation and the study of spirituality helped me. We are taught to look outside of ourselves for the answers but what happens when part of the Being that created the Universe is hanging out inside of all of us ? Well there is a good chance it will get ignored by most people but those who meditate and quiet there mind will realize that something else is there. I would suggest meditate once a day and find out for yourself. I know it’s not scientific or even religious but think about this the Universe is way older than our tiny little blue planet and this Being created it all of it. So it doesn’t need scientific logic and it never asked for a religion. Just meditate then think of a question. I bet you will get an answer if not an inspired thought then some type of sign.

Ken Ammi
Well friend “meditation” and “spirituality” are generic terms. But it is clear that you think that you are right and everyone who disagrees is wrong as it is only “those who meditate and quiet there mind” who “will realize that something else is there.”

And that was that since no one replied again.

See my various books here.

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

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

Dr. Michael Heiser wrote an article titled, Who (or What) Were the Nephilim? (September 28, 2018 AD).
Since I have written a lot on this issue from various vantage points, I wanted to focus on his elucidation of the supposed post-flood Nephilim.

Heiser references the only text, outside of Genesis 6, here Nephilim are mentioned which is Numbers 13:32–33 (which he quotes from the ESV thusly):
“So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, ‘The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there 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.’”

He refers to the connection of “Israel’s survival as the people of Yahweh with the defeat of the Nephilim descendants.” But “Nephilim descendants” begs the next question Heiser asks and answers which is “How did the Nephilim survive the flood?”

He asserts:
“Genesis 6:4 pointedly informs readers that the Nephilim were on earth before the flood ‘and also afterward.’ The phrase looks forward to Numbers 13:33, which says with equal clarity that the oversized descendants of Anak ‘came from the Nephilim.’ The sons of Anak, the Anakim, were one of the giant clans described in the conquest narratives (e.g., Deut. 2:10–11, 21; Josh. 11:21–22; 14:12, 15).”

Before getting to the last sentence in his though, which is “The text clearly links them to the Nephilim, but how is this possible given the account of the flood?” let us pause and review.

I take “and also afterward” as looking forward to Numbers 13:33 as an assertion—not an imperative one, a myopic one, and one that causes problems.

We are told “There were giants [an unfortunate pseudo-translation of “Nephilim”] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men…” When were those days and when was after that? Heiser looks forwards from this point, I look backwards—in a manner of speaking.
The text tells us when those days were twice. Verses 1-2 tells us “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives…” and the verse at which we just looked notes “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.” Thus, “after that” is just that: after those days—this much is crystal clear.
But when were those days? I know not exactly however, it could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children started having children. This means that after that is after those days yet, still pre-flood.

Now, Michael Heiser emphasizes the “equal clarity” of (three issues here): 1) “the oversized,” 2) “descendants of Anak” which “came from the Nephilim,” and 3) “the Anakim, were one of the giant clans described in the conquest narratives.”
This can get very verbose very quickly so I will make succinct statements and leave interested readers to peruse my section on Nephilim (I am publishing a book on Nephilim and giants but as of October 2018 AD it has not been published: depending on when you read this, it might have been, see my list of books to check).

To review:
It is difficult to accept the term “equal clarity” regarding Numbers 13: 33’s correlation to Genesis 6 when the latter has been misunderstood. Of course, that does not mean that it is not clear but that it have been misunderstood.
Yes, Numbers 13 is clear but it is key to understand that the claim in v. 33 was made by unfaithful/disloyal spies who presented a bad/evil report and were rebuked for it: for details, see Did Caleb and the spies see Nephilim giants in the land?—in short, the presented a “don’t go in the woods” style fear mongering tall tale.
Thus, “oversized” is overstated by the spies, the Anakim where in the land but that they “came from the Nephilim” is made up (not back by any other statement in the Bible), the Anakim can only be said to be “one of the giant clans” if we understand that “giant” is being translated from “Repha” or “Rephaim” (unlike some who translate Nephilim as “giants” in Genesis 6)—also, note that “giants” is a generic term that only means taller than average (and Hebrew males of those days averaged 5.5 ft.). Thus, v. 33 truly is a standalone statement with virtually no relation to reality.

Heiser informs us that “There are two alternatives for explaining the presence of giants after the flood who descended from the giant Nephilim” about which I will say that adding mine makes three. Before getting to that, note the qualified statement, “giants after the flood who descended from the giant Nephilim”: 1) by now you should reject statements such as “giant Nephilim,” you should note that his statement “giants after the flood” really means “Rephaim after the flood,” and that there is no reason to think that taller than 5.5 ft. people post-flood have anything to do with Nephilim, sons of God or any such thing—if they were tall or very tall they were just tall or very tall (FYI: “tall” and “very tall” are also generic terms).

Heiser’s options are:
“The flood of Genesis 6–8 was a regional, not global, catastrophe.
The same kind of behavior described in Genesis 6:1–4 happened again (or continued to happen) after the flood, producing other Nephilim, from whom the giant clans descended.”

My elucidation, my third way, is based on the clarity of Genesis 6 and the facts about Numbers 13. Moreover, I am not forced to change the scope of the flood simply in order to get Nephilim past the flood and I do not have to claim that it happened again (or continued to happen) since the Bible knows absolutely nothing about any such thing—nor about any concept of a return of the Nephilim for that matter.

As for option one, Heiser notes that “Many biblical scholars, scientists, and other researchers have marshaled the evidence in favor of” a “localized flood.” I will merely state that God sure did make it difficult for Noah (and the animals). Rather than having the poor chap build an entire ark for over a century, He could have just said, “Get to stepp’n, just move a few miles over yonder.” Also, rather than brining the various animal kinds to the localize flood’s epicenter, He could have kept the animals away.

As for option two, Heiser notes that “Did the Nephilim’s origin re-occur?” is answerable by “a possibility deriving from Hebrew grammar.” At this point, we go back to those days and after that about which Heiser tells us “The ‘when’” the sons of God married the daughters of men “in the verse could be translated ‘whenever,’ thereby suggesting a repetition of these pre-flood events after the flood.”

Heiser concludes, “since Genesis 6:4 points forward to the later giant clans, the phrasing could suggest that other sons of God fathered more Nephilim after the flood.”

One problem is that he is basing this not only on Hebrew grammar but an employment of Hebrew grammar towards the desired end of having Numbers 13:33 be a face value statement—which is most certainly is not.
Another problem is that he is linking the word “when” and Nephilim with “later giant clans” which is a connecting something that the Bible never does. We are told the titles/terms used of various clans by various peoples but one term that is never once included in those is Nephilim.
And, of course, note that he states that “the phrasing could” and not does “suggest…”

Michael Heiser concludes that “A later appearance of other Nephilim occurred by the same means as before the flood” about which I will again say that this is something of which the Bible knows nothing—period.

The last statement by Heiser I will quote is “Fear of the giant clans results in a spiritual failure that means wandering in the desert…” and by now you know that 1) correlating Nephilim with “giant clans” is fallacious and that which, in part, led to “Fear of the” non-Nephilim “giant clans results in” statements such as Numbers 13:33 which was “a spiritual failure that means wandering in the desert…”

See my various books here.

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

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

The following discussion took place due to my video Angels, were there post-flood Nephilim & were giants gigantic? Jay Dyer & Ken Ammi.

Jeremy James commented
Genesis 6 never mentions angels once

I, Ken Ammi, replied
Friend, does Job 38:7 mention Angels?

Jeremy James (note that he replies with the text and it certainly makes it clear that “sons of God” here are not humans)
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
It is a prophesy of the coming of Jesus Christ as he is the “chief corner stone”. The sons of God who were shouting for joy are the saved believers who were saved by faith before the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Salvation has always been by faith. I can prove this if you’d like as Jesus is “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world”.
Thanks for taking the time for the discussion!

Ken Ammi
You are quite welcome and thank you in turn.
I urge you to reconsider since such is not what the text is stating. That is very clearly about the creation “when I laid the foundations of the earth.”
Now, if the sons of God are human believers, then who are the morning stars?
Also, you are implying some sort of preexistence since you say that believers were around before the Word was made flesh.
And you refer to being “saved by faith” which we are nor. Rather, we are saved by grace (through faith).

Jeremy James
Genesis chapter 4 has Cains wicked genealogy. Genesis chapter 5 has Seths genealogy and chapter 6 is when the 2 genealogies start intermarrying. Genesis 6 says they took WIVES that they chose. Hebrews tells us Angels CANNOT marry.

Ken Ammi
Well, there is no such thing in the Bible as “Cains wicked genealogy,” that is just a tall tale that was invented in order to ignore that the original, traditional, and majority view amongst the earliest Jews and Christians was the Angel view. I proved this in my book “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?” subtitle “A survey of early Jewish and Christian commentaries including noted on giants and the Nephilim.”

Jeremy James
I’m not endorsing the “serpent seed” theory as it’s easily proven as false. What I’m saying is that chapters 4,5,and 6 go together as one would expect a book to. The sons of God and daughters of men are what Genesis 4 and 5 are about. Also it really doesn’t matter what “early Jews and Christians” believed, because false doctrine is as old as religion itself. anyways, doesn’t Genesis 6 mention these sons of God MARRIED these daughters of men? Doesn’t the bible also state that Angels DONT marry?
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them WIVES of all which they chose.

Ken Ammi
Well, I am unsure why people marrying other people would lead to God bringing about the flood.
Matthew 22:30 specifies that it is the Angels “in heaven” that do not marry which is why those who did fell by doing so. Jude and 2 Peter 2 help us understand this as they “left their first estate.”

Bert Joseph chimed in with
What kind of angels are the “Sons of God” Genesis Chapter 6? Are they fallen angels? Good discussion, Thx guys.

Ken Ammi
Indeed, that is the moment of their fall. Thank you for your kind words.

Jeremy James
Ken. If that was the moment of their fall then what was the serpent doing in the garden beguiling Eve?

Ken Ammi
Satan is not an Angel, he is a Cherub: Genesis 3 pinpoints the moment of the action via which he fell and Genesis 6 pinpoints the moment of the action of the Angels via which they fell.

Jeremy James
Yes we are saved by grace through faith.
Ken. I will prove that salvation has always been through faith. Paul says “whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” In the OT believers were looking forward to the cross. They knew a redeemer was coming and put their faith in him and his promise. Abraham was justified by faith. Scripture says David called upon the name of the Lord and was saved. I’ll post them in order.

Ken Ammi
Not sure why you wrote, “Yes we are saved by grace through faith” and then “I will prove that salvation has always been through faith.” They “put their faith in him…” by grace. They were “justified by faith” but salvation is by grace, though faith. David “was saved” by grace just like anyone else.

Jeremy James
Ken. The intermarrying of the two genealogies led to the spread of wickedness as Genesis 6:5 says. We know the beliefs of Cain and Abel. Cain offered God the works of his own hands, which is works salvation. Abel did as God commanded and did it with faith. When you read the genealogy of Cain, you read the second murder in recorded history is committed by one of Cains descendants. Wickedness spread faster when the intermarriage started. False beliefs were spread (works). Take care.
Angels are spirits without flesh. How can a spirit without flesh reproduce?

Ken Ammi
Jeremy. The intermarrying of the sons of God and daughters of men led to the spread of wickedness as Genesis 6:1 says. Genesis 6:5 does not say anything about “The intermarrying of the two genealogies.”
Angels are not spirits and do have flesh thus, they did reproduce. The Bible never tells us that Angels are spirits. Now, we are not to build an entire doctrine on one verse and if you seek to provide a citation and quotation about them being spirits you will find just that, one verse: Psalm 104:4, which is reiterated in Hebrews 1.
Yet, please note that in both Hebrew and Greek the term and concept of spirit is corralled with wind and/or breath. When you read the Psalm for context, you will see why a lot of versions have Angels as being “winds” (Psalms being poetic and lyrical as they are) which is also how they have the Hebrews 1 text.
Every single time an Angel is described they are described physically looking like human males (no wings, no halos) so why deny these many facts and opt for that they are not?

Jeremy James
Ken. Grace is a gift of God that comes through faith. Without faith there is no grace for the sinner . Faith comes first. “Without faith it’s impossible to please God”. I said salvation is by grace through faith, but first thing is first.
Paul says “we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law”

Ken Ammi
So we agree that salvation is by grace through faith.

Jeremy James
Yes I stated that above. Thanks for replying.

Jeremy James
Genesis 6:5 doesn’t say it specifically, that’s why you have to read the fourth and fifth chapters to he who God is talking about. Doesn’t it say something like the Spirit of God shall not always strive with MAN (paraphrase) right after Genesis 6:5? He’s talking about man.
Angels are ministering spirits and spirits do not have flesh and bone as Jesus Christ said himself…..Luke 24:39!Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have

Ken Ammi
The first few verses in Genesis 6 provide the premise and the following few focus on humanity as that is the Bible’s main point (Jude and 2 Peter 2 refer to these Angels).
True, spirits do not have flesh and bone but Angles are not spirits: this is not something you should just assert but should provide evidence. And, by the way, I already elucidated that issue for you so people allow iron to sharpen iron.

Jeremy James
Angels aren’t spirits? Hebrews actually calls them “ministering spirits”.

Ken Ammi
Friend, we already went over this: Hebrews does not call them “ministering spirits,” it calls them “leitourgikos pneuma.” In both Hebrew and Greek there is a concept which covers both breath/wing and spirit: these are ruwach and pneuma.
Thus, you cannot simply quote one single translation and build an entire doctrine upon one word therefrom. Hebrews is basing it statements upon Psalm 104 and when you read that text you will see that the context demands that we understand Angels as being likened to winds.
Thus, Hebrews refers to them as ministering winds which correlates to that which Jesus stated in John 3, “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit” (and yes, this text has both “wind” and “Spirit” as pneuma and translates them differently due to context).
Plus, just because you want to argue against the original, traditional and majority view of Genesis 6, you not only build a whole doctrine on one word but also ignore every single description of Angles in the Bible.

And that was the end of it as he no longer replied.

See my various books here.

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

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

This is a double whammy post of discussions.

The first took place due to the video Special LIVE report – Biblical Giants with guest Gary Wayne, which I just found out YouTube says, “isn’t available anymore,” to which Priscilla Amavizca commented

WOW he literally went from Genesis to Revelation, past history to future and end times, and connected everything together so articulated!……………

For some reason, I don’t have a record of my reply but you can infer it from her reply to me since Priscilla Amavizca wrote back

Hi Ken! I really appreciate all your work and perspective as well. I think the differences in perspective between youand Gary come down to worldview differences. I watched your first 2 videos with George so when I watched your debate video, I got context for where you’re coming from.

When I studied Old Testament in my Chriatian university, we discussed the same points you did and your perspective is similar to what my professor (expert in Genesis and early Bible books) deduced. So I TOTALLY get where your coming from (for example, “giant” and “men of great stature/renown” also meant men who were mighty warriors and heros, etc, not necessarily giant).

However it could even mean BOTH in deed and in physical, we just won’t know how they meant it back then. And honestly just like you said in your debate video, it’s a topic that’s just a bit too vague to draw accurate conclusions without assuming too much lol, on both ends. I think both of you had excellent arguments, I understood what both of you and Gary meant.

I did find you were being a bit more attacking to Gary more than he was to you, he only started attacking back after being defensive, and you were being a bit snickering and laughing at him while he talked. But I loved how you apologized in case at the end. It’s hard to argue about something you’re so passionate without almost getting a bit personal lol!

To me, Gary’s perspective tied into what the cohost, Jessie, has shared in her knowledge of bloodlines, the deeper spiritual connections and implications of these potential “beings,’ and the more esoteric knowledge of the past that the “elites” seem to agree with on in their own books and writings, which I have read some and can confirm they are both right on that as well. And she also claims that she has personally witnessed these giants, which comes down to us individually whether we believe she is being truthful or not.

So it’s a bit tricky. One of Jessie’s mentors, Cisco, who also claims to have been a mother of darkness, says she feels she knows how that post-flood giants appeared (she talks about it on Right On Radio) and it makes for solid argument if you hold the worldview of how deeply spiritual everything is.

And I guess that’s just the thing that makes your perspective mostly different from Gary’s: a worldview perspective. Gary seems to consider the spiritual aspects as details that are more significant to the case, such as the ones we discuss on this program, while you focus on the traditional interpretations of the Bible, such as my more-or-less conservative Bible university professor and his colleges. Both of you are very well studied, however, and we always need to keep our heads thinking and jot just focused on one perspective or one that tickles our ears more.

Keep up the good work! Blessings!

Ken Ammi

Most interesting! Now, I’m sure you’ll empathize when I note that when you say “‘giant’…also meant men who were mighty warriors and heros, etc, not necessarily giant” I’ll ask to what you’re referring since in your English Bible “giant” is merely rendering “Nephilim” or “Rephaim”: neither of which imply anything about height or might or hero—even if applied to such. This was a key aspect of the debate: I urged that we not use the term “giant” and quite a ways into the debate Gary essentially stated the same.

See, when you refer to “we just won’t know how they meant it back then” that’s a secondary issue since you didn’t tell me to what word you’re referring: what Hebrew word.

What’s “a bit too vague” is using a vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage, and undefined English word to refer to various things yet, the Biblical data is quite clear. Also, recall that Gary admitted not knowing how “big” Nephilim were but insists on calling them “giants.”

I never once attacked Gary in any way, shape, or form: I critiqued his views. He, in turn, accused me of denying God’s word.

But if you want to tally who attacked, snickered, and laughed: you may be surprised.

I apologized that he mistook me for interrupting: I only did so due to seeking to get him to clarify a point before finishing his statement. The issue was that he made so many errors that by the time he finished a statement there were too many errors with which to deal.

I do find that when we seek to sharpen iron with iron (which is what I said we were doing), someone gets cut.

In short: Gary, Jessie, and Cisco teach post-flood Nephilim (in one way or another) but the Bible does not. I chose to not contradict the Bible and not imply that God failed.

My heart breaks for Jessie but you must, or so I think, keep in mind that it’s very, very tricky to rely on someone who has undergone mind control—especially when they are making claims that, again, contradict the Bible.

Again, I can’t interact with that she “personally witnessed these giants” since I know not who “these” are?

Also, perhaps Nephilim were unusually tall, I have no idea, my only point is that we just don’t know—and Gary agrees with me.

I’m unsure how my worldview is different from Cisco or Gary on the basis of “how deeply spiritual everything is”: keep in mind that there’s a reason I call myself a “Systematic Biblical Paranormologist.”

So, perhaps “Gary seems to consider the spiritual aspects as details that are more significant to the case” but he’s also making claims about the material/physical realm that don’t seem to be at all accurate. Ask yourself how many times, for example, you’ve hear him refer to Nephilim as “giants” meaning unusually tall and how you now have to review all such claims since I asked him one simple question and he admitted he doesn’t know if they were “giants”—please don’t underplay how utterly significant that is.

I understand that tall tales tickles our ears more than analyzing the data systematically but we are called to rightly divide God’s word.

Shalom!

Well, that was the end of that one.

The next discussion was due to the video, “Ancient Giants” to which Margie Cook commented

This was my take on the “after that” thing. Noah and his wife and sons were genetically pure. The wives of the sons were chosen shortly before the flood. They were not genetically pure. So some of the children of ham Shem and japheth were Nephilim. I feel like that is where the Giants came from after the flood.

They were also not allowed to have children during the time they were on the ark. This is possibly why. I believe it was ham that some of the new Giants came from. They were not as big as the ones before. I am not saying that I am totally correct on this but it was my understanding. Just thought I would throw that out there. May Elohim bless you in all you do.

Ken Ammi

So, are you saying God failed? Did He miss the genetic loophole? Was the flood essentially a waste then? FYI: you’re having to invent tall tales to explain “Giants…after the flood” but you jumped from the specific Hebrew term “Nephilim” to the generic English one “Giants” so to whom are you referring? Also, we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim so why equate them with issues of height?

Margie Cook

I’m not saying that Elohim failed! What is wrong with you? The Word tells us that there were giants after the flood. Maybe you should read your Bible instead of trolling and  attacking folks just trying to figure things out. Giants were Nephilim. They also sinned against animals so I’m pretty sure they would be considered Nephilim also. Maybe I’m right and you’re just mad because you can’t figure things out on your own. If you couldn’t even understand my comment, that explains why you can’t understand the Bible. I’m beyond done with trolls. Be gone HaSatan!

Ken Ammi

I’ll ignore your worldly unrighteous anger—but please do repent.

Where is it that “The Word tells us that there were giants after the flood”?

When you say “Giants were Nephilim” it seems that you’re not aware that in your English Bible the term “giants” is rendering (not even translating) both “Nephilim” and also “Rephaim” (who have nothing to do with Nephilim) so that it’s myopically incorrect to blanketly assert “Giants were Nephilim.”

When you say “They also sinned against animals” you’re referring to folklore from MILLENNIA after the Torah was written. Also, you seem to not understand to what that line is referring: it has nothing to do with some sort of Nephilim animals—or, whatever you implied.

Keep in mind that I asked a question, “So, are you saying God failed?” and asked “Did He miss the genetic loophole?” and asked “Was the flood essentially a waste then?”

I then noted, “you’re having to invent tall tales to explain ‘Giants…after the flood’ but you jumped from the specific Hebrew term ‘Nephilim’ to the generic English one ‘Giants’” and so I asked “so to whom are you referring?”

I also noted, “we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim” and asked “so why equate them with issues of height?”

You don’t seem to be very interested in actually discussing the problems you caused and vagaries you sated.

Overall, I’m seeking to sharpen iron with iron and you called me a bunch of names—again, please repent.

And well, that ended that discussion.

See my various books here.

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

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

The info section to the video ENOCH Is Scripture (Proof) states, “Some say the Book of Enoch is a good book to reference, or historical. However, our Messiah called it scripture!”

I, Ken Ammi, commented

By “Is Scripture” do you mean belongs in the canon?

If so, why is it not therein?

Also, it does not seem that Jesus was quoting 1 Enoch.

He said, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” so it may seem that He goes on to quote it (but note that His statement is clearly not a quotation) but we might as well say that He was quoting “the power of God.”

In any case, 1 Enoch contradicts the Bible so many times that I filled a whole chapter with examples in my book “In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.”

TNtraveler replied

You’re right.

John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Which excluded the book of Enoch.

Jesus was not quoting the book of Enoch in Matthew 22. Although there are places in the Bible that do, like in Jude and Paul references it.

But For some reason, these are the only verses God approved of. The rest of the book of Enoch, didn’t get Gods stamp of approval.

There’s some reason this man wants so badly to focus on that book. Is he doing it his way or Gods way. God bless

TheJBerg noted

Book of Enoch didn’t get included because Council of Nicea couldn’t agree on it’s inclusion. God had nothing to do with it, just church politics.

TNtraveler

Ok, so since the Council of Nicea made the decision to include all the others, God didn’t divinely inspire that either. Ok. Well I just won’t study it anymore at all then. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Tausha the Tech @TheJBerg

no they found it’s been written by several different authors. They couldn’t determine it to be God breathed. Discernment should tell you this as well. Especially since the end states Enoch himself is the chosen messiah. I own the book, its spiritually dark. It’s crazy to me that people dont trust Gods sovereignty over his own word.

Rebecca Spires @TheJBerg

and God said “ the gates of hell will not prevail” so I’m positive God included all He wanted.

dsvet

The Truth About the Apocrypha and the Lost Books of the Bible https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XxjH7CfhSX8

TNtraveler @Tausha the Tech

Wow. I have not read the book of Enoch. I only know it’s an extremely large book about apocalyptic days. But I didn’t know it claims Enoch is the Messiah It’s in Enoch 71:14. This is why it wasn’t included in the Bible. That voids ALL discussion because it’s blasphemy. Thank you for pointing that out!

Ken Ammi @TheJBerg

But how could it be that a book that contradicts the Bible (a lot) didn’t get included because a council that didn’t even deal with the canon couldn’t agree on it’s inclusion?

Javier Feria

Sir

Don’t give up, continue searching…

The writings are inspired by God, you’ll find much spiritual wisdom if you keep searching the holy scriptures

TNtraveler

Also, do some research on 1 Enoch chapter 71. It talks about  who the son of man is. It’s been interpreted that in those verses as it is describing the Messiah, it points to Enoch as the son of man. This is one of the reasons it was not put in the Bible,. It’s blasphemy. it’s a huge book so all that just wasn’t necessary. You can Google about it. But ultimately, God did not lead the council to include it in the Bible bc it would contradict scripture. It’s interesting to read it because it’s about apocalyptic times, but don’t get sucked into as divinely inspired bc it wasn’t. God Bless

Maker Marx @TheJBerg

God has everything to do with everything, permitting or denying.

Jack Nicholls @TNtraveler

because god has different type of believers in him down here, we have the ones who stick to the book, we have ones who ignore it, we have ones who take and add, but most importantly, we have people that search for the truth, god didn’t take these scriptures out as far as I am aware, it was man. Now the scriptures may have been removed with the influence of god maybe because the church age (right now) doesn’t  need that information.

Beth-El Yisrael

Y’all REALLY think it’s okay to omit books that were originally included in the Bible?? Y’all are aware that Yah said that their will be divine retribution for those who adds or takes away from the Bible, right?

Just because Yah allows something bad to happen does not mean that he approves of it. All of these occurred to fulfill the prophecies spoken about how man would take the word and twist it and do other abominable things that Yah hates. Also if Genesis states that Enoch was a man that WALKED with Yah and was without because Yah took him meaning he DID NOT DIE…don’t you think that book is REALLY important?? I’d most definitely like to read the book he wrote because if he was so close with Yah I’m quite sure things were revealed to him that the average man never knew about or saw.

Come on now.  It’s all to sow confusion.

Marcin_R

There are many gnostic scriptures that the church doesn’t deem as canon, now ask yourselves why is that? Why would they omit such writings that point towards Truth and salvation? Maybe back when the Roman Catholic church was forming, and remember this is still a Roman mentality, of those that govern. I don’t think they would like it very much to have Free men and women as citizens, you see! you can’t tell what to do to those that walk with God.

And if I am a priest but the people are higher than me spiritually what would that make me? like a joke.

And if you are sick but I have a secret medicine than I can manipulate this for great profit.

Men that govern love power, control is what they covet. They don’t want the people strong of will and spirit, that would make them appear lesser.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”

Beth-El Yisrael @Marcin_R

HalleluYah!! Right on point!!

Rebeccablackford7794 @TNtraveler

what if there the books that were closed up because they’re meant for a remote generation,  ones who’s knowledge will increase rapidly! That’s spoken of in the end of Daniel.

Ken Ammi @Marcin_R

Your reference to “many gnostic scriptures” is too generic to follow up with “point towards Truth and salvation.” Most Gnostic scriptures just take Biblical doctrines and turn them upside-down, inside-out, and backward.

Marcin_R

They don’t distort what is written in the Bible, just what people think of the Bible.

If I am convinced that the way I see the Bible is the only true and actual, then anything else that doesn’t coincide with this view will be thrown away.

And I will do all I can to protect it, to protect my beliefs, a go to place, my comfort zone.

The problem here is that people don’t realize these are just beliefs and they mistake them for the actual.

Gnostic poetry threatens such views because it points to the actual, a direct experience of God. And with that we don’t need any more beliefs.

Marcin_R

btw, if you see when looking and listen when hearing the Bible is a gnostic text, so are the  Vedas.

Ken Ammi

But see, you fell for it: they utterly corrupt at a most fundamental level and you want to believe that so you say they don’t distort what is written in the Bible, just what people think of the Bible which is simply note the case at all.

It’s also just a fact that the Bible means certain things, certain main/major things–such as about the nature of God and the nature of humanity: which two biggies–and so anything that contradicts those are violations of it.

You seem to be saying that you are convinced that the way you see the Gnostic texts is the only true and actual, but that anything else that doesn’t coincide with this view, such as the Bible as it has been understood for millennia, will be thrown away or clumsily (pseudo) force fitted.

Marcin_R

forget for a moment the texts and what is meant by gnostic. They are only pointers, they try to point at the Actual, reality as it truly is.

So when I say the actual this is what I am referring to, THIS! right here, right now!

But you said it yourself, for millennia people shy away from this and console themselves with mental imagery, notions and beliefs of God. How do I know these are mere imaginings, fabrications of the mind?

Because they are only thoughts, like poor reflections, stories that we tell ourselves.

All this happens in our heads!

For this reason God will never be what we think it is, the world is not what we think it is. You are not what you take yourself to be.

When we believe our thoughts, you can say when we believe the father of lies, that’s when our actual experience is distorted.

We view the world through our beliefs and not how it actually is.

When we view things from our own experience then things like the Bible unfold with new dimensions, it becomes rich and multilayered. And what once sounded like stories and events reveals to be poetry, parables and allegories.

Written through divine guidance they speak about things hidden from us but in plain sight, even things that we can’t put into words.

Ken Ammi

Wait, but on Gnosticism “reality as it truly is” is a corruption created corrupt by a senile god—supposedly, the God of the Bible, no less.

Highlighted reply

Marcin_R

not sure what you mean by that, but when you say the biblical God, what exactly are you referring to?

Is there really such a thing apart from each man’s individual notion?

We say “biblical God” and there is an image in our minds of what that is,

what I am saying is that we believe this image to be the actual God.

What I really want to say is God is always here, because there’s no such thing as here and now without a God, the universe cannot Not exist, God cannot Not exist, so reality as it always is – is always the case.

But our beliefs and imaginations is what veils the Actual.

Ken Ammi

I’m just pointing out one of the key features of Gnosticism which is that reality, the universe, the physical/material creation is a corruption created corrupt by a senile god—supposedly, the God of the Bible, no less.

No, I’m not referring to an image but to God.

And the universe can not exist since it was God’s choice to create it and He may have chosen otherwise: the universe is contingent upon God.

So yes, “reality as it always is – is always the case” but, again, on Gnosticism this reality is a corruption.

See, “Gospel of Judas, part 5 of 7 : AEON SOTER – Some Gnosis of Gnosticism”: https://truefreethinker.com/gospel-of-judas-part-5-of-7-aeon-soter-some-gnosis-of-gnosticism

Marcin_R

Ken Ammi not sure what you mean by that, but when you say the biblical God, what exactly are you referring to? Is there really such a thing apart from each man’s individual notion? We say “biblical God” and there is an image in our minds of what that is, what I am saying is that we believe this image to be the actual God. What I really want to say is God is always here, because there’s no such thing as here and now without a God, the universe cannot Not exist, God cannot Not exist, so reality as it always is – is always the case. But our beliefs and imaginations is what veils the Actual.

Ken Ammi

By the biblical God I’m referring to just that: the one and only God who is specifically revealed in the Bible.

Thus indeed, God is apart from each man’s individual notion since our epistemology doesn’t effect ontology.

I’m unsure who the “We” is to whom you refer but when I, at least, “say ‘biblical God’” I’m referring to God Himself, not just “an image in our minds” nor that “this image” is “the actual God.” The “universe cannot Not exist” because God did create it, I was just saying that it could have not existed if He had decided not to create it.

And on Gnosticism, the universe is ontologically corrupt by definition from it’s creation. Not so with the Bible and it’s, the real true, God who created a good creation that underwent a fall and will be redeemed.

Marcin_R

I can’t speak from a current experience but I have witnessed first hand how we are always One with Him, One with God. We cannot be apart from God because God is All there is. We are all One with God but we don’t feel it, delusion or illusion and we think we are separate. We have eaten the apple, our minds learned of duality so instead of seeing oneness we project our judgments and divisions. We identify with this, our identity, memory, conditioning, our beliefs, the conceptual contents of our minds so we are banished from eden. We don’t live with God. what I mean by universal is just that, All encompassing, the whole of existence. Christian not as a religion or something we identify with but as a mode of being. Compassion, Truth, Humility, Peace, Awareness; these are what it means to be a Christian. You could belong to another religion and still be a Christian, you could even be in another galaxy and as long as you are your true Self you are Christian. All these qualities I mentioned is what we all truly are, deep in the core we are all Christ like.

Ken Ammi

So, basically, you’re saying that when some guys fly an airplane into a building and murder thousands of people in the name of a false god then they were “always One with Him, One with God…cannot be apart from God because God is All there is.”

Marcin_R

Ken Ammi what you’re showing me is that you didn’t listen to a word I said. Listening means, neither agree or disagree, to stop all judgment for this brief moment while hearing so we can simply understand what the person is saying. If we can’t do that then we are not really communicating.

Ken Ammi

I apologize if I mistook you but that seemed to be one conclusion of what you were saying so, how is it not?

Well, that ended it since no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

This discussion ensued due to the video About Fallen Angels and Giants by Rick Renner of Renner Ministries.

A certain @michaelszczys8316 commented

I don’t believe it was ‘ fallen ‘ angels that mated with women, at least not previously fallen.  Rather Holy Watcher angels that were still loyal to God and in charge of watching over people of the earth. They were fine until Satan enticed them to lust after the women and desire to have for themselves. Also he enticed the WOMEN to lure the angels and cause them to fall from their position at that point.

It seems many of these church fathers held the same view.

I, @kenammi355, replied

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

@michaelszczys8316

first time I seriously read Genesis 6 as a teen I understood it as ‘ angels ‘ and human women getting together and begetting ‘ giants ‘ or children that grew to be gigantic.

I also took the ‘ mighty men which were of old ‘ to be where all the Greek God stories came from.

Good thing I was reading King James Bible which said ‘ giants ‘ or I wouldn’t have known what the heck ‘ nephilim ‘ were.

@kenammi355

That’s interesting because I will submit to you that you also don’t know what the heck “giants” were.

But let’s check with these key questions:

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

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

Do those usages agree?

Now, I got a hint as to your usage since you wrote, “grew to be gigantic” (whatever that means) so focus on the English Bible’s usage and whether your usage agrees.

@michaelszczys8316

all I know is that when I first read that I understood it to mean people much bigger than NBA basketball players.

I had already heard plenty of stories about ‘ Greek gods ‘ and understood it as that was where all the Greek God stories and legends came from.

Simple as that.

Almost 50 years ago.

Over the years when I read of finding huge skeletons and mummies it fit together just fine as to where they came from.

@kenammi355

Actually, that’s a very good lesson to learn since you noted, “all I know is” and that it’s, “when I first read that.”

Thus, please pay attention to someone who has familiarized himself with over two millennias worth of relevant data. Also, don’t go by the first thing you thought of when you read one vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word and especially not before you understand it’s usage: which differs from your usage–so, BTW, it’s correct and you’re mistaken ;o)

Ergo, “giants” in the Bible has utterly nothing whatsoever to do with, “people much bigger” (with “much” being as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as “giants”) or, “huge skeletons” (with “huge” being as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as “giants” or “much”).

@michaelszczys8316

you just don’t get it, do you?

@kenammi355

Don’t get what you mean by “giants” well yes and no: yes I do and you’re misusing that term and so are not agreeing with the biblical usage and no since you refused to answer the key questions. Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens and dozens (and dozens) of people who go on and on (and on) about “giants” and literally zero have replied.

@michaelszczys8316

no, you don’t seem to get how I, myself, personally, as a young man,  uneducated in Bible or ancient languages, one of the very first times I even read Genesis at all, when I got to reading Genesis 6, I instantly and automatically understood it to mean that angelic beings came to earth and had sexual relations with the human women of earth, thereby producing offspring that were of immense size.

I had already heard plenty about Greek gods and all their stories and immediately and automatically I understood that the Genesis 6 happenings were the origin of where the Greek God stories came from.

All by myself, no ancient language professors guiding me.

I didn’t know much of anything Bible previously, and I didn’t start at the top knowing all about ancient Hebrew and Greek before reading.

I read it, that’s what I saw, that’s what I understood, and it still goes today 50 years later.

I can’t possibly spell it out any plainer.

@kenammi355

Indeed, “angelic beings came to earth and had sexual relations with the human women of earth” but there’s literally zero indication that they produced offspring that were of immense size (with, “immense” being just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “giants”).

So, that it was your first impression means that you now have more data and need to change your mind. So, you spelled it out any quite plainly: you made a mistake half a century ago and it’s about time you correct it.

The word you’re reading as “giants” either merely renders “Nephilim” in two verses or “Rephaim” in 98% of other usages and never even hints at anything about any sort of size whatsoever.

Thus, that was the answer to the key question about the English Bible’s usage and since yours has nothing to do with it then the answer to the last key question is no: your usage is not in agreement with the English Bible’s usage.

I’ve no idea what, “Greek gods” have to do with the size of Nephilim.

@michaelszczys8316

all those huge impossible to build stone monuments and pyramids around the world were built by primitive people with stone hammers and copper chisels.

All those skeletons and mummies of people more than 9 feet tall were just people all over the world suffering from agromegaly and pituitary problems.

The ones bigger than that were from Alpha Centauri

I should have had you with me back in 1970s to tell me how my thinking was all wrong.

When I read something I could have consulted with you before thinking.

When I was younger yet and read in school books how 2 and 2 equals 4 I should have had you to consult with on whether it was correct mathematics or not.

You could have told me about the English language may have several different versions of 2 and a few different meanings of 4 that would give a whole different answer , if I just checked with you first.

@kenammi355

Now you’re pulling the same issue avoidance tactics that Atheists use all of the time. It’s simple: you merely assumed that you knew to what giant refers and you don’t know the English Bible’s usage. And to make it all worse, now you’re flatly refusing to let facts get into the way of a good ol’ tall-tale you invented. That’s no way to sharpen iron with iron.

@michaelszczys8316

we’re all done here

@kenammi355

Shalom to you and yours.

See my various books here.

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

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

The subject question, Do atheists separate themselves from other atheists in their forms of atheism as far as motive is concerned?, was posted to the Quora site.

A certain Roy Yeo replied:

There are no “forms of atheism”, nor are there “motives” for it. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in the existence of any god. Period.

“Do you believe in god?”

“No, I don’t.”

There, you’ve found yourself an atheist.

Atheism has no agenda, no doctrines, no tenets, no dogma, no motives. It’s merely a state of being.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Of course there are forms of Atheism: they range from what is academically known by various terms such as “strong” and “weak.” Of course there are motives: just ask any Atheist why they converted to Atheism. But part of the problem is that every Atheist appoints themselves the (pseudo) authoritative arbiter of how to define “Atheism.” For example, you merely provided the watered down preferred definition du jour. Also, that “Atheism has no agenda, no doctrines, no tenets, no dogma, no motives” is a dogmatic statement, it is dogmatheism.

Roy Yeo:

Motive refers to the goal of a person’s actions. Atheism is the result of a person being unconvinced by the claims that any god exists. Do not attempt to redefine words to suit your narrative.

Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of any god.

Whether the atheist says they can’t prove a god doesn’t exist, or if they claim that no god exists, it doesn’t change that fact that they don’t believe any god exists.

If you have to twist what I said about atheism not having any dogma as dogma, then it says a lot about your wilful misunderstanding of what atheism really is. Don’t be that desperate to make everything fit your narrative. Some things just don’t.

Ken Ammi:

Motive refers to the premise of a person’s actions.

That “Atheism is the result of a person being unconvinced by the claims that any god exists” is myopic—and a highly subjective issue.

As I noted, “academically known by various terms” so that is not me, it is about academia.

You don’t seem to realize that in affirming that some Atheists “claim that no god exists” does denote a denomination, a sect, an offshoot, etc. and that is academia’s point.

Such is what is meant by denomination, a sect, an offshoot, etc.: same premise, different spin.

Now, you refer to “wilful misunderstanding” but how do you know it’s willful and since you seem to condemn misunderstanding: why so?

Roy Yeo:

Motive is the GOAL of a person’s actions. Premise refers to the underlying proposition. Get your definitions right. If you’re not a native English speaker, please refer to a dictionary.

I’ll say this one last time; atheism is simply the absence of belief in the existence of any god. Gnosticism or agnosticism pertaining to atheism simply refers to what the atheist thinks about god’s existence. They’re not sects or denominations, because there are no beliefs to categorise.

Regardless, the premise is still the same – atheists are just not convinced that any god exists.

Your referring to my stating atheism as not having any agendas, dogmas, doctrines and tenets, as “dogmatheism” (are you making words up too?) is clearly a wilful misunderstanding, because I have already defined what atheism is three times in this post.

Your clear refusal to accept that means your redefinition of it was clearly done with intentional disregard.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, please look up “motive” in dictionaries.

Atheism is a worldview premised on “the absence of belief in the existence of any god”—well, it’s actually premised on hidden assumptions that (un-viably) result in the conclusion of “absence of belief in the existence of any god.”

But since you demand that Atheism has not “sects or denominations” then since you positively affirm God’s non-existence, you must prove it.

You don’t seem to be aware of the history of “Atheism” such as what has been meant by the application of that term.

As for “intentional disregard” you imply that such (if, that is what is it) is some sort of problem but how so on your worldview?

Roy Yeo:

Let’s put this as simply as possible. Atheists are not convinced by the claims that any god exists. That’s it. I don’t understand your need to redefine it.

We’re not saying god doesn’t exist. We’re not “positively affirming god’s non-existence”. As such, we have nothing to prove.

On the other hand, theists are the ones who are making the positive claim that their god exists. Therefore, the burden of proof falls on their shoulders to provide credible evidence to support that assertion and belief.

If you don’t believe leprechauns exist, would you bother looking for evidence that they don’t? Can you even? That’s the same logic being practiced here.

Atheism is NOT a worldview because it does not establish a “truth” or a point of view about the world. We simply do NOT believe any theist’s claims that god is real due to the complete absence of objective evidence.

We’re all born without that belief. God is an idea and external influence that needs to be drilled into young minds in order to stay alive. If you really want to delve into the “history” of atheism, there you have it.

There’s no need to further intellectualise it by diving into the etymology of the word as it is inconsequential to this conversation.

Ken Ammi:

The neo-Atheist definition of “Atheism” as “lack of belief in God” says nothing about God’s existence and saying something about God’s existence is supposed to be what Atheism is all about, rather than saying something about the opinions of individual Atheists.

This is not about my need to redefine it, the “lack of belief” is the redefinition.

So, when you say “We’re” as if you speak for all Atheist, “not saying god doesn’t exist” you clearly have not looked up “Atheism” is various dictionaries, encyclopedias, websites, etc. There are many scholarly sources that affirm that Atheism includes positively affirming God’s non-existence.

But when you say “the burden of proof falls on” theists to “provide credible evidence” the first step is for you to justify your demand for evidence.

If Atheism is NOT a worldview then in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you actually believe in God?

As for that “We’re all born without that belief” I agree that Atheism requites no more intellect that can be mustered by a baby.

But you committed a genetic logical fallacy (even if logical fallacies are irrelevant on Atheism) since any and all ideas can be said to be based on external influence. Do you reject math because we’re all born without a belief in math?

But you say “in order to stay alive” so do you oppose those Atheist missionaries who purposefully attempt to damage people’s ability to “stay alive” by attacking theism?

Roy Yeo:

Like I said, you’re attempting to pseudo-intellectualise this whole thing.

Regardless of which dictionary or website you refer to, atheism is ultimately the absence of belief in the existence of any god.

It is only with that absence of belief that one might say “god doesn’t exist”, or “I don’t believe god exists”. That’s the difference between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist. But that’s just splitting unnecessary hairs as far as this conversation goes.

So yes, in that regard, I speak for all atheists.

Oh look at you, comparing atheism to the intellect of a baby. What a beacon of exemplary behaviour for all theists to follow.

“Do you reject math because we’re all born without a belief in math?”

No, silly. That was my point. All ideas are external influences. Math can be supported by proofs. Science can be supported by objective evidence. God can be supported by… Oh right. Absolutely nothing.

You want me to believe in an idea? Convince me it works. You want me to believe in a claim? Show me credible and verifiable evidence. It’s not that hard to understand, is it? I’m already using baby intellect here, so try to keep up.

“Genetic logical fallacy”… Pfft. Please.

And yes, I oppose all missionaries, regardless of their message. The sheer misguided arrogance of it all is revolting, to say the least.

Which brings me to my final point – there are no “atheist missionaries”. Anyone calling themselves that have no idea what they’re saying.

Atheism is not an organised religion. It has no message to spread. It is merely a state of being. If you can understand that at all, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Ken Ammi:

The neo-Atheist definition of “Atheism” as “lack of belief in God” says nothing about God’s existence and saying something about God’s existence is supposed to be what Atheism is all about, rather than saying something about the opinions of individual Atheists.

“god doesn’t exist” and “I don’t believe god exists” are categorically different and that’s been my point all long: one is a positive affirmation and the other tells us something about the Atheist, not about God.

Whence did you get the authority for “speak for all atheists”?

You seem to have misremembered, it was you who was “comparing atheism to the intellect of a baby.”

Indeed, “Math can be supported by proofs” but the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence cannot which is why that definition of Atheism has been shunned by some Atheists who prefer to make subjectively emotive statements about their opinions instead.

But see, you refer to “proofs” and that “Science can be supported by objective evidence” but only as a hidden assumption: you must first justify why, on your worldview, proofs and/or evidence is required to be presented, why we should based our beliefs on, proofs and/or evidence, etc.

In fact, so that we don’t end up writing essays back and forth: let’s forego side issues and only focus on that.

BTW: “Pfft. Please” is not a defeater for identifying your genetic logical fallacy (not that fallacies matter on Atheism).

No “atheist missionaries”? I have personally encountered THOUSANDS of Atheists who’s goal is to debunk my theology so that I will accept Atheism (whoever they pseudo-authoritatively they define it).

Indeed, “Atheism is not an organised religion” it’s a disorganized one (even if it has styled leaders, “churches,” etc.).

If Atheism “has no message to spread” then why are you spreading what you’re spreading?

As for that “It is merely a state of being” wait, I thought that “atheism is ultimately the absence of belief in the existence of any god.”

So, in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you accept God’s existence?

Roy Yeo:

You seem really hung up on this “neo-atheist” thing, so let’s replace “god” with something else. Let’s go with leprechauns and unicorns.

Do you believe they exist? If no, would you go so far as to say definitively that they don’t? If so, then you’d be making a claim, one of which supporting evidence would be requested. If you simply said you don’t believe they exist, then that’s it. Nothing more is required on your part.

And that’s what atheism is all about, neo- or otherwise. All you’re doing is splitting hairs where there’s none to be split. The entire foundation of atheism in any form is not about “saying something about god’s existence”. It is about not being convinced by claims of the positive.

“the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence cannot which is why that definition of Atheism has been shunned by some Atheists who prefer to make subjectively emotive statements about their opinions instead.”

So let me get this right. You get to make subjective statements about the existence of your god and all other gods, but cry like an indignant baby when atheists do the same? Oh no… the unfairness of it all. What shall we ever do?

“If Atheism “has no message to spread” then why are you spreading what you’re spreading?”

I was answering a question. I’m not going out knocking on doors and spreading the word of… oh wait. There’s nothing to spread. What’s your excuse? You’re the one who’s stretching this out to be more than it is.

Your encounter with the “thousands” of atheists trying to debunk your theology are doing the same as I am. Or are you also trying to redefine missionary now too to include any atheist that disagrees with you?

“As for that “It is merely a state of being” wait, I thought that “atheism is ultimately the absence of belief in the existence of any god.”

Which part of “absence of belief” do you not grasp? It is a state of being, is it not? A state of non-belief.

“So, in what area of your thinking about anything and everything do you accept God’s existence?”

Unless credible, verifiable, observable and objective evidence can be provided to prove god’s existence, the idea of god is irrelevant to me. There you go – atheism in a nutshell.

Ken Ammi:

I’m only “hung up on this ‘neo-atheist’ thing” because I know the history of the semantics.

You don’t seem to be aware of it and so you assert, “The entire foundation of atheism in any form is not about ‘saying something about god’s existence’” when, say we go back to the 1800s AD or so, that was the whole point, to say something about God’s existence.

Replacing God with leprechauns and unicorns is a category error: you can’t replace a philosophically necessary being with arbitrary ones.

I’m unsure why you go full blown childish, “cry like an indignant baby” but the first step is for the Atheist to justify demanding evidence. Without that there’s no such issue as that I “get to make subjective statements” but you don’t since the whole framework upon which any such standards are built would collapse.

So, when you merely jump to an asserted demand for “credible, verifiable, observable and objective evidence” you must first justify your demand for such.

You may not be “going out knocking on doors” but you’re doing much more than that, your posting to the WORLD WIDE web, after all.

Indeed, since it is “a state of being” then it’s your worldview.

Ken Ammi:

So we’re living in the 1800s now, are we? If we say, “I don’t believe you,” when you tell us your god exists, that’s exactly what we mean. As such, your god doesn’t exist to us until you can prove that he does.

When did god become “a philosophically necessary being”? Why is god even necessary in this day and age? Atheists have lived their entire lives for tens of thousands of years without god. That pretty much goes to show how necessary he is.

And who are you to decide which beings are “arbitrary”? If we were to replace your god with the Jade Emperor or Zeus, would you still consider that a random or personal whim?

It’s not a category error. They’re all imaginary beings until proven otherwise.

You don’t get to see the hypocrisy in your statements, clearly. You’re making subjective assertions that your god exists, aren’t you? Well, I’m saying I don’t believe you.

So, provide me with the evidence such that I may be convinced. That is my justification – I am NOT convinced. Why does this escape you?

In a court of law, is it not the job of the prosecutor or accuser to provide the evidence to support their claims so that the judge and jury can be convinced beyond reasonable doubt? Or are you of the guilty-until-proven-innocent club?

You see, the magic of the World Wide Web is that everyone has access to it. Here on Quora, people ask questions and other people answer them. Does that look like missionary work to you?

If you’re not interested in theism/atheism spaces, just don’t join them. No one’s going to send you direct messages asking if they can talk to you about not believing in some god.

You claim to understand semantics, but if such easy definitions escape you, then I’m afraid you really don’t at all.

And also, when the hell did a state of being become a worldview? If you don’t believe Krishna is real, would you consider that a worldview? Is not believing in the Vedas considered a worldview?

If so, then all atheists share that singular “worldview” – that we don’t believe any god exists.

On the other hand, you’d have to have as many worldviews as there are other gods that aren’t yours. Do you see how ridiculous and desperate you’re getting?

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you’re just digging a deeper hole.

Firstly, something can exist even if it’s existence has not been proved: that is the case every single time something is proved to exist.

But you say “until you can prove that he does” but you must first justify your demand for proof on your worldview.

It is a non-sequitur to jump form that “Atheists have lived their entire lives for tens of thousands of years without god” to that God is not necessary for various reasons including that they do not live Atheist lives but beg, borrow, and steal from a biblical worldview. Also, they have not lived without God since God exists.

The concept of a philosophically necessary being refers to issues such as that nothing would exist without God so He is necessary, absolute ethics would [not] exist without God so He is necessary, etc.

Yes, the Jade Emperor or Zeus would be a personal whim since they are not the one true living God.

A for your category error again, you replaced a philosophically necessary being with arbitrary ones who are not characterized in nearly the same way so that is, by definition, a category error. Evidence of your category error is that no Atheists are making a living by writing book, presenting lectures, being interviewed, etc., etc., etc., against leprechauns and unicorns.

But see, you positively affirm “all imaginary” as a jumped to assertion and to back to “until proven otherwise” when step one is for you to justify your demand for proof from your worldview.

You imply that it’s wrong to be hypocritical but don’t bother saying why: you just keep jumping to asserted conclusions without arguments.

Likewise, what if I was “making subjective assertions” how is that condemnable on your worldview?

So you finally come to double down on demanding evidence (as you term it this time) with your pseudo justification being “such that I may be convinced” but that’s a pure form of incoherence. It does not escape me that you’re not convinced (and you speak as if what you are or are not subjectively convinced of is a standard).

Justification refers to how, on your worldview, it’s a universal imperative to provide evidence/proof and to base our views only on those things that have been evidenced/proven—which, ironically, you’ve not evidenced nor proven.

Interestingly, I ask for your justification and your other reply is that other people demand evidence, “In a court of law” but that just punting and moving the goalpost one step back.

Indeed, it does look like missionary work when Atheist are on the World Wide Web preaching their pseudo gospel that they are right, they found the truth, and everyone else is wrong.

Yes, “If you don’t believe Krishna is real” that would be considered that a worldview since then no matter what you’re thinking about, you would never accept that Krishna had anything to do with it, would never give credit to Krishna for anything, would not allow any evidence to count as evidence of Krishna, etc., etc., etc.

That’s why I asked in what area of your thinking about anything and everything you accept God since that in none of it implies that Atheism has infected all of your thinking about anything and everything, and so it’s a worldview.

BTW: if you deny there are Atheist worldviews then you disagree with Dawkins—which is fine, I do it all the time.

My one worldview encompasses any and all “other gods that aren’t” mine and, btw, what you subjectively consider “ridiculous and desperate” is not a standard.

Bottom line is that on Atheism truth is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand others adhere to it.

I recommend you focus on these facts (even though on Atheism fact are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand others adhere to them) since anything else you may say will ultimately have to does with these issues so I will only be on the look out for what you say about these issues—since I’m done written multi-issue essays.

Roy Yeo:

Just about everything you’ve written is completely subjective and totally biased in favour of your beliefs. How am I to be convinced by that?

“…they do not live Atheist lives but beg, borrow, and steal from a biblical worldview.”

Your oldest biblical texts are barely 2,700 years old. Humans have been around for over 100,000 years. You might want to do the maths, or you could very conveniently just make sweeping statements that everyone was without their “true” god before yours decided to create the world. Please. That’s such absolute nonsense.

“…nothing would exist without God so He is necessary, absolute ethics would exist without God so He is necessary, etc.”

Oh really? So my innate sense of empathy is because of your god that I don’t believe exists?

You’re talking about the same ethics that killed hundreds of millions of people in the name of your god? The same ethics that made priests molest and rape little boys? Those same ones that made pastors fleece their congregation of billions to fund their multi-million dollar mansions and private jets? Those ethics that make people completely intolerant and unaccepting of the fact that other people have other beliefs or none at all? Ahh… those ethics. Yeah, I don’t need that level of hypocrisy in my life.

You don’t seem capable of comprehending that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When evolution was discovered, objective, repeatable, testable, verifiable and observable evidence was provided to support it. Same for a heliocentric universe. The speed of light. Etc. Where’s yours? All you have given are nonsensical, barely-there, “counterarguments” to my requests for evidence.

Now you’re asking me to justify my justification that I’m not convinced by your baseless claims? hahaha… That’s about the silliest thing I’ve heard in a while.

The way you treat Krishna and all other gods is the same in which I treat yours. You believe they are whimsical just as I believe yours is. You don’t believe in other religious texts just as I don’t believe in yours. Your so-called “justification” is that your god in the true god. Really? Prove it.

All you have done is claim repeatedly, albeit in different ways, that your god is real. When I tell you I’m not convinced, you ask me to justify it. You accuse me of shifting goalposts and making logical fallacies. You redefine words to suit your narrative, you remain stubbornly obtuse to what I’m saying and show little to no understanding between subjectivity and objectivity.

“…it does look like missionary work when Atheist are on the World Wide Web preaching their pseudo gospel that they are right, they found the truth, and everyone else is wrong.”

Oh, how the tables have turned, haven’t they? How do you like that feeling now? Isn’t that what most of you believers have been doing for millennia, and are still doing? We’re saying we disagree with you and suddenly, we’re missionaries! How bloody insecure must you be to foist that ridiculous idea on us? If you want to dish it, you’d better be able to take it, buddy.

This whole time, I’d never made any claims and I’ve consistently made only one request. All I’ve been repeating is that I’m not convinced by your claims that your god exists. And if you want to convince me, or any other non-believer, then you’d do well to provide credible, verifiable, testable, repeatable, observable and objective evidence to support your claims.

If you can’t see that your responses have a) never once answered me, and b) been nothing but hypocrisy and blind cognitive bias, then I can’t help you. And frankly, I haven’t the time nor crayons to keep explaining it to you.

Ken Ammi:

You are not engaging the issues since you are just manipulating my points—you actually seem to be projecting when you write, “Just about everything you’ve written is completely subjective and totally biased in favour of your beliefs.”

For example, in fact, “they do not live Atheist lives but beg, borrow, and steal from a biblical worldview” with “they” referring to the Atheists undergoing discussion and not all “Humans” who “have been around for over 100,000 years.”

But just deal with the fact that you are just constantly jumping to merely asserted conclusions based on hidden assumptions and so we should work on revealing those assumptions.

Here’s what I mean:

You say what I’ve written is completely subjective and totally biased but don’t bother saying what’s wrong with that (if it was true) on your worldview.

You refer to not being convinced but what you are or aren’t convinced of is not a standard.

You say I make sweeping statements but don’t bother saying what’s wrong with that (if it was true) on your worldview.

You refer to not being “absolute nonsense” but what you do or don’t consider “absolute nonsense” is not a standard.

You refer to your “innate sense of empathy” which on Atheist evolution is accidental and there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it (oddly, that was a reply to when I wrote “without God…absolute ethics would exist” but I meant “without God…absolute ethics would NOT exist” and which, ironically, is how you took it so you got my meaning anyhow).

You refer to the same ethics that “killed hundreds of millions of people in the name of your god” which besides being a convenient sweeping statements does not tell me why, on your worldview, anything is wrong with that (and you meant “murder” rather than “killing”).

Same with “molest and rape little boys…fleece their congregation…intolerant…hypocrisy” you are just making a list, you never bother saying why, on your worldview, those things are wrong.

You assert “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” without evidence and not noticing that there is no standard of extraordinariness plus, you demand evidence without first justifying your demand for evidence.

And that is what I note you need to justify, your demand for evidence so what you consider silly is not a standard and you misunderstood the issue.

So when you say “evolution was discovered, objective, repeatable, testable, verifiable and observable evidence was provided to support it” (which depends on what you mean by “evolution” which you don’t bother defining) you don’t say how your worldview provides you a universal imperative to adhere to what is objective, repeatable, testable, verifiable and has observable evidence was provided to support it. See, you keep merely jumping to asserted conclusions.

You refer to what you think is “nonsensical” but what you consider “nonsensical” is not a standard.

You ask me to prove that my God is the true God but you must first justify your demand for proof—on your worldview, that is.

You go on about that I “claim repeatedly, albeit in different ways, that your god is real” but don’t say why that’s unacceptable on your worldview (not your personal opinion). Likewise with that I supposedly “redefine words…remain stubbornly obtuse…show little to no understanding between subjectivity and objectivity” why are those issues on your worldview? You never say any such thing you just jump and demand.

No, it’s not that you “disagree with you and suddenly, we’re missionaries!” but that you disagree and attempt to get people to convert to Atheism since you are “completely intolerant and unaccepting of the fact that other people have other beliefs” or else you would just think something in keeping with your worldview which would be, “Oh well, accidentally existing apes are believing in untrue things in a universe wherein there is no universal imperative to adhere to truth so it’s a non-issue.”

You refer to “that ridiculous idea” but what you consider ridiculous is not a standard.

Before we can get to “provide credible, verifiable, testable, repeatable, observable and objective evidence to support” my claims you must first justify, on your worldview, your demand to provide credible, verifiable, testable, repeatable, observable and objective evidence.

You imply condemning, “hypocrisy and blind cognitive bias” but don’t bother saying why?

See, you have a LOT of basic level groundwork to do before you make this enormous list of asserted demands.

Roy Yeo:

Geezes… Why is this so terribly impossible for you to understand? Everything you said regarding why I think certain actions are wrong is because of my innate sense of EMPATHY. I’ve said this repeatedly throughout this discussion. Why are you ignoring that?

If man didn’t have that, civilisations would never have formed. All religion has done is hijack what is a natural instinct and claim it as some god’s gift to man.

The Biblical god, based on inferred data and information, is 6,000 years old. Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. You want to claim credit for those 194,000 years prior?

I’m not projecting anything. I’m stating my observations and point of view. If you can’t tell the difference, then I can’t help you there.

And what is this standard you’re talking about? You want to convince me that your god exists, right? Then I don’t know how much simpler I can make it when I say, “Prove it.”

I could tell you right now that I’m god himself. Would you believe me? If yes, then you need to stop arguing and worship me right now and stop with your insolence. If no, why not? Do I need to prove my claim?

My “worldview” does not define what is “credible, verifiable, testable, repeatable, observable and objective evidence”. Science does. Language does. The fact that you keep harping about this means you have no idea what a worldview is. You can’t possibly be so dense as to not understand what objectivity is either, can you?

So in short, my “justification” for requiring objective evidence is I DON’T BELIEVE THE CLAIMS THAT ANY GOD EXISTS.

If you want to convince me, then prove to me that one does. If you want me to believe that your god is responsible for humanity’s natural empathy—from 200,000 years ago to present—then prove it to me. I’ve made this statement more than once now.

Was that easy enough for you to understand? Or are you going to keep playing this silly and desperate little game of parrying?

Ken Ammi:

I am not ignoring anything but am just seeking to get you to expose your hidden assumptions.

For example, “I think certain actions are wrong is because of my innate sense of EMPATHY” well, “I think” is subjective to you, by definition. And on your view thoughts are accidental as is your ability to discern them—plus, they are predetermined by the accidental laws of thermodynamics.

And more to the point, your “innate sense[s]” are also accidental, as is your ability to discern them and, just like your thoughts, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them.

Thus, “EMPATHY” is just your interpretation of an accidental combination of accidental neural chemistry.

I think certain actions are wrong is because of my innate sense of EMPATHY. I’ve said this repeatedly throughout this discussion. Why are you ignoring that?

I think certain actions are wrong is because of my innate sense of EMPATHY. I’ve said this repeatedly throughout this discussion. Why are you ignoring that?

Thus, “If man didn’t have that, civilisations would never have formed” and on your view, civilizations formed as a byproduct of accidents which carry no universal imperatives to adhere to them—in other words, civilizations are not an ought, they need to have formed.

“All religion has done is hijack” but the only thing I infer that you imply is wrong with that—even based on your impotent accidental “innate sense”—is that what was hijacked is “what is a natural instinct” but, again, on your view our “natural instinct[s]” are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand or expect others to adhere to them.

You argue against a young Earth creationism view “The Biblical god…is 6,000 years old” but are merely imposing a pseudo standard since even if “Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years” what does that matter? See, you are now demanding adherence to what you view as facts but on your view facts are accidental (because truth/reality is accidental), as is our ability to discern them, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them, nor to demand or expect others to adhere to them.

So you imply adherence to logic but on your view logic is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand or expect others to adhere to it.

Also, even on a young Earth creationism view it would not be the case that “The Biblical god…is 6,000 years old” since “The Biblical god” is eternal, by definition (I’m willing to think that, that was just a slight misstatement on your part).

Indeed, you hit the accidental nail on the head when you wrote, “when I say, ‘Prove it’” since when I ask that you, on your worldview, justify your demand/request for proof (not evidence?) you simply cannot do it. If I were you, I would ponder that my worldview is such a fundamental failure that I can’t even demand/request proof. See, your worldview fails before it even begins and you are getting a taste of that now. See what happens when someone helps you expose your hidden assumptions and you realize their just a bottomless pit of subjective assertions? That seems to be why you decided to impose your subjectivism on me and turn this into a case of, “You want to convince me…Then…” But we are not there yet, we’re still taking baby-steps in analyzing your modus operandi (which is not operandi-ing very well).

So, the issue of that “I could tell you right now that I’m god himself…Do I need to prove my claim?” is merely doubling down on your lack of ability to justify demanding/requesting proof and merely punting to see if proof is justified on my worldview—but we’re not there yet, you’re getting ahead of yourself (and may be doing so as a diversionary tactic).

I find it fascinating that you admit that your worldview is not scientific since, your “‘worldview’ does not define” those categories but “Science does” (and, of course, that’s a reification fallacy since “Science does” nothing rather, scientists do things). But whence to you get “objectivity” from a worldview according to which all of reality is accidental, as is our ability to discern it?

So, in short, that you “DON’T BELIEVE THE CLAIMS THAT ANY GOD EXISTS” is not a justification for “requiring” mind you “objective” see above, “evidence” not proof this time. This is another key issues, you are “requiring objective evidence” because you “DON’T BELIEVE THE CLAIMS THAT ANY GOD EXISTS” but you’re not exposing hidden assumptions such as that ascertaining empirical truth is not only possible but a universal imperative, that we ought to (“requiring”) base our view on what can be on what “objective evidence” can demonstrate, that if you subjectively “DON’T BELIEVE” then one must adhere to your asserted demands, etc., etc., etc. This is critical thinking and analyzing not just of those views you subjectively don’t like but of your own merely jumped to assertions.

You then play the same card as before where you impose your subjective preferences on me, “If you want” and then merely asset, “then prove to me” which is just tripling (or whatever, I lost count by now actually) making baseless demands. So yes, you “made this statement more than once now” but you must realize that I am not required to only reply with “How high?” when you assert “Jump!” Rather, I ask “Why?” and you fall apart. Yet, you only really fall apart because your worldview failed before it even began so it left you with nothing but emotively subjective assertions that you demand carry weight when in reality, they weigh as much as a dream.

So, let’s just simplify this since it’s getting verbose: given the noted facts (which on your view are accidental), what is the universal imperative to provide evidence or proof, to only hold to views that have been evidenced or proven, etc.?

Roy Yeo:

Let’s make this short.

Accidental or not, you agree that we’re born with a natural sense of empathy, right? And this empathy is the result of “neural chemistry”, correct? So that means this empathy exists. Right?

That means, we are in agreement that for as long as homo sapiens have been around, so has his innate sense of empathy. Correct? Good, so there’s nothing to prove here, yes?

Okay, now let’s move on to the claim that the Abrahamic god gave man his sense of morality. Now, the Abrahamic god can be traced to old pagan religions—Babylonian, Greek, Mesopotamian, etc.—that date as far back as the Bronze Age.

This particular god wasn’t written about, spoken about, or even discussed until just over 2,000 years ago. Suddenly, the world is expected to believe all the different claims that are made about this god. But why should we?

So, all I’m asking—all any atheist and other non-believer is asking—is to provide credible, verifiable, testable, falsifiable, observable and objective evidence that A) this god of yours exists, and B) our sense of morality was created by this same god.

It’s really that simple. Until the criteria for A and B can be met, nobody has any reason to give your assertions the time of day.

You can attempt to pseudo-intellectualise whatever I’m saying until the cows come home and it will not change the fact that I have no reason to believe your claims.

Ken Ammi:

The issue is that even if we agree on empathy, on your worldview adhering to it is merely an emotively subjective personal preference de jour based on hidden assumption and without transcendent reproductions if you disregard it.

But to make this short I will bypass your various logical and even historical fallacies (since no fallacy matters on Atheism anyhow: you seem to keep ignoring that fact (yet, facts matter not on Atheism either)) and note that you are merely doubling, tripling, etc., etc., etc., on “provide credible, verifiable, testable, falsifiable, observable and objective evidence” when I, yet again, had noted, “what is the universal imperative to provide evidence or proof, to only hold to views that have been evidenced or proven, etc.?”

You seem to realize that your worldview utterly fails so you merely keep demanding without a premise form your worldview.

So, since you believe that we’re accidentally existing apes in a universe wherein there are no universal imperatives—such as to be logical, provide evidence, etc.—then you discredit yourself while I just sit here and point out that fact.

Shouldn’t your concern be that, for example, your worldview collapses the very concept of holding to views based on evidence since it has no premise for demanding evidence nor evidence based views?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that ended it as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

Alternatively, you can view it at the site here.

See my various books here.

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

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