Category: Uncategorized

The question, Is it possible that the prophet Ezekiel was witnessing angels in Ezekiel 1:4-16? was posted to the Quora site and led to this discussion when a certain Kenny Payton commented

Good question. I believe that the prophet Ezekiel was witnessing angels in the Book of Ezekiel. The scripture in my understanding gives clear descriptions of three types of angelic beings that are part of, or make up , a choir.

The first type that I took note of were Cherubim. The cherub are described as having four wings, like the living creatures described in the above noted verses.

The next angel that I recognized from the given description, “like coals of fire”. These are Seraphim. Seraph, or “the burning ones,” are always described as being made of fire. The words “seraph” and “serpent” are interchangable. There are two types of Seraphim that I am aware of; water seraph and copper seraph. The Seraphim are given the charge of guarding the throne room of the LORD. It’s been suggested that the tongues of fire above the heads of believers who were speaking in languages unknown by them, but recognized instantly by foreigners in Jerusalem to recognize Pentecost were actually Seraphim. Angels are messengers of God.

The third group of angelic beings are not described with as much detail as the other two, but are there rounding out the top angelic choir which is made up of three groups. These are, once again, Cherubim, Seraphim, and last but not least, Thrones. Thrones represent the unmovabke, steadfast nature of the Lord Almighty, of whom there is not so much as a shadow of turning in Him. Throne are described just a few verses later in scripture than the scripture in the above question. They’re mostly overlooked and I felt led to point out their presence in the opening vision found in the Book of Ezekiel.

Thank you and may God bless you greatly.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Biblically, Ezekiel was witnessing Cherubim, not Angels and no, there’s no such thing as “three types of angelic beings” that’s just based on a common misconception that violates the law of identify via a category error. Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim have different job titles, different job functions and look different from one another thus, they’re different categories of being.

Seraph is not interchangeable with serpent but with fiery. There’s no indication of “water seraph and copper seraph.” Unsure who “suggested that the tongues of fire…were actually Seraphim” but there’s no reason to even think that.

See my books on Angelology and the one on paranormology which covers Cherubim and Seraphim.

Mark Hamric chimed in with

According to the BDB and Strong’s lexicons the seraphim are serpents. But I agree that though they are spiritual beings it doesn’t mean they are Angels. That is like calling a reptile a mammal.

H8314

Original: שׂרף

Transliteration: śârâph

Phonetic: saw-rawf’

BDB Definition:

serpent, fiery serpentpoisonous serpent (fiery from burning effect of poison)

seraph, seraphimmajestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God

Origin: from H8313

TWOT entry: 2292a,2292b

Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine

Strong’s Definition: From H8313; burning, that is, (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color): – fiery (serpent), seraph.

Kenny Payton

Hey, it’s as much knowledge that I have. If I knew more I’d type more. But what I’ve written, I accept as truth because Ive done my researche I didn’t read the whole message, when you started pushing your book I realized you had an angle. But concerning seraph, I got word from God to go and look at the difference between the two words. That’s what I came up with in my study. I appreciate your input greatly, but I disagree with what you presented. And like it or not, agree or not , I’m right. And likewise with the burnt offering, the original name given to the burnt offering.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’m empathetic as to why you would say that but I literally wrote the book(s) on sources/resources: see “The Paranormal in Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries: Over a Millennia’s Worth of Comments on Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Satan, the Devil, Demons, the Serpent and the Dragon” and “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010,” etc.

Those sources may say that the root word seraph refers to serpents but not that “the seraphim” of Isa 6, “are serpents” especially when they have hands, feet, wings, etc. so we can’t fall for the word-concept fallacy. What I mean is that even if seraph does or can refer to serpents, the context still determines meaning and the one and only physical description we have a Isa 6’s Seraphim does not even hint at any serpentine features/characteristics at all—as you quoted it, “wings, human hands or voices.”

Moreover, I wouldn’t say that seraph even means serpent. For example, Moses made a serpent and put it on a pole because “seraph nachash” were biting and killing people, poisonous serpents.

The serpent part is “nachash,” the poisonous part is “seraph.”

Thus, selectively, brining what you quoted into it, they were “fiery…poisonous…fiery from burning effect of poison…burning, that is, (figuratively) poisonous…fiery” serpents.

One thing we’re told about Seraphim is that one of them interacts with an altar of burning, fiery, coals, etc.

I features a section about them in my book “What Does the Bible Say About Various Paranormal Entities?: A Styled Paranormology” wherein I call them “keepers of the eternal flame” and I think that they are called Seraphim not due to serpentine features, for which we have no evidence, but due to them having something to do with heavenly fire (or, whatever we’d call it), for which we do have evidence.

Kenny Payton

Hey, it’s as much knowledge that I have. If I knew more I’d type more. But what I’ve written, I accept as truth because Ive done my researche I didn’t read the whole message, when you started pushing your book I realized you had an angle. But concerning seraph, I got word from God to go and look at the difference between the two words. That’s what I came up with in my study. I appreciate your input greatly, but I disagree with what you presented. And like it or not, agree or not , I’m right. And likewise with the burnt offering, the original name given to the burnt offering.

Ken Ammi

So then, you admit pushing your angle and especially by ignoring conter-points—interesting.

You say “If I knew more I’d type more” and I’ve typed more, I typed it into a book so if you’re going to reject my views because I make you aware of that then that’s anti-intellectual.

I can also assure you that if you decide to ignore the Biblical evidence and appeal to some sort of gnostic private personal revelation to argue your points, “I got word from God” and so conclude, “like it or not, agree or not , I’m right” then you’re sure to go wrong: please do as the Bereans did and judge what you take you be enlightened insight revealed only to you by God’s written word.

And 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.

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship’s NEPHILIM (& DINOSAURS): The Prophetic Significance article begins with a famous (or, infamous) chart of giants that I reviewed in detail in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It Or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales wherein it got a failing grade—it is 99% inaccurate.

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship begins by quoting Genesis 6:4 from the Names of God Bible (NOG), “The NEPHILIM were on the earth in those days, as well as later, when the SONS of Elohim slept with the DAUGHTERS OF OTHER HUMANS and had CHILDREN by them. These children were famous long ago” (the all caps may be Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship’s).

I am unsure whence the NOG version got “OF OTHER HUMANS.”

He rightly notes, “The result was called NEPHILIM. NEPHILIM means FALLEN.”

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship asks, “Why the different names?” and answers, “The Names each describe something (a feature) about the Giants. This is something recently discovered (March 2021) from one for [t]he lost Books of the Bible. These Giants could touch the sun. They were that big.”

Now, he did not alert us to what “names” he referred nor which one/s has anything to do with his subjective usage of the English word “Giants.”

He also did not tell us to what he referred by a March 2021 discovery of a lost book of the Bible. Yet, by asserting, “These Giants could touch the sun” he seems to be appealing to Rabbinic Folklore and/or metaphoric terminology since the Talmud Bavli/Babylonian Talmud (circa 400-500 AD) refers to that, “The children of Anak — [they are so called] because they wore the sun as a necklace [ma’anikin] owing to their stature” (Sotah 34b, brackets in the Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, ed.)—they must have had some extraordinary SPF sunscreen!

Yet, that is what it is: folklore from millennia after the Torah and after the Anakim were no more. All we are contextually told about Anakim in the Bible is that they were subjectively “tall” compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Now, if “They,” referring to Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship’s reference to Nephilim no, “were that big” the, pray tell, upon what did they stand?

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship then asks, “Who were the ‘Sons of GOD’ and ‘Daughters of GOD’?” about which I will ask: what daughters of God? We have not been introduced to them as of yet and they certainly do not appear in Gen 6: whether we read it traditionally as “daughters of men” or even as the NOG has it, “DAUGHTERS OF OTHER HUMANS.”

Before replying, he also asks, “Did the ‘Sons of GOD’ do anything else? What happened to the ‘Sons of GOD’ afterwards? Where are the ‘Sons of GOD’ now?”

He notes, “SONS OF GOD = WATCHERS = They WERE GOD’S HOLY ANGELS” with Watchers being a Second Temple Era term for Angels. He notes, “that had been assigned by YAHUVEH GOD to keep an eye on mankind and REPORT BACK everything they observed. Sadly, they fell into sin by desiring man sexually in their hearts and minds after being persuaded by Satan…They were persuaded by Satan to do what they did” I can only imagine he gets, “being persuaded by Satan” from Revelation 12:4 according to which the Dragon’s “tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth” and perhaps Daniel 8:10 wherein a little horn “grew great, even to the host of heaven. And some of the host and some of the stars it threw down to the ground and trampled on them.”

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship has it that the sons of God in question were persuaded by Satan to do what they did, “sometime after Satan had already fallen from the HEAVENS together with a third of the angels who all became FALLEN ANGLES also known as DEMONS / ALIENS!”

But then how and when did the third fall? He does not tell us but is actually appealing to common, yet erroneous, knowledge and argued right past his own point.

There is no indication that Satan fell with Angels but rather, his fallen action seems to be recorded in Gen 3 while theirs is in Gen 6: the “Sons of GOD” and “FALLEN ANGLES” are one-in-the-same—I will set aside the “ALIENS!” issue for this review.

Oddly, Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship mixes the original, traditional, and majority view amongst the earliest Jews and Christians alike, the Angel view, of Gen 6 with a much latter Sethite view—see my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.

He has the “DAUGHTERS OF GOD = the women from the lineage of Cain” and notes, “Sadly, later on, some of the people from ABEL’S / SETH’S (Seth was Abel’s replacement) LINEAGE also crossed over to Cain’s Lineage Camp and sinned by having sexual relations with the SONS OF GOD MENTIONED ABOVE.”

No, he did not bother elucidating what was wrong with daughters “OF GOD,” mind you, marrying Sethites. As a side note, there is no indication that Abel had any offspring. Thus, we know not why Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship’s scenario resulted in having “sinned” since, on his telling, this was about, “DAUGHTERS OF GOD…having sexual relations with the SONS OF GOD.”

Yet, the picture he is, clumsily, painting is the Angel view.

He notes that, “They also taught man all kinds of SECRETS (such as about ASTRONOMY; CONSTELLATIONS…These SECRETS opened up the DOOR TO PRACTISING: WITCHCRAFT /WIZARDRY / SORCERY / DIVINATION!”

Now, I do not necessarily doubt that they taught things otherwise unknown to humans but he is picking that up from 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch which is from millennia after the Torah, contains folklore, and contradicts the Bible (so much that I included a chapter’s worth of examples in my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch).

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship notes, “According to the Book of Enoch, these Angels…(also called WATCHERS / SONS OF GOD) NO LONGER HAVE A PLACE IN HEAVEN. They were banished. They are bound somewhere and will be SENTENCED on JUDGEMENT DAY!” but then, somewhat, specified, “Angels bound somewhere in the HEAVENS.”

As per 2 Peter 2:4, they were incarcerated in Tartarus.

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowshiptells us, “Some say that the Angels who transgressed against YAH on this occasion were FALLEN ANGELS but this was not the case as per the Book of the Secrets of Enoch and the First Book of Adam and Eve.” In other words, thus saith texts from millennia after the Torah. First Book of Adam and Eve refers to a text that actually claims that when God created Adam, God commanded the Angles to worship Adam.

Again, he distinguished incarcerated “Angels bound somewhere in the HEAVENS” from “FALLEN ANGELS known as DEMONS roaming about the earth.” Now, my Angelology proves a biblical mechanism how these are one-in-the-same. Fallen Angels bodies are incarcerated in Tartarus whilst their spirits roam the Earth as what we term demons—see my article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons?

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship then loops back to that, “When Satan started his revolt…he caused 1/3 of Angels…to revolt with him” (emphasis added for emphasis) and, “Since that day, Satan started to persuade all YAH’S Holy Angels to follow him in his evil ways” but there is no indication of any such thing.

Much less that, “Some succumbed and became fallen angels together, with him” which is doubly not the case including because he is not an Angel, he is a Cherub.

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship then gets into the issue of, “the GREAT FLOOD of Noah’s time!” which, or so he claims, “begins with an account of DEMONIC INVASION OF THE EARTH (demonic because Satan was involved in the matter).”

Technically, it was not demonic because demons did not exist util Angels were incarcerated. I am unsure why “demonic because Satan was involved in the matter” since Satan is not a demon and his only involvement in the matter may have been whatever is meant by “cast them to the earth.”

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship informs us that, “Ancient Jews taught that the ‘SONS OF YAH’ were actually DEMONIC BEINGS WHO ENTERED THE EARTH REALM TO BREED WITH HUMANS HEAVENS” (sic.)

The term “Ancient Jews” is certainly generic, generic enough to make it difficult to know to when he is referring (particularly without a citation) but yes, again, the earliest majority view was the Angel view even when Rabbinic Jews later speculated that the sons of God were nobles—even though the Bible knows nothing of problems caused by marriages of people of different socio-classes.

At this point, Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship decides to declare, “This was not the case!” because he has, “come to an understanding  through the FIRST BOOK OF ADAM AND EVE as well as THE BOOKS OF ENOCH”—so, he is buying folklore from millennia after the Torah hook, line, and stinker—“that some HOLY ANGELS who were in the HEAVENS were persuaded by Satan to sin against YAHUVEH/YAHWEH GOD by having sexual relations with mankind and animals. The result were human beings called NEPHILIM, REPHAIM, ANAKIM, EMIM and animals called DINOSAURS, etc.”

Let us parse this because he need not appeal to “the FIRST BOOK OF ADAM AND EVE as well as THE BOOKS OF ENOCH” of that “some HOLY ANGELS who were in the HEAVENS were persuaded by Satan to sin against YAHUVEH/YAHWEH GOD by having sexual relations with mankind.”

Now, even within those folkloric text there is no indication that Angels had sexual relation with animals—that is actually a common misconception promulgated by pop-Nephilologists.

As to the result well, Nephilim were the result of Angels “having sexual relations with mankind.” Yet, there is no reliable indication whatsoever that such was the case with Rephaim, Anakim, and Emim.

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship does not seem to realize that Anakim were a clan of the Rephaim tribe.

Emim were just another good ol’ fashioned humans—just like all Rephaim.

As for dinosaurs (and to whatever “etc.” refers), he merely asserted that Angels were having sexual relations with animals so nothing untoward is to be thought of dinosaurs—at least until he closes the asserted loop.

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship noted, “The OFFSPRING between the now fallen angels…NEPHILIM…appeared in legends of many nations, such as: Greece, India, Rome, China > Mighty Warriors – EVIL!!!”

I would assume that they made it into such post-Tower of Babel when what was then commonly known and shared history eventually came to be called myth and legend. Perhaps Nephilim were “Mighty Warriors – EVIL!!!” but we have no reliable indication of that.

Yahushua the CHIEF Cornerstone Ministry Fellowship notes, “The result of in-breeding with demons means that the human race became demonized” and so, “JUDGEMENT had to come but YAH preserved a REMNANT (Noah and his family)…YAH’S JUDGEMENT in the form of THE GREAT FLOOD was decreed.”

Yet, he declares, “After all these years, the NEPHILIM are still here on this earth” which implies that God failed and also contradicts Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5.

He ends by, finally, saying something about what any of these tall tales had to do with, “NEPHILIM (& DINOSAURS): The Prophetic Significance” in asserting that, “NEPHILIM are still here on this earth and will be more manifest during the GREAT TRIBULATION / TIME OF JACOB’S TROUBLE!”

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 the video “New Atheists VS Informed Atheists.”

A certain EmptyDisc commented:

I find the atheists who don’t know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist fascinating.

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

I find the Atheists who don’t know that Santa Claus is not in the same category as God fascinating.

EmptyDisc:

Quite so, and the overlap of people who believe both these things is often a single circle.

A certain Anton Ekstrand chimed in with:

It all depends what you mean by ‘know’. I believe that Santa Clause doesn’t exist, but I don’t necessarily know that. It just seems like the most reasonable conclusion.

EmptyDisc:

You are fascinating. Just to be clear, you DON’T know that Santa Claus doesn’t exist?

Anton Ekstrand:

As I said, it all depends on what you mean by ‘know’. What level of certainty would you require to accept the claim as knowledge? I have no problem saying, in everyday parlance, that I know Santa Clause doesn’t exist. But I can’t demonstrate that he doesn’t, in the same way I can’t demonstrate a god doesn’t exist. It’s all based on an assessment that there’s no apparent reason to accept either claim, and the fact that the stories surrounding both characters/entities seem fictional to me.

A certain Redbad joined in with:

@EmptyDisc  can you prove that Santa Claus doesn’t exist? And I mean prove with 100% certainty. (Be careful how you disprove his existence as I will parody that to disprove God)

Ken Ammi:

@EmptyDisc  It’s like what Dinesh D’Souza pointed out: there’s no Atheists writing books like “The Unicorn Delusion” or “Unicorns Are Not Great” or “The End of Unicorns.”

Redbad:

@Ken Ammi  wading through the field of straw men you set up in the beginning of your article on why you think people become atheists don’t be was tiresome.

Then you try to use definitions (which aren’t evidence) to disprove a negative.  And it gets worse you hand pick the easiest version of Santa Claus to try and debunk, while just asserting god as a necessary being (you nor any has proven necessary beings exist).

Try harder what if Santa has god like powers? None of his tasks seem remotely difficult then. Think of Santa as necessary for Christmas.

Ken Ammi:

What is subjectively tiresome to you is not a standard.

The statement “you can’t prove a negative” is proof of a negative.

Now, the bottom line issues is that you refer to no one has “proven necessary beings exist” so the first step is to justify demanding proof on your worldview.

Redbad:

Ken Ammi  necessary beings don’t exist on my worldview so if you can show one to exist I’ll change worldview. Go back to proving a magical Santa doesn’t exist don’t get lost in “your worldview doesn’t blah blah..” you give Santa verifiable facts that we can check to see if he exists or not. Can you give me a verifiable fact to show if god exists?(note it needs to be specific because if I can use the same fact to prove anything else than it’s not very helpful)

Ken Ammi:

By definition a necessary being exist and do so on any worldview: that’s the whole point of being a necessary being.

Now, you seem rather desperate to abscond from the implications of your worldview—and I can’t blame you since it fails before it even begins.

You now realize that your worldview is such an utter failure that you can’t even viably demand evidence yet, you keep right on doing it (not surprising, of course, since being consistent is not a universal imperative on Atheism) with “show one to exist.”

But see, when you say “you give Santa verifiable facts that we can check to see if he exists or not” that is on my worldview so you can’t apply that to yours. See, you have to keep on begging, borrowing, and stealing from my worldview in order to attempt to discredit my worldview which is a self-defeating exercise for you, of course, and inconsistent with your worldview according to which accidentally existing apes can believe and even demand that anything they want to assert is true.

So, rather than covering your eyes and claiming you didn’t notice that your worldview collapsed—even when it’s being pointed out to you—ponder how/why your worldview utterly failed you at a most fundamental level.

Redbad:

you can’t be serious. You can’t miss the point this badly. You entire counter argument was “my definitions are correct and yours aren’t”. You just said that necessary beings exist on any worldview. That’s what I’m asking for you show not just state. If this is the case then Santa is necessary for Christmas boom now he exists. I didn’t ask for you to avoid the worldview conversation because I think mine doesn’t work ( it wouldn’t be my worldview if I thought that) it’s because it a bullshit move to avoid the real conversation. My worldview answers every question yours does but without the addition of magic. Either disprove a necessary Santa that has magic capabilities or prove a necessary god must exist without just stating it. Ps if you insist that definitions are evidence than god is not possible on your own worldview. He can’t be perfectly just and perfectly merciful those definitions are antithetical.

Ken Ammi:

Please mind your manners.

Correlating Santa with a philosophically necessary being is a category error (seems like further evidence that you are not aware of the concept of a philosophically necessary being).

Now, if your worldview does work then let’s see how it does with that you asked me to “show…prove…evidence” but the first step would be for you to justify such demands on your worldview.

As for “disprove a necessary Santa that has magic capabilities,” see here: https://truefreethinker.com/can-you-disprove-santa-claus-atheism-and-santa-syndrome

Redbad:

Ken Ammi   you can’t be serious. You can’t miss the point this badly. You entire counter argument was “my definitions are correct and yours aren’t”. You just said that necessary beings exist on any worldview. That’s what I’m asking for you show not just state. If this is the case then Santa is necessary for Christmas boom now he exists. I didn’t ask for you to avoid the worldview conversation because I think mine doesn’t work ( it wouldn’t be my worldview if I thought that) it’s because it a bullshit move to avoid the real conversation. My worldview answers every question yours does but without the addition of magic. Either disprove a necessary Santa that has magic capabilities or prove a necessary god must exist without just stating it.

Ps if you insist that definitions are evidence than god is not possible on your own worldview. He can’t be perfectly just and perfectly merciful those definitions are antithetical.

Ken Ammi:

Please mind your manners.

No, rather the entire counter argument has been that you’ve no premise upon which to even demand certain definitions, on Atheism.

Likewise with you “asking for you show not just state” which is why we’re at the level of fundamental worldview issues since yours provides no premise upon which it’s incumbent for an accidentally existing ape to show anything at all.

That the underlying issue which you subjectively misinterpret as a way to “avoid the real conversation” since I’ve been begging you to begin the real conversation but you just want to jump to merely asserted conclusions such as “Show!” but rather than replying, “Sir, yes, sir!” I reply, “Why?” and all you can reply with is subjective personal preferences du jour based on hidden assumptions.

It’s not incumbent upon your worldview to answers any question and does so by an accidentally existing ape subjectively interpreting accidental neural chemistry—if, that is, you interpret it at all since it may be the case that the accidental laws of physics which accidentally cause the accidental neural chemistry to accidentally result in thoughts means that your thoughts are predetermined by them.

Redbad:

Ken Ammi  my apologies if I wasn’t behaving. I agree with that on my world view my asking for evidence is subjective but it’s the only way I can think of to find truth. What on your world view provides the imperative to do anything?

Ken Ammi:

I appreciate that deeply and pray that you’re okay in general. Keep in mind that it’s not just that on your “world view my asking for evidence is subjective” but also “to find truth” means to find the byproducts of an accident. On my world view truth is, it’s absolute, knowing it is an imperative since it was purposefully created and as were we so that we could discern it, and truth personified since Jesus said, “I am…the Truth.”

Redbad:

I still don’t understand why knowing truth is an imperative on your worldview? Even if it was created by God you don’t have to find it. If you have free will God can’t give any imperatives just suggestions. Accident or not the desire to seek truth on either of our worldviews is subjective.

Ken Ammi:

Well, on Atheism it matters not if an accidentally existing ape understands what another accidentally existing ape is saying.

On my worldview, truth was created, it’s not accidental.

We were created, we’re not accidental and so were created to discern truth.

Thus, there’s a universal imperative to adhere to truth even if we can chose to reject it.

And, we can demand/expect others to adhere to it since it’s absolute and we are told to know it and adhere to it..

So, perhaps, “the desire” to seek it is subjective but the universal imperative is objective.

Jesus said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32).

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

In consideration of Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies at Azusa Pacific University B. J. Oropeza’s article Who Are the Nephilim and Did They Escape the Flood? which was posted to the Patheos site. Find my Oropeza related articles here.

He notes, “In the Bible we read about the Nephilim who lived during the time of Noah before the Great Flood (Genesis 6:1-4)” and what may be a key qualifying term—we shall see, “They are also mentioned again many years after the Flood in Numbers 13:33” (emphasis added for emphasis). Thus, he asks, “Did they escape the Flood?” and, “Depending on your translation, they are also called ‘giants’ along with the Rephaim and the Anakim” and asks, “Who are they?” (emphasis added for emphasis) which may hint at his answer since otherwise, the question would be, “Who were they?” but I may be reading too much into common parlance at this point.

1. J. Oropeza notes, “the King James Version, New King James Version, the Septuagint (LXX), as well as the Latin Vulgate, translate this word as ‘giants’ after the Greek word, γίγαντες (gigantes).” Technically, that’s not a translation but a rendering. Also, he provided the Greek and transliteration but not the meaning which is that gigantes means earth-born.

He notes, “The Nephilim’s status as heroes or great warriors may have something to do with their designation as giants. In Numbers 13 they are mentioned again, and here they are said to be giants.” At this point, let us ask the key questions which are:

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

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

Do those usages agree?

Well, we get an idea of his usage and he seems to be unaware that biblically contextually, “The Nephilim’s status as heroes or great warriors may have something to do with their designation as giants. In Numbers 13 they are mentioned again, and here they are said to be giants” reads thusly, “The Nephilim’s status as heroes or great warriors may have something to do with their designation as Nephilim. In Numbers 13 they are mentioned again, and here they are said to be Nephilim.” He is using the term, “giants” to refer to subjectively unusual height but that’s not the English Bible’s usage at all. Therein, it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) either Nephilim in two verses or Rephaim in 98% of all others without as much as a hint of anything to do with height whatsoever.

1. J. Oropeza includes a section on the identify of the sons of God which I will bypass by noting that Job 38:7, as one example, shows us that “sons of God” can refer to non-human beings (which the LXX has as “Angelos”).

Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined place the one-time sin of Angels to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin.

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

I will only note that he wrote, “Since the Nephilim first appear in the same context of this union between the sons of God and the daughters of humans, interpreters often infer from this that the Nephilim were their offspring…A careful reading of Genesis 6:1–4, however, does not explicitly state that the Nephilim were the children of this sexual union. Nevertheless, the inference is fairly clear.”

And it’s clear since the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.

Thus, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward” as a result of, “when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them.”

1. J. Oropeza includes a section titled, “Nephilim and Other Giants” the problem with which is that he tells us of “Other” before telling us of any—at least as per his mis-usage.

Recall, “what may be a key qualifying term—we shall see, ‘They are also mentioned again…” well, at this point he wrote another possible qualifying term, “Genesis 6 aside, we find only one other biblical reference to the Nephilim” (emphasis added for emphasis). Let’s keep in mind that if I write about George Washington right now, as I just did, that’s a mention and reference but that doesn’t mean he’s alive, on the ground, at this time. Concluding that mention and reference equal being alive at the time of the mentioned reference would be a non sequitur category error.

But let’s see if those were just common parlance terms or if B. J. Oropeza was implying something specific by them. He notes, “When Moses sent the twelve tribal leaders to spy out the land of Canaan, they brought back a discouraging report in Numbers 13:32–33: ‘The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim)…’ (NIV).”

Well, he can quote whatever version he wants but none of them say what he just claimed.

Accurate rewrite—sine referring to “they” is too vaguely generic:

“When Moses sent the twelve tribal leaders to spy out the land of Canaan, they brought back a” original report that was accepted as is. Caleb encouraged the people who obey God (Joshua sided with him). 10 of them discouraged, we are told that they presented an evil report and it was the second—fear-mongering scare-tactic—“discouraging report in Numbers 13:32–33” wherein they asserted, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim)…’ (NIV)’” which led to God rebuking them.

There are so many problems with those few words that I wrote an entire chapter about it, which I released as a sample: Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

Suffice it to say that post-flood Nephilologists are forced to rely on, to build an entire all-encompassing theory, upon one single sentence spoken by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory embellishers who resented an evil report and were rebuked by God—I’m unaware of anyone who has ever done that for any other “doctrine” whatsoever.

Thus, it was not, “When Moses sent the twelve tribal leaders to spy out the land of Canaan, they brought back a discouraging report”: rather, B. J. Oropeza skipped the key portions of that narrative.

He proposes that, “The NIV, in my opinion, does a poor job of translating…A more literal reading of the phrase would be, ‘And there we saw the Nephilim, (the) sons of Anak of the Nephilim.’” At this point, he refers to, “the spies who were lying or at best exaggerating” but he didn’t tell us who that was. In other words, he referred to “twelve tribal leaders” failed to distinguish the two loyally faithful ones from the 10 who weren’t and now fails to distinguish them again by giving the impression that it was the twelve who were lying or at best exaggerating.”
He notes, “This passage connects the Nephilim with the Anakim” but fails to noted that such isn’t the case in the LXX which utterly lacks reference to Anakim in that section. This also would do nothing to elucidate just how it is that Anakim, named after Anak who was Arba’s son, could possibly be related to Nephilim.

He then notes that Anakim, “latter are comparable in size with the Rephaim.” Yet, since the only physical description we have of Nephilim comes from utterly unreliable guys presenting an utterly unreliable report then we’ve no reliable physical description of them. As for Anakim and Rephaim as “Other Giants” well, Deut 2 tell us that Anakim and Rephaim (the former being a clan of the latter tribe) were subjectively “tall” and that’s it so, taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.

4. J. Oropeza then writes, “Og, king of Bashan, was a Rephaite whose bed or sarcophagus measured 9 by 4 cubits (perhaps thirteen feet long and six feet wide: Deut 3:11). The gigantic Philistine warrior, Goliath, was said to be a descendant of the ‘Raphah,’…Goliath’s height at 4.5 cubits is not too impressive (a little over 6 1/2 feet tall based on the Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls : 4Q Sam [1 Sam 17:4]). The Hebrew and Vulgate texts have him at 6.5 cubits (over 9 1/2 feet tall).”

Now, he wrote, “descendant of the ‘Raphah’” which some English Bibles have as, “descendant of the ‘giant’” (recall that it would merely be due to rendering Repha as giant) but then refers to, “the size of these giants” which he should, consistently, have written as, “the size of these Rephaim.” Yet, we don’t know Og’s height and the preponderance of the earliest data is that Goliath was subjectively tall but not so impressive in, say, modern day Norway, etc.—he left out that Flavius Josephus also has the shorter height range for him. Interested readers should consult my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Thus, just as with Og and Goliath (who got taller and taller with time and telling) so Nephilim went from being un-physically described to being so tall that humans are like grasshoppers in comparison to, “Nephilim of Genesis 6 as described in non-canonical books” who have, “bodies like mountains” and, “1 Enoch 7” which B. J. Oropeza tells us has them at, “three hundred cubits high” but it actually has them as 3,000 ells which is MILES tall—great folklore but poor reality.

We now come to, “Did the Nephilim Survive the Flood?” about which we’re told, “In Numbers 13:33 the Nephilim appear again during Israel’s travels in the wilderness” (emphasis added for emphasis) but we have zero reliable data to conclude that and only one single unreliable sentence in it’s favor.

He then asks, “If the Israelites saw the Nephilim in the land of Canaan, are we to assume that these are the offspring of the Nephilim from Genesis 6? Put differently, did the Nephilim survive the great Flood of Genesis 6–9?” Yet, even if we believe the evil report there’s no indication that, “the Israelites” saw any such thing, they were merely told that, as an assertion, by the 10.

He notes, “If we assume this to be the case (and not an inconsistency in the text), the great Flood may be interpreted as a local one” but the scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either didn’t make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

Yet, he tells us, “it could be surmised that some of the Nephilim escaped the flood” but that contradicts the Bible five times: ​Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

1. J. Oropeza notes, “Some scholars interpret the phrase ‘and also afterward’ in Genesis 6:4 as referring to a time after the Flood…Others, however, believe this interpretation is hard to reconcile with the context of Genesis 6—9, which depicts the flood as wiping out all human life except Noah’s family (Gen 6:5—7:23; esp. 7:19).”

Fallacious Nephilology (such as 100% of pop-Nephilology and much scholarly Nephilology) effects theology proper since any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc.

Post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.

Again, this describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists and I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

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

Gen 6:4 doesn’t mention the flood nor does it have anything to do with it.

In fact, the flood isn’t even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 vss. later: v. 17.

Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

The question becomes: when were those days?

Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”

The next question becomes: when was afterward?

Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”

Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.

Yet, he notes that ways to get around afterward nor referring to the flood, “does not explain how the Nephilim reappear in Numbers 13.” Thus, his view begins by believing unreliable guys whom God rebuked and making a mess of other texts in order to make everything fit their deception—this is a continuation of a lost scrimmage or spiritual warfare.

Yet, He comes to the actual biblical view, “Perhaps a better explanation of this sort is that the spies reported false information in Numbers 13…If their report implies false information, they may have lied when they claimed that the Anakim were descendants of the Nephilim.” See how easy that was? Just taking the biblical narrative at face value does away with any and every contrived pseudo problem.

Yet, B. J. Oropeza can’t seem to get away from that, “false information…lied” since he still wrote, “Granted, they may have appeared to be similar to the Nephilim of old because of their great size” failing to note that, as pop-researchers and post-flood-“giant”-Nephilologists Gary Wayne himself was forced to admit (when I put him on the spot), “we don’t know how big Nephilim were…we don’t know how tall that they were” (sic.)—see our debate here.

Even though he includes a qualifying term, he does accurately conclude, “we can suggest that, according to Scripture, they perished in the Flood of Noah’s day” to which I will add: and they didn’t return in any way, shape, or form and never will.

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 ensued due to LA Marzulli’s video ASTOUNDING ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIND!

David B noted

Makes logical sense to me that this would be something the giants wrote. Isn’t it recorded in Enoch where they had disturbing dreams of destruction and sought out Enoch to somehow get some mercy on their side using Enoch as a mediator of sorts? Them fleeing across the face of the earth to distant continents to somehow escape the judgment upon them most definitely appears to be a piece of the fragmented puzzle of the history of the Nephilim.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Asserting the likes of that they went about “fleeing across the face of the earth to distant continents to somehow escape the judgment” is how LA implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done.

David B

this is post flood scenario, not pre Noah’s flood. God stated He would not flood the earth in judgment again, so the elimination came at the hands of obedient men?

MR V chimed in thusly

Yahweh did not fail at all. Joshua and Caleb did rid the land of these creatures. What stayed behind were the dominions, the principalities and they can still be seen there to this day.

Ken Ammi @David B

Same difference: it implies that God failed. The issue is that the one and only reason to even invent such un-biblical tall tales is one single verse within an “evil report” by guys whom God rebuked–Num 13:33.

Ken Ammi @MR V

Indeed, “Yahweh did not fail at all” but you, et al., imply that He did: he sent the flood but it turned out to be a waste since He couldn’t get the job done and so Joshua and Caleb had to finish the job.

Yet, there’s zero reliable indication that they “rid the land of these creatures.”

As I noted to David B:  the one and only reason to even invent such un-biblical tall tales is one single verse within an “evil report” by guys whom God rebuked–Num 13:33.

David B

no it isn’t. Purely your opinion because you already don’t like the premise. That’s all. God commanded Joshua to wipe out the nephilim tribes in the land, and he did. The rest of them perished, hence finding their remains all over the planet. Just because God didn’t execute His judgment the way you think it should have been done, is solely based upon your reasoning. Absolute nonsense.

“unbiblical tales…”

What do you think the Bible is supposed to contain every single aspect of history, other wise it never happened? What a seriously flawed approach to any topic out there. Of course you don’t even hint at challenging  the evidence people like L. A. uncover, you are simply coming from a opinion that no nephilim existed anywhere else on the planet, “because the Bible doesn’t say it”. News flash, scripture doesn’t comment on every single aspect of history.

Ken Ammi

Well, of course post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them but couldn’t get the job done. Keep in mind that LA teaches the unbiblical theory of post-flood incursions for which there’s literally zero evidence.

Buy let’s simplify this: you assert, “God commanded Joshua to wipe out the nephilim tribes” so please quote and cite where God commanded Joshua to do that, specifically.

Something must be wrong with the YT comment section since you seem to imply that you’re quoting me saying, “unbiblical tales…” but I can’t find where I did so.

In any case, if I did so then we agree: I’m saying “unbiblical tales…” and you too are saying that since you note it’s not the case that “the Bible is supposed to contain every single aspect of history…”

Now, considering that I’ve written articles about LA’s views, and interacted with him via email, and featured him in my book “Nephilim and Giants As Per Pop Researchers,” I’m unsure why you say, “you don’t even hint at challenging  the evidence people like L. A. uncover.”

I have no idea where on the planet they lived, my only point is just that they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

Robert S @MR V

Interesting.   Can you elaborate ?  What do you mean ?  Are you saying there was another post flood rebellion of angels ?

Ken Ammi @Robert S

That’s actually LA’s view but he tends to back off from it when it’s pointed out to him that there’s zero evidence for it.

MR V @Robert S

When you look at the main geographical areas where Hamas and Hezbolah operate in, they coincide perfectly where the areas that were the most troublesome for Joshua and Caleb, as they applied God’s judgement. That is not a coincidence.

Ken Ammi @MR V

God’s judgment on Rephaim, et al., but not ever on Nephilim.

David B

Let’s use your logic then. God failed to wipe out sin with the flood of Noah….because….what was the judgment of the flood of Noah about??? So God failed to stop the sins committed at Sodom & Gomorrah….because…what sins were judged at those cities?

“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them….”

Genesis 6:4

Genesis was written post flood, so what does the phrase “and also afterward” mean then? Remember the context is talking about the Nephilim.

“In another battle with the Philistines at Gath, they encountered a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in all, who was also a descendant of the giants.”

2nd Samuel 21:20

Huge man with six fingers on each hand, six toes on each foot…”he also was descended from Rapha”. That is a Nephilim giant descended from the Rephaites. Plural word for this tribe is the Rephaim, which Goliath and his brothers came from.

“In the course of time, war broke out with the Philistines, at Gezer. At that time Sibbekai the Hushathite killed Sippai, one of the descendants of the Rephaites, and the Philistines were subjugated. In another battle with the Philistines, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod. In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha. When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimea, David’s brother, killed him. These were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.”

1st Chronicles 20:4-8

For context about the size of a “weaver’s rod”…if one was making cloth to the standard size of about 6 ft. wide, the rod would have to be 8 ft. long & 2 1/2 to 3 inches thick. This was a Nephilim giant wielding a massive spear that a normal human could not properly handle. To us that would be a pole, not a spear.

Now for more scriptural evidence of post flood giants.

“They are now dead, they live no more; their spirits do not rise. You punished them and brought them to ruin; you wiped out all memory of them.”

Isaiah 26:14

Who are “they” in the Hebrew text? The “they” are the Rephaim, a notorious Nephilim tribe the Israelites eventually completely wiped out. Their “spirits do not rise”…is a direct reference to judgment before God. All human spirits will stand before God one day in judgment, the righteous for eternal rewards, the wicked for eternal punishment. Hell will be emptied before the great white throne to receive sentencing before thrown into the lake of fire. But these post flood Rephaim spirits will never rise even for that. Their destruction is already permanently done & don’t get the same treatment as humans.

“But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

Matthew 24:37-39

Jesus plainly says the genetic tampering of the human genome will happen again just like before the flood, and is happening right now as we speak. Technology has reached the point where splicing DNA of creatures that cannot normal reproduce together is being done all over the planet. You need to reconsider whatever sources you are drawing from, because they are severely ignorant of the plain truth that presented in the Bible.

Ken Ammi

Why is it that the three key features of neo-theo-sci-fi-pop-Nephilology are literally exclusively based on one single verse? Because people who are, for some unknown reasons, infatuated with demanding post-flood Nephilim are literally forced to rely exclusively on one single verse stated by utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

You say by my logic “God failed to wipe out sin” but God nowhere at any time said the flood was to wipe out sin so that’s not based on my logic whatsoever and likewise with “the sins committed at Sodom & Gomorrah.”

It can only be due to neo-theo-sci-fi-pop-Nephilology that you could even ask, “what does the phrase ‘and also afterward’ mean” since the verse tells you to what it’s referring—and you quoted it, “those days—and also afterward—WHEN the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them….” ergo: in “those days” WHEN they first did it (see v. 1) and after they first did it so that they kept doing it but that’s all pre-flood, the flood brought the whole affair to a full and final end.

Now, note how you went from “Nephilim” to “a huge man” and the English word “giants” but what you can’t quote, because it doesn’t exist, is what you were forced to write yourself, because it doesn’t exist, “That is a Nephilim giant descended from the Rephaites” which is 100% made up stuff. Also, BTW, the English word “giant” you are reading in your Bible is just rendering either “Nephilim,” in two vss., or “Rephaim” in 98% of all others.

So, when you write, “Nephilim giant descended from the Rephaites” you’re, biblically, either saying “Nephilim Nephilim descended from the Rephaites” or “Nephilim Rephaites descended from the Rephaites.”

But think of what you’re saying, “Nephilim giant descended from the Rephaites” which is like saying “Cat giant descended from the dogs.” It’s a simple category error that violates the law of identity: by definition, Nephilim were Nephilim and gave birth to Nephilim who were descended from Nephilim and by definition, Rephaim were Rephaim and gave birth to Rephaim who were descended from Rephaim.

For 1st Chronicles 20:4-8 you, again, quote a text about a Repha, but decide to assert, “This was a Nephilim giant” for which there’s zero evidence.

Also, Goliath wielded such a spear also and, most reliably, he was just shy of 7 ft. In fact, regular guy Benaiah successfully wielded such a spear in hand-to-hand combat (2 Samuel 23:21). Besides, you can search YT any time for weightlifting competitions and see guys who are right around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.

But after obfuscating Nephilim and Rephaim you then switch to the English term again, “evidence of post flood giants” but do you really know about whom you’re reading? You’re exclusively reading about Rephaim and you also seem to miss that everything said about them is vague, “tall,” “great stature,” etc., with the single exception of Goliath.

With Isaiah 26:14 you don’t seem to realize that it’s using the root word repha (which ranges form healing to dead) and doesn’t necessarily refer to the people group.

But, fine, you then merely assert, since you can’t quote it since it doesn’t exist, “Rephaim, a notorious Nephilim tribe” and while yes, “the Israelites eventually completely wiped out” the Rephaim, you’re just inventing a tall tale about what they were a Nephilim tribe: again, that’s why you can’t ever quote any such a thing.

You then go as far as taking Jesus out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext. I’ve no idea what in Matthew 24:37-39 is “Jesus plainly says the genetic tampering of the human genome will happen again” but that’s why I refer to neo-theo-sci-fi.

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.

Friend, please re-read the Bible for what it actually says. Or, let’s make a deal: just provide quotations for the stuff you’re thus far merely asserting.

Well, that ended it as no one replied anymore.

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.

Within his video Did God Command the Israelites to Slaughter Children and Babies?, Dr. Michael Brown proposed one theory that has been trotted out as an answer to that question so let us consider it.

He noted that the claim is that, “when the Israelites went into to the land of Canaan, that they commented on the inhabitants there were giants now no one ever denied that. Joshua and Caleb, the two spies out of the 12 who said we can take the land, they never denied that there were giants and Moses never denied it what they said.”

The key questions are:

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

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

Do those usages agree?

We will get a hint of that so, stand by. Note that it’s much too generic to assert, “when the Israelites went into to the land of Canaan, that they commented” since it was only 10 of them and not “the Israelites” as a whole.

Also, the 10 commented on that “the inhabitants there were” Nephilim.

As for, “no one ever denied that. Joshua and Caleb…never denied that there were giants and Moses never denied it.” Well, the narrative ends after the 10—who were unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked after the presented an “evil report,” mind you—make their fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale.

It was not a formal moderated debate so we can’t say no one denied it. In fact, in Deut 1 when Moses is relating this event, he affirms that Anakim were on the ground at the time but doesn’t say a single word about Nephilim. He seems to be too practical, he’s concerned about the real dangers on the ground, such as the notorious Anakim, but doesn’t have time for fantasy tall-tales—since that is the only reference to post-flood Nephilim and it’s utterly unreliable.

Another form of denial of what they said is that there’s not one single other reference to post-flood Nephilim in the entire Bible in any way, shape, form, context, genre, etc.

Any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc.

Post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.

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

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

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

And, The Scholarly Academic Nephilim and Giants: What do Scholarly Academics Say About Nephilim Giants?

The point Dr. Michael Brown made, based on those who hold to this view, is that Caleb and Joshua’s point was that sure, there were Nephilim/giants around but, “God’s with us and we can take the land.”

As for, “where did the giants come from?” Dr. Brown elucidates:

…you remember in Genesis the 6th chapter that before the flood…gives the account how the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they look good, they took them as their wives and then their offspring called the Nephilim. So, there’s great debate about what that means and fallen ones, those who fall on others, etc.

But it’s clear contextually, even in ancient versions, that they’re giants and it is a mixed breed…a Satanic mix-breed. These were fallen Angels who somehow were able to take on human form and if you’re going to quote the Bible, I mean, here’s what the Bible’s saying…

Let’s pause for a moment. That, “their offspring called the Nephilim” is good enough reason to not bring the problems causing term modern term “giants” into it. As for that in, “ancient versions…they’re giants” well that can mean more than one thing—part of why it’s a best practice to ignore that word—since it can refer to a description of their size or it can be a word-concept fallacy. The latter would be to merely imagine some unknown height above the subjective average and the former is based on what utterly unreliable guys whom God rebuked said plus some uncited, “ancient versions” (to whatever that refers).

Indeed, they were, “a mixed breed” and it’s too bad that Dr. Brown didn’t take the time to, “quote the Bible” since it doesn’t contain one single sentence about, “Angels who somehow were able to take on human form.” Rather, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

Continuing Dr. Brown’s statement:

…their offspring it was it was something abominable. God says the Earth was filled with violence in those days. It was so bad that He had to wipe the human race out, lest it destroy itself. If He didn’t rescue…Noah…and then rescues his family—so, his wife, three sons, and their wives to repopulate the Earth—we wouldn’t be here. The whole world would have been completely wiped out…He wipes out everyone on the Earth, if He doesn’t do that, no one survives, no one survives if he doesn’t do that.

But it does say that after the flood there’s still giants and Genesis 6 could say it was before the flood and even after.

So, God sought to destroy everyone besides whom Dr. Michael Brown noted but must have missed a loophole: do you see how fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper?

Now, the answer to the first key question—What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?­—all but does away with statements such as, “But it does say that after the flood there’s still giants and Genesis 6 could say it was before the flood and even after.”

That is because post-flood usages of the term “giants” refers to Nephilim only in one single sentence, the evil report of Num 13:3, 98% of all other usages are references to Rephaim and they have utterly nothing to do with Angels, mix-breeds, the flood, etc.

As for Gen 6: the evil report becomes a hermeneutic for those who for some odd reason demand post-flood Nephilim (siding with unreliable guys whom God rebuked rather than with God) since it tell us exactly to what days it’s referring but post-flood Nephilologists ignore what it states.

They merely assert that, “in those days and also afterward” refers to the flood but the flood isn’t even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later—verse 17.

Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

The question becomes: when were those days?

Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”

The next question becomes: when was afterward?

Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”

Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.

Continuing with Dr. Michael Brow’s statement:

So, there are those who hold the view that those living in Canaan were the descendants of the Nephilim, were a wicked half-breed that had to be destroyed, that simply had to be destroyed, and wiped out.

Otherwise, as Israel came into the land, with intermarriage and other things like that, now Israel itself would be destroyed and

Israel would never be a light to the Nations Messiah would never come to the world, the whole world now ends up destroyed.

So, there are those who believe that the ones that Israel was called to wipe out were this dangerous half-breed of humans fallen Angel and human, and their descendants. And that ultimately, they were wiped out finally by Israel: that none of the descendants of the giants were left, and that that was the reason, the justification.

Indeed, some appeal to that as an excuse for God having commanded what He did. Yet, such personages only make things worse since those who double-check them will realize that it’s just a tall-tale. God told us many times why He commanded such things but never said one single word about Nephilim—see chapter, “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?” in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

He also notes that this scenario proposes a, “mixture in the human race which is now going to corrupt the whole human race and had to be dealt with radically” and it was: via the flood.

He again states, “here’s the deal if you’re going to quote one part of the Bible then you can’t throw out the other part of the Bible” indeed, and for post-flood Nephilim all we have is one single sentence from unreliable guys (and within a textual criticism problematic sentence) which is illogical and ill-theo-logical and ill-bio-logical—see my Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

Dr. Michael Brown notes, “different scholars, different interpreters are going to have different perspectives and you can read what Dr Michael Heiser said…” yet, while Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved—see these articles for examples (and I featured Dr. Heiser in my books about scholars):

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

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

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 video, “War of the Words – Rephaim and Royal Titles” with Douglas Hamp & Dr Judd Burton was posted to Hamp’s YouTube channel The Awakening Report.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Shalom, that “they created this hybrid race that we know variously as Nephilim, Rephaim, Zamzumim, etc. so these are the various names for these these hybridized creatures” is committing a category error: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, there is no relation between them and Zamzumim is merely an aka for Rephaim.

Doug Hamp replied

Hey Ken, I would point to Numb 13:33. “There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” (Num 13:33). We also see that God destroyed the Amorite whose height was like the cedars (Amos 2:9). I detail these things and go into the original languages in my new book, Corrupting the Image 2.

Ken Ammi

Shalom brother, I pray I find you well.

You may recall that we discussed this already–including within the emails in which you offered to have me review your new book and I agreed to do so.

In Num 13:33 who is the “we” who say they “saw”?

You will find that it was unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies whom presented an evil report and whom God rebuked.

They made four claims about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing.

They contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible.

That one single verse is the one and only one upon which the whole entire theory of post-flood Nephilim is based as well as the assertion that they were very tall and that they are related to Anakim (not even to all Rephaim).

Also, note that in Deut 1:27-28 Moses relates that event and does not even bother noting Nephilim and that the LXX of that verse (v. 34 in that version) does not mention Anakim. Thus, there are also conceptual and textual issues with it.

Now, I am unsure what Amorite have to do with it since my comment was about Nephilim. But, while we are at it, what is the one-to-one ratio based comparison of the strength of an oak to the strength of a person?

A certain, “v1e1r1g1e1” chimed in with

I expect someone else has already corrected you on your many errors, but I think it bears mentioning that you are quite wrong in your suggestiion that the Spies Who Gave An Evil Report Of The Land (as they are known) were merely embellishing in order to scare the Israelites from invading.

Were I to tell you, ”Don’t go to Tasmania!  There are HUGE people down there!   Seriously, they’re enormous!  I felt like a mouse compared to them!   They’re so huge and so many, that the land can barely support them.  We’d have no chance against them in a battle.”…   The first thing you’d do would be to say ”Bolderdash!   There’s no such thing as gigantic huge Human-like things!   They all died out.   And why would there be any in Tasmania!?”

In short, the Israelites did not doubt the report of the spies… and Caleb and Joshua did not immediately gainsay their testimony.   Rather, Caleb and Joshua affirmed the capacity of the Israelites – with God on their side – to destroy the Canaanites.    So the burden of proof is not to show that there were physical descendants of the ancient Nephilim still extant in the world… but to try to deny it using the Scripture itself.

In this, you will have a hard time, because there are many many verses in Scripture – whether Septuagint or Masoretic – which make it abundantly clear that when there is discussion of Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, Emim or Amorite… they are talking about physical genetic mutation / hybrids of human and angelic beings on Earth.

Ken Ammi

Oh, I don’t think they were merely embellishing: they were straight up deceiving.

Your metaphor fails because it implies a recording of an entire scenario, an entire discussion.

Indeed, “Caleb and Joshua affirmed the capacity of the Israelites – with God on their side – to destroy the Canaanites” but among them you count Nephilim so now you have a number of problems such as God failing so that the flood was a waste, having to invent a tall tale about how to get Nephilim past the flood, how to make sense of a narrative that has unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked being trustworthy, dealing with why we’re told many times about the people in the land and around the land and about battles and hand-to-hand combat without a single reference to Nephilim ever, etc., etc., etc.

The burden of proof is, in fact, to show that there were physical descendants of the ancient Nephilim still extant in the world.

To deny it is quite simple using the Scripture itself: Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5 along with zero statements about a second fall of Angels nor of any manner of any sort of return of Nephilim otherwise.

Now, I get the feeling you’re willing to water down what’s supposed to be specific terminology since you write of “Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakim, Emim or Amorite.”

Yet, there’s no correlation between Nephilim and Rephaim, Anakim, Emim or Amorite.

Rephaim were a main group (like a tribe) under which there are subgroups (like clans) such as the Anakim.

Also, Emim is just an aka for Rephaim.

Plus, there’s zero indication that Rephaim, Anakim, Emim or Amorite are “physical genetic mutation / hybrids of human and angelic beings on Earth.”

Even if, for some odd reason, you actually believe some of the least reliable guys in the Bible—guys whom we’re told presented an “evil report,” guys who contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible, guys who make five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all—you still only get Anakim as related to Nephilim, not all Rephaim: just be sure to check the LXX for Num 13:33 first.

v1e1r1g1e1

Goodness, what long post!  You claim ”The burden of proof is, in fact, to show that there were physical descendants of the ancient Nephilim still extant in the world.”.   Easy.   Genesis 6: 4 – ”There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them”

The Bible itself makes it clear that there were TWO (at least) incursions of Angelic interbreedings with human women:  The first, the main one, occuring in the antideluvian world, to such an extent that only 8 pure bloodline / pure DNA humans lived, necessitating the Flood.    The 2nd occurred some time after the Tower of Babel incident, which saw the dispersal of humanity from the plain of Shinar out into the globe.   The Bible provides proof that these angelic inbreedings caused giants and were therefore technically ‘Nephilim”.

The particular pedigrees of giant (Anakim, Rephaim, etc) do not eliminate the reality that these creatures did indeed infest the Holy Land at the time of Joshua, and before.   That these monster hybrids were descended of further angelic beings, alike to those angelic beings who left their first estate during the antediluvian world, establishes that they were of the Nephilim…. not the selfsame ones who defiled the Earth in Noah’s day… but Nephilim even so for their paternity.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’m unsure how “that there were physical descendants of the ancient Nephilim still extant in the world” is evidenced by that “’There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them.”

I must admit it bothers me that seem to imply that God failed and the flood was much of a waste: God caused the flood to be rid of “Angelic interbreedings” and preserve “only 8 pure bloodline / pure DNA humans” but Angles thought of a loophole He missed, they just came right back and did it all again.

Now, when you say “The Bible itself makes it clear that…The 2nd occurred some time after the Tower of Babel incident” where does it make that clear?

When you say “The Bible provides proof that these angelic inbreedings caused giants” where does it do that?

Also, what do you mean by “giants”?

FYI: Anakim are a subgroup, like a clan, of Rephaim, who were like a tribe.

What indication do you have that Rephaim were “creatures…monster hybrids”?

See, you replied with a list of assertions but they all go back to one single verse: Num 13:33.

I noted this to Doug:

In Num 13:33 who is the “we” who say they “saw”?

You will find that it was unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies whom presented an evil report and whom God rebuked.

They made four claims about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing.

They contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible.

That one single verse is the one and only one upon which the whole entire theory of post-flood Nephilim is based as well as the assertion that they were very tall and that they are related to Anakim (not even to all Rephaim).

I noted this to you:

Even if, for some odd reason, you actually believe some of the least reliable guys in the Bible—guys whom we’re told presented an “evil report,” guys who contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible, guys who make five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all—you still only get Anakim as related to Nephilim, not all Rephaim: just be sure to check the LXX for Num 13:33 first.

So, what is THE issue.

v1e1r1g1e1

Ken, I think we’re wasting our time here.   You’re starting to repeat the same argument, and you nit-pick replies; demanding that we provide some kind of coup d-gras Chapter and Verse citation which will prove once and for all that there were Human / Angelic inbreedings in the past and that the Nephilim, Rephaim, Zamzumim, Emim, Anakim, etc were ALL descended of such bloodlines.

Doug Hamp and I have responded in good grace, trying to answer your questions, but I think you’re arguing for argument’s sake now… despite your (final?) question about what is the ”issue” here.    I will answer that (last) question, but after this, we’re done here.    The issue is that Satan and his allies were – and still are – attempting to pollute the human bloodline.   God has made us to be a being that can unite its consciousness with His, through the action and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Only humans can have this.  We are special.   Satan and his allies attempt/ed to undermine this;  robbing humanity of its chance to know the Creator in the way he has planned for us since the Beginning.  Time after time, this angelic rebellion has been attempted and time after time, thwarted.  But Satan and his minions will indeed try one last time… indeed, Jesus says clearly that the End Times will be ”like the days of Noah”.   Not just the usual sins of Humanity, but our entire civilisation in the very near future, if not already – our very physical bloodlines! – will be polluted with non-human DNA.

The result of this will be a world culture that is not only struggling to know God because of Adam’s sin in us… but will be actively anti-God because the very DNA in it will make such entities utterly unable to find Christ.   That is why there will be a future last cleansing of the Earth;  the Tribulation.   But I trust we are safe in Jesus Christ;  for only He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.   Goodbye, Ken.   Stay with Christ and may God guide you in your path.

Ken Ammi

Well, sure, when you are asserting that some humans weren’t human (or weren’t fully human) it is incumbent upon to you evidence it—but, sure, maybe that’s because I’m a Jew and get touchy about such things.

“Human / Angelic inbreedings” resulted in Nephilim and they didn’t make it past the flood.

If you want to contradict Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5 then you can assert that they did—in some way, shape, or form.

FYI: “Zamzumim, Emim, Anakim” are all Rephaim and you can’t even get all Rephaim being “descended of such bloodlines” from anywhere in the whole Bible. The most you can do is to accept as trustworthy people whom God rebuked for what they said and demand that Anakim were “descended of such bloodlines”—but not in the LXX.

Note that your parting statement includes that “Satan and his allies were – and still are – attempting to pollute the human bloodline” and that you imply that God sent a flood to end all of that but He failed.

You also misquoted and misapplied Jesus since He said the very same things about the days of Noah and the days of Lot and it had utterly nothing to do with the Genesis 6 affair.

See, you say “That is why there will be a future last cleansing of the Earth;  the Tribulation” but you deny that the flood was such a cleaning when, in fact, the Bible is clear that the flood succeeded but nothing is said about the tribulation within the context of the Genesis 6 affair.

Shalom. Stay with Christ and may God guide you in your path.

Well, that was the end of that.

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 was due to the Hugh Ross Reasons To Believe video 28:19 RTB 101: Who Were the Nephilim?

I, Ken Ammi, commented

It is actually not accurate that “this subject” of Nephilim “pops up again and again as you look at other books of Scripture”: they are mentioned a grand total of two times (one reliably in Gen 6 and one unreliably, since it relates an “evil report” in Num 13).

Also no, it does not say in “in Genesis 6[:4] that they were present before the flood and after the flood”: the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verse later.

By that “evidentially” it also happened after the flood means that he recognizes that there is no scriptural description of such.

To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking: there is no indication whatsoever, except for the rebuked “evil report,” that Anakim have anything to do with Nephilim: Anakim are a subgroup of Rephaim and they are all regular humans.

There is no indication whatsoever that “King David King David’s mighty men wiped out the last so than the Nephilim”: this is what happens when you violate category distinctions and take it upon yourself to read “Nephilim” where that word (and that concept) does not appear.

Gen 6 is the only reliable description we have of them and it provides no physical description. Also, he is only opting for the high range of possibilities for Goliath’s height (he was a Repha) which is based on Greek manuscripts while Hebrew ones, plus Dead Sea Scrolls, plus Josephus have him at just shy of 7 ft. We have no physical description of Og (another Repha) and his bed fits the exact dimensions of a ritual bed, not one upon which he slept, where the male and female gods supposedly copulated.

There is no indication that “they,” plural” had “birth defects like six fingers and six toes”: that is only stated about one single person (another Repha).

That they are “all evil” is something else that is unknown: again, Gen 6 being the only reliable reference has them as being mighty and of renown, that is all.

The last of the Nephilim died in the flood so they could not have been “a threat to the emerging Hebrew nation” and there is no indication whatsoever that “God set up…a procedure where they could be eliminated from the human race”: God tells us many, many, many times why He is commanding such things and never states one single word about Nephilim nor relation to them nor any such thing.

It is unknown that “these individuals were tall and able to carry a minimum, in terms of Goliath, 250 pounds of weaponry and armor into battle”: since Goliath is said to have had someone helping him with his armor and also, you can watch any strongman/powerlifting competitions and see guys that are right around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.

That “there’s something non-human about these sons of God” is accurate: that is the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christian alike for centuries. In Job 38:7 the “sons of God” witnessed, at the very least, the creation of the Earth.

Taylor J. replied

If the nephalim of gen 6 aren’t divine beings, then I’m unsure what is being referenced in Jude 1:6. Also a sidenote, 1 Peter 3:19 seems to be talking about the watchers being imprisoned who are the divine beings who fathered the nephilim

M C chimed in with

To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking

I’m not sure I follow Ken. 

You referenced – Numbers 13:32-33 (ESV)

“So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report(dibbâh) 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.”

The word “dibbâh” doesn’t make it untrue it makes it not a good report. That’s consistent with it’s scriptural use elsewhere.

“The one who conceals hatred has lying lips, and whoever utters slander(dibbâh) is a fool.” Prov 10:18

“For I hear many whispering(dibbâh). Terror is on every side! ” Jer 20:10

“and you became the talk and evil gossip(dibbâh) of the people,” Ezek 36:3

So the sons of Anak the Anakim were Nephilim that’s what the passage says.

Deu 2:10

“(The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.”

Deu 2:19

“And when you approach the territory of the people of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.’ (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there—but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim—”

The Anakim (who come from the Nephilim) are accounted Raphaim , the Moabite name for Raphaim is Emim and the Ammonite name is Zamzummim

Not sure why you think that’s people inventing anything.  They appear to be words used in different cultures to mean the same thing.

Ken Ammi @M C

Indeed, I am the one noting that “To claim they show up under different names is to attempt to invent evidence that is lacking.”

The Numbers 13:32-33 issue is not the word dibbâh, is not how the report is labeled. The issue is that the report contains five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing—it contradicts the original report and embellishes it as well.

Friend, “that’s what the passage says” is much too vague. What is the narrative of the passage, what is the context of the passage, who does the passage quote, why did those whom it quotes say such things, what was the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc. are key questions.

In order to just say “that’s what the passage says” you would have to merely pick up one uncontextual statement, run with it, and build all-encompassing theories upon it since what “the passage says” are five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing and which contradicts other, reliable, passages.

Note that the texts you quoted state nothing about Nephilim, you are just inserting the concept of “Anakim (who come from the Nephilim).” Thus, when you say “They appear to be words used in different cultures to mean the same thing” you seem to miss that “Nephilim” are nowhere in that whole mix. In fact, we are told that the Anakim are named after a man named Anak—which is why they’re aka “the sons of Anak”—and not that they were fathered by Angels nor by Nephilim.

Indeed, “Nephilim/Giants occur when/whenever Sons of God have children with women” which was only pre-flood.

M C

you are just inserting the concept of “Anakim (who come from the Nephilim)

I didn’t insert anything. In Numbers 13:33 the scripture says …

English “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim”

Hebrew ” w šām rʾh ʾēṯ hǎ nep̄î·lîm bēn ʿǎnāq min hǎ nep̄î·lîm “

it contradicts the original report and embellishes it as well.

Numbers 13:22 They went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron. Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak , were there.

Numbers 13:28 However, the people who dwell in the land are strong, and the cities are fortified and very large. And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there

Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim

What contradiction ? in all three references to the people who dwelled in the land we are told the Anakim dwelt there.

Adding more detail to a statement doesn’t make it untrue.

Bass were there.

We saw bass there.

We saw fish , bass (who are fish)

Nephilim” are nowhere in that whole mix the sons of Anak—and not that they were fathered by Angels nor by Nephilim

Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm

gigas / nephilim occur when sons of God have children with women.

Hebrew – “ēṯ hǎ nep̄î·lîm bēn ʿǎnāq ” the Nephilim the sons of Anak

Greek – “kai ekei oraō o gigas” there we saw the giants

But we don’t need the hebrew statement “the nephilim the sons of Anak” to tie Rephaim to Nephilim if you use the Septuagint.

2 Kings 22:22 “And these four were born descendants of the gigas in Gath, the rapha , a household. And they fell by David’s hand and by his servant’s hand.

1 Chronicles 20:8  “This Rapha was born in Gath. All four were *gigas*, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

The Rapha (plural Raphaim) are Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim) ….

Duet 2:10 Formerly the Emim dwelled in it, a great and mighty and strong people, like the Anakim. Just as the Anakim, these also should be considered Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.

Emim , Anakim are Repahim …. Gigas(Nephilim)

Ken Ammi

Friend, to write in terms of “In Numbers 13:33 the scripture says” is far too generic: the questions to ask is what is being said, who said it, what is the content of the statement, what is the reaction to it, etc., etc., etc.

You were commenting on Deu 2:19 and wrote, “The Anakim (who come from the Nephilim)” which is when what “you quoted state nothing about Nephilim, you are just inserting the concept of ‘Anakim (who come from the Nephilim).’”

You are asking me to actually believe one of the five assertions made by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers within an “evil report” and whom God ends up rebuking. Their assertion about post-flood Nephilim, that Anakim are related to them (not in the LXX however) and that Nephilim were very tall are three of the assertions they made about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing. How can you believe them?

The contradiction is that the original report affirmed that the land flows with milk and honey (something stated circa 20 times in the Bible) but the ten rebuked spies assert it “eateth up the inhabitants thereof.”

Oddly, you say “‘Nephilim’ are nowhere in that whole mix after having quoted (the odd English rendering), “there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim” so they are in the mix of the “evil report” though not in the real-life on the ground at the time mix. So, are you reading that as that “we saw the Nephilim” does not mean “we saw the Nephilim” but rather, “we saw the Nephilim” but only as an a.k.a. for “the sons of Anak”? Because if so then you still have Anakim “who come from the Nephilim” so they would be the offspring of the offspring of those fathered by Angels even though you say “nor by Nephilim.”

From the “evil report” on which you are relying, you would not even be able to “tie Rephaim to Nephilim” since that’s about Anakim and they were a Rephaim subgroup so you still can’t assert all Rephaim are tied in to or with Nephilim.

Now, it is mistaken to say “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas / nephilim occur when sons of God have children with women” since the LXX (which typically as gigantes and gigantos rather than gigas but they are related terms, in any case) also renders (not even translates) “Nephilim” as gigantes/gigantos/gigas but also renders “Rephaim” as such and also renders “gibborim” as such as Rephaim did not “occur when sons of God have children with women” and neither did gibborim “occur when sons of God have children with women” since gibbor is merely a descriptive term that means might/mighty.

This is why your argument about 2 Kings 22:22 fails. This is also why there’s no way for you to substantiate the assertion, “Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim).”

M C

evil report

There’s no evil report ..the hebrew word “dibbah” never means evil ..

The comment “who come from the nephilim” wasn’t part of the report, it appears in () in the English rendering because the hebrew grammar shows it to be a comment appended by the scholars who copied the masoretic manuscripts.

All of the reports from all of the spies show that the Son’s of Anak where in the land.

Numbers 13:22 “the descendants of Anak , were there.”

Numbers 13:28 “And besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there”

Numbers 13:33 “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak”

Moses said …

“Only do not rebel against the LORD. And do not fear the people of the land, for they are bread for us. Their protection is removed from them, and the LORD is with us; do not fear them.”

Does any part of that statement say you were lying the people aren’t big and strong or that the Anakim weren’t there ? They were rebuked for not believing God would deliver the land to them in the face of the Ankim being present.

The comment entry about the Anakim being nephilim is there in the manuscript, you can choose to believe it or not.

M C

Now, it is mistaken to say Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas occur when sons of God have children

It’s not a mistake at all… I cited the Greek and Hebrew Lemma equivalents..

Do you understand what a lemma is ? It’s the recorded base word… the dictionary word that others are formed around.

The written manuscript (in hebrew or greek) contain the word surrounded in grammar that morphs the words,they can appear slightly differently as a result but they mean the same thing.

For Example.

English Lemma break = break, breaks, broke, broken and breaking in written forms.

that guy broke my bike, I saw him do it  or  I saw that guy break my bike

It means the same thing … the bike was broken !!   broke, broken, break .. are the same effective word that’s called word morphology.

Genesis 6:4 (LXX) “Now giants(hoi gigantes/ho gigas) were upon the land in those days, and after that, whenever the sons of God visited the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants (hoi gigantes/ho gigas)who were from long ago, the people of renown.”

Genesis 6:4 (ESV) “The Nephilim(nep̄i·lîmʹ/nep̄î·lîm) were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Manuscript transliterated  – Hebrew “nep̄i·lîmʹ” is Greek “hoi gigantes”

Lemma transliterated – Hebrew “nep̄î·lîm” is Greek “ho gigas” 

This is also why there’s no way for you to substantiate the assertion Gigas(Hebrew Nephilim)

So in Greek(LXX) lemma-gigas  occur whenever the sons of God father children with the daughters of men.

So in Hebrew(ESV) lemma-nep̄î·lîm occur whenever the sons of God father children with the daughters of men.

Looks pretty simple to substantiate.  Scripture tells you clear as day.  Greek-gigas and Hebrew-nep̄î·lîm  occur when the sons of God father Children with the daughters of Men.

M C

Their assertion about post-flood Nephilim, that Anakim are related to them (not in the LXX however)

“ho gigas” are everwhere in LXX.. (there’s another 10 passages if you’d like)

“ho gigas” only occur through one behaviour as noted in Gen 6:4

Genesis LXX 14:5 “In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and massacred the giants lemma-gigas who were in Ashtaroth Carnaim, and strong nations together with them, and the Emim who were in the city Shaveh,”

Genesis ESV 14:5 “In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim lemma-rep̄ā·ʾîm in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim,”

So the scholars writing in Hebrew use “rep̄ā·ʾîm” to indicate who was defeathed where as the in the Greek they use “gigas”

Numbers LXX 13:34 “And there we have seen the giants lemma-gigas , and we were, compared to them, like locusts; and surely we appeared likewise before them.”

Numbber ESV 13:33 “And there we saw the Nephilim lemma-nep̄î·lîm (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”

In Greek the “gigas” make the people look as locusts, in Hebrew the “nep̄î·lîm” make them look like locusts, only in Hebrew you have a comment that the anakim are “nep̄î·lîm”.

Deut 1:28 (ESV) “Where are we going up? Our brothers have made our hearts melt, saying, “The people are greater and taller than we. The cities are great and fortified up to heaven. And besides, we have seen the sons of the Anakim there.”

Deut 1:28 (LXX) “Where are we going?’ Our brothers disturbed our heart, saying, ‘There is a great and numerous nation, stronger than you, and great and walled cities as far as heaven. But we also saw sons of the giants lemma-gigas in that place.’

Hebrew sons of Anak, Greek sons of the giants.

Ken Ammi

What the report is called is not as relevant as that it contains falsehoods.

Your reading of v. 33 proves one falsehood since it has it that “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak” and we know that Nephilim were not sons of Anak but sons of the sons of God.

Indeed, that Anakim were in the land is well attested, but that Nephilim were in the land it not, nor that Anakim are related to Nephilim in any way, not that there were post-flood Nephilim (by any other name).

Thus, this is not about “you can choose to believe it or not” since the one and only reason for believing it would be one single verse spoken by unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishing spies within a dibbah report, who make 4-5 assertions that are utterly unknown in the whole rest of the Bible, who also contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshuah, God, and the rest of the Bible and whom God rebukes: why believe them?

You wrote, “Now, it is mistaken to say Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm gigas occur when sons of God have children It’s not a mistake at all” so you say it is and then it’s not. In any case, it is erroneous to say “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm” exclusively since that would be ignoring the other two major renderings with gigas (gigantes/gigantos) in the LXX which are for “Rephaim” and “gibbor/gibborim.”

Thus, indeed, “Greek-gigas and Hebrew-nep̄î·lîm occur when the sons of God father Children with the daughters of Men” (which is only in Gen 6:4) but Greek-gigas and Hebrew-Rephaim or gibbor(im) must be taken into account as well and prove that gigas implies nothing about height.

Such is why when you say “‘ho gigas’ are everwhere in LXX” you need to incorporate that beyond Num 13:33 those are references to Repahim, not Nephilim. So no, “rep̄ā·ʾîm” are not “different to gigas” since “gigas” is just rendering rep̄ā·ʾîm in that case but not in all cases. You might be committing a word-concept fallacy whereby you may think that whenever a word appears it always means the same thing.

Thus, it is not that in Num 13:33 “nep̄î·lîm” are “different” “to” “gigas” but they are different gigas.

Now, when you say “Sons of Anak in one translation , gigas in another” you are missing the fact that the case is “Nephilim in one translation , gigas in another” since in the LXX Nephilim are gigantes/gigantos (or gigas) while the Anakim are typically “Ενακιμ” not “γίγαντας”—and note that Anakim are not mention in the LXX’s Num 13:33.

M C

What the report is called is not as relevant as that it contains falsehoods

Ken I’ll say this as nice as possible, no where in sripture does it say the report was false, Moses , Joshua and Caleb didn’t call it a lie

they rebuked the people for failing to believe God would deliver them into the land if it was his will.

If Moses who wrote the Torah thought it was a lie he would have said so .. I believe Moses and the written word of God.

it is erroneous to say “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm 

In Genesis 6:4 In the LXX the Lemma in Greek is “Gigas” for the offspring of the sons of god and daughters of men.

In Genesis 6:4 in the Hebrew the lemma in Hebrew is “nep̄î·lîm” for the offspring of the sons of god and daughters of men.

Both the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts show Greek – “gigas” and Hebrew “nep̄î·lîm” are offspring of the same union.

Please explain how that simple concept is erroneous ?

Ill explain a lemma in languages again

A Lemma is the the dictionary word that others are formed around.

1)It is the word’s meaning.

2)The other variants of the word (with the same meaning) are written differently at times to support the grammar , tense and sentence structure etc.

Here is an example in English.

The word Break is the lemma..

Break = break, breaks, broke, broken and breaking in written forms.

Here is an example in a sentence ..

that guy broke my bike, I saw him do it  or I saw that guy break my bike * or *my bike is broken, I saw that guy do it

Three forms of the same word .. effectively means the same thing.

gigas = gigas, gigantes, gigantos

It’s why the translators from greek to English translate the word to Giant(s).. because that’s how languages work.

prove that gigas implies nothing about height

Genesis 6:4 LXX “Now giants (lemma-gigas, manuscript-gigantes) were upon the land in those days, and after that, whenever the sons of God visited the daughters of humans, they fathered children for themselves; those were the giants(lemma-gigas, manuscript-gigantes) who were from long ago, the people of renown.

1 Chron 20:8 LXX “This Rapha was born in Gath. All four were giants(lemma-gigas, manuscript-gigantes), and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.

Since you don’t understand what a lemma is . I found a passage for you with the same written manuscript word…gigantes

So you have gigantes after the flood being born .. you know what they are the union of and David and his men slew them .

Enough for you Ken or is the LXX now untrustworthy and untrue ?

Ken Ammi

Friend, it does not work that way: we don’t need to only accepted that something is false if someone has called it “false.” I noted, “it contains falsehoods.” And you can’t demand that “If Moses who wrote the Torah thought it was a lie he would have said so” since you can’t impose a subjective standard onto an author.

They make five assertions (or four, if we exclude the gloss) so these would have to be backed by something besides their one single verse in order to be accepted:

1) “it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof”: contradicts the original report and circa 20 other texts.

2) “all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature”: embellishes the original report and while we know that some Rephaim, such as Anakim, were subjectively “tall” there’s no indication that Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites were all “of a” subjectively “great stature.”

3) “we saw the giants [Nephilim]”: we are told circa five times that eight people and some animals survived so they did not, nor is there indication that they returned so they could not have been there and also embellishes the original report—wherein Nephilim were not mentioned when the groups whom they saw were listed.

4) “giants [Nephilim], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [Nephilim]”: this includes the gloss (as opposed to “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak”) and I am including it just in case someone else is interested in that bit, Anakim come from Anak who comes from Abrba with no indication that they are related to Nephilim nor indication of how that could even be a possibility.

5) “we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight”: this is the only thing we get that is even close to a physical description of Nephilim. In short, pun intended, “And there we saw the Nephilim the sons of Anak” is simply incoherent.

Thus, “they rebuked the people for failing to believe God would deliver them into the land” which is the motivation for them concocting a fear-mongering scare-tactic “don’t go in the woods” tall tale.

“Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm” is erroneous because it is myopic. As I already elucidated, you need to write that as “Greek – gigas = Hebrew -nep̄î·lîm AND ALSO Rephaim AND ALSO gibborim” and Rephaim and gibborim are not “offspring of the same union” as that which resulted in Nephilim.

Now, perhaps we could say that gigas, gigantes, gigantos  “effectively means the same thing” in that it “means” earth-born but the usage is very different: Nephilim, Repahim, gibborim are very different.

“the translators from greek to English translate the word to Giant(s)” only in the case of Nephilim and Rephaim, thankfully they dropped doing so for gibborim.

“prove that gigas implies nothing about height” sure: it means earth-born and we have no physical description of Nephilim so can’t just assume that referring to them as such implies any such a thing and, again, some Rephaim were tall but there’s no reason to think that “Repha” or “Repahim” or “gigas” or “gigantes” or “gigantos” implies any such thing as referring to one of their physical features. Now, “prove that gigas implies” something “about height.”

Indeed, “Genesis 6:4…No mention of height there” and an unreliable one in Num 13:33 so we have none.

As for “when you see ‘gigas’ you know then how they were created”: this is just a simple error and contradicts how any and all languages are used. There are no linguistics whereby a word can and must only ever mean one single thing any time that it is used.

For example, you are asserting that anyone who is gibbor was created via “sons of God visited the daughters of humans” so you just asserted that God Himself was created via “sons of God visited the daughters of humans.”

M C

this is just a simple error and contradicts how any and all languages are used

It’s not a simple error Ken its comprehension 101. You seem to struggle understanding what nouns , adjectives , adverbs , lemmas etc are and how word morphology works. Let’s use an English example.

Let’s say we are reading a history book about talking about ancient Egpyt.  You have the following paragraph.

Mules(noun) were about in those days, and also afterward, when male donkeys mated with female horses and they had offspring. These were the hardy(adjective) equidae of that time,  equidae of reknown.

You can comprehend from the passage that

-Mules were about ancient Egypt and also afterward.

-Mules are the offspring male donkey’s mate with female horses, they occur when this happens.

-They are Hardy  equine animals.

-they were well known for being hardy.

Reading the same book we read that all the mules and donkeys were destroyed by a fire except but some horses escaped.

We also read

In the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and stole(verb) the mules(noun) that  were in Ashtaroth Carnaim

You can comprehend from the two passages that…

-Horses escaped Ancient egypt but we know no male donkeys

-If there were mules in Ashtaroth Carnaim then male donkeys must have come from somewhere at some time.

Let’s replace donkey with Son’s of God , female horses with daughters of men and mules with gigas…

It’s not tough to comprehend where mules  come from here in the example so it shouldn’t be tough to comprehend were gigas come from….

M C

For example, you are asserting that anyone who is gibbor was created via sons of God visited the daughters of humans so you just asserted that God Himself was created via sons of God visited the daughters of humans

I asserted no such thing .  You really struggle with junior school english … Nouns and Adjectives … again.

In Hebrew the word “gibbor” (the singular form of gibborim) can be used two ways.

As an adjective – mighty, brave

As a noun –  a mighty warrior, a brave man 

The grammar that surrounds the use of the word determines if it’s a noun or adjective.

The Hebrew to English translation of Genesis 6:4 is

“These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. “

This sentence structure shows you it’s a noun here.  It also shows you they were the might men of a specific time period … of old.

When God is called gibbor it’s being used as an adjective … God is mighty or the mighty God.

M C

Now, perhaps we could say that gigas, gigantes, gigantos – effectively means the same as in that it means earth-born but the usage is very different

gigas it means earth-born – now prove that gigas implies something about height

The septuagint didn’t invent the word gigas, gigantes or gigantos .. they existed in Greek a long time before it was used in the Septuagint.

The words are recorded  Greek mythological works , homers poetic works (750bc) and other works around the same time – gigas (singular) gigantes (plural) were a race of great strength and aggression, though not necessarily of great size.

In Greek mythology the gigantes were born from the goddess Gaia (who was goddess of the Earth). The greek word there is “gegenes”

Nephilim using the laws of hebrew word morphology had to come from the Word “naphil” it  is of Aramaic origin it’s also found in the talmud and the midrash.

Again the two words mean the same thing …Giant

I never said Gigas had anything to do with height …. you keep adding that.

Ken Ammi

I’d hate to think that we’ve talking past each other due to miscommunications since this has been a fascinating discussion for which I thank you.

I utterly despise debating metaphors so will break it down to that what we don’t have in the Bible is that “some…escaped” the flood (if such is what you implied in the metaphor). Rather, we have the exact opposite (a handful of times at that).

We simply have no reliable reference to Nephilim after the flood.

Again, when you are reading of post-flood gigas in reliable texts, you are reading about Rephaim who are utterly unrelated to Nephilim.

Thus, to assert that gigas are gigas and all gigas are the same is an example of “a simple error and contradicts how any and all languages are used.”

For example, humans are called “men” and Angels are called “men” and Nephilim are called “men” but that does no mean that those three sort of “men” are categorically of the same origin.

It seems that you are fixated on semantics while I am pointing out that you are basing your views on assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all—and you can’t get around that fact by parsing grammar (nor by nitpicking someone for whom English is a second language).

And if you are not arguing in favor of post-flood Nephilim after all then this has been a waste of time since that was the main point was making initially (along with the issue of height).

The point about gibborim is that the word, noun or adjectives, tell us nothing about the origin of the person being described as such but only about one of their characteristics.

Thus, Nephilim were “might men of a specific time period” and while others who are described as “might men” were not.

I’m unsure why you went into the history of the words gigas, gigantes or gigantos. Speaking of grammar, it was difficult to discern if you were claing that “the two words” that “mean the same thing” were “gegenes” or “naphil” or “Nephilim and “naphil” (FYI: naphal is the proposed Hebrew root, naphiyla is the proposed Aramaic root).

In any case, to say “the two words mean the same thing …Giant” only begs the question of what you mean by “Giant” and I can only discern that you mean “earth-born.”

Now, that, “lemma…can appear slightly differently as a result but they mean the same thing” does not seem to be the case. That “The written manuscript (in hebrew or greek) contain the word surrounded in grammar that morphs the words” is not just about morphology but about that context determines the meaning.

Thus, it is not the case that “they can appear slightly differently as a result but they mean the same thing” since the surrounding grammar, the context, and not etymology, is what defines the word. That is why in the LXX gigas/gigantes/gigantos is used in three different ways and those three ways do not “mean the same thing.”

M C

I don’t think we are talking past each other I can see how the example I did might prompt that question.   I do appreciate your position of context and what it might mean etc.

We are both debating about nephilim or giants existing post flood, I’m pretty sure we aren’t arguing about how they were created pre flood.

I don’t think any Nephilim/Giants created before the flood escaped.    The Greek “whenever” or hebrew “when” with the grammar  don’t clarify if it was single incident or multiple at multiple times. I think your position is it didn’t happen and mine is that the possibility exists that it did , thats what I was trying to show in the mule eg.

We agree on the same points for Gibborim. It’s a description of Characteristics the Nephilim before the flood had and a host of other people after the flood that weren’t Nephilim.

I take your point that you believe the rest of the bible doesn’t seem to know anything about it , I’m guess I’m arguing that is does and by the use of the grammar and words and the consistency of God’s action towards those linked to the nephilim/giant offspring show that there is an unfolding backdrop to the conquest of the promised land.  I think that’s really the debate we are having.

I’ll post another reply with the words conversation so this doesn’t go on forever

Ken Ammi

Since I never know what YT is doing with comments, I’ll just note that I see the comment that ends with “I’ll post another reply with the words conversation so this doesn’t go on forever” but only got the follow up via an email notification, I don’t see that follow up comment here—oi vey.

No, not “nephilim or giants existing post flood” since the only post-flood “giants” are Rephaim, not Nephilim. Thus, this would be about “how they” Nephilim “were created pre flood” but not Rephaim.

Agreed, “I don’t think any Nephilim/Giants created before the flood escaped.”

I can elucidate if you prefer but as for whenever/when v. 4 tells us to what it refers (the days and after) which is based on v. 1 and has nothing to do with the flood, which is not mentioned for the very first time until v. 17. Thus, the “multiple times” did occur but where all pre-flood.

Yes, agree on gibborim.

Nephilim came to a full and final end at the flood—end of biblical story. Thus, no one post-flood is a Nephil nor related to them. As for “God’s action towards those linked to the nephilim/giant offspring…” 1) again, none of them were “linked to the nephilim/giant offspring” and 2) have you read the various times God Himself elucidated why He commanded such doing regarding the “conquest of the promised land”?

We may be getting into the area of word/concept fallacies. For example, imagine that a word MEANS 15 ft. tall, that still would not mean that 15 ft. tall is how it’s being USED at any given time. For example, I’ve been called a “giant” many, many, many times and I’m an unimpressive 6 ft. even (in the modern day USA).

Thus, when you say, “Greek gigas = was the root for giant. Gigantes comes from Gigas” that linguistic, semantic, etymological fact does not necessarily tell us how it’s being USED in any given case: only the context does that.

Also, “Greek gigas = was the root for giant. Gigantes comes from Gigas” and you noted gigas/gigantes comes from “‘gegenes’ = Earthborn – children of the Goddess Gaia and a human” but we can’t then conclude that Gen 6 is telling us that Nephilim were “children of the Goddess Gaia and a human” (and in Greek myth the gegenes/gigas/gigantes/Titans were children of Gaia and Uranus so when you say “Gigas…were the offspring of the Titans and humans” it may be due to differing Greek mythologies).

Indeed, “Size wasn’t attached to the gigas specifically in Greek” but “gigantes” does “mean earthborn.”

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

Again, “arguing ‘Giant’ the union of ‘gods’ and humans” is only the case with Nephilim (as “Giants”) nor with Rephaim (as “Giants”—wow, I’m SO sick of the term “Giants”!). Thus, that “This Rapha was born in Gath. All four were giants(gigantes)” does not correlate that Rapha with “Genesis 6:4…gigantes as the pure form of the word used for such a union.” And Isaiah 13:3 and 14:9, “I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones [gibbor] for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness….Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead [rephaim/γίγαντες] for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.”

Interestingly, dead/rephaim as chief ones touches upon the Ugaritic literature which had recently deceased kings and heroes as kings and heroes but after kings and heroes had been dead for a while, they were then referred to as rephaim.

M C

Thanks Ken, I don’t think we will ever 100% agree on the details but I really do appreciate the time taken to respond and present your point and the learnings for me around them, you haven’t wasted your time responding.   I think our common ground is that the offspring of the sons of God and women weren’t just men and that they are now gone 🙂  God bless.

Ken Ammi

I likewise appreciate the interaction and yes, we can agree on that much.

Mark Tester chimed in with

Just a clarification: Hugh’s point about Goliath being able to lift 250 lbs of armor isn’t a statement about people in general not being able to lift that much weight. He’s connecting that to what we know about really tall humans. When people start getting above 8ft, they have a lot more trouble just carrying themselves around, much less themselves plus a bunch of armor. If Goliath was 7 ft instead of 9 ft (and human), it wouldn’t be as remarkable (though i doubt he would be very maneuverable or have any stamina with that much weight).

Ken Ammi

Frankly, his height is irrelevant, I mean what does it have to do with anything: it certainly has utterly zero to do with Nephilim.

So, again, there’s zero indication Goliath lifted 250 lbs and a 7 ft tall Goliath would have no problem lifting that much.

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

 

See my various books here.

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

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

This discussion took placed due to the video Did the Giant Bloodlines of Genesis 6 survive? Are there hybrids today? Dr. Michael Heiser to which I, Ken Ammi, commented

As helpful as Dr. Heiser is regarding such issues, one of his failures is that he merely picks up Num 13:33 and runs with it but that is an “evil report” the speakers of which were rebuked by God. The entire theory of 1) post-flood Nephilim, 2) that anyone, such as Anakim, are related to them post-flood, and 3) that they were very, very tall is literally base on one single verse.

 

Jean replied

I’ll take his credentials over yours…thanks.

 

Jason LeVeck chimed in with

Remember, Dr. Heiser is an expert in the Hebrew language and studies the bible from that standard and also other “gold” standard biblical languages. KJV is an absolute butchery, i’d say even a form of heresy. Hebrew and English don’t translate very well and often times comparing a Hebraic verse and English verse, a person finds they say two disparate things, if the actual meaning is not totally lost all together.

 

Ken Ammi @Jean

So, are you claiming that he is omniscient and infallible or something?

 

C lightning replied to Jason LeVeck

i can agree the KJV is weak… lets remember Christ spoke Aramaic, so we should learn from that language… translating from Greek, to Hebrew, to old English to Modern English is ridiculous

 

Gruuvin1 Ken Ammi

your logic is ridiculous. You ignore other evidence of giants, and you think because someone trusts you less than Heiser because of his credentials that somehow calls him infallible?

 

Ken Ammi

Sorry, I don’t understand: I didn’t say one single word about whatever you mean by “giants.” Also, I’m unsure what you mean by “somehow calls him infallible?,” I just asked a question.

 

Gruuvin1

read your own posts, dude! You mentioned infallible and very very tall (look up what giant means). Sorry man… You are a silly troll, you type nonsense you won’t own. For that, you won’t get another response from me.

 

Ken Ammi

So, apparently, you’re incapable of actually discussing these issues—sharpening iron with iron—and since you appear to be worldly and may even put a man, Dr. Heiser, on a pedestal, you will just be a jerk and run away—how very sad, please repent.

 

Gruuvin1

troll on, fool.

 

Ken Ammi

Are you a Christian? If so, please repent.

 

 

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

 

See my various books here.

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

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