Category: Uncategorized

Pastor Jeff Wickwire asked and answered What is the truth behind the NEPHILIM of Genesis 6? due to that, “while hosting or cohosting the national Bible question and answer call-in show called ‘To every man an answer’…many callers have heard is the teaching that the ‘sons of God’ found in Genesis 6 are fallen angels. And that they somehow morphed into flesh and blood men to have sexual intimacy with earthly women to produce a purported half man, half demon race of giants called the Nephilim.”

At this point, since he’s relating the views of others, I will just note that we ought to keep an eye out for answers to my key questions:

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

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

Do those two usages agree?

We must keep an eye out since he noted, “giants called the Nephilim” but we don’t yet know what he means—though, we can guess.

He reviews, “two views on this” and first considers the Sethite view yet, as he notes that, “in Genesis 5 (context is everything) you’ll see that the whole chapter is dedicated to tracing the lineage of Seth” he notes, “Seth was Adam and Eve’s third son” which may or may not be the case: just because Cain, Abel, and Seth are listed in a row that doesn’t necessarily mean they were the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd born since they could have been focused upon since there was something notable to say about them.

He then makes a typical Sethite view statement which is, “Seth in chapter 5 is clearly shown to be the righteous lineage, while the lineage of Cain is the wicked lineage.” That’s mythology, prejudice, and only causes more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

It’s myth because there no indication of entire righteous and entirely wicked lineages and so that’s also why it’s prejudicial. Appealing to one single sin by Cain and two by Lamech is very, very, very far from condemning an entire lineage.

The problematic part comes in when that view expects us to believe that since, as Pastor Jeff Wickwire elucidates it, “‘sons of God’ is referring to the righteous line of Seth” and the “daughters of men” were wicked Cainites then it was, for some unknown reason, exclusively male Sethites and exclusively female Cainites—and, apparently those male Sethites were so very righteous that they sinned so terribly that their sin served as the premise for the flood—go figure.

As for the, “claim that the phrase ‘sons of God’ refers to fallen angels…never in all the Word of God is the phrase ‘sons of God’ used to refer to a fallen, evil person or being” yet, he can see that, “It is always a phrase reserved for the righteous, including the angels in Job that are twice described as ‘sons of God’”: it’s actually three times but, who’s counting?

I, who hold to the sons of God in the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, view have no problem with that, “never in all the Word of God is the phrase ‘sons of God’ used to refer to a fallen, evil person or being” since such is how they Angels were referenced before they sinned and were never referred to thusly afterward.

He then wrote, “angels are spirit beings, not human. They can ‘appear’ as human, and did so several times in the Bible.” There’s no indication that Angels are, “spirit beings,” they are certainly “not human,” by definition, there’s no indication that, “They can,” merely, “‘appear’ as human” and never, “did so several times in the Bible.” Rather, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology.

What’s interesting, and typical of that sort of faulty premise, is that he begins with the mere assertion that, “angels are spirit beings” and then reads that unevidenced man-made tradition into texts so that he concludes, “They can ‘appear’ as human.” Yet, for example, he notes, “Two angels appearing as men visited Abraham before Sodom’s destruction” but that text, which is Gen 18-19, doesn’t say a single word about them having been spirits not merely appearing as men. See, people such as Pastor Jeff Wickwire read about Angels described as men—period, full stop—and inset into those texts something they never even imply. He’s not exegeting, he’s eisegeting.

Even worse, he wrote, “Hebrews exhorts us, ‘Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some have unwittingly entertained angels’ (13:2). These are angels appearing as men, not actual men.” Well, Angels, and Nephilim, are referred to as man/men since they look just like human males which is why it’s possible that we might, “unwittingly entertained angels.”

Based on his faulty premise, he goes on to argue:

…since angels are spirit beings they would literally have to morph into a real flesh and blood man complete with DNA, a gene pool, spermatozoa, and sex organs to marry and produce offspring.

Remember, the golden rule of all creation is that every living thing reproduces only and exclusively “after their kind” (Genesis 1:24). So how could spirit beings produce human offspring?

Even Jesus described angels as sexless: “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”—Mark 12:25

Nowhere in all the Bible do we find an angel with the ability to create or procreate. They are created, not creators. They’re never once shown in Scripture having power to create.

They can only appear as something they’re not. As Paul warns “Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”—2 Cor. 11:14

The word “transforms” means “to change in appearance,” to don a disguise. It has ZERO to do with actually becoming a different being.

It saddens me that a pastor could compound so many biblically inaccurate assertions in to such a short statement. Yet, since I have attempted to specialize in such issues, I am aware of the pitfalls of those who appear to comment on them based on common knowledge and man-made tradition—which means they’re better off not posting such things on the WORLD WIDE web, mind you.

Again, “angels are spirit beings” is a mere assertion which he employes as a faulty premise.

As for, “morph…DNA, a gene pool, spermatozoa, and sex” well, Angels are described as looking just like human males and performing physical actions and without any indication that such isn’t their ontology. Why would they only be missing THE key features of the male anatomy?

As for, “every living thing reproduces only and exclusively ‘after their kind’”: Angels are always described as looking like human males, we were created “a little lower” than them, and we can reproduce with them so, by definition, we’re of the same basic “kind.”

Note that he asserted, “Jesus described angels as sexless” but quoted a statement that doesn’t even hint at any such thing: many sexed humans have not married nor been given in marriage so marriage in and of itself, or lack thereof, doesn’t have anything to do with sexual organs.

We just read what Jesus said and it’s that, note the qualifying term, “angels in heaven” so, the loyal ones, “neither marry nor are given in marriage” which is why those who took it upon themselves to do so are considered sinners, having, “left their first estate” in order to do so, as Jude put it.

Note that it’s only after rejecting the Angel view of Gen 6 that he can then assert, “Nowhere in all the Bible do we find an angel with the ability to create or procreate.” In fact, Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

As for that such is the case because, “They are created, not creators” that’s incoherent since humans are created and creators.

We already reviewed how, “They can only appear as something they’re not” is a mere assertion and continues to be so since the quote from Paul well firstly, Satan isn’t an Angel, he’s a Cherub (Ezekiel 28:14). Secondly, it’s tricky to deal in, “change in appearance…don a disguise” and not, “becoming a different being” since Paul was referring to changing appearance as in who one appears, how one comes across, and not morphology and disguising what one is and also not morphology. What Paul actually wrote was about humans first, “such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.” Thus, this pertains to pretending to be someone, something, one is not: and Satan pretends to be a messenger, the meaning of Angel, of God but isn’t.

Next, Pastor Jeff Wickwire wrote, “the whole notion of a hybrid half man, half devil is straight out of ancient mythology.” The Angel view is just that, an Angel view and not a Devil view so it’s misrepresenting the view to invent the term, “half devil” yet, I get his hyperbolic meaning, of course. He doesn’t seem to consider that, “ancient mythology” got the notion of hybrids from the real event recorded in Gen 6—and then expanded upon and added to in this or that way post-Tower of Babel as such commonly known and shared history came, with time and telling, to be called myth and legend.

He next mischaracterizes the Angel view again as, “half man, half demon view” and tackles, “two New Testament passages are offered to support the” Angel view:

2 Peter 2:4 “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;”

And Jude 6, “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day.”

His take is:

The 2 Peter verse simply describes what we already knew—one third of heaven rebelled with Lucifer and were cast to the earth under the judgment of God. You have to read into it the notion that its about fallen angels impregnating women and coming under judgment for it.

This verse says NOTHING about Noah’s time or Nephilim.

The Jude verse also tells us what we already knew—the angels that rebelled with Lucifer “didn’t keep their proper domain (their place in heaven), and left their abode (dwelling place).” They rebelled against God by leaving their rightful place in the heavenlies, NOT by morphing into a hybrid half man, half devil.

There’s no indication of, “rebelled with” but rather that, Lucifer’s fall was due to the Gen 3 event and the Angels’ fall was due to the Gen 6 event. The only correlation is that Lucifer had something to do with their fall as he’s depicted as a dragon who’s tail cast them to Earth (Rev 12).

Note that he tells us in mere passing that, “They rebelled against God by leaving their rightful place” but didn’t bother telling us what they did, only that they left.

As for, “You have to read into it the notion that its about fallen angels impregnating women and coming under judgment for it. This verse says NOTHING about Noah’s time or Nephilim” well, I already noted that Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined refer to a sin of Angels, place that sin to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin which occurred after the Angels, “left their first estate,” after which they were incarcerated, and there’s only a one-time fall/sin of Angels in the Bible.

He then comments, “It is entirely possible that the Nephilim were simply giants through genetics. Giant people are around today. The tallest human in recorded…” Thus, let us review the key questions:

What’s Pastor Wickwire’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”? Something to do with subjectively unusual height and note that he merely asserted that Nephilim were subjectively usually tall yet, we’ve no reliable physical description of them so their height is a non-issue, an argument from silence.

As for, what’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? It merely renders (doesn’t even translate), “Nephilim” in two verses or, “Rephaim” in 98% of all others.

Thus, do those two usages agree? No.

He ends by reiterating the mythical prejudicial Sethite view, “righteous line of Seth…Cain’s lineage—the ungodly lineage…righteous lineage.”

His last line is, “In summary, these are some (not all) of the reasons I struggle with the whole half man, half devil teaching of the Nephilim. Thanks for reading my ramblings!” Yet, what he ought to struggle with is that virtually every argument he posed is based on fundamental level mischaracterizations of Angelology and accepting a very problematic late-comer of a view. The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the “Angel view” as I proved in my book, “On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?: A Survey of Early Jewish and Christian Commentaries Including Notes on Giants and the Nephilim.”

Oh, as for exclusively male sons of God and exclusively female daughters of men: the Angel view makes sense of that since, again, Angels look just like human males.

Update: I made Pastor Wickwire aware of my article and he replied:

thanks for the hearty rebuttal! While I still find the half man, half devil view impossible on just about every level, it was interesting to see your side.

In turn, I noted:

Thank you for your consideration. I must say that it troubles me that I noted that no one holds to “half man, half devil” but you repeat that again.

In any case, who did find it possible were the overwhelming majority of the earliest Jewish and Christian commentators for virtually a millennia with hardly another blip on the radar–and when Jews and Christians agree, we should pay close attention ;o)

He replied:

I would encourage you to go to the following site and give it a read. It fully explains my beliefs on this topic:

https://www.ligonier.org/…/who-are-sons-god-genesis-6

Who Are the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6?

I replied:

Appreciate the tip.

I don’t reject the Sethite view because I’m unaware of it rather, I reject it because I’m aware of it.

It’s a late-comer of a view that’s based on myth, based on prejudice, and only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

I included Sproul’s views in my book, “The Pastoral Nephilim And Giants: What Do Pastors Teach and Preach?”

He noted:

the Sethite view a myth? When it’s straight out of Genesis? Wow. Well, we certainly differ on this. Blessings!

I replied:

There’s literally not one single word in Genesis about an entire lineage of Sethites who were holy/righteous/Godly (and terrible sinners) nor an entire lineage of Cainites who were unholy/unrighteous/unGodly nor that exclusively male Sethies married exclusively female Cainites nor why there’d be anything wrong with those marriage–which is why the myth had to be concocted, in order to merely assert that there was something wrong with it since the holy/righteous/Godly Sethite were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood.

He commented:

wrong. The line of Seth is the lineage of faith. From their descendants Messiah was born. It was they who began to “call out on the name of the Lord” in Gen. 4:26. The Scriptures clearly present the Sethite line as the line of faith, and the Cainite line as the opposite. One of God’s clear directives to the righteous was to never intermarry with the ungodly. This was not the ONLY reason God sent judgment. But it was a sign of universal apostasy from God. Again, the notion that fallen angels copulated with earthly women is absurd on every level. and again, never in all the word of God does God call the wicked his sons. Only the righteous enjoyed that moniker. Anyway, we’re not going to agree on this. God’s best be yours!

I retorted:

But Pastor, how do you conclude “the lineage of faith” (whom, on your view, were quite faithless when it came down to it) based on that, “It was they who began to “call out on the name of the Lord” in Gen. 4:26”? What has that to do with every single individual in that entire lineage?

Likewise with Cainites: you condemn every single one of them when we can only point to one single sin of one of them and two sins of another one of them: it’s ungraceful and unjust to condemn an entire lineage based on three sins of two people.

“From their descendants Messiah was born” along with non-Sethite Gentiles.

“One of God’s clear directives to the righteous” many, many centuries post-flood, “was to never intermarry with the ungodly.”

But again, you’re also basing that on the myth and prejudice I noted.

That which is “absurd on every level” to you subjectively isn’t a standard and you just referred to the earliest church fathers as “absurd” as well as Jude and Jews before them.

And Pastor, please don’t argue just to argue or ignore arguments and reply as if they were never made since when it comes to, “never in all the word of God does God call the wicked his sons” I addressed that in the article that you read by noting, “I, who hold to the sons of God in the Genesis 6 affair, as I term it, view have no problem with that, “never in all the Word of God is the phrase ‘sons of God’ used to refer to a fallen, evil person or being” since such is how they Angels were referenced before they sinned and were never referred to thusly afterward.”

Sometimes people don’t agree because one of them is mistaken.

Shalom!

 

 

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 LA Marzulli’s video THE WHEEL OF THE GIANTS after a certain RandomChristianMusings commented

I love your style, Mr. Marzulli. You were the first person, who happens to be a believer, that taught me about the Giants and the Nephilim. I realize you can’t answer every comment. I get it. However, I simply had to give you a big “thank you” for teaching me Biblical truths that my Pastors SHOULD HAVE taught me, but neglected to. God bless you and people like Timothy Alberino who teach those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear the truth. Shalom, my brother <3

Ken Ammi

I hate to be so blunt but it’s obvious that LA was the first person that taught you about the “Giants and the Nephilim” since that’s part of the confusion he teaches: “Giants and the Nephilim” means “Nephilim and the Nephilim” since, contextually, “Giants” in your English Bible, is just rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim.” Also, he teaches post-flood Nephilim but the Bible doesn’t. And why does he teach Nephilim were “Giants” (implying unusual height: another un-biblical teaching) and claims to have their skulls but can only ever show us regular sized skulls?

Murica N Cars

I beg to differ. It says clearly there were giants in those days and after, as in the context of after the flood. One of Noah’s kids married a woman that had the genetics so some of the kids had the gene as well.

Ken Ammi

No, no: I beg to differ—pretty please! ;o)

If you mean “Nephilim” then please stick to that word or this will get increasingly confusing.

Now, such is not the case since “It says clearly there were [Nephilim] in those days and after, as in the context of” “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men…” that’s what the verse actually states, that’s the verse telling you to which days it’s referring.

You say “after the flood” but the flood isn’t even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.

Lastly, due to that misunderstanding, you are forced to literally invent that “One of Noah’s kids married a woman that had the genetics so some of the kids had the gene as well” which implies that God failed, He meant to be rid of them but couldn’t get the job done, He missed that loophole.

Suzanne Hartmann

Genesis 6:4  The Nephilim   

הַנְּפִלִ֞ים (han·nə·p̄i·lîm)    Strong’s Hebrew 5303: 1) giants, the Nephilim  BOTH MEANINGS get your facts straight before you criticize please.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I literally wrote the book on such sources and resources so I understand why Strong’s (which isn’t inspired) presents that as one usage.

You should also ask why they do that, especially considering that no Hebrew etymologist would say that “Nephilim” means or even implies what you’re thinking of as “giants”–which isn’t even what English Bibles mean when they use the English word “giants.”

See my book “Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.”

Also, you say “Strong’s Hebrew 5303: 1) giants…” but you then have to ask what Strong’s means by “giants,” what the usage was when that was published, etc. In other words, again, why does Strong’s even say that?

Thomas Stickle

you have read that Og, King of Bashan and Goliath lived after the Flood, correct? You also know there were more giants right?

Ken Ammi

Friend, if your English Bible employs the English word “giant” then please note that in two verse it is rendering (not even translating) “Nephilim” and in the 98% of others its rendering “Rephaim” and it never, ever, implies anything about height whatsoever.

So, when you refer to Og and Goliath, please note that you’re referring to two Rephaim, neither was a Nephil—nor could they have been.

Also, I’m unsure why you include them amongst what you seem to imply were subjectively tall people since we’ve no physical description of Og whatsoever and Goliath was, most reliably, just shy of 7 ft. Yet, that brings the point about subjectively unusual height into play since sure, Goliath was tall at just shy of 7 ft. compared to the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft.

[By now, I wrote an entire book about Og, see The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?]

Murica N Cars

ah yes demons are the disembodied spirits of the giants. As for the other it was just a suggestion, but based on the severity of Gods punishment for the 1st infraction (chained in darkness etc etc…) I find it highly unlikely there was a 2nd incursion from fallen angels. As for God “failing@ maybe he knew it would happen like that and planned for them to get wiped out in Canaan, we just don’t really know do we?

Ken Ammi

What makes you think “demons are the disembodied spirits of the giants”?

What do you mean by “giants”?

There were not post-flood incursions of fallen Angels.

There’s no indication Nephilim “get wiped out in Canaan” and yes, we know perfectly well if we just read the Bible and ignore pop-researchers who make a living spinning neo-theo-sci-fi tall tales.

Murica N Cars

yes I had another message I submitted but felt that it came off as me being a way that I wasn’t, so I deleted it and rewrote it. As for giants, I believe that there were at least 15-18ish foot hybrid giants and due to the genetic corruption God wiped them all out with the flood.

Ken Ammi

Friend, recall that I had asked, “What makes you think ‘demons are the disembodied spirits of the giants’?”

I noted, “There were not post-flood incursions of fallen Angels.”

I also noted, “There’s no indication Nephilim ‘get wiped out in Canaan…’”

I had also asked, “What do you mean by ‘giants’?” and you replied, “As for giants, I believe that there were at least 15-18ish foot hybrid giants and due to the genetic corruption” we at least agree, “God wiped them all out with the flood.”

But be careful about defining “giants” as “at least 15-18ish foot hybrid” since:

1. The English word “giants” in English Bibles implies no such thing whatsoever, it has nothing to do with height at all.

2. The English word “giants” in English Bibles refers to “hybrid” Nephilim in Gen 6:4, reliably, and Num 13:3, unreliably (since that’s part of an evil report). But it also refers to Rephaim in 98% of all over cases but Rephaim were not hybrids.

So, as for “at least 15-18ish foot” I’ve no idea where you’re getting that:

1. We’ve no reliable description of Nephilim so you can’t know they were “at least 15-18ish foot.”

2. The only contextually relevant description of Rephaim we have is that some of them, such as the Anakim subgroup/clan, were “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

Murica N Cars

interesting. I’m still looking into everything and will continue until I die. As long as you believe God sent his only Son to legally accept our sins and die for them for all mankind  the other stuff will eventually fall into place. Do you believe God sent his only Son to die for your sins?

Ken Ammi

Yes I do, thanks for asking—I’m a Messianic Jew. If you’re interested, I can cut you a deal on my various books about Nephilim and “giants” or even “Is Jesus the Messiah? A Judaism vs. Judaism Debate”: https://www.amazon.com/Ken-Ammi/e/B071NW4F4W%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

Murica N Cars

also says in Bible Amorites were tall as cedars.

“Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, Whose height was like the height of the cedars, And he was as strong as the oaks; Yet I destroyed his fruit above And his roots beneath.

Amos 2:9

Ken Ammi

So, what is the mathematical ratio based equation result of a person’s strength vs. the strength of an oak?

Murica N Cars

I would say more than a 2×4 for sure

Ken Ammi

Indeed, no one knows, no one cares, and no one thinks about it until I mention it because this is not about interacting with the text, it’s about neo-theo-sci-fi tall tales. I mean, just listen to when I brought this up to Rolon.

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 Class is in Session: Free Education for Aron Ra and Dr. Dan Stern Cardinale – Y Chromosome Noah.

I, Ken Ammi, commented

You should have had them holding up Darwin’s corpse (metaphorically, his dead theory). It’s simple: on an Atheistic-Evolutionary view, there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to believe in the Atheistic-Evolutionary view and so, nor that we’re accidentally existing apes. It’s utterly self defeating. This is the sort of thing I’ve been wanting to do a show with you about, Donny.

Tony Atkinson replied

Firstly , evolution is not atheistic. It makes no claims about whether a god exists .

Secondly , nobody disagrees that there’s  no “universal imperative “ to accept evolution . I’m not sure why  you think this defeats  whether  evolution is true or not .

Professor Neturman chimed in with

Your rambling doesn’t fit the Creationistic Worldview of Creationists discoveries in the fields of science.  Ironically Creationists can’t even argue as a whole yet make claims of superior knowledge.  Is this why they don’t believe in using the concensus of evidence?

Ken Ammi

Perhaps “evolution is not atheistic” but I specifically referred to “an Atheistic-Evolutionary view.”

“nobody disagrees that there’s  no ‘universal imperative ‘” is like a triple negative. You seem to imply that everyone agrees that there’s no universal imperative to accept evolution which means you agree with me.

I stated nothing about whether evolution is true or not (first, we’d have to define “evolution”) but only that if Atheistic-Evolution is true then there’d be no universal imperative to believe that it’s true.

Tony Atkinson

the triple negative thing . Yep. Poorly worded .

To be clear . I don’t see any reason why there would be a universal imperative to “believe “ anything .

Whether evolution is true or not is unrelated to whether any one believes it. Scientists would argue that they don’t care whether it’s true or not .  They just accept that evolution is the current best model that  explains why and how life diversified and produces novel predictions that can be tested . If it fails to make predictions or its predictions are falsified then its discarded as a model

Ken Ammi

Interestingly, going against the consensus is what has led to the greatest scientists making the greatest scientific discoveries.

Professor Neturman

I’ve been following science for over 50 years. Someone like yourself should probably just listen more and talk a lot less

Ken Ammi

Indeed, on Atheism there’s no universal imperative to believe or disbelieve anything: which brings the Atheist missionaries’ endeavors to a full and grinding halt.

There’s no use pondering “Whether evolution is true or not” until we defined “evolution.”

“evolution is the current…model” is interesting since biology is a science but evolution is a worldview philosophy.

Basically, every generation since the late 1800s has been told that “evolution” is a fact due to thus and such. Then those things get discredited. The next generation is told “evolution” is a fact due to this and that. Then those things get discredited. The next generation is told “evolution” is a fact due to what have you. Then, you guessed it.

Tony Atkinson

none of that made sense . It’s the creationists that have the problem defining evolution because (as you have demonstrated ) you don’t know what it is .

Here’s a challenge :

correctly define “evolution” in a couple of short sentences and then give me testable evidence why it isn’t happening. Saying God did it isn’t testable evidence.

Ken Ammi

So, I take it that you’re saying you’ll run away from issues that are inconvenient to your worldview and continue on as if you didn’t hit an impenetrable brick wall.

Going back to the issue: what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to provide testable evidence?

Saying time did it, matter did it, nothing did it, chance did it isn’t testable evidence.

Ken Ammi

Why, on your worldview?

Ken Ammi

Do you treat people like garbage about any other “Scientific Theory” or have you turned “evolution” into your worldview philosophy?

FYI: evolution is a belief system based on faith in accident stolen mythology.

Professor Neturman

I go by the verifiable scientific evidence.  Can you possibly form a clear and intelligent question if you choose to engage with me

Ken Ammi

Well said, it seems that you finally realize that your worldview has left you with nothing but utter subjectivism, “I go by” as a personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions).

So, the “clear and intelligent question” is why, on your worldview, should one accidentally existing ape (me) adhere to the “I go by” subjectivism a personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions) of another accidentally existing ape (you)?

Tony Atkinson

your question doesn’t make sense . What do you mean by “universal imperative “ ?

Like I said , there’s no imperative for humans to explain evolution . It occurs whether we understand it or not

Ken Ammi

Please tell me you’re joking so I can tell you it’s not funny.

Here’s what I’ve written, “on an Atheistic-Evolutionary view, there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to believe in the Atheistic-Evolutionary view…You seem to imply that everyone agrees that there’s no universal imperative to accept evolution…I stated nothing about whether evolution is true or not (first, we’d have to define “evolution”) but only that if Atheistic-Evolution is true then there’d be no universal imperative to believe that it’s true…on Atheism there’s no universal imperative to believe or disbelieve anything…There’s no use pondering ‘Whether evolution is true or not’ until we defined ‘evolution’…what, on your worldview, is the universal imperative for an accidentally existing ape to provide testable evidence?…”

But I’m glad you agree that on Atheistic Evolution, “there’s no imperative for humans to explain evolution.”

“universal imperative” refers to an imperative that’s universal. This isn’t about that whatever on Earth you may mean when you use the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term “evolution” “occurs whether we understand it or not,” the issue is that on an Atheistic Evolutionary worldview there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to acknowledge, believe in, hold to, adhere to, admit, etc. “evolution” even if it does really occur.

Professor Neturman

YEY MORE INCOHERENT RAMBLING

Ken Ammi

Friend, your tactic is crystal clear: when you encounter issues that are inconvenient to your worldview you just ignore them by subjectively labeling them incoherent. Yet, that which you subjectively declare to be incoherent isn’t a standard. Now, what imperative is there on your worldview for accidentally existing apes to be coherent?

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 place due to my video Baha’i Faith on Jesus – lecture by Ken Ammi since twinstar9 commented

Those who want to understand and consider the validity of the Baha’i Faith would do well to bypass a critic and read the Writings for themselves. This guy misleads intentionally.

Ken Ammi

Just so that I understand what you’re saying: Baha’i claim that they invite independent investigations, I performed one, and now you tell people to ignore my results because you say so? You merely asserted that I mislead but didn’t bother presenting even one single example. Also, you say I mislead intentionally which means you’re playing mind-reader: what makes you think that I mislead and that I mislead intentionally? Please repent.

twinstar9

Independent investigation of truth is a founding Baha’i principle. Distorting the truth, and representing in the title of the video that you understand Baha’i Writings, those are dishonest acts. You already know how you have distorted the Writings and you already know your motives. Your aims are crystal clear.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you discredit yourself again since, again, you merely assert I’m “Distorting the truth” but don’t bother saying how so, you merely assert “dishonest acts” but don’t bother saying how so (nor how you claim to know I’m being dishonest), you merely assert I “have distorted the Writings” but don’t bother saying how so, you merely assert.

See, just because you don’t like the facts I present doesn’t mean they’re not facts and you seem to be incapable of correcting anything I said which is why you merely assert.

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.

To the question What is a half-demon half-angel?, a certain Gary Whittenberger (“former Psychologist, retired (1979-2004)”) commented

Maybe a full human person? No, just kidding. I don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

It’s interesting that you “don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do” since your hidden assumption is that we ought to base our beliefs upon that for which there’s “good evidence” but on what premise from your worldview?

Also, you imply that there is evidence but just not “good” evidence which seems like a subjective preference—something to discuss down the line, perhaps.

Gary Whittenberger

KA1: It’s interesting that you “don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do” since your hidden assumption is that we ought to base our beliefs upon that for which there’s “good evidence” but on what premise from your worldview?

GW1: Of course, we should base our beliefs on good evidence! What are the alternatives? Base them on bad evidence? Or on no evidence at all? Which of these do you support?

KA1: Also, you imply that there is evidence but just not “good” evidence which seems like a subjective preference—something to discuss down the line, perhaps.

GW1: Good evidence is objective, clear, replicated, unequivocal, and/or produced through scientific methodology. What alternative do you suggest?

Ken Ammi

So, the “premise from your worldview” is doubling down on not having a premise, “Of course, we should” which now also means that you asserted a universal imperative, “should” so the question remains and I’ll add: what universal imperative is there, on your worldview, for demanding that we “should base our beliefs on good evidence”?

We are just a the very first step and nowhere near “What are the alternatives?”

After dealing with that, we can deal with the “down the line, perhaps” issue of that what is/counts for “Good” and “evidence” is subjective—and I’ll note that you threw in a universal imperative to adhere to the “scientific methodology” as a mere assertion.

Gary Whittenberger

KA2: So, the “premise from your worldview” is doubling down on not having a premise, “Of course, we should” which now also means that you asserted a universal imperative, “should” so the question remains and I’ll add: what universal imperative is there, on your worldview, for demanding that we “should base our beliefs on good evidence”?

GW2: I am making no demand. You may or may not choose to follow my normative proposition. If you do, you will reap good outcomes for yourself and for others. If you do not, you will reap bad outcomes for yourself and others. And so, I strongly encourage you to base your beliefs on good evidence.

GW2: I agree with this: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879), mathematician and philosopher

KA2: We are just a the very first step and nowhere near “What are the alternatives?”

GW2: I disagree. I am ready for you to present your alternatives. Why would you avoid doing that?

KA2: After dealing with that, we can deal with the “down the line, perhaps” issue of that what is/counts for “Good” and “evidence” is subjective—and I’ll note that you threw in a universal imperative to adhere to the “scientific methodology” as a mere assertion.

GW2: I am ready. Make your claims.

Ken Amm

Well friend, at least you realize that there are no universal on your worldview which is why you’ve been reduced to utter subjectivism, “You may or may not choose…If…If…I strongly encourage” which, of course, is on the level of telling me which ice-cream flavor you strongly encourage me to try.

Likewise, you “agree with Clifford but don’t bother saying why and, again, that’s like telling me you agree with him on favorite ice-cream flavors.

See, you opened yourself up to being utterly ignored and rejected since while some may be terribly concerned about your subjective personal preferences du jour—based on hidden assumptions—I’ve no reason to be, right?

Likewise with, “I am ready for you to present your alternatives” and playing the “Why would you avoid doing that?” game: you are the one who just made it crystal clear that this is exclusively about whether or not I feel like pleasing your curiosity or not.

Let that sink in, you may like, prefer, some things over others but that has zero to do with me—or anyone else you’ll ever encounter.

Gary Whittenberger

KA3: Well friend, at least you realize that there are no universal on your worldview which is why you’ve been reduced to utter subjectivism, “You may or may not choose…If…If…I strongly encourage” which, of course, is on the level of telling me which ice-cream flavor you strongly encourage me to try.

GW3: Ken, I am not your friend, so please do not call me “friend.” Let’s go back to the start. I do not believe in angels because nobody has presented good scientific evidence that they exist. If you believe in angels, then present your evidence. You haven’t done that. Instead, you seem to be implying the you don’t need to provide evidence. Why would you think so?

KA3: Likewise, you “agree with Clifford but don’t bother saying why and, again, that’s like telling me you agree with him on favorite ice-cream flavors.

GW3: No, it’s not like that at all. If any person, including you, follows Clifford’s rule, then they will have better outcomes in explanation, prediction, and control during life than if they don’t follow his rule. Therefore, his rule has objective empirical support. Do you advocate the opposite? If so, then defend your opinion.

KA3: Likewise with, “I am ready for you to present your alternatives” and playing the “Why would you avoid doing that?” game: you are the one who just made it crystal clear that this is exclusively about whether or not I feel like pleasing your curiosity or not.

GW3: You are playing the game of evading your responsibility to explain and defend your alternative views.

KA3: Let that sink in, you may like, prefer, some things over others but that has zero to do with me—or anyone else you’ll ever encounter.

GW3: Condescending remark, unhelpful and inflammatory.

Ken Ammi

You’re not my friend? We’ll have to change that.

You say “Let’s go back to the start” but you don’t seem to realize you’re starting at the conclusion. See, the start isn’t “because nobody has presented good scientific evidence” but why, on your worldview, is presenting evidence some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand evidence, for basing your views on evidence, etc.?

Thus, we’re nowhere near “you seem to be implying the you don’t need to provide evidence” but are still stuck at step number one which you can’t seem to even attempt to take.

This is systematic thinking 101.

You then just pass the buck to Clifford’s rule so the question remains and you’ve accomplished nothing. See, the issue now becomes why, on your worldview, is following Clifford’s rule some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand we follow Clifford’s rule. When you punt to “better outcomes” we then need to discuss how you determine better vs. worse and why, on your worldview, choosing the better is some sort of universal imperative.

Thus, in this case again, we’re not at the stage of “then defend your opinion” but awaiting you to do anything except beginning with conclusions.

We’re also not even close to me defending alternative views—especially since I haven’t proposed any.

It’s sad that you’re so emotive that you’re incapable of systematic critical logical thinking so that, for example, you tell me about your subjective feelings, “Condescending remark, unhelpful and inflammatory” rather than actually dealing with issues. FYI: that which you subjectively consider (allegedly) condescending, (supposedly) unhelpful and (so called) inflammatory aren’t standards.

Have you really never once thought about such issues and dealt with them?

Gary Whittenberger

KA4: You’re not my friend? We’ll have to change that.

GW4: You’re off to a bad start.

KA4: You say “Let’s go back to the start” but you don’t seem to realize you’re starting at the conclusion.

GW4: No. The start was this question: “What is a half-demon half-angel?”

KA4: See, the start isn’t “because nobody has presented good scientific evidence” but why, on your worldview, is presenting evidence some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand evidence, for basing your views on evidence, etc.?

GW4: My response to the start was “I don’t believe that demons and angels exist. There is no good evidence that they do.”

GW4: My epistemological justification for requiring good evidence is that in the past when persons have required good evidence for belief, then they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world than when the have not required good evidence or required no evidence at all. What more justification do you need beyond that?

KA4: You then just pass the buck to Clifford’s rule so the question remains and you’ve accomplished nothing.

GW4: My rule is the same as Clifford’s rule. What I have accomplished is to show you that other experts agree with me, including a well-regarded philosopher and mathematician.

KA4: See, the issue now becomes why, on your worldview, is following Clifford’s rule some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand we follow Clifford’s rule.

GW4: Asked and answered.

KA4: When you punt to “better outcomes” we then need to discuss how you determine better vs. worse and why, on your worldview, choosing the better is some sort of universal imperative.

GW4: The better outcomes are in explanation, prediction, and control.

KA4: Thus, in this case again, we’re not at the stage of “then defend your opinion” but awaiting you to do anything except beginning with conclusions.

GW4: Is your favored alternative that we should require no evidence or poor evidence for forming our beliefs?

KA4: We’re also not even close to me defending alternative views—especially since I haven’t proposed any.

GW4: You have implied one of the two presented above.

KA4: It’s sad that you’re so emotive that you’re incapable of systematic critical logical thinking so that, for example, you tell me about your subjective feelings, “Condescending remark, unhelpful and inflammatory” rather than actually dealing with issues. FYI: that which you subjectively consider (allegedly) condescending, (supposedly) unhelpful and (so called) inflammatory aren’t standards.

GW4: Ad hominem. Unhelpful and inflammatory. Try to stick to the subject matters – the existence of demons and angels and epistemology.

KA4: Have you really never once thought about such issues and dealt with them?

GW4: Another ad hominem. Unhelpful and inflammatory. If you keep making such comments, then I will just ignore you. If you get back on track, then we might have a useful conversation.

Ken Ammi

“off to a bad start” really? My friend and I appreciate being corrected.

That’s not the contextual start, it was your mere assertions which you merely doubled down on.

You seem to be saying that since someone else required evidence then you will as well which is circular and begs the question. But, you do appeal to subjective terminology (beginning with conclusions again) such as, “good…better…good” but how do you even define such concepts on your worldview? That’s the part you sidestepped.

Likewise with Clifford’s rule: I noted you “just pass the buck to” it and you merely doubled down on that which is circular and begs the question (does circularity and question begging even matter on your worldview?). And on top of that, you pull an argument from authority: since “other experts” (“other” besides yourself?) then it must be okay.

You then merely sidestepped “why, on your worldview, is following Clifford’s rule some sort of universal imperative, what justification do you have from your worldview to demand we follow Clifford’s rule.”

See, since you seem to have literally never considered your worldview’s implications and so have never applied them to your worldview then you think that questions such as “Is your favored alternative…” are even cogent when they’re not: you’re merely presupposing where I’m headed but you’re simply mistaken. Thus, this is not a case of “You have implied…” but rather, you have inferred (and incorrectly so).

Please read an academic definition of “Ad hominem” (wait, do ad hominems matter on your worldview?) since I committed no such thing. Also, the subject matters include your jumps to conclusion based on that other people have jumped to conclusions so it must be okay with a dose of subjective terminology such as “good” and “better.”

But that you’ll ignore me because you’re unused to being critical of your own assertion is an Atheist 101 tactic.

Gary Whittenberger

KA5: You seem to be saying that since someone else required evidence then you will as well which is circular and begs the question.

GW5: False. For all claims of which I am skeptical, I ask for evidence. Nothing wrong with that.

KA5: But, you do appeal to subjective terminology (beginning with conclusions again) such as, “good…better…good” but how do you even define such concepts on your worldview? That’s the part you sidestepped.

GW5: Since you don’t accept the requirement of evidence, I am not going to discuss what is “good evidence” with you.

KA5: Likewise with Clifford’s rule: I noted you “just pass the buck to” it and you merely doubled down on that which is circular and begs the question (does circularity and question begging even matter on your worldview?). And on top of that, you pull an argument from authority: since “other experts” (“other” besides yourself?) then it must be okay.

GW5: Clifford and I agree. Nothing wrong with citing him. If you do not accept the requirement of evidence, then you are living in the Dark Ages and there is no value in us continuing this conversation.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re going in circles (is that any sort of problem on your worldview?) since the issue is upon what premise from your worldview you “ask for evidence” and your reply now is, “I ask for evidence.”

You then, yet again, merely assert, “the requirement of evidence” about which you’ve merely punted so you’ve not demonstrated any requirement at all.

I’m empathetic why you’re “not going to discuss what is ‘good evidence’” since that issue alone exposes two fundamentals failures of your worldview.

Likewise with Clifford’s rule about which you merely say, “Clifford and I agree” so then perhaps the question should be upon what premise of Clifford’s worldview Clifford based the rule.

FYI: “Dark Ages” is a myth. But what, on your worldview, would be wrong with someone, “living in the Dark Ages”?

You have very strong opinions about issues that you seem to have never thought about before—at least not critically, skeptically, rationally, logically, systematically, etc.

Gary Whittenberger:

KA6: Friend, you’re going in circles (is that any sort of problem on your worldview?) since the issue is upon what premise from your worldview you “ask for evidence” and your reply now is, “I ask for evidence.”

GW6: I am not your friend, so don’t call me “friend.” You are ignoring an important part of my reply which was this: “My epistemological justification for requiring good evidence is that in the past when persons have required good evidence for belief, then they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world than when they have not required good evidence or required no evidence at all. What more justification do you need beyond that?”

KA6: I’m empathetic why you’re “not going to discuss what is ‘good evidence’” since that issue alone exposes two fundamentals failures of your worldview.

GW6: Because you do not accept the requirement of evidence, there is no point in debating you on the issue of “good evidence.” Your rocket doesn’t even get off the ground.

KA6: Likewise with Clifford’s rule about which you merely say, “Clifford and I agree” so then perhaps the question should be upon what premise of Clifford’s worldview Clifford based the rule.

GW6: I told you and you rejected it.

KA6: You have very strong opinions about issues that you seem to have never thought about before—at least not critically, skeptically, rationally, logically, systematically, etc.

GW6: False. You just disagree with my “strong opinions” and then claim that they are unfounded. Your rocket has exploded on the ground. You are going to get nowhere without embracing principles of evidence. Your epistemology is bankrupt.

Ken Ammi:

Let’s cut to the chase then: we’re going to get nowhere without embracing principles of evidence then do what I’ve been begging you to do time and again, simply justify demanding evidence, on your worldview.

All you’ve done is to double down on asserting that since other people have demanded evidence then you also demand it.

Or that “they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world” but you don’t seem to understand that on your worldview there’s no such thing as “better” since there’re no standard of well, anything. There’s no universal imperative to do well, anything at all.

Such is why, or so it seems to me, you qualified your statement with, “My epistemological justification” but I didn’t ask you about you, I asked about your worldview, not your subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions which you seem to want to avoid like the plague).

Gary Whittenberger

KA6: Let’s cut to the chase then: we’re going to get nowhere without embracing principles of evidence then do what I’ve been begging you to do time and again, simply justify demanding evidence, on your worldview.

GW6: Beg all you want. I’m not going to waste my time justifying the need for evidence.

KA6: All you’ve done is to double down on asserting that since other people have demanded evidence then you also demand it.

GW6: I will triple down on the demand.

KA6: Or that “they have been better able to explain, predict, and control their world” but you don’t seem to understand that on your worldview there’s no such thing as “better” since there’re no standard of well, anything. There’s no universal imperative to do well, anything at all.

GW6: I totally disagree with you on this point. Obviously we are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree.

KA6: Such is why, or so it seems to me, you qualified your statement with, “My epistemological justification” but I didn’t ask you about you, I asked about your worldview, not your subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions which you seem to want to avoid like the plague).

GW6: Your resistance to evidence is irrational. If you’d like to embrace the need for evidence, then we can talk more about angels and demons which were the original topics.

Ken Ammi

Are you missing the point on purpose by this point?

We are not discussing “the need for evidence,” we’re discussing you demanding evidence without justification—and that you do so because you’re worldview is such an utter fundamental level failure that you’re literally incapable of justifying demanding evidence on, or from, your worldview, which is why you just keep punting to other people.

And indeed, you just keep demanding without a premise which is why you will always begin with merely jumped to conclusions.

It’s fascinating that I point out the fact that, “on your worldview there’s no such thing as ‘better’…” and since you’re incapable of counterarguing, you just run away with a mere, “I totally disagree with you on this point” but can’t even say why.

Thus, that this is about me resisting evidence is what’s irrational since you either still can’t wrap your mind around a subject with which you’re clearly unfamiliar (but about which you have very strong assertions) or you are so shocked by your worldview’s utter failure that you want to play a game of denial.

During your practice, did you ever deal with a person’s problems by going back to the problems’ roots? Because that’s all I’m asking.

Yet, you seem to be the patient who says, “I don’t care about the roots, I want you to deal with and fix now, now!”

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.

AISH styles itself, “the largest Jewish learning site” and published an article by Dovid Rosenfeld tiled, “Nephilim – Giants in the Torah” (May 6, 2022). Coming from a Jewish, Hebrew, perspective—as both Rosenfeld and I do—I looked forward to more than the typical pop-research based neo-theo-sci-fi about Nephilim.

Sadly, from the very first sentence we have problems since Rosenfeld employs the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage English word “giants” (which was also used in the title) without bothering to define it. Thus, we have to guess to what he is referring—which turned out to be something unspecific about subjectively unusual height—and also face that he doesn’t seem to know what the English word “giants” is doing, is meaning, in certain English Bibles—stand by.

The key question that set the article off was, “The Torah talks about giants in Biblical times – in the times of Noah, Moses, and King David. What are their origins and what happened to them?” This alone tells us that confusion is being caused by exclusively reading certain English Bibles since the “giants” of Noah’s time and the “giants” of Moses’ and David’s times are in no way the same personages—stand by.

We’re told, “The Aish Rabbi Replies” and Dovid Rosenfeld is described as being the author of, “a riveting, fast-paced fantasy novel” which, as is the case with many pop-researchers who write pop-Nephilology, speaks volumes since the line between their supposed biblical Nephilology and their fiction is simply indistinguishable: both are very exciting, but both are very unbiblical.

Rosefeld notes, “Giants are mentioned many times in the Torah, primarily in the antediluvian world (before the Flood)” which means that by “many times” he must mean only once since that is exactly how many times “giants” are referenced “in the antediluvian world (before the Flood).”

Oddly, he referred to “giants” but when he quoted Genesis 6:4, as “adapted from ArtScroll Stone Chumash translation,” thusly, “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days – and also afterward when the sons of the powerful ones would consort with the daughters of man, who would bear to them. They were the mighty who, from old, were men of devastation.”

Odder still, he prefaced the quote thusly, “Genesis 6:4 records that when man began straying from God” but that’s not what the text states, it states, as per the Jewish Publication Society’s (JPS) version, “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose.”

Perhaps it is implied, it certainly was inferred, that it was, “when man began straying from God” but let us be careful about what the text actually provides as a premise.

In any case, after telling us about “giants…giants…giants,” etc., he notes, “‘Nephilim’ literally means fallen ones. Most commentators follow the opinion in the Midrash that ‘the sons of the powerful ones’ (bnei ha′elohim) actually refer to the sons of the judges and noblemen.”

Now, “the opinion in the Midrash” is just that, an opinion, and an opinion that came about millennia after the Torah was written and within a Midrash which means that opinion is a sermonizing homily—not a Bible commentary in any traditional sense of the term.

It is also unelucidated what was (then, chronologically) wrong with (exclusively male) judges of nobles marrying women. Dovid Rosenfeld has it that they, “‘fell’ from their appropriate spiritual level” yet, there is nothing in the Torah about any such class/status issues—especially when it comes to marriage.

He then notes, “There is, however, an opinion in the Midrash that they were actually fallen (but not rebellious) angels – who begat a race of physical giants” which is utterly unsubstantiated—unless, that is, someone for some odd reason wants to believe some utterly unreliable guys who are said to have presented an “evil report” and were rebuked by God, Rosenfeld does believe them and bases his Nephilology on them.

Note that Gen 6 does not physical describe them at all, so those who call them “giants” in terms of height must exclusively rely on Num 13:33 and so must rely on guys who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole Bible—to just mention a couple of problems with their mere assertions (I will mention another as we progress).

Now, I do hear from King James only proponents that since the KJV has “giants” then that is all we need to know. Yet, there are at least two issues with which to deal: 1. “giants” is still a vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage term and one cannot simply suppose what it must mean and 2. jumping from a reference to “giants” to concluding they were unusually tall is committing the word-concept fallacy.

Rosenfeld continues, “it is clear that the Nephilim were physically superior to common man. The above verse describes them as ‘mighty’” which is incoherent since there are plenty of mighty (gibbor/im) people in the Bible who were not physically superior to common man, such as Boaz (Ruth 2:1).

Dovid Rosenfeld then appeals to that in, “Numbers 13:33 the Spies claim that they felt like grasshoppers before the Nephilim,” claim indeed, as such is all that it was: it was a fear-mongering, scare-tactic tall tale on the level of, “Don’t go in the woods!”

Rosenfeld asks and answers, “What happened to these giants? Presumably, most were wiped out during the Flood.” Well, that “most,” not all, “were wiped out during the Flood” contradicts Genesis 7:7, 23; Hebrews 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20; and 2 Peter 2:5.

He tells us, “Indeed, their wicked presence was one of the main reasons God saw fit to destroy the earth” but he actually does not tell us how any Nephilim somehow made it past the flood (a view which implies that God failed)—stand by.

Yet, based exclusively on Num 13:33—one of the evil report’s assertions—he declares, “many remained afterwards.”

He continues with, “Tribes of giants are mentioned several times in connection to the conquest of the Land of Israel” and mistakenly notes, “the Spies describe themselves as feeling like grasshoppers in their presence” but even that’s incorrect: that was not “the Spies,” in toto, since there were 12 spies but that was asserted by 10 of them: the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory embellishing, and rebuked ones.

Dovid Rosenfeld has jumped from the vague English word “giants,” to the specific Hebrew word “Nephilim,” and next tells us, “Torah itself attests to three giants (‘sons of the giant [anak]’)…Moses…describes them as: A great and lofty people, children of giants, that you knew and of whom you have heard: ‘Who can stand up against the children of the giant?’ (Deut. 9:2, Art. trans.).”

He does not seem to realize that he moved from Nephilim to Anakim (a subgroup/clan of Rephaim). The brackets in the quotation are in the original (either Rosefeld’s or Art. trans’) and shows that, this time around, “giants” is not rendering (not even translating) Nephilim but is rendering Anak/im.

Thus, forget what he has been implying by giants, this is about sons of Anak, the Anakim, about children of Anakim. He does, at this point, not even bother telling us the one actual contextually relevant thing we are told about them which is that they were “tall”: subjective to being compared with the average Israelite male who in those days was 5.0-5.3 ft. tall.

Dovid Rosenfeld then notes, “There were several other tribes of giants (or near-giants)…the Eimim (lit., ‘fearful ones’ – Deut. 2:10) and the Zamzumim (v. 20). These nations were described as ‘great, numerous, and tall – as the giants’ (vv. 11 and 21)…Most notably, however, were the Refa′im tribes…”

This is actually incoherent since he clearly does not seem to realize that Eimim and Zamzumim are just regional a.k.a.s for Refa′im/Rephaim and that some of them are being compared to the Anakim clan, “tall – as the,” with “giants” merely rendering Anakim.

Now, I had noted that he actually doesn’t bother telling us how any Nephilim somehow made it past the flood yet, he next comes to that, “How did these giants survive the Flood?”

But wait, by “these giants,” he was referring to Rephaim who are not the “giants” who would have survived the flood, that would have been Nephilim. Yet, he may think they are but only by two extensions: if (and that’s a big IF) he actually believes the evil report (which he, sadly, does) and takes what it states about Anakim and (somehow, for some odd and unknown reason) applies a tall tale about Anakim to all Rephaim.

In any case, “One possible explanation could be based on the opinion in the Talmud and Midrash that the Flood did not reach the Land of Israel (see Zevachim 113a, Bereishis Rabbah 33:6; see also Rashi to Niddah 61a).” I already offered some facts about Midrashim and now, be aware that by Talmud (he does not tell us he is referring to the Talmud Bavli/Babylonian Talmud rather than the Talmud Yerushalmi/Jerusalem Talmud) we are dealing with a concoction of oral traditions, interpretations of such, rules, laws, folklore, etc., etc., etc. that was put into writing 300-500 years AD—millennia after the Torah.

In any case, the scope of the flood is utterly irrelevant to Nephilology since they either did not survive because the flood was global or because they lived in the flooded region—see my book Noah’s Flood, the Deluge, Global or Local, Vol I: A Historical Survey of Views from BC to AD

Yet, just as with the opinions, plural, of the Midrash—which conflicted—“This, however, is inconsistent with the Talmud there that although the water itself did not reach Israel, its inhabitants died from the water’s burning heat. Other commentators also suggest that…water spread from other locations, drowning the inhabitants.”

He notes, “Some suggest that even so, giants such as Og were powerful enough to withstand the indirect effects of the Flood – see Maharsha to Niddah 61a.” Firstly, “giants such as” biblically reads as, “Rephaim such as.” Secondly, Og did not live until millennia after the flood and it is only Babylonian Talmudic (and Midrash) folklore which places him at the time of the flood.

Dovid Rosenfeld adds, “Another possibility is based on two other passages in the Talmud. Talmud Niddah 61a states that Og and Sihon were brothers, grandsons of one of the fallen angels” at which point we can stop to note that this is just adding folklore to folklore.

In fact, that Sihon was a “giants,” as Dovid Rosenfeld misuses that term, is even less certain than that Og was one—we actually have no physical description of Og (not until millennia after the fact, in fact). Biblically, Sihon would have been a “giant” if he was a Repha.

In any case, “Sihon and Og were thus two surviving giants from the antediluvian era, who possibly begat and ruled over races of giant humans, somewhere near their size.” Yet, we have no indication of 1. “races of giant humans” nor of anyone 2. “somewhere near their size” because 1a. there is only one race, the human race, 1b. those “races” were Rephaim humans, 1c. we are only given two specific heights in the Bible and vague terminology such as “tall,” and 2a. since we do not know either of their sizes/heights we cannot rightly refer to their size nor compare anyone to their unknown size—stand by.

Rosenfeld tells us, “in spite of their size, the Biblical giants were not great warriors” since they are “defeated in battle by lesser humans” about which he directs us to, “Genesis 14:5, Deuteronomy 2:21 and Rashi to Numbers 21:27.”

Genesis 14:5, JPS, reads, “And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, and the Zuzim in Ham, and the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim”: note that nothing is denoted about height whatsoever, this is just about a.k.a.s for Rephaim (again, only some of whom were subjectively “tall”) being defeated.

Deuteronomy 2:21 is a text we already encountered and which elucidates what I just noted, “a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakim; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead.”

Numbers 21:27 reads, “Wherefore they that speak in parables say: Come ye to Heshbon! Let the city of Sihon be built and established!,” about which, as per the M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann (London, 1929-1934 AD) version of Rashi (an acrostic for Rabbi Shlomo/Solomon ben Yitzchaki/Isaac, 1040-1105 AD), “על כן (more lit., about this) — about this war which Sihon waged against Moab, יאמרו המשלים THEY THAT SPEAK IN PARABLES SAY — One of these was Balaam of whom it is said, (Numbers 23:7), ‘And he took up his parable.’ המשלים THEY THAT SPEAK IN PARABLES — The plural המשלים refers to Balaam and his father Beor (see Rashi on Numbers 24:3). They said — באו חשבון ‘COME TO HESHBON,’ — For Sihon had been unable to capture it, and he went and hired Balaam to curse it, and this is the meaning of what Balak said, (Numbers 22:6) ‘For I know (by what has already happened) that whomsoever thou blessest is blessed, [and whomsoever thou cursest is cursed]’ (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 24). תבנה ותכונן IT WILL BE BUILT UP AND ESTABLISHED, [SIHON’S CITY] — Heshbon will be rebuilt under Sihon’s name to be his city.”

I know not why Rosenfeld noted this comment.

In any case, he concludes, “Perhaps they relied on their massive size and never bothered studying the art of war” yet did so prior to demonstrating that any of them were of even of subjectively “massive” size.

He then ponders, “What happened to the giants who remained after the Flood?” about which I must note, again, that if he is referring to Nephilim then nothing happened to the after the flood since they did not remain and if to Rephaim, by any other name, then they were slowly widdled down.

Dovid Rosenfeld refers to that, “both the Torah and the Spies attested to” that “What remained were the giants in Israel proper” yet, the Torah attests that “the [10] Spies” were utterly unreliable—and no one can appeal to anything except their evil report for any indication of post-flood Nephilim in any way, shape, or form.

Or, perhaps, they are forced to exclusively rely on them for a premise upon which to weave tall tales—as Rosenfeld has done—via which they erroneously pull other text into the mix that mix about as well as olive oil and water.

He notes, “We have no record of Joshua and the Israelites fighting giants” but, again, if he means Nephilim then of course not since they did not exist at the time and if Rephaim then of course there are records of him doing just that (Joshua 15:8; Joshua 18:16 have him active at the Valley of the Rephaim) but if he means unusual size then no, no record of that either.

Rosenfeld then tells us of other “giants” by quoting Amos 2:9, “And I destroyed the Emorite [aka Amorites] from before them – whose height was like the height of cedar trees and who was mighty as oaks – and I destroyed his fruit from above and his roots from below.”

I can only imagine that only someone suffering from that which I term Gigorexia Nervosa (an obsessive desire to see giants and making them up where they are nowhere to be seen) would assume that Amos is implying a mathematical one-to-one ratio-based comparison when he told us that they were big and strong.

In fact, I’ve encountered many pop-researchers who infer that a mathematical one-to-one ratio-based was being implied but none of them ever bother elucidating what the mathematical one-to-one ratio-based results are when comparing the strength of a person versus the strength of an oak.

An example comes from a discussion with my acquaintance Eric Rolon (actor and Bible researcher), I pointed this out since he was arguing in this direction and this is the key portion of the interaction—from the video Eric Rolon & Ken Ammi sharpening iron with iron on Nephilology:

Ammi: I found strange is that you quoted us statistics about cedars, why didn’t you talk to us about oaks…if you—I’m gonna say, “for some odd reason”—think that Amos was implying to us that we should conduct a ratio-based mathematical calculation correlating the height of cedars to the height of the Amorites: where’s the calculation correlating their strength to the strength of an oak? That’s what I want to see.

Rolon: I’m not saying that he’s giving us a mathematical calculation which we should then use to then infer the height. What I’m saying here is when Amos says they’re as tall as cedars, the statement he’s making right there is that they are not subjectively tall but objectively tall, and not just objectively tall but powerful, taller than anybody else that they’ve seen.

Ammi: Oh yeah, of course, that’s a given, that’s a given [because sure, why not, let them be the tallest: that still does not tell us how tall they were]. So, the way I would put it is this: I think it’s obvious Amos was telling us that they’re big and strong, that’s just obvious. To then, if somebody, as many people do, take a step to literally measuring cedars and saying “There you go, now we know how tall they were,” that to me is unwarranted.

Nobody would imagine any such thing unless they were suffering from what I call Gigorexia Nervosa, which is, they want to construct people that were very unusually tall instead of just the common sense reading, “Oh yeah, these guys were big and strong.”

Rolon: …these guys were humongous.

Ammi: So, that’s why I started by asking for the calculations on the strength of an oak.

Rolon: I don’t know those numbers on the top of my head.

Ammi: But see…you will have to end up claiming that they are thus and such strong because of oak is thus and such strong [cross talk].

Rolon: I don’t have to get into the to the strength of them, I can just say that they were tall as that because Amos says [cross talk].

Ammi: Wait a minute, hold on, hold on, you’re taking every word as it’s written and that’s what is written: they are as strong as oaks. So, at some point you will have to face the calculation and figure out, “Hey, I know that they were this strong because I know that oaks at that time were this strong.” You’re going to have to do that.

Rolon: Okay, then I can go ahead and do that.

Ammi: Right, exactly, but I’m saying there’s a reason why nobody’s bothered doing that: because they don’t care about that, they just want to tell people about [cross talk].

Rolon: I care about it because I think Aamos said [cross talk]

Ammi: All I’m saying is that you’re not interested enough to have done that until I pointed it out. And I’m just telling you nobody has because all they care about is making people tall. They don’t care about their actual description.

Rolon: When I see them [him] say, “A people great and tall,” I assume that when he’s saying “great” he’s either talking about their physical size or, he’s talking about the number of them or, he’s talking about both.

Ammi: Right, right.

Rolon: And it dawns on me now that I saw “cedar” when I read that, I didn’t see “oak” but now you can you can bet your [posterior] I’m going to be looking up how strong this is.

Ammi: This is just a caution, I’m just cautioning, because what you just said is incredibly important: you didn’t even notice 50% of what Amos told you about them because your focus is so much on looking for giants that you didn’t literally even see half a full 50% of the description.

Dovid Rosenfeld notes, “giants…were wiped by some of God’s smallest

agents – the hornets” with reference to “And also the hornets will the Lord your God send among them, until the remaining ones and the hidden ones are destroyed before you (Deut. 7:20)” and, “the main targets of the hornets were the giants…God thus spared the Jews much of the rigors of battle – especially against the giants – using insects…with their defeat ended the saga of angel-bred giants dwelling among man.”

Well, there are no indications of Nephilim—“angel-bred giants”—ever dealing with insects and especially not post-flood. And the premise promises more than it can deliver since Deut 7 is generic in referring to a variety of plural, “nations.”

We now come to a key point I have been peppering all along as he asks, “Just how tall were the

giants?” He merely asserts, “the Torah records them as mating with humans” so he must be referring to Nephilim (half-human). Yet, there is no indication in the Torah that they mated with humans—even though they surely did so. His conclusion is, “so they couldn’t have been that huge” which is fair enough.

Yet, in the same breath he notes, “they were always being defeated in battle,” which means he has jumped context to Rephaim now.

He follows that with, “the spies [again, ten of them] described themselves as feeling like grasshoppers before them (Numbers 13:33),” so he has jumped context again, back to Nephilim (even if only imaginary ones).

For some unstated reason, he has arbitrarily decided, “that is actually a perfectly accurate description of the complete helplessness a person would feel standing before a warrior 10 feet tall”—no, he does not tell us why 10 and not 9 or 11 or 8 or 12, etc.

Rosenfeld notes, “In terms of specific dimensions, there is a single verse which is highly significant,” and yet, the one to which he appeals provides us nothing specific about height, and there are actually two that do, but he does not reference them.

The one he chose is Deuteronomy 3:11 which tells us about the size of King Og of Bashan’s “bed” but not a word—ever, anywhere—about his personal size.

In short, there are many problems with merely assuming that we can take the size of his “bed” and calculate his personal height. Rosenfeld has decided that, “Og’s bed was 13.5 feet long and 6 wide. Assuming a person’s bed is about a foot longer then he is, Og would have been 12-13 feet tall – broadly built as well.” We’ve no reason to think that such an equation applies to an ancient sovereign living the lifestyles of the rich and (in)famous—his cultural context differs from ours.

Yet, the key issue is that a “bed” of such dimensions was found in the Etemenanki ziggurat and it was not meant to be slept upon, it is a ritual object upon which the supposed gods and alleged goddesses mate.

Rosenfeld notes that “the Talmud (Brachos 54b) describes Og…as a sky-scraping giant who held up a mountain,” etc., which is part of why in my article How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory, I noted how in such folklore, “giants” got taller and taller and taller by the telling.

Dovid Rosenfeld notes what I have noted, “We would tend to view such a Talmudic tale as nonliteral but intended to teach deeper messages (as the Midrash is often meant to be understood allegorically…” but adds, “the Talmud there (54a) rules that a person must recite a blessing upon seeing the location in which Og held up the mountain and was defeated…So there is definitely a strain of thought that Og was a much larger giant” but whence came that strain or, more particularly, when?—surely millennia after the Torah.

He concludes by “noting that there are also a few later giants mentioned in King David’s time – specifically four brothers, the most famous of whom was Goliath,” at which point we must pause: he is, again, swapping the word “Rephaim” for “giants” and the fact is that we have no physical description whatsoever for the four —at least he noted, “They were not purported to have descended from angels,” although if he chased down the trail of his own tall tale telling he would conclude that they, somehow, were since Goliath and family were of the Anakim clan of the Rephaim tribe and according to his evil report based assertion, they were, somehow, related to Nephilim.

As for Goliath, he is only one of two people in the entire Bible for whom we are given a specific height and yet, there is a textual issue with which to deal (the other specified height is, “an Egyptian, a man of great stature, five cubits high” (1 Chronicles 11:23): circa 7.5 ft.).

Rosenfeld tells us, exclusively, “Goliath himself was described as ‘six cubits and a span’ (I Samuel 17:4) making him nearly 10 feet tall.” Yet, he needed to add a qualifying term thusly, “Goliath himself was described as ‘six cubits and a span’ within the Masoretic family of manuscripts for I Samuel 17:4.

That is because the earlier Septuagint/LXX, and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSam), and the earlier Flavius Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 6:9) have him at four cubits and a span: just shy of 7 ft.

Incidentally, the LXX version’s evil report, Num 13:32-33, contains no reference to Anakim thus, one cannot even get just Anakim related to Nephilim from the LXX.

Rosenfeld also notes, “Madon,” a name he seems to have picked up from much latter sources, “was described as having six fingers and six toes…We could possibly view them as sufferers of some kind of genetic mutation or of gigantism.”

Now, the text just has him as “a champion” who was “born to the” Repha, Goliath (2 Samuel 21:20)—“was described as having six fingers and six toes…We could possibly view them as sufferers of some kind of genetic mutation or of gigantism.”

Moreover, this is reminiscent of why in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It Or Not! Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales, I included a chapter titled, “Polydactyly or Prestidigitation?” since to jump from one single person having extra digits to that “them,” plural, were, “sufferers of some kind of genetic mutation” is a bit of a stretch and it is a gigantic stretch to correlate one many with extra digits to “gigantism”—at least Rosenfeld offered the qualifier, “could possibly.”

Thus, overall, I really struggled to find even one single statement in this article that was accurate and, sadly, encountered much which is the stuff of which neo-Nephilology is made: very exciting but very erroneous.

See my various books here.

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

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

This is actually a discussion that took place due to the video The Nephilim and Alien Connection | Josh Peck | TSR 293.

dolores lopez commented

Enoch 1 goes into the Nephelim in detail.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Just be careful since that book contradicts the Bible, a lot, and has Nephilim being an impossibly–tall tale folkloric–15 or more MILES tall.

BiscuitPuncher noted

Yes, always be careful but Jesus and the disciples did quote from first Enoch. The other Enoch books do not have the same flow as the first and would hight recommend just staying away from those.

Ken Ammi

Paul quotes Greek poets.

Tracy Stevens noted

Thanks brother. I’ll check it out

BiscuitPuncher

I am aware of this as well, but I believe he is quoting the Greek poets and pagan philosophers, but not in support of what they had to say, context is everything! He was exposing errors and connecting ideas / contrasting.

Ken Ammi

Friend, that’s actually the exact opposite of the case. Paul wrote, “he is actually not far from each one of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’ as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ Being then God’s offspring…”

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 was due to the video DEBATE: Is the Christian God Evil? | Pepper Lim & Samuel Nesan to which I, Ken Ammi, commented:

It’s quite simple: on Atheism there’s no absolute definition of “evil” nor any universal imperative against it.

Pepper Lim replied:

Uh, no. I know evil when I see it.

Ken Ammi:

Note my qualifying terms, “on Atheism” is that upon which “there’s no absolute definition of ‘evil'”: you seem to agree since you don’t defined it but merely admit, or so it seems, that it’s a subjective personal opinion of yours–based on hidden assumptions–that you know it when you see it. I also noted, that “an Atheism” there’s no “universal imperative against it” so that if you condemn what you subjectively consider “evil” that’s just a subjective personal preference of yours–based on hidden assumptions.

Pepper Lim:

Takes one to know one.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you’re clearly incapable of even discussing such issues. But the problem isn’t you, it’s that you’re relying on a collapses worldview.

That brought the discussion to and end as no more replies were forthcoming—and that was from a debater ;o)

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 Atheist vs Christian on the laws of logic Bible Thumping Wingnut Show. When all segments are posted, you will be able to find them all here.

It all began when Whatsisface 4 commented
A small point, if the universe is natural, it’s not accidental. If it were natural, it could only act according to it’s properties, and as it’s here, if natural, it’s here according to it’s properties. That mean’s it’s not accidental. Also, not everything in the universe is in constant flux. The properties and behavior of the fundamental forces and particles do not change.
If the Laws of Logic are absolute, then they would apply no matter the origin of the universe. Even when there were no people on this Earth, that you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true, even though no one had thought it. That would be true right at the beginning of the universe. Logic is not contingent on anything, otherwise it wouldn’t be absolute.

I, Ken Ammi, replied
Most interesting, friend. I agree that if the universe is natural, it is not accidental—but on an Atheist worldview it must be. If the universe is natural, and so not accidental, then it had a creator and the creator established its properties—I would not say that “it’s here according to it’s properties” since that would not explain WHY it is here in the first place, a more accurate statement would be that it functions according to its properties.
As for not everything being in constant flux, I supposed that we may have say “The properties and behavior of the fundamental forces and particles do not change” that based on our limited knowledge. However, that there would be such regulatory properties, forces, etc. means that Atheists also believe in styled administrators of the universe (that are intangible, invisible, etc.)—just not a personal one. Yet moreover, the fact is that while at the moment “The properties and behavior of the fundamental forces and particles do not change”: the universe is running out of usable energy and no more is being added to it (predicted in Genesis) so that, at least eventually, all will change, all is flux.
The issue with the claim that “If the Laws of Logic are absolute, then they would apply no matter the origin of the universe” is that the laws of logic being absolute—just like all of the universe’s properties, fundamental forces, etc.—are a direct result of the origin of the universe as if it resulted from nothing causing nothing (or an eternal something: an uncaused first cause) to explode for no reason then things could have been very different—or, not been at all: recall the classic question, why is there something rather than nothing.
But that “Logic is not contingent on anything” is an assertion as is that which supposedly buttresses it “otherwise it wouldn’t be absolute.” Life, the universe and everything is based on prior information, the only known source of information is mind and that mind is what which we call God. Thus, logic is absolute because it is grounded on a logical mind which keeps it as is, absolute.

Whatsisface 4
You said…”If the universe is natural, and so not accidental, then it had a creator” …that does not follow. You are making an argument from personal incredulity, ie, I can’t see how this can be naturally, therefore God. That’s an unsound argument. You said…”But that “Logic is not contingent on anything” is an assertion as is that which supposedly buttresses it “otherwise it wouldn’t be absolute.” Life, the universe and everything is based on prior information, the only known source of information is mind and that mind is what which we call God. Thus, logic is absolute because it is grounded on a logical mind which keeps it as is, absolute.” If there where no minds or God, that you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true.

Ken Ammi
Friend, there are a few issues here such as that “If the universe is natural…then it had a creator” and since nature (the natural) cannot account for itself (incompleteness theorem) and so it has to have a cause, a creator, and that cause is must be un-natural.
Also, you argued that “if the universe is natural, it’s not accidental” and since it is natural, then it is not accidental, if it is not accidental, then it was purposeful, and if purposeful then it had a creator.
In arguing “If there where no minds or God, that you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true” you are close to accuracy but are committing a category error by correlating plural “minds” in general (I assume you mean human mind) and “God” which is of another category although also “mind”ful.
That “you can’t have a married bachelor would still be true” is “there where no minds or God” is begging the question and based on an assertion which essentially deconstructs the whole concept of marriage, bachelorhood, etc. as no minds and no God would mean no marriage, no bachelors, no humans, no existence, etc.

Whatsisface 4
When you say the universe cannot account for itself, how do you know? That you cannot have a married bachelor is a universal absolute, just as one plus one equals two, is. By all means tell me in what way it could ever be untrue. That there would be no minds or bachelors or marriage is beside the point.

Ken Ammi
I know the universe cannot account for itself because it had a beginning.
Claiming that is a universal absolute that you cannot have a married bachelor and that one plus one equals two are conclusions and my point has been that your worldview provides you no premise upon which to come to such conclusions.
I mean, I realize that you believe that those are facts based on a very long series of accidents but then again you have to also jump to the conclusion that facts are accessible, that truth is knowable, that adhering to facts and truth is an imperative, etc.
And when you write, “tell me in what way it could ever be untrue” you are demanding adherence to truth, logic and ethics yet, without a premise so you see how your worldview fails before it even begins as you can only jump to conclusions.

Whatsisface 4
Well, our present state of the universe had a beginning, but whether there was something before that or not and whether it began or not, we just don’t know. You do not know that the universe can’t account for itself. You certainly have no understanding of the physics of it, because no one does. You misunderstand about numbers and married bachelors. All it needs to see the truth that you can’t have a married bachelor is an understanding of words married and bachelor. Nothing else is needed.

Ken Ammi
Since “our present state of the universe had a beginning” then it “can’t account for itself” much like you cannot account for yourself within the context of your existence (this is somewhat like the argument form contingency). Now, if you want to argue that I “have no understanding of the physics of it, because no one does” then I will say that what I am doing is not arguing about what we do not know (which is what you are doing) but about that we do know: the universe had a beginning and therefore, cannot account for itself.
Also, our universe is a time, space, matter continuum and Genesis 1:1 states “In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]”—seems that someone told us about His creation long ago.
Lastly, of course more is needed to affirm that “you can’t have a married bachelor” than “an understanding of words married and bachelor” as the meaning of those words can change (in fact, the meaning of marriage changed not too long ago) since this is not about grammar and dictionary definitions but about logic and your worldview cannot account of logic.

Whatsisface 4
Ken Ammi Huh? The beginning of the present state of the universe is accounted for by what came before. But, no one knows the physics and you are just sweeping that point under the carpet. You are making an argument of logic before all the physics is known. Logic is only as good as the information fed into it, and all the information isn’t in yet. Something to ponder, if space and time began at the big bang, then there was never a time when the universe didn’t exist. Genesis gets a lot wrong. Re married bachelor, you are not making sense here. You know very well the meaning of the word married, and the meaning of the word bachelor. They are in contradiction to one another and if you’re married you can’t be a bachelor and visa versa. Can God make a square circle?

Ken Ammi
I am sweeping nothing under the carpet (and if I was, your worldview provides you no premise upon which to condemn me for it anyhow) but noted that I am arguing for what we know and you are arguing from what we do not: you say “all the information isn’t in yet” and it never will but we work with what we have.
However, you did sweep Genesis 1:1 under the carpet: and merely asserting “Genesis gets a lot wrong” is just that—a baseless, unevidenced, unargued conclusion that is generic.
To say “if space and time began at the big bang, then there was never a time when the universe didn’t exist” is not only incoherent but goes again all modern cosmogony.
My worldview provides a premise for why there cannot be a married bachelor while your does not.
As to “Can God make a square circle?”: no.

Whatsisface 4
The maker of this video is confused. He thinks the laws of logic are things with a nature, when they are just our descriptions of the nature of things. Take the law of Identity, A=A. There are two things going on here, the statement A=A, and that to what it refers, being, the consistent nature of things to be themselves. So what is that needs accounting for, the statement A=A, or that to what it refers?

Ken Ammi
Friend, you are confused: you are committing a category error. Two things are meant by “laws of logic” 1) the laws themselves in their ontology, nature and essence which are invisible, intangible, inaccessible to our senses, immaterial, non-physical, etc. and 2) just our descriptions of the nature of things.
But I can see why you are desperate to demand “what is that needs accounting for, the statement A=A, or that to what it refers?” since your worldview fails to do so. But your worldview’s failure does not mean that there is no accounting for it nor that accounting for it is irrelevant.

Whatsisface 4
I’m tired, so here and now I will reply to the last point. If God cannot make a square circle, then He is subject to the laws of Logic, so cannot be the author of them. That a circle is round is the only way a circle can be, so you can’t have a square circle. All that’s needed for this to be so is an understanding of what it means for something to be a circle. God isn’t necessary in order for this to be so.
You didn’t answer my question. What needs accounting for re the law of Identity, the statement A=A, or that to what it refers? What else is there, beside the statement and that to what it refers? What the statement refers to is the only way things could be, ie, things being themselves. Because things can only be what they are, God isn’t involved in the laws of logic.

Ken Ammi
Friend, your comment to the last point is myopic and illogical: since God cannot make a square circle, then He is subject to the laws of logic and He is subject to them as He authored them or rather, they are a part of His very ontological nature and essence, they are reflections of His mind.
The reason why a circle is round, that is the only way a circle can be, and why you cannot have a square circle is that God created a rational creation, which functions rationally, and He populated it with rational beings who could rationally discern it and, in turn, discern that it was created by a rational being—this, in fact, is the theological premise for the scientific method.
Now, if you want to (myopically and illogically) demand that “God isn’t necessary in order for this [for something to be a circle] to be so” you are ignoring that a circle is a circle for a reason but your worldview tells you that a circle is circular by accident, that laws such as logic are accidents and that, in fact, life, the universe and everything (including your thoughts) are accidents and that is such an unevidenced and nonsensical endeavor that it discredits itself. And, by the way, even if you decide to opt for that view—that nothing accidentally caused nothing to accidentally explode for no reason and accidentally created everything accidentally without meaning: accidentally from nothing, by nothing, to nothing and for nothing—then you are left jumping from “is” to “ought” in an unjustified manner and you have zero reason for demanding adherence to truth, logic and ethics which means that all of our discussion has been a moot point.
What needs accounting for regarding A=A is why this is the case: your worldview tells you that it is because of a very long series of accidents—and even if this is so you then foresight the ability to demand adhering to A=A. Now, when you merely subjectively assert that this “is the only way things could be, ie, things being themselves” is tragically myopic since when you begin with nothing causing an accident then things could have been, at least, a quadrillion different ways. Thus, things can only be what they are, specifically because God’s very ontology is the source of the laws of logic.

I received an email notification of Whatsisface 4 4’s next comment which read, “Could God have created an irrational creation where square circles are possible?” However, when I went to reply to it, I saw that it had been edited to
You said…”The reason why a circle is round, that is the only way a circle can be, and why you cannot have a square circle is that God created a rational creation, which functions rationally,” You cannot use a rational universe to justify the existence of God unless you show that things could have been different and you could have a square circle. If things are the only way they could be, ie circles being round, then it doesn’t need a God in order for circles to be circles.

Ken Ammi
I received an email notification of your comment and wrote the following reply but then when I went to post it I saw that the system tells me it was edited so, here is what my reply was to your original comment:
I am not big into playing what if gedanken-experiments but the issue is that which we have been discussing: identity. Thus, no: God could not have created an irrational creation where square circles are possible because a square circle would violate the identity of that which is a circle and that which is a square.
Here is the reply to the edited version:
It is extremely easy to show how, on your worldview, things could have been different: since life, the universe and everything result from nothing accidentally causing nothing to explode then the nothing could have not caused the nothing to explode or could have accidentally caused the explosion to result in a multitude of difference results.
Thus, on your worldview anything could have been or not been or been and not been at the same time and in the same relation but on mine things are the only way they could be which is how and why circles are round and in order to this to be an ongoing fact then the mind of God is required to sustain reality as it is.

Whatsisface 4
That you can’t have a square circle is a point of logic. That God can’t create a square circle means He is subject to the laws of logic, He can’t break them, so He cannot be responsible for them. Your second point is assertions only, badly in need of support. For a start, if the universe were natural, it wouldn’t be an accident, but inevitable.

Ken Ammi
Friend, may I remind you that your arguments are baseless since you have no premise upon which to make them thus, you are still beginning with conclusions.
Now, I am not interested in pseudo discussions where you go round and round back to the same issues we already discussed such as that God “is subject to the laws of logic.”
I might argue that I am subject to thoughts, desired, etc. but this does not mean nor imply that they are not a part of me—in fact, the opposite is true which is what I have been arguing.
Again, logic is intrinsic to God as it is a very part of His ontology, His very nature and essence. Thus, when He acts in a logical manner He is acting out His very being.
And He cannot break them (although some would argue that He does such as via miracles) just like I cannot punch a puppy in the face just for fun: it is simply not within me to do that.
That “He can’t break them, so He cannot be responsible for them” is a mere non sequitur of an assertion.
“If the universe were natural” which it is, “it wouldn’t be an accident” so 100% of Atheists are wrong, “but inevitable” which is simply not the case.

ratharos wrote this to Whatsisface 4
For the theist the laws of logic are real intangible things and not mere observations of the physical world. They need that so they can justify their anthropocentric worldview with word games rather than evidence.

ratharos
Friend, speaking for myself: the term “laws of logic” refer to both the actual phenomena (“real intangible things”) and also our “observations of the physical world” whereby we describe them.
For the Atheist the laws of logic are real intangible things so that they believe in impersonal, invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent administrators of the universe—sound familiar?
They need that so they can justify their misanthropic worldview with word games rather than evidence.
Now, how does your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic or ethics and for holding others to these standards?

ratharos
Ken Ammi >the term “laws of logic” refer to both the actual phenomena (“real intangible things”) The actual phenomena is the universe, a very tangible thing. Claims of intangible things are unsupported by evidence. Without evidence you are free to make up any claim to justify your worldview. They exist as neural networks in our physical brain which is ultimately part of the universe. >For the Atheist the laws of logic are real intangible things so that they believe in impersonal, invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent administrators of the universe—sound familiar? Not really, that sounds more like a deist thing, i know many atheists and not one that would claim the laws of logic are real intangible things and that there are invisible administrators of the universe. > misanthropic citation needed, most of us are humanists. >Now, how does your worldview provide you a premise for truth, logic or ethics and for holding others to these standards? Define truth. We use the same “laws” of logic you just claim them divine. Ethics is consensus, heavily rooted on the concept of equality and empathy. We hold others to these standards with laws, like any other culture in history. Besides all of this is hiding behind philosophy to in a best case scenario justify the existence of a metaphysical reality, in no way does it prove that the abrahamic god is real, or that the claims of this particular religion are logically consistent, or that we should follow them.

Ken Ammi
Friend, it is very obvious that it is erroneous that “Claims of intangible things are unsupported by evidence” unless you deny having thoughts, or deny the existence of last Tuesday, or of subatomic particles, etc., etc., etc.

The statement “Without evidence you are free to make up any claim to justify your worldview” lacks an elucidation of what would be the problem with lacking evidence and making up any claim to justify our worldviews. You see, it all goes back to the same problem, for you, is that you have no premise upon which to condemn and your worldview simply allows for evicencelessly making up any claim to justify our worldviews.

Now, since “laws of logic” refers to two things then you cannot myopically claim that “They exist as neural networks in our physical brain which is ultimately part of the universe”: logic itself is extrinsic.

Perhaps no Atheist you know thinks that “the laws of logic are real intangible things and that there are invisible administrators of the universe” but that is myopic: perhaps they have never thought of it in those term, perhaps they have not considered the implications of the fact of the existence of existence of logic independent of our minds, etc.

Truth refers to that which is regardless of our opinions (the standard correspondence view of truth) but the question is not the definition but how your worldview provide you a premise for truth and for holding others to the standard of truth?

Likewise, just because you “use the same ‘laws’ of logic” does not mean that you have a premise upon which to do so. So, again, how does your worldview provide you a premise for logic and for holding others to the standard of logic?

I am not asking how, as in “We hold others to these standards with laws, like any other culture in history” but the issue is prior to that: it is about ontology.

Also, if “Ethics is consensus” then Nazism was ethical since the majority of Germans agreed on it.

This has all just been about seeking to discern if you have any premise whatsoever upon which to even engage the issue of the existence of God: if your worldview is accurate (and there is no evidence for it, of course) then what do you care what other temporarily and accidentally existing bio-organisms think (with “think” referring to neural reactions).

ratharos
As expected a dishonest evasive response. At no point did you explain how YOU can escape epistemic circularity and how your god is not simply another assumption. Moreover you cannot use this argument to justify anything other than the existence of a god, ANY god. Therefore as long as you refuse to discus the actual contents of the bible you cannot make the claim that your god is a better explanation than any other god. And lastly you seem to think we need some objective basis to make “moral” claims? That is so naive. All we have is consensus, subjectivity and relativity. I know that bothers you but the world is not black and white. Don’t respond to me again I am tired of your evasive responses.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you accused me of being dishonest without evidence (you just played mind reader) and you imply condemning dishonesty without a premise.
Digging into fundamental issues before taking the next step is not evasive: it is just that I will not jump through your hoops until you can demonstrate that you have hoops in the first place.
Thus, we can discuss the actual contents of the Bible only after defining terms and setting the stage.
For example, you are committing a styled tu quoque logical fallacy in stating that I at no point explained how I can escape epistemic circularity.
And, if God is just an assumption, so what? (I am asking “So what?” on your worldview).
We do not need an objective basis to make “moral” claims because claims are just claims. We need an objective basis to make “ethical” claims and the ethic itself if absolute, of course.
But you end up utterly discrediting yourself. Like I said, you entire endeavor commenting here (or anywhere) is absurd and you proved it by making the un-evidenced assertion that “All we have is consensus, subjectivity and relativity” which means that since Atheists are a vast minority and theist the vast majority then the consensus is that God exists. But if you really think that, “All we have is…subjectivity and relativity” then every one of your comments are subjective and relative so I can claim that they do not say that which you claim they say.
So let us get to the bottom line from which to begin: since you admit that your worldview provides you no premise for truth, logic, ethics, for adhering to these nor for demanding that others adhere to them then how can you simply jump to demanding that people agree with you?
Friend, you are falling for one of Atheism’s consoling delusions: seeking subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence.

Whatsisface 4
That “logic is intrinsic to God as it is a very part of His ontology, His very nature and essence” is an unclear statement. The laws of logic are intrinsic to me in that I am subject to them and cannot break them. So what do you mean?

Whatsisface 4 wrote this following comment as well
Easily. The Laws of logic are about what can only be the case. Eg, it can only be that a thing is what it is. No further justification is required.

Ken Ammi
Actually, the laws of logic are EXtrinsic to you. You live in their world, in a manner of speaking, and can interact with and adhere to them but they are not intrinsic to you since you are not their source. But to say “The Laws of logic are…” is merely to define the word “logic,” it is not providing a premise for them nor for adhering to them nor for demanding adherence to them.

Whatsisface 4
The statements of the laws of logic reflect the only way things could be. A=A, is the only way things could be. Things can only be what they are. That’s what grounds the law of identity, nothing else is needed for the law of identity to be true.
Could you please simply respond to the points in my previous post? Being…The statements of the laws of logic reflect the only way things could be. A=A, is the only way things could be. Things can only be what they are. That’s what grounds the law of identity, nothing else is needed for the law of identity to be true. [ellipses in original]

Ken Ammi
Friend, on your view there is no way for you to know that “The statements of the laws of logic reflect THE ONLY WAY THINGS COULD BE” since you believe that the way things are is the result of accidents and accidents could have resulted in things being many different ways. You are just making a dogmatheistic statement at that point.
So from the premise of reality being the result of accidents you cannot conclude that “A=A, is the only way things could be.” But I understand why you would be desperate to get me to accept the random bio-chemical reactions which lead you to say that since you recognized that your worldview has a chasm between “is” and “ought.”
Thus, of course something else is “needed for the law of identity to be true” that which caused it to be so: you have just decided that it is so by accident—which, again, means that it could have been otherwise.
And yet, we are still left with another chasm in your worldview, another “is” “ought” problem: let us say that I agree that the laws of logic reflect the only way things could be. My reply, on your worldview, would be “So what?” You then have to subjectively invent an imperative as to why I should care about that, why I should adhere to the laws of logic and you will run into your worldview’s problem which is that the most important thing in life is survival and reproduction (for some unknown reason) and if I can survive and reproduce whilst being utterly deluded, not being logical, etc., then it does not matter.

Whatsisface 4
You said…”Friend, on your view there is no way for you to know that “The statements of the laws of logic reflect THE ONLY WAY THINGS COULD BE” since you believe that the way things are is the result of accidents and accidents could have resulted in things being many different ways”. We’ve been through this before. I do not think the way things are is the results of accidents. If the universe is natural, it could only act according to it’s properties , so as it’s here, it’s a result of it’s properties which means it’s not an accident. Even so, that something is the result of an accident doesn’t stop it from being what it is.

Ken Ammi
I am unsure why you are avoiding inconvenient truths: you may not like the term “accidents” but no matter what words you use, your worldview forces you to adhere to the concept that things, reality, the universe, is the way it is just because it just happens to have happened that way.
Thus, “it could only act according to it’s properties” because it just happens to have happened that way.
But that “it’s a result of it’s properties” is incoherent, it is anachronistic since it cannot be the result of that which it contains, that of which it consist: in other words, its properties would have had to preexist it in order to what it “result” from it.
And no, “that something is the result of an accident doesn’t stop it from being what it is” but the issue is not what it “is” but why it is and your worldview will only allow you to think that it is all by whatever word you want to use instead of accident.
You simply cannot get away from that, on your worldview, and can only imagine that you want to somehow get away from it because you recognize how absurd it is. So, best bet is to reject your worldview since it fails before it even begins.

Whatsisface 4
You said…”And no, “that something is the result of an accident doesn’t stop it from being what it is” but the issue is not what it “is” but why it is and your worldview will only allow you to think that it is all by whatever word you want to use instead of accident”. Huh? We were discussing the Laws of Logic, the Law of Identity in particular.

Ken Ammi
Friend, this is getting much too unnecessary. When something results from an uncaused accident for unintended results in a blind and unguided manner then anything can result from it.
Your worldview can only tell you what “is” and that, only if you can even trust your cognitive abilities—which, as per your worldview, also results from uncaused accidents for unintended results in blind and unguided manners.
So, you can say, “Hey everybody, I know not how or why but logic is.” Fine, but you cannot justifiably way, “Ergo, you must be logical or be termed ‘wrong’,” etc.

Whatsisface 4
As I said before, if the universe were natural, then it can’t be an accident. As it has regularities that we call laws then what results from it is not unguided in the sense of being random, and what is possible within it is restricted and guided by it’s properties. Logic describes the only way things can be, which means it’s not contingent. No God necessary.
That’s a lot of assertion with no explanation. I’ve already said that logic describes the only way things can be, which means it’s not contingent, so no God is needed to justify it. You have yet to show how logic doesn’t describe the only way things can be.

Ken Ammi
As I said before, the universe is natural, then it was not an accident but was creatively designed. On my worldview yes, “As it has regularities that we call laws then what results from it is not unguided in the sense of being random, and what is possible within it is restricted and guided by its properties.” But on your worldview, you are merely asserting that it has regularities by accident.
When you say “Logic describes the only way things can be” you are getting ahead of yourself, you are beginning with a conclusion: you are in the middle of the game telling me about the rules of the game. I am talking about how the game came to be conceived in the first place, how its rules were put in place, etc.
Thus, “Logic describes the only way things can be” only after the fact that they now exist. But on your worldview, since the universe results from an accident that happened to nothing or something then there may not have been any such thing as logic.
Again, you are not forcing your worldview to provide you fundamental premised, I know that it cannot do so, so you are just saying “is” therefore, “No God necessary” which is illegitimate.
As for “how logic doesn’t describe the only way things can be” you have missed the point time and again (and again).

Whatsisface 4
The laws of logic are descriptions of the only way things can be. No God needed.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you are handily confirming that Atheism is your worldview. Your thinking is clearly infected by it. Let us simplify this you are not claiming that “The laws of logic are descriptions” of the way things are claiming that they “are descriptions of the only way things can be.” But how (not to mention why) is the only way things can be, the only way things can be?

Whatsisface 4
How can anything be other than what it is? That A=A is the only way things can be.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you are still failing to traverse the “is” vs. “ought” divide since even if “A=A” and even if this “is the only way things can be” then that is merely “is” and does not get you to “ought.”
Also, “How can anything be other than what it is? That A=A is the only way things can be” quite simply, as I have noted time and again, it could have been other than what it is, it could have been that A does not =A if the nothing that you believe (by “faith”) caused nothing (or an eternal something) to explode resulted in a different reality.

Whatsisface 4
Huh? You are not making sense with your “ought” as far as the Law Of Identity is concerned. I don’t believe that nothing caused nothing, so strawman on your part there.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you cannot take me out of context by misquoting me—to myself. I did not claim that you believe that “nothing caused nothing” to it is not a strawman. What I actually wrote is, “nothing that you believe (by “faith”) caused nothing (or an eternal something).” And, by the way, if you do not “believe that nothing caused nothing” then that would be a good time to elucidate what you do believe. But as for the “ought” which your worldview fails to provide you: you have hit that brick wall again since you are demanding that I adhere to truth, logic and ethics without a premise which means that you cannot demand any such thing. Just because it is probably possible that truth, logic and ethics exist on your worldview does not bridge the gap into that therefore, we must adhere to them as an imperative.

Whatsisface 4
I don’t know why there is something rather than nothing, but that doesn’t mean God is the reason. You can try not adhering to logic, but you will look foolish. You don’t have to adhere to ethics, but if you go against them, hopefully, you will be locked up.

Ken Ammi
So, in other words, since Atheism is your worldview then nothing is a result of God’s actions because well, because you are an Atheist (and Atheism is thought restricting).
Now, I asked about your worldviews premise for truth, logic and ethics and the reply is, clearly, that truth, logic and ethics are the result of accidents.
I also asked how your worldview provides you a premise to adhere to them, as an imperative, and the reply is, clearly, that it does not: the “is” vs. “ought” problem that you cannot overcome.
And this is evidence in that I also asked about your worldview’s premise for demoing that others adhere to truth, logic and ethics and you prove that you cannot overcome the “is” vs. “ought” problem when:
1. You ignore the issue of truth.
2. You merely assert “You can try not adhering to logic, but you will look foolish”: which presupposes logic and presupposes that I will look foolish but that would be for not adhering to the result of accidents and you also assert that looking foolish may be something to be avoided but you do not state why.
3. You admit that on your worldview I “don’t have to adhere to ethics” and that if I do “hopefully, you will be locked up” but this is missing many points such as that what ethics? On your worldview I could have mass murdered Jews, et al., in Nazi Germany since that was their “ethic,” but if I was in the US I could have killed Nazi’s since that was our “ethic” and I could mass murder human babies since that too in our “ethic.”
Friend, your worldview fails before it even begins and leads you to such absurdities.

And that was all folks, as no one replied.

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

Give Timothy Alberino 10 points for hitting all of the keyword with a title like “: Did ALIENS Cause the NEPHILIM Giants to RETURN After The FLOOD?”: aliens, Nephilim, giants, the flood—it’s all under the big top!

Well, that was the title to a Youtube video to which I commented:

No, aliens did not cause post-flood Nephilim. And we can know this because there is no such thing as post-flood Nephilim.

Also, Timothy might have a “theory” and a “feeling” about eating dust and crawling on bellies but the Bible tells us exactly what it means by it—it is symbolic of being humbled. Even today we still say things like the Queen song, “Another one bites the dust.”

Isaiah 65 notes that “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.”

Psalm 72:9 “They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.”

Micah 7:17 “They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.”

Lamentations 3 “It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. He sitteth alone and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him” and the key phrase, “He putteth his mouth in the dust; if so be there may be hope.”

Deuteronomy 32:24 states, “They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust.”

Moreover, the Bible references throwing dust in the air as a sign of mouring, wheeping and repenting which people also did by sitting in dust an ashes (see Job 42:6 and Acts 22:23 for examples).

And there are a lot more texts that make this clear.

Someone going by the name “Z&N F & S & J” replied:

How, then, do you explain the resends of giants in the land AFTER the Flood, then? I’m just genuinely curious as to your position because the Bible specifically tells us that there were giants on the earth before the Flood as well as after the Flood…

I, Ken Ammi, replied:

Well friend, part of the problem is beginning with a presupposition that Nephilim and “giants” (whatever that means) have some relation. We are never given a physical description of Nephilim—not even of their size.

The term “giant(s)” is generic in that it only means taller than average and biblical times Hebrew males averaged 5.5 ft. (so women averaged less), the LXX’s “gigantes” means earth-born and “giant(s)” is used to translate both Nephilim and Rephaim so it only causes confusion.

Thus, there is no reason to think that post-flood tall, very tall, or Rephaim have anything to do with Nephilim—any more than taller than average people in the NBA have anything to do with Nephilim.

Now, please note very carefully that you stated, “Bible specifically tells us that there were giants on the earth before the Flood as well as after the Flood.” Yet, the Bible does not stated this: I am just pointing out that “before the Flood as well as after the Flood” is an interpretive assertion and not what the text actually states.

We are told that Nephilim (not “giants”) were on the earth “in those days” and “also after that” which you take to be references to the flood. However, the text twice tell us when “those days” were: v. 1, “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” and v. 4, “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.”

Thus, “those days” could have been as early as when Adam and Eve’s children began having children. Yet, whenever it was, the fact is that those were the days and so after that simply means after that but still all pre-flood. And taking them both as pre-flood also works better with the immediate and greater context.

Z&N F & S & J:

Ken Ammi you are incorrect about what you said to the commenter above. You stated that “We are told [in Genesis] that Nephilim (not “giants”) were on the Earth “in those days” and “also after that”…”

When Genesis Clearly states…

▪Genesis 6:4 (KJV)▪

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 same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I know the basis of the conversation was whether or not it meant before or after the Flood though. Which you are right, it’s not clear what “in those days, and after that” means.

As for Giants being present after the Flood, there is Goliath about 10ft, King Og of Bashan 12-15ft, then you have the Giants in the land of Canaan who made Caleb, Joshua and the other spys appear as though they were grasshoppers compared to these Giants. Which is why the Israelites were too afraid to try to take the city(s) which was direct disobedience to God and was the reason they were forced to wander 40 years in the wilderness and every adult would die before seeing the Promised Land besides Caleb & Joshua.

▪Numbers 13:32 & 33 (KJV)▪

32 And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. 33 There we saw the giants [Nephilim] (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”

And the whole reason why the Israelites were to kill these tribes, sometimes every man woman and child, is because they were of these Hybrid Nephilim Bloodlines.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, I noted that you are claiming that the text states “giants” only because the one translation you are reading in English has “giants.” Here is the text in various English translations: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%2006%3A04

The original Hebrew does not refer to them as giants and does not described them as such: they Nephilim—nĕphiyl נָפִיל to be exact. Gen 6 does not provide a physical description.

So then the problem is that since you are reading the word “giants” into Genesis 6, you think that anyone post-flood who is tall must be a Nephilim or related to Nephilim. But even if there were post-flood Nephilim that still would not mean that any and all tall people are Nephilim or related to them.

There is no indication that Goliath was Nephilim, he was a Repha (who was somewhere between less than 7 ft. to less than 10 ft. depending on Greek vs. Hebrew manuscripts.

You cannot tell me how tall Og was since the Bible does not tell us: you are referring to the size of his bed, not his personal size and, in any case, he was also not Nephilim but Rephaim.

You cannot just change words just to weave a tall tale.

Lastly, the only indication that any tall person post-flood was Nephilim or related to them is Num 13:33 but note what it states, just as you quoted it, “they gave…a bad report of the land” so why would you believe a bad report?

The way the text plays out is that they report good things about the land, its fruit, etc.

They then show some fear due to the strength of the people and cities (recall that these were wilderness dwellers unused to confronting fortified cities).

Caleb chimes in to encourage the people.

Only at this point are we told that they present a bad or evil report and it is only within this bed/evil report that they claim, for the first time (and for the only time in the Bible) that there were post-flood Nephilim, that the Anakim are related to Nephilim and how tall the Nephilim were (and, by the way, if you believe them then you just also figured out how tall God is: see the reference to grasshoppers in Isaiah 40:22).

Moreover, Moses and Caleb both affirm that Anakim were in the land but say nothing about Nephilim and God Himself affirms the Amalekites and Canaanites were in the land but says nothing about Nephilim.

You should not believe disloyal/unfaithful spies who present a bad/evil report for which they were rebuked, you should believe Moses, Caleb and God.

Lastly, that the Israelites killed the tribes has to do with Hybrid Nephilim Bloodlines is not biblical. They did so because God had judge those tribes (and gave them centuries to repent): http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/was-israelite-intermarriage-forbidden-due-post-flood-nephilim

Becky Watt commented:

Ken Ammi You seem to have forgotten about Goliath and King OG !!!!!

Ken Ammi:

I am not sure what you mean: Goliath and Og are not Nephilim, they are Rephaim. Also, you are assuming that being tall means being Nephilim or related to Nephilim which is something that is not logical nor theo-logical.

Chris Fisher commented:

I don’t understand how there can’t be post-flood Nephilim considering that there are Nephilim currently in the world as we speak. And last I checked this current time was post-flood.

Ken Ammi:

Well, my point is that the Bible knows nothing of post-flood Nephilim. But if “there are Nephilim currently in the world as we speak” then where is that?

Chris Fisher:

Ken Ammi as you have shown yourself too lazy to even begin researching this stuff on your own, why most people are ignorant because they only will ever know what people tell them or show them, look up the story of the giant of Kandahar, read Buffalo Bill Cody’s autobiography where the Pawnee Indians tell him about the Giants so big running across the plains they could scoop up Buffalo and tear off legs and eat as they run. Along with the fact that the Indian palm up hand sign and greeting was very purposeful in the case they wanted to count the fingers on the hand as the Nephilim have six fingers on each hand and not five. Only the part of the greeting where they say how or how white man was made up as a Hollywood invention. I’m not going to waste anymore time embarrassing you. I now expect you to put on big boy pants and go find some of these things on your own. Don’t ever offer your opinion again you [******] garbage heap. Facts are out there and the only thing that is relevant is truth. Your opinion is even less important than your bowel movement.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, are you a Christian? I am going to guess “No” because you are astonishingly filled with hatred, angry, malicious, and foul.

You seem to have confused my asking you to back your own claims with me not wanting to do research. I asked you to provided evidence because my research concluded that there is none.

But if you think that I am too lazy to even begin researching this stuff on my own then please read these articles of mine, just for starters: “Grading the giant human skeleton chart”: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/grading-giant-human-skeleton-chart and “Adrienne Mayor “The First Fossil Hunters” – book review”: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/adrienne-mayor-%E2%80%9C-first-fossil-hunters%E2%80%9D-book-review and “Giant skeleton reports in old newspapers”: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/giant-skeleton-reports-old-newspapers and “Did the Supreme Court prove that the Smithsonian destroyed giant skeletons”: http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/did-supreme-court-prove-smithsonian-destroyed-giant-skeletons

So you will see that I already looked up and wrote about the supposed “giant of Kandahar.”

It is simply false that “Nephilim have six fingers on each hand” so your story about Indians fails.

Also, we have no indication whatsoever that Nephilim were any taller than average so you cannot simply conclude that when Buffalo Bill Cody or the Pawnee Indians talk about “Giants” then tall means Nephilim—that is a non sequitur.

You claimed “there are Nephilim currently in the world as we speak,” I asked “then where is that?” and you failed.

Chris Fisher:

Ken Ammi by the way, don’t ever correct me on Native American lore. I’ll tell you what my ancestors did and why. No matter if u want to discount someone’s account of face to face conversations. I can understand questioning that. But you don’t get to pretend you read something online and it outweighs centuries of culture and carefully protected history. NOT the progressive lies historians organized after WW2. Untainted, undiluted history not found or taught in your government indoctrination program you called high school. I can’t believe you had the nerve to send links to Doucheseeker. OR was it Douchefinder? Hahahahahaha. As if it matters what the name of disinformation sites are.

Ken Ammi:

Friend, you should be open to be corrected on any point on which you are mistaken. Just because I am Jewish does not mean that I am omniscient when it comes to all things Judaism.

Besides, the only thing I stated that referenced “Native American lore” is “Also, we have no indication whatsoever that Nephilim were any taller than average so you cannot simply conclude that when Buffalo Bill Cody or the Pawnee Indians talk about ‘Giants’ then tall means Nephilim—that is a non sequitur” which is something you ignored.

You see, I did not “discount someone’s account of face to face conversations” but only that whatever they saw, it was not Nephilim.

Now, to what are you referring to when you refer to “Doucheseeker. OR was it Douchefinder? Hahahahahaha” (besides that you are being disgusting)?

Also, you refer to the site as “disinformation” which is a very, very serious slander so: where is your evidence?

And, did you read those articles or are you purposefully refusing to have your views challenged by facts?

Chris Fisher:

Ken Ammi make no mistake, everyone was well aware of your limitations. Practice What You Preach first, then we’ll see how this goes.

Ken Ammi:

Are you a Christian?

Such over the top emotive reactions as not uncommon to post-flood Nephilim believers, by the way, and that ended the discussion as no more replies where 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. You can comment here or on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.