Category: Uncategorized

In view is the article Who were the Zamzummim? – GB Times – The Spirit Magazine

Since English is my second language and I’m dyslexic, I’m not one to pick on grammur or mispillengs.

Still, I got a giant kick out of that Miller’s bio reads, and I quote, “Emma Miller has enjoyed working as a writer for over 18 years and holds a Master’s Degree in Linguistics and Education, but has also studied Ancient History and Engish Literature. She is fascinated by the science of dreams and is a long-time member of the International Association for the Study of Dreams” indeed, “Engish” lit ;o)

GB Times–The Spirit Magazine “is a website dedicated to symbolism and mythology from ancient times right up until the present day.”

Emma Miller informs us “Zamzummim…were also known as the Zuzim or the Zumim. According to Deuteronomy 2:20, they were a ‘great and numerous people, tall as the Anakim’. The Anakim were a race of giants…Zamzummim…were well-known for their strength and size. Some scholars believe that the Zamzummim were descendants of the Nephilim, who were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. The Nephilim were believed to be giants and were mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments.”

Let us review:

Indeed, Zamzummim were aka Zuzim aka Zumim.

Her dual usage of the term “giants” begs the questions:

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

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

Do those usages agree?

We’ll have to attempt to discern an answer as to her view since, in typical manner, people who write about “giants” tend to not bother defining terms. Now, they were “tall”—which is just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as “giants”—which is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

But since that’s all we know about their height then to state that they were like “a race of giants” is a meaningless statement and they were only “well-known for their…size” due to having been “tall” (I’m unaware whence she got the “strength” part).

Now, she is missing a key point which is that, contextually, the usage of “giants” is that Zamzummim were “tall as the Anakim” but Miller doesn’t seem to be aware that what she wrote as, “Anakim were a race of giants” biblically contextually would read as “Anakim were a race of Rephaim” since that’s all the word “giants” is doing in this case: merely rendering “Rephaim” (as it does in 98% of all cases in the English Bibles which employ it).

Moreover, Rephaim were aka Zamzummim aka Zuzim aka Zumim and Anakim were a clan on the Rephaim/Zamzummim/Zuzim/Zumim tribe—and they were “tall” on average ergo, taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.

As for that “Zamzummim were descendants of the Nephilim”: that is simply impossible since Nephilim only lived pre-flood but Rephaim/Zamzummim/Zuzim/Zumim only lived post-flood—centuries post-flood.

As for “Nephilim were believed to be giants” that biblically contextually reads as “Nephilim were believed to be Nephilim” since that’s all that word is doing in that case (and one other, adding up to the 2% of the times that “giants” isn’t rendering “Rephaim).

And as for that Nephilim “were mentioned in both the Old and New Testaments”: that’s simply false. They are mentioned two times in the Old and never once in the New.

That is a lot to have to iron out and correct in the very first paragraph of the article.

For some reason, Emma Miller continues by repeating the vague assertion, “The Zamzummim…were known for their strength and size” and gets into the question “Were the Zamzummim really giants?” which she really can’t or shouldn’t answer until she defines that term but, alas.

Well, based on vagaries, she assures us that “Yes…Zamzummim were…tall” but actually reiterated “tall as the Anakim, who were also considered to be giants. However, there is no physical evidence to support this claim.” But why “also”? And no physical evidence for what, being taller than 5.0-5.3 ft.?

Emma Miller continues noting “Israelites…were impressed by their size and strength” for which the only indication is the word “tall.”

She reiterates the assertion “Zamzummim…were known for their strength and size.”

She reiterates “Zamzummim were of the same race as the Anakim, who were also considered to be giants.”

She reiterates “Some scholars believe that the Zamzummim were descendants of the Nephilim, who were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men. However, this theory is not widely accepted by scholars.”

She reiterates “Zamzummim…were a great and numerous people who were known for their size and strength.”

She then decides to take on the topic she’s been reiterating (and re-re-reiterating), “What do we know about the physical appearance of the Zamzummim?” and reiterates, “tall as the Anakim…were known for their size and strength.”

And well, that’s about it. I don’t even understand how hers was an article but then again, it appears to not be since the website is so utterly saturated by embedded videos and adds that it’s difficult to even discern that there’s an article peppered through it all.

Yet, it still serves as typically incoherent Gigorexia Nervosa which is my coined term for people who are obsessed with seeing “giants” and making them up where they are nowhere to be found.

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.

Sky Watch TV published an article series “by SkyWatch Editor” which contains the term “I (Tom Horn)” so I will proceed as if he wrote it all.

Part 5 gets into the sort of territory with which I wanted to interact so I’ll be quoting from THE HYBRID AGE—PART 5: ESCHATOLOGICAL POSSIBILITIES

Within the context of Transhumanism (see my books about that topic, including The Golden Golem Goal) “three varieties in which end-times prophecy may be fulfilled as a result of transhumanism” are noted, “1: Transhumanism as Fulfillment of Matthew 24:37—‘As it was in the Days of Noah’” since “In Matthew 24, when the Lord’s closest disciples asked Him what would be the sign of His coming and the end of the age, He provided a long list of eschatological markers, concluding in verse 37, ‘As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be when the son of man returns.’” Now, when one so very selectively quotes a fragment of a complete thought/statement, it’s all too simple to force it to say what one wants to hear rather than visa verse.

Thus, it’s being forced into a context in which it doesn’t belong.

Here’s the elucidation:

The legend of the Days of Noah and what happened then is recorded in numerous ancient texts within every major culture of the ancient world, where the astonishingly consistent story is told of “gods” that descended from heaven and materialized in bodies of flesh…beings known to the Hebrews as Watchers and in the book of Genesis as the benei ha-elohim (sons of God) mingeld themselves with humans, giving birth to part-celestial, part-terrestrial hybrids known as nephilim…

Let us pause to review:

Now, perhaps “numerous ancient texts” taught that the sons of God/Angels “materialized in bodies of flesh” but such is not the biblical case. Rather, the Bible consistently describes Angels looking just like human males without any indication that such is not their natural, ontological, look. They were “known to the Hebrews as Watchers” millennia after the Torah was written—the issue of chronology will come into play again as we proceed.

We’re told:

When this Scripture is compared with other ancient texts, including Enoch, Jubilees, Baruch, Genesis Apocryphon, Philo, Josephus, Jasher, and others, it unfolds to some that the giants of the Old Testament, such as Goliath, were the part-human, part-animal, part-angelic offspring of a supernatural interruption into the divine order and natural evolution of the species.

This was certainly the view of most, if not all, of the Ante-Nicene church fathers including Athenagoras, Commodianus, Julius Africanus, et al…

These are some of the chronological issues I referenced since referring to “Scripture” and “other ancient texts” we must understand that they are both ancient to us, today, but the listed texts all date to millennia after the Torah.

The Torah was written circa 3,500 BC (with the rest of the Scriptures to follow), Enoch and Jubilees during the Second Temple Era (circa late sixth c. BC-70AD), etc.—and we’ll deal with Jasher as we progress.

Now, Horn mixes his metaphors, as it were, in at least three ways that make for confusion:

To refer to “the giants of the Old Testament” is much too generic since some English Bibles render (don’t even translate) both “Nephilim” and also “Rephaim” as “giants so to which is he referring?

Now, since he writes, “giants of the Old Testament, such as Goliath” then he’s referring to Rephaim.

Yet, there’s zero indication that Rephaim were “part-human, part-animal, part-angelic.”

Thus, he must be referring to Nephilim yet, Goliath was a Repha, not a Nephil.

But then, there’s zero indication that Nephilim were “part-human, part-animal, part-angelic.”

As for the Ante-Nicene church leaders well, they held to the Angel view of Genesis 6 but I’m unaware that they held to the “part-animal” view—and I wrote the book, quite literally, see my book On the Genesis 6 Affair’s Sons of God: Angels or Not?

Tom Horn then writes:

According to Enoch, two hundred of these powerful angels departed “high heaven” and used human DNA to extend their progeny into mankind’s plane of existence. The Interlinear Hebrew Bible offers an interesting interpretation of Genesis 6:2 in this regard. Where the King James Bible says, “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair” (brackets in original), the IHN interprets this as, “The benei Elohim saw the daughters of Adam, that they were fit extensions.”

The term “fit extensions” seems applicable when the whole of the ancient record is understood to mean that the Watchers wanted to leave their proper sphere of existence in order to enter Earth’s three-dimensional reality. They viewed women—or at least their genetic material—as part of the formula for accomplishing this task. Departing the proper habitation that God had assigned them was grievous to the Lord and led to divine penalization.

Jude described it this way: The “angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6:6).

The term “extend their progeny into mankind’s plane of existence” is quite fancy for what the Scripture has as “took as their wives…came in to the daughters of men and they bore children” but I understand that his context is neo-theo-sci-fi.

See, he bases his sexed up version of it on that, “the IHN interprets this as, ‘The benei Elohim saw the daughters of Adam, that they were fit extensions’” so that he can read that last two words to mean, “to enter Earth’s three-dimensional reality.” Meanwhile, Jude just seems to tell us the absconded from heaven.

Tom Horn continues thusly:

Besides apocryphal, pseudepigraphic, and Jewish traditions related to the legend of the Watchers and the “mighty men” born of their union with humans, mythologized accounts tell the stories of “gods” using humans to produce heroes or demigods (half-gods). When the ancient Greek version of the Hebrew Old Testament (the LXX or Septuagint) was made, the word “nephilim”—referring to the part-human offspring of the Watchers—was translated “gegenes,” a word implying “Earth-born.”

This same terminology was used to describe the Greek Titans and other legendary heroes of part-celestial and part-terrestrial origin…

This is also myopic since the LXX has “Nephilim” and/but also “Rephaim” and/but also “gibborim” all as “gegenes” or “gigantes” which means “Earth-born” as in born of Gaia—most of the problems with even beginning to discuss Nephilim and giants stem from that people are either unaware of are unconcerned with the linguistics and what the Scripture actually relates about them.

Tom Horn also wrote:

These demigods were likewise accompanied in texts and idol representation by half-animal and half-human creatures like centaurs (the part-human, part-horse offspring of Apollo’s son, Centaurus), chimeras, furies, satyrs, gorgons, nymphs, minotaurs, and other genetic aberrations.

This is seen as indication that the Watchers not only modified human DNA during the construction of the nephilim, but animals as well—a point the book of Enoch supports, saying in the seventh chapter that the fallen angels “sinned” against animals as well as humans. Other books such as Jubilees add that this interspecies mingling eventually resulted in mutations among normal humans and animals whose “flesh” (genetic makeup) was “corrupted” by the activity, presumably through crossbreeding (see Jubilees 5:1–5; 7:21–25).

Even the Old Testament contains reference to the genetic mutations that developed among humans following this timeframe, including “men” of unusual size, physical strength, six fingers, six toes, animal appetite for blood, and even lion-like features (2 Samuel 21:20; 23:20).

We’ll see what Horn presents in terms of anything in Scripture that has anything to do with such mythological chimeras. For now, note that he’s all too ready and willing to accept it due to a faulty premise, some sort of, “indication…Watchers…modified…animals.” Also, note his odd terminology for sexual mating, “construction of the Nephilim”—apparently, since that’s Transhumany.

Note that there’s not a singel indication in Scripture about Watchers modifying animals thus, Horn jumps to 1 Enoch/Ethiopic Enoch (see my book In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch—which contains a whole chapter about how much it contradicts Scripture) since “in the seventh chapter that the fallen angels ‘sinned’ against animals as well as humans.” Quoting one singel word makes it convenient since that way, he doesn’t have to face the fact that “sinned” does not mean nor imply “modified…animals.”

He tells us of, “interspecies mingling…mutations among normal humans and animals whose ‘flesh’ (genetic makeup) was ‘corrupted’ by the activity, presumably through crossbreeding (see Jubilees 5:1–5; 7:21–25).” Again, quoting two words (this time) makes it convenient to make texts seem to say that which they simply don’t.

Here’s the Jubilees text:

And it came to pass when the children of men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the angels of God saw them on a certain year of this jubilee, that they were beautiful to look upon; and they took themselves wives of all whom they chose, and they bare unto them sons and they were giants.

And lawlessness increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way, alike men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything that walks on the earth -all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other, and lawlessness increased on the earth and every imagination of the thoughts of all men (was) thus evil continually.

And God looked upon the earth, and behold it was corrupt, and all flesh had corrupted its orders, and all that were upon the earth had wrought all manner of evil before His eyes.

And He said that He would destroy man and all flesh upon the face of the earth which He had created.

But Noah found grace before the eyes of the Lord.

That is basically a paraphrase of Gen 6 with the addition of “a certain year of this jubilee,” which shows it’s late dated since we’ve no indication there was any such thing as a jubilee during the Gen 6 timeline. Also, whoever “they,” apparently “men and cattle and beasts and birds and everything,” “began to devour each other.”

The other Jubilees text is:

For owing to these three things came the flood upon the earth, namely, owing to the fornication wherein the Watchers against the law of their ordinances went a whoring after the daughters of men, and took themselves wives of all which they chose: and they made the beginning of uncleanness.

And they begat sons the Naphidim, and they were all unlike, and they devoured one another: and the Giants slew the Naphil, and the Naphil slew the Eljo, and the Eljo mankind, and one man another.

And every one sold himself to work iniquity and to shed much blood, and the earth was filled with iniquity.

And after this they sinned against the beasts and birds, and all that moves and walks on the earth: and much blood was shed on the earth, and every imagination and desire of men imagined vanity and evil continually.

And the Lord destroyed everything from off the face of the earth; because of the wickedness of their deeds, and because of the blood which they had shed in the midst of the earth He destroyed everything.

Recall that Tom Horn told us “sinned” in this text refers to “modified…animals.” Yet, the context is clear, “devoured one another…sinned against the beasts and birds, and all that moves and walks on the earth.” This was not about genetics experimentation but about eating. But why refer to eating as having “sinned”? Because it’s a pre-flood timeline when the eating of animals had not yet been approved.

Sadly, he’s much too vague when he refers to “‘men’ of unusual size” not only because he doesn’t cite anything but because “unusual size” is subjective, as subjective as “unusual…physical strength.”

Now, “six fingers, six toes” is stated about one singel person (a Repha, BTW, 2 Samuel 21:20). I’m unsure what “animal appetite for blood” has to do with it. As for “lion-like features (2 Samuel 21:20; 23:20),” he’s taking a text about warriors’ ferocity and turning it into a text about a chimera: note that his citation is mistaken since 2 Sam 23:20 is about a man killing lions. I’ve written books about each issue upon which I’m merely touching here: in this case, see chapter “” of my book .

Perhaps of all ancient records, the most telling extra-biblical script is from the book of Jasher, a mostly-forgotten text referred to in the Bible in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. Jasher records the familiar story of the fall of the Watchers, and then adds an exceptional detail that none of the other texts is as unequivocal about, something that can only be understood in modern language to mean advanced biotechnology, genetic engineering, or “transgenic modification” of species.

After the Watchers had instructed humans “in the secrets of heaven,” note what Jasher says occurred: “[Then] the sons of men [began teaching] the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord” (Jasher 4:18).

Tom Horn seems to miss a logical step: he rightly notes that Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 refer to a Book of Jasher and simply assumes that the book we have today by that title is the very same one. Yet, it’s very well known that the one we have is just a modern forgery (see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants). Interestingly, the English we have of neo-pseudo-Jasher does refer to “species” which is not a biblical term, is not an ancient term: kinds would be historically accurate term, this shows the influence of evolution related theory upon the modern hoax.

In any case, Horn also very fragmentarily quotes neo-pseudo-Jasher, for what it’s worth, but even then “mixture of animals of one species with the other” still seems to be a clumsy way to refer to animal husbandry. (Jasher 4:18).

Tom Horn further writes:

Some believe the corruption of antediluvian DNA by Watchers was an effort to cut off the birth line of the Messiah. This theory posits that Satan understood the protoevangelium—the promise in Genesis 3:15 that a Savior would be born, the seed of the woman, and that He would destroy the fallen angel’s power. Satan’s followers therefore intermingeld with the human race in a conspiracy to stop the birth of Christ.

If human DNA could be universally corrupted or “demonized,” they reasoned, no Savior would be born and mankind would be lost forever. Those who support this theory believe this is why God ordered His people to maintain a pure bloodline and not to intermarry with the other nations.

When Israel breached this command and the mutated DNA began rapidly spreading among men and animals, God instructed Noah to build an ark and to prepare for a flood that would destroy every living thing. That God had to send such a universal fiat like the Flood illustrates how widespread the altered DNA eventually became.

In fact, the Bible says in Genesis 6:9 that only Noah, and by extension his children, were found “perfect” in their generation. The Hebrew word for “perfect” in this case is tamiym, which means “without blemish” or “healthy,” the same word used in Leviticus to describe an unblemished, sacrificial lamb. The meaning was not that Noah was morally perfect, but that his physical makeup—his DNA—had not been contaminated with nephilim descent, as apparently the rest of the world had become.

In order to preserve mankind as He had made them, God destroyed all but Noah’s family in the Flood. The ancient records including those of the Bible appear to agree with this theology, consistently describing the cause of the Flood as happening in response to “all flesh” having become “corrupted, both man and beast.”

Sometimes terms such as “Some believe” seem to be used to make a point but not accept responsibility for it. In this case, we encounter a fascinating problem for pop-Nephilology-researchers since they claim, “this theory believe this is why God ordered His people to maintain a pure bloodline and not to intermarry with the other nations” but that was long after the flood. See, Tom Horn, et al., assert that the flood was, at least in part, God getting rid of Nephilim. Yet, they also claim post-flood Nephilim. Thus, they imply that God failed: Angels and/or Nephilim must have found some loophole that God missed.

In short, there’s zero indication that such is why God commanded “a pure bloodline” or that “mutated DNA began rapidly spreading…” But on this point, he’s jumping back in time to pre-flood when “God instructed Noah to build an ark…” It’s very pop-common to claim “tamiym” refers to “an unblemished, sacrificial lamb” in terms of Noah’s genetics yet—as I elucidated in chapter “” of my book —this refers to Noah having been righteous.

Of that “DNA corruption as an intended method for halting the coming of Christ,” Tom Horn notes, “an alternative or additional reason the Watchers may have blended living organisms exists. This theory is original with me…the overriding motive for whatever the Watchers were doing with the DNA of various species had to be understood within the context of their foremost goal, which was to leave their plane of existence and to enter ours.”

Yet, this is anachronistic since Watchers first had to “leave their plane of existence and…enter ours” in order to then do, “whatever the Watchers were doing with the DNA” which they would not have had to do since they were already here—in the flesh, no less.

Tom Horn then quotes “Giants in the Earth: Part I: Giants of the Ancient Near East,”

Mysterious World (Spring 2003), “Nephilim were genetically manufactured beings created from the genetic material of various pre-existing animal species” for which there’s zero evidence, “fallen angels did not personally interbreed with the daughters of men” which flatly contradicts the Scripture. As far as I can tell, that article is basically rehashed neo-theo-sci-fi of Stephen/Steve Quayle and the guy who Quayle plagiarized, Charles DeLoach.

Again, all of these missteps lead Horn to the conclusion with which he actually began, “This manipulation of living tissue by the fallen angels led to an unusual body made up of human, animal, and plant genetics known as nephilim, an ‘earth-born’ facsimile or ‘fit extension’ into which they could incarnate.”

For him, this has to do with that, “newly-engineered versions of demigods and mythological animals” will be “part of the coming kingdom of Antichrist…the resurrection of underworld nephilim-hordes in preparation of Armageddon.”

He then notes, “Daniel said: ‘They shall mingel themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay’ (Daniel 2:43).” Again, by prepping us into a certain view and only partially quoting a text, he can then conclude anything he wants. In other words, if you don’t read the book of Daniel then this one singel verse seems to fit into Tom Horn’s grand narrative.

He specifies, “conservative eschatologists Chuck Missler and Mark Eastman, in their book, Alien Encounters: The Secret Behind the UFO Phenomenon, to ask: ‘Just what (or who) are ‘mingling with the seed of men?’ Who are these Non-seed? It staggers the mind to contemplate the potential significance of Daniel’s passage and its implications for the future global governance.’”

Well, in my book Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers (which critiques Horn’s views in detail) I lay out the chronology of neo-pop-Nephilology and Missler is second on the list which leads to Horn, et al. In this case, Missler was mistaken in part since the entire book of Daniel contains nothing at all about Angels mating with humans, nor Nephilim, etc. He was referring to two people groups that would do commerce but wouldn’t intermarry—I get into this in detail in chapter “” of my book .

Tom Horn concludes that two words, “they” and “mingel,” communicate an entire all-encompassing grand theory of everything including, “altering human DNA

while simultaneously returning nephilim to earth,” so, again, God must have failed. He even claim:

…some church leaders have believed the Antichrist would ultimately represent the return of the nephilim—the reunion of demons with humans.

St. Augustine, himself, wrote of such demoniality in The City of God, and the De Daemonialitate et Incubis et Succubis, by Fr. Ludovico Maria Sinistrari de Ameno (1622–1701), also perceived the coming of Antichrist as representing the biological hybridization of demons with humans.

“To theologians and philosophers,” Fr. Ludovico wrote, “it is a fact, that from the copulation of humans with the demon…Antichrist must be born.”

Now, he refers to “some church leaders” and directs us to one from 354-430 and one from 1622-1701. Now, this gets technical but is technically very important since Nephilim were a result of Angels and humans, not demons and humans—yes, demons are fallen Angels but this doesn’t mean they exhibit the same characteristics, see my article Demons Ex Machina: What Are Demons? An example which is utterly key within this context is that by definition Angels are embodied in their own sort of flesh which is human-male-like while demons are disembodied.

Thus, when de Ameno wrote, “from the copulation of humans with the demon…Antichrist must be born” he may have been playing off of the odd Catholic sexualized demonology du jour but such is not in keeping with biblical demonology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Demons? A Styled Demonology.

Tom Horn tells us, “English theologian George Hawkins Pember agreed with this premise, and in his 1876 masterpiece, Earth’s Earliest Ages, he analyzed the prophecy of Christ that says the end-times would be a repeat of ‘the days of Noah.’” I noted the misuse of Jesus’ words at the outset of this review and the reason is that Jesus said the very same thing about the days of Lot as He said about the days of Noah:

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. (Luke 1726-30).

Clearly, taking Jesus’s own statement and His own emphasis within His own context: this is about people going about business as usual whilst being unaware or unconcerned with coming judgment.

This is why I have noted that Tom Horn does a good job on dealing with Transhumanism until he correlates it to him very poor Nephilology—yet, such is what allows him to construct grand conspiratorial narratives that are they sci-fi-exciting.

THE HYBRID AGE (PART 6): Comparisons Between Nephilim History And Transhumanism brings us to what I just noted, “There are those who believe the biblical mark of the Beast will evolve as an abstract of transhumanist aspirations and could be a conspiracy employing biotechnology in the form of a manufactured virus or bioweapon.”

Tom Horn notes, “today’s scientists” will “resurrect old forms such as gibborim and nephilim.” Well, we only know of one form of Nephilim—and don’t actually know their form since we’ve no reliable physical description of them. As for gibborim to refer to their form is even more incoherent since, as opposed to many pop-researchers, are not a people group: it’s merely a descriptive word meaning might/mighty.

In THE HYBRID AGE–PART 7: Transhumanism as Fulfillment of 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim

4:3—End-times Doctrines of Demons, Tom Horn refers to “Nephilim 2.0” within the context of, you guessed it, “a dark and prophetic conspiracy is truly unfolding as it did ‘in the days of Noah.’”

Parts 8-14 contained nothing contextually of interest so we will leave off here.

See my various books here.

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

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

I kept track of these discussions as per my modus operandi of pasting them comments into a Word doc as they were made but I neglected to note where it took place.

Yet, here’s a perfect example from Matt Dillahunty:

Matt Dillahunty admitting a fundamental failure of #Atheism, by any other name–such as #Secularhumanism pic.twitter.com/c9QaUvePP3

— Ken Ammi (@Atheism_is_Dead) February 12, 2020

Rirand Weavo commented

No one on Earth is provided any rights from God. Rights are indeed established by governments. This is why rights are different in different places. If God granted rights, wouldn’t we all have the same rights? Unless I’m misunderstanding, what rights are provided by God?

FiringallCylinders noted

It’s the idea that rights are inherent at birth. Aka God-given. This is why I stated that a godless society will have a much harder time justifying freedom.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

What governments are supposed to do is to protect God given rights. Is murder illegal in the USA? Would you say, “Obviously not because people commit murder.” Violations of laws/rights does not discredit the view that there are laws/rights.

In fact, without preexisting laws/rights there can be no violations of laws/rights since violations of laws/rights presupposes laws/rights. Thus, some “rights are different in different places” due to various things such as human corruption, etc.

Yet, all people everywhere and at all times have agreed on certain core ethics such as that murder is wrong–which is why, for example, when Nazi wanted to commit serial and mass murder they first had to philosophize about how what they were going to do was not actual murder. See, they had to get around the ethos (at least in their minds) since it’s absolute, universal, objective, etc.

GSpotter63

Do you actually think that rights given by God have to be followed by governments?   The fact that governments do their own thing is not evidence that man was not given rights by God.  The conclusion  “man has no God-given rights” simply does not follow from the premise ” governments can invent and impose their own rights”.

Ken Ammi

Rights given by God should be followed by governments.

You merely assert, “The fact that governments do their own thing is not evidence that man was not given rights by God” as a jump to a conclusion.

You were myopic since, for example, the fact that governments do their own thing is evidence that man is rebellious. Do you argue that murder is not illegal in the USA because people commit murder in the USA?

Thus, your conclusion is faulty.

Rirand Weavo

What are the God-given rights that the government should protect and how do you know they are given by God?

Ken Ammi

Any the stem from ontological human dignity and worth–precisely what Atheism lacks.

Rirand Weavo

Why is it that when I ask what the rights are that are granted by God, no one actually provides them?

One commenter pointed to three in the Declaration of Independence, but up to this point hasn’t demonstrated how those are from God.

Ken Ammi

Well, hold on a moment since you are beginning with jumped to asserted conclusions. What I mean is that, for example, you say “hasn’t demonstrated” without telling us why, on your worldview (not your emotively subjective assertions) providing demonstrations and basing our views on demonstrated things is some sort of universal imperative (at least, that’s when I infer you implied).

Rirand Weavo

And the frustration continues. Once again, rather than actually provide the rights given by God, someone deflects to something else. My world view, which I have not even stated, has no impact on your or anyone else’s ability to show any rights that come from God. What are the rights that are granted by God, and how do you know that they are?

Ken Ammi

Friend, the very concept of rights is only cogently, viably premise upon objective, extrinsic human value, dignity and worth which are based on humans being created in God’s image and we know that we were created by God by definition such as by the impossibility of the opposite such as accidental life within an accidental universe.

Rirand Weavo

What are the rights that are provided by God?

Ken Ammi

Friend, your jumps to conclusion based on hidden assumptions are not going to last much longer. God provides rights such as ownership of land/goods, self-defense, protection from slander, work, education, justice, et al.

Rirand Weavo

I’m not sure what you think I’m assuming. All I’ve been doing is asking what rights are provided by God. I’m just glad that somebody finally provided an answer.

What does it mean to say that God provides the right of ownership of land/goods?

What does it mean to say that God provides the right of self-defense?

What does it mean to say that God provides the right of protection from slander?

What does it mean to say that God provides the right of work?

What does it mean to say that God provides the right of education?

What does it mean to say that God provides the right of justice?

I know what these things are, but what I’m asking is if God grants you the right of ownership of land/goods (etc.), how does that work? What does this mean? How are these God-given rights applied or used on Earth?

Ken Ammi

Fair enough, but this is why I began at the meta level. But you asked me to go to the level of specifics. Now you got that, fine. Now you are asking for meta level examples so the point is that since we’re created in God’s image and are thus ontologically endowed with value, worth, etc. then we are granted those rights. Without such origins then we are not given any rights, we just invent them, take them, claim them, etc. as a façade (it may be a pragmatic façade but it would be a façade nevertheless).

Rirand Weavo

“since we’re created in God’s image and are thus ontologically endowed with value, worth, etc. then we are granted those rights.”

What is the practical application to humankind though? You just restated that we are granted these rights from God, but have not explained what that means. For example, the 2nd Amendment permits the average American citizen to own a firearm. I can point to the Amendment, provide you the language of it, and the Supreme Court interpretation of it, which concluded that barring other factors (such as felonies), every American has a right to own a gun. This firearm cannot  be taken from you (again, barring outside factors) so long as you otherwise comply with the law. This is a right that is afforded by the 2nd Amendment. Do the rights from God have any application in our lives?

But perhaps we should have started one step back. With regard to the things you listed (ownership of land/goods, self-defense, protection from slander, work, education, justice, et al.), how do you know that these are rights that are provided by God? For example, I know that every American has a right to own a gun (again, barring outside factors) because the 2nd Amendment adjudges so. How do you know what rights God provides?

To summarize:

– How do you know what rights God provides?

– What is the application of those rights to humankind?

Ken Ammi

Friend, I presupposed that you were aware that the Bible contains the specifics for which you are asking me: for example, the Ten Commandments and a few hundred others besides.

Thus, I “know what rights God provides” because the Ten Commandments, et al., adjudges so.

Rirand Weavo

“I “know what rights God provides” because the Ten Commandments, et al., adjudges so.”

The Fifth Commandment is to honor your father and mother. In Deuteronomy 21, instructions are given for parents of an unruly child to bring said kid to the elders, explain his disobedience, and the townsfolk are to stone the child to death.

Do you have a right to stone to death a child who does not honor you?

Ken Ammi

That’s watering down the statements about what the offspring has done and thus what would be adjudicated but: no, since that’s anachronistic.

Rirand Weavo

Here are the Ten Commandments.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Please explain what rights each of these provides you.

Ken Ammi

At some point I’m going to have to start charging you for my consultation services.

You cut off the premise but, very well (in general):

1. The right to worship the true God and not false ones.
2. The right to not working things made of wood, stone, etc.
3. The right to not sully that which is holy.
4. The right to rest form work.
5. The right to be honored—filial piety.
6. The right to not be murdered.
7. The right to not have a fundamental aspect of intimacy within a marriage being violated.
8. The right to not have your things stolen.
9. The right to not be subject to false witness.
10. The right to not risk your things being taken by the covetous.

Rirand Weavo

For context, I’m going to consider the application of these as a citizen of the USA. If you are not an American, then all of these points may not apply to you.

1. Firstly, this commandment does not say the other gods are false gods or you cannot worship them, it just says not to place any of them over Yahweh. What is the tangible consequence for violating the 1st Commandment? In the USA, the 1st Amendment provides you the right to worship any deity that you like and this is protected from persecution.
2. I’m not sure what your explanation of this right means. To instruct someone to not make idols does not provide a right, it limits it.
3. What is the tangible consequence for taking the Lord’s name in vain? To instruct someone to not take the Lord’s name in vain doesn’t provide a right, it limits it. The 1st Amendments grants citizen the right to sully any name they like, as well as to not have to do so.
4. Could you not work on the Sabbath and rest on other days? What is the tangible consequence for working on the Sabbath? Exodus 35 verse 2 says death. In the USA, you have the right to work on the Sabbath should you choose to, without risk of being put to death.
5. Should abusive parents who neglect their children also be honored? I would contend that no one has a right to be honored, although some could deserve it. What is the tangible consequence for not honoring one’s father and mother? Leviticus 20 verse 9 says death.
6. Finally, we reach something that is actually a tangible right people have. Numbers 35 is clear that death is the consequence so long as there is more than one witness. Perhaps that’s why Moses shanked a guy and wasn’t put to death for it.
7. The consequence for this varies depending on where in the world it occurs. In the USA, anyone is freely allowed to participate in consenting sexual conduct between adults, including adultery. There is no legal consequence for this. In some countries, this is a death sentence, which is in alignment with Leviticus 20 verse 10.
8. Another actual right that people have.
9. Another actual right that people have.
10. Coveting, by definition, is a thought, not an action. This commandment is attempting to regulate thoughts, which of course have no tangible consequence.

My point is the rights you actually have are those which are granted by governments. Of the 10 Commandments, the average American citizen only has three real, actual rights. One could violate the other seven without limitation. In fact, the average US citizen has the right to violate those.

Ken Ammi

That you are “going to consider the application of these as a citizen of the USA” is a styled case of anachronism: those commandments were specifically for ancient Israelites living in Israel under a theocracy which then became administered by judges and then by kings. They then became the bedrock for subsequent general laws and rights for many latter societies/governments.

Since citizens of the USA don’t live under a theocracy then they only apply generally or in principle and some don’t apply. Thus, your point by point statements are not really relevant.

But as long as you’re focused on the USA, you refer to “rights…granted by governments” but that’s not accurate: the Declaration of Independence stated, “all Men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

Thus, it’s not a case of “granted by governments” but rather, granted by our “Creator” and secured by Governments.

So, besides some sort of exercise in political science/social studies and/or comparative societies/governments: what’s the point, from your worldview?

Rirand Weavo

“Thus, I “know what rights God provides” because the Ten Commandments, et al., adjudges so.”

“those commandments were specifically for ancient Israelites living in Israel under a theocracy which then became administered by judges and then by kings.”

“Since citizens of the USA don’t live under a theocracy then they only apply generally or in principle and some don’t apply.”

When I asked you for specific rights God provides, you cited “the Ten Commandments, et al.” You then said that “they only apply generally or in principle and some don’t apply”. So what are the rights that God grants to everyone? That is the purpose of this entire comment chain. I’m asking about the specific rights that people actually have that come from God.

—

“the Declaration of Independence stated”

Despite what the Declaration of Independence says, it grants no rights and it’s not from God.

—

“Thus, it’s not a case of “granted by governments” but rather, granted by our “Creator” and secured by Governments.”

If God says that people have the right to do X, but no government grants that right, do people actually have the right to do X? Similarly, if God says not to do X, but a government permits it, then the government grants a right that God prohibits. Therefore real, actual rights come from government, not from God. This is the entire point of my position.

Ken Ammi

The rights that God grants to everyone are things such as the right of ownership of land/goods, the right of self-defense, the right of protection from slander, the right of work, the right to education, the right of justice, etc.

Basic level human dignity, value, and worth.

You focused on the USA and I told you what the Declaration of Independence says—which, BTW, also notes that “our Creator” is Declaration of Independence say “nature’s God”—so that your subjective personal opinion is that “Despite what the Declaration of Independence says, it grants no rights and it’s not from God” is utterly irrelevant to the verifiable historical fact—not to mention (okay, mentioning) that you assert, “it grants no rights” but as I quoted (and as Jough pointed out long ago on this thread), it states, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS…to secure these Rights.”

Yes, “If God says that people have the right to do X, but no government grants that right” then “people actually have the right to do X.”

Also, “if God says not to do X, but a government permits it, then the government grants a right that God prohibits” and that government is wrong.

Again, you asked about the USA and now say “real, actual rights come from government, not from God” but, again, “all Men are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

If you misread, misunderstand, misinterpret, and misapply a text as historically recent as the Declaration of Independence then I’m unsure how you’ll manage ancient texts written with a very different linguistic, cultural, and historical context.

But if you are just saying that you understand exactly what the Declaration of Independence states but your just subjectively don’t like it then well, that’s another issue—the point is that the fact are the facts (even though facts are accidental on Atheism).

Rirand Weavo

“The rights that God grants to everyone”

Which are totally useless unless a government also grants them. If God grants rights to people, why do people in different parts of the world have different rights?

—

“your subjective personal opinion”

It is not an opinion that the Declaration of Independence grants no rights. In 1776 there wasn’t even a country with citizens to grant rights to. Rights for Americans were not in effect until 1787.

—

“and that government is wrong”

Which doesn’t change the fact that the people thereof have the right to do something that God prohibits. The right that matters is the right that people actually have, which comes from government.

Ken Ammi

Friend, it seems you’re just arguing to argue: you asked about the US and I told you about it so if you don’t like it, take it up with Washington—and history.

Fact, as per the Declaration of Independence God grants rights and governments are supposed to protect them.

God granted rights LONG before any such a thing as a government existed (unless you want to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman a government).

As for “If God grants rights to people, why do people in different parts of the world have different rights?”

I might ask: if murder is illegal in the US (actually murdering babies is legal in the US) why do people commit murder? Well, the breaking of a law does not mean that the law doesn’t exist. In fact, it confirmed that it exists since if it didn’t exist then no one would break it.

Thus, God grants rights to people but people take it upon themselves to do what which they will in violation of God’s law, “the fact that the people thereof have the right to do something that God prohibits” as you rightly put it.

Yet, you’ll find that at the meta-level all people everywhere and at all times have agree on the absolute ethics (when defined as the ethos) even if not on the morals (when defined as the mores).

The “your subjective personal opinion” relating to that “It is not an opinion that the Declaration of Independence grants no rights” is just a basic miscommunication, I was referring to that it’s “your subjective personal opinion is that ‘Despite what the Declaration of Independence says, it grants no rights and IT’S NOT FROM GOD” since it’s telling us that it’s, or they’re, from God—not the document, but the rights as I have already proved.

So, when you say “The right that matters is the right that people actually have, which comes from government” you’re incorrect regarding the US, you’re incorrect regarding theology, and you’re replacing God with government.

Rirand Weavo

“Fact, as per the Declaration of Independence God grants rights and governments are supposed to protect them.”

I agree with you that this is what it says. What I disagree with is the notion that this was inspired by God. The Book of Mormon and Quran also claim to be inspired by God, but that doesn’t make it so. I also continue to hold the position that if a government does not grant a right from God, then having the right from God is useless because it is unusable.

—

“As for “If God grants rights to people, why do people in different parts of the world have different rights?”

I might ask: if murder is illegal in the US (actually murdering babies is legal in the US) why do people commit murder? Well, the breaking of a law does not mean that the law doesn’t exist.”

A person’s ability to do something is independent of their right to do so. The fact remains that people in different parts of the world have different rights. If rights come from one Supreme being, why are they different? I contend the reason is because rights come from government, not from God.

—

“So, when you say “The right that matters is the right that people actually have, which comes from government” you’re incorrect regarding the US, you’re incorrect regarding theology, and you’re replacing God with government.”

Does God grant any American the right to own a gun? No, that right comes from the 2nd Amendment, which is a government document. Does God grant Americans the right to have an abortion? Yes and no, depending on the stage of pregnancy and where one lives. Either way, it’s granted or denied by the government.

Ken Ammi

I’m not aware that anyone has ever claimed that the Declaration of Independence was inspired by God.

People in different parts of the world have different rights because govs sometimes interfere with God given rights and we are free to disobey govs when they demand we break God’s laws—violate God given rights.

Thus, they differ even when they (the ethos) came from God because people do things they have no right to do.

Since “rights come from government” then are you a-okay with what Nazis did since they were just following their gov’s orders?

The spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written.

If you want to argue North American Constitutional jurisprudence then feel free to ask someone else. I’m not claiming the DoC was inspired ergo, I have nothing to do with whether God grants any American the right to own a gun.

I have no idea what you mean by God granting Americans the right to have an abortion.

Rirand Weavo

“People in different parts of the world have different rights because govs sometimes interfere with God given rights”

What use is a God-given right if it can be superseded by a government right? And does this not demonstrate that rights are established by governments?

—

“Since “rights come from government” then are you a-okay with what Nazis did since they were just following their gov’s orders?”

Of course not. This conversation is not about moral right and wrong, it is about the authority and foundation of rights.

—

“I have nothing to do with whether God grants any American the right to own a gun.

I have no idea what you mean by God granting Americans the right to have an abortion.”

Precisely, because rights are established by governments and not by a deity.

Ken Ammi

One use of a God-given right that can be superseded by a government right is that it functions as a judgement against that government and shows us actual rights vs. artificial ones.

On your view, it’s all about survival of the fittest gov, right? Might makes right and all of that pragmatic stuff, right?

Now, since “This conversation is not about moral right and wrong, it is about the authority and foundation of rights” then you must be stating that you believe Nazis had the authority and foundation of rights since, after all, you are arguing that rights are established by govs.

Rirand Weavo

“actual rights vs. artificial ones”

Actual rights are those that are granted by governments. God-given rights are artificial rights because they aren’t real unless ordained by a government.

—

“On your view, it’s all about survival of the fittest gov, right? Might makes right and all of that pragmatic stuff, right?”

What are you talking about? This isn’t a discussion about evolution and natural selection. We’re talking about rights and where they come from.

—

“you must be stating that you believe Nazis had the authority and foundation of rights since, after all, you are arguing that rights are established by govs.”

Yes, rights are established by governments.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I’ve often stated that for some people politics is their religion: is that the case with you?

Whether something is implemented has no connection to whether it exists or not.

You seem to have missed the point that when you take the view that this is purely about what any given government does then, by definition, you collapse ethics and it becomes a matter of the survival of the fittest gov, might makes right, pragmatism.

At least you admit that you believe Nazis had the authority and foundation of rights. I also hope you see how that can’t just be a brute statement but that it has ethical implications.

Rirand Weavo

“I’ve often stated that for some people politics is their religion: is that the case with you?”

I think when the word ‘religion’ is used in such a manner, it loses its effect and poisons its meaning. I’m not overly political or religious.

—

“Whether something is implemented has no connection to whether it exists or not.”

I’m not sure I agree with this. In the case of rights, they only exist if they are implemented (written, voted on, passed into law). Whether or not they are used is independent of their existence. For example, the average American citizen has the right to own a gun even if they choose not to.

—

“You seem to have missed the point that when you take the view that this is purely about what any given government does then, by definition, you collapse ethics and it becomes a matter of the survival of the fittest gov, might makes right, pragmatism.”

I have made no appeal to ethics in this entire thread. My only position is that rights come from and are granted by governments. That is independent of whether or not the right is good or useful.

—

“At least you admit that you believe Nazis had the authority and foundation of rights. I also hope you see how that can’t just be a brute statement but that it has ethical implications.”

I don’t know about foundation, but as for the authority, yes as a government agency they had the authority to grant rights. Again, this is independent from the ethics of the rights.

Ken Ammi

But you sound like a religious zealot who’s faith is in the almighty government which giveth and taketh away.

The “right to life” is in the Constitution, it exists therein, but Leftists have decided that humans in the womb have no right to life so that proves my point: the right exists even if not implemented.

That you “made no appeal to ethics” doesn’t mean you’ve made no comments that have ethical implications and you prove that, yet again, by affirming that Nazis “had the authority to grant rights” and take them away.

Rirand Weavo

“the right exists even if not implemented.”

A right that is not granted by the government is a right that does not exist. In your example, the right is that a woman can have an abortion (depending on the stage or pregnancy and where they live). The obvious consequence of that is the resulting end of life of the embryo/fetus. Within abortion laws, this entity has no rights. Again, I’m not saying either of those is right or wrong, only that the right exists as granted by the government.

—

“That you “made no appeal to ethics” doesn’t mean you’ve made no comments that have ethical implications and you prove that, yet again, by affirming that Nazis “had the authority to grant rights” and take them away.”

If you’re implying that I think the Nazis were moral in their extermination of the Jews, you are incorrect. The only point I’m making is that rights granted to citizens are done so by government. This is independent of those rights being moral, just, ethical, etc.

Ken Ammi

If a country implements right X but another country does not, that does not mean that right X does not exist. Ergo, it’s not accurate that “A right that is not granted by the government is a right that does not exist.” That would just be a case of a right that’s no implemented by one government.

“Entity” is certainly a fascinating manner in which to refer to human babies.

Since we have a right to life then abortion laws are wrong—legally, ethically, logically, theo-logically, etc.

No, I’m not implying you think Nazis were moral (technically they were moral but not ethical: mores vs. ethos). I’m pointing out that you place into their hand the right to decide that which they will for their culture—such as exterminating anyone they wish.

BTW: the sort of thinking that has “rights granted to citizens” being “independent of those rights being moral, just, ethical, etc.” is the sort of lack of systematizing that causes these sorts of problems.

Rirand Weavo

“If a country implements right X but another country does not, that does not mean that right X does not exist. Ergo, it’s not accurate that “A right that is not granted by the government is a right that does not exist.””

It does not exist for citizens and/or inhabitants of that country. The fact that it can be a right in one country but not another demonstrates my point that rights come from government.

—

““Entity” is certainly a fascinating manner in which to refer to human babies.”

I also referred to it as an embryo/fetus. In order to condense my response and avoid redundancy I chose a single, different word the second time.

—

“Since we have a right to life”

The right to life does not exist in the Constitution of the United States. The right to life does exist in the American Convention on Human Rights, but the Convention has not been ratified by the United States, so it has no authority in the USA.

—

“I’m pointing out that you place into their hand the right to decide that which they will for their culture”

Yes, and this is precisely what we see around the world and have seen throughout history.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you’re just being incoherent at this point: something that exists exits whether one is aware of it or not, whether one likes it or not, whether one implements it or not, etc., etc., etc., etc.

All you proved is what I’ve been telling you all along: rights are implemented or not implemented by governments.

“embryo/fetus” are dehumanizing Latinized med-talk terms for babies.

The right to life is in the Declaration of Independence.

And yet, I’m sure we’ll agree—as we already have—that “what we see around the world and have seen throughout history” does not make it right, and so we’re right back to ethics.

Rirand Weavo

“something that exists exits whether one is aware of it or not, whether one likes it or not, whether one implements it or not”

This is true for things of nature, etc., but not true for rights. Rights only exist if granted by a governing agency. I don’t know how this is even argumentative. For example, do Japanese citizens have a legal right to own a gun? Do citizens of the USA? Why does one group have the right and the other not?

—

“rights are implemented or not implemented by governments.”

This seems to be the point I’ve been making, perhaps implemented vs granted being the difference.

—

““embryo/fetus” are dehumanizing Latinized med-talk terms for babies.”

Embryo and fetus are the proper medical terminology to describe certain stages of life of human development.

—

“The right to life is in the Declaration of Independence.”

Once again, the Declaration of Independence grants no rights to anyone. It was written in 1776. The United States of America was not formally established until 1787.

—

“I’m sure we’ll agree… that “what we see around the world and have seen throughout history” does not make it right, and so we’re right back to ethics.”

We do agree and as I have stated, the right to do something is independent from the moral or ethical consequences of it. I’m speaking strictly from the legal standpoint of rights, not whether something is right.

Ken Ammi

Besides arguing just to argue, is there something you wanted to discuss about “When atheists borrow their moral standards from Christians”?

So, right, there are human invented rights but there are God given rights.

For good, bad, or ugly: governments select which to enact—which says nothing about ontology.

Indeed, “Embryo and fetus are the proper medical terminology to describe certain stages of life of human development” and no loving mother uses such sterile terms for what they refer to as a “baby” all along.

You say “the Declaration of Independence grants no rights to anyone,” it refers to, “rights…life,” if the latter US gov didn’t select this as an official right then that’s a different issue.

Rirand Weavo

“is there something you wanted to discuss about “When atheists borrow their moral standards from Christians”?”

As my first post indicated, I wanted to point out that rights do not come from God and are indeed established by governments. You acknowledge that there are “human invented rights” but you still also hold that “there are God given rights”. My contention is that all rights are granted by humans via government because a God-given right (I’m not sure how to even determine what those are) is useless unless it is granted by a governing agency. Ergo a God-given right that is not acknowledged by a governing agency is not a right at all because it doesn’t provide anything for anyone.

Ken Ammi

Okay so there’s the issues right there then: you are committing category errors.

One category is ontology, “come from” and the other is epistemology, “are indeed established” roughly speaking: the source vs. promulgation.

Indeed, there are God given rights which we call ethics, when referring to the ethos, which all humans everywhere, in all places, and times agree.

Then, back to categorization issues, “granted by” vs. “God-given right.”

Rirand Weavo

What are three God-given rights which have applied to all humans, in all places, and at all times? What are three human invented rights that apply to you or me?

Ken Ammi

We’ve been through this already so please see above, I’m not interested in more pop quizzes.

Rirand Weavo

Right. And we’ve failed to identify the God-given rights and how they’re applied to every human. What we have in reality is different governments granting different rights to their citizens.

​Ken Ammi

​Part of the issue is that you’​​re focused on what you term “rights.” I’d note that absolute, universal, extrinsic, objective ethics (defined as referring to the ethos) are evidenced in that all humans in all times and all places have agreed. Some, thereafter, chose to rebel against these and go about “creating and granting different rights to their citizens” yet, premised upon and so evidencing these ethics.

Rirand Weavo

“Part of the issue is that you’re focused on what you term “rights.”” Because in the video Dr. Turek discusses rights. — “I’d note that absolute, universal, extrinsic, objective ethics” How do you determine what these are? — “all humans in all times and all places have agreed.” I’m not sure there is anything that fits in this category.

Ken Ammi

That murder is unethical, for one, fits in the category.

Rirand Weavo

There have been governments, humans, throughout history that have had no issue murdering other humans and considered it legal to do so within select parameters.

Ken Ammi

​I hope you’re no confusing killing a​​nd murder but can you give an example of “had no issue murdering”?

Rirand Weavo

It’s happening right now in Ukraine. Whether or not it’s legal may be a different issue, but the Russian government doesn’t seem to care how many they kill. And to use the obvious example, the Nazi regime had no issue killing select groups of people that they didn’t think deserved to live, which to my knowledge was legal under the administration at the time.

Ken Ammi

So you are confusing killing a​​nd murder: they are ethically very different.

That was the end of it as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

Such was a question posted to the Quora site which launched the following.

Keith Harris commented

Yes. Nephilim in the Bible just means “giants.”

Fun Fact: Hebrew words ending in “im” are PLURAL. So the correct way to ask this question is “Was Goliath a Nephil?”

There are many who believe that the Nephilim are “the fallen ones” a race of giants who lived before the Flood who were part human and part demon (Genesis 6:1–4). But this interpretation fails to consider that the same word is used again later in the Book of Numbers to refer to the descendants of Anak (Numbers 13:32, 33).

So taking the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon of the meaning of “nephilim” as giants then Goliath fits that definition. However, Goliath is NOT half human, half demon.

Jason Kelley replied

Sorry Keith your mistaken. it means “Fallen Ones” and these half-breeds were of great stature, “Men of legend”. We cant make the bible what we want it to be just because we don’t like the meaning. I did my thesis on just this subject when in seminary.

I heard all kinds of laughable explanations, rather then taking it as it reads. It is the opening narrative for why God had to destroy the earth with a great flood. They are NOT the descendants of Seth, or any other crazy notion that makes people feel better. They are what it says.

We also know that there was a war in heaven. Satan and a 1/3 of the Angels were kicked out heaven when they lost and sent here. Satan is still carrying on that war, seeking to destroy God’s creation by “devouring” whom he can.

Keith Harris

It’s unfortunate that you did a thesis this subject. In my opinion, there are far better subjects to tackle. I’m sorry to tell you that you happen to fall on the side of the majority and your findings are NOT groundbreaking or new at all! They simply align with human fables and your preconceived ideas.

Did you consider WHY the word occurs again many centuries later in the days of Moses? If so, explain it.

Did you realize that Genesis actually says that the “sons of God” were MARRYING the “daughters of men”? Where else in Scripture do we see angels (or demons) MARRYING humans??? Nowhere! In fact, it says the exact opposite!!!

Marriage is a HUMAN activity. The Bible NEVER says that the “sons of God” were having casual SEX with the “daughters of men” as many religious pundits teach.

The exact meaning of the word “Nephil” is uncertain. Some say it means “the fallen ones” others think it means “those who cause others to fall” but NONE indicate that they are half breeds of demons and humans.

Finally the phrase “men of renown” is a phrase that appears again in Numbers 16:1–3 and is applied to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram who were seeking to be leaders instead of Moses. Clearly they were MEN (not half breeds of demons and humans). And you know what happened to them: God caused the earth to swallow them alive!

In short, “men of renown” is a Bible phrase that means “mortals who seek to exalt themselves before men.” And in both cases God eliminated them from the face of the Earth!

I, Ken Ammi, chimed in with

Most interesting!

If “The Book of Revelation is not written in chronological order” how do you know that “The war in Heaven happened well before the Flood”?

Just because, in general, “The Book of Revelation is not written in chronological order” does not mean that it’s 100% anachronistic.

Rev 12 seems to be quite chronological with causes being followed by effects and with the war being post-resurrection of Jesus.

I’m not aware of anyone in history how claimed that “all that demons or angels had sexual intercourse with women.”

I have never done any thesis at all.

Yes, I’ve considered “WHY the word occurs again many centuries later in the days of Moses” and it’s laid out quite clearly in the narrative of Num chap. 13. Ten unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked for what they said within an evil report made up a “Don’t go in the woods!” type of fear-mongering scare-tactic tall tale when they, itinerate tent dwellers, were facing having to fight various people groups living in fortified cities.

Nowhere else “in Scripture do we see angels ([not] or demons) MARRYING humans” and that’s irrelevant since just because it didn’t happen more than once doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen once.

It never happened again since, as per Jude and 2 Peter 2, the Angels who did that were incarcerated and there’s only a one time sin/fall of Angels in the Bible.

“Marriage is a HUMAN activity” which is why Angles who did so are considered sinners, having “left their first estate,” in order to do so: as Jude put it.

“The exact meaning of the word ‘Nephil’ is” fall/fallen/to cause to fall, etc. but a word need to “indicate” their ontology, their parentage does that.

That “men of renown” is applied to others is as irrelevant as that Nephilim are called gibborim/mighty: as are Angels, some of David’s soldiers, Boaz, God, etc.

Thus, beyond that, your assertion that “‘men of renown’…means ‘mortals…’” is fallacious.

Keith Harris

We know that the war in Heaven happened well before the Flood because of Revelation 12:9

“And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.”

Revelation 12:9 NASB1995

“The Serpent of Old” was already in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3 deceiving the woman. This shows that the war in Heaven took place sometime before the Fall of man.

Ken Ammi

Appreciate the interaction, friend, I love discussing such stuff.

Please be careful about taking texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts—especially based on one single verse.

The chronology is:

“She was pregnant”

“Dragon…swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth”

“dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth”

“She gave birth to a male child…[who] was caught up to God”

“war arose in heaven”

“dragon…was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him”

Etc.

Thus, pregnant woman (who she is, is another issue) Satan casting Angels to Earth, Jesus’ birth and ascension, then (in the past or yet to be) war in heaven, Satan cast to Earth, etc.

Keith Harris

Your confusion is understandable because the Book of Revelation is not always in chronological order. However, I gave you the one Scripture that ties everything together.

Even if you don’t know who the woman represents, the fact that Revelation identifies “the dragon” as the “ancient serpent who deceives the world” suggests that Satan was on Earth deceiving Adam and Eve because he had already been cast out of Heaven.

Obviously most Christians don’t make this connection and therefore do not understand that the war in heaven is an event that happened before the Fall of man.

Ken Ammi

Friend, I already noted that noting “the Book of Revelation is not always in chronological order” is not a relevant statement to make within this context.

Indeed, Satan had already fallen, as I will term it (Luke 10:18), from heaven but you merely assert that he fell due to the war but the Bible states no such thing.

He fell (his sinful act is recorded in Gen 3), he cast Angels to Earth (their sinful act is recorded in Gen 6), but it’s after Jesus’ resurrection that they fight the war and he’s permanently cast to the Earth (before he was still able to come before God: Job chaps. 1-2, etc.).

Keith Harris

“[The angels’] sinful act is recorded in Genesis 6.” No sir. The sons of God are NOT angels. I’ve already presented Scriptural evidence that “the sons of God” are the descendants of Seth. You’ve rejected that evidence and that’s your prerogative.

I grant you that after the cross Satan lost access to Heaven. But this fact does not change the fact that the war in Heaven took place before the Fall of Man.

​Ken Ammi

Who are the sons of God in Job 38:7?

Why only exclusively male Sethites and only exclusively females Cainites?

As per Rev 12’s chronology, the war​​ in heaven took place or will take place after Jesus’ resurrection.

Keith Harris

Who are the sons of God in Job 38:7? They are the “Adams” of the unfallen worlds that God created. Yes, God has many other worlds besides this one and they did not sin like Adam did.

Why only exclusively male Sethites and only exclusively females Cainites? – The descendants of Seth were the ones who kept the worship of the true God alive. After Abel died, Seth replaced him as the family guardian of truth.

Cain went his own way and did not follow God at all. This created a clear division: those who follow God (the descendants of Seth) and those who do not (the descendants of Cain).

Over time, the descendants of Seth, who are human like you and I, began to notice that the daughters of Cain were hot. This is NOT a farfetched concept at all. The women of the world tend to be more attractive than the women in church.

So, unfortunately, they acted on their lust and began to MARRY them. Whenever you’re unequally yoked with unbelievers, bad things tend to happen as Scripture has proven time and time again.

Ken Ammi

Whereabouts did you get the idea that “They are the ‘Adams’ of the unfallen worlds” and how could they see Earth being created from those various worlds?

So you’ve no reply to “Why only exclusively male Sethites and only exclusively females Cainites?”

I’m unsure how you can so simply praise Sethites (whom, after all, you blame for the flood) and all Cainites simply because you know of one wrong thing that Cain did.

Agree, “This is NOT a farfetched concept at all” but it’s a very, very late dated view which contradicts the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jews and Christians alike.

Yes, “Whenever you’re unequally yoked with unbelievers, bad things tend to happen as Scripture has proven time and time again” but there’s no indication there was any such commandment against it back then and also, why does that not cause floods today?

That was the end of that since 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.

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

The video Ancient Giants, which upon checking before posting this has been removed from YouTube, launched the following discussion as a certain MEJEL- Belonged of Yeshaya Yeshuma commented as follows (and I don’t seem to have record of what my original comment was to which the reply was written

Ken Ammi from this statement alone it seems like you haven’t read alot of scripture. These people had fought entire cities of strong fortified walls and provision many times before. Isrealites are natural born warriors, and we have more than scripture to back that up. And they were indeed rebuked for lack of faith, not for lying.

There are more stories in the Bible about the nation of Isreal fighting giants. It wasn’t a lie, and I’m saying that based on what we do have in scriptural context. Liars are identified as such in scripture, and as I said, if it wasn’t a possibility for a city of giants that size to be anyway then the people would not have believed it. Their words were not rebuked, their lack of faith was.

Ken Ammi the nephilim returned the same way they initially occurred…fallen angels did not have flesh bodies like everything that died in the flood. They came back onto human women just like they did before the flood..it’s not that hard to make sense of this when you read with contextual understanding.

Again, it’s very telling to those of us who take the time to read when someone who does not know scripture as much as they know “here-say” speak..please, read the Bible for yourself instead of gathering information about it from your favorite sources. The things that don’t make sense to you now will once you read the source material FOR YOURSELF.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

Since you jump from the vague, subjective, generic, and multi-usage English word “giants” to the specific Hebrew word “Nephilim” then it’s hard to follow what you mean.

Num 13 represents a unique situation whereby they’d have to confront multiple people groups.

The ten don’t have to be rebuked lying for us to know they were lying: they made five assertions about which the whole entire rest of the Bible knows nothing at all, no one single other verse back their assertions. They contradict Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the Bible which is with whom I’ll side.

You say “There are more stories in the Bible about the nation of Isreal fighting giants” but please check the Hebrew behind the word you’re reading in English as “giants”: it’s not “Nephilim,” it’s “Rephaim”—please don’t chase an English word around a Hebrew Bible.

Thus, you say “It wasn’t a lie” based on confusion due to thinking that “giants” only refers to one thing, one people groups, all of the time but that’s simply not the case.

It seems that people believed it since they were being told about a place they’d never seen before.

You say “nephilim returned the same way they initially occurred” but there’s not one single verse to which you can appeal for that.

You say “fallen angels did not have flesh bodies” but there’s not one single verse to which you can appeal for that.

You say “They came back onto human women just like they did before the flood” but there’s not one single verse to which you can appeal for that.

When you say I “haven’t read alot of scripture” and am “someone who does not know scripture” and have not “read the Bible for yourself” and haven’t “read the source material” your judgment is so very, very unrighteous that it breaks my heart and I pray you’ll repent.

MEJEL- Belonged of Yeshaya Yeshuma

Ken Ammi “as in the days of noah” tells us that “what has been before will be again”..both quotes from scripture that explain why the world will fall into the same genetically modified fallen state. Yikes, showing off how much you DON’T know the book again… And maybe it was implied that “giants” only referred to one thing, so let me clarify.. TITANS, NEPHILIM, RAPHIEM, AND SO CALLED GIANTS OF THE LIKE, were all foes the nation had either faced or had familiarity with. You have already proven by your arguments that you don’t know the whole Bible, so I won’t hold it against you that you didn’t know this.

So just so we’re clear, the Bible DOES corroborate the fact that races of hybrid humans (I’m specifying that so you don’t get confused by words like “nephilim” or “giant”..) that were on the earth in Noah’s time will come back again by the generation that will see the second coming of Christ..which means they came back after the flood. If it’s not specified that they came back in a different way than the first time, and it’s also mentioned that what happened before will happen again, then we know that how it happened the first time is how it happened the second time.

In terms of them contradicting Moses and the Bible, that is an outright adultering of truth. They contradicted Joshua and Caleb’s belief that they could DEFEAT the sons of Anak (titans and/or giants). There was NEVER any argument to suggest their initial claim was a lie BECAUSE IT WASN’T. They eventually fought them! You want to hold on to the belief that they lied so badly that you’re trying to make scripture bend to your belief instead of basing your belief in the scripture itself. This tends to happen when we know more doctrine than we do scripture.

As I said before, read it for yourself before adhering to any theories you might have heard a lecture on..This is a BOOK, not a reference guide. You must read the whole thing before tagging along to any theory that strokes your fancy and then trying to find heresay notes and tidbits to back up your claim. Read the whole book.

Ken Ammi I don’t want to tear down the other arguments you made in this comment because I don’t intend to victimize you..so please do not try to feign knowing scripture when it’s gossip you seem to know more about than the actually written word. If you truly are confused about the claims I made that you argue against, just know that each one has scriptures to back it up, not theories that I like.

I’ll be happy to share IF you are still confused. Once you read for yourself, people who have not read the book look silly trying to compare what they think they know to what you actually know. I say this with good intention because if you truly want to base your beliefs on scripture, then it will change your life to read ALL of it. Then you too will be able to tell when someone is having a go at you rather than discussing the actual book.

Ken Ammi

Friend, you merely uncontextually mashed two verse together. I hope you realize that you argue anything by doing that, anything at all.

I’m unsure why you got so worldly, you claim you “​​say this with good intention” but you’re being a jerk so just drop the personal attacks and please focus on the issues, for example, when you say “TITANS, NEPHILIM, RAPHIEM, AND SO CALLED GIANTS OF THE LIKE, were all foes the nation had either faced” is clearly false but then you say “or had familiarity with” which is a whole other issues since, for example, you have familiarity with Nephilim but have never seem them (right?).

Going vague doesn’t help the discussion but actually hinders it since my points were about Nephilim and “giants” not some generic, “hybrid humans.” Yet, Nephilim aren’t just hybrids but hybrids created in a very specific way and we’ve no indication whatsoever that “they,” the actual Nephilim, “will happen again.”

“In terms of them contradicting Moses and the Bible” and Joshua, and Caleb, and God well, they all affirm, for example, Anakim in the land but never say a single word about Nephilim in the land nor anyone related to them in the land.

The “sons of Anak (titans and/or giants)” is an incoherent term.

When you say “They eventually fought them!” to whom are you referring by “them”?

I’m not in the least bit concerned about being victimized: if you can argue biblically, preferably via quotes and citations, then please do so.

Well, that ended the discussion.

See my various books here.

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

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

The following comments came about due to the video titled DEBATE: Is There Reasonable Evidence for Evolution? | Kent Hovind vs. Mathew Steele.

I, Ken Ammi, noted

Mathew stated, “the Moon is not a light” really? Ever been in a forest when the Moon’s not out and then when it’s out? But, guess what, the Sun’s also not a light. Yet, they both produce or reflect light and thus, are lights in the sky.

He said, “there’s still no coherent justified Christian response to Euthyphro’s Dilemma” really? Firstly, Euthyphro’s dilemma is really a false dichotomy. Secondly, here it is: https://truefreethinker.com/video-resolving-the-euthyphro-dilemma but I’ve a feeling Matthew will just appeal to his subjective qualifier, “coherent justified” and merely assert that, sure, it’s been responded to but not to his personal satisfaction (and, BTW, his subjective personal satisfaction isn’t a standard).

It’s ironic that someone who believes that humans are accidentally existing apes stated, “to close your eyes to everything in the world that disagrees with the Bible and just label it all evolution is an insult to the intelligence of every single one of our ancestors who fought to make the world a safer, healthier, more enlightened place.” He’s also merely asserting that safer, healthier, more enlightened are some sort of standard, some sort of universal imperative rather than, say, oppression, violence, and ignorance—survival of the fittest-style—which is also perfectly in keeping with evolution.

Matthew noted, “you don’t have to…lie for a living just to keep people paying you to tell them it’s all just the work of the Devil” followed with, get this, “live that way if you like but do so honestly” LOL and then, “if holding on to superstitions helps keep the darkness at bay that’s fine” which he is forced to say (at least he’s being consistent here) since on his worldview he actually can’t condemn the Moon being said to be a light when it’s not, nor closing our eyes, nor insulting intelligence, nor lying, etc., etc., etc. thus, he debunked his own merely asserted complains.

Such is why he can impotently emote contra “snake oil from con artists and frauds and hypocrites and charlatans and idiots and thieves” but can’t actually condemn such, on his worldview.

He refers to “this giant puzzle we call reality” yet, according to his worldview reality is accidental, as is our ability to discern it, there’s no universal imperative to adhere to it, nor to demand that others do as either.

Abe Grey replied

You can not be serious. If your statement regarding the moon and sun is indicative of your understanding of science you are in trouble. The moon is not a light in the same way as a mirror is not a light. The moon does not produce light it reflects light. There is a big difference in the two. The sun on the other hand does indeed produce light radiating constantly from every point on its surface. This light is reflected just like a mirror off of the moon producing what is call moon glow. It is of course brighter when the moon is full on a cloudless night. Then when obscured by either the clouds or the shadow of the moon.

Ken Ammi

You moved the goal post (is there anything wrong with doing that on your worldview?): about the Moon I wrote, “Ever been in a forest when the Moon’s not out and then when it’s out?” and noted that the Moon “produce[s] or reflect[s] light” and you think it’s some sort of refutation to actually just agree with me, “The moon does not produce light it reflects light” well, that’s what I said. If you want to just argue to argue please go elsewhere.

Mathew Steele chimed in with

” But, guess what, the Sun’s also not a light. Yet, they both produce or reflect light and thus, are lights in the sky.”

Nice try, but nope.  A light, as in something that produces light, doesn’t qualify the moon.  By your “logic” a mirror is also a light.  A reflective strip on the highway is a light.  I didn’t bother reading any further, this was too much of a facepalm.

Ken Ammi

Not a nice try on your part since you merely insert a subjective definition “A light, as in something that produces light” so that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Mathew Steele

“You moved the goal post” no, you asserted that something which reflects light is therefore a light, while I pointed out that a mirror would qualify as a light by that logic.  But a mirror is not a light.  The sun, however, does produce light directly.  It doesn’t take a genius to see the problem there.

“is there anything wrong with doing that on your worldview?)” Seeing as I didn’t move the goal post, this is a red herring and I’m not taking the bait.  My worldview is ironclad.  It can’t be refuted, not by anyone.  You’re welcome to try, though.

“you merely insert a subjective definition”

Definitions are subjective.  That’s how language works, obviously.  Dictionaries just describe the way words are used subjectively by groups of people.  It’s called lexicography.

“that has nothing to do with what I wrote.”

If you think so, you’re not paying attention.  I’ll be delighted to deal with the rest of your post, above, but if you’re sticking to the moon being a light, there’s not much hope for a coherent discussion.

Ken Ammi

Again, if you’re in a forest at night you know the Moon is a light just like if you’re in a dark room and someone uses a mirror to reflect light into that room from a light bulb in another room then you know that mirror is a light: this is just common parlance, it’s not an ontological discussion about waves and particles.

Is there anything wrong with red herring on your worldview?

Since “Definitions are subjective” then “red herring” means that you admit I disproved your worldview.

Mathew Steele

But a mirror is not a light.  It’s a mirror.

Ken Ammi

At this point the issue is that you have reading comprehension problems: that the Moon is a light to light the night is just common parlance, you seem to be demanding that a text which has no interest in elucidating the ontology of light in terms of being wave and particle must do so in order to be accurate yet, such is simply not how linguistics, hermeneutics, communication, etc. work. Thus, we can rightly say that a mirror is a light when it’s dark and it’s reflecting waves/particles since this isn’t about the law of identify, it’s about basic level communication.

Mathew Steele

If that’s what you want to believe, I’m not going to try to stop you.  Enjoy.

Ken Ammi

That’s actually the one and only thing you’d said that consistent with your worldview. Please do study up on reading comprehension including hermeneutics: these will alter you to recognize common parlance vs. highly technical elucidations.

Well, that was the end of it as no more replies were forthcoming.

See my various books here.

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

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

Donate

My books

Patreon

Twitter

Facebook

Gab

Mewe

Minds

Tumblr

Pinterest

Linkedin

Carl is described as, “a biblical scholar, minister…,” he posted an article titled Tower of Babel: Gateway to the gods which, “was recently featured in the April Edition of the Prophecy Watchers magazine” which is no surprise given it’s neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales flavor.

Joseph notes, “The Historian Josephus claims, that Nimrod, persuaded the people to ascribe their happiness to him rather than God, seeking worship for himself” and, “Nimrod desired self-preservation, whilst simultaneously distancing himself from God’s authority. The Midrash (Rabbinical writings) also describes the tower of Babel, built on tall columns designed to protect it from another divine flood.”

But I’m not terribly interested in such since there’s no indication that Josephus had any access to anything but folklore from millennia after the Torah and the Midrashim are from even later and are sermonizing homilies more than any sort of history or even strict Bible commentaries.

Thus, I will focus on my interest which is when Carl Joseph gets to discussing, “Who was Nimrod and what did he become?”

He quotes what we’re told about him, “Genesis 10:8–9 states, ‘And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord.’”

For now, note something that post-flood Nephilologists don’t like, which is that this was, “before the Lord” and proverbially, “before the Lord.”

Joseph appeals to Dr. Michael Lake who, “presents a word study of the term, ‘he began to be.’ The Hebrew word is chalal, which means to, ‘profane, defile or pollute, either sexually or genetically.’”

I’m quite unsure that Moses was employing a word to refer to genetically profane. In any case, that was a myopic statement since, for example, when Noah planted a vineyard, Joseph and Lake would have, “Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard” (Gen 9:20) to read as, “Noah profane, defile or pollute, either sexually or genetically to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard”—actually, neo-theo-sci-fi-tall-tales-Nephilologists would love that reading.

Carl Joseph tells us, “He did so in order to become a ‘mighty one’ which is the Hebrew term gibborim. This term can mean ‘mighty, champion, chief or even giant’ in some lexicons. Could it be that Nimrod became a giant by profaning himself either sexually or genetically, in order to replicate the stature of his antediluvian forefathers?”

At this point, we must ask these hugely important questions:

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

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

Do those usages agree?

Typically, Nephilologists of the giants=Nephilim sort never bother with such key issues but leave it to their readers to attempt to guess to what they’re referring with any given usage and will use that word to mean various things.

So, we have a record of a regular guy, at hunter (before the Lord), who became mighty. That is somehow turned into a Gigorexia Nervosa focus on, “…giant…giant…” Gigorexia Nervosa is my term for people who are obsessed with seeing giants and just making them up where they’re nowhere to be seen.

Note the reference to, “the stature of his antediluvian forefathers” which merely asserts two things: 1) we know the stature (physical, I suppose) of antediluvians and 2) they were his apparently subjectively of unusual stature forefathers.

Carl Joseph goes on to tell us, “Dr. Lake goes on to cite, Annette Yoshiko…stating ‘the Nephilim of Genesis 6:4, are always grouped together with the gibborim which are the progeny of the Watchers and human women.’ The Septuagint translation (LXX) also states that Nimrod began to become a giant, ‘Cush begat Nimrod. He was the first to be a giant on the earth’ (Gen 10:8).”

If by, “always,” Yoshiko meat one single time then, very well then.

But to what was she referring? They are not “grouped” as much as we are told that Nephilim became gibborim which is merely a descriptive term for might/mighty.

Thus, it is only is that one single case that “gibborim…are the progeny of the Watchers and human women”: others referred to as being gibbor/im are Angels, some of David’s soldiers, Boaz, God, etc.

Note that it’s actually impossible that, “The Septuagint translation…states” that since that translation is into Greek but we were quoted English: and I checked 55 English versions and none of them have, “the first to be a giant on the earth.”

What we’re told in the text is that he became a gibbor: again, became mighty.

Now, if the LXX did tell us he, “was the first to be a giant on the earth” then how could that be since, as Joseph put it, he was like unto, “the stature of his antediluvian forefathers” so he couldn’t be the first.

Also, if he, “was the first to be a giant” that only begs the key questions about what giant means.

Part of the issue is that the LXX translators/renderers, for some unknown reason, decided to render Nephilim and also gibborim and also Rephaim all as gignates which means earth-born. Rendering three very different words with very different meanings and very different morphologies all with one word was a terrible idea and leads to the sort of confusion into which Joseph and Lake and Yoshiko have fallen.

At least Carl Joseph is more specific when he asserts, “Nimrod became the first post-flood giant” but then again, he has yet to tell us what makes him think there were pre-flood giants—and yes, this is all problematic since we know not to what he’s referring since he hasn’t told us.

But he does assert, “His nefarious act, fulfilled Moses’ prophecy of giants, ‘and also after that’ (i.e., the flood-Gen 6:4).” Note that he had to artificially insert “the flood” into a text that doesn’t refer to it: in fact, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until 13 vss. later, v. 17.

Carl Joseph tells us, “Adam Clarke the famous commentator, also cites within the Syriac Targum that, ‘Nimrod was called a giant’” which, as you well know, merely begs the questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do those usages agree?

But who wants to let such fundamental issues get in the way of a good ol’ tall-tale?

Yet, or so the tale goes, “Dr. Lake then goes on to mention that, ‘Clarke claims the city of Babel and its tower, were ‘built by giants.’ This begs the question, ‘was Nimrod a mighty hunter of animals or man, seeing that he was part human and fallen angel?’”

Merely chasing references to giants still gets us nowhere—not when we’re thinking critically.

The question, “was Nimrod a mighty hunter of animals or man” is a non-issue since there’s literally zero indication that, “he was part human and fallen angel.”

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

That’s why Joseph, Lake, Yoshiko, Clarke, and all post-flood Nephilologists are forced to invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.

Carl Joseph informs us that in a sculpture Nimrod, “holds a 375-pound African lion as a mere ‘kitty cat.’ From this depiction, one could estimate Nimrod’s stature to be anywhere between 10-15 ft, not too dissimilar from other giants in the Old Testament, namely Og of Bashan (Dt 3:11), Goliath (2 Sam 21:19) and the Anakites (Dt 9:1-2).”

He’s referring to this sculpture of Gilgamesh—but, no worries, post-flood Nephilologists merely assert that Nimrod was aka Gilgamesh. But wait, that’s not all, as Joseph asserts, “Nimrod goes by many names in history, including: Ninurta, the Assyrian god of hunting, Gilgamesh…Amenhotep III…Tukulti-Ninurta…Sargon…Naram-Sin.”

Joseph does not tell us why we should take ancient sculptures literally.

He also doesn’t tell us how he knows that’s not actually a kitty cat, a cub.

He does not tell us how he knows the extremely specific weight of 375 lbs.

He tells us that, “10-15 ft” is, “not too dissimilar from other giants in the Old Testament” among whom he mentioned a man for whom we’ve no physical description, namely Og (the only physical description we get of him is from folklore from millennia after the Torah—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

He tells us that, “10-15 ft” is, “not too dissimilar from…Goliath” who most reliably, as per the preponderance of the earliest data (the LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Flavius Josephus) was just shy of 7 ft./four cubits and a span (as opposed to the latter Masoretic text which has him at just shy of 10 ft./six cubits and a span.

He tells us that, “10-15 ft” is, “not too dissimilar from…Anakites” aka Anakim, about whom the only relevant data we have is that they were “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. at the time.

Carl Joseph then goes back to going from Nimrod becoming might to, “How did Nimrod become a Giant?” (for some reason capitalized, this time).

He notes, “The Bible does not explicitly mention how Nimrod became a giant” and it also, “does not explicitly,” nor implicitly, “mention that Nimrod became a giant” (since Joseph let the 375-pound cat of the bag and revealed that by giant he means 10-15 ft. and half-Angel, half-human).

Joseph then refers to, “Historical Jewish writings” and appeals to the Book of Jubilees: there’s no indication it’s a Historical writing, the genre appears to be folklore, and it’s from millennia after the Torah.

In chap 8, it states, “Canaan…found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock…it contained the teaching of the Watchers”: the term Watchers gives away it’s age since it’s a Second Temple Era aka for Malakim/Angels.

In any case, that text has God missing the writings on rock loophole. It has Nephilim being created post-flood unlike they were created pre-flood, via some sort of ritual recipe.

As Carl Joseph put it, “Did it reveal vital clues for DNA modification, and the conjuring of giants?” and he artificially inserts this folklore he spiked with sci-fi into the text of the Bible, “Could it be that Noah cursed his grandson Canaan (instead of Ham) because he eventually became aware of his discovery”? Nope.

He refers to that, “the first Watcher incursion” was, “in the days of Jared” which means he’s relying on 1 Enoch, which is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah, see the book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch.

Based on an unreliable and anachronistic manner of weaving a tall-tale, Joseph then speculates that perhaps his speculation results in this speculation, “Did he [Canaan] eventually share this forbidden knowledge with Nimrod, aiding him to ‘become’ a gibborim?”—FYI: it wouldn’t be, “a,” English singular, “gibborim,” Hebrew male plural rather, it should be, “a gibbor.”

Carl Joseph then appeal to the Book of Jasher which is just a modern day hoaxed fraud—see my book The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants.

Joseph then gets into issues that are of no current interest to me such as, “How tall was the Tower of Babel?…Could the Tower of Babel have been five times the height of the Empire State Building in New York City? (According to the Book of Jubilees it might)…How was the Tower of Babel destroyed?” which features another appeal to Jubilees, to Josephus who appeals to, “The Sibyl (Greek prophetess),” then to, “Jewish tradition” and the obligatory list of, “Giants, Giants, everywhere!” about anyone and everyone who ever claimed giants—as if that has anything whatsoever to do with the issue.

Carl Joseph then asks, “Did Nimrod command Giants to build other structures?” with the qualifying term other denoting that he bought the folklore.

His answer is yes, in that, “an ancient Arabic manuscript” of some sort by someone at some time about something in some genre, “describing Nimrod’s involvement in the construction of the Temple at Baalbek” but we know how it was built and I wrote of it in my book ???

Joseph reasons that, “The fact that giants are mentioned in this manuscript,” of some sort by someone at some time about something in some genre, “only fuels the speculation that Nimrod was in fact, a giant” even though he didn’t say that it refers to Nimrod as a giant.

And we will leave the tall-tale there since it has been elucidated that he gets the linguistics wrong, appeals to anything written by anyone at any time for any reason and in any genre, he inserts things in the Bible, etc., etc., etc., and the post-flood Nephilologists at Prophecy Watchers love it so.

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.

I will admit that my title is a bit contrived but I sought to capture three things there: I’m going to comment on the Q&A portion of a lecture by Dr. Phil Fernandes which was titled, “The History of Western Thought”—via a video posted by the Apologetics Forum of Snohomish County.

He was asked to comment on post-flood Nephilim. Given that the question was utterly un-contextual the lecture it’s a best practice to have told the questioner just that, and that they should approach you afterward to discuss.

In any case, he was asked, “…your perspective on the Nephilim after the flood. If the Nephilim were destroyed during the flood how come the giants continued?”

Dr. Phil Fernandes went directly into various theories about that but the primary answer ought to have been a question or rather, a set of them.

Note that the questioner jumped from the specific ancient Hebrew word Nephilim to vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants.

The key questions are:

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

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

Do those usages agree?

The usage in those English Bibles which employ the term giants is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in only two verses, the other 98% of the time, it’s rendering Repha/im.

Thus, English readers should not chase an English word around a Hebrew Bible.

So, the re-written question is, If the Nephilim were destroyed during the flood how come the Nephilim continued?”

Another question ought to have been, “What makes you think that Nephilim continued post-flood?” The answer to that—after dealing with the giants linguistics issue—would have provided us the biblical answer—to which we shall get in due time.

Now, the questioner had actually added, “One theory was that the seed remained in the women that Noah’s boys married.”

I suppose I will make this statement upfront: any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed. He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done. He must have missed a loophole. The flood was much of a waste. Etc.

Post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood. And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times.

Dr. Phil Fernandes replied:

“…it’s a big debate, it wasn’t a debate in ancient times. Ancient times, everybody from Philo to [Flavius] Josephus, the ancient Jews, the early church, believe this the bene ha Elohim, the

sons of God, were Angels that left their proper domain…”

Pause: indeed, that was the original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, as I chronicled 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.

Now, he continued directly with that the Angels, “took on bodily form” which is certainly common tradition but it’s biblical at all.

Angles are described as looking just like human males, performing physical actions, but without any indication, ever, that such isn’t their ontology, nor that they take on bodily form, shapeshift, etc.

Moreover, “cohabited with female humans and produced the race of giants” which begs the key questions above: if he means a race of Nephilim then, sure, but if he means a race of subjectively unusually tall personages then well, see below.

Furthermore, “and it got so widespread that God flooded the Earth.” This is part of why I noted that post-flood Nephilology implies that God failed. The claim is that, “so widespread that God flooded the Earth” but they just came right back—the whole bit about the flood being much of a waste, God missing a loophole, etc. I’m not implying that Dr. Fernandes is personally implying that God failed, I’m noting that the view he’s proposing—somewhat uncritically, or so it seems to me—implies as much.

Continuing, “Augustine did hold the sons of God being just the descendants of…Seth cohabiting with the daughters of Cain. I don’t think that could be justified linguistically or historically.”

Indeed, such a view is a late-comer, it’s based on mythology, and it only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero).

Now, be aware that Augustine wrote so much over such a long period of time that he views, plural, were quite nuanced.

Also, it seems to me, if I may put Augustine on the psychology chair, that the reason that he (essentially) opted for the non-majority, traditional, original view is that he converted to Christianity from Gnostic Manichaeism and sough to do away with its influences. Thus, since Mani held to the Angel view, Augustine wouldn’t.

Dr. Phil Fernandes continued, “But whatever the case, there is an alternative view there. So, I do think that there were real Nephilim before the flood: lots of different views about how there could be Nephilim after the flood. One is the view that there was a second leaving of heaven, taking on bodily form by Angelic beings. A second round of that after the flood, but it was limited primarily to the land of Israel. And when the wickedness had reached its Point that’s when why God told the Jews to go in and told them what people groups to exterminate.”

As with any and all post-flood Nephilim views, this one is un-biblical and there’s only a one-time fall of Angels in the Bible.

Also, God told us many times why He commanded such exterminations but never said one single word about Nephilim—see chapter, “Herem: Were Post-Flood Nephilim Dedicated to Destruction?” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology.

Continuing, “Another is that one of the daughters-in-law of Noah had a little bit of that seed, uh, I, I don’t know, I, I honestly do not know.”

That one was part of the question and it’s just another un-biblical tall-tale—God must have missed the genetic loophole, etc.

Furthermore, “A third possibility, in Numbers 13:33, the second time and the only other time the word Nephilim is used, is when the spies came back with a bad report saying that we’re like grasshoppers before them the descendants of the Nephilim are there. That they could have been just, the Nephilim could have become just a term for giant humans. I don’t know.”

Be careful to pay attention that when referring to, “the spies” within the context of, “a bad report” that means we’re not dealing with, “the,” 12, “spies” who were sent to reconnoiter the land but with the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, ones who resented that report and were rebuked by God.

Thus, there’s no reason to believe them—see my very specific Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.

Since their tall-tale is the only physical description we have of Nephilim that mean that we’ve no reliable physical description of them and so can’t refer to their height. Thus, that does away with the speculation about if the word, “Nephilim could have become just a term for giant humans.”

Also, recall that Nephilim being rendered as giants is just that: a rendering, it implies nothing whatsoever about height at all.

Dr. Fernandes continued, “What I do know is, it doesn’t seem like humans can get as big as Goliath it’s, today’s warrior giants—Goliath was nine and a half feet tall, King Og of Bahsan could have been a 12-footer because it looked like his bed was 13 and a half feet tall and it’s talking about him as a Rephaim, a giant—today’s warrior giants, athletic giants who could put a whooping on you.”

I’m unsure to whom “today’s warrior giants” refers but that Goliath was 9.5 is myopically based on the Masoretic text, but the preponderance of the earliest evidence—the earlier Septuagint, the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls, and the earlier Josephus—all have him at a just why of 7 ft.

As for Og, we don’t have a physical description of him (not until folklore from millennia after the Torah) which is why appeal is made to his bed. Yet, seeking to derive his personal height from his bed is actually based on various assumptions—I will direct the interested readers to my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

Yet, as for, “it’s talking about him as a Rephaim, a giant” well, biblically that reads as, “it’s talking about him as a Rephaim, a Rephaim”—more technically, a Repha or of the Rephaim.

Moreover, “So, their size is an advantage, it seems like they can only get to about seven and a half feet tall. Anything over that, they suffer from genetic diseases where a little child could beat up the eight footers that are alive today.”

I’m empathetic to his point but it seems a bit overstated since 8 ft. is just about the upper height of pro basketball players and they’re athletes.

He concluded thusly:

“And so, it seems to me like there were ancient warrior giants that could have been over eight feet tall, nine feet tall. We have skeletal, there’s a lot of evidence for them but…I did not understand it but, powerful tribes of powerful giant humans would discredit, would blow evolution right out of the water. So, the Smithsonian likes to collect these skeletons between the 1830s and 1930s in America. We had thousands of finds reported in local newspapers of skeletons over eight foot tall. Human skeletons, and the Smithsonian would come in would confiscate them—and did display them in the early 1900s.

But as evolutionary theory got more and more popular, all of a sudden, they said they had no memory of these things being there.

But, whatever, the case—I don’t know, is the short answer of the Nephilim after the flood.”

One of the first things my apologetics mentor told me was that when I don’t know, I should just say I don’t know so, I appreciate that bottom line.

I thought to note that I wrote a whole chapter in my book Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales about such newspaper reports from the late 1800s-early 1900s and they range in levels of believability, of course. Therein, I also included an entire chapter to the Smithsonian issues and there are a lot of problem with the typical blanket statement about that.

The saddest part is that asserting that this has something to do with Nephilim the real conspiracy is overlooked: it was about racism, it was about assuming that Native savages could not have accomplished building feats which must have been done by someone else, it was about hiding away skeletons so as to not leave anything behind to which Natives could appeal as evidence of a right to certain lands, etc.

Well, overall, we have seen that there are some issues to iron out along the way—as we sharpen iron with iron—and the biblical answer to, “If the Nephilim were destroyed during the flood how come the giants [Nephilim] continued?” is: they didn’t.

They lived pre-flood, they didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form and then centuries post-flood some unreliable, unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers made up a tall-tale about them and God rebuked them. The rest is history or rather, the rest is folklore.

See my various books here.

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

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

The Question for athiest, Why do atheists believe in atheism? Nothing creating nothing is confusing for me was posted to the Quora site and led to the following discussion.

Nev Anderson commented

That you do not understand Atheism or even what it means,

yet have never bothered to even look it up in a dictionary,

indicates an abject lack of interest.

Atheism is a word that relates a Single State: Non Belief in gods.

It is not a belief in nothing, that is asinine and untenable,

a moments thought would have revealed that fact.

Nothing creating nothing happens all the time

ALL day today the empty space around me has created absolutely nothing.

I, Ken Ammi, replied

As for “look it up in a dictionary,” looking it up in “a,” singular, dictionary seems to be what you have done since you miss the various definitions, and usages, and denominations/sects of Atheism: https://truefreethinker.com/atheisms-sects

Thus, there are Atheists who demand that Atheism is and means a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence.

So if “Nothing creating nothing happens all the time” in the sense of “the empty space around me has created absolutely nothing” whence came the universe?

Nev Anderson

People generally look it up in a dictionary

rather than a dozen.

There are myriads of theists pretending to be Atheists who do that.

A few exchanges and the facade crumbles, theists do NOT comprehend Atheism.

Petty, petty semantics

as a petty, petty personal insult

reveals who you are.

We cannot see where the energy and matter that forms the universe came from.

Like the magician’s rabbit,

it does NOT MEAN from magic land.

Only the ignorant assign causality to imaginary phantasms.

Ken Ammi

Good point and by generally looking it up in a, singular, dictionary rather than a dozen they give one single resource way too much authority.

I complied various definitions and most affirm that “Atheism” also means the positive affirmation of God’s non-existence: “Atheism”: what does it mean? – truefreethinker.com

Can you name one theist pretending to be Atheist?

I thank God that I can’t even imagine how you misinterpret elucidating semantic facts as a “personal insult” which you further misinterpret as that it “reveals who” I am. That actually sounds like you may want to focus on being emotive rather than ironing out facts.

Now, you say “theists do NOT comprehend Atheism…magician’s rabbit…magic land…the ignorant…imaginary phantasms” but you don’t say what’d be wrong with accidentally existing apes doing and believing that within an existence wherein there’s no universal imperative for accidentally existing apes to not do and believe those things.

But I agree that “energy and matter that forms the universe” didn’t come from “imaginary phantasms.” They came from God.

The most up to date cosmology informs us that the universe is a time, space, matter continuum.

Gen 1:1 stated “In the beginning [time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].” How did ignorant Bronze Age goat herders know the most up to date cosmology?

Nev Anderson

The Oxford English Dictionary is THE Premier source of English Language Definitions. Rather than the profusion of purveyors of mangled language such as is prevalent in America, THE most fanatically religious nation on Earth.

Anyone or anything that labels itself as a “True Free Thinker” (or similar) empirically is nothing of the sort. What they inevitably reveal is that all they seek is confirmation for some presuppositional position.

An actual Free Thinker does not consider there to be need to advertise. Only the charlatan does.

Your god is an imaginary phantasm.

That is why you are unable to provide even a sliver of evidence for its existence.

Why every single claim made for it,

when investigated

is found to be completely fallacious.

Then there are the myriad asinine assertions attributed directly to it by your book of superstitions, lies and fallacies.

Such as:

the Earth is flat,

motionless,

set on pillars,

orbited by the sun,

under a star speckled dome,

that keeps out the waters of space,

whilst letting some in through windows,

as rain

Bronze age ignorance.

Ken Ammi

So, if I may recap your reply: you are so utterly and literally incapable of dealing with the issues that you launched a goal-post moving personal attack based on hidden assumption an peppered with mere assertions whilst being emotively childish: Atheism tactic 101.

That my “god is an imaginary phantasm” is a positive affirmation you must prove.

If you imply demanding evidence, then step one is for you to justify your demand—which should not be a big deal since you imply holding to the one true worldview.

We can also get around to your jumps to conclusions about your mistaken view of biblical cosmology.

Nev Anderson

No you may NOT.

For what you are doing is

Asserting YOUR words in place of mine.

This so as to

assert insult and accusation

that are unrelated to reality.

Thanks for confirming the religious stereotype.

Ken Ammi

I asked two questions in my previous reply, “Can you name one theist pretending to be Atheist?” and “How did ignorant Bronze Age goat herders know the most up to date cosmology?” so I’m unsure to what “No you may NOT.”

So as to not confirm the Atheist stereotype, please deal with the issues rather than launching personal attacks.

Nev Anderson

Do you think I keep lists?

It is simple EVERY TIME an “Atheist” states something that aligns with the religious STRAWMAN version of Atheism, THAT is a theist pretending.

This is NOT even close to cosmology,

it is merely ignorance and wild guesses:

the Earth is flat,

motionless,

set on pillars,

orbited by the sun,

under a star speckled dome,

that keeps out the waters of space,

whilst letting some in through windows,

as rain

There is no personal attack.

Here you are inserting YOUR WORDS as mine:

… and me calling you on it.

There IS an observation of your behaviour,

presented in THIS thread.

Where YOU assert YOUR baseless assertions

about something you not only do NOT know about,

but also

Could NEVER know about.

So,

once again the theist makes fallacious accusations

In line with a stereotype so well worn that your confirmation wasn’t required.

Ken Ammi

Well, I’m unsure how you can read the minds of Atheists but hey, I’ve heard people assert odder stuff.

I’m unsure how you can say that the universe being a time, space, matter continuum is “NOT even close to cosmology” and “merely ignorance and wild guesses” when it was correctly identified as such so many millennia ago.

“There is no personal attack”? How about “a petty, petty personal insult reveals who you are…ignorant…charlatan…asinine,” etc. so those (et al.) qualify as “based on hidden assumption an peppered with mere assertions whilst being emotively childish.”

Thus, I did no inserting of anything anywhere but if I did, you lack any premise upon which to call me on it—except by appealing to your impotent subjective personal preference du jour (based on hidden assumptions).

You seem to be projecting when, based on subjective personal preferences du jour, you complain about “YOU assert YOUR baseless assertions.”

Nev Anderson

T’rolling

The assertion of things NOT SAID

to fit your need.

Be gone.

Ken Ammi

I can understand why you are desperate to run away since this discussion has evidenced that you’re incapable of defending your worldview. Yet, that’s because your worldview has failed you. And that’s because your worldview is such a failure that it actually fails before it even begins.

Nev Anderson

Atheism isn’t a world view.

That is an indication of the nonsense you assert

and you will never change.

You merely waste my time.

​Ken Ammi​

That is an indication of the nonsense you assert

and you will never change.​​

You merely waste my time.

See how easy it is to ignore issues that are inconvenient and just run away? Atheist tactic 101.

Nev Anderson

Theists persistently level the worst of their own behaviour as accusations against others.

It is YOU who is asserting the existence of a non evident, non manifesting, invisible, magical phantasm.

THAT requires determined assertion of lies and fallacy.

The Non Belief in that rubbish requires only the recognition of rationality and reality

Ken Ammi

I’m not interested in engaging you on what “Theists,” the overwhelming majority of all humans who have ever existed, “persistently level” since you’re painting with a broad brush broom.

But what, on your worldview, is wrong with theists persistently leveling the worst of their own behaviour as accusations against others?

Likewise, what’s wrong with “asserting the existence of a non evident, non manifesting, invisible, magical phantasm”?

What’s wrong with “assertion of lies and fallacy”?

You seem to imply you have to rationalize yourself to rationality and then appeal to accidental reality.

Nev Anderson

YOU continue to assert your words as mine,

I will leave you with your dishonesty.

Ken Ammi

​Now ​you attempt to distract by claiming I’m dishonest as an excuse to run away but what, on your worldview is wrong with dishonesty and how do you know that I’m being dishonest?​​

Well, that ended the discussion.

See my various books here.

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

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