The following discussion took place after a certain Revolutionary_Dare69i posted the following question on the chaosmagick section of Reddit:
Nephilim looked like clowns
I came across an interesting idea from this video. Thoughts?
I, KenAmmi, replied
The claim that Nephilim looked like clowns is based on a miscomprehension of the relevant linguistics, reliance on faulty sources, folklore, and mere assertions. For a detailed review of claim, see, “Is Paul Stobbs right? Did Nephilim Look Like Clowns?”
A certain Chicatt replied and the rest of the discussion was a refreshing example of how an instantly dismissive genetic logical fallacy turned into a pretty amicable interaction
Man this was so poorly written and incoherent. I’m gonna go with Paul…
KenAmmi
Well, “poorly written” is subjective and, “incoherent” is a mere assertion. So, why go with a guy whom literally made up a story about how the Nephilim looked–premised on the fact that we’ve no reliable physical description of them, mind you?
Chicatt
Cute word salad, you said nothing.
KenAmmi
“word salad” means you realize you’re literally incapable of dealing with the issue but you still want to post something. It’s simple: when it comes to Nephilology, Paul should be ignored. There’s a reason why he never directly appeals to what they looked like and that’s because we’ve no reliable physical description of them so he just made up stuff and people unfamiliar with the issue just believe him because well, thus saith Paul–I guess.
Chicatt
Again, you made no argument.
KenAmmi
S’what? I made 18 pages worth of arguments. Take your pick. How about that we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim so when Paul proports to provide us one, he’s just making up stuff?
Chicatt
🙄
KenAmmi
Exactly: you’re no answer. Friend, I’ve seen it 1,001 times: someone like Paul makes up stuff, undiscerning people love their tall-tales, I come along proving they’re mistaken, but my proof isn’t as exciting, so they opt for believing in fantasies. That’s the stuff of which pop-Nephilology is made and Paul pushed it over into literal clown show status now.
Chicatt
Actually his anthropological survey is quite compelling and he isn’t making any definitive claims.
Actually his anthropological survey is quite compelling andhe isn’t making any definitive claims.u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•18d ago I thought I posted a reply but I can’t see it now. In anycase: indeed. He just needs to drop the Nephilim angle since that’s a HUGE failfor him. I’m writing a review of the book now and it’s tragically poorNephilology. His book’s front matter states, “The characters and eventsportrayed in this book are fictitious where the author has created hypotheticalscenarios” but he goes on to claim he knows what Nephilim looked like. Hehad a guy illustrate what he thinks they looked like and he thinks that the offspringof two beings that look human don’t look human–go figure.u/Chicatt avatarChicatt•17d ago I think his evidence is compelling, especially the strikingsimilarity of shamanic practises and visuals across the world. It cannot beproven that’s exactly what Nephilim looked like but it is very interestingregardless.u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•17d ago Yes, interesting but I’m familiar with over two millenniaworth of relevant data and have written some dozen research-based Nephilologybooks: he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to Nephilim andthat’s a demonstrable fact many, many, many times over. It’s too bad he jumpedon the Nephilim-click bait band-wagon rather than sticking to what he appearsto be better at doing.u/Chicatt avatarChicatt•15d ago Nephilology isn’t a rigorous discipline so you are both justhaving fun and making conjectures based on your own interpretation of otherpeople’s accounts. And I think his conjectures are compelling. Respectfully, itseems like you’re ego is wrapped up in this topic as you’ve invested a lot intoit and you don’t like him stepping on your toes. Or perhaps you’re resentfulhis book has done well and I’ve never heard of you before?u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•14d ago Well, my “Systematic Biblical Paranormology”Nephilology is rigorous and it’s demonstrable that Stobbs misrepresents theBible, appeals to faulty sources, make linguistics errors, etc. I’d rather discuss the issue that having you play mindreader about your emotively subjective misinterpretation of my ego. In fact, Stobbs claims to have uncovered truth aboutNephilim that NO ONE is all of human history has known so tell me about hisego. Meanwhile, I CONSTANTLY beg people to step on my toes sinceI believe in sharpening iron with iron—but I found that when we seek to dothat, someone tends to get cut. And I don’t resent popularity based on making a living byselling un-biblical tall-tales to Christians.u/Chicatt avatarChicatt•13d ago Can you give me an example of one of his errors?u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•13d ago Well, I began by directing you to an entire article. He invented how Nephilim looked in part by appealing to”Seraphim Angels” of which there’s no such thing: he merely parrotedthat from Gary Wayne who committed a category error that violates the law ofidentity–he basically parroted Wayne for 99% of his Nephilology. On top of that, they merely assert that Seraphim weredragons/reptilian/serpentine, etc. which is an incoherent assertion that’sun-evidenced. Isa 6 is our biblical depiction of them and notes no such thing. So, that alone debunks his main point: what Nephilimallegedly looked like.u/Chicatt avatarChicatt•13d ago• Edited 13d ago Thank you for your response, I’m enjoying the discourse. Isee your point although the serpent in the garden could suggest the fallen oneswere also serpentine beings. I do see the connection between the shamanic/clownattire and the beings reported on hallucinogenic drugs which lends itself toStobb’s hypothesis. I was impressed by his assertion that clowns weresymbolizing giants with their tiny umbrellas, big shoes, small car, and theirblood-stained lips and nose. In Isaiah 6 their faces are covered and could beobscuring a striking serpentine visage.u/KenAmmi avatarKenAmmi•8d ago Likewise. “the serpent in the garden” was a Cherub (Ezek 28)and merely called “serpent” and other things (Rev 12 and 20). Again, he can have his, “connection between theshamanic/clown attire” but I’m now on chap 12 of his book as I’m writing afull review of it and it’s utterly stunning how anyone with any knowledge ofthe subject matters revolving around Nephilology can take him seriously. But you see how this works, right? He literally throwsEVERYTHING at the wall and then tells you what sticks. So, for example, he got you to narrow your thought processto that now, “tiny umbrellas, big shoes, small car” aren’t done forhyperbolic effect or because such exaggerations are funny but because well,wait, he can only merely assert that Nephilim were “giants” (which isa word he contextually misuses). Likewise with, “blood-stained lips and nose” but1. you’re generalizing about clowns (that myopic thinking again) and 2.demanding it represents blood–based on folklore from centuries, if notmillennia, after the Torah (and he also relies on 100% demonstrable straight upfraudulent hoaxed texts). Same with Isaiah 6 which offers literally zero indication ofany thing serpentine: he talked you into believing something is there that’snot there. The issues isn’t “could be” because thus saith Paul, it’sthat it’s an argument from silence based on a very, very long series of utterfallacies.
KenAmmi
Likewise.
“the serpent in the garden” was a Cherub (Ezek 28) and merely called “serpent” and other things (Rev 12 and 20).
Again, he can have his, “connection between the shamanic/clown attire” but I’m now on chap 12 of his book as I’m writing a full review of it and it’s utterly stunning how anyone with any knowledge of the subject matters revolving around Nephilology can take him seriously.
But you see how this works, right? He literally throws EVERYTHING at the wall and then tells you what sticks.
So, for example, he got you to narrow your thought process to that now, “tiny umbrellas, big shoes, small car” aren’t done for hyperbolic effect or because such exaggerations are funny but because well, wait, he can only merely assert that Nephilim were “giants” (which is a word he contextually misuses).
Likewise with, “blood-stained lips and nose” but 1. you’re generalizing about clowns (that myopic thinking again) and 2. demanding it represents blood–based on folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah (and he also relies on 100% demonstrable straight up fraudulent hoaxed texts).
Same with Isaiah 6 which offers literally zero indication of any thing serpentine: he talked you into believing something is there that’s not there. The issues isn’t “could be” because thus saith Paul, it’s that it’s an argument from silence based on a very, very long series of utter fallacies.
Chicatt
In all seriousness, Nephililogy is a fringe are of study and not a rigorous discipline. It’s all circumstantial evidence but compelling. I find Paul’s work interesting but not authoritative and I wouldn’t consider anyone’s study on the subject authoritative unless they actually saw a Nephilim themselves. I think Paul had done a a good job in his anthropological survey. I enjoy his work and Gary Wayne’s work but my faith doesn’t hinge on their arguments. It’s just a fascinating in-house discussion for Christians with an interest in conspiracies.
KenAmmi
If only it was that simple–and it should be that simple. Stobbs and Wayne don’t succeed because they represent any truths but because they sell exciting neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
Now, you may be cogent enough to remain balanced even whilst listening to their false incoherence but the issue somewhat like unto how cults start: someone takes a minor, secondary (if that) issue, and turns it into THE issue.
So, while Stobbs and Wayne are tall-tale teller, the problem is that what they leave on their wake is un-biblical Angelology, un-biblical Nephilology, un-biblical anthropology, un-biblical you name it: Seraphimology, Repahimology, etc., etc., etc., and in the ends, they damage the canon and damage theology proper.
Chicatt
I think it’s an amusing idea but has no bearing on one’s salvific status. May I say that I think you’re taking it a bit too seriously, my friend? I respect your research on the Nephilim but I think so little is known about them, that there is room for different interpretations regarding them. I don’t see any intention on the part of Stobb’s or Wayne to begin a cult. It’s not an issue that is central to the faith. Just like there is room for people to be pre/a/post millennial, there is room for various ideas within Nephilology.
“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”
Ken Ammi
I would like to personally agree but the problem is that those guys do literally turn it into THE main issue. And it’s tragic that they’re so influential and could make such a positive impact but they’re just too in love with their superhero stories. What a shame.
And that ended the discussion since the only follow-up was when I told Chicatt:
I published the book “Did the Nephilim Look Like Clowns?: A Review of Paul Stobbs’ Theory”:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply