A certain Janet Morrison has been a long time interlocutor of mine and so I’ll be featuring some of our discussions: see here for them all.
She answered the question What are the most controversial actions of God in the Old Testament, and how do believers justify them? thusly
The flood and the genocide of the Anakim of Canaan are often misunderstood if a person is unaware of who the Nephilim giants were. Gebesus 6 talks of fallen angels mating with human women. They produced giant hybrid offspring called the Nephilim, the fallen ones. The Nephilim corrupted mankind spiritually and genetically. But Noah was found perfect in his generations. Noah was genetically still 100% human. So God used Noah’s family to repopulate the earth after the flood was used to wipe out the Nephilim.
Later, when Israel returned to Canaan, after being in Egypt, they found Canaan was filled with Nephilim, called the Anakim. God ordered Joshua to lead the army against the Nephilim tribes.
If God had not used Israel and the great flood to wipe out the Nephilim, then the human race would have ceased to exist a long time ago.
I, Ken Ammi, replied
I’ve already told you dozens of times that biblically contextually “Nephilim giants” means “Nephilim Nephilim giants” you’re just mashing together two languages: why do you keep ignoring that demonstrable linguistics fact?
I’ve already told you dozens of times that you misunderstand and so misuse the word “giants” since you think the usage in English Bibles is something generic about some vague level of height above the subjective parochial average but the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
“The flood” had to do with Nephilim but “the Anakim” didn’t, as I already told you dozens of times. You’re just myopically relying on strictly non-LXX versions of the false “evil report” in Num 13:33.
I already told you dozens of times that you contradict yourself, you noted, “the flood was used to wipe out the Nephilim” but you imply that God failed, must have missed a loophole, and the flood was much of a waste since you then merely assert that post-flood, “Canaan was filled with Nephilim, called the Anakim” which is also an incoherent category error.
There’s literally zero indication that “God ordered Joshua to lead the army against the Nephilim tribes.”
You then incoherently say, “If God had not used Israel and the great flood to wipe out the Nephilim, then the human race would have ceased to exist a long time ago” but you seem to forget what you teach is, “If God had not used Israel and the great flood to wipe out the Nephilim who then returned in some way I’ll never mention since God failed and He had to use mere humans to do what He couldn’t do, then the human race would have ceased to exist a long time ago.”
The reason you can’t even keep your own story straight is that it’s not true: as I proved dozens of times already but you refuse correction.
Janet Morrison
Read the bible.
You can look back and see that I never said the Anakim had something to do with the flood. The Anakim Nephilim show up in Numbers 13 when Israel returned from Egypt, as I have said repeatedly.
Ken Ammi
It’s fascinating how your modus operandi is to always ignore 99% of what I write and seek to nitpick anything you can tell yourself you got “a win” on.
“’The flood’ had to do with Nephilim but ‘the Anakim’ didn’t” ergo, Anakim were not Nephilim.
Of course Anakim show up in Num 13: no one in the history of humanity denies that—it’s just that you don’t appeal to the reliable portions of that chap, such as the early portions, but appeal to your “go to” which is one unreliable sentence from one unreliable report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked and only from non-LXX versions: as I’ve noted to you dozens of times.
Janet Morrison
And Numbers 13 state that the Anakim, the sons of Anak were Nephilim as I have stated repeatedly.
Ken Ammi
It’s fascinating that you ignore demonstrable facts and just keep repeating your un-biblical (wo)manmade traditions.
So, let’s review again (as I’ve done dozens of times:
“And” and correlating to what?
“Numbers 13” you mean Numbers 13:33, just one single sentence.
“Numbers 13” v. 33 myopically only strictly non-LXX versions.
“state that the Anakim” the LXX lacks reference to Anakim.
“the sons of Anak were Nephilim” Deut 2 states they were Rephaim: like a clan of a tribe.
Your entire post-flood Nephilology is based on:
One single sentence
From non-LXX versions
One of single evil report
By 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked
Who contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole entire Bible.
And that’s just getting started.
Why do you constantly ignore these, and other, demonstrable facts—especially when you, yourself, admitted that there are parts of the Bible that aren’t true?
Janet Morrison
Why do you ignore the scriptures about the giant Nephilim? You just cherry pick what you like and throw out what you don’t like. Ken, you have made a habit of critiquing all my comments. Why don’t you just answer the questions yourself? Why do you have to atrack me all the time? You are not using Quora correctly. You should be asking or answering questions. Not harnessing specific people.
Ken Ammi
There are no, “scriptures” plural about your un-English biblical misusage of the term, “giant” Nephilim: only the one that I didn’t ignore since I commented on it in this very thread—and dozens of times in our other discussions.
Why do you ignore Bible-based correction?
As for, “Why don’t you just answer the questions yourself?” it’s rather odd that you ask that AFTER having been made aware that I have done so in some dozen Nephilology books, hundreds of articles, and dozens of videos.
As for, “atrack,” that’s just your emotional subjective mischaracterization: would you say that Paul attacked Peter or rebuked him and Peter learned from it?
As for, “should be asking or answering questions”: I do that all the time on Quora so, again, I’ve no idea to what you’re referring. If you don’t like being corrected, don’t post demonstrably erroneous assertions on the WORLD WIDE web, especially not on site designed by engineers to include Q&A threads.
Janet Morrison
All our disagreements come down to one verse. I point out that Numbers 13 states that the Anakim were Nephilim. You disagree. But I have the scripture to support my claim. You deny the scripture.
Ken Ammi
Ok, let’s grant that, “All our disagreements come down to one verse.”
It’s not, “I point out that Numbers 13 states that the Anakim were Nephilim. You disagree. But I have the scripture to support my claim. You deny the scripture.”
Rather, it’s you FAIL to point out that Num 13:33 states that the Anakim were Nephilim when it records an evil report by 10 unreliable, unfaithful, disloyal, guys whom God rebuked and there’s no one single verse in the whole Bible to support that nor their other four mere assertions: I always have to include those factual details when you make vague comments all over Quora.
Plus, you admitted that there are things in the Bible that aren’t true but you fail to recognize that, that verse is one of them.
So, here it is again (and I’ve told you these things dozens and dozens of times but you always fail to debunk any of it).
You’re relying on:
- One single unreliable sentence
- From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)
- Of an unreliable “evil report”
- By 10 unreliable guys
- Whom God rebuked—to death
- Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
- Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal.
Debunk points 1-7 or give up your un-biblical, theology proper damaging, tall-tale.
Janet Morrison
I have gone over this too many times. Og the King of Bashan was a Rephaim with a bed 13 feet long. Goliath of Gath was a Rephaim 9’8. The Anakim where the king necked ones. Rephaim the terrible ones. Emin the men of terror. Zamzumin the sight of whom made the heart faint. These were all giants who lived after the flood.
Ken Ammi
That is why you keep misinforming people on the WORLD WIDE web and I keep correcting you.
I noted, “Debunk points 1-7 or give up your un-biblical, theology proper damaging, tall-tale” and you failed to even make an attempt. You didn’t make even one single statement about the 7 points (not counting the other points in that chapter sample, which I’m sure you’ve read, right, since I’ve made you aware of it many times).
Thus, your position has been thoroughly debunked to the point that you don’t even make an attempt to defend it.
But let’s review your goalpost moving assertions since, “I have gone over this too many times” but you keep writing the same misinformation:
“Og the King of Bashan was a Rephaim with a bed 13 feet long”: that’s 100% irrelevant to any of the 7+ points. He was a Repha, not a Nephil, he was a Repha, not of the Anakim clan of the Rephaim tribe. We’ve no physical description of him and concluding that we can conclude something about his personal size based on the size of his bed is a non-sequitur based on various mere assumptions: indications are that it was a ritual object, not something on which he slept—see my book, “The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?”
“Goliath of Gath was a Rephaim 9’8”: that’s 100% irrelevant to any of the 7+ points. Indeed, he was a Repha, not a Nephil. And you ignored what I’ve told you many, many times (what makes you think you can fool me?): the Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
“The Anakim where the king necked ones”: I’ve no idea what, “king necked” means but that’s 100% irrelevant to the 7+ points.
“Rephaim the terrible ones”: that’s 100% irrelevant to any of the 7+ points and that’s based on you subjectively myopically cherry picking one definition/meaning and are then applying your imagination about how and why that was the case. And it’s about Rephaim, not Nephilim.
“Emin the men of terror”: that’s 100% irrelevant to any of the 7+ points and that’s based on you subjectively myopically cherry picking one definition/meaning and are then applying your imagination about how and why that was the case. And it’s about Emmim, not Nephilim.
“Zamzumin the sight of whom made the heart faint” that’s 100% irrelevant to any of the 7+ points and that’s based on you subjectively myopically cherry picking one definition/meaning and are then applying your imagination about how and why that was the case. And it’s about Zamzummim, not Nephilim.
And I’ve already told you many, many times that Emmim and Zamzummim are just aka for Rephaim—nothing to do with Nephilim.
“These were all giants who lived after the flood” I’ve told you many, many times that you get yourself in trouble and invent problems when you chase the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” around an ancient Hebrew Bible: you don’t know the usage of it in English Bibles even though I’ve told you many, many times that the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
In other words, you literally refuse to learn demonstrable facts, you keep telling me the same ol’ un-biblical tall-tales that I’ve debunked many, many times, and you’re literally incapable of debunking even one single one of the 7+ points.
Thus, a best practice is to give up fooling people with your un-biblical tall-tales and side with God and His Word.
Janet Morrison
Give it up Ken.
Ken Ammi
Sadly, you certainly have.
You had a golden opportunity but failed to even make an attempt so you discredited yourself.
Worse still, knowing you’re literally incapable of defending your man-made tradition, you don’t give it up but continue to misinform people on the WORLD WIDE web: I fear for how very accountable you are for that.
Please repent.
That brought the discussion to an end as no more replies were forthcoming.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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