Nephilim discussion with some jerks on Goliath being a quasi-divine giants, 7 of 9

Continuing a discussion that took place during a live chat to a video by Rob Rowe, with whom I have had a discussion (see this video).

 

Picking up where we left off in the previous segment.

 

Rev. Elation @Ken Ammi

what’s your education and what school?

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

Feel free to check blueletterbible, for example, you can see that Nephilim are only mentioned 2 times: one reliably, one not.

 

Ken Mc Cracken

Are the Anakim products of Angel and human sexual relations Brendan or all human?

 

Rev. Elation @chaos kampf

I think he’s prolly more into Ron Wyatts work

 

Ignore bullies long enough and they will actually combine forces.

 

Ken Ammi @Ken Mc Cracken

No, there is no indication of any such thing.

 

Brendan O’Brien

The references to Rephaim and Anakimi are so unique it’s illogical that the Bible would contain no specific explanation for their origin

 

Brendan O’Brien @Ken Mc Cracken

They are descended from the original offspring of angels and human females, at least as interpreted by Heiser and others who can read the original texts

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

Well, I noted we are not told, as far as I know but I am constantly learning more and am up for being informed.

 

Chaos Kampf

*sigh*

 

Chaos Kampf

@Rev. Elation [some agreeable emojis]

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

But it’s not that simple: Heiser just picked up and ran with the evil report while failing to interact with the narrative of the chapter.

 

Brendan O’Brien

It also makes sense in the context of the command to wipe out entire peoples – it clears the bloodlines

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

See here: https://www.academia.edu/44935973/Rebuttal_to_Dr_Michael_Heiser_s_All_I_Want_for_Christmas_is_Another_Flawed_Nephilim_Rebuttal_

 

Brendan O’Brien

I agree that the chapter goes on to state that the report was in error

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

Well, but God tells us many times why He commanded those things and never states a single word about Nephilim nor relation to them.

 

That was playing off of the comments about the conquest narratives being about being rid of Nephilim.

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

And since that is THE only post-flood reference to Nephilim and 8 people + some animals survived the theo-logical conclusion is that they didn’t make it past the flood.

 

Brendan O’Brien @Ken Mc Cracken

They were described in Genesis as men of renown, implicitly they had both supernatural and human characteristics and were deemed unclean because of their origin

 

Brendan O’Brien @Ken Ammi

I’m not sure it’s a settled literal reading that Noah and the occupants were the only survivors or that the flood was global

 

Chaos Kampf

yeah 8 humans can’t repopulate the earth

 

Ken Mc Cracken

But notice its MEN of renown.

 

Chaos Kampf

and?

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

When the context is Nephilim whether the flood was local or global isn’t relevant since they didn’t survive ’cause it was global or because they lived in the flooded locality.

 

Kile myers

8 humans can’t repopulate the earth…. tell that to Adam and eve

 

Chaos Kampf

Actually in Enoch they all killed each other.

 

Ken Mc Cracken

It’s also difficult to see how spirits which don’t have biological human bodies could have human sexual desires in the first place. Pride andenvy maybe but not physical sexual desire.

 

Brendan O’Brien @Ken Mc Cracken

Yes, but there are multiple OT references to angels taking human form

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

You’re both a little off: there’s no references to Angels taking human form: only that they look like human males, the theo-logical conclusion is that they are as such ontologically.

 

Ken Ammi @Ken Mc Cracken

Job 38:7 helps a lot since there, they witness the creation of the Earth so they’re clearly not human.

 

Brendan O’Brien @Ken Ammi

That is perhaps why the orthodox interpretation is that the spirits of angels possessed human males – I’m not certain TBH since they unequivocally have a radically distinct ontology

 

Ken Mc Cracken

Certainly human in appearance. My point is they are spirits and spirits wouldn’t have physical desires. You have to assume they create human bodies to create the desire.Convoluted.

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

But there’s no biblical indication of that. That’s adding to the simple conclusion that they are naturally embodies in a flesh of their own sort.

 

Ken Ammi @Ken Mc Cracken

But they are not spirits, they look like human males.

 

Brendan O’Brien @Ken Mc Cracken

I think perhaps the primary desire may have been to reproduce

 

Chaos Kampf

Conceptually gods in the ANE could take on any form so you’re making too much non-theology from contextual lacunas in the text.

 

Just in case: ANE refers to the Ancient Near East and “contextual lacunas in the text” is meant to mean something like gap filling. Yet, this was specifically about Malakim/Angels.

 

Ken Ammi

See here for a short article I wrote about Angels: https://midwestoutreach.org/2019/08/29/angels-unawares

 

Brendan O’Brien

Biblical indication of what?

 

Ken Mc Cracken

They often take human appearance when appearing to humans. Angels are spirits though as agreed in Hebrews.

 

Ken Ammi @Brendan O’Brien

Indeed, “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives”

 

Brendan O’Brien @Kile myers

Yes, I think there’s little doubt – sons of God is a reference to Angelic beings. Whereas we are sons of man because we are not DIRECT creations of God.

 

Ken Ammi @Kile myers

I’d only go as far as saying that there’s at least a bifurcation and that Jude and 2 Peter 2 certainly seem to be appealing to Gen 6 for when the Angels sinned.

 

Kile myers @Brendan O’Brain

can you show me in the context of Genesis 6 where the impression thst the sons of God mentioned were angelic?

 

Ken Mc Cracken

Brendan Genesis notes their seeing women were beautiful.But spirits don’t have physical desires.Angels don’t marry as Jesus said.

 

Brendan O’Brien @Ken Ammi

Agreed that that is the only explicit explanation which can be inferred from what we have

 

Kile myers

2 peter 2 says God cast the angels who sinned I to hell. Revelation 12 explains what this means

 

Ken Ammi @Ken Mc Cracken

Jesus said that Angels “of God in heaven,” as in the loyal ones, don’t marry which is why those who did so are considered sinners having “left their first estate” as Jude puts it.

 

Brendan O’Brien

It’s an extremely difficult subject and really beyond temporal human comprehension

 

Ken Ammi@Kile myers

Actually, Peter said “Tartarus.”

 

Brendan O’Brien

Tartarus is where the offending angels were banished until the end times when they will be unleashed

 

We will pick up from here in the next segment.

 

For more details, see my books about Angles, demons, Nephilim, “giants,” etc.

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

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. 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.