On Adam Schwartzbauer’s article “The Truth About Giants,” 2 of 4

Continuing a consideration is Adam Schwartzbauer’s article The Truth About Giants. When all segments are posted, you will be able to find them here.

Schwartzbauer claims, “Some of the references of genetic manipulation can be found in the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees” which is not the case—and yes, I wrote a whole chapter about this issue as well in the above mentioned book, chapter, “Did Fallen Angels Genetically Manipulate Humans and Animals?”
The only such contextually relevant text, which Adam Schwartzbauer actually quotes and cites, is “The Book of Jasher, chapter 4 says: ‘…the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other…‘”
One issue is whether we take this literally and the other is just what is meant by whatever term was translated or rendered as “species” since even today there are over a dozen definitions of that term.

He goes on to note, “Genesis 3, God says to the devil: ‘…I will put enmity…between thy seed and her seed…‘…This indicates that the devil is going to have seed,” we will have to see where he goes with this—in terms of what he means “going to have seed” means.

Adam Schwartzbauer writes, “Job 38 says: “Then the Lord answered Job…when I laid the foundations of the earth…all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Before man was created, all angels were faithful to God” (ellipses in original). Now, it is very common to interpret it this way but it is going too far to read “sons of God” as “angels” in this text—especially when he left off that the “morning stars” were shouting for joy with them—we can only go as far, in terms of technical details, in stating that they are not human—even though the LXX has them as ἄγγελοί, Angels.

He writes, “Genesis 6 says: “…Noah was…perfect in his generations…” This doesn’t mean that he was morally pure; there was no-one perfect except Jesus. The word translated as ‘perfect’ is tamiym, meaning ‘without blemish, without spot.’ This term is used for physical blemishes, and was also used to describe animals that were to be sacrificed to God. If the giants were from an earthly lineage, and Noah was from an earthly lineage, why would it refer to Noah as being physically pure? Pure of what?”

Well, this is not about being “morally pure” and so refers to a sort of/form of/type of purity that is also not generic. I got into this in detail in chapter, “When Did the Sons of God Marry the Daughters of Men?” of my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology and, bottom line, it has to do with that Noah was righteous which means that he believed God.
Dr. Heather Lynn, archeologist and author of Land of the Watchers, was rather taken by this fact and noted, “Ken Ammi’s work gets to the heart of some of the biggest questions in theology….In particular, his assertions on Noah’s genetic ‘perfection,’ what it really means, and all it entails is a must read.”

Adam Schwartzbauer writes, “Genesis 6:12 says: “…all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” There were also giants after the flood. Remember that in the Old Testament God gave instructions, upon entering Canaan, to wipe out all men, women, and children of certain tribes that inhabited the land.”

This is a very common error based on reading certain English texts and thinking that one term can only mean one thing so that “giants” (whatever that means) does and can only ever be referring to Nephilim.
Well, that is demonstrably not the case, it refers to Nephilim only in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33, every other time it is used, it refers to Rephaim—and there is no relation between Nephilim and Rephaim.
Thus, he does not seem to realize that “instructions…to wipe out” was about Rephaim, not Nephilim since they did not make it past the flood, did not return, and never will in any way, shape or form—Numbers 13:33 is recording an “evil report” for which the speakers were rebuked, they just made up a tall tale.

He then writes, “Let’s examine what made the giants so big” before telling us who/what he is talking about, how he knows they were “so big” (a subjective term, as subjective as “giant”), etc.
He discounts gigantism since “Gigantism makes you taller, skinny, and weak” but “All of the giants described through history have been extremely large and strong” yet, “All of the giants described through history” is a tremendous amount of data so that makes it more convenient to speak vaguely by watering things down.
In any case, he asserts “someone with gigantism to be 8 feet or more, the Nephilim were much larger” but how does he know that?

He points out that “Another theory is” that “since other things grew so big before the flood, people could too under those conditions” but that is hit and miss since a few dinosaurs, for example, were very large but the average was the size of a sheep.
In any case, he is focused on the size of Nephilim but then tells us about King Og of Bashan how was a Repha, not a Nephil, and we are not told his height anyway so he is a non-issue.

See my books on Nephilim related issues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.