tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

Perry Stone on the Mystery of Giants, Fallen Angels and Evil Spirits

Undergoing review is a four-part video by Perry Stone that is titled Mystery of Giants, Fallen Angels and Evil Spirits within the videos themselves.[1]

He seeks to elucidate, “how that fallen Angels came into the daughters of men and produced a race of giants and how upon the death of those giants they became the evil spirits that the New Testament talks about.”

We already have two issues:

1) 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 two usages agree?

2) That demons are the spirits of dead giants is just folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article, Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?

Perry Stone then seems to mash together millennia of time by stating:

In the beginning of time, we understand from reading this prophetic scripture and reading the words of the prophets, Ezekiel chapter 28 verse 14, that there was an anointed Cherubim and that anointed Cherubim was Satan. We know that in Ezekiel 28 verse 17 that this Angel, this great Angel fell because of pride and because of his beauty. We know according to Luke 10:18 that Lucifer, or Satan, was cast out of heaven.

We also know by Revelation chapter 12 verses 1 through 4 that when Satan fell from heaven he took one-third of the Angels of God with him: these are called the fallen Angels. So, we know by studying the Word of God that is an event which literally happened in biblical history.

He mashed together the English singular, “an” with the Hebrew male plural, “im” by referring to, “Cherubim” such that it should have accurately been, “an anointed Cherub…that Cherub.”

He also committed a category error since he correctly identified the Cherub but then switched to, “this Angel, this great Angel” be he is a Cherub, not an Angel.

There is a tricky bit here in that, generally, falling and being cast out are different things: the Cherub fell as per the Gen 3 timeline but Angles fell as per the Gen 6 timeline so it is inaccurate to assert, “when Satan fell from heaven he took one-third of the Angels of God with him”: being cast out is a post-Jesus ascension event for them both so that has apparently not happened yet.

Perry Stone then reckons, “if we go from the fall of Adam, in the Book of Genesis chapter 3, to the time of Noah in Genesis chapter 6, you have about sixteen hundred and fifty eight years or so that has passed.”

He then quotes Gen 6:1-4 thusly:

It came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair and they took them wives of all which they chose.

And the Lord said my spirit shall not always strive with man for that he is also flesh yet his days shall be 120 years.

And there were giants in the earth in those days and also after that, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and they bear the same and they bear them sons that the same were mighty men which were of old men of renown.

For the time being, he notes, “the phrase sons of God…refers to angels of God and we’ll elaborate on that a little bit later.” The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christians commentators, starting in BC days, was the Angel view as I proved 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.[2]

He notes, “there were a race of giants in the earth in the Old Testament time”: well, but, “Old Testament time” spans millennia so we will have to see if he gets specific about to whom/what refers by, “giants” and what time span—especially when he follows that up with, “it took the sons of God coming into the daughters of men to produce this race of giants.”

He then claims, “the seed of the serpent, the seed of Satan were the giants: please keep that in mind the seed of the serpent, Genesis 3:15, were the race of giants…the Bible plainly teaches that in the Old Testament time these giants existed: very large men, a very huge stature, some 12-14 [ft. tall] some maybe even been 18 ft. tall.”
Well, I suppose the only way that the Gen 6, “giant” could be, “seed of the serpent, the seed of Satan” is purely symbolic since he, being a Cherub, was not physically involved in the Gen 6 affair (as I term it), so he had no actual physical seed of his own.

At this point, his claim that the Gen 6, “giants” were, “very large…very huge…12-14 [ft. tall]…18 ft. tall” is a mere assertion—and it always will be since the Bible does not say a single word about such heights for anyone, ever.
He then jumps from Gen to, “Numbers chapter 13 verse 33, I’m going to give you seven references, there’s actually more than this in the Old Testament, seven references that speaks of giants”: before moving on, recall that he has not told us to what or whom he was referring yet, we got the idea that he thinks it meaning something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height. Thus, the answer to key question three is, “No” since that has nothing to do with the English Bible’s usage. And that is because, it merely renders (does not 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.

He continues thusly:

…in the promised land back in the time of Moses, here’s what it says, Numbers 13, “and there we saw the Giants, the sons of Anak which were of the Giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers and so we were in their sight.

Deuteronomy chapter 2, “the Emims dwell therein in pass, a people great and many and tall as the Anakims and also were accounted giants as the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emims.

Deuteronomy chapter 2, “that is also accounted a land of giants, giants dwelt therein in old time and the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a people great…”

Deuteronomy chapter 3 says, “for only Og king of Bashan remaineth of the remnant of the giants. Behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron, is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof and four cubits the breadth thereof, after the cubit of a man…”

Bed may have been eighteen feet long…

Deuteronomy chapter three, “and the rest of Gilead and all Bashan being the kingdom of Og and this is that great giant king that existed in the Old Testament time…Bashan which was called the land of the giants.

So, in Moses’ time, the land of Bashan was called the land of the giants because there were so many giants…

Joshua chapter 12, “Og king of Bashan which was of the remnant of the giants…”

Joshua chapter 15, “…the Valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants…”

So, folks, if we go to the Old Testament…we discover that this these giants were literally all over the promised land…

Now, ponder how impressive that might sound to his in-church audience due to the way he speaks to them genetically and prepped them to accept his vagary versus how I have prepped you to hear what he just said.

Let us review:

It is stunning that he appeals to a chapter and verse in Num but does not bother mentioning at least two key issues:

1) he was exclusively appealing to an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.

2) he was only appealing to non-LXX versions on that verse sine the LXX lacks a mention on Anakim in that verse.

Now, that was about Nephilim and such is where he got the mistaken notion what they were, “very large…very huge” but since that is an unreliable report by unreliable guys then we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim—which means that their height a non-issue and which means that 100% of pop-Nephilology is debunked.

He also did not bother telling his audience that the rest of the texts were about Rephaim, not about Nephilim: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

Deut 2 merely told us that Rephaim were generally and generically, “tall” and that is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as the term, “giants.” Moreover, that is subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.

So, Rephaim were a.k.a. Zamzummim and Emim and Anakim were like clans of that tribe.

As for Og well, he was a Repha and we have no physical description of him. Moreover, to merely assume we can calculate his height base on his bed is based on numerous mere assumptions: in fact, 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?

It seems that Perry Stone merely imagined to what the word giant referred, then chased that English word and his imagination about it around a Hebrew Bible, watered it all down, and mashed together the texts in which it appears, regardless of context. He just took texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts.

Let us re-read the key portion on those texts for what they actually say, “the Emims…great and many and” generically and subjectively, “tall as the Anakims and also were accounted” Rephaim, “accounted a land of” Rephaim, “only Og king of Bashan remaineth of the remnant of the” Rephaim, “Bashan which was called the land of the” Rephaim, “land of the” Rephaim, “valley of the” Rephaim.”

So, folks, if we go to the Old Testament what we actually discover that this these generally, generically, subjectively tall Rephaim were literally all over the promised land so, what of it? It is apparently not exciting enough for some to actually read what those texts actually say.

And they are not even exciting enough when Perry Stone tall-tales them since he went on to invent, “I’ve often preached this: that the giants in the Old Testament time actually possessed the gates of the Holy Land, they possessed the gates of Israel, all the entrances into the Promised Land. There was a race of giants that were there.”

Interestingly, he goes on to state, “valley of Rephaim or the valley of giants” so he could have taught accurately but appears to have chosen to be vague.

But, if that was not exciting enough, “they were the seed of a serpent and what they were used for was to try to control the gates leading into the Promised Land and also to try to hinder God’s people we know that the children of Israel would not even possess the Promised Land” for which there is double-zero indication.

He then again relies on being vague—or, I am assuming that since he appears to know better but perhaps he is just not well enough studied on these issues to speak consistently accurately on them—in asserting, “the Bible says they saw the sons of Anak there, this was a giant and they were very fearful at their size and they said we look like grasshoppers to these guys they’re so large, they’re so huge…”

Re-write, “the Bible says” that within an, “evil report” that, “they” 10 unreliable guys merely asserted that they, “saw the sons of Anak” who were related to Nephilim (which is impossible) only when reading non-LXX versions, “there, this was a giant” of a tall-tale, “and they” merely asserted, “very fearful at their size and they said we look like grasshoppers to these guys they’re so large, they’re so huge…” and God rebuked them, to death.

Since he is being generic, he then jumps back in time a few centuries to Gen 6, “the promised land…literally the seed of a serpent, or the giants, hindered people all the way back in the time of before the flood of Noah…a result of the fallen Angels and the giants that existed back in that time prior to the flood, and there were giants in the earth according to Genesis chapter 6 both before the flood and after the flood.”

Now, that “according to Genesis chapter 6 both before the flood and after the flood” is one of them most beloved imagination-based fantasies amongst pop-Nephilologists. Not only is it not the case that Gen 6 states any such thing, that would imply that God failed, that He missed a loophole, that the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

The flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later—so it is cheating to read ahead and then loop back to assert that a verse that states nothing of it states something of it.

The only post-flood reference to Nephilim is from one single sentence and that is from the evil report.

God did not fail, He didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc.

Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”

The question becomes: when were those days?

Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”

The next question becomes: when was afterward?

Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”

Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.

As he had stated before, he now reiterates, “those giants came into existence through fallen Angels having intercourse with the daughters of men” but that is a category error since, again, that is only true of Nephilim and they did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form. It is not true of Rephaim—by any other name. Yet, he got his audience thinking in terms of giants, giants, giants, which equals tall and offspring of Angles and humans which is multitudinously fallacious.

Perry Stone then notes, “Josephus in book 5 chapter 2 tells you that there was a race of giants whose countenances were so large and their bodies were so large and their, their voices, his implication is when they would speak it would even hurt your ears” yet, he did not bother telling us of whom Josephus spoke nor how he, who lived millennia after the Torah, knows such info (besides relying on folklore). He did not mention that Josephus was not an anatomist so would not know if those bones were dinosaur, whale, pachyderm, etc.

He then goes back to the assertion, “early in the book of Genesis and Abraham’s time these giants surrounded the promised land, in Genesis chapter 14. This is the time of Abraham, verse 5, it mentions a king that smote the Rephaim” which means that it is irrelevant to Nephilology, by definition, and it is another category error.

He even stated, “Rephaim is a Hebrew word for giants” but that’s tantamount to saying that it is a Hebrew word for ______________ (blank) since giants is a flaccid designator, a usus loquendi, so that it is meaningless without context. So, when he says, “literally giants” that literally means nothing.

He then falls into the non sequitur of merely assuming and asserting that large things must have been built for and by large people, “ruins of gigantic proportions…the suggestion here is that it would take a race of very large men.”

He then notes, “there’s a real interesting story connecting the fallen Angels to Mount Hermon” well, sure, the, “story” in 1 Enoch which is Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah (see my book, In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enoch). And it is likely that the author(s) of 1 Enoch chose that mount since during the time of the writing of that text it was revered by Pagans.

Perry Stone goes on to note, “Goliath was six cubits and a span in height” and since the normative (high) estimation of his height as per a standard 18 inch cubit was not exciting enough, he takes it up a few more notches, “Now, if a cubit was 25 inches this is amazing, and a span is about 10 inches then that means that

Goliath was 13 foot 4 inches tall. Now, some estimate 11 feet, some say 12 feet, some say 13 feet: probably at the most he’s 13 feet tall according to the Dake’s Bible, the Dake’s Annotated Bible page 310.”

I was not aware that we were to go by thus saith Dake’s but the fact is Perry neglected to mention some very important things to his audience: the Masoretic text has him 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, you may recall, 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.

But he went on to ague, “Goliath in 1st Samuel chapter 17, Goliath’s armor, listen to this, was 294 pounds total…his spear head alone weighed 23 pounds and the shield bearer, he had a shield bear, in other words he didn’t carry his own shield, he had somebody carrying a shield before him,” etc.

Indeed, he had a guy assisting with the equipment. Stone neglects to tell his audience that regular guy Benaiah took a spear like a weaver’s beam, just like Goliath’s, from a 7.5 ft. Egyptian and successfully wielded it against him in hand-to-hand combat (2 Sam 23). Also, you can search for strongman or weightlifting competition vids and see guys who are around 6 ft. lifting 1,000 lbs.

Yet, Perry Stone even focuses on that, “if anything gives a picture of what of how big Goliath really was…the spear was always bigger than the man, if Goliath was 13 feet tall,” etc. so: plump up his height even above the normative higher range, then you can plump up his spear, then you can neglect what I just noted about Benaiah, and you got yourself a tall-tale that is even more exiting that usual.

Speaking of pluming up a notch or more: he stated, “the average Jew is 5 foot 10 inches tall” but that is adding 7 inches to the higher end of the range. Yet, I wonder is by the qualifying present tense, “is” he literally means now-a-days rather than within the context of millennia ago.

He actually speaks for a long time about megalithic sites, the many cultures that have tall-tales about, “giants,” etc., etc., etc. all of which is irrelevant.

He then loops back to King Og and back to thus saith, “Dake’s notes”: at least this time, he stated, “depends on if a cubit is 18 inches or 25 inches.”

Then, he speak for a long time about flood records from ancient cultures around the world. While the flood is relevant to Nephilology since it gives us a time after which they never again existed, the scope of the flood is irrelevant to Nephilology since they either did not make it past the flood because it was global or because they lived in the flooded region: either way, they did not make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.

At this point, Perry Stone merely asserts, “in Genesis chapter 6, 1 through 4, ‘there were giants on the earth before the flood of Noah and after the flood of Noah.” He cited it but could not quote it because it states no such thing: it does not say a single word about the flood and, as already noted, the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.

He then argues against the Sethite view. That refers to a late-comer of a view based on myth, prejudice, and which only creates more problems than it solves (so, more than zero)—which claims that the Gen 6, “sons of God” were, get this, an entire lineage of descendants of Seth who were so utterly holy, righteous, and devoted to God that they were not holy, righteous, and devoted to God since they were such terrible sinners that their sin served as the premise for the flood—go figure—and that the, “daughters of men” were an entire lineage of un-holy, un-righteous, and un-devoted to God descendants of Cain.

Apparently, there were not enough attractive female Sethies for the Sethite males nor enough attractive male Cainites for the Cainite females.

Perry Stone then asserts, “the third of the angels in Revelation 12 that fell with Satan that were cast out to the earth are different from the Angels we’re talking about” within the Gen 6 affair’s context, “because those angels that fell with Satan became the principalities the powers the rulers of the darkness of this world the wicked spirits in heavenly places.”

I have no idea whence he got such very specific ideas. Biblically, there is only a one-time fall/sin of Angels and the Gen 6 affair was it. One of the issues is that, “fell with Satan” is mashing together two categorically and chronologically differing events. Again, Satan, the Cherub, fell as per the Gen 3 timeline but Angles fell as per the Gen 6 timeline and it would seem that it is their demon/spirits who became principalities, powers, etc.

So, via the fact-free assertion of an early fall of Satan and Angels, Stone has to then make up a story about, “there’s a group of fallen Angels that remain with Satan but there’s a group of fallen Angels that came down before the flood of Noah and after the flood of Noah”—and so, he also invented a story about a post-flood coming to Earth of fallen Angels for which, of course, there is zero indication and which also implies that God failed, that He missed a loophole Stone figured out, that the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.

His assertion is, “before the flood they simply came down to teach men righteousness and, of course, at the time of the flood God took them. So, another group of, now this is in [Rabbinic] Jewish history: we can assume that they have some knowledge of this handed down by tradition, 200 of them came down on Mount

Hermon…” So, by, “Jewish history” he is referring to the folklore in 1 Enoch. Yet, not even that folklore has a post-flood fall on Angels to Earth nor physical post-flood Nephilim.

Perry Stone also asserts, “we don’t know exactly when they were taken off of the Earth and so therefore, what happened was the race of giants was totally annihilated and totally destroyed in the time of David” for which there is zero indication for either of those mere assertions (since contextually, by giants he is referring to Nephilim).

Now, I am not much of an eschatologist at all but I can note something about his statement, “the fallen Angels that we’re talking about here that are bound in chains of darkness are not necessarily those that fell with Satan, Revelation 12, those that fell with Satan are called, ‘Satan and his Angels,’ and they are active during the tribulation period, these that are bound in Tartarus, are bound unto the judgment of the great day or, to the day of judgment, and those that are bound in Tartarus at this present point are those who came into the daughters of men and produced the race of giants.”

Again, the assertion that they, “fell with” is inaccurate and it all seems to breakdown thusly: Satan fell, he then cast them so they fell, they mated with humans, they were incarcerated, they will be released (Rev 9), they will wreak havoc on Earth, they will fight and lose a war in heaven, they will be cast down, they will be judged.

Perry Stone then makes a series of mere assertions by inserting an un-biblical man-made tradition into what he is reading in God’s Word by first asking, “How can Angels take upon themselves the form of men and how can they have physical relations with the daughters of men…can Angels take upon themselves different forms?” and following with, “The answer is: yes. Psalms 104, ‘for Angels are spirit’…Hebrews 1:14, ‘Angels are ministering spirits’…Hebrews chapter 13 verse 2 it says, ‘be not forgetful to entertain strangers for we’re by some have entertained Angels unaware’ because an Angel is a spirit being, it has the capability of taking on itself a form.”

Now, ask yourself if, “has the capability of taking on itself a form” was even implied in those texts or whether, perhaps, Stone is missing a key data point? Nowhere in the whole entire Bible does it even hint at that Angels have the capability of taking on a form.

Two main issues with which to deal:

1) He merely reads on single modern English word, “spirits,” then reads about their physical appearance, and then make up a story about how to mash the two together. Yet, this is a simple case of reading one single mistranslated English word.

The reason that circa 44 English versions[3] rightly have, “winds” in that Psalm rather than, “spirits” is not because the translator flipped a coin but is because the Hebrew ruach can be translated as either spirit(s) or wind/breath and the Psalm’s entire context consist of correlations to natural phenomena so it demands a translation of winds rather than spirits.

The Hebrews text is quoting and then playing off of the Psalm so it took, in order to be consistent, must translate as winds—and the Greek pneuma can also be translated as either spirit(s) or wind/breath.

Note also that merely reading spirits and concluding an ontologically disembodied entity is committing a word-concept fallacy.

2) Merely reading spirits and concluding an ontologically disembodied entity also means disregarding that Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such isn’t their ontology (see my book, What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology).

This refers to their actual description, and not just one word.

So, again, what Perry did is to read one word and read descriptions and insert an un-biblical concept between them rather than concluding that such is just how they look, ontologically, and that reading one single mis-translated word does not change the facts.

So, when he does on to stated the following, note that the missing data point is still missing and he is just reading into the texts (classic eisegesis), “we also know from Hebrews 13 that they can actually take upon

themselves the form of human beings……there were Angels that came into Abraham’s tent in Genesis chapter 18 and the men thought these were Angels, these Angels were actually men and they looked like men, they didn’t look like Angels with glowing in, white with wings, they look like men.”

I suppose that we could say that Angels can be, “glowing” when exhibiting their un-fallen bodies (and not disguising themselves are regular humans) but there is zero indication that Angels have wings. Besides, he first asserts that their disembodied spirits but then presumes to tell us how to, “look like Angels” means glowing, being white (or glowing white?) and having winds but the entire point of being sprits, proper, would be that they have no from by definition.

Likewise with, “Jacob wrestled a man…it was an Angel…Old Testament time, these Angels of God were taking on the appearances of men” and then we are back to, “in the Dake’s Bible” and he goes on and on and on and back to Psalm 104, and on and on.

He eventually ends up in, “Zechariah chapter 5…women and yet they have wings” yet, “they’re not called Angels” since they are not Angels: those winged women were exclusively part of a wholly symbolic visionary experience which included, “a flying scroll” symbolizing a, “curse” and a, “basket” symbolizing, “iniquity” and, “a woman” symbolizing, “Wickedness” and, “two women…They had wings like the wings of a stork” symbolic of motion towards, “land of Shinar,” etc.

Perry Stone then comes to, “the bottom line as to why Satan tried to corrupt mankind by bringing in a race of giants are you ready for this? I believe the giants were the seed of the serpent mentioned in Genesis chapter 3 verse 15 their purpose was to prevent the coming of the Messiah by corrupting man’s lineage and making it impossible for the Messiah to be born.”

Let us apply some logic to Stone’s ill-logic and ill-biologic: “Satan tried to corrupt mankind by bringing in a race of” Nephilim so God sent the flood to be rid of them but God failed since there were post-flood Nephilim so the danger of the Messiah not being born remained—and God had to rely on humans to get the job done for Him which He couldn’t manage by Himself.

As for, “the seed of the serpent” well, as I elucidated at great length in my five volume set of books Cain As Serpent Seed of Satan: that seed denotes those who commit ungodly actions—so the great news is that they can repent. Some assert that since Eve’s seed is biologically physical then so must Satan’s but even if we call Nephilim his seed, by extension, then there is not indication he had any physical involvement in the Gen 6 affair but only acted as a styled push in the wrong direction for Angels since he, “cast them to the earth” (Rev 12).

It seems that his lecture series could have been condensed to one single session since he tends to go in circles by touching upon a subject and returning to it time and again—and again, as we have already seen. Thus, he goes back to Goliath and to, “unclean spirits.”

He goes on to assert, “fallen Angels came down on top of Mount Hermon” which he’s importing into the Bible from 1 Enoch.

He notes, “in the Old Testament…we find a word Rephaim now, rapha is a common word for giant” which begs the question as to what giant means and is also inaccurate since that root word ranges in meaning from healing to death but not what Stone thinks is meant by giants: and if you look up a source that says that then you need to ask the right questions such as: why is that being asserted and what is being meant by giants—which is what I did in my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.

He goes on to touch upon some of this by noting, “in the Hebrew Bible is found where our English Bible uses the word dead…Rephaim is a name of one of the giants” which is telling us that merely one of the usages is something vague about subjectively unusual height—and we are back to how useless that term giants is since he really should have stated, “Rephaim is a name of one of the Rephaim” but being that accurate would expose that he is going in redundant circles.

Therefrom, he merely reads any instance of the root rapha as a reference to the 100% human people group, the Rephaim. This is a typical pop-researcher’s move which results in wild tall-tales about Rephaim being some sort of walking dead giants.

We will conclude at this point since he just goes in ever tighter circles about Goliath and, “race of giants” and, “seed of Satan, the natural seed being the giants, the supernatural seed being the evil spirit…fallen Angels but there’s another group of fallen Angels that took upon themselves flesh…giants died their offspring becomes the evil spirits this is I call this the trail of a serpent, I call this the seed of a serpent,” etc., etc., etc.

Thus, overall, we see how an engaging teacher who talks fast and fast-talks can sound very impressive but under inspection, is teaching a lot of un-biblical assertions.

Notes:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjaTmWbjs2M

[2] https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B071NW4F4W/allbooks

[3] https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm%20104%3A4

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.

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.


Posted

in

by

Tags: