Will Blesch wrote an article titled Who Were the Nephilim? Genesis 6, Giants & 1 Enoch Explained.
His site describes him as:
Israel-based biblical history and ancient mysteries field investigator, researcher, marketer, entrepreneur…Deeply immersed in both the political and theological landscapes of one of the world’s most ancient and sacred regions…researcher specializing in biblical history, Genesis 6, the Nephilim, Second Temple literature, Enochic traditions, ancient mysteries, and their possible relevance to modern discussions of non-human intelligence…
The subtitle is, “Who Were the Nephilim? The Complete Biblical and Second Temple Guide” and notes, “They appear explicitly in only two passages” and that they, “generated an enormous interpretive tradition involving: Giants…” which begs these key questions: what is the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles? What is Blesch’s usage? Do those two usages agree?
He follows that by noting, “Genesis places the Nephilim in the strange period when the ‘sons of God’ took women from among the ‘daughters of humankind.’ Numbers later associates the Nephilim with the Anakim and overwhelming physical size” the second sentence is enormously problematic—as we shall see.
He notes, “Later Jewish literature from the Second Temple period – especially 1 Enoch – provides a far more elaborate interpretation…The Book of Jubilees preserves a closely related tradition, while fragments of the Book of Giants discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate how extensively these stories developed within ancient Judaism” about which you can read my books In Consideration of the Book(s) of Enochand The Apocryphal Nephilim and Giants: Encountering Nephilim and Giants in Extra-Biblical Texts and also my paper How Nephilim Absconded from the Tanakh and Invaded Folkloric Territory.
The ESV has that which I term the Gen 6 affair thusly:
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.
Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
The 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.
As for, “who were the Nephilim?” Blesch notes, “The most historically influential supernatural interpretation connects them with the giant offspring produced by unions between rebellious heavenly beings and human women.” The wording, “connects them with the giant” is rather odd, perhaps only in wording, since the connection is that they are one and the same—seems like we need to get to an answer to one of the key question straight away by noting that the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (does not even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so, just in case, it never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
Thus, only in wording are Nephilim connected to giants in 2 verses.
He then lays out the guide which consists of 28 sections, including subsections from which we will pick the most relevant points to the context of this review—especially since points are made, moved away from, returned to, moved away, touched upon again, etc.
He notes, “Genesis does not call the Nephilim ‘fallen angels’” because they we not, such as view is essentially historically unknown: they were offspring of fallen Angels. The original, traditional, and majority view among the earliest Jewish and Christian 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.
He noted that, “brief references” to Nephilim in the Bible, “generated an enormous interpretive tradition involving…questions about whether non-human beings could physically interact with humanity.” Yet, that is a non-issue based on un-biblical man-made traditions about Angels: biblically, Angels are always described as looking like human males, performing physical actions, and without indication that such is not their ontology—see my book What Does the Bible Say About Angels? A Styled Angelology.
Linguistically, Will Blesch notes, “The ancient Greek Septuagint translated Nephilim with gigantes, contributing to the ancient association with giants” yet, that is a non sequitur which begs the key questions: we cannot know what he means by, “association with giants” until he informs us of his usage and also, gigantes means earth-born—see my linguistics book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
He notes, “Numbers 13 associates the Nephilim with the Anakim and extraordinary physical stature” but that is immensely problematic. Anyone appealing to Num 13:33 needs to mention that they are relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse does not even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable, “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
8. Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal—which I am currently updating.
Continuing, “1 Enoch 6–16 interprets the Genesis 6 episode as a rebellion involving heavenly Watchers, human women, and giant offspring. In Enochian literature, the Watchers and their offspring are not the same beings.” Watchers is merely a Second Temple Era aka for Malakim/Angels. He adds, “Jubilees likewise describes angels taking human wives and fathering giant offspring.” Yet, both are Bible contradicting folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah: there is no indication that either, nor the Dead Sea Scrolls Book of Giants,are adding any historical data. As for, “giant offspring” indeed! That text has the being MILES tall: great folklore, poor reality.
Another linguistics issue is when he wrote, “The idea that the Nephilim were extraterrestrial ‘aliens’ is a modern comparison, not something the ancient texts themselves say” but it can be said to have been the case since, by definition, Angels are extraterrestrial “aliens” yet, granted, most if not all claiming such are referring to biological beings born on another planet (see my book Fifty Shades of Gray Aliens) like the God of Mormonism.
Blesch gets into the issue of, “Are the Nephilim themselves the children born from the unions between the sons of God and human women?” and, in part, answers, “Whether Genesis itself states with absolute grammatical clarity that the Nephilim are those offspring remains debated.” Yet, the Gen 6 affair narrative’s contextual focus is the sons of God and daughters of men: their attraction, their marriage, their copulation, and their offspring. Thus, it would violate that narrative’s contextual focus to artificially insert a mere passing reference to some unrelated Nephilim guys who just happened to be around at the time, are mentioned for no apparent reason, and about whom nothing more is said in relation to the narrative’s contextual focus.
He notes, “The second explicit reference appears during the Israelite spies’ report after scouting Canaan. The spies say they saw the Nephilim and connect them with the sons of Anak, or Anakim. They describe themselves as seeming like grasshoppers in comparison. That passage establishes an important biblical association: Nephilim → Anakim → extraordinary size and intimidation.”
I count circa 5 problems with that and Blesch is aware of some of them as he went on to note, “We should still be careful. Numbers 13:33 occurs within the spies’ fearful report, and the narrative itself portrays that report negatively. Some interpreters therefore regard the language as exaggerated” to say the least: in my book What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology I quote over 60 scholarly sources that affirm that it ranges from exaggeration to straight up deception: it was merely a fear-mongering, scare-tactic, in the style of a, “Don’t go in the woods!!!” type of tall-tale—and is logically, bio-logically, and theo-logically impossible.
Now, we have seen references to the likes of extraordinary size with relation to giants so that Blesch’s usage does not agree with the English Bibles’ usage. He adds that, “the passage clearly demonstrates that the Nephilim tradition had become, at least in some contexts, associated with beings of unusual physical stature. The broader conquest traditions reinforce this giant motif through references to the Anakim, Rephaim, Emim, and other formidable peoples.” Yet, when we are dealing in terms such as extraordinary size and unusual physical stature, giants, etc. we are in the realm of something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless such terms are).
For example, Deut 2 tells us that, in general, the Rephaim tribe, of which Anakim were like a clan, were, “tall” subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
Will Blesch gets into linguistics again with:
The ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures – the Septuagint – renders Nephilim using the Greek term: γίγαντες — gigantes
This is the source behind many English translations and traditions that simply call the Nephilim “giants”…
The Greek word gigantes certainly became associated with beings of enormous stature, but within Greek mythology the Gigantes were not simply unusually tall humans. They belonged to a mythological world involving extraordinary beings, divine conflict, and cosmic rebellion. That does not mean the Jewish translators of the Septuagint intended to import the entirety of Greek mythology into Genesis.
It does show, however, that their chosen term carried considerably more conceptual weight than the English word “tall.” The Septuagint therefore provides evidence of an ancient interpretive association between the Nephilim and extraordinary, superhuman figures. When combined with Numbers 13 and later Second Temple literature, the connection between the Nephilim and giants becomes extremely old.
Thus, the argument is that gigantes implies something about height (and non-altogether human origins) ergo giants implies something about height yet, we have already seen that such is premised on assumptions.
Actually, “the Septuagint – renders Nephilim” and also gibborim and also Rephaim, “using the Greek term: γίγαντες — gigantes” so that it cannot imply something about height since gibborim is merely a descriptive term for mighty and a concept has no height.
The fascinating aspect of, “a mythological world” in Greek mythology is that it has Titans being beings of enormous stature and being a result of the Greek earth false goddess Gaia mating with the sky false god Uranus which we can understand as expressing earth women mating with sky Angels. In fact, the earth-born aspect of gigantes is that the term refers to being born of Gaia.
Granted, “does not mean the Jewish translators of the Septuagint intended to import the entirety of Greek mythology into Genesis” yet, pre-Tower of Babel, humanity lived in relative proximity but thereafter we spread abroad taking with us what was then commonly known and shared history which, with time and telling (and aggrandized augmentation) became myth and legend.
Thus, “the connection between the Nephilim and” Blesch’s usage of, “giants” is in terms of an evil report, Green mythology read into gigantes, and folklore from centuries/millennia, after the Hebrew Torah.
As for, “the source behind…‘giants’” that would mean that we cannot simply claim that giants implies even something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average.
Interestingly, he tells us, “The Hebrew term *Nephilim* is not simply the normal Hebrew word for ‘giants’” without telling us what is—especially as used in the Hebrew Tanakh nor in his usage.
He goes back over what he just went over:
…the association between the Nephilim and giant beings is ancient and substantial.
Three strands of evidence support that conclusion.
First, Numbers 13:33 associates them with the Anakim and extraordinary size. Second, the Septuagint uses gigantes. Third, Second Temple Jewish literature explicitly develops the offspring associated with Genesis 6 as gigantic beings (and more).
So the careful conclusion is:
Nephilim does not simply mean “giants,” but ancient interpreters very clearly, and often, understood the Nephilim tradition in connection with giants.
Thus, what is ancient (which is a subjective term since 1 Enoch is ancient but from centuries/millennia after the Torah which is more ancient still) and substantial is that only non-LXX versions of an unreliable evil report, “associates them with the Anakim and extraordinary size,” reading gigantes as per certain Greek myths (and ignoring that the LXX may have used gigantes to correlate origins and tyranny rather than size), and Second Temple Era folklore.
The dirty little secret is that since we have no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue—and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical pop-Nephilology, the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
He goes back over what he just went over and over:
Were the Nephilim Giants?
Ancient Jewish tradition strongly associates the Nephilim with giants – but it does not necessarily portray all of these beings as one uniform race of identical size or appearance.
Genesis itself gives no measurement for the Nephilim. It never tells us that they were a particular number of cubits tall.
Numbers 13:33, however, clearly associates the Nephilim with the Anakim and extraordinary physical stature: the Israelite spies describe themselves as appearing like grasshoppers by comparison.
Whatever degree of rhetorical exaggeration may be present in the spies’ report, the passage demonstrates that the Nephilim tradition had become connected with beings of intimidating size.
Second Temple literature develops that association much further, but also introduces something often overlooked in popular discussions. Namely, different classes of giant or hybrid offspring.
Subjectively, “Ancient Jewish tradition” refers to anything written by any Jew for any reason at any subjectively ancient time in any genre, place, etc.
Genesis does not even hint at anything about their size.
Numbers 13:33 is unreliable but in terms of tradition well, sure: the 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked were either playing off of pre-existing tradition from who knows when or made it up on the spot.
“Second Temple literature develops” folklore.
Will Blesch then notes, “Jubilees Describes Different Classes” particularly since it adds characters to the story and an origin for (non-existing in reality) post-flood Nephilim.
It has it (7:22) as what Blesch has as, “three categories or generations of beings: the Giants, the Naphil, and the Elioud/Eljo” part of which is language jumping from English to Hebrew. He follows that by noting, “James C. VanderKam, in his major commentary on Jubilees, notes that the passage distinguishes three kinds of beings, different from one another: giants, naphil, and elyo.”
It has it that post-flood Nephilim came about when a recipe was found for hot, fresh, right out of the oven Nephilim—instructions were found for how to create them from scratch via occult rituals yet, that is just not how they were produced, they were the product of the physical mating of Angels and humans.
We are then told that, “1 Enoch Also Preserves a Threefold Tradition” which includes, “rebellious heavenly beings…who mate with cattle representing human beings…symbolic animals” yet, 1 Enoch obsessed pop-Nephilologists wove a tall-tale about that they genetically manipulated animals as well.
He goes on to note, “Ancient Traditions Also Preserve Different Heights…1 Enoch 7…manuscript tradition varies, which makes precise reconstructions of the original measurement uncertain” about which I will imagine he is referring to that some versions have Nephilim at 3,000 ells but since that is the MILES tall version other seem to have watered them down to 300 cubits—which would be 450 feet granting an 18-ish inch cubit.
Also, “Jubilees 29 describes the Rephaim of Gilead as…ten cubits down through nine, eight, and seven cubits” which is circa 15-10.5 feet.
He then goes back to, “Later Jewish Tradition” such as:
Genesis Rabbah 26:7, for example, states that the giants were known by seven names:
Nephilim
Emim
Rephaim
Gibborim
Zamzummim
Anakim
Avim
The midrash then interprets several of those names individually.
The genre of Midrashim is sermonizing homilies and not recording history.
It may interpret several of those names individually but there are four categories here:
1) Nephilim: strictly pre-flood hybrids for whom we have no reliable physical description.
2) Emim and Zamzummim are merely a.k.a. for Rephaim and Anakim were like a clan of that tribe (Deut 2) and all were 100% strictly post-flood humans who were generically subjectively tall(er then 5.0-5.3ft.).
3) Gibborim is a mere descriptive term for might, not a people group proper.
4) Avim/Avvim are also mentioned in Deut 2, “As for the Avvim, who lived in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor, destroyed them and settled in their place)” so they were also strictly post-flood humans for whom we have no physical description.
Will Blesch is right on point in noting, “We should be cautious about treating this later list as a scientific taxonomy or assuming that every name necessarily represents a biologically distinct ‘species.’ Some are biblical ethnonyms, some may overlap, and the rabbinic text is explaining ancient traditions many centuries” and millennia, “after Genesis.”
We then go back to, “So Were the Nephilim Giants?” “The best answer” to which we are told is:
The Nephilim were strongly associated with giant beings in ancient Jewish interpretation, but the wider tradition is more diverse than the popular formula “the Nephilim were one race of enormous giants” suggests.
The evidence instead preserves:
Giant figures of varying heights,
Multiple named giant peoples in the Hebrew Bible,
Three differentiated classes of Watcher offspring in Jubilees,
A parallel threefold symbolic classification in 1 Enoch’s Animal Apocalypse; and
Later Jewish traditions that group several different ancient peoples under the broader category of giants.
So when 1 Enoch describes enormous offspring, that should not automatically be taken to mean that every being associated with the Nephilim tradition was imagined as identical in size, morphology, or lineage.
The ancient evidence points toward a considerably more complex giant tradition.
Keep on keeping in mind that terms such as, “enormous giants” are useless.
Writing in that way makes for confusion such as what does this mean, “Multiple named giant peoples in the Hebrew Bible” especially when giants is not in the Hebrew Bible since it is an English word.
Again, “giant tradition” can include just about anything based on anything.
We then come to:
Who Were the “Sons of God” in Genesis 6?…
Three interpretations dominate the discussion.
1. Heavenly Beings…
2. The Descendants of Seth…
3. Human Kings or Rulers…
As aforementioned, the Heavenly Beings/Angel view is the most well attested and ancient.
“The Descendants of Seth” Sethite view is a late-comer based on myth and prejudice.
The, “Human Kings or Rulers” view was actually right at the earliest but never gained much support.
We then move on to:
The Spirits of the Giants Remain
In 1 Enoch 15–16, the story develops an explanation for the origin of evil spirits…Their physical bodies can die. But their spirits remain. Those spirits become evil spirits upon the earth. This idea became enormously important for later Jewish demonology.
That demons are the spirits of dead Nephilim is just that: folklore from centuries, if not millennia, after the Torah. For a biblical view, please see my article Demons Ex Machina: What are Demons?
Will Blesch gets specific about the issue of:
Were There Nephilim After the Flood?
This question arises from two pieces of biblical evidence. First, Genesis 6:4 contains the phrase:
“and also afterward.”
Second, Numbers 13:33 refers to Nephilim centuries after the Flood narrative. So how can the Nephilim appear after the Flood?
Several explanations have been proposed.
1. Another Occurrence Happened After the Flood
Some interpreters believe the phenomenon involving heavenly beings and human women occurred again. This explanation is possible within a supernatural framework, but Genesis never explicitly narrates a second Genesis 6 event.
2. Some Form of Lineage Survived
Other interpretations attempt to preserve genealogical continuity through Noah’s family.
Again, the biblical text never explicitly states this.
3. “And Also Afterward” Connects the Nephilim With Later Giant Traditions
Genesis 6 may be establishing the Nephilim as part of a broader category or tradition that later biblical writers associate with the Anakim, Rephaim, and other giant peoples.
4. Numbers 13 Uses Traditional Identification
The spies may be identifying extremely intimidating inhabitants of Canaan with legendary Nephilim known from Israel’s primeval traditions.
5. The Spies Are Exaggerating
The narrative portrays the fearful spies negatively.
Their statement that they looked like grasshoppers may therefore reflect rhetorical exaggeration rather than a technical genealogical claim. At present, the biblical evidence does not give us enough information to resolve the issue beyond dispute.
So the responsible answer is:
The Bible does refer to Nephilim after the Flood narrative, but it does not explain exactly how that relationship should be understood.
Are Nephilim, Anakim, and Rephaim the Same?
The Hebrew Bible contains several overlapping traditions involving unusually formidable or giant peoples.
Among them are:
Nephilim
Anakim
Rephaim
Emim
Zamzummim; and
Individual giant warriors.
Numbers 13 explicitly links the Anakim with the Nephilim.
Deuteronomy associates the Anakim with peoples related to or classified among the Rephaim tradition. But Scripture never provides a simple biological genealogy demonstrating that every one of these terms describes precisely the same people.
It is therefore safer to say:
The biblical texts preserve related and overlapping giant traditions, but they don’t lump every giant group into one identical category.
The only reason that, “This question arises” from Genesis 6:4 is that when arguing for post-flood Nephilim post-flood Nephilologists do just that: they cut the complete verse, the complete sentence, the complete thought in half—and just when it was about to tell us to what days it is referring, they tend to merely quote a few words such as, “and also afterward” period, end of story, full stop: or rather, continue the quote by artificially inserting the flood into a statement to which it is un-contextual.
The primary question is not, “how can the Nephilim appear after the Flood?” but is, “Did Nephilim appear after the Flood?” the biblical answer to which is no, of course not, especially since God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc., etc., etc. Fallacious Nephilology damages theology proper.
Gen 6:4 can not mean anything about the flood since:
1) the flood is not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses later.
2) the only post-flood reference to Nephilim is from an evil report by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked.
3) God did not fail, did not miss a loophole, the flood was not much of a waste, etc., etc., 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, they began doing it then and they continued to do it but that is all pre-flood.
That, “Another Occurrence Happened After the Flood” is just a rescue device that post-flood Nephilologists invented and/or parrot when they realized they have no support for their assertion: as if God missed that loophole.
That, “Some Form of Lineage Survived” is an even worse rescue device since it also contradicts the Bible five times (Gen 7:7, 23; Heb 11:7; 1 Peter 3:20 & 2 Peter 2:5) since that is how many times God told us who survived the flood but Nephilim aren’t mentioned.
Thus, it may be that, “‘And Also Afterward’ Connects the Nephilim With Later Giant Traditions” since, again, that merely refers to tall-tales.
And we already reviewed the issue of, “Are Nephilim, Anakim, and Rephaim the Same?” along with that the fact that, “Numbers 13 explicitly links the Anakim with the Nephilim” just means what in common pop-parlance would be stated as that a guy said a thing so trust me bruh!!!
Also, to note that, “Numbers 13 explicitly links” only tells us where to find a statement but does not answer key hermeneutical question that Blesch answered but pop-Nephilologists typically do not: who said it, why was it said, what was the reaction to it, was it accurate, etc.
This bring us to, “Was Goliath a Nephilim? The Bible never explicitly calls Goliath a Nephilim.” The way that pop-Nephilologists assert that he was, is to first myopically only consider non-LXX versions of one sentence in one evil report, accept it as infallible, pick it up, run with it, apply it, and then claim that since Goliath was of the Anakim clan then he was a Nephil.
We will jump to:
Will Blesch’s Interpretation
My own view goes somewhat further than simply saying that the supernatural interpretation of Genesis 6 deserves more attention.
I believe Genesis 6 and the Enochic Watchers tradition preserve memories of real events, but I don’t necessarily think either text gives us something resembling a modern documentary account of exactly what happened…don’t personally regard 1 Enoch as Scripture…more like an ancient interpretive expansion…calling it interpretive doesn’t make it fiction…Nor am I comfortable with the common assumption that the Enochic account can simply be dismissed as a much later writer inventing an elaborate story around four obscure verses in Genesis…
The oldest physical manuscripts of Genesis that survive today come from the Dead Sea Scrolls, with the oldest examples possibly dating to around the third century BCE. The Book of the Watchers is itself generally dated by scholars to roughly the third century BCE, while portions of the traditions incorporated into it appear to be older still…
…an intriguing possibility: Genesis 6 and the Enochic tradition may not stand in a simple relationship where one author merely read the other and embellished it. Both may preserve, reshape, or interpret traditions that circulated before the surviving forms of either text.
…the supernatural interpretation is extraordinarily old…And its continuation among several early Christian writers is significant…
I suspect that behind Genesis 6, the Watchers tradition, the giant traditions, and perhaps portions of the Flood material lies the distorted cultural memory of an actual primordial catastrophe involving some form of non-human or cosmic interference in human affairs…
Ancient people described extraordinary events using the conceptual vocabulary available to them. Those accounts were transmitted through generations, languages, cultures, scribes, storytellers, and theological traditions. Events could be compressed, details symbolized, while characters became archetypal. Enormously complicated realities could be reduced to narratives that even a child could understand…
What interests me is whether the phenomena being described bear meaningful similarities to categories we are only now beginning to discuss using modern terminology…
Perhaps Genesis 6 and the Enochic traditions are neither primitive mythology nor straightforward modern-style history…
That is fair enough as far as it goes—although it goes back into the giant traditions issue which differs categorically from the issue of actual existence.
Thus, Will Blesch provided a very good overview overall to include his view, it merely needs a little touching up by tightening up some lose terminology and adding details about the evil report.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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