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

The About Pastors site publishes a List Of Giants In The Bible

The About Pastors site is actually a.k.a. 24H News and published a List Of Giants In The Bible. Due to the formatting of the article and that the whole site appears to be lists, I get a feeling it’s basically an AI generated site. It’s said to have been written (or posted) by a certain Evangelist Shadrach.

The article’s title and opening line, “Giants in the Bible are very interesting and mysterious characters. They are mentioned in different parts of the Bible” begs 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 Shadrach’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?

Do those two usages agree?

We get a taste of the answer to question two via this statement, “The word ‘giants’ makes us think of very tall and strong people, and that’s exactly how these characters are often described in the Bible.” We will have to see if we are provided with any backing for that statement.

We’re told that in the Bible, “stories are mentions of giants…These giants are not just in one part of the Bible but appear in several places” which is repetitive of an already made statement.

Now, keeping in mind that we were told, “very tall…people,” we are next told:

One of the first times giants are mentioned is in the Book of Genesis, which is the very first book of the Bible. Here, giants are called “Nephilim.” The Bible says that these Nephilim lived on the Earth both before and after a big flood that covered the Earth. People have different ideas about who these Nephilim were. Some think they were the children of angels and human women, while others think they were just very big and strong people.

Shadrach then moves away from Genesis so I’m unsure how it’s relevant since it doesn’t physically describe them at all.

There’s literally not on single statement in “The Bible” which, “says that these Nephilim lived on the Earth both before and after a big flood that covered the Earth”: in fact, any concept of post-flood Nephilim implies that God failed: He meant to be rid of them via the flood but couldn’t get the job done, He must have missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc. See, fallacious Nephilology negatively effects theology proper.

Also, post-flood Nephilologists have to just invent un-biblical tall-tales about how they made it past the flood.

This describes 100% of pop-Nephilologists.

And those who claim they survived the flood contradict the Bible five times.

I’ve written whole books debunking them such as, Nephilim and Giants: Believe It or Not!: Ancient and Neo-Theo-Sci-Fi Tall Tales.

Also, Nephilim and Giants as per Pop-Researchers: A Comprehensive Consideration of the claims of I.D.E. Thomas, Chuck Missler, Dante Fortson, Derek Gilbert, Brian Godawa, Patrick Heron, Thomas Horn, Ken Johnson, L.A. Marzulli, Josh Peck, CK Quarterman, Steve Quayle, Rob Skiba, Gary Wayne, Jim Wilhelmsen, et al.

Back to, “very tall…people” well, “very” and, “tall” are just as vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage as “giants”? Next we’re told, “Goliath was a giant” so I supposed that he was subjectively, “tall” and perhaps even, “very” since he was just shy of 7ft. compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3ft. in those days.

We’re then told of, “other groups of giants mentioned in the Bible, like the Anakim and the Rephaim…known for their size” but the only thing we’re told about their size is that they were, “tall” on average (Deut 2). Also, Those were all Rephaim since Anakim were a clan of that tribe.

We’re then taken back to Nephilim, “The Nephilim are some of the earliest giants mentioned in the Bible, appearing in the Book of Genesis.” Now, oddly, “Genesis 6:4” is cited but not quoted rather, it’s merely asserted, “This verse tells us that the Nephilim were on Earth before and after the great flood” but such isn’t the case since it reads, “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.”

In fact, the flood isn’t even mentioned until a full 13 verse later.

It’s noted, “The Hebrew word Nephilim is often translated as ‘giants,’ suggesting they were much larger and stronger than normal humans. Their great size…” yet, that’s not a translation but is a rendering and to jump from that word to, “much larger” is a word-concept fallacy. The bottom line is that the answer to key question three is, “No” since, “giants” merely renders “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.

It’s then specified that, “The Anakim are another group of giants mentioned in the Bible, specifically in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. They are often described as the descendants of the Nephilim, making them part of the giant lineage.” Yet, that is only accurate if, “often” means once—and never in the LXX. It’s only in one single sentence of an, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked that such a correlation is made and the LXX version lacks any reference to Anakim. Thus, there’s no logical, bio-logical, nor theo-logical reason to accept that they are related. Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim, such as Anakim, were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them.

It’s then reiterated, “The Anakim are said,” failing to note that it was said one time and by unreliable guys whom God rebuked, “to come from the Nephilim, linking them to the mysterious giants mentioned in Genesis…Nephilim, the Anakim were noted for their impressive height…” yet, Anakim were, “tall” and we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim since they only one we have comes from the, “evil report” which was just a tall-tale.

“In Numbers 13” is then cited and we’re rightly told, “Moses sends twelve spies to explore the land of Canaan” but then we’re mislead by being told, “The spies report back that the land is filled with giants, specifically mentioning the Anakim.” See, what’s happening here is the we’re led to believe that ten 12 reported that but that was not he case, the citation is to the, “evil report” I noted but the trustworthy Caleb and Joshua didn’t report nor support any such thing.

We’re then told, “In the book of Joshua, the Israelites, led by Joshua, finally enter Canaan and battle the Anakim…The Anakim represent significant physical and psychological obstacles” in part due to their, “intimidating size” but, again, they had nothing to do with Nephilim.

We’re then told, “Rephaim are another group of giants…described as a formidable…in size…being as tall” and one of them is identified, “the most famous Rephaim was King Og of Bashan, mentioned in Deuteronomy 3. He was noted for his enormous bed made of iron, suggesting his great size.” Yet, that’s a non-sequitur based on various assumptions: we don’t have a physical description of Og—see my book The King, Og of Bashan, is Dead: The Man, the Myth, the Legend—of a Nephilim Giant?

I’m getting the feeling that this was a AI generated article, a word generator copy and paste job: I suspect that due to the meandering, repetitive nature and that it’s very vague and watered down.

Having said that, we’re circled back to Goliath and told, “Goliath is described as standing over six cubits and a span tall, which would make him about nine feet nine inches tall.” Yet, that’s as per the Masoretic text yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft.

We’re then told of, “The Emim and the Zamzummim: Lesser-Known Giants” but Shadrach (or the AI) seems to be unaware that Emim and Zamzummim or Zuzim are merely a.k.a. for Rephaim.

We’re then repetitively circled back to King Og.

The article, and many like is, also pepper homiletical sermonizing statements such as, “a powerful symbol of overcoming great challenges through faith and divine support…representing the triumph of the underdog and the importance of divine aid in achieving victory…themes of divine support and victory over seemingly insurmountable odds,” etc., etc., etc.

Well, we got a tase of watered-down misused terminology along with citations to text that don’t say what it was asserted they say along with assertions peppered throughout the various repetitive statements.

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: