Відео

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for taking the time to give us that information. I (Michael here) think the chances of us agreeing are low. But, I want to follow scripture wherever it takes me. It must be the first and last authority. With that said, I’m happy to look at the resources you have suggested and review these verses in context with an open mind.

​@@javacodeman Thanks for replying. Even if we don't agree, I think we can agree that God is just and will bring perfect justice to the wicked in the end. I agree with wanting to follow scripture and it being the first and last authority. Here's a link to my article if you are interested. grafted-theology.blogspot.com/2023/02/end-of-wicked.html God bless!

Hmmm. Sorry to here that. Make sure the bell is highlighted for notifications. If it is, then just check in on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Thanks! This is Charleston Bible Church in Charleston, SC. Visit if you're ever here on vacation!

I have this recorded for a future episode to discuss!

@@jackfrost2978 Wait, after reading both articles, you merely assert, "childish games" rather than engaging in sharpening iron with iron? With what, exactly, did you disagree in those two articles you read?

@@KenAmmi-Shalom i didn't "merely assert" childish games. i told you what the games were that you were doing. You don't care. If you articles were so good why have you still not brought forth any of the amazing talking points from them? Why when i brought of the bible verse about rephaim. Did you go to argue about the nuance of definition instead of talking about the broader implication? When looking up your articles. One of the first things i saw, talked about the detailed nuance of rephaim in the discussion of nephilim. You have so far left all of this untouched. i have know several people that when they did something wrong and were confronted about it. Would bring up 100 excuses just to keep from being honest. They dodge everything they don't like while insisting on staying on topic about irrelevant points that they use. What i found most distasteful about the articles. Is that they relied on 1000 excuses. It was the same poor manor and logic. They are not made by someone trying to get to the truth. They were written by someone trying to defend their emotional feelings. i'll make up an example but it will be accurate in feel and nature, to your articles. Bible verse XYZ clear states the nephilim was sitting. According to Heisers, nephilim are giants. We know this cannot be clearly deduced from the scripture, due to a sitting individual being very hard to tell how tall they are. Therefore we can ignore every consideration for nephilim and any potential offspring being giants. Due to the indisputable evidence that a sitting person in verse XYZ would be difficult if not impossible to judge their true height.

@@jackfrost2978 I’m going to ignore your online-Atheist-like failed attempts at mind reading and other personal attack-level comments. What you characterize as, “nuance of definition” is the premise for determining if the down the line assertion, of a, “broader implication”: it’s just that you want to start with the conclusion and I’m just taking us back the beginning. It’s incoherent to demand that one or two article cover all basis: that’s part of why I’ve written some dozen Nephilology books, written many article and have posted many videos-to include discussing such issues with hundreds of people. For example, in my book, “What Does the Bible Say About Giants and Nephilim? A Styled Giantology and Nephilology” I have a whole chapter about Nephilim and one just about Rephaim. Bottom line: Nephilim were strictly pre-flood hybrids, Rephaim were strictly post-flood humans, and there’s zero correlation between them. The only people who deny that are the ones who for some reason demand post-flood Nephilim, realize they’ve no supporting data, and just play the name-swap-game-and/or the ones who actually incorporate Pagan mythology into their theology. Now, I don’t mind discussing issues but I won’t debate your fantasy scenarios. So, beyond the points I already noted, how about, “According to Heisers, nephilim are giants”: do you actually know what that means?

Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved-see these articles for examples: “Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy” “Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “‘All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal’”

One issue is linguistic: does, "appearance of Nephilim" mean mentioned in texts? Or, does it mean actually alive on the ground? See, I George Washinton can appear in my comment and I could claim that I just saw him but that doesn't mean he's a live right now. There's a an appearance of post-flood Nephilim in only one single sentence from an "evil report" by unreliable guys whom God rebuked when they merely asserted seeing them as a tall-tale but no real on the ground alive appearance of them. 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.”

Dueteronomy 3: 11 King Og and his bed of iron. Goliath. There are references all over the early old Testament that support giants.

@@jackfrost2978 I'm unsure why you moved the goalpost to "giants" since the vid is about, "Nephilim and Cosmic Geography" and I commented on "appearance of Nephilim" but you referred to two Rephaim. I supposed then that 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?

@@KenAmmi-Shalom First let me thank you for the list of names that you work against. In your previous post. Second let me apologize for assuming that you where more mentally capable. When you said you had written books on the subject. As in more than one book. i assumed you would be more knowledgeable of the topic. You are correct in that Deuteronomy 3: 11 uses the word for Rephaim. It was assumed you would understand the history of the biblical use of Rephaim and Nephilim and the correlation. Especially after doing all the research that would be required to write several books, on the topic. My mistake. Numbers 13: 33 Nephilim are seen, as well as the correlation to them being giants. Please don't use more Non biblical references. In pretense to supporting Un biblical claims. That you have written books about.

@@jackfrost2978You're very good at being an ungraceful worldly jerk so maybe stop offering proof of that henceforth. Can you please provide quotations and citations to back the assertion of, "the biblical use of Rephaim and Nephilim and the correlation"? You say, "Numbers 13: 33 Nephilim are seen" but in order to conclude that, you sided with one sentence in an "evil report" by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked: why are they your only source? They also contradicted Moses, Caleb, Joshua, the whole rest of the entire Bible and God: why do you side with them?

Thanks for the feedback! We have just started this as a podcast, but your input has stirred me to ponder what we could do to help this platform out.

disagree. Some channels do that WAY too much. Plenty of podcasters don't put in visuals. It's all about how engaging you are in the conversation. Maybe the Scripture references posted up or something would be good, but not "frequently"

@@NebulousFrivolity That’s what I was thinking as well. Something to break up the monotony every now and then. Quotes and scripture references. Perhaps a picture of a manuscript if we were talking about it, etc. Zach did just buy a green screen-so we may have a new and exciting background. 😉

Michael here. I have taken some Hebrew, but definitely not a scholar by any stretch.

Heisler 😂😂😂

Dr. Heiser was credentialed and experienced but not infallible, his Nephilology wasn’t biblical, and he tended to create more problems than he solved-see these articles for examples: “Review of Amy Richter and Michael Heiser on four Enochian Watcher related women in Jesus’ genealogy” “Rebuttal to Dr. Michael Heiser’s “‘All I Want for Christmas is Another Flawed Nephilim Rebuttal’”

Thank you Ferdinand! We hope we delivered the goods for you!

Great question! We will actually address this in our next Thursday episode on the Nephilim.

Did you listen to the video? First, even if what you're saying was true, that argument simply does not work. The word "trinity" isn't in the Bible either. Yet, the Bible clearly speaks about God as a trinity. Second, no English word is in the Bible since it was written in Hebrew and Greek. So, the word "disciple" isn't in the Bible either. Yet, it's English translation from Greek is in the Bible. It is clear from the Septuagint's use of arseno and koites in the Leviticus passages that Paul's use of aresenokotes means a man lying with a man. Finally, regardless of whether or not the word is used, Romans 1 simply describes the act without use of any label word. One can hold on to a lifestyle, but he/she cannot abuse the Bible to justify it.

You are a false teacher if not something worse. Your "clear" teaching is convoluted and just plain wrong. Please, take away from my arguments coming from a sound hermeneutics, if you can: rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2015/01/baby-got-back.html

On Romans: rottenqueerchristian.blogspot.com/2014/05/of-romans-and-reptiles.html

@@javacodeman Thank you!

Gentiles are not descendants of Jacob, therefore they could never be considered Israel.

Thanks! We do hit this topic a bit more in the follow-on videos to this discussion. Check out Davidic Covenant Part 1 (just released) and Part 2 (next week). Given that we differ on this topic, you will get to hear two sides to the discussion.