Yeah, we should probably address this in a podcast at some point. Different views. If He did already return, how would you deal with what it is supposed to be after His return?

@ well it’s the age of Aquarius. Says right in the Bible his return will be marked with a man carrying some water. That’s Aquarius. And it is just like in the book of revelation. Infanticide, cannibalism(in the form of blood, plasma and fetal tissue as well as traditional cannibalism.) wars and rumors of wars. People think that good is bad and bad is good. And interracial marriage, genetic modification. It’s all plain to see Christians just don’t seem to actually believe their Bible. It is clearly as it was in the days of Noah.

@@javacodeman well my reply is gone as far as I can see. Can’t talk about the book of revelations without violating googles policies. Should be enough said right there.

Here's Bart Ehrman, one of the biggest NT skeptics: kzbin.info/www/bejne/amTQdah_g5pgrdksi=1zJR-jV2ZMosvDbO

It was actually just what I needed!

Yes! One of us is in Nexton and the other is in Goose Creek!

Haha, zipper merging takes into account the sinful nature!!! =D

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!

Anyone can make a rebuttal. Does not mean the rebuttal is right. i tried searching for the videos. They are not showing. Maybe you could give a few details, that where covered.

@@jackfrost2978 Good point, when Heiser wrote that rebuttal, he wasn't' right. Not videos, I noted those are articles so you'll need to use a search engine.

@@KenAmmi-Shalom Articles got it. For all the articles you have written. i'm surprised at how much you rely on childish games to support your desired narrative. This pattern is what i have come to expect from people who use their intellect to support their emotional stances. You could have given 3 to 5 of the best counter points to the narrative. Making it easy for everyone to have a good starting point. Instead you want to make sure people know that you are active in academia. What i have learned from academia. Is that any narrative pushed by academia, should not be trusted. The very nature of academia is the belief that we are wrong and are trying to do better. Yet too many people try to wave the academia banner as if it is absolute proof that their opinion is unquestionable. Circling back to the original statement. That just because someone did a rebuttal, does not make that rebuttal right. Your push to your academic works seems more based on ego than on concern for the subject itself.

@@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.

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?