Sign up for email updates!



Share this!

Not surprisingly, the prophets aren’t quite finished weighing in on this era of Earth. Primarily, we gain insight on the conditions of our planet from Isaiah and Jeremiah.

However, to more thoroughly understand some of their visions, we’ll now briefly examine one event straight from the biblical narrative so we have something against which to compare the “void” era.

Giants’ Bones in Native American Burial Mounds

In the second chapter of the book Before Genesis, we compare the weight of Ussher Chronology to that of the Powell Doctrine to show how influential one man’s word can be to the society of his day. However, I intentionally left out the findings of the Smithsonian Institution until this point, as these undated bones may link to the “void” era. (They may also link to the giants of Noah’s day.) Let’s consider the bones of giants from my previous Cloudeaters research.

Well before Powell’s Limitations document (the Powell Doctrine), the world, including the Smithsonian, was aware of bizarre sites and objects on Earth’s surface. Not limited to bones, these also included strange astronomical and astrological building patterns surrounding ancient structures and monolithic edifices such as those in Baalbek, as well as enormous tools, strange drawings, and prevailing legend of primitive cultures around the globe. The Smithsonian was not always involved in every discovery reported, which is why the public doesn’t have to search far into archives of obscurity or conspiracy to find abundant visual evidence that something walked the earth in the old days we can’t explain away, despite the Smithsonian’s attempts to squash them into obscurity.

Note that many of the following accounts refer to skeletons that measure more than seven feet tall (although some are far taller). André René Roussimoff (popularly known as “André the Giant”) was seven feet, four inches tall, and Robert Pershing Wadlow (the “Giant of Illinois”) stood eight feet, eleven inches. (Tom Horn’s grandfather had gigantism and stood right at seven feet tall.) So, we do know that through a rare malfunction in the human growth hormone, a regular human can grow extremely tall. However, before we can consider that as proof that all of the giant bones were simply cases of growth-hormone glitches, remember that many of these discoveries involve mounds that hold many giants all in one place; further, some of the skeletons have six fingers and toes on each hand and foot, as well as two rows of teeth. If this was an issue of rare biological conditions, we wouldn’t discover huge groupings of these specimens in one mound.

In 1882, the same year as Powell’s published report, Powell appointed Cyrus Thomas to supervise the Division of Mound Exploration. Thomas was originally more than open-minded about the legends regarding an ancient and lost race of giants, as he had paid close attention to the reports concerning gigantic human skeletons unearthed in and around enormous structures involving complex mathematics and astronomical alignment. But because he didn’t go around advertising his theories, Powell may not have known Thomas was progressive in this “mythological” area when he chose him to oversee the mysterious burial mounds. Thus, Thomas would—at least initially—lead teams to document the discovery of impressive skeletons (though he steered clear of speaking of them himself).

The following is a brief list of documented findings, all recorded in the Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Institution for the Year […] series (each book title ends with the year the discovery was made):

  • One skull measuring “36 inches in circumference.”[i] Anna, Illinois, 1873. (The average circumference measurement for the human skull is between twenty-one and twenty-three inches, depending on varying factors such as sex, ethnicity, etc.)
  • One full skeleton with double rows of teeth, buried alongside a gigantic axe, referred to in the report as a “gigantic savage.”[ii] The skeleton—with a colossal skull—fell apart after exhumation, so an exact height/head circumference was not reported, but the record states that “its height must have been quite [meaning “at least”] seven feet.” Amelia Island, Florida, 1875.
  • Giant axes and “skinning stones.”[iii] One weighed over fifteen pounds, had an ornately carved handle, and was of such great mass that it was documented: “Only a giant could have wielded this.” Kishwaukee Mounds, Illinois, 1877.
  • One jawbone that easily slipped around the entire face of a large man on the research team; one thigh bone measuring “four inches longer than that of a man six feet two inches high”; one “huge skeleton, much taller than the current race of men.”[iv] Kishwaukee Mounds, Illinois, 1877.

According to the Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1883–1884, shortly following the discoveries in the above list, the Smithsonian team found ten more skeletons in mounds and burial sites in Wisconsin, Illinois, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. Not every one was measured for height, but each was documented as being much larger than the skeletons of our current race; those that were measured ranged between seven to seven and a half feet long.[v] Similarly, in the Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1894, two enormous skulls, several baffling femur bones, and seventeen full skeletons also measuring between seven to seven and a half feet long (one in East Dubuque, Illinois, measured almost eight feet) were unearthed in Illinois, Mississippi, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.[vi] The West Virginia dig report contains an additional claim of finding “many large skeletons,” generically.[vii] These reports list the discovery of more than forty thousand artifacts, including weapons, tools, jewelry, and various utensils that couldn’t feasibly have been used by average-sized humans.

There has been some indication, based on later writings of Cyrus Thomas, that he eventually did cave in to Powell’s way of thinking, likely due in part to pressure from the Smithsonian, which contributed to the extreme acceptance of the Powell Doctrine in 1907. Following this, as mentioned prior, all theories, reports, or evidence that led to any discussion in opposition to the doctrine were silenced.

Outside news reports involving the Smithsonian’s knowledge of giant bones include:

  • One skeleton of “a gigantic Indian” was discovered by the Smithsonian BAE’s own John W. Emmert. Bristol, Tennessee. Reported by The Weekly Democratic Statesman, 1883.[viii]
  • One seven-foot, two-inch, giant skeleton with a copper crown on its head, “jet black” hair to the waist, possibly a royal leader, was buried in a mound in a secure vault with undecipherable inscriptions carved into the outside. The relics were “examined by a committee of scientists sent out from the Smithsonian Institute,” then “carefully packed and forwarded to the Smithsonian.” Gastonville, Pennsylvania. Reported by American Antiquarian, 1885.[ix] (Note that another giant with possible links to royalty was found by H. R. Hazelton in Cartersville, Georgia, reported the previous year, on July 23, 1884, by The North Otago Times. Though that discovery did not mention any links to Smithsonian involvement, it’s interesting to see that we have at least two possible “king” giants. The giant of Cartersville, Georgia, was nine feet, two inches, had hair to his waist, wore a copper crown, and was surrounded by seven skeletons belonging to children, buried in a vault under flagstones [both the vault and the flagstones were deeply etched with undecipherable inscriptions], and resting on a bed of dry grass and animal skins. Some have suggested that the giants of Pennsylvania and Georgia were the same discovery due to their similar descriptions, and that the American Antiquarian simply reported the same skeleton later, listed fewer details, and stated the wrong date, location, and skeletal height. This is a possibility, but it’s just as likely there were two separate discoveries, one with the involvement of the Smithsonian, and one without, because of how dissimilar the reports were.)
  • Water recession from the Tumlin Mound field revealed “acres of skulls and bones,” one of which was so massive, an article titled “Monster Skulls and Bones” states that “their owner must have stood 14 feet high.” In the final sentence, we read, “A representative of the Smithsonian Institution is here investigating the curious relics.” Cartersville, Georgia. Reported by The New York Times, 1886.[x] (Note this is the same city as one of our “king” giants noted in the preceding bullet. This “monster” was discovered two years later due to water recession [not an intentional uncovering of a mound] and was reported to be much taller than the “king” [taller than fourteen feet high].)
  • One eight-foot-two giant was discovered to be well preserved and measuring at two feet, two inches across the pelvic bone. “About six miles” away from this find, “at the mouth of the Sioux Coulec,” a Smithsonian representative (referred to only as a Smithsonian agent or employee) “exhumed the remains of another skeleton the size of which was calculated to be about 9 feet in length.” Crawford, Minnesota. Reported by American Antiquarian, 1887.[xi]
  • Many giant artifacts, eleven full skeletons, one with an enormous jawbone “twice the ordinary size,” were discovered “by Warren K. Moorehead of the Smithsonian Institution.” Romney, West Virginia. Reported by The Baltimore Sun, 1889.[xii] (Warren Moorehead was not a direct employee of the Smithsonian, but he most often reported his archeological findings to them.)
  • At least fifteen, and possibly as many as twenty, full skeletons “more than seven feet tall” were discovered by “members of the Smithsonian Institution.” Natchez, Louisiana. Discovery in 1891. Reported by The Spokane Daily Chronicle years later.[xiii]

In Cloudeaters, we explained in greater detail how these findings were disregarded by powerful men who—despite years of transparent discovery documentation from their own research and education teams—sought to bury and erase all evidence that didn’t align with the Darwinian paradigm, which would account for 1) why we don’t hear much about them today, and b) why there hasn’t been responsible, peer-reviewed analysis of the bones involving confirmed dating. And don’t forget that even the Bible, itself, acknowledges such bizarre occurrences as giants with six fingers and toes (for instance, see 2 Samuel 21:20), linking directly to the findings in these lists.

In case you’re wondering, these giants cannot be explained by current branches of evolutionary theory. Neanderthals were, as evolutionary science has shown, shorter than today’s human species. Consider the classroom and textbook charts showing the man evolving from crouched monkey to upright human. Some charts show the Neanderthal man in the middle, others toward the end, depending on the physical phases featured in each chart. Scientists say this hominin species was one of the final phases of man before transforming into today’s Homo sapiens, and that they lived amongst the Homo sapiens as recently as thirty thousand to forty thousand years ago (though some scientists say they aren’t quite that recent). One interesting tidbit science has shared with the rest of the world regarding this species is that the average male height was around five and a half feet tall when standing upright, supporting the idea that humans began smaller and have grown—not decreased in size—as they’ve evolved. (According to Rudolph Zallinger’s “March of Progress” chart of 1965, the first sequence of man had dawned from the now-extinct Pliopithecus ape, which stood at an average height of three feet. Though this chart, too, has been updated, the fact remains that evolution shows man has increased in size over time from the mysterious arrival of the very first Homo species—supposedly our earliest human form.)

Regardless of the missing scientific dating methods applied to these bones (that the Church only takes so seriously, anyway), due to the lack of priority these bones have been given since their discovery, one could put all other known data in a blender and conclude that these bones are a remnant of the giants, Nephilim, or the Watchers of Genesis 6. If so, the bones have little or no connection to a pre-Adamic race, since Adam came first in the chronology. (Of course, if they do eventually receive dating proving them to be far older than Adam, they very well may be evidence of a pre-Adamic race. We simply won’t know until they are further studied.) What the remains of these giants can certainly attest to, however, is the Luciferian nature to pervert humanity as it had been warped in Genesis 6, possibly even as an attempt to create life the way God had done in the beginning. And if we know that’s a part of Lucifer’s nature—if we know this was what he was up to after Adam—it’s not a stretch to see this may have been a strategy he applied prior to Adam as well, during the “void” era.

Nephilim: Successors to a Similar Pre-Adamic Race?

For those who may not be familiar with the subject of the Nephilim, I will briefly explain the trail, starting with the biblical identification of this bizarre race in Genesis 6:4: “There were giants [Hebrew: napil or Nephilim] in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

“Sons of God,” according to Hebrew expert Dr. Heiser, is “a term for the divine members of God’s divine family-entourage”; i.e., angels.[xiv] This is important, considering how many Bible teachers today claim this term simply refers to the sons of Seth (meaning ordinary and good men in the assembly of the Israelites). But, “sons of God” cannot mean regular, human “descendants of Seth” in Genesis 6:4, because that renders the context nonsensical: This verse describes a race of giants who were the offspring of a union with “the daughters of men,” meaning natural, human females. These offspring became “mighty men…men of renown,” or famously known for sensational feats (above those a human could be expected to carry out). If mere human males were copulating with mere human females, then why would the writer of Genesis feel the need to note this totally ordinary relationship at this point in the biblical narrative, just before the Flood? If God’s “good guys” were around at this time, going about their daily lives, procreating, being fruitful and multiplying, and pleasing the Lord, the Flood wouldn’t have been a necessary cleansing of evil upon Earth.

The reason this clear teaching is so frequently refuted in the Church is large in part because Matthew 22:30 explains angels “of heaven” do not marry (or copulate; the terms are synonymous throughout the Bible) and Psalm 103:20 explicitly states that angels obey God. If that were true of all angels, then Lucifer—one of God’s most amazing cherubim—would have never fallen. The key here is to remember that we’re not talking about obedient angels “of heaven,” as referenced in the aforementioned verse in Matthew, but of wicked angels who turned their backs on God and left their heavenly position and “first estate,” as we know Lucifer and his fallen-angel army did (Jude 6). After having fallen, they were no longer “of heaven”! In Job 1:6 and 2:1, we see these same “sons of God” (often translated “angels”) arriving with Satan in their midst specifically to accuse the upright man of God. Are they good guys there, too?

Also, the Hebrew word for “Nephilim” is derived from the Hebrew root naphal, which means “fallen ones.” It is extremely difficult to configure how “fallen ones” would ever describe godly sons of Seth.

Proceeding with the proper treatment of the Hebrew “Nephilim” in mind, and knowing that their activities led to God’s anger and the subsequent Flood, we understand the Nephilim to be offspring of wicked “sons of God” (fallen angels) and “the daughters of men” (human women). The Book of Enoch was read, studied, and quoted by the Jews, including the apostles of Christ, one of whom quoted Enoch in his epistle (look up the context of Jude 14–15). If the very apostles of Christ took Enochian literature so seriously, then it is relevant to the subject of fallen angels today, despite its exclusion from the canon of Scripture. Enoch 6:1–2, 7:1–5, and 10:1–3 expand on Genesis 6:4. Here are those verses, in that order:

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them [again, holy angels would not “lust after” anyone or anything, so these are fallen angels], and said to one another: “Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.”

And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go into them and defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants [the Nephilim], whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against them and devoured mankind.

Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great one spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: “Go to Noah and tell him in my name ‘Hide thyself!’ and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.”

Noah was “perfect [Hebrew: tamim] in his generations” (Genesis 6:9). At first, this appears to describe moral perfection, but other than Christ, no human has ever been morally perfect, which has led Hebrew scholars to view the Hebrew tamim in context of other writings of this time. Just like the “yom/day/age” issue we dealt with earlier, tamim can mean “perfect,” but it also denotes “pure” and “undefiled.” Since moral perfection is likely not the best rendering of this term, we are encouraged to assign the “undefiled” meaning to the writer’s intent here. Noah and his family were the only humans left whose DNA was pure and undefiled (not corrupted by the Nephilim or “giants’” seed). So, God told Noah to build an ark to save his family and two of every animal (as well as additional pairs of “clean” animals for sacrifice [Genesis 7:2]) so they would be protected from and preserved through the Flood (Genesis 6:14–22). (By the way, if you’ve wondered all your life how any boat in the world could have been large enough to carry two of every animal, remember this was before any form of select breeding. Noah wouldn’t have had to carry two black Labradors, two Chihuahuas, two German shepherds, two bulldogs, two poodles, etc.; he would have boarded two canines of the earliest parent breed, two felines of the absolute earliest parent breed, and so on. Also, the animals were more likely puppies, kittens, etc., not massive, clumsy, kibble-devouring monster-animals. The ark of Noah is not that far-fetched when we consider the small number of land-animal breeds he would have needed just to preserve the bloodlines of Earth’s earliest species that would later breed into the vast variety we see today.)

Not only does this satisfy the mysteries presented in Genesis 6:4, it explains why, when humanity was new to Earth around the time of the Fertile Crescent, stories from almost every culture produced tales of human/god-hybrid “giant” offspring:

In the ancient world, stories were often told of sexual intercourse between the gods and human beings; and the semi-divine offspring of such unions were held to have abnormal energy and other powers. In Mesopotamia and Canaan, divine-human marriage was celebrated in the sacred marriage rites that took place in the temples.[xv]

Gordon Fee, a beloved scholar well-known for his strict adherence to proper principles of biblical interpretation and exegesis (who was also the writer of, or his work was highly praised in, many of my college textbooks), writes in his book, Eerdmans Companion to the Bible:

Verses 1–8 of [Genesis] chapter 6 tell of spirit-beings (or angels; Job 1:6; 2:1) marrying human women, and these women bore them children who became “mighty men” (Nephilim, v. 4). This account parallels other ancient Near Eastern stories of divine-human marriages that produced superhuman progeny and implies the practice of sacred prostitution for the purpose of ensuring fertility (both of the soil in farming and in normal human marriages). But this grieves God greatly, and because humankind seems bent on pursuing wickedness, God resolves to destroy not only humans [in the Flood] but also all other creatures that inhabit the earth and sky. As the extent of sin intensifies, so does the degree of God’s judgment.[xvi]

There is also another way to interpret Genesis 6:2: “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.” The word “fair” (Hebrew tob) may not be the whole picture, as it likewise means “agreeable” or “accommodating.” Don’t misunderstand: It might not mean that the women, themselves, were agreeably accommodating to the fallen angels’ schemes to procreate, but that, to the angels, the genetic makeup and biology of the human female body could accommodate the fallen angels’ plan. What appears in English to be a synonym of “beautiful” is misleading. This is why some brilliant scholars, like our dear, late friend, David Flynn, have found this a better rendering: “the daughters…were fit extensions.” In other words, the fallen angels wanted to “incarnate themselves into the material world,” and female bodies were suitable for the job.[xvii]

Some readers, if this is the first time they’ve heard this take on Genesis 6:4, might be reeling with the implications of this teaching. But I assure you, for the majority of those who have read the books that we (Defender Publishing) have released, the Nephilim topic is nothing new, so in the interest of those individuals, I will get back to the central subject. (For further reading on this subject through our company, I highly recommend directing your Internet browsers to Tons of materials are available in our store regarding this subject.)

As I said earlier: Because Adam was formed prior to the Flood event that the existence of the human/fallen-angel hybrid Nephilim-offspring contributed to, the giants of Genesis 6 are not related to a pre-Adamic race alive on Earth during the “void” era. But, we don’t know yet whether the giant bones mentioned previously are before or after Adam’s time. All we know is this: Lucifer, in his fallen, wicked state, along with a third of the angels who left their “first estate” alongside him, were not above attempting to “create” as did the Most High. The unfortunate offspring generated by the fallen angels’ unions with human females may not have been Lucifer and his minions’ first attempt to launch their own, warped “creation.” The “void” era may very well have had all sorts of genetically modified abominations walking around, since we know this was something Lucifer would “do again” in Genesis 6.

As to his motive in designing this Genesis 6 perversion, almost all the scholars who teach on this subject postulate one answer: Lucifer had been with God when Earth was first formed, so he knew God’s ultimate plan for His Creation. When Lucifer saw that his pitiable takeover attempt would not stop God, he tried to pollute humanity so the Messiah could never be born through a pure bloodline, and salvation through sacrifice and the concurrent reconciliation of man to God would never take place. God sent the Flood to save Noah’s “perfect” (read: “undefiled”) DNA and preserve humanity so Jesus could be brought forth from an ancestry untouched by the giants.

If there was a pre-Adamic race of Luciferian breeding, would it have been something similar to the giants of Genesis 6?

For that matter, when the Bible says there were giants on Earth “in those days; and also after that,” what “days” are being referred to specifically, and what era is represented by “also after that”? Scholars have been confused about this for a long time, calling the “also after that” era the “second incursion.” Occasionally, we see scholars come to terrifying conclusions about the second incursion, even going as far as to say that the demonic DNA still exists today within some races of humanity (a proposal I don’t find viable because it refutes our status as humans with access to the very salvation Christ offered humanity).

Others have taken an alternative approach, asking: What if the real answer wasn’t that sensational? What if “in those days” is a reference to a pre-Adamic race of the “void” era, and “also after that” is a reference to what happened in Noah’s day? Genesis scholar Derek Kidner, in his Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, states: “It is worth noting that the giants are not said to have sprung solely from this [Genesis 6:4] origin: if some arose in this way (also after that), others existed already (in those days).”[xviii] The chronology of this would be:

  1. First incursion: “in those days”; after God made Earth the first time, after Lucifer’s fall, and during the “void” era, but prior to the re-creation beginning in Genesis 1:3
  2. Second incursion: “and also after that”; After the re-creation beginning in Genesis 1:3, noted in Genesis 6:4

If—and I admit it’s only an “if”—the Nephilim were on Earth way before Adam’s time, then obviously the genetic manipulation in Genesis 6:4 wasn’t the first time Lucifer attempted such a thing, and a pre-Adamic race of some sort is real.

As long as we know Lucifer had the goal of creating his own perverted race of beings in mind around the time of the Flood, then a pre-Adamic race is a possibility anyway…and the more science discovers bones, Gobekli-Tepe-like buildings, structures that humans don’t appear to have originated, OOPArts, etc., the more likely that scenario appears to be.

Now that we have a potential foundation for what destructive “creation” Lucifer may have been up to during the “void” era, let’s look at what the prophets said about the condition of the planet at that time.

UP NEXT: Isaiah Saw the “Void”

[i] As recorded by T. M. Perrin, Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Institution for the Year 1873 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; Smithsonian Institution), 418.

[ii] As recorded by Dr. Augustus Mitchell, Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Institution for the Year 1875 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; Smithsonian Institution), 395.

[iii] Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution Showing the Operations, Expenditures, and Condition of the Institution for the Year 1877 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; Smithsonian Institution), 260.

[iv] Ibid., 274.

[v] Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1883–1884 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; Smithsonian Institution). See pages 19, 35, 52–57, 62–67, and 98.

[vi] Twelfth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1894 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; Smithsonian Institution). See pages 113, 117, 273, 302, 335, 340, 362, 419, 426, 432, 437, 440, 453, 458, and 495.

[vii] Ibid., 436.

[viii] The Weekly Democratic Statesman, April 12, 1883. There is no author listed as this news is reported in general in the bottom paragraph of column two on page 6 of the paper. However, an image of the newspaper scan can be found at the following link, last accessed March 20, 2023: Library of Congress, “The Weekly Democratic Statesman., April 12, 1883, Page 6, Image 6,” Chronicling America,

[ix] “Giant Skeleton in Pennsylvania Mound,” American Antiquarian 7:52, 1885.

[x] “Monster Skulls and Bones,” The New York Times, April 5, 1886. No author, as it is a short blip on page 5.

[xi] American Antiquarian: Volumes 9–10: Jan. to Nov. 1887, 176.

[xii] The Baltimore Sun, January 23, 1889. No author or article title, as it is a short blip.

[xiii] The Spokane Chronicle, June 21, 1993, 35. No author or article title, as it is a short blip.

[xiv] Heiser, PhD, Michael S., Angels, Kindle location 411.

[xv] Wenham, Gordon J., “Genesis,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, ed. D. A. Carson et al., 4th ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 65.

[xvi] Fee, Gordon D., and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., eds., The Eerdmans Companion to the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 82.

[xvii] David Flynn, “Seraphim, Cherubim & Ezekiel’s Wheels: Aliens, Nephilim & the Days of Noah” Watcher Website. Quoted in: Putnam, Cris, and Tom Horn, Exo-Vaticana: Project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., and the Vatican’s Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior (Crane, MO: Defender Publishing; 2013), 90.

[xviii] Kidner, Derek, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary: Volume 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 91.

Category: Featured, Featured Articles