Someone asked me to watch the below youtube which is nearly 2 hours long, and give my opinion.
Nephilim: TRUE STORY of Satan, Fallen Angels, Giants, Aliens ...
Here is my opinion.
It is my opinion that this guy (possibly part-Jewish?) is a charlatan, snake-oil salesman.
He indeed says some things that are true (which is what must be done by con-artists, or no one would believe them)...
He has a superb media presentation, though his role in the presentation is a massive rotting fly in the ointment. It is not that he does not have a suitable presentation or voice, it is quite good; however the method he chooses to use is deceitful and tediously irritating, at least, to someone like me who could see right through him in the first minute, though I gave him the benefit of the doubt and watched the entire presentation, partly incredulously, partly hoping it would get better. Though it did not get better in terms of the methodology, it did have highlights of value; and his deadpan low-key affectation is not without humorous moments; but the sad thing is that all of the valid information is lost in the stew, contaminated with his false theory and coloring of information.
He is not a teacher. He is an entertainer. He, it seems, thinks that he is a cross between David Copperfield and Alfred Hitchcock (and deadpan comedian Steven Wright https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ciHpT4WuM ).
He is in love with his own profile, it seems, as during 90% or more of the presentation, you get to look at the side of his face, except for when he at times, turns to face you as if he just said something uber-profound.
Two super annoying things about him (which constitute 2/3ds of his presentation):
1. he speaks super slowly in super short drawn out sentences, emphasizing each word as if they were all drops of golden nectar from the gods, taking up probably 3 to 4 times more time than necessary (including a little repetition, which is needful both in valid teaching as well as in brainwashing).
2. most annoying of all are his non-stop finger pointing, gesticulating, playing with his fingers across the screen, hand signals, tracing with his finger or large marker all over imagines and text on the screen as if he is a magician, sign-language speaker, first-base umpire, catcher, gang-banger, magician, and traffic cop all rolled into one.
I believe, actually, that it is a form of mind control and hypnosis, purposely attempting to mesmerize the viewer. It is his way of trying to be in control. You will look where I want you to look and when I want you to look (and not think stray thoughts but just accept hook, line, and sinker what I say). He does this to hide the flaws of his own presentation, and to get inside your mind and brainwash you, if you are not mentally acute. This is why the majority of the time he is in the dark and all you can see are the brainwashing hand gestures and juvenile pointing that he carries out nonstop as if he is choreographing magic.
He states a lot of facts (along with error) --HOWEVER, these facts are mostly used as props that he sticks in among his own ideas as if they actually support or lend credence to his own ideas, the vast majority of which do not. They are used deceptively to substantiate that he indeed can present valid information, which then is a false inference that his main ideas are valid also.
Indeed, he presents video footage of a lot of strange skulls around around the world. However, that they were children of the Nephilim is unprovable and unlikely. What are they? Maybe they were freaks of nature due to some type of radiation exposure from an asteroid or some other natural source of radiation or toxin or birth defect that produced a small population of those with those defects until they died out. I don't believe in aliens. The squiggly lines in the skulls (which he did not even research ever so superficially to realize that they are technically called "sutures", of which there are three distinct areas; one set fuses between 6 and 9 months, but the other two sets can take until the ages of 22-39) that he presents indeed are not normal—but that is all that can be said of them (which is an understatement). Anything else that he speculates is wild science fiction that he attempts to interpret Scripturally; and he also places unjust authority on the Apocryphal Book of Enoch—actually, it seems, giving it "first chair", while canonical Bible texts are merely used (often a bit stretched) to corroborate the information in Enoch. This is a classic symptom of false doctrine: They use spurious texts as the skeletal mold, sinews, and skin, and a little bit of the Bible merely as decoration.
Scripture does not say that the children of the Nephilim were hideous freaks... only that they were men of stature, renown, giants.
Some Bible translations and comments are in error. The Nephilim did not "marry" the daughters of Adam—they TOOK (abducted) them. He alludes to this much later, but the rabbi he employs as an expert and the Bible translation that he uses utterly obscures and obfuscates this by claiming they "married". His dates concerning the Flood are OFF, more than a "smidgen" as he says... in both the Masoretic and Septuagint, which he says are about the same, when they are not (being nearly a millennia different: around 2350 b.c. for the Masoretic, or 3242 for the LXX)
He also claims the Ammonites were giants, which is a terrible blunder. The Canaanite-Amorites (who were giants) defeated and dispossessed the Ammonites of their northern territory near the Jordan River, and these giants were Amorites living in the former land of the Ammonites.
He also shows lack of understanding in claiming that the Israelites were captives in Egypt for 400 years. This shows superficial study. As my full-color, massive, detailed wall-chart (Coordinated Chronological Table of the Patriarchs) clearly shows, from the time that Jacob and his family moved to Egypt to the Exodus itself was only 144 years (an interesting number indeed). Try squeeze 144 as many times as you can, you won't wring 400 years out of it. Furthermore, Israel was only in bondage some unspecified time after the death of Joseph (54 years after the Israelites moved to Egypt). At the very most the Israelites were in bondage for 90 years (that is, assuming that when Joseph died another pharaoh immediately ascended the throne who had no regard for Joseph). More likely it was at least a few years. The 400 years (of Genesis 15:13) refers not merely to Israel's time in bondage in Egypt, from the time that Isaac was weaned and mistreated by Ishmael until the Exodus from Egypt. The passage does not mention Israel, but "thy seed"; and it does not mention Egypt, but being strangers in a land that was not theirs—and they did not have a land of their own promised unto them until the Exodus. The Israelites indeed wandered for 40 more years, but that was not the fault of any alien nations, but Israel's own lack of faith and general rebellion.
He also botches the pronunciation of many, many words, especially names in Egyptian, Hebrew (even simple ones like Sinai) and Greek—which shows his amateurish knowledge and lack of more than superficial study in addition to his common habit of drawing false inferences. He even botches simple words in English like "enmity". Maybe if he did deeper study and was more concerned with presenting sound information and less concerned with his neurotic gesticulating, he would have pronounced words properly. It would have been good to present subtitles on the screen when he was attempting to pronounce words, but that would result in the viewer actually thinking rather than being programmed.
He amateurishly also shows his lack of study in thinking that Ur of the Chaldees was in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia down by the Persian Gulf, when in reality it was up in far-northern Mesopotamia right around where he correctly places the site of the beginning of civilization and Noah's Ark. [See my S.T.E.C. on Genesis / Judges for the detailed information concerning Ur, Eden, Ararat, and the land of the East.]
He seems to plagiarize some information on the meaning of the names of the earliest patriarchs without giving Chuck Missler credit.
- which is also in more-recent youtubes by Missler:
Whether or not the information Missler presents was his own or someone else before him, I cannot say: but unless my understanding of math is deficient, Missler's 1996 presentation was earlier than Trey Smith's (I believe) 2013 presentation.
One of his drawn out (unspoken) illogical inferences is because ancient mythology, ancient pagan religions, occultic claims, and modern-day artwork exist, that therefore, the information contained in them is reality—especially in his interpretation thereof. Some of his interpretations are good. However, that does not make the meanings factual history or reality, but simply what those ancient cultic peoples believed. Other points are outright absurd.
Sometimes he jumps back and forth from scene / thought to another without actually making a point... and the invalid piggybacking off the valid is legitimized in the mind of someone not astute or not paying attention.
He does present a little bit of information that is quite interesting debunking evolution and explaining the skulls and skeletons of humans and Neanderthal man (yes, under a stronger atmosphere as existed before the Flood, and living for many hundreds of years, with less radiation and pollutants and better nutrients in the food (the soils having not been depleted due to overfarming and toxic agra-chemicals), the bones of humans would indeed have been larger, stronger, denser; and if the brow does continue to grow, as do cartilage like the nose and ears, indeed the brow would be more pronounced in a very old multi-centenarian person). However, he overgeneralizes and of course believes in the false doctrines of the universal brotherhood of man the universal fatherhood of God, the universal death of Christ, etc., which also causes him to make erroneous broad-based declarations built on superficial, confused theology, but those are minor, since he delves little into theology but attempts to substantiate unsubstantiated ideas. Indeed, I believe he is correct in general concerning the angels who sinned and their hybrid offspring and their souls after their death being evil / unclean / foul spirits desiring a body. However, the bulk of his information and attempting to prove that the freakish skulls that have been uncovered are in fact the hybrid race sired by the angels that sinned, I believe, is meritless.
I could add more, but that is probably sufficient "the morning after" having viewed it—and, as I knew it would be (due to the brainwashing / programming content), the presentation was on my mind a-l-l n-i-g-h-t l-o-n-g as I tried to sleep. That brainwashing affect, unrealized, in the unsuspecting person, might conclude the average viewer to conclude that there must be something to the information that he presented, if it remained so dynamic within him; but it is not the information, but the programming technique / brainwashing method—and the fact that it was slow, long, drawn out 2-hour long presentation in the dark with flashing lights and his continually pointing, attempting to "orchestrate reality".
[It should be noted that in Mel Gibson's superb "Conspiracy Theory" a similar brainwashing technique was used employing both the dark and bright lights (in addition to sleep deprivation, mild torture, and drugs) but that a super fast flurry of images were presented, instead of a slow, drawn out one. That was a different type of "brain gravy", which was intended to break down resistance and also cause a mental break and development of schitzoid / psychotic behaviour. However, the slow method in this presentation can be considered more like marinating in brine for a few days in the fridge and then slow cooking a pot roast for several days—and there is no resistance that needs to be dramatically cracked and broken, since the viewer is watching by his own choice, not being forced to watch... though the presented does force the viewer to watch all his meaningless gesturing, which is intended, I believe, to brainwash. Maybe I give him far-more cognitive credit than he deserves. Maybe he simply did not know how to make a sane presentation and all that pointing and his Hitchockian profile was all his idea; or maybe some psychopolitical expert coached him. Who knows. Like the skulls themselves, all that we can be certain of is that the method of presentation is indeed odd.]
There is some value in his presentation. However, I believe (just my opinion) him to be a charlatan and any greater viewing of his information to be a waste of time, except maybe as a psychological study in itself, or out of mere curiosity; but certainly not as a venue for actual learning truth. I think watching the above video in its entirety may be good if you have 2 hours to blow, as it does have a small percentage of value (and is probably one of those things that you would never have believed had you not seen it for yourself)
The below information that he wrote in his blog and in the excerpt of his "biography" in his book Thieves is quite revealing and does not to me seem to be the writing from a mind that is truly Christian, or even Christian at all. The excerpt from thieves is mildly interesting, but bad writing and I don't believe a word of it. This is not to say that the person he describes, a corrupt televangelist may not be corrupt ( https://www.dallasobserver.com/music/auction-shows-how-well-prosperity-g... ), but I highly doubt anything in his narrative the way that he expresses it as being truth.* The story is full of holes like a sieve, from start to finish. It is mindless sensationalism which anyone with a brain should be able to see through all of the inconsistencies and illogical stupidity; and the casual mention of a vast array of immorality mentioned as off the cuff casually and matter of factly and bluntly also strikes me as from a nonChristian mind.
[* Here are some links, but when both sides are immoral, you cannot trust either: Both tend to profit off the same disinformation, since neither really have a reputation worth protecting
Also, the televangelist Murdock, it seems, was close friends with other televangelists of dubious nature, Jimmy and Tammy Fae Bakker and Palestinian Benny Hinn.]
As Smith explains in his rambling blog (see link below), he is improving his delivery (and for some reason seems to want to attract the attention of professional sensationalist fictional Jewish producer Steven Spielberg)... and to me that means he is honing his skill as a con-man to make himself more believable to Christians. There is no way to know if he actually went by the name "Trey Smith" his whole life, his name (allegedly) being Brian Trey Smith. Maybe he changed it to Trey Smith, since there is a celebrity with that name (son of black actor Will Smith) to again ride on the popularity of this name for greater visibility.
[The epitome of this methodology was well portrayed in a movie with Eddie Murphy called, "The Distinguished Gentleman" in which a two-bit con was convinced by his worthless two-bit con homies to run for political office because his name was identical with the incumbent politician who had just died and therefore a percentage of people who did not keep up with the news would just assume he was the incumbent politician (who was actually deceased) and vote for him. None of them believed that he would actually win, and when he did, they were all surprised and thought they had reached the promised land. However, Murphy, it seems, in the fictional movie, grows a conscience once he sees how corrupt all the politicians are and since he is a freshman congressman/senator (and black) they all are eager to wine and dine and groom him to their side... but he, being so upright, wants to expose the corrupt politicians. Despite a few unsavory scenes, as I remember watching it decades ago, it is otherwise an excellent presentation of corruption]
Also, at the blog belong he name drops a lot of celebrity names and even invents some fictional story with Osteen. I believe this is all simply for higher web traffic to bring up results riding on other peoples' coat tails, in order to fool more people to reading his website. What he says at this blog does not seem to be consonant with Bible doctrine as he says things like "I love ya man" to such tv actors whose moral values are most-probably diametrically opposed to those of Scripture. Scripture even tells us that if we even bid "God speed" to kinsmen who rejects the pure doctrine of Christ, that we are actually then partakers in their evil. His tawdry innuendoes at this blog, though not blatant, strike one, as anything but Christian.
Read the two below, and if you have time with hi-speed internet, watch the entire presentation above... and see if you agree or disagree with my analysis... he does present some interesting information and mysterious information, but not supportive of his supposition.
While it is good to be aware of the unreliable information and charlatans out there, people would do better to study sound material as I have spent over a quarter century to provide.
How he can originally be from Houston, and have been raised there, and have the accent that he has, is also quite odd. Listen to his voice. You tell me if you think that is the voice of someone born and raised in Texas. Sounds like New York City (Queens or Manhattan) to me. Murdock has a Texan drawl (or at least Southern-Cajun accent, being born and raised in Louisiana). See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuhvBiYUr3c [I believe this is a spook of an interview, spliced together by Trey using clips from programs by Murdock and Hinn; which, if true, continues to show dishonesty by Smith. However, false-interview scenario aside, it is a good clip of classic charlatanism in televangelism.]
I can't find anything on his history to substantiate where he was born and raised, etc., other than the brief skeletal information he himself posts. This does not mean that none exists, only that I did not see it; and of course maybe he took voice lessons while in prison to lose his Texan accent; or maybe people in Houston don't have a Texas accent; or maybe people from Texas who move to Colorado lose their Texas accent (all things that I find hard to believe; but anything is possible). He had a seedy past—despite allegedly being a student in Bible college—and though anyone can be converted (though that concept never seems to be mentioned in the selection from his Thieves, nor in his blog), at least in the above video he does refer to Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour, but it is also possible, like many politicians, that is something that must be said to be believed... who knows...? I hope he is truly converted... if he is sincere. Nnyone can repent of their sin (which does not really seem to be mentioned either) and be changed by God's Grace... but those concepts don't seem to be conveyed in his autobiographic excerpt below. At the end of the Nephilim youtube above, he does, in closing, give credits and also offer some brief general apology while pushing his book Thieves. Also at the blog, his plug for his book Taos also seems a bit "off" admitting he is not the person that he was when he wrote Taos (which he pushed as fiction, but says it is more true than he would like to admit)... and that the book will "twist you" and that he wrote it at a bad time in his life and put all his anger into it... and yet still says it is a great read and encourages you to order it. He says that he truly believes in God now, so what does that say for the days in which he was allegedly a student in Bible school? He also uses expressions like "Oh God" and "Oh my Lord" which only nominal Christians have the audacity to do.
All that I have expressed above is merely my opinion, and is not accusation or stated as truth. Let each taste and see for himself: Caveat emptor.
Anyone who does invest the time to view the entire program and the links below, and my commentary, I would be interested in your assessment.