J
jaybird88
Guest
The nephilim are a pretty hot topic today. Do any of you think we may still have giants walking around today?
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
Kaycie
Guest
From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 2nd. ed.
NEPHILIM nef׳ǝ- lim [Heb. n p̱ȋlȋm (Gen. 6:4; Nu. 13:33)], AV GIANTS. The etymology of n p̱ȋlȋm is uncertain. The following explanations have been advanced with mixed reception. First, it may derive from the niphal of the verb pālā’, meaning “be extraordinary,” i. e., “extraordinary men.” Second, it may derive from the verb nāp̱al, “fall,” in one of the following senses1) the “fallen ones”- from heaven, i. e., supernatural beings; (2) morally “fallen men”; (3) “those who fall upon,” in the sense of invaders or hostile, violent men; (4) “those who fell by” the sword (cf. Ezk. 32:20f.); (5) “unnaturally begotten men” or bastards (cf. nēp̱el, “abortion” or “miscarriage”). None of these satisfies all scholars, and some consider n p̱ȋlȋm an unexplainable relic from an ancient, now- forgotten language. Contextual information is unfortunately limited to two enigmatic passages.
The Nephilim were apparently people of imposing physical stature when compared with the smaller Hebrews (Nu. 13:33). This particular reference is glossed by a statement which implies that the offspring of Anak in Canaan were descended from the renowned Nephilim of Gen. 6:4. The latter had gained a reputation as notable heroes in the antediluvian period, and apparently persisted after the Flood (w g̱am ’aḥ rȇ- ḵēn). This could have occurred through migration, on the basis of a local Mesopotamian deluge, and in that case would account for their descendants living in Canaan.
The Anakim were a tall people (Dt. 2:21; see Anak) with whom the Rephaim, another pre- Israelite group in Canaan, were compared. The large stature of the individuals composing these groups suggests a condition such as hypertrophy of the long bones of the skeleton, or some other disorder of a genetic variety. This becomes even more likely if the Rephaim were being indicated by the use of a term such as rāp̱ā’ in 1 Ch. 20:6, 8, where genetic mutations are being described (cf. rāp̱ȃ in 2 S. 21:16, 18, 20, 22).
Genesis 6:1- 4, while meaningful to the original recipients, has become obscure with the passing of time. It is impossible to be certain whether the Nephilim were the same as the “mighty men” (gibbȏrȋm) at the end of v. 4, or a separate group that overlapped chronologically. If they were identical, questions are then raised about the “sons of God” which procreated the “mighty men” (see Sons of God [OT]). Some modern scholars have followed ancient Jewish tradition in supposing that the “sons of God” were “fallen ones,” perhaps angels, who mated with women after being cast out of heaven, thereby giving origin to the “mighty ones” (but see J. Morgenstern, HUCA, 14 [1935], 76- 107). Such a view generally presupposes that vv. 1- 4 are an etiological fragment or a “myth” that helps to explain the character of antediluvian wickedness and the consequent need for the Flood.
That the material may conceivably be ancient Semitic historiography that contains important, if obscure, anthropological, demographic, or sociological information is a proposition that seems to be taken seriously only by some conservative scholars. They consequently oppose the “mythical” conception and interpret “sons of God” as a reference to the Sethite line (Gen. 5) or to the nobility (cf. Kline), whose mixed marriages to the “daughters of men” (“men” in a restricted sense as wicked or common people) contributed to a moral decline. They argue that “myth” is inconsonant with the perspective of the Pentateuch, that “angels” are pure in Genesis and sexless in the Bible as a whole (Mt. 22:30), and that people should not be punished (Gen. 6:3) for a sin that is primarily that of angels (v. 2).
Against the claim that “sons of God” (b nȇ hā’ lōhȋm) is always used of angels, it should be noted that the equivalent phrase in Greek described a man (Adam) in Lk. 3:38, as did the comparable expression b nȇ ‘elyȏn (“sons of the Most High”) in Ps. 82:6. The unions would thus appear to be between two human groups, the males being perhaps of the Sethite line and the females possibly constituting neanthropic remnants that were exterminated by the Flood. Whether or not the “mighty men” were actually Nephilim, no particular sin seems to have been attached to their parentage. What was condemned was the violence and corruption that characterized contemporary society (Gen. 6:11f.).
The “demigod” explanation of the Nephilim, so popular in some circles, seems therefore less preferable than a nonmythological, sociological explanation which sees the people described as specifically human groups engaged in relationships of deteriorating social and spiritual quality
NEPHILIM nef׳ǝ- lim [Heb. n p̱ȋlȋm (Gen. 6:4; Nu. 13:33)], AV GIANTS. The etymology of n p̱ȋlȋm is uncertain. The following explanations have been advanced with mixed reception. First, it may derive from the niphal of the verb pālā’, meaning “be extraordinary,” i. e., “extraordinary men.” Second, it may derive from the verb nāp̱al, “fall,” in one of the following senses1) the “fallen ones”- from heaven, i. e., supernatural beings; (2) morally “fallen men”; (3) “those who fall upon,” in the sense of invaders or hostile, violent men; (4) “those who fell by” the sword (cf. Ezk. 32:20f.); (5) “unnaturally begotten men” or bastards (cf. nēp̱el, “abortion” or “miscarriage”). None of these satisfies all scholars, and some consider n p̱ȋlȋm an unexplainable relic from an ancient, now- forgotten language. Contextual information is unfortunately limited to two enigmatic passages.
The Nephilim were apparently people of imposing physical stature when compared with the smaller Hebrews (Nu. 13:33). This particular reference is glossed by a statement which implies that the offspring of Anak in Canaan were descended from the renowned Nephilim of Gen. 6:4. The latter had gained a reputation as notable heroes in the antediluvian period, and apparently persisted after the Flood (w g̱am ’aḥ rȇ- ḵēn). This could have occurred through migration, on the basis of a local Mesopotamian deluge, and in that case would account for their descendants living in Canaan.
The Anakim were a tall people (Dt. 2:21; see Anak) with whom the Rephaim, another pre- Israelite group in Canaan, were compared. The large stature of the individuals composing these groups suggests a condition such as hypertrophy of the long bones of the skeleton, or some other disorder of a genetic variety. This becomes even more likely if the Rephaim were being indicated by the use of a term such as rāp̱ā’ in 1 Ch. 20:6, 8, where genetic mutations are being described (cf. rāp̱ȃ in 2 S. 21:16, 18, 20, 22).
Genesis 6:1- 4, while meaningful to the original recipients, has become obscure with the passing of time. It is impossible to be certain whether the Nephilim were the same as the “mighty men” (gibbȏrȋm) at the end of v. 4, or a separate group that overlapped chronologically. If they were identical, questions are then raised about the “sons of God” which procreated the “mighty men” (see Sons of God [OT]). Some modern scholars have followed ancient Jewish tradition in supposing that the “sons of God” were “fallen ones,” perhaps angels, who mated with women after being cast out of heaven, thereby giving origin to the “mighty ones” (but see J. Morgenstern, HUCA, 14 [1935], 76- 107). Such a view generally presupposes that vv. 1- 4 are an etiological fragment or a “myth” that helps to explain the character of antediluvian wickedness and the consequent need for the Flood.
That the material may conceivably be ancient Semitic historiography that contains important, if obscure, anthropological, demographic, or sociological information is a proposition that seems to be taken seriously only by some conservative scholars. They consequently oppose the “mythical” conception and interpret “sons of God” as a reference to the Sethite line (Gen. 5) or to the nobility (cf. Kline), whose mixed marriages to the “daughters of men” (“men” in a restricted sense as wicked or common people) contributed to a moral decline. They argue that “myth” is inconsonant with the perspective of the Pentateuch, that “angels” are pure in Genesis and sexless in the Bible as a whole (Mt. 22:30), and that people should not be punished (Gen. 6:3) for a sin that is primarily that of angels (v. 2).
Against the claim that “sons of God” (b nȇ hā’ lōhȋm) is always used of angels, it should be noted that the equivalent phrase in Greek described a man (Adam) in Lk. 3:38, as did the comparable expression b nȇ ‘elyȏn (“sons of the Most High”) in Ps. 82:6. The unions would thus appear to be between two human groups, the males being perhaps of the Sethite line and the females possibly constituting neanthropic remnants that were exterminated by the Flood. Whether or not the “mighty men” were actually Nephilim, no particular sin seems to have been attached to their parentage. What was condemned was the violence and corruption that characterized contemporary society (Gen. 6:11f.).
The “demigod” explanation of the Nephilim, so popular in some circles, seems therefore less preferable than a nonmythological, sociological explanation which sees the people described as specifically human groups engaged in relationships of deteriorating social and spiritual quality
I know that the classical giant races that are recorded in the Bible and within secular history are recorded as being mostly wiped out.
There is a medical disorder known as gigantism, whether or not these are to be considerred as akin to the giant races of history is not as certain. I remember seeing when I was a kid at Ripley's Believe It Or Not Museum in Florida a statue and some documentation of an American giant named Robert Wadlow. To my knowledge he holds the record as the tallest man recorded in the 20th Century AD.
There is a medical disorder known as gigantism, whether or not these are to be considerred as akin to the giant races of history is not as certain. I remember seeing when I was a kid at Ripley's Believe It Or Not Museum in Florida a statue and some documentation of an American giant named Robert Wadlow. To my knowledge he holds the record as the tallest man recorded in the 20th Century AD.
P
passinthru
Guest
Many believe in what is called the Pre Adamic Kingdom. This theory is interesting and possibly has some merit , hard to say, However it isn’t going to make or break one;s salvation due to subscribing to it or not,
[SIZE=+0]Finis Jennings Dake[/SIZE] (1902–1987) who’s reference bible ;The Dake’s annotated Referewnce Bible is still in print and explains his views on this, Some have labeled this bible” Dake’s Mistake’ which I feel is sad as there is a wealth of knowledge in it regardleass . What may be a shock to some is that Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (August 19, 1843 – July 24, 1921) Who’s Bible is a mainstay in christian circles has been said to have also felt there is merit to the pre adamic kingdom. It is an interesting study in any case, Is it true? Dunno but we will know someday Does it knock scripture as we know it ? I don’t think it does. There are many questions concerning God’s word that we will never really ger total answer on in this lifetime, These questions can, however, be use dby the enemy to create divisions which is sad, It all comes down to majoring in the minors in a sense and even though it is interesting it has little to do with the great comission we have all been given to tell the world about Jesus.
[SIZE=+0]Finis Jennings Dake[/SIZE] (1902–1987) who’s reference bible ;The Dake’s annotated Referewnce Bible is still in print and explains his views on this, Some have labeled this bible” Dake’s Mistake’ which I feel is sad as there is a wealth of knowledge in it regardleass . What may be a shock to some is that Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (August 19, 1843 – July 24, 1921) Who’s Bible is a mainstay in christian circles has been said to have also felt there is merit to the pre adamic kingdom. It is an interesting study in any case, Is it true? Dunno but we will know someday Does it knock scripture as we know it ? I don’t think it does. There are many questions concerning God’s word that we will never really ger total answer on in this lifetime, These questions can, however, be use dby the enemy to create divisions which is sad, It all comes down to majoring in the minors in a sense and even though it is interesting it has little to do with the great comission we have all been given to tell the world about Jesus.
Nephilim means giant, and in the Book of Genesis were referring to the creatures of those times, and in Book of Numbers were referring to the son of Anak, they were considered as giant in size, ike they were as tall as Basketball players. In those days, if you were 5'4 in height, you'll would be consider as talk dark and handsome, because that were the average height for men in those days, because of their diets and environment. And so , if someone like Shaquille O'Neal had came up to them, they''ll look like grasshoppers around him.
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
Here is someone's statement that is from another site.
Don't laugh, I know that the title sounds silly, but it's an honest question - here goes.
When I went to the Brooklyn museum about a year ago I saw one of the mummies there from I-cant-remember-which-(Egyptian)-dynasty. I was very surprised by how short the chap seemed, even though I prepared myself for the idea that he might be rather small by our modern comparisons.
Again this year I was very fortunate to go to a hellenistic museum exhibit in Manhattan that had, in addition to a number of cool vase paintings and such some pieces of ancient bronze armor (a helmet and greaves). Again, I was shocked by the size of the pieces. The helmet honestly looked small enough to fit a child (From what I understand, because there was no mass production then, armor would hae to be more or less custom made unless inherited from a relative or otherwise - and armor was made for fully grown and respected 'citizen soldiers' so it's highly unlikely that it belonged to a child at all, as some people suggested to me).
It would be one thing is the greaves were short and stocky, I can imagine a short and stocky mediterranean man, but they were short and very thin! I wouldn't be exaggerating when I say that in comparison a modern man would seem like a giant.
Some theories:
1)The process of mummification involves drying the dead body, and the process of decay combined with aging conspires to shrink the mummified body. This might explain why the mummy seemed so small, even though I suspect before dying the noble was short (four feet and change) even by Egyptian standards. Unlike hoplites, in the case of Egyptian nobles, it is possible to be mummified as a child, so that's another consideration.
2)Nutrition by modern standards was such that people did not grow to their full potemtial. Even in comparion to the greatest of kings then, what with modern medicine combined with easily available goods from global sources people generally eat better and healthier today. Then you have the controvery of hormones in our livestock, but I won't aproach that subject.
3)A variety of stock was available to ancient people as migrations occurred, invasions happened, and basic mutations in available stocks produced larger people over time. Compared to the shorter Romans barbarian celts seemed like giants, so the tall gene could have been inherited as populations mixed over time.
I'm about at the end of my pontificating, but let me know if this all makes sense. If anybody has some good stats or information, or can refer me to a good online resource of some kind I would greatly appreciate it. When you see these things up close it makes it hard to imagine how these people could have held large Hoplons for hours on end and weild spears up to nine feet long!
All that seasonal training must have paid off for the hoplites.
How tall were the ancients? - Historum - History Forums
Don't laugh, I know that the title sounds silly, but it's an honest question - here goes.
When I went to the Brooklyn museum about a year ago I saw one of the mummies there from I-cant-remember-which-(Egyptian)-dynasty. I was very surprised by how short the chap seemed, even though I prepared myself for the idea that he might be rather small by our modern comparisons.
Again this year I was very fortunate to go to a hellenistic museum exhibit in Manhattan that had, in addition to a number of cool vase paintings and such some pieces of ancient bronze armor (a helmet and greaves). Again, I was shocked by the size of the pieces. The helmet honestly looked small enough to fit a child (From what I understand, because there was no mass production then, armor would hae to be more or less custom made unless inherited from a relative or otherwise - and armor was made for fully grown and respected 'citizen soldiers' so it's highly unlikely that it belonged to a child at all, as some people suggested to me).
It would be one thing is the greaves were short and stocky, I can imagine a short and stocky mediterranean man, but they were short and very thin! I wouldn't be exaggerating when I say that in comparison a modern man would seem like a giant.
Some theories:
1)The process of mummification involves drying the dead body, and the process of decay combined with aging conspires to shrink the mummified body. This might explain why the mummy seemed so small, even though I suspect before dying the noble was short (four feet and change) even by Egyptian standards. Unlike hoplites, in the case of Egyptian nobles, it is possible to be mummified as a child, so that's another consideration.
2)Nutrition by modern standards was such that people did not grow to their full potemtial. Even in comparion to the greatest of kings then, what with modern medicine combined with easily available goods from global sources people generally eat better and healthier today. Then you have the controvery of hormones in our livestock, but I won't aproach that subject.
3)A variety of stock was available to ancient people as migrations occurred, invasions happened, and basic mutations in available stocks produced larger people over time. Compared to the shorter Romans barbarian celts seemed like giants, so the tall gene could have been inherited as populations mixed over time.
I'm about at the end of my pontificating, but let me know if this all makes sense. If anybody has some good stats or information, or can refer me to a good online resource of some kind I would greatly appreciate it. When you see these things up close it makes it hard to imagine how these people could have held large Hoplons for hours on end and weild spears up to nine feet long!
All that seasonal training must have paid off for the hoplites.
How tall were the ancients? - Historum - History Forums
J
jaybird88
Guest
Canaan was cursed by Noah and I always thought it was plausible the curse may have referred to this corrupt nephilim bloodline. There are many interesting clues. All the names of the decedents of canaan are wicked names. Also our Lord instructs everyone to be killed in these citys, women and children. Children are normally considered innocent, I think this is implying something.
J
jaybird88
Guest
most but not all. Solomon drafted the ones left to build the temple. 1 Kings 9
[SUP]20 [/SUP]There were still people left from the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites . Solomon conscripted the descendants of all these peoples remaining in the land—whom the Israelites could not exterminate[SUP][i][/SUP]—to serve as slave labor, as it is to this day.
the Israelites didnt try to conquer or subjugate these people, it says they tried to exterminate them. why were these people such a threat they would needed to be exterminated like a plague?
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
Solomon enslaved his own people (at least people from Ephraim and Joseph). They weren't giants. The Hittites were a well known super power mostly in what is modern day Turkey. The Amorites are also known from Sumerian and Assyrian texts. Canaanites are well known from archaeological digs in various places (eg, Ugarit, Ai, Gezer, Gath, ...). No giants in any of these places.
1 Kings11:26 Jeroboam son of Nebat, one of Solomon’s servants, rebelled againstthe king. He was an Ephraimitefrom Zeredah whose mother was a widow named Zeruah. 11:27 This is what prompted him to rebel against the king:Solomon built a terrace and he closed up a gap in the wall of the city of his father David.11:28 Jeroboam was a talented man;when Solomon saw that the young man was an accomplished worker, he made him the leader of the work crew from the tribeof Joseph.
Eze 16:2 “Son of man, confront Jerusalemwith her abominable practices 16:3 and say, ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.
Deut26:5 Then you must affirm before the Lord your God, “A wanderingArameanwas my ancestor,...
Nephillim = the fallen messengers (fallen shining ones/fallen nacash/the watchers/Archons)
raphaim = the giants/"descendants" of the fallen messengers
There are some people in the earth that claim they are these "descendants" and that gives them the right to "rule" over mankind....
ohh and uhh, wake up.
raphaim = the giants/"descendants" of the fallen messengers
There are some people in the earth that claim they are these "descendants" and that gives them the right to "rule" over mankind....
ohh and uhh, wake up.
E
Eva1218
Guest
I believe the giants were killed in the flood but due to the dna there are people who are very tall and I believe they come from the nephilims example Goliath as well as those that are recorded in the world's book of guinness.
Blessings!!!!!!!
Blessings!!!!!!!
Yes there are "spiritual giants" at work today, just as those natural giants of old were a sign of this very thing. Notice in the flood account the Lord destroyed "all flesh" from off the face of the earth, except those souls in the Ark. But also notice the scriptures show there were giants "after the flood" as well in Genesis 6:4"There were giants 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."
So if every living thing (all flesh) was destroyed in the flood, then how did these "giants" remain? These giants speak of spirits (fallen angels) who left their first estate as written in Jude 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."
These spiritual giants are the fallen angels (spirits) who are even at work in the world today, the red dragon drew away a third part of the angels with his tail (lies) and cast them to the ground. These spirits are working in the world, as men of renown, captains of industry, science, medicine, heads of governments, banking etc.
Paul showed this as well here in Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
These are the merchants of the world, the "great men" as shown in Revelation 18:23 "And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived."
These are the angels (spirits) of the Devil that are working in the powers that be of this world.
I do know for a fact that there are human demon hybrids walking around. I know of someone who is. Science came up with a fantastic explanation for the conception which is the official version, but the mother and child and people who know them know the truth and exactly what went on. Non-beleivers and athiests will of course stick with the official science version, even though it is just as extreme.
A friend of mine once pointed that the small size of much of the surviving armor from the Middle Ages has created the general impression that people were much smaller back then. What's not realized, he explained, is that much of surviving armor was actually made for children, that's the reason it has survived. It may be that the surviving armor from antiquity, that you have discussed above, was of a similar sort.