Giant People in the bible?

Charles, I just got my cast off! I've been incapacitated since June 5th, and traveling 3 hrs. to the hospital often does not make it easy. I also have a social life other than the internet. Also, it is important to get facts straight before attempting to just throw data without providing it in any consistent or organized approach.

---

~Lysimachus

"There are more things dreamed of in your philosophy, Hamlet, than are in heaven and earth."There are no uncovered giants. But the claim can't be found anywhere except this comedy website. What is there to trust, exactly?

Hebrew word #8034 "renown" in Strong's Concordance means 'an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individually' and comes from 7760 through the idea of definite (ie. The) and conspicuous position.
The "mark" and memorial appellation of Jesus is "The Lamb".
"men of renown" = people (ie religious groups) of the appellation.Genesis 6:3 "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years".This is talking about the 120 years period before 1948 that started in 1827 (thus ending in 1947, as the State of Israel came about in the next year).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"."when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" = when the 'Mormons' came to the American descendants of the Hebrew faith (which refers to the American version of Christianity at that time).Hebrew word 5303 "giants" means 'a feller' (which is "the son Gideon's" epithet from Judges 6:11). That son in the context of "the prophet, 'the angel, and his son Gideon" is the "feller" who (was to) cut down all the religions.
In 1828 Joseph Smith was to be the feller, as he was given plates and a decoding device by the angels, but he failed due to the Church stepping in. The rest, as they say, is history - and is noted in the book of Lamentations and some other places in the OT that I can not recall at the moment.So Genesis 6:1-4
1. acknowledges that men were multiplying around the world and had got to America.2. 'the wives that they choose" is a reference to the Mormons having more than one wife.3. Knowing that 1948 was the important "command to restore Israel" (ie. Jerusalem), the 120 years provides an exact year before another wrong idea about religion occurred. ie. before 1948-120 = 1828: before =1827, the year Joseph Smith took possession of the 'plates' etc.4. is saying that although there was a feller (who was to reveal the truth), the same ideas as those being taught by the worshippers of the appellation being the Christian Lamb, prevailed.

Eddy are you kidding?'n$y h-$m means "men of the name", which someone who knew Hebrew would understand as "men with (well-known) names" or "men of name" or "men of note" or "men of renown". Note 'n$y means "men" not people or religious groups as you fantasize on the text. Eddy are you kidding? Eddy are kidding?I've already mentioned the notion of eisegesis, ie reading meaning into text. What logical argument would ever make you conclude such unsubstantiable ideas? If you can actually come up with evidence, ie evidence recognizable by all, to justify such a reinterpretation of the text, I'm sure we'd all be interested. As things stand, you seem to be saying things that can have no serious support whatsoever. Eddy are you kidding?npl does come from the verb "to fall", but as a noun refers to that which falls, ie "fallen". It certainly does not mean "one who fells". How can you expect to get meaning out of a language when you don't understand how it works? Look at nplym in Josh 8:25. The text literally starts "And all the fallen (h-nplym) on that day, both men and women, were..."The usual understanding of these fallen ones is that it refers to the angels who fell from heaven, as recounted in detail in 1 Enoch 5 - 15, which tells of the fallen angels who had relations with the daughters of men.It seems to me that your fanciful analysis is totally without justification.

spin asks I am quoting direct from the 1996 Thomas Nelson Strong's Concordance (as the source I stated in a previous post).
Have YOU personally checked that book to see whether I am quoting it correctly ?Hebrew dictionary section of Strong's Concordance
5303 nephiyl or nephil; from 5307; prop. a fellerYour problem isn't with me. It is with the publishers and compilers of that publication. The quoted meanings that I have provided on this forum are direct quotes.But like others on this forum who in the past chose not to check my source to see if I was quoting correctly, you have used a different source which has apparently given you a different meaning.In your explanations to me so far on this forum you have used the terms "the usual understanding", "and attempts to convey the meaning content of the original", and have said "the translator rendering as closely as he could", "You need to pay the translators the courtesy of having as much knowledge as they did".Whose understanding ? Whose attempts ? Is the meaning close enough ? The knowledge they had was given to them by the same "system" that had already previously translated and interpreted the texts according to their own agenda.This is like asking a government department to do an investigation into whether they should get a pay rise. The outcome is obvious. The report will show a bias towards the aims and agenda of that group. The pay rise will be shown to be justified.You saybut did you investigate what Arachnophilia said:Strong's Concordance has been stated to be the Decoding Key that reveals a new level of messages from the often mistranslated English KJV Bible. I am checking this claim by reading the concordance, and I am finding that the certain words that are said to have been given a different meaning have in fact been given a different meaning.You also saidYes, but what about his own knowledge, perceptions and agenda that may have 'wrongly' translated and misinterpreted what he was reading ?This is getting closer to the point I am examining in the Jesus Chronology post. Someone's own agenda may have translated and interpreted the original Hebrew words to suit themselves - just like the actual religious history is different to what we have been led to believe.You have saidwhich is a reasonable comment because you have not yet been given the whole story (and this forum is not the place to do it).A web site is being constructed that will provide you with the justification that you require.
Eddy

whether or not you're quoting it correctly, it's wrong.the root word is נפיל: NPYL, or nephil (5303). the ACTUAL WORD used in the bible is הַנְּפִלִים: ha-nephilym."ha" means "the"
the verb "nephal" means "to fall" and this tense is PAST tense, so "fell"
and the "-ym" or "-im" ending denotes plurality.so, the noun ha-nephalim means "the fallen ones." this kind of fall is physical, and spiritual. it's used to denote people falling on their faces in worship.i think you're thinking "fell" as in "to fell a tree." that would be CUTTING (3722): כרת, or in the text הַכֹּרֵת. ha-karath, the cutter. as in a lumberjack.see:

quote:

---

Isaiah 14:8

​

Yea, the cypresses rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon: 'Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.'

---

check your concordance, it uses karath, not nephal. wrong word, eddy. it's not a source question eddy. it's how you USE it. as i've demonstrated before, i can make anything say anything i want with your techniques. i did it in the other thread. remember when you were secretly telling me to cut off your head?wanna know the sources i used above? the hebrew bible and some knowledge of hebrew. no no no no NO. says who? ronald pegg? you believe this guy?you seem to own a concordance, what does it do? what's it good for? a concordance for those who don't know is a book that lists every occurance of a word in some piece of literature, and arranges these lists alphabetically. they're not just for the bible, you can get things like a shakespeare concordance.so, tell you what eddy, do me a favor and go buy a shakespeare concordance, and sit down with a copy of hamlet and tell me what shakespeare REALLY means.but more importantly, a concordance DOES NOT define the meanings of the word. it ONLY lists where they occure. dictionaries define words, and bible dictionaries define what words in the bible mean. if you have meanings in yours, you are not using strong's concordance, you are using a combination concordance and bible dictionary, aren't you? see that boring index in the back? THAT is what dr. strong did. not the part you're reading.a bible dictionary is no more of a "decoding key" than an english dictionary. and i believe i've shown you why. did you see how i distorted your meanings? or should i just cut off your head like you suggested i should do? no, it's because not all languages function like english. hebrew lacks some of the creative prepositions that english has. from what i understand of hebrew grammar, things like direct and indirect objects, and prepositional phrases are determined by placement and spelling rather than additional words, as in english. to make these sentances make sense, we have to translate the placement and spelling, which in english involves ADDING WORDS.and no, it's not always perfect, but neither is anything else. there is no need to remove them, and i think you are the most guilty of that here, eddy. i have never seen distortions of biblical text as greivous and criminal as ronald pegg's and yours -- short of the bible code.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-04-2004 07:49 PM

quote:

---

I think you are the most guilty of that here, eddy. i have never seen distortions of biblical text as greivous and criminal as ronald pegg's and yours -- short of the bible code.

---

Thanks for your kind words, but what do you really think about Ron Pegg's claims !
LOL

we've already discussed this at length.i can't seem to convince you that what you and old ron are doing is logically and linguistically unsound.as for the claims, i don't care one way or the other. it's the technique i attack.do you conceede that i am right in my points above? and yes, that is about what i think of it. only it's kind of lost its humour appeal.

Eddy, I wish you'd stop wasting everyone's time and learn a little Hebrew. It will help you not to make the blunders that you have so far.A translator's goal is to understand to the fullest the content of the original text and to attempt to convey that meaning. You must have some of the skill necessary to work with the original language before you can dare to complain about someone's translation. Your approach is both disrespectful and ignorant.I have recommended to you the Briggs, Driver, Brown Lexicon of Hebrew, but you'd need to be able to read Hebrew and you simply can't do that.Would you normally dare to complain about a person's translation into English when the person was well versed in the foreign language and you had a Collins Gem dictionary of that language???The problem certainly is you. Linguistics requires training. Philology requires training. You need to know the languages you are dabbling in and you plain don't.Eddy, are you kidding?

heck, modern concordances and bible dictionaries CAN be of use. when used correctly. for instance, i used one above. i don't have that much knowledge of hebrew. but i know enough to be able to point out eddy's errors.and he has yet to address my points, of course. personally, i'm sort of tired of fighting him. he doesn't listen to me, or understand my objections. at least he removed my words from his website.i think from now on, i'm just gonna post the whole verse in question in masoretic hebrew and septuagint greek, and ask for specific translations.

Well. Let's get down to the truth of the matter.There most likely never were people 15-20 feet tall within the evolution of the human kind. The tallest authenticated humans have been proven by attested measurement at the 7-9 foot limit.It would not be inconceivible for a human with extreme growth desturbance to reach beyond 9 feet or possibly even 10 feet under optimal conditions.A hypothetical human being of 9 or 10 feet tall would have an extreme disposition to diabetes, ulcers, hernias, heart failure, joint problems, clotting, and a susceptibility to broken bones and knee joints in a fall.Scientifically speaking, this person would be a very poor physical example of man. Fatigue and weakness would be an everyday obstacle. It would be mandatory for he or she to get physical fitness for these very reasons.Such a person in modern times could possibly live a normal life if treated before the symptoms caused an immenent death.But thousands of years ago, these sorts of people would be lucky if they lived past 20-30 yrs old.Giantism is not always a spontanius overproductive pituitary dissorder or tumor in the gland. There have been estremely tallpeople whose heredity dictates how tall they became. Tall parents usually lead to tall children.Yao Ming is a great example of hereditary giantism. He is 7ft6, 320 lbs; both his mom and dad were 6ft4, and 6ft10 respectively. NBA Scouts have been driven to parts of northen China because of the apperant large population of 7-footers.These are the types of people I believe who inspired the biblical legends, of the Anakim, Rephaim, Nephilim contemerary with King Og of Bashan, and Goliath of Gath. Skeletons of the 7feet+ size have turned up in Jordan and Lebanon.http://www.eye2eyemedia.nl/engels/prod_goliath.htmTo resort to outlandish beliefs that 12 and 15 foot giants' graves have been hidden by officials world wide is ludicrous when no honest evidence can support it. If we have to believe this sort of nonesense to defend the bible, I laugh.The bible simply gives us some examples of very big men who were revered and feared by their enemies.Guys like Ron Wyatt and Steve Quayle are clearly trying to make an extra buck on their cheesy fantastical claims. www.stevequayle.comFor example, Steve Quayle writes a book entitled "Genesis 6 Giants". Yet there really is no reason to buy the book because the entire content of his research (don't get me wrong, he has some good research)is published on his website. I have his book, and it was a waste of money. it Cost something like $35 (I can't remember the exact price). Steve published the book to rip folks off by advertising it on Coast to Coast radio.Bottom line, lets shed the hokum and be realistic about the facts.

Come on! You won't communicate to many if you did that. I'm sure people appreciate having someone who knows about the languages. Not everyone has some agenda that they want to push at the cost of the text.As long as our friend is kidding around, he's never going to understand much about the text, so stick to what you do and want to do. You'll enjoy it more and be helpful as well.

yeah. but he's not kidding.

He mightn't know it, but he certainly is. To deal with linguistic data seriously you have to know what you are talking about. He certainly doesn't. He knows not a skerrick about Hebrew grammar, morphology, syntax or even word formation. He can't even look at the original text. The approach is like a historian who neither knows about historical methodology nor the events that happened in the past. There is no way of knowing anything useful about the original language if you are not prepared to learn some of it. He's just kidding and he's kidding himself.

To interperate ancient Hebrew Mythology which most likely sprang from earlier Canaanite traditions as relating to the formation of the Mormon faith is funny.Of course, Eddy really isn't that much different from many fundamental Christians (George Bush included) who believe Israel should have special rights over the middle-east, because of Genesis 12:3 about the "bless thee that bless thee and curse thee that curse thee" thing.Anyways, the mighty men of renown mentioned in Genesis 6. If we really look at who they were in relevance to the traditions of those ancient times, we usually would come to the conclusion they are similar to the heroes of legend like Hercules etc. The Nephilim were the people who are supposed to have been born from the gods and men. Similar to many traditions world-wide.I guess you could intereperate the 120 years of Genesis as the time from Joseph Smith to the Israel Statehood. But it doesn't fit in with the rest of Genesis very well.Now I suppose the great flood is a prophecy of The Holocost?lol