Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
38 online now:
DrJones*, kjsimons, nwr (3 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   NEPHILIM mYsteries
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 134 (307794)
04-29-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by LudoRephaim
04-29-2006 3:17 PM


Okay. atfer reading Arach, ill post this as a normal thread.

ok, i'll fire the first (predictable) shot, just to get this going.

what evidence do you have the nephilim were giant?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by LudoRephaim, posted 04-29-2006 3:17 PM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by LudoRephaim, posted 04-30-2006 9:02 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 23 of 134 (308026)
04-30-2006 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by LudoRephaim
04-30-2006 9:02 AM


1.(using scripture to understand scripture)Identification with Nephilim as huge in Numbers 13:33 (more properly "descendants of the Nephilim)

the nephilim, sons of someone, descendents of the nephilim. it say the hebrews in question were "as grasshoppers in their sight." that could me anything -- especially since grasshoppers are usually associated with their pest qualities than their size properties.

2. THe septuagint using the word "Gigantes" to describe the Nephilim (Gigantes was a race of supernatural giants in Greek mythology who made war with the gods)

perhaps the emphasis should be on "war with the gods" and not "giants." in the book of enoch, the nephilim terrorize mankind, and so azazel teaches mankind to make weapons. to fix the problem, god floods the world.

this is of course a later interpretation -- at best it means that there is a tradition that the nephilim were giant. but there's all kinds of other traditions too, and we don't accept them all as biblical.

4. The description of the anakites (descendants of Nephilim) as "Rephaim" which means "mighty", "Ghost" "Dweller of the underworld" (see Alter) and "Giant". When seeing the deiptions of the anakites as tall and making the Hebrews look like "Grasshoppers" it seems to lean towards the giant meaning (Though Alter seems to combine the supernatural aspects of "Rephaim" with the giant meaning, thus making them legendary creatures, which is kind of neat)

i looked in to rephaim a bit yesterday. you'll find that it's usually translated one of two ways: "giants" or as a proper noun; the name of a group of people. you'll also see that many of the "giant" translations work better as the names of people.

now, the legend does seem to be that the rephaim are descended from the nephilim, and the nephilim (and rephaim) are legendary. otherwise, well, we wouldn't be talking about them. genesis 6 calls the nephilim mighty men, heroes of old.

so a good comparison to greek myth would probably be heracles. he was half man, half divine, and a mighty man of old. he wasn't a giant, but he probably wasn't puny either.

1. Nephilim where angel/human hybrid giants who lived before and after the flood.

this relies entirely on the next point:

2. The sons of God where angels or another kind of supernatural being.

if the sons of god are angelic/divine/whatever, then the nephilim MUST BE human-angel hybrids. i'm relatively willing to accept, for the purposes of debate, that the sons of god are divine. (i like to argue against it for fun, but someone brought up a decent point for it)

3. A giant race of humans not only is possible, but has actually occured (we'll discuss Meganthropus (which I believe is no longer taken as a true taxon) Homo Heidelbergensis, Gigantopithecus, Legends of giants,and other various ideas to bring into conversation.)

let's get to this later. i suspect there's more than one creationist pratt in here, but let's determine what the bible says first. if it's not talking about giants, than evidence of giants (no matter how true) does not support the claim.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LudoRephaim, posted 04-30-2006 9:02 AM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-01-2006 12:52 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 134 (308349)
05-01-2006 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by LudoRephaim
05-01-2006 12:52 PM


The "grasshopper" comment does indeed mean size difference. Grasshoppers where eaten in ancient times, so the Israelite spies where suggesting that they wouldn't make a mouthful for the anakites. We use animals to describe size difference today (you "shrimp", or "he's an Ox")and grasshoppers where used to describe the vast numbers of an army in ancient liturature (See "IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, page 151)

that doesn't neccessarily mean they were used to describe size then. we lack the cultural context to tell. i suggest that a pestly quality would be just as a good a guess, if not better.

The link to the Gigantes might also be an emphasis on their hybrid nature. The Gigantes where gigantic humans from the head to the waist, and below they where serpent like.

whoa whoa. what? where'd you get that?

Now Hercules was shown in sculpture as a big and muscular beared guy, though not a true giant.

yet the description we have of the nephilim in genesis, ignoring the word "nephilim" which we are questioning the translation of, is:

quote:
Gen 6:4 There were _____ 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.

clearly, the description is of legendary ("of renown") heroes ("mighty men").

and where often singled out among other tall peoples as quite frightening (Numbers 13:28, 31-33, Deuteronomy 1:28, 2:10-11, 20-21)

maybe they were just good fighters?

Aww come'on! That's one of the best parts! Even if the Nephilim where not giants, it could still be good for discussion.

sure, but there's no point in discussing it as support for the bible, if the bible doesn't claim any such thing.

BTW: Creationist Pratt. was this an insult?

points refuted a thousand times.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-01-2006 12:52 PM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-02-2006 10:35 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 56 of 134 (309849)
05-06-2006 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2006 9:37 PM


Re: BTW:.....
oh god not these again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2006 9:37 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2006 10:07 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 58 of 134 (309870)
05-06-2006 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Hyroglyphx
05-06-2006 10:07 PM


Re: BTW:.....
it's not the greatest source to refer to when you don't want to seem like a crackpot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-06-2006 10:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 134 (309909)
05-07-2006 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by LudoRephaim
05-02-2006 10:35 AM


rephaim
i'm not really taking a side in this debate (similar to the leviathan one). i want to point out a few passages in the bible that do, unquestionably, describe giants.

and obvious choice:

quote:
1Sa 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

a less obvious, but bigger choice.

quote:
Deu 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

that's over the ten foot mark.

i'm still not sure that "rephaim" should be translated as "giants." rather, i think it might be the name of a people (who seem to have produced many giants, or were by legend very tall). the literal rendering of the name might be "hearty" or something similar -- the word is related to health, and healing, and doctors. it seems to me to be describing a strong people -- although height seems to be included.

We dont need to discuss it as support for the Bible. I'm just wanting to discuss if the idea of giant human species or races is possible, whether the Bible says there where or not.

you'll have to wait till i switch gears on this one then. i'm still working out what a good translation is, and what it means.

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 05-07-2006 01:55 AM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-02-2006 10:35 AM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-07-2006 1:21 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 65 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-08-2006 9:22 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 62 of 134 (310152)
05-07-2006 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Hyroglyphx
05-07-2006 1:21 PM


Re: rephaim
i'm not honestly sure how i feel about the dss. there some fun stuff in them, but it also includes many later (re)interpretations. they do not neccessarily represent the views of the authors of the old testament -- but they DO give us a hint at how people read it.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-07-2006 1:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 74 of 134 (310419)
05-08-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by LudoRephaim
05-08-2006 9:22 AM


Re: rephaim???
That is freaky. The word not only means giants, mighty, ghosts, dwellers of the underworld, but also is something to due with healing. Is this relation in classical or modern hebrew?

biblical.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1147140543-1014.html

Yeah ol' King Og was a big 'un. Probably taller than Goliath.

according to the bible, he was. (see above)

That would be a stretch if it wasn't for the supernatural tinge of then word "rephaim" which Og is said to belong (some translations render Deut 3:11 as "Only Og was left of the Rephaim or Rephaites .

i still think that "rephaim" might be better rendered as a name of a people. i'm not sure though.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-08-2006 9:22 AM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-18-2006 4:22 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 94 of 134 (314087)
05-21-2006 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by LudoRephaim
05-18-2006 4:22 PM


Re: rephaim???
yay i can post again!

Classical Hebrew is Biblical Hebrew.

yes, yes i know that. (six of one, half dozen of the other...)

as far as i know, there are only three forms of hebrew (not counting proto-semitic): ancient, masoretic/biblical/classical, and modern. modern hebrew, if i recall correctly, was invented rather recently, 1940's i think? as a result of the formation of the state of israel. it is highly derived from biblical hebrew -- i couldn't pin down the specific differences for you, other than a subtle shift in word order.

They teach it at several colleges and many, many seminaries (Though some that I know that took it seem to have not used it and rememebr less than they did)

well, because of the little bit i was talking about above, even a course in modern hebrew (like the ones i've taken) help. it's slow learning, but it helps. the problem, maybe, with seminary courses is that they very likely treat it as a dead language. it's anything but.

it would be rather like a foreigner attempting to read shakespeare in the original english. a good starting place might be to learn english in general.

I bought a Old Testament hebrew flashcard set, so I hope I will learn at least a little of it in the summer.

it's a rather tricky language. once you get over the spelling, and the right-to-left bits, it goes pretty easily until past tense. i'll admit, i failed that part of my final.

but it's downright suprising to learn just how much it has in common with english. bits of it have influenced the english language for the last 400 years, via the literal habits of the kjv translators. and when the modern variety of hebrew was constructed, english was the lingua franca and seems to have a great deal of influence in return. i can't tell you how many of our "vocabulary" words were english words transliterated.

anyways, back on topic:

on the Rephaim: THey could be Giants and a race of people. It is cool to study.

i'm remaining skeptical for the time being (for the sake of argument) that rephaim = giant. it seems, more often than not, to be describing an ethnic group. this group seems to have had a stereotype for gigantism, though, i will give you that. the clear connotation is that they are BIG and strong and hearty people.

but here's a question: do you think these claims were subject to exageration? for instance, earlier documents (like the septuagint), portray goliath as a bit shorter than later documents (like the masoretic text)


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-18-2006 4:22 PM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-21-2006 7:53 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 97 of 134 (314371)
05-22-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by LudoRephaim
05-21-2006 7:53 PM


Re: good question
On Goliath, the septuagint, dead sea scrolls and Josephus do render Goliath as "4 cubits and a span" or around 6 and a half feet tall. But then again what cubit where they using? Royal cubit (20.4 inches long) common cubit (17.5 inches long) the cubit of New Testament times (I think it is also called the greek or roman cubit, around 21.6 inches long)? if the royal or Greco/roman cubit, Goliath would be over or around 7 feet tall. Still far shorter than the Masoretic text rendering, but still quite tall.

well, it does show that claims were exagerated, or at least increased, over time, no matter what cubit you're using. thought, i admit, it would be interesting if the differences lined up switching from cubit to the other.

I dont think the Bible's original autographs exaggerated Goliath's height, though whether it rendered 9 feet or 6 '6 feet is up in question.

if the original claim was 6'6, that's well within the realm of reality. (heck, i'm 6'3)


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-21-2006 7:53 PM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-23-2006 6:03 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 101 of 134 (314792)
05-24-2006 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by LudoRephaim
05-23-2006 6:03 PM


Re: good question
9'9 is possible too.

6'6 is far more likely, and more of a robust build. the real "giants" that approach ten feet tend not to be very healthy, and that would defeat the meaning of "rephaim" wouldn't it?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-23-2006 6:03 PM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-24-2006 6:16 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 104 of 134 (315066)
05-25-2006 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by LudoRephaim
05-24-2006 6:16 PM


Re: King saul
Actually, considering that King Saul was in that height range

i'm sorry, where is that given?

i see on thing that MIGHT be a hieght reference:

quote:
1Sa 9:2 And he had a son, whose name [was] Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and [there was] not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward [he was] higher than any of the people.

a basic rule in figure drawing is that people around 7 heads tall. so, if this verse is literal (i'm not sure), it means saul was 8/7ths as tall as the average person. using the larger of your two estimates for average (5'7), that would put saul just under 6'5. with the smaller (5'3) that would put saul at 6 feet.

presuming that's what this verse means, and the estimates are valid.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-24-2006 6:16 PM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-25-2006 8:18 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 109 of 134 (316039)
05-29-2006 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by LudoRephaim
05-25-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Big Saul
n Message 35 I quoted a source that showed it

ah, i see. it was basically what i quoted.

nd showed in messages 34-35 that 5'3 to 5'7 was the average height of the hebrews during the time of Saul, not the limit.

it sounds reasonable, but i'm not totally sure i trust the source.

giant brad pitt.

oxymoron. :D

There is no way to read a ultra-figuro-read-between-the-lines interpretation into the text.

it's kind of an ambiguous phrasing. i would imagine there is a way, considering that lifting up one's head was a common turn of phrase.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by LudoRephaim, posted 05-25-2006 8:18 PM LudoRephaim has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by LudoRephaim, posted 08-19-2008 4:16 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 110 of 134 (316041)
05-29-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by simple
05-26-2006 12:06 AM


Enoch washed out. Sorry.

enoch didn't wash out.

it was written after the canonization of the majority of the old testament, if not all of it. the torah seems to have been solidified by about 600 bc, the nevi'im and the kethuvim still aren't totally considered solid on the same basis, and nowhere near as holy.

but enoch isn't in the hebrew bible for the same reason that matthew isn't.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by simple, posted 05-26-2006 12:06 AM simple has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 238 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 111 of 134 (316042)
05-29-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by simple
05-26-2006 12:10 AM


Why not? What was wrong with fooling around, where does this idea come from?

there's nothing wrong with sex.

in marriage.

Adam fooled with Eve.

to whom he was married. the story of adam and eve, in genesis 2, is the etiology for the origin of marriage. and anyways, some would argue that they DID sin in that manner. they ate from a tree called "knowledge" and in biblical hebrew, "to know" is a euphemism for sex. they were kicked out of the garden for it.

(i don't personally hold this belief, but i know some people read it that way)

Every great man of God fooled with at least one woman, some with a lot more!

name a great man of god who was perfect. even david, who was called perfect, messed around bathsheba and fell from grace. the overwhelming message of the bible is that humans are imperfect, and fail repeatedly.

but you're right, god doesn't seem to punish people for it. the only arguable case is sodom, but that seems to be more a treatment of guests issue. when lot leaves sodom, he and his daughters think they are the only people left, and so his daughters get him drunk and rape him. if rape was the issue in sodom, why not punish lots daughters too?

Where do you get the idea angels marrying women was bad?

in genesis 6, the connection doesn't seem to exist. god destroys man because mankind if wicked. the bit about the nephilim need not be related -- it is the book of enoch that connects the two. not the bible. and even in enoch, it's not sex that does it. it's that azazel teaches mankind to make weapons to fight the nephilim.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by simple, posted 05-26-2006 12:10 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by simple, posted 05-29-2006 11:21 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021