Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Giant People in the bible?
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 352 (342461)
08-22-2006 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Head Eagle
08-22-2006 12:13 PM


On your registration
You want this merged in with all your others?

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 194 by Head Eagle, posted 08-22-2006 12:13 PM Head Eagle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 197 by Head Eagle, posted 08-22-2006 7:46 PM AdminJar has replied

      
    Head Eagle
    Inactive Member


    Message 197 of 352 (342482)
    08-22-2006 7:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 196 by AdminJar
    08-22-2006 5:55 PM


    Re: On your registration
    Yes, adminjar, please. I'm still wandering through trying to find you off the topic. Please use the email eaglesnest@eastex.net

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 196 by AdminJar, posted 08-22-2006 5:55 PM AdminJar has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 198 by AdminJar, posted 08-22-2006 7:54 PM Head Eagle has not replied

      
    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 198 of 352 (342484)
    08-22-2006 7:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 197 by Head Eagle
    08-22-2006 7:46 PM


    Re: On your registration
    They have been merged

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 197 by Head Eagle, posted 08-22-2006 7:46 PM Head Eagle has not replied

      
    mitchellmckain
    Member (Idle past 6422 days)
    Posts: 60
    From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Joined: 08-14-2006


    Message 199 of 352 (343212)
    08-25-2006 4:00 AM


    But are the Nephilim really giants?
    Since this is not only under Science Forums, but Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy, I wonder if it has been pointed out that the not everyone interprets Genesis 6 as refering to physical giants.
    After all, the same people would have us believe that the term "sons of God" (beney ha' elohim in Hebrew) refers to angels, and that these giants were the product of a union between angels and humans. They justify this by passages in Job and Psalms which are very ambiguous, when the term is unambiguously used in Deuteronomy 14:1 and 32:8 to refer to the Israelites. Furthermore in the New Testament, Hebrews 1:5 it claims that God never called an angel His son.
    I think the most straight-forward interpretation of Genesis 6 is that the sons of Adam and Eve married the daughters of other humans on the earth and that their children were giants among men - great leaders, "mighty men" and "men of reknown".

    See my relativistic physics of space flight simimulator at Astahost.com

    Replies to this message:
     Message 200 by Brian, posted 08-25-2006 8:48 AM mitchellmckain has not replied

      
    Brian
    Member (Idle past 4959 days)
    Posts: 4659
    From: Scotland
    Joined: 10-22-2002


    Message 200 of 352 (343242)
    08-25-2006 8:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 199 by mitchellmckain
    08-25-2006 4:00 AM


    Re: But are the Nephilim really giants?
    Hi,
    There's a positive and a negative here for the Bible and Xian theology:
    I think the most straight-forward interpretation of Genesis 6 is that the sons of Adam and Eve married the daughters of other humans on the earth and that their children were giants among men - great leaders, "mighty men" and "men of reknown".
    It would be difficult to harmonise other humans on earth that were not descendents of Adam and Eve with that of the Xian concept of sin. The Bible specifically states that Adam and Eve's offspring were cursed, so if there was another unrelated group I don't see how they would inherit sin.
    On a positive note, if the term Nephilim referred to 'mighty men' or 'men of reknown', it would remove the contradiction of there being Nephilim before and after the Flood, since we have mighty men in every era of history.
    I do think you would struggle to make the term stick to your interpretation given the various descriptions in the bible, even gen. 6:4 may undermine your theory since it mentions 'giants' and 'mighty men' in the same verse.
    Regarding this:
    product of a union between angels and humans.
    A strict reading of Genesis 6:4 doesn't actually say that the Nephilim were involved with the women, the verse only testifies to the presence of Nephilim before and after these marriages happened.
    From the KJV:
    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.
    Nephilim is translated as 'giants' here. But, if you actually read the passage it is clear that it was sons of God who came to the daughters of men, and not necessarily the Nephilim.
    Sons of God is a difficult term to deal with fully, but in the Hebrew Bible it can be used in the context of 'having the nature of' or 'showing obedience to', it can also refer to the nation of Israel of Ephraim (Exodus 4:22, Deut 1:31 and Hos. 11:1)
    Nephilim can also be translated as 'the fallen ones'.
    Brian.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 199 by mitchellmckain, posted 08-25-2006 4:00 AM mitchellmckain has not replied

      
    John Williams
    Member (Idle past 4998 days)
    Posts: 157
    From: Oregon, US
    Joined: 06-29-2004


    Message 201 of 352 (343432)
    08-25-2006 9:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 192 by Head Eagle
    08-21-2006 8:24 PM


    Re: Biblical Inneracy or.....
    Well, I must admit I am skeptical regarding these human paluxy prints. But you're right, there was a skeleton of a very tall woman found near panther Creek.
    As for rough estimates of human height correlation to the footprints you mentioned, one could estimate the following:
    10" male fooprint = c.5'6" stature
    11" = 5'10-6ft
    12" = 6'2"-6'6"
    13" = 6'8"-7ft
    23" = 11'6" to 12'6"
    These are based on the length of human feet, which constitute 15 to 17% of human stature.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 192 by Head Eagle, posted 08-21-2006 8:24 PM Head Eagle has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 202 by John Williams, posted 08-25-2006 9:25 PM John Williams has not replied

      
    John Williams
    Member (Idle past 4998 days)
    Posts: 157
    From: Oregon, US
    Joined: 06-29-2004


    Message 202 of 352 (343434)
    08-25-2006 9:25 PM
    Reply to: Message 201 by John Williams
    08-25-2006 9:09 PM


    Re: Biblical Inneracy or.....
    Oh, you might also be able to estimate the weight of the entity who made the track by measuring how deep the track was into the ground.
    My guess is that a hypothetical 11-12 ft tall non-obese man could weigh something in the neighborhood of 600 to 800 lbs, and this is on the lean side.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 201 by John Williams, posted 08-25-2006 9:09 PM John Williams has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 203 by Head Eagle, posted 08-26-2006 10:14 PM John Williams has replied

      
    Head Eagle
    Inactive Member


    Message 203 of 352 (343797)
    08-26-2006 10:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 202 by John Williams
    08-25-2006 9:25 PM


    Re: Biblical Inneracy or.....
    John,
    My recollection from about 25 years ago is that this one large track was about an inch in depth. It also showed what could be construed as evidence of not being faked: mud push ups at the sides of the foot. The toes showed that the walker didn't push off on his toes as they made much lighter impressions than the rest of the foot.
    Since this is an active river, I would guess that this track may have been scraped heavily in the interval of 25 years. The layers of limestone have broken loose from the bank and have moved over these tracks during heavy rains upstream.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 202 by John Williams, posted 08-25-2006 9:25 PM John Williams has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 204 by John Williams, posted 08-27-2006 5:04 PM Head Eagle has replied

      
    John Williams
    Member (Idle past 4998 days)
    Posts: 157
    From: Oregon, US
    Joined: 06-29-2004


    Message 204 of 352 (344006)
    08-27-2006 5:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 203 by Head Eagle
    08-26-2006 10:14 PM


    Re: Biblical Inneracy or.....
    The 23" long track was only an inch in depth? Wouldn't a 12ft 800 lb guy leave deeper tracks than that?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 203 by Head Eagle, posted 08-26-2006 10:14 PM Head Eagle has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 205 by Head Eagle, posted 08-27-2006 7:46 PM John Williams has not replied

      
    Head Eagle
    Inactive Member


    Message 205 of 352 (344045)
    08-27-2006 7:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 204 by John Williams
    08-27-2006 5:04 PM


    Re: Biblical Inneracy or.....
    Safe assumption. Except that there is no way to know how long that track had been exposed to the passing waters or scraped over by some of those driveway sized slabs of stone. I would have to add the mud push ups to the heights so that from the top of the push up to the bottom of the track might be around 1 1/2". How much higher or deeper will remain unknown. Any idea of how deep the untouched track might have to be to support this 800 lb. fellow?

    They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles....

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 204 by John Williams, posted 08-27-2006 5:04 PM John Williams has not replied

      
    SK
    Inactive Member


    Message 206 of 352 (352692)
    09-27-2006 6:35 PM


    quote:
    I think the most straight-forward interpretation of Genesis 6 is that the sons of Adam and Eve married the daughters of other humans on the earth and that their children were giants among men - great leaders, "mighty men" and "men of reknown".
    that wouldnt make sense though, since children of adam and eve are humans, its more reasonable to think that angels + humans = giants IMO
    quote:
    On a positive note, if the term Nephilim referred to 'mighty men' or 'men of reknown', it would remove the contradiction of there being Nephilim before and after the Flood, since we have mighty men in every era of history.
    well dont you think there could be "kinds" of giants or races of giants just like there races today? i mean there are ppl in the world that average 6 ft and over while in the u.s its 5.9.. there are also ppl that are 7 and over (shag i think lol) but yea what i believe is that the nephilim were a race strictly to angels and humans and were wiped out in the flood.
    quote:
    A strict reading of Genesis 6:4 doesn't actually say that the Nephilim were involved with the women, the verse only testifies to the presence of Nephilim before and after these marriages happened.
    product not mate lol. he said that the "offspring" of angels + humans are the nephilim.
    quote:
    Nephilim is translated as 'giants' here. But, if you actually read the passage it is clear that it was sons of God who came to the daughters of men, and not necessarily the Nephilim.
    which is what he said .."product of" meaning result or endpoint
    quote:
    Sons of God is a difficult term to deal with fully, but in the Hebrew Bible it can be used in the context of 'having the nature of' or 'showing obedience to', it can also refer to the nation of Israel of Ephraim (Exodus 4:22, Deut 1:31 and Hos. 11:1)
    i believe in revelation, angels are referred as sons/children of god not sure though
    Edited by SK, : No reason given.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 207 by AdminPD, posted 09-28-2006 6:43 AM SK has not replied

      
    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 207 of 352 (352758)
    09-28-2006 6:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 206 by SK
    09-27-2006 6:35 PM


    Welcome to EvC
    Welcome SK:
    Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure, but I warn you it can become habit forming.
    It looks like your post was in response to Brian's Message 200. If you use the reply button at the bottom right of the post you are replying to, the poster will receive an email informing him that he has received a reply to his post. This also helps readers to understand who you are addressing and quoting in your post.
    In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
    Pay particular attention to our Forum Guidelines and all will go well.
    Again welcome and fruitful debating. Purple

    Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

    Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 206 by SK, posted 09-27-2006 6:35 PM SK has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 208 by b b, posted 10-21-2006 5:48 AM AdminPD has not replied

      
    b b
    Member (Idle past 6131 days)
    Posts: 77
    From: baton rouge, La, usa
    Joined: 09-25-2005


    Message 208 of 352 (357891)
    10-21-2006 5:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 207 by AdminPD
    09-28-2006 6:43 AM


    Re: Welcome to EvC
    I have a theory that may sound crazy or ridiculous. I believe the "giants in those days" refer to the only thing not mentioned (or understood to be mentioned in the bible. Brace yourselves. We haven't, to my knowledge, found any record of human bones larger than people that may still exist today. 7'6" people still exist today right? The nephillim (how ever it's spelled) would have died in the flood. I believe they were bigger than the giants of post-flood. But we have found giant bones 20-30ft tall. They just weren't human. See my point yet? I believe the "giants in those days" could (as in possibly) were dinosaurs. We assume that the word giant meant that same then that it means now. And I hope you're not looking to find the word dinosaur in the bible. That's what we named them when we found the bones. The original name could have been Nephillim. That's what my common sense or logic would tell me.
    I agree that the "giants in those days" part did not refer to the men of old and reknown. I believe the men of old and reknown were offspring of angels and humans. This part of the bible actually supports greek mythology meaning the stories were true. The problem with mythology was the worship of the "sons of God" (angels). God is a jealous god. His servants are not to be worshiped or praised.
    And anyone who says that dragons and unicorns did not exist can't believe God's word which refer to both more than once. Not only in fairy tales but also in religion are these creatures mentioned. If the buffalo became extinct and no records could be found, would future generations call them fiction? Probably so. Stop making the bible so difficult. It means literally what it says. The only question is do you believe it or not. The truth is in there, you just have to understand that the language has changed alot in all those years.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 207 by AdminPD, posted 09-28-2006 6:43 AM AdminPD has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 212 by bluescat48, posted 01-06-2009 6:28 PM b b has not replied

      
    dan2
    Inactive Junior Member


    Message 209 of 352 (358677)
    10-25-2006 12:04 AM


    re: giant people in the Bible
    Before I tell my opinion I would like to say that I'm new to this forum and I hope I will have a great time hear.
    I believe that the Nephilim were giants or maybe a race of giant people from about 2-8ft. or so taller then the average person back then.I also think that the Nephilim all died in the flood.As for Goliath and the other giants arter the flood they could of bin a smaller race of giants or they could of had genies from other giants that lived before them that influenced thier growth rate like modern day Robert P.Wadlow and others. http://www.altonweb.com/history/wadlow/
    Edited by dan2, : No reason given.

      
    dillion howard
    Junior Member (Idle past 5559 days)
    Posts: 1
    From: u.s.a tx houston
    Joined: 01-06-2009


    Message 210 of 352 (493159)
    01-06-2009 4:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 15 by Eta_Carinae
    08-07-2004 9:50 PM


    Re: Tall individuals is one thing...
    who ru to say whats fiction and nonfiction look at the size of reptiles today and millons of years ago

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 15 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-07-2004 9:50 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 211 by Huntard, posted 01-06-2009 4:37 PM dillion howard has not replied
     Message 215 by anglagard, posted 01-07-2009 2:07 AM dillion howard has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024