Giant People in the bible?

Hi Peg,

quote:

---

what were neanderthals?

---

About 5'5". This may seem like a minor mistake and indeed it is, but it is indicative of the main problem with your approach to knowledge.You are (in my opinion) reaching for whatever explanation best fits with your preconceptions. If it sounds like it gels with the Bible, you go for it. This is a terrible way to find the truth.You need to approach the world with an open mind. You also need to check whether the facts fit your theory, something you plainly did not bother to do before posting that question. Looking something up on Wikipedia or Google is about as shallow as research can get, but you didn't even do that. You just saw a convenient-sounding idea and ran with it.I'm sorry to preach at you like this, but if this is how you approach knowledge, you are going to get things wrong time and again. I lose count of the number of times I've saved myself some embarrassment by looking things up before I posted them (and finding out that I was quite wrong).It is not enough that an idea explains the facts you want it to explain; it must explain all the relevant facts. That means doing your research, even if it is only a quick check on Wikipedia.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Peg,

quote:

---

actually i thought that neanderthals were supposed to be much largeer then us

​

hence why i asked.

---

As I thought. I stand by my previous comments.

quote:

---

according to a book on archeology i have, their brains were much bigger then ours

---

a) Much bigger? I doubt very much that your book claims that. The claim is usually that their brains were marginally bigger; not enough to result in a giant.b) Your book is wrong anyway. Take another look at the Wiki; I have checked out the reference for this study and it does indeed come to this conclusion. This is clear proof that Neanderthals were not the giants of the Bible.Well, that and the fact that they lived tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago. Just out of interest, when was your "book on archeology" published?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi ochaye, and welcome to EvC.I wonder what you think about other references to giants in the Bible. Do you think that only Gen 6:4 is speaking of tyrants, or do you think that other Biblical references to giants have similar explanations?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

The main problem I have with that is that Numbers 13:33, which makes the grasshopper reference uses the same term nphiyl (Nephilim), as Genesis. You say that nphiyl means tyrant or villain, but in Numbers, it pretty clearly means giant. The sons of Anak very definitely are giants, in the mythological sense. Here the Nephilim are identified with Anak.To my mind, the term "sons of God" sounds like it is referring to some sort of supernatural beings, most likely angels. Certainly this is the case in other works, such as the Book of Enoch which specifically describes the Nephilim as the sons of fallen angels. It seems to me that the Nephilim are a race of supernaturally endowed humans, most likely giants.Perhaps you can point to an example of the term nphiyl being used in a clearly non-supernatural context?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Ochaye,

quote:

---

Every Hebrew lexicon indicates something like that.

---

Is that all you have to say? I am aware that the lexicons list this definition, but what I want to know is why you think that this particular definition is the one that is being used in Gen 6:4. After all, I think you will find that the lexicons also carry the definition of "giant" for nphiyl. The "tyrant" meaning seems to come more from the etymology of nphiyl rather than the context in which it is being used here.Which is correct? Which is being used here? How do we know?I think that the passage is referring to giants because the term nphiyl is used in both Gen 6:4 and in Num 13:33 and Numbers is definitely talking about giants. That Gen 6 mentions that the Nephilim were sired by the "sons of God" lends a distinctly supernatural context.Why should nphiyl mean tyrant in Genesis, but giant in Numbers? And why does this view of the Nephilim contrast so markedly from the supernatural descriptions that abound elsewhere in the Bible and in other sources? Can you show me an example of nphiyl being used in a straightforwardly non-supernatural context?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi John,

quote:

---

The primary characteristic of "tyrant" seems to fit very neatly with the arrogant nature of the Nephilim.

---

I agree and that would seem to be a reasonable explanation for the etymology of their name. It does not, however, imply that the Nephilim were merely human tyrants, as ochaye was attempting to argue. It is clear from the context that they were a supernatural race and one of prodigious size.

quote:

---

These were evidently proud men claiming descent from the gods-- or later deified to godlike status.

---

That is one possibility and it strikes me as reasonable, but not without problems. The Nephilim are always mentioned as the enemy; they are the bad guys. If the claim of divinity originated with tyrants/human rulers, they were evidently no friends of the Hebrew people. Why would the Bible authors acknowledge the divinity of their enemies? History is written by the victors after all. I find it hard to see how this works.

quote:

---

That they were physical giants in stature can now be understood as a secondary attribution, and not primary.

​

Hero and ancestor worship is nothing new. Josephus equated the Nephilim to the Grecian Gigantes -- a proud race cast down.

---

These two statements contradict each other somewhat. They are only secondarily giants, yet Josephus compared them to the gigantes, a race of supernatural giants? Does it not seem more likely that the two giant myths are primarily mythic stories with similar themes, rather than primarily being jumbled tales of human rulers?Many cultures have tales of giants. These two share a great deal of similarity. I see that as being evidence of cross-fertilisation between cultures and of a primarily mythic origin for the Nephilim.Your material on the Rephaim is very interesting and you make a strong case. Could the presence of these supernatural figures perhaps indicate a local cult that was woven into the biblical mythos? It's an interesting idea.

quote:

---

However, real champions like Goliath and the mighty warriors of Gath seem to hearken to some historical context involving champions or mercenary soldiers of prodigious size... {snip} The book of II Samuel connects Goliath and the warriors of Gath to the mythological ancestry of the Rapha (Rephaim and Anakim -- the exonerated dead giants of old).

---

A historical basis as the origin of the Goliath story is possible and seems pretty reasonable. Tales of a mighty warrior could easily have been exaggerated and then later connected to the lineage of the Nephilim. I don't think that we can meaningfully say that any of these Bible stories are historical though. They are simply too vague and confused to make good historical sources. They read as myth, not history. I do see though, that there may well have been a historical kernel that gave rise to them.My main reason for posting here was to answer ochaye's attempt to rob the Nephilim of Genesis of any supernatural connotation. I think that is a mistake. I think that, whatever the origin of the stories, the Nephilim are clearly intended to be viewed as a supernatural race, the offspring of the sons of God. It is attempts to attach a wholly mundane meaning to the text that I object to, not attempts to trace the (likely mundane) origin of the tales.

quote:

---

The human skeleton seems to be limited to giants of 7 to 9 feet, and such giants are rare in anycase. The same laws of nature would have applied to Goliath, king Og, and all the giants of ancient time, regardless if their stature was genetic or a result of gigantism.

---

Well yeah, sure; if they were real. If they were fictional characters, or even if they were exaggerated versions of real figures, their height could be whatever you want it to be...

---

As an aside, I found something interesting, when browsing through the early pages of this thread. It is an image that EvC member Homonculus, (AKA "The Overmind") posted a little while ago to back up his "biblical giants=giant cubits=really big ark" theory. The image is a painfully obvious photoshop job, depicting archaeologists unearthing a giant skull.Homunculus' original post is here; Message 211.The image he cited is here; http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/...s/9104_ke%20giant%202.jpgThe image posted to this thread by Nighttrain is here;http://rookery2.viary.com/...698000/698198_9dd2_625x1000.jpgGuess what? The second image carries the logo of Worth1000, the popular (and excellent) Photoshop competition site.FAIL.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hi Calypsis, 25' tall? Really? Are you sure that's what you meant to write?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Mod,I agree that individuals of this kind of great height would face difficulties. They would not be agile, indeed they would be somewhat lumbering. One is forced to question their effectiveness as warriors. All it would take would be one agile little bloke with a spear and they would be in big trouble.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Cal, Wow. So your "scores of historical sources" amounts to "it says so in the Bible". This is a blatant circular argument, not really what's expected on the Accuracy/Inaccuracy forum.Are you planning to produce any of the rest of your "scores" of sources? I'd love to see one of your picture shows of 25 foot tall people, or even their bones... I'm assuming that you are able to tell the difference between a man and a dinosaur. Or perhaps you are suggesting that Goliath was a triceratops?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Calypsis, quit trying to change the subject. The topic is not about dinosaurs, or the moon, or first causes, or my beliefs, or faeries at the the bottom of your garden. The topic is giants.Are you going to share your "scores" of giant (25') men with us?Are you going to address the point made by Modulous, that some of the individuals you cite as giants were in fact somewhat disabled?Or not?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

You say; but all I'm asking is that you provide backing for your claims with evidence, y'know, like you agreed to do when you signed up for this forum. If you can't produce any evidence for your preposterous twenty-five foot people, I guess I'll have to assume that they are figments of the imagination. A pity. I'd quite like to live in a world that had twenty-five foot tall people in it. That's something that, contrary to your claims, I'd actually quite like to be able to believe. I'm not just going to take your word for it though. Or the Bible's for that matter.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hmm... Okay Calypsis, I'll stop. If you're happy to let the record show that you have provided no evidence for your loopy twenty-five foot people claim and that when pressed for such evidence, you pointedly refused, tried to change the subject and then resorted to personal abuse, that's good enough for me. So it's my responsibility to back up your arguments? Tell me, are you from the Bizarro world at all?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Lyx2no and Bluescat,To be fair guys, I think Peg was making a bit of a joke. Not that I consider that a reason why we shouldn't dress the bunny up in bronze armour and see how it does at leading an army of rampaging Philistines into battle. Y'know, just as an experiment. Then, when some smartass kid with a slingshot slays the beast... I happen to cook a pretty mean rabbit stew. Treble helpings all round! Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi lyx2no, Wide-angle lens or not, that is not an ordinary sized rabbit. It's a "Germen giant", an enormous variety of domestic bunny, bred for food. I agree that the picture is making use of perspective, but the bunny really is big. See here for another pic.

quote:

---

Herman could be 'biggest bunny'

​

A man has been showing off his gigantic rabbit named Herman. The mighty bunny weighs a massive 7.7kg, and his ears are a lengthy 21cm - almost as long as most pet rabbits are tall. And he is almost 1m tall. The German Giant is even big for his breed, which usually tip the scales at around 6kg. Herman lives in a specially built solid oak hutch and chomps his way through just over 2kg of food a day. His owner says his favourite snack is lettuce.

---

And that comes from no less a source than Children's BBC. If there is a more reliable source of information on the net, I'd like to know about it.You are right in saying that this doesn't provide evidence for human giants, but I really don't think that Peg was trying to claim that.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod