NEPHILIM mYsteries

ok, i'll fire the first (predictable) shot, just to get this going.what evidence do you have the nephilim were giant?

---

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. 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. 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. this relies entirely on the next point: 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) 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.

---

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. whoa whoa. what? where'd you get that? 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"). maybe they were just good fighters? sure, but there's no point in discussing it as support for the bible, if the bible doesn't claim any such thing. points refuted a thousand times.

---

oh god not these again.

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

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. 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

---

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.

---

biblical.Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible according to the bible, he was. (see above) i still think that "rephaim" might be better rendered as a name of a people. i'm not sure though.

---

yay i can post again! 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. 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. 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: 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)

---

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

---

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?

---

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.

---

ah, i see. it was basically what i quoted. it sounds reasonable, but i'm not totally sure i trust the source. oxymoron. 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.

---

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.

---

there's nothing wrong with sex.in marriage. 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) 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? 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.

---