Giant People in the bible?

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.

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

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