Christian Readers discussion

Firstly, I believe that there were, but my reasons for asking this are two fold:

1) I ask because the current lively debate over the Old Earth/Young Earth issue seems, at its core, very similar in that one's view forces them to ascertain how much credence they place on widely accepted scientific theories and data when it is at least ostensibly at odds with common interpretations of scripture. In that sense, I suppose the question of giants is even more black and white than the age-of-the-earth debate, as that particular topic still allows for some interpretation...at least in my mind. With that in mind, I was simply curious to see what peoples' views are on this topic.

2) It's a rabbit hole, but I believe an understanding of the giants and their nature is critical to understanding the larger historical schemes of the adversary. I'd wager that some of you here are familiar with what I'm hinting at, but it's a largely unaddressed topic among the Christian circles that I know, and I feel that this leaves us...and perhaps more importantly, our progeny...very vulnerable to deceit in the coming days/years. Depending on the interest shown in this thread, we may delve down that rabbit hole.

great topic and great post. not near a computer at the moment... and typing on my phone is less than preferable.

looking forward to a good discussion!

I believe that there were physical literal giants in the days of Genesis, Because 1, Genesis tells us as much without giving us much else as far where they came from.

But I have also read the book of Enoch, and even though it is not considered scripture, I think that it offers a good POSSIBLE explanation into the subject. It certainly is a rabbit hole to dive into, and one particular aspect that I find very interesting!

Short people calling tall people "giants"? Sure.

Just curious: what's the tallest person in modern times? Later we can get into Nephilim fun.

Robert Pershing Wadlow
The tallest man in medical history for whom there is irrefutable evidence is Robert Pershing Wadlow (USA) (born 6:30 a.m. at Alton, Illinois, USA on 22 February 1918), who when last measured on 27 June 1940, was found to be 2.72 m (8 ft 11.1 in) tall.

From Google

Fun fact. Thanks.
How tall was Andre the Giant? Maybe 7 ft?

Here's my hint: if people used to live to almost a thousand years of age... how does that affect height??did God know they'd have to fight Dinosaurs? Probably.

So according to wikipedia... Goliath was 6'9"

Not saying wiki is the end all, be all... :D

Not a giant by today's standards, but a giant by the standards of the time he lived...

I’m 6’5”. Almost a giant...

Even by today's standards, I would consider 6'9" a giant.

Like most "word chases" I see posted, we are focusing of a physical attribute because a variation of נפיל was translated "giants" in early English versions. An anatomically large person would be עֲנָק. The giants in our land today are not all NBA stars. Other giants include tech, banking, and manufacturing CEOs; entrenched politicians and lobbyists; and media superstars. Many of them are small in stature. There are giants in education, medicine, literature. All these are variations of n'phil in their fields. In ancient Hebrew culture "giants" were usually considered oppressive or tyranical. Strong's even applies the term "bullies" to the Genesis reference. More and more people exerted and demanded their own wills! Now read it again in context... all three chapters.

Eric wrote: "Like most "word chases" I see posted, we are focusing of a physical attribute because a variation of נפיל was translated "giants" in early English versions. An anatomically large person would be עֲ..."

I think it is pretty clear though that some of the giants mentioned in the old testament were physically big people.

I found this article from the Answers in Genesis website to be most informative:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-ch...

Chad wrote: "I found this article from the Answers in Genesis website to be most informative:"

I read your source thoroughly. It states the Scripture upon which this thread is based refers to "mighty men", not large men. From reading this source I conclude Og of Bashon was very tall and heavy and his oversized bed had iron posts. I also infer their "research" (??) suggests descendants of Shem were much smaller than descendants of Ham and some of Ham's clansmen suffered more than a few genetic mishaps. They list eleven names of tribal leaders who were very tall, who also all happened to share Anakim (who was tall) as an ancestor. They should have made that more clear to readers.
In all, having searched this out pretty thoroughly in the past, I found nothing new or enlightening and hold to my original post without writing a lengthy exposition (unless you want it, in which case I would go off thread rather than taking so much room here). Some among us have a basic Hebrew foundation and I have seen some refer to their interlinear Bibles. I suggest they follow the Hebrew linguistics with Strong's in hand, and read entire sections in context. Sometimes we encounter tall men, sometimes they are big shots, and sometimes they pose big problems or obstacles. Same holds true today as 5,000 years ago. We actually "know" very little. But we assume, imagine, and project a lot. Myself as much as anyone. But I do search for context. And it makes what I read in the Bible always absolutely believable and understandable.

Eric wrote: "Like most "word chases" I see posted, we are focusing of a physical attribute because a variation of נפיל was translated "giants" in early English versions. An anatomically large person would be עֲ..."

I agree with you on this. This word can very well mean "bullies or tyrants" according to Strong's. But we must look at other instances in which this word (Strong's #5303) is used.

If you look at Numbers 13:32, the same word (Strong's #5303) is used to describe the "giants" when they were spying out the land of Canaan.

"32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. 33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

So the same word is used to describe "men of great stature" and they were as grasshoppers before them.

Still, I think both views have merit and are correct. Looking at human nature I would have to think that giants in the sense of a very large person would TYPICALLY be a bully because they could get away with it and there would be very few who could stop it. Of course, I know that this isn't always the case, but I'm just thinking out loud.

Chad wrote: "I found this article from the Answers in Genesis website to be most informative:..."

Very informative. Thanks.

Eric wrote: "Like most "word chases" I see posted, we are focusing of a physical attribute because a variation of נפיל was translated "giants" in early English versions. An anatomically large person would be עֲ..."

Interesting :D

Jennifer wrote: "So the same word is used to describe "men of great stature" and they were as grasshoppers before them."

But even there, that could have been metaphorical rather than regarding size.

Not arguing either position, just interesting to consider.

There is another very interesting theory that I heard similar to this subject here recently, but again, it is one of those things you have to truly use discernment with. I found it very thought-provoking nonetheless.

Regarding the giants that are mentioned in Genesis 6, if we look in the book of Enoch, (although it is not canonical nor regarded as scripture it does offer some meaningful explanations I believe) It states that the "Sons of God" not only defiled themselves with the daughters of men, but they also began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish according to Enoch 7:5 .

Now I'm not saying that I hold this view, but I did find it very interesting. One theory some have is that if an angel and a human make a giant humanish creature, then what does an angel and a beast or bird or reptile make? It would stand to assume that it would be a giant creature likely closely related to whatever the other half was.

And what were dinosaurs? They were giant creatures that related closely enough to some of our modern day animals, that science says they evolved from those particular dinosaur versions...

The theory goes on to state that the extinction of Dinosaurs according to science doesn't particularly match up. If there was a mass extinction event that killed all of the dinosaurs, then why do we still have some creatures that were said to have lived in those times such as caimen, lancetfish, sharks, and even bees. Why weren't they killed off as well?

Their answer was that the dinosaurs were abominations created by the angels and the flood was sent as a means to wipe them out along with the giants. The versions that God himself created were saved on the arc.

Again, not saying that I hold this theory, but I just thought it was interesting and that I would share since it was ALMOST relevant.

Alexandra wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "So the same word is used to describe "men of great stature" and they were as grasshoppers before them."

But even there, that could have been metaphorical rather than regarding siz..."

Absolutely, I agree. Did ancient Hebrew normally talk in metaphors? I'm asking earnestly because I honestly have no idea and I would think that if they didn't do that regularly in their writing then it would stand to think that they likely weren't here either.

Interesting indeed. I'm going to have to look that up!

Jennifer wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "So the same word is used to describe "men of great stature" and they were as grasshoppers before them."

But even there, that could have been metaphorical rather ..."

They had idioms, just as we do. As well as similes, and metaphors, yes. Which is one reason it's important to read Scripture in context. :D

There are things they would have understood more easily that we do simply from their native grasp of both language and culture. Which is why we need to study things :D

Alexandra wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "Alexandra wrote: "Jennifer wrote: "So the same word is used to describe "men of great stature" and they were as grasshoppers before them."

But even there, that could have been met..."

Absolutely!

Jennifer wrote: "Absolutely! "

:D

Excellent link, Chad. Jennifer, you also made some great points. Personally, I do subscribe to the interpretation you outlined. Whether anyone agrees or not, I do appreciate the feedback from everyone. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I've had a 12-day-old baby keeping me pretty busy. Anyhow, I understand I'm likely to lose what little credibility I may have among you in the subsequent discussion, but given the potential stakes, I believe it's worth it to expose people to this view and what it may entail for our future. So, everyone on board the train to crazy town? Down the rabbit-hole we go... ;)

It might be best to begin by explaining how I approach the development of my worldview. It'd perhaps be best to offer an analogy. Say there's a complex and difficult puzzle you're trying to put together. Let's say you find 800 pieces in a box. However, the box is old and weathered and you can no longer see the writing. You don't know if it's an 800 piece puzzle or not, so maybe you're missing a bunch of the pieces. Worse yet, you can't even make out the picture on the box anymore, so you don't even know what picture it is that you're supposed to be working toward. Our attempts to build a worldview are much the same. Some people place more onerous limits on which pieces they'll use when assembling the puzzle. The materialist, for example, says only data of a physically empirical nature is admissible. Anything that cannot be weighed, measured, or broken into bits is sat aside in a pile and omitted from the picture. This approach may be valuable in manipulating material things for the purposes of advancing technology and creating all the "shiny things", but if one thinks this is sufficient for completing the picture, I believe they are binding their own hands. Conversely, I assert that it is both advisable and necessary to admit all the pieces in the box into the picture. The position and nature within the puzzle of some of these pieces may be tenuous, but we can trust that, if they are erroneously placed, this will eventually become apparent by their inability to accommodate the surrounding pieces of the puzzle. The picture that forms won't make sense, won't line up, and will fail to convey meaningful information. Now, I guess you could deduce that maybe it's just a puzzle based on a Jackson Pollock painting, but I tend to think we will find order and meaning in the picture at the grandest level, if for no other reason than because we see it at every constituent level beneath. The "picture" that, up to this point, best explains the largest number of facts and phenomena (or in terms of the analogy, allows me to use the most pieces of the puzzle to create the most complete picture) is that which I will outlined abovebelow, and I believe that those who approach the same sources of information that I have with the same open-mindedness will plausibly arrive at similar conclusions.

So...on to the actual picture. How do giants fit into this? The grain of sand in this pearl is chapter 6 of Genesis, though there are other allusions to the "wack-a-doodle" interpretation elsewhere in both the Old and New Testaments. However, it's not only on the weight of scripture that we can give credence to this notion. Native peoples around the globe, particularly those who populated the areas surrounding many of the mysterious ancient megalithic and cyclopean structures, have oral traditions that are uncannily similar to the account in Genesis....that demigods of some sort came from "the heavens" and imparted mankind with certain technologies and spiritual teachings, and that malevolent giants populated the respective regions in those times. Everywhere we look, it seems, the echoes of this forgotten age reverberate through "myths". The Greeks had their titans and heroes. The Native Americans had their "star people". The Egyptians had their gods and the ancient Indian Vedas tell of remarkably similar entities and technologies. Of course, a Freudian or Jungian apologist might say these stories merely represent archetypes buried deep within the human subconscious, but subconscious archetypes don't build pyramids and obelisks, and they don't cut and move stones weighing almost 2,000 tons. Also common to all of the societies associated with these beings are certain practices like divination and sorcery (pharmakeia), things which our God has warned His people against...for good reason. The Book of Enoch tells us these things were taught to mankind by the fallen angels.

What we do know is that at one time in the past, mankind was somehow building and/or utilizing massive and intricately designed structures in virtually every part of the globe. Then...for some reason....it all stopped for a long, long time. This certainly doesn't follow the typical pattern of human technological progress. It's almost as if these ostensibly unconnected civilizations met with some sudden disaster that destroyed them and their collective knowledge and left only their monuments....a global deluge, perhaps? ;P

Likewise, as Jennifer mentioned, the fossil record proves that there was, at one time in the distant past, a much different world than we find today...inhabited with all manner of strange and terrifying giant creatures...and they, too, seem to have met a hasty and untimely end.

If I haven't totally lost you by now, let's move from the distant past to more recent times. It's demonstrable that the adepts many of our secret societies such as the Freemasons have preserved and propagated the teachings of the ancient mystery schools, and these seem to be none other than the lies that were first given to mankind by "the angels that kept not their first estate". From the very beginning and even now, it has been the aim of these fallen beings to wage war against God and to pervert and corrupt His natural designs and to inhibit the fruition of God's plan for the salvation of mankind. To this end, they have deceived and tantalized prideful and wicked men with lying wonders and false promises...and have turned them to their purposes. Such can be seen in the writings of people like Albert Pike, Manly P. Hall, Alice Bailey, Helena Blavatsky, Aleister Crowley, and numerous others. The aforementioned are merely a few examples from Western societies, but the same devious mission can be seen in the "spiritual" practices of many other cultures, as well. These teachings all seem to share common authorship.

Anyhow, I've rambled long enough for one sitting, so I'm going to provide a few resource videos that outline in more detail and better structure how a lot of this fits together and where it's going. Then I'll let those sit for a while and likely continue on later, assuming some nice guys in white jackets don't show up to my door and take me away for a vacation to a nice place with free meals and a big courtyard. :D

Michael Heiser on Gen 6 and the related themes. This series is a good starting point and is less sensational and more scholarly in its tenor, so I'll recommend it as a solid place to first establish the veracity of the fundamentals:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ-Ow...
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDaUt...
Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT431...
Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcjIK...
Q&A: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYFd...

The following two videos are far more comprehensive and represent a good "survey course" addressing most of the major aspects of this paradigm and will probably answer a lot of questions, while raising just as many:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjmFm...
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfRzU...

Peace, brothers and sisters, and thanks for entertaining me. :)

Adam wrote: "Say there's a complex and difficult puzzle you're trying to put together. Let's say you find 800 pieces in a box. However, the box is old and weathered and you can no longer see the writing. You don't know if it's an 800 piece puzzle or not, so maybe you're missing a bunch of the pieces. Worse yet, you can't even make out the picture on the box anymore, so you don't even know what picture it is that you're supposed to be working toward.."

It appears we have clusters of pieces gathered and assembled by our predecessors, and we are trying to fit loose pieces we come up with periodically. We don't even have the border assembled so we don't even know how big the puzzle is. There's a lot of void space and shiny objects always seem to show up in empty space. Me thinks we greatly overthink all this.
You can address the issue on this thread as a philosopher, a pragmatist, a cynic or a scientist. Given the same established pieces everybody imagines the "picture" he "wants" to see.
I see a bipedal hominid named Adam, which conveniently translated directly from h'adam to humankind, infused with a metaphysical Spirit that projects the image of God where applied to His creative enterprise. The covenant was broken and the instrument was corrupted. He who was humbly submissive became willfully defiant. It got worse and worse, as it always does after every covenant restart, and mighty men of old became the n'phil we're discussing here.
I can't fit space ships into my scenario. But I know a lot of people see the puzzle just that way. One day we'll know.

Lol. I can sympathize, believe it or not. When it comes to the paranormal, there is certainly a high degree of absurdity surrounding any particular issue. How much of it is bollocks? Fifty percent? Seventy-five? I can't say 100% because there are some cases which demand an accounting and defy all conventional explanations...such as the "Phoenix lights". Don't worry, though. I'll get to all that in my next post. ;) Fortunately, our admission into God's Kingdom is not contingent on a belief or disbelief in any of this.

Adam wrote: "Lol. I can sympathize, believe it or not. When it comes to the paranormal, there is certainly a high degree of absurdity surrounding any particular issue. How much of it is bollocks? Fifty percent?..."

Just "Beam me up, Jesus!" right Buddy? You can explain it to me on the way up.

I reckon it'll be moot at that point. Besides, I wouldn't want to sully your experience with my jabbering.

I agree on some level. My mind is constantly trying to logically reconcile science with scripture even though I know the vast majority can't and will never be done. There are some things that we will never understand and aren't meant to.

Like how Adam and early humans lived to be do old. Science says that around the time of the "collision" that created our moon, days were much shorter, only about 6 hours. They have lengthened as the moon has moved away from us and continues to do so. I keep working the math and the numbers, but I have yet to make it work... and I'm ok with the fact that I probably never will.

Doesn't stop my mind from trying though.

Like you said, it's a good thing that salvation doesn't depend upon us understanding the minor details!

Jennifer wrote: "I agree on some level. My mind is constantly trying to logically reconcile science with scripture even though I know the vast majority can't and will never be done. There are some things that we wi..."

There are a variety of theories about why people in ancient Biblical times lived much longer than we do now. One thing that we do know is that typical life expectancy can and has changed due to various factors and that's something we can see even in more recent history.

And well, if God decided at some point people should live shorter lives, then, that's that :D