There are no giants in the original bible

a reply to: Marduk

Pretty much all the giants mentioned in the King James Version of the bible, are the result of a mistranslation. As most of you giant believers are only using your belief to support your faith, you should know that your version of the Bible is in error. To prove that, here is every King James version mention of Giants, posted above its original Hebrew version.

Have read and re read your thread and find it misleading to say the least. You made the statement that you posted the Hebrew version but you neglected to say what this Hebrew version is. Now being somewhat a linguist (which you implied) you knew better than to present a copy of literature to try and prove another copy of literature. You know very well that the real world does not work like that.

You do not have the autographs to make the statement that you can prove your original Hebrew. Those autographs do not exist that we know of. The Septuagint Torah that we have today is not the original Septuagint Torah of which it was translated and therefore you do not have the autographs of that Septuagint either. Those autographs of the original Hebrew Torah and the original Greek Torah are non existent to us today. Even if we had the Hebrew and Aramaic Torah of which the Septuagint was created, we would still not have the original autographs. What we have today are manuscripts or copies of the autographs. Word play cannot be used without the autographs.

I have a copy of the JPS 1917 Hebrew Torah and I also have a copy of the 1962 JPS Hebrew Torah in which both use the word Nephilim. Those bibles were translations of the Masoretic texts. I then have a 1851 Septuagint of C.L Brenton which uses the word Giants. Now you also realize that the Septuagint copies are about 1000 years older than the Masoretic copies do you not?

I then referenced the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha by James H. Charlesworth, and F.I. Anderson who both use the word Giants. Also are B.M. Metzger, J.R. Mueller, G.A. Robbins, J.J. Collins, P. Alexander, E. Isaac, S.E. Roninson, O.S. Wintermute, M.E. Stone, and at least a dozen more on my list who are certified linguistical translators of many languages.

What am I saying? I am saying that the word Giants depicts the first race produced between angelic and Adamic trerrestrials. The race of Nephilims were procreated from the race of giants and the race of Elioud's were procreated from the race of Nephilims. This was not an overnight event. It took over 800 years and up to the Noahic event to develop its full potential. When a translator intends to describe an Elioud or a Nephilim, he/she may use the name giant or even the sons and daughters of giants simply because that was the origin of the Elioud and the Nephilim. Both the Nephilim and Elioud races were gigantic in this theology and were giants in the English rendition. It's simply word play with no proof in your intent to bash many translators.

You said -- Quote As most of you giant believers are only using your belief to support your faith, you should know that your version of the Bible is in error. Unquote.

That is about all the sense you have presented in this thread. Yes, belief is theology. You are also spouting theology. You have not realized that you also are in a theological discussion with your own theology. You show no proof whatsoever and you very well know it. Christian bashing was your purpose and a waste it was.

May I Have Your Attention, Please

Please keep off topic posts to a minimum. Please do not reply to off topic posts. The topic of the thread is, "There Are No Giants In The Original Bible". Please keep your discussion to the topic.

Please do not reply to this message

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated

Thanks

bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Seede


I have a copy of the JPS 1917 Hebrew Torah and I also have a copy of the 1962 JPS Hebrew Torah in which both use the word Nephilim. snipped for irrelevancy

I am using the JPS 1917 Hebrew Torah, which can be found online quite easily.
So pretty much everything you just said is based on your own misunderstanding

You claiming that there were tribes of Giants is laughable, because again, like so many of the other believers in this thread, you missed the relevancy of the evolution of language
Basically, if someone writing the bible wanted to say "Giants", they wouldn't have used the word "Giant", because it didn't mean giant back then, it didn't mean "giant human" until the 15th C
Giant meant powerful it was another way of saying "men of renown"

Buy yanno, if you weren't so quick to defend your faith, which hasn't been attacked, then you might have known that



Thanks for playing, please do have another go when you've wiped the rabid foam from your lips, or alternatively, when you've actually read the thread you are responding in...

Let me make this clear to you Christians
This thread is not an attack on your belief or your faith
Its simply an explanation of how language has changed
Giant did not mean "Massive humanoid" when it was used to describe various tribes and individuals in the Septuagint and later versions of the bible derived from it.
It meant "powerful"
www.etymonline.com...

The Greek word was used in Septuagint to refer to men of great size and strength, hence the expanded use in modern languages; in English of very tall and unusually large persons from 1550s

The word Giant was included in the Septuagint because it was being translated into Greek, the Giants of Greek myth weren't giant humans either
Giants in Greek mythology

In Greek mythology, the Giants or Gigantes (Greek: Γίγαντες, Gigantes, singular Gigas) were a race of great strength and aggression, though not necessarily of great size, known for the Gigantomachy

Now I hope you've got that, because this is about the fifth time I've had to explain it to you, if you want to carry on thinking that I am saying that the Bible is wrong, that's fine, all you have to do is provide a link to a single giant humanoid bone and you win. I've also asked that about five times, I'm still waiting

originally posted by: Marduk

no giants, just Nephilim

Nephilim again, no giants

In your OP^. You were saying that the word used is Nephilim , which you claim did not mean giants. But Nephilim means giants, so your OP is wrong. King Og's bed was 13.5 feet long (9 cubits), not 9 feet like you claim in your OP. Also, Goliath was 6'9" (4.5 cubits), not 6'7".

Whether or not giant means literally a tall person, or a powerful person, I am willing to debate. Literal giants would inherently be powerful as well, so it could mean both. Literal giants are ubiquitous throughout cultures... and perhaps they are rooted in the Nephilim?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton


Oh, Look at that... You stopped looking at information once your confirmation bias kicked in and skipped over where the actual etymology Of the word "giant" Was demonstrated. That's nearly as big a shocker as making the claim that most geneticists believe our genetics are degrading and instead of providing a single citation, you provide quote mines. Well done. Scholar of the Year to be sure. And I really liked the random inclusion of Dr. Collins who doesn't believe any of the tripe you just posted at all. Well done by your research department. The only fail here is your parents failure to get you Hooked on Phonics sooner.

Hostile, unnecessary, spam. I did not even mention genetics. Leave my parents out of this.

a reply to: cooperton

For the record, I owe you an apology. I went a little over the line with my closing comments so for that, I do apologize. I was out of line. With that said, I strongly encourage you to study the etymology as Marduk has put together a very succinct history demonstrating the lineage and the OP is rock solid. Again, my latter comments were out of line and I truly am sorry for engaging in juvenalia instead if sticking to the facts.

a reply to: Marduk

I am using the JPS 1917 Hebrew Torah, which can be found online quite easily. So pretty much everything you just said is based on your own misunderstanding You claiming that there were tribes of Giants is laughable, because again, like so many of the other believers in this thread, you missed the relevancy of the evolution of language Basically, if someone writing the bible wanted to say "Giants", they wouldn't have used the word "Giant", because it didn't mean giant back then, it didn't mean "giant human" until the 15th C Giant meant powerful it was another way of saying "men of renown" Buy yanno, if you weren't so quick to defend your faith, which hasn't been attacked, then you might have known that

Marduk, you seem to have a problem in understanding what you read. Did I claim that there were tribes of giants or did not I say from the onset what the other sources have postulated? I suggest that you read my post and then reply in an honest debate. You have no autographs and therefore you could not prove that your 1917 Hebrew Torah nor any Sepuagint Torah is proof of anything. That was my point that I made perfectly clear in my post. I also made it very clear that we are in a theological format and not a format of [show me the bones] type nonsense. Show me the bones was not your thread but only your way of derailing the subject matter in which you are completely wrong.

Now if we play the game of detraction and name calling then further discussion fails to accomplish anything. I could also insist that I will show you the bones if you will first show me the autographs. After all it is your claim that you can prove mistranslations when in fact you cannot prove mistranslations of any translator. So show us the claim that you made in your OP that you can prove the KJV translators were wrong. That is your claim. Not show me the bones.

You are now once again in fault. Your OP was the Hebrew rendition of certain scriptures which contained the words giant/s and or Nephilim. Not the Greek Septuagint Tanakh using the words giant. Also you should go back to your previous post where you did admit your intention of this thread was to bash Christianity. You are inconsistent and have shown your dishonesty.

You said -- Quote --"Basically, if someone writing the bible wanted to say "Giants", they wouldn't have used the word "Giant", because it didn't mean giant back then, it didn't mean "giant human" until the 15th C
Giant meant powerful it was another way of saying "men of renown" -- Unquote

You have overlooked a very important fact. There were many authors of the Tanakh and not all are known. They spanned hundreds and thousands of years and in various places. To make a statement such as you have made that they would not have used the translated word giant is absolutely unknown and foolish to even consider. You have no idea of what you are talking about.

originally posted by: Seede
You have overlooked a very important fact. There were many authors of the Tanakh and not all are known. They spanned hundreds and thousands of years and in various places. To make a statement such as you have made that they would not have used the translated word giant is absolutely unknown and foolish to even consider. You have no idea of what you are talking about.

Right, I think I understand what you're saying, in brief

Because I can't prove who wrote the bible, then I am not allowed to say that anyone translated anything wrong

Is that it ?

a reply to: Marduk

The KJV (King James Version) is not 'wrong' just harder for most modern readers to understand, which is why it was simplified, in a way, in the more modern translations, such as the NIV (New International Version). The overall meaning of the stories isn't changed - the words are just arranged in a way that it is easier for a larger audience to read. It's like if you try to read 'Ye Olde English' - you'll probably be able to understand most of it, but some words you're probably going to have to research if you want to understand them. The KJV also had lots of 'thee's and 'thou's, which people apparently saying a few hundred years ago.

In my understanding and opinion, giants and other probably very odd creatures were the offspring of the 'fallen ones' and the 'daughters of men' or female humans. Fallen ones were the demonic spirits that were cast to earth, out of heaven because they followed Lucifer, who tried to make himself equal and greater than God, Yahweh. Nephilim could be the offspring of these demons and human women (the giants), and also perhaps the demons themselves. Demonic spirits can inhabit people and take over their bodies, 'plugging into' the persons energy on a level we don't understand, and may have done so in order to mate with human women.

Lucifer/Satan wanted to corrupt the human bloodline, and if his Nephilim could take over the whole world, and stamp out the untainted bloodline of Adam, Jesus could not be born, because He could not come from a bloodline tainted by the evil one.

This is why Yahweh, God in the Old Testament, had His people slaughter certain races and tribes -> These were the Nephiliim that they had to kill, and the people that worshiped them and wanted to be with these evil creatures.

Also Cubit is not equal to a foot. A cubit is equal to a man's arm, from his elbow to his fingertips, when his arm is bent at the elbow, about 18-20 inches.

Proof of giants abounds. One site with some decent pictures is www.6000years.org... although I think a few of these pics are suspect.

Egyptian carvings show giants also.. people that are seated that are taller than people standing right in front of them.

There's also giant sized tools, like 30 pound spear heads and 50 pound axe blades, that have been unearthed. There are many old books and newspaper articles which have references to extremely tall people, and even a reference from Lincoln himself. . Check out 'Search for Lost Giants' series, on Youtube and History channel. They find lots of accounts in old books on one of the episodes.

There is also a lot of evidence of the Smithsonian covering up all giant bones that are unearthed. TPTB don't want proof of giants to come out because that would be more evidence to validate the Bible, and they don't want that because they want to keep us all fighting each other as much as possible...

People also lived alongside dinosaurs, IMO. See 'Ica stones' and things like :
www.bible.ca...

A cubit, as was mentioned in the post previous to this one, is the distance between the elbow and the tip of the middle finger.

The cubit in the Bible was 44.5 cm (17.5 in). There are ways we can figure this out.

The Siloam Inscription states that the length of the water tunnel built by King Hezekiah was 1200 cubits. Modern measurements of the tunnel measure it at 533m (1,749'). That gives us a value of 44.4cm (17.49") a cubit.

There are numerous structures in Palestine that can be measured by this whole unit of measure of 44.5cm.

Accordingly the bed of Og was 4 x 1.8 meters (13.1 x 5.8').

Goliath was 6 cubits and 1 span = 2.9 meters or 9.5'. His armor measured 5,000 shekels which is 57kg (126lb). And the iron blade on his spear weighed 600 shekels (6.8kg or 15lbs).



Now Nephilim means: feller. Or someone who fells people. It is literally a transliteration of the very Hebrew word nephilim and comes from the causative form of the Hebrew naphal (fall). Such as found in 2 Kings 3:19 and 19:7.

They were associated with the "mighty ones" or haggibborim.

The the Israelites in the Bible itself considered the Nepehelim to be giants we can glean very easily from what they themselves said:


When the 12 spies returned to Moses they brought a bad report about the land of Canaan, notice what they said:

(Numbers 13:32, 33) . . .And they kept on giving the Israelites a bad report about the land that they had spied out, saying: “The land that we passed through to spy out is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of extraordinary size. 33 And there we saw the Nephʹi·lim, the sons of Aʹnak, who are from the Nephʹi·lim, and in comparison we seemed like grasshoppers, both to us and to them.”

The compared the "Nephilim" of Genesis 6 to the sons of Anak and called them men of extraordinary size. Giants.

a reply to: OpenEyez

a reply to: JackReyes

Didn't read more than the op did you
instead of relying on your faith, which has blinded you
maybe read what's been posted


OpenEyez. you linked to a creationist website, which is full of photo shopped pictures and out of context pictures and well known fakes, the ica stones are fake, the fact that you are offering them up as evidence speaks volumes


What you are currently saying, is that although David was the only person in the bible known to have taken on a giant (Goliath 6'9), when all the other soldiers were terrified, that the Israelites had no problems at all with several tribes of them.
Which is not backed up by the text anywhere, nor by the archaeology, nor by the accounts of other civilisations which lived along side them.
Dry that out gentlemen, fertilise your lawn with it

a reply to: Marduk

Faith does not blind a person. You have been mislead into believing that. Real faith is based on reality and things that can be proven:

(Hebrews 11:1) Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen.

Of course faith is obviously not something that everyone has:

(2 Thessalonians 3:2) . . .and that we may be rescued from harmful and wicked men, for faith is not a possession of all people.

In fact faith is a gift from God. Everyone lacking in faith lacks God's good spirit active upon them. For it is a fruitage of the spirit, and only God can give the free gift of faith:

(Galatians 5:22) On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith,

(Romans 12:3) . . .each one as God has given to him a measure of faith.

How is faith based on reality and assured expectations yet only be a gift of God? You see it is given by God, not anyone else. It is not blind as you suppose. Rather it is an understanding of the enlightenment that is given to the believers:

(Ephesians 1:18) . . .He has enlightened the eyes of your heart. . .

Oh, and to answer your other question, yes indeed I read through a large portion of this thread. It seems you avoided the accurate and percise understanding of the measures I presented you because it destroys your blind understanding, and ruins your narrow-minded views you will not let go of. And the last statement you made in your post seems quite disingenuous, but of course that may have been what you have been going for since the OP.

I'm not here to argue though. And some previously posted in this thread, real faith is neither here or there if the Nephilim really were not giants and were only of ordinary human size. They still were considered the men of fame, the men of renown, heroes as it were.

In fact a lot of the myths and legends from other cultures draw from the reality of the hybrid human offspring of the fallen angel/human offspring. Greek mythology itself talks of demigods of superhuman strength, and of giants themselves. Hercules was a demigod offspring of the "gods" son of Zeus the king of the gods, and of a human woman, a hero with superhuman strength.

Then there are the giants themselves. Of course this is all just Greek mythology, but, and I'm not being dogmatic about this, not nearly as you are dogmatic in your wrong interpretations, it most likely came from, as other cultures myths, the pre-deluvian society that once existed on earth.

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: Marduk

Faith does not blind a person. .

So as you are positing that there must-have been thousands of Giants living just 3500 years ago, perhaps you can link me to a single verified giant human bone....
Otherwise, yes, you are blinded by faith and lack any understanding of the fluidity of language.

The Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the 1st century historian Josephus, and the 4th century Septuagint manuscripts—all give Goliath's height as "four cubits and a span" (6 feet 9 inches). yet the king James version claims he was "six cubits and a span" (9 feet 9 inches)
Which of those would you say was more accurate, the older originals, or the much later KJV copy that you are using ?

a reply to: Marduk

Right, I think I understand what you're saying, in brief Because I can't prove who wrote the bible, then I am not allowed to say that anyone translated anything wrong Is that it ?

No, that is not what I am saying. You are entitled to your opinions as well as everyone is entitled to their opinions. But opinions are not necessarily facts.

The Hebrew Torah that was used to translate the original Greek Septuagint (LXX) Torah is not available to us at this point. Even that Hebrew Torah that was used can not be said was the original autographs. Now what is left? Do we even have the original Septuagint Torah? No we do not. We have nothing but copies of that original Greek Septuagint which was translated from Hebrew literature of which we have nothing left to compare. We do not even have the original Greek Septuagint to compare our renditions of today.

The Hebrew Torah of today has been translated from Hebrew manuscripts which are available as copies. Even those are copies and not autographs. So here is the picture as I see it.

The Hebrew Torah which is available today is translated from copies of which were gathered from various sources and various places in the 9th century ce. at best. Most people call this the Masoretic texts (copies). They even vary and contradict among their own sources. Then what was used to print the Hebrew Torah of today? Gathered copies of unknown origin and assembled in the 9th century.

The Septuagint or LXX Torah of today is but a likeness of the original which was penned in about the third century bce. This is also lost. What do we have left of the Septuagint? Copies of unknown autographs. There are about five or six Septuagint renditions in use today and not one can we compare to the original.

Today we have many translations of many English bibles including both Greek and Hebrew. All of these renditions are based upon copies of unknown copies of unknown copies etc. Being some what a linguist yourself, surely you must realize that it is impossible to actually state in fact which of the many translations are correct or perhaps all are incorrect. You can not take a 9th century CE. copy and compare it with a third century BCE copy and state which is correct and which is not correct. Both may be completely full of errors as well as the reasoning that the languages have changed in meaning.

What outside literature is embraced by this word giant? The Hebrew and Greek Torahs are not the last word in this matter. The dead sea scrolls also revealed the works of Enoch who gives far more description of giants then does the Hebrew and Greek Torahs. Now we both can assume that this Enochian work which was in the Dead Sea Scrolls was considered on a par of importance as was Isaiah which was also side by side with Enoch. But then the Enoch and Isaiah scrolls were also copies and not the autographs of Enoch or the autographs of Isaiah. In effect, we are all blind as a bat and accept by faith only the generalities of the material available to us.

a reply to: Seede

The fact that the Isaiah scroll was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dated to about 300 years before Christ proves that the translations we have today are trustworthy, and you are not just being blind in trusting them. Because if you compare them with the extant manuscripts, which were a thousand years older, there were no changes made, a few grammatical errors slipped in, but nothing more.

Proving those that say we cannot know if they were changed or not over the thousands of years, or even those who go further and outright lie and say they have been manipulated and changed many times, as wrong.

a reply to: JackReyes

A cubit, as was mentioned in the post previous to this one, is the distance between the elbow and the tip of the middle finger. The cubit in the Bible was 44.5 cm (17.5 in). There are ways we can figure this out. The Siloam Inscription states that the length of the water tunnel built by King Hezekiah was 1200 cubits. Modern measurements of the tunnel measure it at 533m (1,749'). That gives us a value of 44.4cm (17.49") a cubit. There are numerous structures in Palestine that can be measured by this whole unit of measure of 44.5cm. Accordingly the bed of Og was 4 x 1.8 meters (13.1 x 5.8').

The cubit is nothing more then a means of measurement and that this block of measurement has changed down through history with the cultures and eras of mankind. To prove this, let us look at the ancient city of Sushan. This ancient city came into existence very shortly after the great flood of Noah and we know (assume) that the flood covered the earth in 2106 BCE. By this we have come to realize that this culture was much smaller than those who had survived the flood. The Sushan gate was built upon the 20.67 inches to one cubit measure which left us with 7.33 inches difference between Noah's 28 inches to a cubit measure and this ancient city.

What does this tell us? This tells us that the descendants of Noah came to use a smaller cubit in a very short period of time, perhaps within several hundred years. If the cubit was determined in the same manner, by the stature of a man's hand then it is showing us that man indeed was downsizing his stature in the new world.

This downsizing of life is believed to be (by some) that the greenhouse effect was decimated by the canopy of water above the earth which fell and opened this closed environment to the universe. This changed the sciences of the world drastically which in turn had an adverse effect upon the stature of all life on this world. Theology of course which can be shown in the longevity chart from Adam to Abraham.

A man of Noah's stature is said to have a hand breadth of 4.67 inches while those who built the Sushan gate would have a handbreadth of 3.44 inches. Some will insist that this proves nothing because some people will have large feet and some small feet and by this token we can see that the same thing could have happened with the handbreadth. While this may be true, keep in mind that the cubit measure is determined by the culture in that time span and not just a few people. This would then indicate that the Sushan gate does reflect the average person of that era and in that part of the world.

Deuteronomy 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.

Concerning this bedstead, it is suggested that we once again look at the words in which it is said "after the cubit of a man". Why was this said in this manner? Could it be that there must also have once been a cubit of antediluvian people and that this had to be made clear? Or could it also mean that this cubit was of the antediluvian man because the bedstead did survive the flood and was naturally built in the antediluvian period? Common sense dictates that if there had never been gigantic people then no reason should be offered to remind us that this is the cubit of a man. Another opinion of the Rabbis is that this could also be read as to say that this bedstead was Og's crib.

Most scholars in theology will agree that Noah's cubit was 28 English inches to one cubit. By this then Og's crib was 21 feet long and 9.3 feet wide and not based upon the assumption that the biblical cubit was but 18 inched to one cubit. But this was the cubit of a man and not the cubit of a ????? or so the bible tells us. The Hebrew literature says this was the measure of a man. What other means of measuring a cubit was there and why was this so important to record that it ws the measure of a man? Most scholars will admit that the pyramid of Cheops was built upon the royal cubit. Approximately 17.7 inches to one cubit. That would mean that the Egyptians were much smaller in stature than the antediluvian race of Noah.

Nevertheless with arguments for both sides of the isle, all we have are a few chosen words to build our opinions on and the best we can do is continue to dig out the opinions as we understand them. Good discussion.

a reply to: Seede

Indeed a good discussion. Of course the quote you took of me was referring to the cubit measurement in the Bible during the time it was written, and gave citations as to why that measurment was given. Like you said everyone varies a little. They must have had to come to a consensus to keep everything even. Just as today a man's foot varies from foot to foot but you have no problem in understanding that a foot is 12 inches. Even if one man's foot is 12" and another's 9 1/2".

a reply to: JackReyes

People glaze over this fact.

This is a good read on this topic
Biblical translation issues answered

Feel free to cash in, I'm really interested in any proof of such, reward or not..

Various rewards for extra dogma added within the bible

This is slightly different challenge to what we have been reading in this thread, but it does touch on additions to the original pre-Catholic texts

a reply to: JackReyes

The fact that the Isaiah scroll was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and dated to about 300 years before Christ proves that the translations we have today are trustworthy, and you are not just being blind in trusting them. Because if you compare them with the extant manuscripts, which were a thousand years older, there were no changes made, a few grammatical errors slipped in, but nothing more. Proving those that say we cannot know if they were changed or not over the thousands of years, or even those who go further and outright lie and say they have been manipulated and changed many times, as wrong.

Yes I do agree with your premise that the dead Sea scrolls do show that the copies from 300 BCE to today's Masoretic texts are reasonably accurate. But even so, the Dead Sea Scrolls are not the autographs so that we can compare accuracies or word play. We must have the original autographs to determine word play.

However we can understand generalities in our copies which will give us a picture but not word for word proofs. (Theological proofs naturally) - The entire subject here was word to word play and that is impossible up to this date. Nevertheless I do agree with you in that the bibles are somewhat alike in delivering a message and no, I believe the same as you believe that there is no intent to deceive by the translators.

Now if you accept the Dead Sea Scrolls as verification of truth then do you also accept all of the other literature which was in the Dead Sea Scrolls as truth? If not then why? If so then you must piggy back Enochian scrolls along with Torah. You cannot reject one without rejection of all. Isn't that a fair assessment? Even though Enoch is not Torah, it is still related to Torah just as Jubilees is related to Genesis. In fact isn't Jubilees called Little Genesis?