Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 42

Thread: The Giants of Genesis

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Geelong, Vic, Australia
    Posts
    27

    The Giants of Genesis

    Can anyone tell me who the giants are in Genesis 6:4, Num13:33, Duet 2:11, 2:20, 3:11, 3:13, ?

  2. #2
    In Genesis 6.4, the term used is the Hebrew word nephilim. It does not mean "giants". It comes from the Hebrew word naphal, which means "to fall". The word nephilim, then, means either "fallen ones", which points to their inherent wickedness and violence of these men, or it means "fellers", that is, they "fell" [killed, slayed, etc.] other men with their violence.

    These nephilim were not a "half-demon" race of men... they were entirely men, they were simply wicked, violent "men of fame". This is why nephilim were seen later on, because they were also wicked, violent men. They were not literally "giants", this is simply hyperbole used to describe just the largeness of these men; they're warriors, of course they're going to be large.

    There is an inherent problem with the claim that the nephilim were actual giants, or that they were a "half-demon" race of men conceived as fallen angels' offspring: God sent the flood because of the wickedness of mankind, particularly because of the nephilim. If God sent the flood to exterminate a race of giants, or a race of half-demon-men, because nephilim are seen after the flood. Did God fail at exterminating them? Did God allow mutant-offspring of humans and angels happen a second time? The answer to both questions is irrelevant, because the nephilim are not an actual race of "giants", nor are they the offspring of fallen angels... they're just God-less warriors who were huge compared to the average person.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    378
    I always like to look at the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible commentary to see what they have to say, because they are pre-modernest and do not get caught up in all the more recent philosophy that has infiltrated all thinking today. Here is their quote:
    4. giants-The term in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters, who spread devastation and carnage far and wide.
    It is more fun to go with the idea of the cyclops and such but if you watch History Channel, you see that it comes from the Greeks trying to figure out fossils of mammoths.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    2,997
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by markedward View Post
    In Genesis 6.4, the term used is the Hebrew word nephilim. It does not mean "giants". It comes from the Hebrew word naphal, which means "to fall". The word nephilim, then, means either "fallen ones", which points to their inherent wickedness and violence of these men, or it means "fellers", that is, they "fell" [killed, slayed, etc.] other men with their violence.

    These nephilim were not a "half-demon" race of men... they were entirely men, they were simply wicked, violent "men of fame". This is why nephilim were seen later on, because they were also wicked, violent men. They were not literally "giants", this is simply hyperbole used to describe just the largeness of these men; they're warriors, of course they're going to be large.

    There is an inherent problem with the claim that the nephilim were actual giants, or that they were a "half-demon" race of men conceived as fallen angels' offspring: God sent the flood because of the wickedness of mankind, particularly because of the nephilim. If God sent the flood to exterminate a race of giants, or a race of half-demon-men, because nephilim are seen after the flood. Did God fail at exterminating them? Did God allow mutant-offspring of humans and angels happen a second time? The answer to both questions is irrelevant, because the nephilim are not an actual race of "giants", nor are they the offspring of fallen angels... they're just God-less warriors who were huge compared to the average person.
    So, whose offspring were they? Were they the offspring of Cain?

    How did they get so big?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Welder4Christ View Post
    So, whose offspring were they? Were they the offspring of Cain?

    How did they get so big?
    The same way Shaq, Yao Ming, Robert Wadlow, and Goliath the Philistine did...hypertrophy of the pituitary gland and/or genetics.

    Definition not Demonic/Human physical intercourse and Proceation myths and pagan fables.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    2,997
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by David Taylor View Post
    The same way Shaq, Yao Ming, Robert Wadlow, and Goliath the Philistine did...hypertrophy of the pituitary gland and/or genetics.

    Definition not Demonic/Human physical intercourse and Proceation myths and pagan fables.
    Shaq doesn't come from a "race" of giants....It comes from his individual genetic makeup. The nephilim were a people who were defined by gigantism, so then, whose offspring were they?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    47
    Ok
    Conjure up another answer to this.
    The sons of God take the daughters of men all that they chose, and their sons became the mighty men of old, and men of fame.
    Why the sons only, and not their fathers, the sons of God.
    There WAS something different about the sons of the sons of God that set them apart. Their fathers were not the mighty men of old and men of fame because they were NOT men.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Welder4Christ View Post
    Shaq doesn't come from a "race" of giants....It comes from his individual genetic makeup. The nephilim were a people who were defined by gigantism, so then, whose offspring were they?
    They were humans...

    Scripture doesn't say they had "gigantism", just that they were large.

    Look at this way: my fiancee's father and mother are both under 5'5". As a result, all four of their children (including my fiancee) are under 5'5".

    People who are short and have children together are likely going to have short children. If this continues on for several generations, all of the descendents of that family tree will be short.

    Hence, in the assumption that all of the nephilim were even blood-relatives to each and every other nephilim, it is perfectly reasonable for the nephilim to be from a tribe of men who were taller than average, and they passed those tall genes on to each of their children, until you have a whole clan of men who are huge.

    Black people have black children. Blue-eyed people have blue-eyed children. Tall people have tall children. The nephilim could simply fall under this last group. It doesn't make them a completely different race of beings apart from "regular" men, and it doesn't make them mutant-offspring of fallen angels.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    2,997
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by markedward View Post
    Black people have black children. Blue-eyed people have blue-eyed children. Tall people have tall children. The nephilim could simply fall under this last group. It doesn't make them a completely different race of beings apart from "regular" men, and it doesn't make them mutant-offspring of fallen angels.
    Yes -- I think we've clarified that they were not angel-human hybrids. So, then, back to the question-at-hand.

    Doesn't the Bible seem to indicate that, as a race of people, they were much larger than normal? From what I understand, they were enormous. Your explanation that they interbred and became taller and taller makes sense. So, then, my next question is -- who are these sons of God that the Bible says they were descended from?

    Were they descendants of Cain?

    Also, why does the Bible distinguish between the men and the women here? Why are the men called sons of God, while the women are called daughters of men? If they were humans, wouldn't they also be sons of men?

  10. #10
    I would say the "sons of God" were Godly men.

    Contextually, the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are men. Here is a rundown of Genesis 6:

    • Men multiply and fill the earth (6.1)
    • God's Spirit will not "contend" with man forever (6.3)
    • Man's life-time limit is set for 120 years (6.3)
    • There were mighty men in that time, called nephilim (6.4)
    • God saw man's wickedness (6.5)
    • God was sorry he made man (6.6)
    • But Noah was a righteous man (6.8-9)

    Contextually, the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are men, not angelic beings; nothing in the text refers to angels, everything in the text refers to men. So, it depends entirely on the context:

    If we read the Torah, the "sons of God" consistently refer to Godly men, not angelic beings. Passages to take in context of each other: Genesis 6 (again, not the specific statement that God makes, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever"), Deuteronomy 14.1 and Deuteronomy 32.8.

    Other books also shows that the phrase "sons of God" can be used to refer to Godly men and not angelic beings (Hosea 1.10, Matthew 5.9, Luke 20.36, Romans 8.19, Romans 9.26, Galatians 3.26) so this makes it all the more possible/probable that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to men.

    Especially
    note Romans 8.14: "For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God." This is directly in line with the statements made between Genesis 6.1-2, in which the "sons of God" are spoken of, then immediately following in 6.3 God says "My Spirit will not contend with man forever." This, I believe, is a strong point of evidence that the "sons of God" of Genesis 6 are man who are "led by the Spirit of God", and God is lamenting that "My Spirit will not contend with man forever", which is immediately followed by a description of violent, unGodly men.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    2,997
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by markedward View Post
    I would say the "sons of God" were Godly men.
    That makes sense. So, then, were the women not Godly?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by Welder4Christ View Post
    So, whose offspring were they? Were they the offspring of Cain?

    How did they get so big?
    I really should have given MarkEdward a chance to answer your question, but I think I know what he's trying to figure out right about now.

    He has told you correctly (for the most part). There are not, and never has been any HALF-men, HALF-angels, HALF-gods, HALF-man, or anything else for that matter, etc (nor any fractional part thereof).

    For all of our Hebrew scholars, Hebrew words always reveal action, state of being, and/or perception, before they reveal just a name. They're physical and tangible (something one can readily identify with and to), and then Spiritual and intangible.

    In ALL of Scripture, the only reference that is made to "the sons of GOD (note the initial lower case 's' in 'sons')", refers to them as originally made/Created by GOD Physically, or currently, made/Re-Created by GOD Spiritually (via "the new birth"). In other words, "the sons of GOD", were either Physically made that way (because they had/have no biological/human Father), or they are Spiritually made that way (because GOD has now become my ["ABBA FATHER"] DADDY).

    When "the sons of GOD. . .took them wives of all which they chose" (because of their own "pecking order" status and/or longevity, living like Adam for 900+ years), from among" "the daughters of men (their off-springs', off-springs', off-springs', etc.), who's going to stop them?

    Remember, "the sons of GOD", they're the original 'Big Daddies', 'Big Papas', 'Sugar Daddies', etc. They're now impregnating "the daughters of men" with Babies.

    And what you have is like, me (one of "the sons of GOD"), [an example ONLY] impreganating markedward's (a son, of a son, of a son, etc., of one of "the sons of GOD") daughter (one of "the daughters of men"); and based on the "pecking order" and me being an "Alpha male" in my part of "the earth", who's gonna stop me. . .other than GOD? See, I'm the "Big Kahuna (as a result of being one of 'the sons of GOD')", and I call the shots (". . .have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."). . .and, as the saying goes, "like father, like son": so we now have some bullies, tyrants (which is what the word, "nephilim" means), and/or "giants in the earth in those days". . .because that is how all the rest of Creation perceived them to be.

  13. #13
    They had to be human. Brian Urlacher descends from them.

    There's really no way to know; the text is quite obscure (possibly on purpose). The term can refer to literal giants, that is, people who were the offspring of demons and women or it can refer to men of great prominence who descended from kings.

    To take an absolutist stance on either side is difficult to do considering it could refer to either or neither.

    I, for one, take the view that they were descendants of kings and were men of great strength, but who abused their strength.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    2,997
    Blog Entries
    1
    Were angels even given the ability to procreate? If not, then how can this verse possibly infer that these sons of God were angels?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by apothanein kerdos View Post
    They had to be human. Brian Urlacher descends from them.
    Great point.

    There's really no way to know; the text is quite obscure (possibly on purpose). The term can refer to literal giants, that is, people who were the offspring of demons and women or it can refer to men of great prominence who descended from kings.
    Sure there is; and this is why we must always line ALL Scripture up with ALL other Scripture and/or refer to ALL other Scripture regarding the same or similar matters.

    In Hebrews 1:5, the author ask the question, "For unto which of the angels said HE at any time, THOU art MY SON, this day have I begotten THEE? And again, I will be to HIM a FATHER, and HE shall be to ME a SON?" This eliminates them being 'angelic'.

    Genesis 1:26 makes them nothing else but "man[kind]", because this is all (for now) that we deal with from Genesis 1:26 to Genesis 6. . .and even farther.

    To take an absolutist stance on either side is difficult to do considering it could refer to either or neither.
    And to NOT "take an absolutist stance", is to go against ALL that GOD IS: ABSOLUTE!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Information Giants, Where did they come from?
    By trodder in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: Jun 11th 2008, 01:23 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •