Giant Skeletons Found?

PropheticTimes

Lord Have Mercy
Site Supporter
Dec 17, 2015
955
1,316
Ohio
✟204,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
"He was a giant hunter and then became a Giant himself." What is that supposed to mean---he BECAME a giant?? Just how does one go about becoming a giant?
Has anyone encountered someone with other than human DNA??
This is all the bible has to say about Nimrod:

Gen_10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
Gen_10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
1Ch_1:10 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.
Mic_5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

Gen_10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
Gen_10:7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
Gen_5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen_6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Nimrod was the son of Cush (not a fallen angel)--Cush was the son of Ham (again, not a fallen angel) and Ham was the Son of Noah--definitely not a fallen angel.

Gen_10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
In Hebrew:"and Kush had brought forth Nimrod, he began to exist as a courageous one in the land,"
MTT: Genesis 10

Nimrod did not "become a giant"

Note what Genesis 10:8 says about Nimrod:

And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

Three sections in this unprecedented verse indicate something very peculiar happened to Nimrod. First, note where the text says, “he began to be.” In Hebrew, this is chalal, which means “to become profaned, defiled, polluted, or desecrated ritually, sexually or genetically.” Second, this verse tells us exactly what Nimrod began to be as he changed genetically—“a mighty one” (gibbowr, gibborim), one of the offspring of Nephilim. As Annette Yoshiko Reed says in the Cambridge University book, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity, “The Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 are always…grouped together with the gibborim as the progeny of the Watchers and human women.”[1]And the third part of this text says the change to Nimrod started while he was on “earth.” Therefore, in modern language, this text could accurately be translated to say: “And Nimrod began to change genetically, becoming a gibborim, the offspring of watchers on earth.” - Thomas R. Horn -- Forbidden Gates, Part 18
 
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You basing that on your conception of time. Not that that's wrong, but, even the bible does not set in concrete what the length of time is. I can show from scripture that at one day was longer than 24 hours.
I'm basing that on the fact that before the flood Methuselah lived for 969 years, and Adam had lived for a long time before Methuselah was even born. I was being generous to you, by only saying 1000 years. It was actually closer to 1600 years, and this by mathematically taking into consideration the genealogies of Adam to Noah and the flood.
Here again, the "giants" spoken of after the flood are rare. Just as today, there are occasionally an individual who might grow to 9 or 10 foot, but that is very, very rare. So your argument does not bear into the discussion.
They weren't "rare" after the flood, they were entire civilizations of people. They went by many names, the Emims, the Anakims, Nephilim, Rephaim, Zamzummim, Zumim, Avim, etc.

My point is the part on all of these names where I highlighted, and where it says "im" at the end, that's the hebrew way of describing the plurality of a noun. So, several. So, in numbers when it says:

Numbers 13:33 -
13:33 And there we saw 7200 8804 the giants 5303, the sons 1121 of Anak 6061, [which come] of the giants 5303: and we were in our own sight 5869 as grasshoppers 2284, and so we were in their sight 5869.

The highlighted portions, are from the hebrew word (H5303) נָפִיל - which means giants (plural) or Nephilim (plural).

Anak, it's highlighted because it is the hebrew word (H6061) which means long necked ones, or also, those of the lineage of canaan as in, the son of Ham, and therefore, after the flood.

Note, this is just one occurrence of many, where the scriptures verify that there were whole civilizations of giants. Just one. Most of the people they destroyed in the land were giants, if you don't believe me, I can prove it by the scriptures, but I feel this is a verifiable enough proof. If you wish to see more instances where they're referring to whole communities and civilizations of people that were giants, I can show more verses that attest to this, but this message will already be long enough so unless you ask, I'll leave this as sufficient.


You still refuse to believe. The only Greek text of Enoch is quoted from in the LXX. And what was the LXX? The Hebrew translated into the Greek. Again, you need to do more research. Which once again, shows the text was written several thousand years after the fact.

Again, do your research. There are 4. And none of them were recognized by the Jews or Christians.
This simply isn't factual. Jude was Jesus' brother, was Jewish, and a Christian, and not only did he directly quote from the first book of Enoch, but he also said that the person he was quoting from was the 7th born from Adam. In fact, the entire book of Jude talks constantly about Enoch. It's entirely ideas and points made and brought from the first book of Enoch that exist nowhere else but in the book of Enoch.

Paul also, a Jew, and a Christian, referenced Enoch being translated. A word only used in the book of Enoch. He then goes on to say things about Enoch that are only found in the book of Enoch.

I supplied you sources. Dispute them.

And again, 1 Enoch does not line up with scripture.

While Adam did sin, causing mankind to fall with him. Enoch places the fall on a watcher. In fact, Enoch flatly denies that it was Lucifer/Satan/the Devil.
I've told you this before. It wasn't Lucifer that made Eve take the fruit. No where in the bible does it say this.

It says the serpent, the serpent is satan. But our concept today of satan is skewed. It's not one being. HaShatan is where we get our term Satan from. The hebraic phrase "HaShatan" which literally means "the adversary" or "the enemy". Ha Shatan. Ha = The in hebrew. Shatan = adversary, or enemy in hebrew. HaShatan, literally means The enemy. Or The adversary. It's talking about many not one. One of the serpents did deceive Eve. Not Lucifer. The serpent. This is true, and it's what the book of Enoch talks of.

That's right, and until its proven as truth, you cannot teach it for truth. Same with the book of Enoch.



Did these "children" of the "giants" also inherit genetic material from the mother? We never hear of "giant" women.
I'm not sure. The fact that there may or may not have been giant women doesn't disprove anything we're talking about though. It is however an interesting question, that I'm probably going to have to look more into just because it's interesting.

:doh:

Have you considered that one reason lions and tigers might breed is because they are the same genus? Just like horses and donkeys. Male horse breeding with female donkeys produce "jacks". Males donkey with female horse produce jennys.




Have they grown to 40 feet long, and weighed thousands of tons?
This is just ridiculous. Are they also the seed of fallen angels?

And here we go. Cats can't breed with dogs. Dogs can't breed with birds. etc. And if they could, then more than likely they would be "sterile".

I have never disputed that the bible speaks of giants. I do, however, dispute that there were men that grew to 40, 450, 4500, or even taller than that.

And it still does not diminish the fact, that you are taking a non-canonical book, and teaching it as truth.

That right there says more than I could ever say.

God Bless

Till all are one.
The verse you're using for saying they were 2 miles tall, is a verse that only exists in the greek text. Neither the Aramaic, the Hebraic, nor the Ethiopian texts have that verse. It's only existent in the greek. The greek is very similar, but has many verses added, changed or greatly altered. It'd be equivalent to people 1000 years from now finding holy bibles, and then finding a Jehovah witness bible and writing off the validity of all bibles just because the JW's believe in some messed up altered things.

The Aramaic and Ethiopian texts are consistent with scripture, same thing with the book of Jasher. It's referenced by Joshua as factual, and it's referenced by King David as factual, and just as Enoch, it doesn't contradict or cross scripture. But merely gives beautiful compliments shedding light on things that seemed strange, or left questions in the air.

Like when Abraham was old, and went to sacrifice his son Isaac and Isaac was technically a young man, and could've easily stopped him. Yet, the book of Jasher talks about how Isaac essentially said, "whatever God wants you to do, if you want me to do it, I'll do it. Take my life, I love you dad" I mean that's a huge rough paraphrase, but it shows us that Isaac understood what was going on after they started walking, yet he was fine with it. It talks of Abraham's upbringing, and gives more insight on Nimrod, etc, etc. It fills in blanks, and goes perfectly alongside scripture.

I'm not condemning you for rejecting these books, but don't teach against them unless you yourself have read them. I know you haven't because of my constantly having to explain to you the greek text's errors. If you would've actually read them, instead of reading biased sources that demonize them, then I'd be fine with you rejecting them, but I'd be confused, because there's people that talk of them all throughout the bible. Trustworthy people.
 
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So I figured I would use an exhaustive concordance with resources to definitively support my stand that THE SONS OF GOD used in Genesis 6 were indeed people, and not angels. I copy and pasted this, this concerns the original Hebrew word used, so as to show the meaning, then after the definition it shows all the other usages of the same word or variations of the word to further expand on it.
ben: son
Original Word: בֵּן
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: ben
Phonetic Spelling: (bane)
Short Definition: sons
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
son
NASB Translation
afflicted (1), afflicted* (1), age (7), aliens* (2), Ammonites* (7), anointed* (1), arrow (1), arrows (1), Assyrians* (3), baby (1), Babylonians* (3), beasts (1), being* (1), Ben-hinnom* (7), bough (2), breed (1), brothers* (1), builders (1), bull* (21), bulls* (5), calf* (2), calves (2), calves* (1), child (2), children (111), children and on the grandchildren (1), children and their grandchildren (1), children and your children's (1), children and children's (1), children's (2), children's children (5), colt (1), colts (1), common (2), descendants (14), descendants of the son (1), deserves (2), exiles* (5), father* (1), fellow* (3), fellows (2), fertile* (1), foal (1), fools* (1), foreigner* (6), foreigners (1), foreigners* (10), Gileadites* (1), grandchildren (1), granddaughters* (1), grandson (6), heir* (1), high* (1), homeborn* (1), Israelites* (1), lambs* (2), lay (4), Levites* (1), low degree* (1), low* (1), man (5), man one old (1), man* (1), men (19), men of low degree* (1), men* (4), mortal (1), must (1), must surely (1), nephew* (2), nobility* (1), offspring (1), old (167), old when his son (1), one (1), one (2), one born (1), ones (1), ones* (1), opening* (1), overnight* (2), people (5), public* (1), revelers* (1), satellites (1), scoundrels* (1), sired (1), slaves (1), son (1876), son and his grandson (1), son and your grandson (1), son of and grandson (1), son was old (1), son's (16), son's son (1), sons (2369), sons and his grandsons (2), sons and his sons' (1), sons and on his sons' (1), sons and their sons' (1), sons and your grandsons (1), sons and your sons' (1), sons and grandsons (2), sons of the son (14), sons' (7), sons' sons (2), sparks* (1), those (1), those who (2), those who are doomed (1), those who were doomed (1), troops* (1), unfortunate* (1), valiant* (3), warriors (1), whelps (1), wicked* (3), young (28), young goats* (1), young men (1), youths (1).
 
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So I figured I would use an exhaustive concordance with resources to definitively support my stand that THE SONS OF GOD used in Genesis 6 were indeed people, and not angels. I copy and pasted this, this concerns the original Hebrew word used, so as to show the meaning, then after the definition it shows all the other usages of the same word or variations of the word to further expand on it.
ben: son
Original Word: בֵּן
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: ben
Phonetic Spelling: (bane)
Short Definition: sons
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
son
NASB Translation
afflicted (1), afflicted* (1), age (7), aliens* (2), Ammonites* (7), anointed* (1), arrow (1), arrows (1), Assyrians* (3), baby (1), Babylonians* (3), beasts (1), being* (1), Ben-hinnom* (7), bough (2), breed (1), brothers* (1), builders (1), bull* (21), bulls* (5), calf* (2), calves (2), calves* (1), child (2), children (111), children and on the grandchildren (1), children and their grandchildren (1), children and your children's (1), children and children's (1), children's (2), children's children (5), colt (1), colts (1), common (2), descendants (14), descendants of the son (1), deserves (2), exiles* (5), father* (1), fellow* (3), fellows (2), fertile* (1), foal (1), fools* (1), foreigner* (6), foreigners (1), foreigners* (10), Gileadites* (1), grandchildren (1), granddaughters* (1), grandson (6), heir* (1), high* (1), homeborn* (1), Israelites* (1), lambs* (2), lay (4), Levites* (1), low degree* (1), low* (1), man (5), man one old (1), man* (1), men (19), men of low degree* (1), men* (4), mortal (1), must (1), must surely (1), nephew* (2), nobility* (1), offspring (1), old (167), old when his son (1), one (1), one (2), one born (1), ones (1), ones* (1), opening* (1), overnight* (2), people (5), public* (1), revelers* (1), satellites (1), scoundrels* (1), sired (1), slaves (1), son (1876), son and his grandson (1), son and your grandson (1), son of and grandson (1), son was old (1), son's (16), son's son (1), sons (2369), sons and his grandsons (2), sons and his sons' (1), sons and on his sons' (1), sons and their sons' (1), sons and your grandsons (1), sons and your sons' (1), sons and grandsons (2), sons of the son (14), sons' (7), sons' sons (2), sparks* (1), those (1), those who (2), those who are doomed (1), those who were doomed (1), troops* (1), unfortunate* (1), valiant* (3), warriors (1), whelps (1), wicked* (3), young (28), young goats* (1), young men (1), youths (1).
Well, I mean all throughout the bible it talks of this, and calls them angels. It calls them the fallen angels that left their abode in the heavens, to make themselves like God here on earth. Which, the passage you linked attests to.

The angels were then punished by having to watch as their kin died, just as they forced God to do with His.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, I mean all throughout the bible it talks of this, and calls them angels. It calls them the fallen angels that left their abode in the heavens, to make themselves like God here on earth. Which, the passage you linked attests to.

The angels were then punished by having to watch as their kin died, just as they forced God to do with His.
hence the reason I used this concordance to show you, that sons of God, referred to here in Genesis 6, is not angels to any degree. If angels were meant, a word such as malak was used. You're making too many assumptions to propagate a fantastical interpretation of this to say angels had kids and that their punishment was watch their kids die. Clearly scriptures show that the lake of fire is their punishment. As the lake of fire was designed for that purpose. I would ask that you provide evidence and research, as I have, in supporting your claim.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
So I figured I would use an exhaustive concordance with resources to definitively support my stand that THE SONS OF GOD used in Genesis 6 were indeed people, and not angels. I copy and pasted this, this concerns the original Hebrew word used, so as to show the meaning, then after the definition it shows all the other usages of the same word or variations of the word to further expand on it.
ben: son
Original Word: בֵּן
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: ben
Phonetic Spelling: (bane)
Short Definition: sons
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
son
NASB Translation
afflicted (1), afflicted* (1), age (7), aliens* (2), Ammonites* (7), anointed* (1), arrow (1), arrows (1), Assyrians* (3), baby (1), Babylonians* (3), beasts (1), being* (1), Ben-hinnom* (7), bough (2), breed (1), brothers* (1), builders (1), bull* (21), bulls* (5), calf* (2), calves (2), calves* (1), child (2), children (111), children and on the grandchildren (1), children and their grandchildren (1), children and your children's (1), children and children's (1), children's (2), children's children (5), colt (1), colts (1), common (2), descendants (14), descendants of the son (1), deserves (2), exiles* (5), father* (1), fellow* (3), fellows (2), fertile* (1), foal (1), fools* (1), foreigner* (6), foreigners (1), foreigners* (10), Gileadites* (1), grandchildren (1), granddaughters* (1), grandson (6), heir* (1), high* (1), homeborn* (1), Israelites* (1), lambs* (2), lay (4), Levites* (1), low degree* (1), low* (1), man (5), man one old (1), man* (1), men (19), men of low degree* (1), men* (4), mortal (1), must (1), must surely (1), nephew* (2), nobility* (1), offspring (1), old (167), old when his son (1), one (1), one (2), one born (1), ones (1), ones* (1), opening* (1), overnight* (2), people (5), public* (1), revelers* (1), satellites (1), scoundrels* (1), sired (1), slaves (1), son (1876), son and his grandson (1), son and your grandson (1), son of and grandson (1), son was old (1), son's (16), son's son (1), sons (2369), sons and his grandsons (2), sons and his sons' (1), sons and on his sons' (1), sons and their sons' (1), sons and your grandsons (1), sons and your sons' (1), sons and grandsons (2), sons of the son (14), sons' (7), sons' sons (2), sparks* (1), those (1), those who (2), those who are doomed (1), those who were doomed (1), troops* (1), unfortunate* (1), valiant* (3), warriors (1), whelps (1), wicked* (3), young (28), young goats* (1), young men (1), youths (1).

I think you are misreading your concordance. These are not translations of the word 'ben' (Strong's H1121) but other words associated with them. In the Strongs's Concrodance, in the section called Signs Employed, just before the Hebrew dictionary. The plus sign (+) 'denotes a rendering in the AV of one or more Hebrew words in connection with the one under consideration.'

I looked up the Hebrew word 'ben' in the dictionary portion of Strong's and the plus sign is found in front of the 'NASB translation' you gave above. So everything you posted are other words used in connection with the word 'ben' (sons.)
 
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If I may elaborate on the reference of the other part of the phrase "sons of God". The same word in Genesis 6 for "of God", or simply "God" , haelohim (430), is used when Enoch walked with God, in 5:22, 5:24, and also when Noah did in 6:9. So prior to Genesis 6:2, there was already a precedent for a "son of God" See Strongs in reference to Genesis 31:11. This refers clearly to an "angel of God", and uses the word malak (4397) within the same context "of God". Not seeing where a son of God is referred to as an angel. I would hear further on the matter if it would be shown and clarified how I'm being mistaken.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
If I may elaborate on the reference of the other part of the phrase "sons of God". The same word in Genesis 6 for "of God", or simply "God" , haelohim (430), is used when Enoch walked with God, in 5:22, 5:24, and also when Noah did in 6:9. So prior to Genesis 6:2, there was already a precedent for a "son of God" See Strongs in reference to Genesis 31:11. This refers clearly to an "angel of God", and uses the word malak (4397) within the same context "of God". Not seeing where a son of God is referred to as an angel. I would hear further on the matter if it would be shown and clarified how I'm being mistaken.

Elohim is plural, 'gods.'
 
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
hence the reason I used this concordance to show you, that sons of God, referred to here in Genesis 6, is not angels to any degree. If angels were meant, a word such as malak was used. You're making too many assumptions to propagate a fantastical interpretation of this to say angels had kids and that their punishment was watch their kids die. Clearly scriptures show that the lake of fire is their punishment. As the lake of fire was designed for that purpose. I would ask that you provide evidence and research, as I have, in supporting your claim.
It said the sons of God. Then it references these sons, as the ones who went into women, and begat giants.

Giants generally don't come from men, especially not enough to create civilizations of them.

Also, it tells us that these sons, were the ones who begat the giants. Then later in the bible there's more explanation on this topic, that shows that there were angels that came down thinking they'd make themselves "gods" here on earth.
 
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It said the sons of God. Then it references these sons, as the ones who went into women, and begat giants.

Giants generally don't come from men, especially not enough to create civilizations of them.

Also, it tells us that these sons, were the ones who begat the giants. Then later in the bible there's more explanation on this topic, that shows that there were angels that came down thinking they'd make themselves "gods" here on earth.
show me the verses where it "explains" it. As I don't think there would be a discussion on the matter if it did.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Elohim is plural, 'gods.'
Elohim is plural. This signifies that God has many facets. This is shown when God said "let us make man in our image". It does not imply that there is more than one God. There is only one God. John explains this with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Early people had more than one deity in the Canaanite world. As more of God was revealed, their polytheistic views became monotheistic. Elohim incorporates all of who God is. He has many names. Elohim being plural is a perfect reflection of that principle. God has never changed. There is no pantheon of other gods with him. He is the father, son, and holy spirit in one perfect manner. As mankind was made "in his image", I would further explain "son of god". Jesus himself is called "his only begotten son", and we as believers, as brothers and sisters in Christ, are his people, and as such are his children. A tree is known by its fruit. Also if I may use this analogy of Lucifer (since we are talking fallen angels), and how the terminology is defined as "light bringer", a similar name for planet Venus. As such being a celestial being, in scriptures it states that each have their own glory and are distinct from each other. A son of God is a very specific "glory" and as such is not something that should be associated with an angel who had fallen with no hope for salvation. Even Judas, the son of perdition, had opportunity to repent and be saved. Fallen angels did and do not. If they were made to have kids, they would have been made as people.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Elohim is plural. This signifies that God has many facets. This is shown when God said "let us make man in our image". It does not imply that there is more than one God.

I disagree.
The early Hebrews believed in the entire pantheon of the Mid-Eastern gods but regarded El as the chief god and the only one they were permitted to worship. This is known as "henotheism". "Elohim" as plural simply refers to the rest of the gods. From there the Hebrews gradually moved into monotheism.
 
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I disagree.
The early Hebrews believed in the entire pantheon of the Mid-Eastern gods but regarded El as the chief god and the only one they were permitted to worship. This is known as "henotheism". "Elohim" as plural simply refers to the rest of the gods. From there the Hebrews gradually moved into monotheism.
I compare scripture with scripture. As it tells us to do.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,484
62
✟570,656.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
"He was a giant hunter and then became a Giant himself." What is that supposed to mean---he BECAME a giant?? Just how does one go about becoming a giant?
Has anyone encountered someone with other than human DNA??
This is all the bible has to say about Nimrod:

Gen_10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
Gen_10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
1Ch_1:10 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.
Mic_5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

Gen_10:6 And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.
Gen_10:7 And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.
Gen_5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen_6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Nimrod was the son of Cush (not a fallen angel)--Cush was the son of Ham (again, not a fallen angel) and Ham was the Son of Noah--definitely not a fallen angel.

Gen_10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
In Hebrew:"and Kush had brought forth Nimrod, he began to exist as a courageous one in the land,"
MTT: Genesis 10

Nimrod did not "become a giant"

This gives some insight into how this can be arrived at:

The story of Nimrod in the book of Genesis may illustrate how this could happen through genetic engineering or a retrovirus of demonic design that integrates with a host’s genome and rewrites the living specimen’s dna, thus making it a “fit extension” or host for infection by the entity. Note what Genesis 10:8 says about Nimrod:


And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.


Three sections in this unprecedented verse indicate something very peculiar happened to Nimrod. First, note where the text says, “he began to be.” In Hebrew, this is chalal, which means “to become profaned, defiled, polluted, or desecrated ritually, sexually or genetically.” Second, this verse tells us exactly what Nimrod began to be as he changed genetically—“a mighty one” (gibbowr, gibborim), one of the offspring of Nephilim. As Annette Yoshiko Reed says in the Cambridge University book, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity, “The Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 are always…grouped together with the gibborim as the progeny of the Watchers and human women.”[1] And the third part of this text says the change to Nimrod started while he was on “earth.” Therefore, in modern language, this text could accurately be translated to say: “And Nimrod began to change genetically, becoming a gibborim, the offspring of watchers on earth.”
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,484
62
✟570,656.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
So I figured I would use an exhaustive concordance with resources to definitively support my stand that THE SONS OF GOD used in Genesis 6 were indeed people, and not angels. I copy and pasted this, this concerns the original Hebrew word used, so as to show the meaning, then after the definition it shows all the other usages of the same word or variations of the word to further expand on it.
ben: son
Original Word: בֵּן
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: ben
Phonetic Spelling: (bane)
Short Definition: sons
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
son
NASB Translation
afflicted (1), afflicted* (1), age (7), aliens* (2), Ammonites* (7), anointed* (1), arrow (1), arrows (1), Assyrians* (3), baby (1), Babylonians* (3), beasts (1), being* (1), Ben-hinnom* (7), bough (2), breed (1), brothers* (1), builders (1), bull* (21), bulls* (5), calf* (2), calves (2), calves* (1), child (2), children (111), children and on the grandchildren (1), children and their grandchildren (1), children and your children's (1), children and children's (1), children's (2), children's children (5), colt (1), colts (1), common (2), descendants (14), descendants of the son (1), deserves (2), exiles* (5), father* (1), fellow* (3), fellows (2), fertile* (1), foal (1), fools* (1), foreigner* (6), foreigners (1), foreigners* (10), Gileadites* (1), grandchildren (1), granddaughters* (1), grandson (6), heir* (1), high* (1), homeborn* (1), Israelites* (1), lambs* (2), lay (4), Levites* (1), low degree* (1), low* (1), man (5), man one old (1), man* (1), men (19), men of low degree* (1), men* (4), mortal (1), must (1), must surely (1), nephew* (2), nobility* (1), offspring (1), old (167), old when his son (1), one (1), one (2), one born (1), ones (1), ones* (1), opening* (1), overnight* (2), people (5), public* (1), revelers* (1), satellites (1), scoundrels* (1), sired (1), slaves (1), son (1876), son and his grandson (1), son and your grandson (1), son of and grandson (1), son was old (1), son's (16), son's son (1), sons (2369), sons and his grandsons (2), sons and his sons' (1), sons and on his sons' (1), sons and their sons' (1), sons and your grandsons (1), sons and your sons' (1), sons and grandsons (2), sons of the son (14), sons' (7), sons' sons (2), sparks* (1), those (1), those who (2), those who are doomed (1), those who were doomed (1), troops* (1), unfortunate* (1), valiant* (3), warriors (1), whelps (1), wicked* (3), young (28), young goats* (1), young men (1), youths (1).
To understand that there were, in fact, giants in the preflood times and after that, is the first step..... It's plainly biblical.

To say that these giants came about by human men mating with human women leaves a lot of explaining to do... who were these men that caused other human women's children to grow to huge massive size?

It does not make sense.

However... angels that left their spirit bodily state and became earthly and mated with women... as the bible states, is a much more acceptable scenario.

Not only that but it then gives a parallel to the angels punishment that we hear of in Jude.... If these were not angels that mated with women... what was their crime? Of what other action of disobedience have a small group of angels done.. that we are aware of? This is the only sin that I can recall, in all the bible, that we are told of, that angels, other than just the fact that 1/3 of them fell with Satan...have committed.

Tell me, what, in your view, did these angels do when they "left their first estate" for which they are being punished.

The fact that there were giants of huge proportions is clearly evident in the massive megaliths all over the globe that cannot be reproduced with the technology of today....The size and engineering is still beyond our capability.

Not only were these beings huge but they were extremely intelligent and this is a real problem for the evolutionists as their model demands that humans, or our ancestors have been continually advancing in abilty and intelligence.

The archeological evidence that is now piling up is showing, strongly that, in the past, there were stronger, larger, more intelligent and advanced beings.

Kinda blows evolution out of the water...

Which is why evolution is on it's way out and a new lie.... aliens...... is the new counter God, counter creation, counter truth...
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
There are physical limitations to the size a human can grow to. The first such is known as the square-cube law. If a human were to be expanded to, say, three times his size while maintaining his same proportions he would not be three times heavier he would be three cubed or twenty seven times heavier. However, bone strength increases as the square of bone diameter so this hypothetical giant’s bone strength would not be three times greater, it would be three squared or nine times greater. In other words such a giant would have difficulty supporting his own weight without his bones collapsing under him. To illustrate, if a six foot tall man weighing 200 pounds were to be magnified three times, he would be eighteen feet tall and weigh 5400 pounds while his bone strength would only have increased enough to support 1800 pounds. Large animals in the animal kingdom can compensate for this by having a much more massive bone structure to carry the weight. Think here of animals like the elephant, the rhinocerus and the hippo.. Some animals can also compensate by spending a lot of time being bouyed in an aquatic environment. Whales are the largest creatures to have ever lived and they must spend their entire lives in water. In the event of beaching they eventually die of asphixiation because they lack the strength to work their own lungs without the support of water. Some humans suffering from genetic gigantism have grown as tall as 9 feet. Such individuals have mostly been “bean poles”. Almost all of them have been extremely frail and clumsy. The clumsyness arises from the speed with which nerve impulses can travel from brain to muscle. In modern times the largest in proportion human being was Angus MacAskill who stood 7’9” tall and was 425 pounds. He seems to represent an upper limit to “normal” human giants.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Radagast
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Elohim is plural. This signifies that God has many facets. This is shown when God said "let us make man in our image". It does not imply that there is more than one God. There is only one God. John explains this with "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Early people had more than one deity in the Canaanite world. As more of God was revealed, their polytheistic views became monotheistic. Elohim incorporates all of who God is. He has many names. Elohim being plural is a perfect reflection of that principle. God has never changed. There is no pantheon of other gods with him. He is the father, son, and holy spirit in one perfect manner. As mankind was made "in his image", I would further explain "son of god". Jesus himself is called "his only begotten son", and we as believers, as brothers and sisters in Christ, are his people, and as such are his children. A tree is known by its fruit. Also if I may use this analogy of Lucifer (since we are talking fallen angels), and how the terminology is defined as "light bringer", a similar name for planet Venus. As such being a celestial being, in scriptures it states that each have their own glory and are distinct from each other. A son of God is a very specific "glory" and as such is not something that should be associated with an angel who had fallen with no hope for salvation. Even Judas, the son of perdition, had opportunity to repent and be saved. Fallen angels did and do not. If they were made to have kids, they would have been made as people.

LOL!! You say that as though the Jews were some heathen tribe out there that gradually worked themselves into believing on only one God. Real story: There were no Jews until Abraham and from him came all the Jews. And from Abraham on they worshiped only one God as He did. However, they were surrounded by pagan gods and were easily led astray, And while in Egypt many were. God had to work with them to root it out. They began monotheistic--went into apostasy several times until they finally learned their lesson.
 
Upvote 0

Goatee

Jesus, please forgive me, a sinner.
Aug 16, 2015
7,585
3,621
59
Under a Rock. Wales, UK
✟77,615.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Divorced
There is no evidence what-so-ever that there were 'giants' like those that people talk about on here.

A 'giant' could be anyone above the average height of the times!

Monolithic structure have nothing to do with so called 'giants'
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
This gives some insight into how this can be arrived at:

The story of Nimrod in the book of Genesis may illustrate how this could happen through genetic engineering or a retrovirus of demonic design that integrates with a host’s genome and rewrites the living specimen’s dna, thus making it a “fit extension” or host for infection by the entity. Note what Genesis 10:8 says about Nimrod:


And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.


Three sections in this unprecedented verse indicate something very peculiar happened to Nimrod. First, note where the text says, “he began to be.” In Hebrew, this is chalal, which means “to become profaned, defiled, polluted, or desecrated ritually, sexually or genetically.” Second, this verse tells us exactly what Nimrod began to be as he changed genetically—“a mighty one” (gibbowr, gibborim), one of the offspring of Nephilim. As Annette Yoshiko Reed says in the Cambridge University book, Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity, “The Nephilim of Genesis 6:4 are always…grouped together with the gibborim as the progeny of the Watchers and human women.”[1] And the third part of this text says the change to Nimrod started while he was on “earth.” Therefore, in modern language, this text could accurately be translated to say: “And Nimrod began to change genetically, becoming a gibborim, the offspring of watchers on earth.”



The problem is this: The word itself is being interpreted without the context in which it is written--you can not do that with Hebrew. One word may have many meanings depending on how the text reads.
This is hiow it reads:
he~did~make~DRILL(Verb) {הֵחֵל / hey'hheyl} to~~>>~EXIST(Verb--he did drill to exist.
he began to exist
הֵחֵל
hey'hheyl
Definition: Anything that is bored through, perforated or drilled.
DRILL(Verb): Definition: To run into or through as with a pointed weapon or tool; pierce a hole through. Hebrew: חלל hh.l.l
Alternate Translations: begin, in the sense of pressing in (when written in the hiphil [active causative] form); defile (when written in the hiphil [active causative], piel [active intensive] or niphil [passive] form) Edenics: hole; hollow AHLB: 1173-B(V) KJV Translations: begin, profane, pollute, defile, break, wound, eat, slay Strong's: #2490
DEFILED: Definition: A polluted or tainted reputation; what is made common or fouled. Hebrew: חלל hha-lal-masc.חללה hha-la-lah-fem. Relation to root: As one drilled with holes. AHLB: 1173-B(N) KJV Translations: slay, wound, profane, kill Strong's: #2491
DEFILED: Definition: A polluted or tainted reputation; what is made common or fouled. Hebrew: חלל hha-lal-masc.חללה hha-la-lah-fem. Relation to root: As one drilled with holes. AHLB: 1173-B(N) KJV Translations: slay, wound, profane, kill Strong's: #2491
The word profane in Hebrew is chalal. This is totally the opposite of halal (praise) yet the words are so similar that we could easily mistake the two. The only difference is that the word chalal is spelled with a Cheth and the word halal is spelled with a Hei. Even the Cheth and the Hei are identical except that the Chet looks like a three sided rectangle. The Hei looks like a three sided rectangle only there is a little space in the upper left hand corner of the rectangle. Other than that, if you don’t look closely or the light is dim you could easily overlook that little space in the right hand corner of the rectangle and call it a Cheth (profane) rather than a Hei (praise).
The root הלל (halal) covers quite an array of meanings. The renowned Scripture theorist and father of modern Hebrew philology Wilhelm Gesenius squeezed all various meanings and nuances of halal into the central charge of splenduit. But almost a hundred years later, the authoritative dictionary of Brown, Driver and Briggs, listed two separate roots halal, each with their own group of meanings.

Three quarters of a century later, Harris, Archer and Waltke published their lexicon, and split the second root of Brown, Driver and Briggs in two, forming three distinct roots halal. This is of course wonderfully clever, but as mere readers of the Scriptures, we should never forget that to the Hebrews these three roots were indistinguishable.

Note that at first glance the form הלל (halal) may seem somewhat similar to חלל (halal, or chalal), but it's really quite different and no Hebrew poet would entertain a parallel between them.

הלל I
The verb הלל (halal I) denotes what lamps and celestial bodies do: shine, emit light (Job 31:26, Isaiah 13:10). This verb occurs a mere five or six times in the Bible, but it exists in cognate languages with similar meanings. In Job 41:10 this verb is employed to state how the sneezes of Leviathan "flash forth light". Equally enigmatic is a statement made by the prophet Isaiah, "How you have fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of dawn" (Isaiah 14:12). The noun translated with "shining one" is הילל (helel) and was derived from our root halal. BDB lists this word as an appellation, an epithet, but HAW interprets it as the proper name Helel.

הלל II
The identical verb הלל (halal II) means to be boastful or to praise (also see the other important praise-verb ידה, yada). Our verb הלל (halal) shows up all over the Bible, from praising God in a liturgical setting to letting it rip in an informal bout of worship. It's even used to convey praise for commendable people (Proverbs 31:30). This verb yields three derivations:

  • The masculine noun הליל (hillul), meaning praise or a rejoicing. It occurs only in plural: הלולים (hillulim), literally meaning congratulations or rejoicings (Judges 9:27, Leviticus 19:24).
  • The masculine noun מהלל (mahalel), again meaning praise but literally a "container" for praise. It occurs only in Proverbs 27:21 where silver and gold are tested in a crucible and a furnace, and a man in his "container for" praise.
  • The feminine noun תהלה (tehilla), meaning praise, song of praise or thanksgiving or adoration, or it denotes praiseworthy deeds. This noun occurs all over the Bible. HAW condenses the meaning of this beautiful noun as, "the results of halal as well as the divine acts which merit that activity".
הלל III
The troublesome verb הלל (halal III) means to be insane, or rather irrational. It yields two derivatives:

  • The feminine noun הוללה (holela), meaning madness (Ecclesiastes 1:17).
  • The feminine noun הוללות (holelut), meaning madness as well (Ecclesiastes 10:13).
Without designating a separate root, BDB carefully acknowledges a mere few occasions in which derivations of the halal stem may denote a kind of madness: Ecclesiastes 1:17 (compare to 2:12, 7:25), where the feminine noun הוללה (holela) seems grouped together with folly, and both contrast wisdom (see the "name" Hochma).

The other instance of halal-madness that BDB is willing to concede occurs in the same book: Ecclesiastes 10:13 (compare with 9:3), where the feminine noun הוללות (holelut) is modified by the word רעה (ra'a), the common Hebrew word for evil, and both reflect the result of a process that starts with speaking nonsense.

The younger lexicon of HAW, however, counts sixteen instances of this meaning of madness; enough to recognize a whole separate root (1 Samuel 21:13, Psalm 102:9, Jeremiah 25:16).

Note

Here at Abarim Publications we are not at all convinced that these three seemingly different groups of meanings are so dissimilar that the existence of three separate verbs is the only logical conclusion. Even after a century of quantum mechanics, many people still have the tendency to lean towards determinism; the erroneous idea that one thing invariably leads to another and every situational mode can be classified in its rigorous category. But black-and-white thinking is old, and in the Biblical arena it never even existed. Sure, good opposes evil but not the way that wisdom opposes folly. And halal can not be radically nested under the wings of either wisdom or folly, but is rather a third modus. In Ecclesiastes 2:12, Solomon resolves to look at (1) wisdom, (2) holela, and (3) folly, and not (a) wisdom and (b) holela-and-folly.

Halal denotes an exuberance, for whatever reason. It takes no great poetic leap to see symmetry between the shining of a star and the praising of a worshiper, certainly also because in the Bible true believers are compared to stars (Daniel 12:3). Halal denotes a letting go of restraints and inhibitions, and, entirely depending on the heart behind it, can result in either a complete surrender to God's control, or a detrimental flight without anyone at the helm. Halal can turn to either a most holy expression of devotion or else a blasphemous display of derangement.

And whether the act of halal is reckoned positive or negative also depends much on the heart of the spectator. The apostle Paul warns his followers to ease up on a typical halal-expression, namely speaking in tongues, when guests are in the congregation, lest they think the congregants are insane (1 Corinthians 14:23). And when David transports the Ark of the Covenant from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, he shows such a gladness that he surely acted out the verb halal II. When his wife Michal sees him, she insults him by readily applying verb halal III. David's response seems somewhat cool, but of Michal it was said that she remained childless until her death. Tradition has her struck with infertility but it may very well be that David stopped seeing her all together (2 Samuel 6:16-23).

A similar confusion occurs when spectators who have never personally experienced spiritual rapture see someone at it. Bernini's sculpture called the Ecstasy of Saint Teresa marvelously captures this rapture, but critics (and pop writers) recognize sexual euphoria. The usual battles ensued and raged, until a group of scientists took brain scans of people who were having sex and compared them to brain scans of people worshipping. Lo and behold, the exact same brain regions were activated in both groups (Andrew Newberg, John Horgan, also see Miracles: God, science, and Psychology in the Paranormal [2008] and Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion [2006]). The Bible frequently equates the relationship of God with His people to that of a husband with his wife, and now we know that this is more than a metaphor. In fact, it seems reasonable to conclude that a frequent bout of worship is an indispensable element of a healthy sex life.

It seems that we are designed to let go every now and then. When we let go in the presence of God, we'll be worshipping. When we let go but don't focus on God, we'll be doing lots of other things, most of which will cause grave trouble. It's no coincidence that in our times we see a decrease in divine experience, but an increase in what MTV calls partying. Lacking proper temples, our kids go loose in rave caves and surrender to nothingness. A pressing task of the church today is to reinstate the old halal (i.e. Hallelujah) tradition, the letting go in surrender to God.
The amazing word Hallelujah: meaning and etymology

Nimrod was 100% human and remained so. However, there is no amount of scholarly Jewish work, nor any amount of logic that will ever deter anyone from these silly fallen angels and human hybrid theories.
 
Upvote 0