Members DaveW Posted May 29, 2015 Members Share Posted May 29, 2015 I would only suggest that between the "sons of God, daughters of men" event, and the remnants of the Giants etc from Duet and Josh etc was a flood in which all life barring that which was on the ark (and sea life) died - including any of the line of "giants".Any post flood giants can not possibly be the result of the Gen 6 events but must be a new instance of giants. John Young 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited)  ​​O.K....I think you are missing my point."In those days"...refers, quite naturally to "those days"You are correct. The phrase: "And ALSO 'AFTER' THAT" can mean possibly commensurate with/ because of/ or (as I prefer) "After" that chronologically. Read simply: There were giants in those daysand also:    after thatThere is nothing whatsoever grammatically wrong with that. It does justice to the Hebrew text and the KJV. And my view squares with statement from later Scriptures which state that there were the remnants of the Giants.Remember to let Scripture explain Scripture.I have shown that there were Nephilim and Anakim at later periods as I quoted in these other Scriptures:Deut. 3 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, Josh 12 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants:I think the view I suggested makes very good sense of those passages, and blends them with the statement in Genesis 6 quite well. If that is not the case, than you simply have God choosing an incredibly unwieldy phrase like "and also after that" to simply mean "and they" or " they therefore" or "and thus they"....because that's what I think you are suggesting.Strongs translate "achar" there to mean this:after the following part, behind (of place), hinder, afterwards (of time)as an adverbbehind (of place)afterwards (of time)as a prepositionbehind, after (of place)after (of time)besidesas a conjunctionafter thatas a substantivehinder partwith other prepositionsfrom behindfrom following after I think your view would have us using the word to simply mean something like "therefore". I don't think that's as faithful to the text.​In addition to the context, neither the punctuation nor the grammar supports a meaning of "at a later time". The word "after", in the sentence, means the same as it does in "after his kind". Edited May 30, 2015 by heartstrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members heartstrings Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) If you punctuated it like this: remove the semicolon, add a period and capitalize "When", we could definitely say it means "at a later time". But then look at the next sentence. It no longer connects with the first. It's almost like a person with ADHD was writing it and had an "OH LOOK...A SQUIRREL" moment. Genesis 6:4 (re-punctuated)Â There were giants in the earth in those days and also after that. When the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown Edited May 30, 2015 by heartstrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Heir of Salvation Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) If you punctuated it like this: remove the semicolon, add a period and capitalize "When", we could definitely say it means "at a later time". But then look at the next sentence. It no longer connects with the first. It's almost like a person with ADHD was writing it and had an "OH LOOK...A SQUIRREL" moment.  ​Yes, admittedly, the flow from the Original into English is disjointed. Then again, there really is little to no punctuation in the Original Language, so, it's going to read that way in some places. And yes, I am reading the phrase "and also after that" as a parenthetical phrase....a liner note.... (Your "Oh look a squirrel") moment  But, I honestly think that is what the author is saying.  The author would indeed be, in my view, interrupting the narrative to throw in the parenthetical fact that Nephilim were also extant later as well. Of course, I think the author did it intentionally, and not as an after-thought, but, I can see why you don't like that. However, I don't know what else to do with it, and it reads rather rough when translated one way or the other. The KJV has and extremely long and unwieldy sentence structure here. That's to be expected when the sentence structure of the Hebrew (if there is one) is unwieldy itself. Here's the rest of the clause in KJV after the semi-colon:and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.Ow. that's rough no matter what. All the same, I appreciate your critique here. You've given us something to ponder!   Edited May 30, 2015 by Heir of Salvation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Heir of Salvation Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited)  ​I would only suggest that between the "sons of God, daughters of men" event, and the remnants of the Giants etc from Duet and Josh etc was a flood in which all life barring that which was on the ark (and sea life) died - including any of the line of "giants".​Yes, that line of Giants would be destroyed, and any future Nephilim would be a result of a later cause. Thus, it would be a scenario which is repeatable (one of the reasons I don't buy that it was women consorting with demons) . If it were, than God flooded the world in order to get rid of demon-spawn, and the demons simply went right back to their old tricks once again. The word used here in Genesis for "giants" (Nephilim) is repeated in Numbers 13:30.One way or the other, there were Giants then, in Noah's time, and later during the time of the Judges and the first Kings of Israel. Num 13:30Deut. 2:11Deut 2: 20Deut.3:11The question, is how to account for it.   Edited May 30, 2015 by Heir of Salvation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 Large men have and continue to be referred to as giants. This doesn't mean they are part supernatural beings or anything other than a larger than average human.Many Vikings, for instance, were much larger in size and stature than those they raided which sometimes led to others seeing them as giants.There are men today 7 feet tall and taller. They appear as giants next to a man of average or shorter height.It's long been common to refer to men considered great for one reason or another as "giants among men". This sometimes refers to their physical size, but often comes about because of their leadership abilities or exceptional skills they possess.The biblical references to giants seem clearly to be indicating mere men, even if they are of exceptional size.Even many of us who never followed "professional" wrestling are familiar with Andre the Giant; a large man.I see nothing in Scripture to indicate any of the giants referred to were anything other than larger than average men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beameup Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 (edited) Outside sources (considered "myth") indicate that these pre-flood giants were 20-30 feet tall. Goliath (for example) was perhaps 15 feet tall. I personally believe that they were genetically modified humans who were not subject to the "death" gene, and that their "spirits" are what we refer to as demons. Their "parent" fathers are, on the other hand, "the angels that sinned", referred to by Peter, and they are held inside the earth in a place called "tartarus" (from the Greek). Edited May 30, 2015 by beameup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 Outside sources (considered "myth") indicate that these pre-flood giants were 20-30 feet tall. Goliath (for example) was perhaps 15 feet tall. I personally believe that they were genetically modified humans who were not subject to the "death" gene, and that their "spirits" are what we refer to as demons. Their "parent" fathers are, on the other hand, "the angels that sinned", referred to by Peter, and they are held inside the earth in a place called "tartarus" (from the Greek).​I've never seen anything even remotely reliable to indicate the giants were that tall.Goliath, for example, is often said to have been about 9 feet, 9 inches tall. That figure comes from what's known of biblical measurements.There is no indication the giants were supernatural beings, anything other than above average sized mere men. They had no special powers, no protection from death, needed armour and weapons as did all other men in battle.Goliath was knocked out by a rock slung to his head which rendered him unable to prevent David from taking the giants own sword and cutting his head off.Goliath, and the other giants in Scripture, were very human. John Young 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 1Sa 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. ​the Bible is plain about Goliath height.There is variation in what a cubit measures, but not a huge variation.About 18" is the generally accepted figure for a cubit.That works out to 117".Rounding things out makes that about 10'15' is out of the possibility of the Biblical measurements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beameup Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 ​I've never seen anything even remotely reliable to indicate the giants were that tall.Goliath, for example, is often said to have been about 9 feet, 9 inches tall. That figure comes from what's known of biblical measurements.There is no indication the giants were supernatural beings, anything other than above average sized mere men. They had no special powers, no protection from death, needed armour and weapons as did all other men in battle.Goliath was knocked out by a rock slung to his head which rendered him unable to prevent David from taking the giants own sword and cutting his head off.Goliath, and the other giants in Scripture, were very human.​There are a lot of things we don't know about the pre-flood time.For example: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:Study the "Greek myths" (for example) and you will find god-man hybrids that were GIGANTIC men.By the time Goliath came by, there was deterioration of the human genome due to post-flood environmental factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted May 30, 2015 Members Share Posted May 30, 2015 ​There are a lot of things we don't know about the pre-flood time.For example: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:Study the "Greek myths" (for example) and you will find god-man hybrids that were GIGANTIC men.By the time Goliath came by, there was deterioration of the human genome due to post-flood environmental factors.​The Greek myths are just that, myths, they have no bearing upon what Scripture says.As to the "and live for ever" which you put in bold, we know the meaning of that and it has absolutely nothing to do with giants.Pre-flood and post-flood, giants were men; nothing more, nothing less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members beameup Posted May 31, 2015 Members Share Posted May 31, 2015 ​The Greek myths are just that, myths, they have no bearing upon what Scripture says. ​There are about 50 "tales" of a great flood recorded by ancient civilizations all over the world... are these "myths", as you say, as well?Besides, there are other sources that give insight into the nephilim, and they were not just "large men". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DaveW Posted May 31, 2015 Members Share Posted May 31, 2015 ​There are about 50 "tales" of a great flood recorded by ancient civilizations all over the world... are these "myths", as you say, as well?Besides, there are other sources that give insight into the nephilim, and they were not just "large men". How about plain Biblical sources? Genesis 6:4  There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.Note here plainly - there were giants.Sons of God are separate to them.The children "became mighty men...." a term which has more to do with a warrior.To try to make Giants, mighty men, and sons of God the same thing is simply to misunderstand basic grammar.The mighty men were warriors of reputation.The giants were big men.The sons of God? Often, if not always, refers to God fearing men.The only cases where it "might" mean angels are at best vague. John81 and No Nicolaitans 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MountainChristian Posted June 1, 2015 Members Share Posted June 1, 2015 Why does the Bible say men? It would say hybrids if they was hybrids.    No Nicolaitans and heartstrings 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members No Nicolaitans Posted June 1, 2015 Members Share Posted June 1, 2015 Why does the Bible say men? It would say hybrids if they was hybrids.  Unfortunately, there are people who will look for "examples" in the Bible of what they can twist into hybrids. I once heard a preacher use the following as an example to prove that hybrids existed in the past; therefore, they will exist again...2 Samuel 23:20And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man, of Kabzeel, who had done many acts, he slew two lionlike men of Moab: he went down also and slew a lion in the midst of a pit in time of snow:See, those men were part man and part lion... ​ MountainChristian 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.