KJV mistranslates "nephilim" as "giants"?

[jamesnc2006]

Num 13:33
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

...I think it's pretty obvious that they are talking about "giants", and yes this is the same word translated from "nephilim", just as in Genesis. The KJV Bible means what is says, and if it is trying to use symbolism, or anything else, it shows in the "context", maybe someone needs to look that word up!

[IM4given]

First of all, I never have appreciated the title of this thread - " KJV mistranslates "nephilim" as giants? " There are NO mistranslations in the KJV Bible.

I think we have finally laid to rest the notion that angels and human beings intermarried. The Bible clearly states that this is physically impossible, because angels never marry or are given in marriage. They are a completely different creature than human beings and cannot procreate.

Now we are asking ourselves and doubting if there ever were giants??? The Bible clearly and unmistakably says there were giants:

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.

Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Deuteronomy 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

Deuteronomy 2:20 (That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims;

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.

Deuteronomy 3:13 And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

Joshua 12:4 And the coast of Og king of Bashan, which was of the remnant of the giants, that dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei,

Joshua 13:12 All the kingdom of Og in Bashan, which reigned in Ashtaroth and in Edrei, who remained of the remnant of the giants: for these did Moses smite, and cast them out.

Joshua 15:8 And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward:

Joshua 17:15 And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.

Joshua 18:16 And the border came down to the end of the mountain that lieth before the valley of the son of Hinnom, and which is in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to Enrogel,

[Kubel]

Num 13:33
And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

...I think it's pretty obvious that they are talking about "giants", and yes this is the same word translated from "nephilim", just as in Genesis. The KJV Bible means what is says, and if it is trying to use symbolism, or anything else, it shows in the "context", maybe someone needs to look that word up!

You will find that the Numbers account is a lie by spys who were cowards and didn't want to enter into the land. I think the context reveals that it was an "evil report".

The Bible clearly states that this is physically impossible' date=' because angels never marry or are given in marriage. They are a completely different creature than human beings and cannot procreate.[/quote']

What about the angels that came to warn Lot and his family? Why did Lot have to offer them his daughters if he really didn't think the angels in physical form were about to be gang raped? The inhabitants of that land wanted to have sex with them. Angels are spiritual, but there's proof that they take the form of physical males numerous times in the Bible. If they take physical form with short hair and a large build, who's to say their physical makeup stops there. Not to mention that the angels Christ was speaking of were His angels which kept their first estate. Not rebels who fell with Satan.



The issue here is not about mistranslation, it's about original inspiration- and the meaning of a specific word that God inspired man to write. I (as well as many others, including moderate KJVOs) believe that the original Hebrew can hold a deeper and more precise meaning than English- and in this case it does, so many of us do not completely throw out the idea of hybrids. The root word is "Nephilim" and it holds a much deeper meaning than just "giants". It opens up the interpretation of a possible hybrid race (and I must say that this interpretation is conceivable). That's what this discussion really boils down to. The belief in the Nephilim does not always have to turn into a KJVO issue. There are many KJVOs that believe in a hybrid species.



I don't believe it has been finally laid to rest. I think this debate will go on for ages as long as people are willing to look deeper into the Bible- and not just look at a word on the surface.

[Calvary]

What about the angels that came to warn Lot and his family? Why did Lot have to offer them his daughters if he really didn't think the angels in physical form were about to be gang raped? The inhabitants of that land wanted to have sex with them. Angels are spiritual, but there's proof that they take the form of physical males numerous times in the Bible. If they take physical form with short hair and a large build, who's to say their physical makeup stops there. Not to mention that the angels Christ was speaking of were His angels which kept their first estate. Not rebels who fell with Satan.

Amen, amen and amen.

Put to rest? I think it's just silly to keep arguing with Janet and Heartstrings over something they refuse to see. The both of you take thses thread farther than they ever would have gone if not for the constant nick picking. I think you both have a hang up about it.


:Bleh :Bleh :Bleh :Bleh :loll: :loll: :loll:

[Jerry]

What about the angels that came to warn Lot and his family? Why did Lot have to offer them his daughters if he really didn't think the angels in physical form were about to be gang raped? The inhabitants of that land wanted to have sex with them. Angels are spiritual, but there's proof that they take the form of physical males numerous times in the Bible. If they take physical form with short hair and a large build, who's to say their physical makeup stops there.

There is nothing in the context of Genesis 19 that indicates that Lot knew at that point in time that these men where angels.

[Calvary]

@ Jerry,

Makes no difference what Lot thought. The appearance was sufficently male. I would be hard pressed to believe that they were all male and manly yet were some sort of "eunuch" in that department. It's stretching the Bible to make it conform to one's already preconcieved ideas of what Genesis 6 is saying.

Now angels are sexless? Since when?

God bless,

Calvary

[IM4given]

I believe that angels are actualy spiritual beings of light created by God, who sometimes take the shape of humans in order not to frighten them. I do not for one instant believe that angels have any solid form or shape and I do not believe that they are capable of copulating with human females. There is no scriptural support for that. Their is only one marvelous and mystical account of a human ever being born with supernatural parentage, and that was Jesus Christ himself. To say that others were also born with supernatural parentage diminishes the virgin birth , IMHO.

To think that angels have flesh and blood human form is merely Roman Paganism. Early Greeks and Romans believed that their gods were basically human beings with superhuman abilities and their mythology abounds with marvelous men who were the products of hybrid humans/gods. There is no basis what so ever to believe that such hybrids ever existed.

If the Angels that God created took the appearance of human beings and some of those real human beings thought they were so good looking that they desired to hug and kiss on them - that is not evidence that the Angels #1 were physically capable of responding to that desire, and #2 had a likewise mutual desire to perform that act.

Acts 12:7 And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly

[Calvary]

I believe that angels are actualy spiritual beings of light created by God, who sometimes take the shape of humans in order not to frighten them. I do not for one instant believe that angels have any solid form or shape and I do not believe that they are capable of copulating with human females. Janet 3:14

:smile

[IM4given]

I believe that angels are actualy spiritual beings of light created by God, who sometimes take the shape of humans in order not to frighten them. I do not for one instant believe that angels have any solid form or shape and I do not believe that they are capable of copulating with human females. Janet 3:14

:smile

That is just being hateful. Where are your scriptures to show me that Angels are the same as human beings?!?! :loco

[Kubel]

I would be hard pressed to believe that they were all male and manly yet were some sort of "eunuch" in that department.

Exactly what I was getting at (although I couldn't figure out how to word it as appropriately). :lol

I think there's plenty of room for the nephilim interpretation, in all the verses one can bring up in relation to Genesis 6- none of them disagree. I just think that people are comfortable with the current interpretation since it's been the most common for the past few centuries, and that the other more original interpretation is so bizarre that people today just don't have enough faith that such a crazy thing could ever have possibly happened (or that would happen again- as the Bible says that the end will be like the days of Noah). But people used to believe it. The Apocryphal books and other writings (not considered inspired, but they do give an accurate idea of what the people of that time thought) are filled with this interpretation.

"In those days, when the children of man had multiplied, it happened that there were born unto them handsome and beautiful daughters. And the angels, the children of heaven , saw them and desired them; and they said to one another, 'Come, let us choose wives for ourselves from among the daughters of man and beget us children.' And Semyaz, being their leader, said unto them,'I fear that perhaps you will not consent that this deed should be done, and I alone will become (responsible) for this great sin.' But they all responded to him, 'Let us all swear an oath and bind everyone among us by a curse not to abandon this suggestion but to do the deed.' Then they all swore together and bound one another by (the curse) And they were altogether two hundred;"
1 Enoch 6:1-7


"For it was on account of these three things [fornication, uncleanness, and injustice - see Jubilees 7:20] that the flood was on the earth, since (it was) due to fornication that the Watchers had illicit intercourse - apart from the mandate of their authority - with women. When they married of them whomever they chose they committed the first (acts) of uncleanness. They fathered (as their) sons the Nephilim."
Jubilees 7:21-22


"These are the Grigori, who with their prince Satanail rejected the Lord of light, and after them are those who are held in great darkness on the second heaven, and three of them went down on earth to the place Ermon, and broke through their vows on the shoulder of the hill Ermon and saw the daughters of men how good they are, and took to themselves wives, and befouled the earth with their deeds, who in all times of their age made lawlessness and mixing, and giants are born and marvellous big men and great enmity. And therefore God judged them with great judgment, and they weep for their brethren and they will be punished on the Lord's great day."
2 Enoch 18:3-4

[lettheredeemedsayso]

Angels are all male.

[IM4given]

I won't bore anyone with the entire article, just with the part that describes the Appearnace of Angels....

In the Hebrew Bible, angels often appear to people in the shape of humans of extraordinary beauty, and often are not immediately recognized as angels (Genesis 18:2, Genesis 19:5; Judges 6:17, Judges 8:6; 2 Samuel 29:9). Some fly through the air, some become invisible, sacrifices touched by some are consumed by fire, and some may disappear in sacrificial fire. Angels, or the Angel, appeared in the flames of the thorn bush (Genesis 16:13; Judges 6. 21, 22; 2 Kings 2:11; Exodus 3:2). They are described as pure and bright as Heaven; consequently, they are said to be formed of fire, and encompassed by light, as the Psalmist said (Psalm 104:4): "He makes winds His messengers, burning fire His ministers." Some verses in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon depict angels wearing blue or red robes but no such reference occurs in the Protestant books. Angels can be sent from or by God on certain missions, for certain people. They can assume the natural form of a human being, and are believed to be able to live among them, sometimes for an entire life span. They are thought of as kind, caring, comforting, beautiful, and saviors of "special" men who have gone, or are going, to the dark (they make them happy, free, and feel loved like never before; they also are believed to have stayed with humans, in fear of "re-conversion" to the dark, as a part of God's will to make them learn the "meaning of life"). Though superhuman, angels can assume human form; this is the earliest conception. Gradually, and especially in post-Biblical times, angels came to be bodied forth in a form corresponding to the nature of the mission to be fulfilled?generally, however, the human form. Angels bear drawn swords or other destroying weapons in their hands?one carries an ink-horn by his side?and ride on horses (Numbers 22:23, Joshua 5:13, Ezekiel 9;2, Zechariah 1:8 et seq.). A terrible angel is the one mentioned in 1 Chronicles 21:16,30, as standing "between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand". In the Book of Daniel, reference is made to an angel "clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude" (Daniel 10:5-6). This imagery is very similar to a description in the book of Revelation. Angels are thought by many to possess wings. This has arisen from references to their ability to fly (Daniel 9:21). In fact, they are never described in the Bible as having wings, and only depicted in Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian art from the times of the Roman emperor Constance. They are commonly depicted with halos. In Christian iconography, the use of wings is a convention used to denote the figure as a spirit. Depictions of angels in Christian art as winged human forms, unlike classical pagan depictions of the major deities, follow the iconic conventions of lesser winged gods, such as Eos, Eros, Thanatos and Nike. Angels are portrayed as powerful and dreadful, endowed with wisdom and with knowledge of all earthly events, correct in their judgment, holy, but not infallible: they strive against each other, and God has to make peace between them. When their duties are not punitive, angels are beneficent to man (Psalms 103:20, Psalms 78:25; 2 Samuel 14:17,20, 2 Samuel 19:28; Zechariah 14:5; Job 4:18, Job 25:2). The number of angels is enormous. Jacob meets a host of angels; Joshua sees the "captain of the host of the Lord"; God sits on His throne, "all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on his left"; the sons of God come "to present themselves before the Lord" (Gen. xxxii. 2; Josh. v. 14, 15; I Kings, xxii. 19; Job, i. 6, ii. 1; Ps. lxxxix. 6; Job, xxxiii. 23). The general conception is the one of Job (xxv. 3): "Is there any number of his armies?" In the book of Revelation, the number is "a thousand thousands, and many tens of thousands". Though the older writings usually mention one angel of the Lord, embassies to men as a rule comprised several messengers. The inference, however, is not to be drawn that God Himself or one particular angel was designated: the expression was given simply to God's power to accomplish through but one angel any deed, however wonderful. Angels are referred to in connection with their special missions as, for instance, the "angel which hath redeemed," "an interpreter," "the angel that destroyed," "messenger of the covenant," "angel of his presence," and "a band of angels of evil" (Gen. xlviii. 16; Job, xxxiii. 23; II Sam. xxiv. 16; Mal. iii. 1; Isa. lxiii. 9; Ps. lxxviii. 49, R. V.). When, however, the heavenly host is regarded in its most comprehensive aspect, a distinction may be made between cherubim, seraphim, chayot ("living creatures"), Ofanim ("wheels"), and Arelim (another name for Thrones). God is described as riding on the cherubim and as "the Lord of hosts, who dwelleth between the cherubim"; while the latter guard the way of the Tree of Life (I Sam. iv. 4, Ps. lxxx. 2, Gen. iii. 24). The seraphim are described by Isaiah (vi. 2) as having six wings; and Ezekiel describes the ?ayyot (Ezek. i. 5 et seq.) and ofanim as heavenly beings who carry God's throne. In post-Biblical times, the heavenly hosts became more highly organized (possibly as early as Zechariah [iii. 9, iv. 10]; certainly in Daniel), and there came to be various kinds of angels; some even being provided with names, as will be shown below.

Appearance of Angels

[IM4given]

Angels are all male.

Another clip from the same article...

Although most theologians in the cultures mentioned above (Latter-day Saints excepted; see above) would agree that angels are technically genderless in the normal human sense, all references in the Jewish, Christian and other holy writings mentioned above give angels a masculine aspect; for example, angels are given tasks such as warrior, herald, guard (at the gates of Eden), wrestler (of Jacob), mover of large stones (at the tomb of Christ), which in traditional societies would all have been tasks typically performed by men. The few canonical names of angels (e.g., Michael, Gabriel and Lucifer) are recognized in most cultures as masculine names. In languages with gender markings for nouns, the word "angel" is uniformly a masculine noun, including in the original Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts referred to above. In cultures where the proper name "Angel" is given to children, the name "Angel" is typically given to boys (girl's versions of the name include "Angela" and "Angelica").[20] The word "angel" in English, French, German, Spanish, and many other European languages is derived from the Latin angelus, a masculine noun. The Hebrew equivalent, Mal'ak, is also a masculine noun. However, in Turkish which uses the word Melek derived from Arabic (and Hebrew) is used as a girl's name although Melek's are considered genderless in accordance with the Islamic belief. In art, however, angels are always beautiful, which tends to mean their features are often rather feminine - even for warrior archangels, their hair is usually long, and their figures somewhat slight. In European medieval and Renaissance paintings of the Annunciation the archangel is usually depicted as noticeably more attractive than Mary - she could not be painted in a way that might inspire lustful thoughts, whilst no such problem arose with a genderless angel. Angels in art become more sexually differentiated from the nineteenth century, after which breasts and masculine figures and haircuts appear. In modern Western culture, many angels are depicted as having female figures, facial features and names, and many New Age practitioners speak of masculine and feminine angels.

Gender of angels

[Jerry]

Makes no difference what Lot thought. The appearance was sufficently male. I would be hard pressed to believe that they were all male and manly yet were some sort of "eunuch" in that department. It's stretching the Bible to make it conform to one's already preconcieved ideas of what Genesis 6 is saying.

Hm, last I checked, my comments were in reference to GENESIS 19. Perhaps you need to go back and reread what I said, instead of reading into my statements.

[Guest Guest]

Early Greeks and Romans believed that their gods were basically human beings with superhuman abilities and their mythology abounds with marvelous men who were the products of hybrid humans/gods.

Someone said once that in all myths there is an element of truth. An example would be all the various accounts of the biblical flood throughout the world and in many cultures most of the story is bunk except for the part about the flood. I think this also goes for the giants (titans). Most ancient cultures talk about these giants even though they may embellish the stories with other myths.

Wil