There are no giants in the original bible

Nice try. The Aramaic root word naphil, is a singular noun meaning giant. The text supports that interpretation and more.

sitchiniswrong.com...

originally posted by: SevenThunders
Nice try. The Aramaic root word naphil, is a singular noun meaning giant. The text supports that interpretation and more.

sitchiniswrong.com...

You probably should have read the whole thread, your claim is correct, your understanding of the fluidity of language is not. What the word giant means today, is not what it meant then.
couple of illustrative quotes for you

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

www.etymonline.com...

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

en.wikipedia.org...(Greek_mythology)

So today, it means "huge humanoid", but back then it basically meant "powerful". This is easily attested by the fact that the other nouns such as Rephaim and Anakim, also translated in later versions of the bible as "Giants" are described in different passages as "tall"..

I started this thread, because this forum is constantly bombarded by Evangelical Christians who use the claim of "Giants" in the bible, to make claims for the monumental architecture in the ancient world.
Giants built the pyramids, the bible proves it
Giants built Baalbek, the bible proves it
Giants built pretty much everything that these believers can't understand, because they fail to see that humans are both intelligent and inventive enough to have built it all, no giants, required

originally posted by: Generation9
This stuff used to puzzle me back in the days when I took everything so literally. One has to change one's thinking in order to understand such things. The giant or Nephilim were what we would call wise men or learned natural scientists or something along the lines of philosopher maximus. They were the thinkers of their day. They were the ''fallen'' ones in the sense that they were consciously existing in the lower matter. The quote says "in" the Earth. The fallen ones were thinking big thoughts in their invisible world of higher consciousness while simultaneously living in their earth bodies. These are metaphorical stories you are reading. Noah's ark was his pregnant wife. She is big as a mountain after 40 days and nights of gestation. You got it. Days and nights meaning weeks. Life came out of her. First the water subsided and then life came out. William Cooper's UFO sighting is a coded reference to the Sun rising out of the water. Jesus "walked" on water, was seen high up in a cloud, etc. Jihad is a personal spiritual battle for understanding and rebirth. Christians are born again. The Sun turns around and moves the other way perceptually and noticeably in about three days. Jihad is rewarded with 72 virgins. You get it? Virgin birth. Rebirth. 72 hours equals 3 days. Jesus in the tomb 3 days. These are all very interesting stories. Open your mind, take out the gray matter and wrap it around your skull in the form of a mothership carrying Farrakhanian insight. The LOLz shall continue until you understand. And then you can leave this place, grasshopper.

ummm 5 pillars of islam

360 degrees in the circle and divided by 5 is 72. The pentagram you can form with five pillars in the circle also allows for the calculation of Phi, so I guess you could fit that in with rebirth.

The virgin thing works better with geometry.

-FBB

a reply to: Marduk

Actually as a christian we know that the Nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels and had any number of outstanding physical characteristics, so this really isn't anything new. They were also voracious and highly destructive.

However there are hundreds of cases of outsized skeletal remains found throughout the world not to mention detailed stories of human interaction with oversized humanoids. North and South American aborigines have a number of stories about doing battle with them.

They were known to be fierce, cannibalistic and sexually perverse.

There also has been a concerted effort to destroy any trace of their existence, but there are simply too many fossil examples now and recorded in history to deny their existence.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: Marduk

There are also no giants in New York.

Contrary to what the internet - and many, many, many reports - would have you believe.

But I suppose those who think there were giant in the past also assume these guys are 20ft tall?

www.giants.com...


And I think that proves the point?

Thats your Opinion !

I think other wise ! ?

Media / Internet ?

I'm from New York of where that legend is
of those Claimed Giants.

originally posted by: SevenThunders
However there are hundreds of cases of outsized skeletal remains found throughout the world.

Well now, no, no there isn't, there are misidentified mastodon bones and there are tall people and there are lots and lots of fakes made by Evangelical Christianity, internet hoaxes and just plain old stupidity
none of which stands up under scrutiny.
I have yet to see a single bone of a giant.
Unless you have one ?

originally posted by: chr0naut


When translated into Latin (for the Vulgate) they used the word "Gigantes". The gigantes were the children of Gaea in Greek mythology, also known as the Titans, a half-breed; part human, part God who opposed the gods of Olympus.

I don't think that it is a simple situation of mistranslation. Phlegon of Tralles, writing in the 2nd century AD, describes a number of giant stories and the "relics" associated with them which, in some cases he also investigates and debunks. Augustus reputedly had a collection of the bones of giants. Phlegon variously reported them to be the bones of whales or petrified remains of creatures long dead. He also reports the finds of stone labrys, and their alien nature to their finders which leads to their subsequently being attributed magical properties. "Giant" bones were similiarly held to have magical properties and were a source of attraction. It appears such things in Hellenistic times were carried around and displayed, much the same as the Freak Shows of the 18th and 19th centuries (and ever adaptively before and beyond in some form or other). None of the bones were human giants, obviously, but while Phlegon in the 2nd century was the incredulous cynic (about giants at least) he points to a period of at least 500 years prior where giant bones were the done thing and everyone wanted one, which combined with a material manifestation-expectation of gods developed through their anthropomorphism of the environment. The Romans had their own "giant" traditions, but adopted the material manifestation of the Greeks as the ruling model, hence it's linguistic carry through and all it's subsequent remnants.

I see it as more of a misunderstanding than a mistranslation by the Alexandrian Jews.

a reply to: Marduk

Good golly you sure do love the abrasive replies. But I have to say you are mistaken in quite a few places. I haven't the attention span to get into it but what...I dunno, the last point on Goliath for example. Its not necessarily the KJV that is to blame for this while I just read the Bible in English my first time and I agree kjv is a mess and I say shame on Christians who call kjv the infallible word of God when the slightest research would tell them good old mason loving James and colleagues very obviously twisted some parts to include Masonic references and even removed a book so those Christians are calling him God I guess or his servant on earth who knows. But the size error shows several versions with four several with six and all from the same time. There are many theories as to how the inconsistency happened but they're pretty certain the most likely reason was that a well circulated version 1900-1600 years ago simply had a lettering error and they agree this error would have made possible a change from 4 to 6 but not 6 to 4. So where it's almost sure he wasn't probably six Curtis, it IS possible but more possible is that 4 was meant as several versions coming from original Hebrew attest as well as 5 which other original Hebrew versions say. And since cubic is elbow to fingertip, it could even be the original number was translated to a different measurement then when texts still available now that came from that were being written, somebody 're converted the measurement to Curtis which for THAT writer was closer to five than four and a half. Problem is we will never know unless different texts are found from earlier periods since one stray mark after hundreds of years could have snowballed into gosh knows how big an error that could show up in every single surviving text hiding the original true verse forever and with it, possibly teaching the wrong belief about anything contained in the Bible, it's creepy to think. The most imperative thing to follow in abrahamic religion and only road to salvation could be praying with a mouth full of sawdust standing on your head while someone bongos shave and a haircut on your butt cheeks for all we know if people consider the fact that, although something as sacred and circulated as the torah or bible would be very unlikely to fall victim, the smallest error in spelling or. accidental omission after the huge span of time the Torah has existed could in the end produce something similar to the effect of the kids game telephone. You know, "Skinner says the teachers will crack ANY minute, purple monkey dishwasher!"

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
a reply to: Marduk

Good golly you sure do love the abrasive replies. But I have to say you are mistaken in quite a few places. I haven't the attention span to get into it but what...I dunno, the last point on Goliath for example. Its not necessarily the KJV that is to blame for this "

No, its the Septuagint, every previous Bible states he was 6'7
This has already been discussed in the thread, you appear to be basing your entire writing on the op and don't appear to know what you're talking about the rest of the time
there's a lot more information in the rest of the pages which has made your claim superfluous

Also, your phone has corrected Cubit to Curtis

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
a reply to: Marduk
I haven't the attention span to get into it

That can be dangerous here on ATS.

Its not necessarily the KJV that is to blame for this while I just read the Bible in English my first time and I agree kjv is a mess and I say shame on Christians who call kjv the infallible word of God when the slightest research would tell them good old mason loving James and colleagues very obviously twisted some parts to include Masonic references and even removed a book (snip)

You probably need to read up on how the Bible came to be. It wasn't handed down as one or two books, but was composed from a selection of hundreds of religious manuscripts.

Wikipedia has this fascinating article on the subject

And there are ancient versions of books of the Old Testament that are different from the modern books and from each other.

most likely reason was that a well circulated version 1900-1600 years ago simply had a lettering error and they agree this error would have made possible a change from 4 to 6 but not 6 to 4.

If you look over at www.blueletterbible.com... you will find a lot of study tools, including links to transcriptions of the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts. More links to versions of Bible books are here

In any case, as has been pointed out before, the books of the Bible used different words that were translated as "giant" by the English translators.

In any case, no one has come up with links to physical evidence of a big bunch (thousands) of people who were over 8 feet tall. They've come up with stories from various places including magazines that were primarily adventure fiction, but nobody has come up with an archaeological site.

And with "large numbers" of giants reported around in the Bible (which would have been within the past 6,000 years) there should be a bunch of bones and houses and tools and so forth. No one's been able to link to any.

Tradition says that Og's bedstead was actually his crib.
Enoch says that the human women mated with the angelic creation and brought forth giants. Not Nephiliym but giants. The giants in turn brought forth the race of Nephiliym and the Nephiliym in turn brought forth the Elioud. These three races along with the race of Adam made four races. When you re read the scriptures of this thread you can realize that all three races (by tradition) were interrelated in the biblical accounts. Take that in consideration as you will.

originally posted by: Seede
Take that in consideration as you will.

Since you give me the option, I choose not to.

Harte

a reply to: SevenThunders

Actually as a christian we know...

Allow me to correct that for you: 'Actually as what I call a Christian, I think'...

However there are hundreds of cases of outsized skeletal remains found throughout the world

On the contrary, there is not one such case that has been scientifically verified.

They were known to be fierce, cannibalistic and sexually perverse.

They were known to be bunkum.

There also has been a concerted effort to destroy any trace of their existence, but there are simply too many fossil examples now and recorded in history to deny their existence.

Show us the proof.

a reply to: Marduk
There are several words that are translated 'giants' in the biblical manuscripts...
...here are some...

There are 36 of Tribes of 'Giants' mentioned in the Bible:

Amalekites
Amorites
Anakims
Ashdothites
Aviums
Avites
Canaanites
Caphtorims
Ekronites
Emins
Emins
Eshkalonites
Gazathites
Geshurites
Gibeonites
Giblites
Girga#es
Gittites
Hittites
Hivites
Horims
Horites
Jebusites
Kadmonites
Kenites
Kenizzites
Maachathites
Manassites
Nephilim
Perizzites
Philistines
Rephaims
Sidonians
Zamzummins
Zebusites
Zuzims


There are also 22 individual 'Giants' mentioned, by name, in the Bible:

Adonizedec – King of Jerusalem
Agag – King of the Amalakites
Ahiman
Amalek
Arba
Beelesath
Gog and Magog
Gogmagog
Goliath
Hoham – King of Hebron
Horam – King of Gezer
Jabin – King of Hazor
Jobab – King of Madon
Lahmi
Nimrod
Og of Bashan
Ogias – Og’s father
Perizzites
Sheshai
Sihon – King of the Amorites
Sippai
Talmai

originally posted by: troubleshooter
a reply to: Marduk
There are several words that are translated 'giants' in the biblical manuscripts...
...here are some...

There are 36 of Tribes of 'Giants' mentioned in the Bible:

SNIPPED IRRELEVANCE

that's odd, because there isn't anyone named as a giant in the original version, except for Goliath, who is 6'7
search.freefind.com...

Perhaps, for some reason, which is more than likely your belief system, you have completely missed the point

sounds like you are a bit biased, op.

looking like an insect sounds like one was big one was small…

and this size difference is why the israelis were afraid to confront them…

Megalithomania Interview with Jim Vieira: Giants on Record in North America
youtu.be...

a reply to: Astyanax

everyone knows the proof has been taken and destroyed by smithsonian and others

Megalithomania Interview with Jim Vieira: Giants on Record in North America
youtu.be...

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
sounds like you are a bit biased, op.

Yes, because I have read the entire thread and you haven't, when you get around to it, you'll see why the entire giant thing is nonsense

and this size difference is why the israelis were afraid to confront them….

No, they were afraid to confront the established tribes in Canaan because they were established tribes and the Israelites were unprepared interlopers

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: Astyanax

everyone knows the proof has been taken and destroyed by smithsonian and others

Megalithomania Interview with Jim Vieira: Giants on Record in North America
youtu.be...

Actually the claim that the Smithsonian has hidden anything was invented by David Hatcher Childress to sell books in which his claims had no evidence.
www.jasoncolavito.com...
Otherwise can you explain to me why there is no evidence of giants anywhere in the world, do you think the Smithsonian has a global reach,

As regards the pseudoscience of Jim Vieira, you should read this
tedxshelburnefalls.wordpress.com...

a reply to: Marduk

if you are so concerned about fakery, just research the theory of evolution and all the hoaxes they have perp'd over the years to sway public opinion…

Heroditus too, mentions a Spartan blacksmith who discovers a giant skeleton buried in a large coffin…

a reply to: Marduk

Alexander the Great's troops also report fighting a race of 7 ft.+ giants…

the fossil record clearly shows giant skeletons of all kinds of animals: dragon flies w 3 ft. wings, giant beavers, crocodiles that could eat T-Rex, etc etc

the environment was more conducive to giantism, imo (more oxygen and electromagnetism)…

post flood giants still existed, but they were less agile and were easier to kill as oxygen and electromagnetism decreased, IMO.

it is not a stretch even without actual skeletons (BUT LOTS of reports of them) and with the foot prints in stone that do exist…and some photos…documented reports of giants being dug up, etc…


Megalithomania Interview with Jim Vieira: Giants on Record in North America
youtu.be...