Were biblical Nephilim actual giants or large imagination?

[Zzyzx]

.
According to the bible the Nephilim were offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge according to Genesis 6:4; the name is also used in reference to giants who inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan according to Numbers 13:33

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." (Gen. 6:1-4).

Did such beings exist?

Is there evidence that the Earth was once (antediluvian) populated by such beings?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 20 by bjs]

The Bible does not claim that Nephilim were the offspring of the “sons of God� and the “daughters of men.� It only says that the Nephilim were on earth in those days, not that they were children of the “sons of God� and the “daughters of men.�

I said that claims you made about the Bible were in error. I stand by that statement

.

That was the claim I am referring to. You said unequivocally that the bible specifically makes no claim that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of god and daughters of men. That ZZ was without doubt wrong and his translation was wrong. Even though some translations do support his claim.

I would also like to see some evidence to support that you are on the majority side on this issue do you have any references to the consensus on this particular passage in the bible?

[bjs]

[Replying to post 20 by bjs]

The Bible does not claim that Nephilim were the offspring of the “sons of God� and the “daughters of men.� It only says that the Nephilim were on earth in those days, not that they were children of the “sons of God� and the “daughters of men.�

I said that claims you made about the Bible were in error. I stand by that statement

.

That was the claim I am referring to. You said unequivocally that the bible specifically makes no claim that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of god and daughters of men. That ZZ was without doubt wrong and his translation was wrong. Even though some translations do support his claim.

I don’t think Z’s translation is wrong on this account. His claim about what the text says was in error. In fact, to my knowledge all of the translations on the list you gave in post 11 agree on this point. None of them say that the Nephilim were the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men.

Z used the KJV as an example of the text, so I will use that translation to demonstrate my point.

The text says:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
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.

In this passage we are told that the sons of God took wives from the daughters of men. We are told that they bore children who became “mighty men� and “men of renown.� We are also told that there were giants (Nephilim) in those days.

We are told that the “Nephilim� and the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men were on earth at the same time. At no point does this passage say that these “mighty men� and these “Nephilim� were one in the same.

[AdHoc]

.

I don't even know what a satyr is.

In Greek and Roman mythology, the satyr was a half-man/half-beast god and the word is used repeatedly in the Old Testament.

I know I've already conceded this point but the satyr reference has irritated me a bit like a splinter in my mind for the last few days so I asked a few people why the KJV includes the two references to satyrs.

One person told me that in classic literature the satyr was used to evoke the idea of a wicked or night creature. Isaiah was prophesying about a time when Babylon would be overrun and left an ininhabited wasteland taken over by night creatures. The word that is usually translated hairy goat was in these two cases translated "satyr". Is it possible that during the 1600s when the translators looked at the context of these two passages that they decided satyr was the best way to relate the idea of a wasteland given over to creatures of the night?

OR...

Apparently during the 17th century the Orangutang was called a Satyr. The KJV was written in the 17th century could this be the reference?

Regardless of the truth, thank you Zzyzx for giving me something to ponder. Any reference to the word satyr will never again pass by me without some degree of interest.

[Zzyzx]

.

We are told that the “Nephilim� and the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men were on earth at the same time. At no point does this passage say that these “mighty men� and these “Nephilim� were one in the same.

Isn't it interesting that one can "read into" the bible whatever they wish to find.

All sorts of stretches, redefinitions, and blaming translations are evoked to "explain" what does not make sense.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 23 by AdHoc]

To the second part that would seem impossible. The Orangutan was not known to western civilization until 1799 whereas the KJV was commissioned in 1604 and finished 1611.

The translation of satyr is a bit tricky hairy goat is not quite an accurate description. Really it is context dependent. Mostly it means a Man Goat or demon goat. It is essentially the personification of a demonic presence in a corporal form i.e. male hairy goat.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 23 by AdHoc]

To the second part that would seem impossible. The Orangutan was not known to western civilization until 1799 whereas the KJV was commissioned in 1604 and finished 1611.

We're probably going to get called out for being way off topic but this is interesting...

About 1600, the first European travellers to return from Borneo and Sumatra brought back scary stories of wild red-haired people living in the forest. They said these wild creatures hunted women and girls from the villages and dragged then into the forest.
They called these creatures 'forest people' and anyone who knows a little Malaysian will know who they were talking about: 'orang' means 'man', and 'utan' is 'forest' in Malaysian. - http://orangutan.flevoland.to/boekgeschiedenis-e.html

I know you can find all kinds of weird stuff on the internet but hey as long as it confirms my bias I'll cut 'n' paste it.

This puts knowledge of the satyrical orang-outang in Europe 199 years before your date and 11 years before the KJV was completed.

Lots of time.

[bjs]

.

We are told that the “Nephilim� and the children of the sons of God and the daughters of men were on earth at the same time. At no point does this passage say that these “mighty men� and these “Nephilim� were one in the same.

Isn't it interesting that one can "read into" the bible whatever they wish to find.

All sorts of stretches, redefinitions, and blaming translations are evoked to "explain" what does not make sense.

Indeed. For instance, the opening post tries to “read into� the text the Nephilim were the offspring of the “sons of God� and the “daughters of men,� despite the fact that the text never says this.

Instead of complaining about “stretches, redefinitions, and blaming translations,� you could try actually defending your position.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 26 by AdHoc]

Alright the narwhals thing was a bit hard to stomach but come on man now you are really stretching it here. It doesn't even make sense in the context of the verse to have orangutan when given there is a hebrew word in which they are translating it from which literally means


שָׂעִיר
sair : a satyr, demon:—
NASB - demons(1), satyrs(1)

not Orangutan.


I really honestly feel that you are not a particularly serious individual. Sarcasm doesn't translate easily so forgive me if I am misreading you. But the whole orangutan argument doesn't make sense factually or contextually.

You have to remember they are also translating it from an ancient text which is more likely

Orangutan or demonic goat

when given the definition from the word they are using is quite literally a demonic goat man. At the most mundane it is goat not orangutan. Putting Orangutan makes no sense whatsoever did the Jewish tribes of Israel cross paths with Orangutans? Were the translators aware of orangutans? if they were why would they use it? Were there Orangutans wondering about the middle east?

just because something is possible doesn't mean its logical.

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 26 by AdHoc]

Alright the narwhals thing was a bit hard to stomach but come on man now you are really stretching it here. It doesn't even make sense in the context of the verse to have orangutan when given there is a hebrew word in which they are translating it from which literally means


שָׂעִיר
sair : a satyr, demon:—
NASB - demons(1), satyrs(1)

not Orangutan.

Where did you find this definition because it literally means hairy goat.

I really honestly feel that you are not a particularly serious individual. Sarcasm doesn't translate easily so forgive me if I am misreading you. But the whole orangutan argument doesn't make sense factually or contextually.

You think I'm funny?

You think I'm here to amuse you?

What am I... Your clown or something?

You have to remember they are also translating it from an ancient text which is more likely

Orangutan or demonic goat

when given the definition from the word they are using is quite literally a demonic goat man. At the most mundane it is goat not orangutan. Putting Orangutan makes no sense whatsoever did the Jewish tribes of Israel cross paths with Orangutans? Were the translators aware of orangutans? if they were why would they use it? Were there Orangutans wondering about the middle east?

just because something is possible doesn't mean its logical.

OK OK its not an Orang outang but my point is more the meaning and connotation of the word satyr. Think about how the orang outang was perceived at first and why it was first called a satyr. This gives us some clue as to why the word sa'ir is translated satyr in two cases in the KJV when the rest of the 50 odd times its translated goat.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 29 by AdHoc]

No I don't think your entertaining. That is part of the problem. Making absurd arguments like satyr doesn't mean satyr it means orangutan is not a serious proposition and then you go on to defend that non serious proposition. It is hard to take someone as being serious when they act in such a manner. You also accused me of photoshoping pictures of narwhals. As if they don't exist?

I am ok with all of that really we can't expect everyone to know everything. But when we get corrected on something that is obviously wrong. It is ok to move on from that. To defend such a position that without doubt is incorrect and when given the proper resources to understand it is not correct. The only logical conclusion I can make is that you are trying to make some sarcastic point.

I know you can find all kinds of weird stuff on the internet but hey as long as it confirms my bias I'll cut 'n' paste it.

case in point. YOU KNOW its weird but your going to do it anyways. So don't act all insulted when I ask if you are being serious or not. ITS A VALID QUESTION.

Think about how the orang outang was perceived at first and why it was first called a satyr. This gives us some clue as to why the word sa'ir is translated satyr in two cases in the KJV when the rest of the 50 odd times its translated goat.

It is fair to say that the Sa'ir in the bible is not the same as the mythological Satyr. But there is a key difference here. Hebrew words often depend on the context in which they are written. Eloyhim for example can mean gods kings governers etc. THE CONTEXT is important.

Sa'ir can mean goat, hairy, hairy, goat, male goat, man goat, demon, or man goat demon. THE CONTEXT is important. In this case it can mean goat or demon or satyr. What is important is what follows. Is the personification of the word. So when they translated you have goat personified in a human fashion as dancing. Now the translators are familiar with a dancing goat man in their european mythos that is the Satyr.

רָקַד raqad

רָקַד
raqad;
a prim. root;

to skip about:—
NASB - bounding(1), dance(1), frolic(1), leap(1), leaping(1), skip(2), skip about(1), skipped(1).


The logical conclusion hence is that the translators used what was familiar to them at the time of translation. Satyr fits the bill as a dancing goat as that is often how it is portrayed in European mythology.

Later translations use goat because that is what is familiar to them.

BOTH can be right. It is not clear just a matter of perception.