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]

Now how this all relates to the translation of Nephilim just being really big people or giants?

It humanizes the translators. They were not divinely inspired if there remains such ambiguous translation differences. Like

Sa'ir

Goat or Satyr?

Ask someone in the 16th century its a Satyr ask someone in the 21st century its a goat. (even though goat doesn't make sense in the context)

So nephilim giants or really big people?

ask someone in BC it means giant ask someone in the 21st century it means really big person.

If the words and meanings can be soooo dynamic how can we say that they were divinely inspired by an eternal being? why all the supernaturalism to begin with?

[Zzyzx]

.

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

My position is that bible tales indicate that "sons of god" (whatever that means) impregnated "daughters of men" (whatever that means) and that Nephilim and "men of renown" were represented in the same paragraph.

I maintain that the whole thing has not been shown to be anything other than human imagination.

If I was a theist perhaps I would also scramble and stretch trying to defend the tale as truthful (because it being false would cast doubt upon other bible stories -- and if bible stories cannot be trusted the entire base of Christianity is questionable at best). That is one of the best reasons for not being a Theist in my opinion.

[bjs]

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

My position is that bible tales indicate that "sons of god" (whatever that means) impregnated "daughters of men" (whatever that means) and that Nephilim and "men of renown" were represented in the same paragraph.

I agree with this. My earlier response was aimed at what you wrote in the opening post, which is different from this position you are now taking.

I maintain that the whole thing has not been shown to be anything other than human imagination.

As of yet we have no reason to believe that the whole thing is only “human imagination.� Of course it is possible that the whole nothing but human imagination - anything is possible. Can you provide us with a reason to relegate this passage to human imagination?

If I was a theist perhaps I would also scramble and stretch trying to defend the tale as truthful (because it being false would cast doubt upon other bible stories -- and if bible stories cannot be trusted the entire base of Christianity is questionable at best). That is one of the best reasons for not being a Theist in my opinion.

As of yet, neither scrambling nor stretching is required. I currently have nothing to defend against other than the vague notion that this passage might possibly be fictional.

[Zzyzx]

.

As of yet we have no reason to believe that the whole thing is only “human imagination.� Of course it is possible that the whole nothing but human imagination - anything is possible.

Yes, the Nephilim and "men of renown"(whatever those things are purported to mean as "interpreted" by religionists) may have been imaginary / fictional / mythical, etc -- or they may have actually existed. There is evidently no evidence to indicate the latter

Can you provide us with a reason to relegate this passage to human imagination?

Heck no the whole matter is nothing but conjecture / opinion / hearsay. I do, however, point out that imagination seems likely since human imagination is much more common than giants or crossbreeding of humans and extraterrestrial or supernatural beings (to the best of modern knowledge).

Of course, many claim knowledge of giants and crossbreeds after reading ancient tales that form the basis for religious beliefs -- even though originators of the tales are unknown and their sources of information cannot be verified -- and there is no physical evidence. However, the need to BELIEVE is evidently very strong in many people.

If I was a theist perhaps I would also scramble and stretch trying to defend the tale as truthful (because it being false would cast doubt upon other bible stories -- and if bible stories cannot be trusted the entire base of Christianity is questionable at best). That is one of the best reasons for not being a Theist in my opinion.

As of yet, neither scrambling nor stretching is required. I currently have nothing to defend against other than the vague notion that this passage might possibly be fictional.

Bible believers might choose to attempt a defense of the tale of Nephilim and "men of renown" to be truthful. Others may consider them fictional. Those who read these threads can decide for themselves whether the bible tale is likely true or not -- and if it is not literally true, whether that casts doubt on bible tales in general.

[AdHoc]

[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 was joking. Seriously dude, step back from the ledge.

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.

I think this is a very good observation and I would add languages change over time so the context of the time the books were translated is important as well.

For example, virtue and charity mean different things today than when the KJV was written.

[bjs]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

You are switching your position too quickly for me to follow. Post 32 and post 34 present completely different understandings of the passage. Which one is your actual position?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to Zzyzx]

You are switching your position too quickly for me to follow. Post 32 and post 34 present completely different understandings of the passage. Which one is your actual position?

My position is that bible tales indicate that "sons of god" (whatever that means) impregnated "daughters of men" (whatever that means) and that Nephilim and "men of renown" were represented in the same paragraph.

I maintain that the whole thing has not been shown to be anything other than human imagination.

Yes, the Nephilim and "men of renown"(whatever those things are purported to mean as "interpreted" by religionists) may have been imaginary / fictional / mythical, etc -- or they may have actually existed. There is evidently no evidence to indicate the latter

the whole matter is nothing but conjecture / opinion / hearsay. I do, however, point out that imagination seems likely since human imagination is much more common than giants or crossbreeding of humans and extraterrestrial or supernatural beings (to the best of modern knowledge).

Of course, many claim knowledge of giants and crossbreeds after reading ancient tales that form the basis for religious beliefs

Perhaps it is difficult for some to follow that I maintain in both posts that imagination is likely (bold red), and that in the first post indicate what the bible stories appear to claim.

Has adding bold and color made it clear enough to be understood?

[bjs]

.

[Replying to Zzyzx]

You are switching your position too quickly for me to follow. Post 32 and post 34 present completely different understandings of the passage. Which one is your actual position?

My position is that bible tales indicate that "sons of god" (whatever that means) impregnated "daughters of men" (whatever that means) and that Nephilim and "men of renown" were represented in the same paragraph.

I maintain that the whole thing has not been shown to be anything other than human imagination.

Yes, the Nephilim and "men of renown"(whatever those things are purported to mean as "interpreted" by religionists) may have been imaginary / fictional / mythical, etc -- or they may have actually existed. There is evidently no evidence to indicate the latter

the whole matter is nothing but conjecture / opinion / hearsay. I do, however, point out that imagination seems likely since human imagination is much more common than giants or crossbreeding of humans and extraterrestrial or supernatural beings (to the best of modern knowledge).

Of course, many claim knowledge of giants and crossbreeds after reading ancient tales that form the basis for religious beliefs

Perhaps it is difficult for some to follow that I maintain in both posts that imagination is likely (bold red), and that in the first post indicate what the bible stories appear to claim.

Has adding bold and color made it clear enough to be understood?

Um, no, the parts highlighted in red clearly do not agree with each other.

The common ground between the two posts is that you think it is possible that the text only comes from human imagination.

However, it post 32 you claim no knowledge about who the “sons of god� or who the “daughters of men� are. You also claim that the only connection between their offspring and the Nephilim is that they are mentioned in the same paragraph.

In post 34 you claim that the Nephilim are giants, that the “sons of god� are “extraterrestrials or supernatural beings,� and that they cross breaded with humans to produce these giants.

These two posts clearly take different and contradictory positions. Which one is your actual position?

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to Zzyzx]

You are switching your position too quickly for me to follow. Post 32 and post 34 present completely different understandings of the passage. Which one is your actual position?

I maintain that the whole thing has not been shown to be anything other than human imagination.

point out that imagination seems likely since human imagination is much more common than giants or crossbreeding of humans and extraterrestrial or supernatural beings

Um, no, the parts highlighted in red clearly do not agree with each other.

The common ground between the two posts is that you think it is possible that the text only comes from human imagination.

Agreed, that is the common ground.

However, it post 32 you claim no knowledge about who the “sons of god� or who the “daughters of men� are. You also claim that the only connection between their offspring and the Nephilim is that they are mentioned in the same paragraph.

In post 34 you claim that the Nephilim are giants, that the “sons of god� are “extraterrestrials or supernatural beings,� and that they cross breaded with humans to produce these giants.

Since we agree that I regard the entire issue as an imaginary tale -- and since you probably recognize that I am not given to flights of imagination (or giving credibility to those flights by others), it might be wise to conclude that I take no position regarding the characteristics or actions of imaginary entities.

Thus, when I mention characteristics that is decidedly NOT my projection -- but the projection of bible writers or bible promoters / defenders.

I absolutely do not propose that Nephilim existed, or were the product of extraterrestrial matings, or that races of giants existed. I leave that sort of speculation to others. They are free to imagine whatever they wish -- and to provide evidence if they try to convince others that their tales are true.

These two posts clearly take different and contradictory positions. Which one is your actual position?

Has this matter been clarified sufficiently or should it be simplified more?

[ten10ths]

.
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?

I'm reading a book about giants. It seems, from what I've seen, there were literal giants that were mortal and existed. Though we need to define 'giant' here. From my experience, 'giants' are mostly 6-10-ish feet tall - nothing like the fairy tales of 20+ feet tall.
I don't believe much, if anything, in the bible was real strictly as it is read today, but glamorized by writers and editors of the bible.
Silly really