Giant People in the bible?

Hi ochaye, and welcome to EvC.Thank you.

quote:

---

I wonder what you think about other references to giants in the Bible. Do you think that only Gen 6:4 is speaking of tyrants, or do you think that other Biblical references to giants have similar explanations?

---

No, just this one. The scholarly consensus is that Genesis 1-11 is allegorical, being based on existing story myths. In Numbers 13 the context is obviously one of gigantism- "We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." Now whether that refers to real giants, with a good slice of hyperbole thrown in, or whether it is a story to make a spiritual point, I would not like to say.

The main problem I have with that is that Numbers 13:33, which makes the grasshopper reference uses the same term nphiyl (Nephilim), as Genesis. You say that nphiyl means tyrant or villain, but in Numbers, it pretty clearly means giant. The sons of Anak very definitely are giants, in the mythological sense. Here the Nephilim are identified with Anak.To my mind, the term "sons of God" sounds like it is referring to some sort of supernatural beings, most likely angels. Certainly this is the case in other works, such as the Book of Enoch which specifically describes the Nephilim as the sons of fallen angels. It seems to me that the Nephilim are a race of supernaturally endowed humans, most likely giants.Perhaps you can point to an example of the term nphiyl being used in a clearly non-supernatural context?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

quote:

---

nphiyl means tyrant or villain

---

Every Hebrew lexicon indicates something like that.

Hi Ochaye,

quote:

---

Every Hebrew lexicon indicates something like that.

---

Is that all you have to say? I am aware that the lexicons list this definition, but what I want to know is why you think that this particular definition is the one that is being used in Gen 6:4. After all, I think you will find that the lexicons also carry the definition of "giant" for nphiyl. The "tyrant" meaning seems to come more from the etymology of nphiyl rather than the context in which it is being used here.Which is correct? Which is being used here? How do we know?I think that the passage is referring to giants because the term nphiyl is used in both Gen 6:4 and in Num 13:33 and Numbers is definitely talking about giants. That Gen 6 mentions that the Nephilim were sired by the "sons of God" lends a distinctly supernatural context.Why should nphiyl mean tyrant in Genesis, but giant in Numbers? And why does this view of the Nephilim contrast so markedly from the supernatural descriptions that abound elsewhere in the Bible and in other sources? Can you show me an example of nphiyl being used in a straightforwardly non-supernatural context?Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

The primary characteristic of "tyrant" seems to fit very neatly with the arrogant nature of the Nephilim. These were evidently proud men claiming descent from the gods-- or later deified to godlike status. That they were physical giants in stature can now be understood as a secondary attribution, and not primary.Hero and ancestor worship is nothing new. Josephus equated the Nephilim to the Grecian Gigantes -- a proud race cast down.The Book of Deut. chapter 2 (written 600's BCE) clearly makes the "Rephaim" synonymous to all the aboriginal giants which supposedly existed in Trans-Jordan, and southern Palestine and variously called Anaqim, Emim and Zamzummim by different peoples.Further study of who the "Rephaim" were can help solve the issue of who the Nephilim were. The texts found at Ugarit which date roughly to 1200 BCE, indicate that the Rephaim were essentially viewed as "the honored dead", or more precisely the spirits of dead kings of ancient time venerated as heroes or minor gods. These spirits were occasionally summoned for good luck and fertility, but had permanent abode in the underworld-- The book of Isaiah mentions the Rephaim as shades which reside in Sheol evermore, never to rise again. (Similar to the Gigantes and Titans)The Rephaim texts from Ugarit place strong emphasis in the Bashan and Transjordan region as a primary cultic center, or as Deut. chapter 3 calls it, "a land of the Rephaim" (A land of the dead). The god Rapah, known as Milik (The king) was venerated at Atarat and Edrei. This is precisely where the Bible locates the legendary Og, king of Bashan.Bashan, the Golan, and all of Transjordan is considered a megalithic graveyard of dolmens and burials dating from the 5th - 3rd millenniums BCE. Few places in the middle-east match the number and size of these megaliths. Thousands have been found.Ironically, these dolmens and burials are sometimes called "giants beds"-- And they look like stone beds too. Is it any wonder that the size of the "bed" of king Og ( 13 feet X 6 feet) roughly approximates the dimensions of many dolmens?Megalithic burials may have inspired the belief in a race of giants as it had in Britain and Europe (Stonehenge). However, real champions like Goliath and the mighty warriors of Gath seem to hearken to some historical context involving champions or mercenary soldiers of prodigious size. The oldest texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, and the Greek Septuagint all attribute Goliath a height of 4 cubits and 1 span -- About 7 feet tall. Later traditions exaggerate this claim to 6 cubits and a span by the time of the Masoretes. The book of II Samuel connects Goliath and the warriors of Gath to the mythological ancestry of the Rapha (Rephaim and Anakim -- the exonerated dead giants of old).Papyrus Anastasi mentions Shasu warriors in Canaan about 1200 BC, said to be 4-5 cubits tall (7-8 feet).
Alcaeus of Lesbos c. 600 BC mentions a giant warrior who lacked 1 span from 5 cubits in height (7 feet), but was killed by his brother Antimenidas who served under Nebuchadnezzar in his campaign in Palestine, probably the siege of Ashqelon. Nicephorus tells of Antonius of Syria, in the reign of Theodosius, who stood 7 feet 7 inches tall. Pliny mentions an Arabian named Gabara who stood 9 feet 9 inches, and Josephus mentions a Jew named Eleazar who was 7 cubits tall (10 feet), though I take any claim over 9 feet to be exaggerated.The human skeleton seems to be limited to giants of 7 to 9 feet, and such giants are rare in anycase. The same laws of nature would have applied to Goliath, king Og, and all the giants of ancient time, regardless if their stature was genetic or a result of gigantism.

Hi John,

quote:

---

The primary characteristic of "tyrant" seems to fit very neatly with the arrogant nature of the Nephilim.

---

I agree and that would seem to be a reasonable explanation for the etymology of their name. It does not, however, imply that the Nephilim were merely human tyrants, as ochaye was attempting to argue. It is clear from the context that they were a supernatural race and one of prodigious size.

quote:

---

These were evidently proud men claiming descent from the gods-- or later deified to godlike status.

---

That is one possibility and it strikes me as reasonable, but not without problems. The Nephilim are always mentioned as the enemy; they are the bad guys. If the claim of divinity originated with tyrants/human rulers, they were evidently no friends of the Hebrew people. Why would the Bible authors acknowledge the divinity of their enemies? History is written by the victors after all. I find it hard to see how this works.

quote:

---

That they were physical giants in stature can now be understood as a secondary attribution, and not primary.

​

Hero and ancestor worship is nothing new. Josephus equated the Nephilim to the Grecian Gigantes -- a proud race cast down.

---

These two statements contradict each other somewhat. They are only secondarily giants, yet Josephus compared them to the gigantes, a race of supernatural giants? Does it not seem more likely that the two giant myths are primarily mythic stories with similar themes, rather than primarily being jumbled tales of human rulers?Many cultures have tales of giants. These two share a great deal of similarity. I see that as being evidence of cross-fertilisation between cultures and of a primarily mythic origin for the Nephilim.Your material on the Rephaim is very interesting and you make a strong case. Could the presence of these supernatural figures perhaps indicate a local cult that was woven into the biblical mythos? It's an interesting idea.

quote:

---

However, real champions like Goliath and the mighty warriors of Gath seem to hearken to some historical context involving champions or mercenary soldiers of prodigious size... {snip} The book of II Samuel connects Goliath and the warriors of Gath to the mythological ancestry of the Rapha (Rephaim and Anakim -- the exonerated dead giants of old).

---

A historical basis as the origin of the Goliath story is possible and seems pretty reasonable. Tales of a mighty warrior could easily have been exaggerated and then later connected to the lineage of the Nephilim. I don't think that we can meaningfully say that any of these Bible stories are historical though. They are simply too vague and confused to make good historical sources. They read as myth, not history. I do see though, that there may well have been a historical kernel that gave rise to them.My main reason for posting here was to answer ochaye's attempt to rob the Nephilim of Genesis of any supernatural connotation. I think that is a mistake. I think that, whatever the origin of the stories, the Nephilim are clearly intended to be viewed as a supernatural race, the offspring of the sons of God. It is attempts to attach a wholly mundane meaning to the text that I object to, not attempts to trace the (likely mundane) origin of the tales.

quote:

---

The human skeleton seems to be limited to giants of 7 to 9 feet, and such giants are rare in anycase. The same laws of nature would have applied to Goliath, king Og, and all the giants of ancient time, regardless if their stature was genetic or a result of gigantism.

---

Well yeah, sure; if they were real. If they were fictional characters, or even if they were exaggerated versions of real figures, their height could be whatever you want it to be...

---

As an aside, I found something interesting, when browsing through the early pages of this thread. It is an image that EvC member Homonculus, (AKA "The Overmind") posted a little while ago to back up his "biblical giants=giant cubits=really big ark" theory. The image is a painfully obvious photoshop job, depicting archaeologists unearthing a giant skull.Homunculus' original post is here; Message 211.The image he cited is here; http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/...s/9104_ke%20giant%202.jpgThe image posted to this thread by Nighttrain is here;http://rookery2.viary.com/...698000/698198_9dd2_625x1000.jpgGuess what? The second image carries the logo of Worth1000, the popular (and excellent) Photoshop competition site.FAIL.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

I suppose it is my theory or hypothesis that some of the jumbled rulers of ancient times were later viewed as giants of supernatural prodigy. This is certainly true for the Rephaim who were once real historical rulers of Ugarit and Canaan, but through their death became shades of former glory venerated as minor deities by the Canaanites.If the Rephaim were originally deified kings, and later understood to be supernatural giants by the time of the Hebrew writings (800-500 BC) and these same Hebrews considered the Rephaim equivalent to the sons of Anaq, who were themselves considered descendants of the Nephilim -- then I see the original kernel behind the Nephilim as nothing less than the same as the Rephaim -- That is to say, deified earthly rulers and heroes of ancient time, who later became wicked giants in the eyes of newly established Hebrews, the enemies of the Canaanite city-states.Someone like Gilgamesh who claimed a divine ancestry, being two-thirds god and one-third man, could certainly be considered a tyrant Nephilim ruler in ancient biblical terms. Of course, the tales which portray Gilgamesh in a positive light describe him as a giant slayer and not as a giant himself.Labeling the indigenous population of Canaan as a proud and wicked race of monstrous giants who were exterminated by the valiant Israelites in their holy conquest of the land seems to recall the legends of Brutus from Troy conquering Albion and slaying the giants of Britain.The tale of David vs. Goliath is no less mythic in flavor, although the historical context is somewhat more viable.

Not to rehash this old thread... butWith closer examination of scripture, the Bible actually never made claims of giants taller than 7 - 10 feet (2 to 3 meters).If Goliath was somewhere between 4 and 6 cubits and a span, then he was 7 - 9 feet. The oldest sources point towards 7 feet.An Egyptian of 5 cubits tall is mentioned. This is between 7 and 8 feet.King Og of Bashan had a bed or sarcophagus 9 cubits long -- 13 feet. "Assuming" he occupied 80% of the inner space, he was just over 10 feet tall.(Robert Wadlow, the tallest modern man at 9 feet tall, was buried in a coffin 11 feet long.)So they weren't 30 foot fairy tale giants.

I was going to say otherwise until I saw that you mentioned Og, who was monstrous. Not in the canonized bible we have, however, extra-biblical scriptures contemporaneous with the canonized Old Testament scriptures do tell of fairy tale giants MUCH larger than 30 feet (up to 450 ft high!).What is important to note is that these writings were discovered as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which show that the Essenes and possiblty others believed this was the Word of God.This can be located in the Book of Enoch and the Book of Giants, which go in to great detail about "The Watchers" (otherwise known biblically as "Nephilim."), including their names. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Changed subtitle

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

Yeah, I think the book of Enoch was talking about the pre-flood Nephilim. The uber giants, hundreds of feet tall. There must have been a very ancient Jewish tradition of giants this size who pre-dated the merely very tall "sons of Anak" encountered in Canaan.Maybe the Book of Enoch wasn't included in the Canon because these absurd giants were taller than Redwood trees, yet the text implies they fornicated with "birds" -- (I don't even think Argentavis Magnificens would have qualified...!).But the stories of tall groups in Canaan seem to be noted by the Egyptians who mention the travelers tale of giants 4 and 5 cubits high (7 to 9 feet) in 1200 bce.

Giants hundreds of feet tall?Where are the bones?We have bones going back hundreds of millions of years, but no bones of human giants. (And no evidence of a global flood either.)Perhaps this is all a myth?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It's obviously a tall tale of the ancient world. There have always been giants on the earth to some degree, likely due to what giants now face, which is glandular disruptions due to tumors or malfuntions of the pituitary gland. Plus tall people breeding with other tall people produce tall or even taller progeny.

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

No bones exist for giants 400 feet tall, that's for sure. That can be considered "myth" because that's just idiotic to believe.Scattered reports of large skeletons seven to twelve feet tall, are mostly unconfirmed.Perhaps the tallest person estimated from bones and published in Scientific journal would be the giant of Castelnau, found by G. de Lapouge in 1890 Herault, France. He estimated the man at over 11 feet. He also found the skull of a youth in the same Bronze age cemetery, he estimated stood 7 feet or more.But no 400 foot giants.

I find that height a bit hard to believe. I would appreciate a reference to the scientific journal. I would hesitate to assign a height to an individual when the only remains were the skull. In fact, I would not do so. I know of no regression formulas to extrapolate from the skull to height. There are any number of regression formulas to work with from postcranial remains, so perhaps there were postcranial remains that led to a 7 foot estimate?At any rate, 7 feet is a height that is found among living individuals today, so that would not be an unbelievable height for the recent past. But 11 feet? I would need to see the reference for that one.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It is hard to believe.try a google search for:La Nature: revue des sciences et de leurs applications aux arts , Volume 18, 1890 pg. 12or search: giants of castelnauThere may have been post cranial remains which led to the seven foot estimate.