The was some discussion in the past about the giants.
Deuteronomy 3:11 (King James Version)
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.
That's about 13 1/2 feet long.
Giving a few inches on each end for headroom and foot space, the giants would be about 12 feet tall.
:cloud9: The bigger they are, the harder they fall..... :winkgrin:
One stone at a time.
AMEN.
lol. Well, he was the last one anyway.
But, hey, we could be onto something!
What does his name mean in English?
Names always denote a nature.
Meaning and etymology of the name Rephaim
Rephaim Rephaim
Share |
The Rephaim are a tall and numerous people, related to the enigmatic Nephilim, Anakim, Emim and Zuzim. It is said that king Og of Bashan was the last of the Rephaim (Deuteronomy 3:11). There is also mention of a Valley of The Rephaim (Joshua 15:8, 1 Chronicles 14:9, Isaiah 17:5).
The name Rephaim is curious to say the least. It most likely has something to do with the verb rapa (rapa 2198), sink down, let drop, be slack. This verb is very common in Scriptures and is used for a wide variety of movement generally in a downward direction or as the result of depleting strength or courage or other motivation. It may mean to drop, to abandon, or refrain. Its object may be wings, hands, people, causes, the setting sun or grass that goes down in flames. It is highly significant that in Biblical necrology the word for dead people or departed spirits is derived from this same verb, namely Rephaim (repaim 2198c): Ps 88:10, Pr 2:18, Pr 9:18, Pr 21:16, Isaiah 14:9, 26:14 and 26:19.
This latter word is identical to the name Rephaim. Scholars insist that the name Rephaim should be regarded as a different word than Rephaim (repaim 2198c), but we may wonder if the original audience of the Hebrew Bible was aware of that, or even cared about it. The name Nephilim, which seems to be either a synonym or else something close to one, comes from a verb that means to fall.
And while we're opposing scholarly convention, let's also point out the verb rapa (rapa 2196), meaning to heal. Often this verb is used in the Bible to connote forgiveness and spiritual healing. See Isaiah 53:5, for instance.
The Rephaim are the Faded Ones but also the Remedies.
http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jebusite.html
I just posted the above cut for interest.
But, come to think of it; doesn't this mean that there were giants before and after Noah's flood?
Og: A cake, bread baked in ashes.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 17, 2010, 07:20:15 AM
But, come to think of it; doesn't this mean that there were giants before and after Noah's flood?
The popular idea that God sent the flood to destroy the giants is not supported by scripture. It says that the earth was filled with violence and that the imagination of man was continually evil. So the flood was sent to destroy man and for humanity to have a fresh new start, where Noah, Abraham would be the new leader of the human race, so that from his seed great blessings come to mankind.
fee fie foe fum
Quote from: thinktank on December 17, 2010, 10:40:30 PMThe popular idea that God sent the flood to destroy the giants is not supported by scripture.
Assuming Noach and his family were not giants and giants were not fish; all giants should have been killed according to the popular interpretation of the flood account.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on December 17, 2010, 07:20:15 AM
But, come to think of it; doesn't this mean that there were giants before and after Noah's flood?
Yes, that's what the Bible says.
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
--Gen 6
This is the the first mention of the 'sons of God' in the Bible. Who are they? The Hebrew is 'ben elohiym.'
4There 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.
--Gen 6
So there are giants being produced both before and after the flood by this union between 'daughters of men' and 'sons of God.'
QuoteThe name Rephaim is curious to say the least. It most likely has something to do with the verb rapa (rapa 2198), sink down, let drop, be slack. This verb is very common in Scriptures and is used for a wide variety of movement generally in a downward direction or as the result of depleting strength or courage or other motivation.
Again, like the word Nephilim, it is referring to 'fallen,' [as in 'fallen angels.']
"giants"H5303
נפל נפיל
nephı̂yl nephil
nef-eel', nef-eel'
From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant: -
giant.H5307
נפל
nâphalnaw-fal'
A primitive root;
to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively): - be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.
We know that Joshua will fight these giants in the promised land and win.
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.
Here, the sons of Anak, for instance, seem to be second+ generation giants.
A little article for gigantic discussions. :winkgrin:
http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess037.htm
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 22, 2010, 02:34:41 PM
A little article for gigantic discussions. :winkgrin:
http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess037.htm
Interesting article. It brings up the notion of 'sons of God' as celestial beings, not angels, also called 'princes,' who are a part of God's family--predating humans.
This addresses the idea of the 'divine council' which we will be members of some day as part of our inheritence, [replacing those members who rebelled].
This is a really interesting site, ww. These guys are universalists?
Here's a great audio sermon, Are You a Misfit? [then you have a lot in common with the heroes of the Bible.]
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d020501.htm
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 22, 2010, 01:48:44 PM
Quote from: thinktank on December 17, 2010, 10:40:30 PMThe popular idea that God sent the flood to destroy the giants is not supported by scripture.
Assuming Noach and his family were not giants and giants were not fish; all giants should have been killed according to the popular interpretation of the flood account.
Yes but my quote was that the primary reason for the flood was not to destroy the giants, thus we had giants living after the flood, perhaps some survived which I doubt because I think the scriptures says all perished save Noah 8 souls in Peters book or most likely was that the genetic alterations for gigantism was present after the flood, but of course this means that Noah and his familly carried the "giant" . So this could be proof that the giants were not caused by falling angels mating with woman, but could do with the theory that I proposed, that the indecent immoral act of taking a woman by force caused genetic mutations at the time of Noah and also the period after the flood. We also have gigantism happening today, and none of these have fallen angels as their father, so the true source could well be immoral acts causing genetic curses, the father sins carried over to their sons. One thing that Jesus accomlished on the cross was to become a curse for us and break every immoral act that we and our fathers generations did, for cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.
I have seen some reports where they say, they have found giant skeletons and a giant battle axe was reportedly found.
I often wonder what news the authorities don't let us see, but if these skeletons were true, why would goverments supress this truth, what would they have to gain?
Quote from: thinktank on December 23, 2010, 02:47:50 AM
I have seen some reports where they say, they have found giant skeletons and a giant battle axe was reportedly found.
I often wonder what news the authorities don't let us see, but if these skeletons were true, why would goverments supress this truth, what would they have to gain?
:cloud9: I'm not so sure it's necessarily the government's motives, but the motives of the "scientific community", some of which would suppress anything to disprove the Bible in general and creationism in particular. See Molly's post this week under the thread "Welcome to 1984"......
Quote from: thinktank on December 23, 2010, 02:36:52 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 22, 2010, 01:48:44 PM
Quote from: thinktank on December 17, 2010, 10:40:30 PMThe popular idea that God sent the flood to destroy the giants is not supported by scripture.
Assuming Noach and his family were not giants and giants were not fish; all giants should have been killed according to the popular interpretation of the flood account.
Yes but my quote was that the primary reason for the flood was not to destroy the giants, thus we had giants living after the flood, perhaps some survived which I doubt because I think the scriptures says all perished save Noah 8 souls in Peters book or most likely was that the genetic alterations for gigantism was present after the flood, but of course this means that Noah and his familly carried the "giant" .
Could be:
a] New giants just came from Noach's bloodline.
b] New Giants came from a place not being earth.
c] Flood was local.
QuoteSo this could be proof that the giants were not caused by falling angels mating with woman, but could do with the theory that I proposed, that the indecent immoral act of taking a woman by force caused genetic mutations at the time of Noah and also the period after the flood. We also have gigantism happening today,
Wasn't the story of David and Goliath about the last giant?
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 23, 2010, 02:37:28 AM
I just dont know where anyone gets "fallen angels" from Gen.6:4 when the words "fallen angels" are not in the entire Bible.
Not claiming it to be true but I do have an idea where the fallen angel stuff comes from.
Sons of God. Morning stars. 1/3 of the stars falling to earth. So if one assumes the Sons of God are angels. And angels are stars. Then the dragon made 1/3 of the angels fall to earth...
An alternative view: http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess037.htm
:cloud9: Or one third of man fell = his soul.
Then the correct translation should be something like: 1/3 of the star fell.
Singular. And the star is man.
???
:cloud9: No you were right the first time, my correlation was off in tense. My bad :laughing7:
One third of the stars fell = one third of the men fell = the souls of men fell. Which lines up with the thought behind Eve, the soul, falling.
Quote from: Cardinal on December 23, 2010, 04:24:07 PM
:cloud9: No you were right the first time, my correlation was off in tense. My bad :laughing7:
One third of the stars fell = one third of the men fell = the souls of men fell. Which lines up with the thought behind Eve, the soul, falling.
Of course this is one view we could take of it, but this is essentially metaphor. And, although I find a lot of truth can be mined using the Bible as metaphor--a lot of truth--there is also a lot of truth to be found in taking it as literal.
If Gen 6:2 is to be taken literally, what might it mean? First, we have two groups mentioned there: 1] the sons of God--ben elohiym, and 2] the daughters of men.
Who are these two groups? The daughters of men [Adam] is pretty easy and everyone would agree who they are, in that they are human women.
But who are the sons of God--the ben elohiym? Here many punt. They either ignore the question altogether or answer it according to their belief system. Are they a special class of humans? Maybe those related to Seth versus those related to Cain? Are they a group of spiritual beings? If so, who are they relative to the God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Are they angels or higher than angels in the celestial hierarchy?
We are given one clue as to who the sons of God are in John 1:
11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him,
to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
--John 1
So John tells us with this statement that:
1]humans are not the sons of God
2] Jesus will give the power to become sons of God to those humans who accept him and even believe on his name.
In defining who the sons of God are not, and telling us the only way for a human to become a member of this group, John has made a very powerful statement regarding a literal understanding of who this group might be. If you are a human and you don't accept Jesus and believe on Jesus, you will not become a member of this group.
Then how do we reconcile this understanding with the group mentioned in Gen 6:2?
Here's a video given by Michael Heiser which I think might address this [I haven't listened to it yet myself]. He is giving this talk at a ufology conference where he has been invited to speak about a literal Biblical interpretation of the sons of God and the daughters of men. Because of Heiser's background in ancient languages and customs, because he is a Christian, because he tends to be meticulous and factual in his studies, anything he has to say about the Bible is always very interesting.
http://ideam.net/view.php?c=opmEPyQj1Ttg.1
:cloud9: I guess I should have added a "disclaimer" to my post, that while I see it the way I said it, I also see it as ONE LEVEL of truth, because I also see it in relation to angels, too...... :2c:
Quote from: Cardinal on December 23, 2010, 05:09:56 PM
:cloud9: I guess I should have added a "disclaimer" to my post, that while I see it the way I said it, I also see it as ONE LEVEL of truth, because I also see it in relation to angels, too...... :2c:
Yes, the Bible is like an onion, isn't it? There is layer after layer and connections from one end of it to the other that speak to us on multiple levels. But, first, there is the natural, the literal word of God.
BTW, I don't believe Heiser says the sons of God in Gen 6:2 are angels. I think they are higher celestial beings than what we normally think of as angels [although there might also be 'fallen angels' who follow them]. They are referenced in this passage:
12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
--Eph 6
Quote from: Cardinal on December 23, 2010, 02:52:33 AM
Quote from: thinktank on December 23, 2010, 02:47:50 AM
I have seen some reports where they say, they have found giant skeletons and a giant battle axe was reportedly found.
I often wonder what news the authorities don't let us see, but if these skeletons were true, why would goverments supress this truth, what would they have to gain?
:cloud9: I'm not so sure it's necessarily the government's motives, but the motives of the "scientific community", some of which would suppress anything to disprove the Bible in general and creationism in particular. See Molly's post this week under the thread "Welcome to 1984"......
Just my opinion, :2c: but it's that 'science' as we know it today belongs to the ancient mystery religions coming out of Babylon, and in the true tradition of gnosticism, they only let the initiates know what they know, and only those at the very top know everything they know. Those on the outside are told something else and basically know nothing.
So, for instance, when it comes to something like how did those primitive people ever build the pyramids? The answer is dunno, it's a mystery. :dontknow:
Magic or Mainstream Science?
An interview on Newton's alchemy with historian Bill Newman
Newton's Dark Secrets
A Legitimate Pursuit
NOVA: Why are people surprised when they hear that Isaac Newton—the grand patriarch of physics—was an alchemist?
NEWMAN: Well, I think it's because alchemy has been portrayed as the epitome of irrationality and a sort of avaricious folly.
NOVA: Sinister, dark-robed sorcerers trying to turn lead into gold. Is that an accurate picture of alchemists in Newton's time?
NEWMAN: It's accurate for some alchemists. But we now know that most of the great minds of the period were involved in alchemy, including Robert Boyle, John Locke, Leibniz, any number of others.
NOVA: Given that so many great minds were interested in it, why was alchemy illegal?
NEWMAN: Well, first of all, it became legal during Newton's time. But why was it illegal? There's a long association, for good reasons, between alchemy and counterfeiting. It's quite likely, actually, that medieval and early modern rulers were consciously employing alchemists to debase their own coinage.
NOVA: But they didn't want other people doing it?
NEWMAN: [laughter] Yeah, right; exactly, exactly.
"He really thought that alchemy provided a sort of limitless power over nature."
NOVA: So what were these "legitimate" alchemists in the 17th century trying to do?
NEWMAN: Alchemy really encompassed all chemical technology—everything ranging from the manufacture of pigments for paint to making artificial precious stones. It included the manufacture of so-called "chemical medicines." And, of course, it also included the attempt to make the "philosophers' stone."
NOVA: Tell me about the philosophers' stone. I think of it vaguely as some magical substance that could turn ordinary metals into gold.
NEWMAN: The philosophers' stone was thought to be an agent of universal transmutation. It also was viewed as a curative agent that could "cure" metals of their impurities and cure human beings of their illnesses. So it was a sort of universal panacea.
NOVA: Was Newton an alchemist because he wanted to make gold or find the key to immortality? Or was his alchemy just another part of his science—a way to gain knowledge about the material world?
NEWMAN: If you look at the experimental notebooks that he kept for about 30 years, it really is impossible to avoid the conclusion that he was trying to produce the philosophers' stone. But I don't think he was doing it to gain monetary wealth.
NOVA: Was it to gain an understanding of nature?
NEWMAN: And power over nature. Power over nature has always been a key element to alchemy.
Codes and Riddles
NOVA: Did alchemists think that they were going to discover powers they wanted to keep for themselves? Is that why alchemy is so veiled in secret codes?
NEWMAN: That's certainly part of the reason. You find alchemical treatises that claim that knowledge of the philosophers' stone has to be kept secret, because if it gets out to the world that a particular alchemist has it, he'll be strangled in his bed to extract the secret.
NOVA: It seems that Newton also wanted to hold tight to his secrets—he never published any of his alchemical work.
NEWMAN: I think that, like other alchemists, he thought that alchemy promised tremendous control over the natural world. It would allow you to transmute virtually anything into anything else, not just lead into gold. There are other things, too, that probably were in Newton's mind. For example, alchemists realized that if the philosophers' stone were real and it got out to the public, it would ruin the gold standard. [laughter]
"Alchemy was the ultimate riddle [which] provided a challenge to him that he just couldn't resist."
NOVA: I think what makes a lot of people think of alchemy as black magic is this bizarre language—phrases like "the Green Dragon" or the "menstrual blood of the sordid whore."
NEWMAN: Yes.
NOVA: It's mind-boggling to think of Newton writing those phrases.
NEWMAN: Well, this was the enigmatic language of alchemy. I mean "enigmatic" in a quite strict sense: it was a riddling language. The best way to look at these metaphors is in the light of riddles. So the "menstrual blood of the sordid whore" is decipherable. It means simply the metalline form of antimony. That is the "menstrual blood" that's extracted from the "sordid whore," which is the ore of antimony. [See more of Newton's alchemy decoded in our interactive manuscript.]
NOVA: It's a coded language.
NEWMAN: It is a code, and it's clear that the alchemists delighted in this code. It's almost a form of poetry. In fact, lots of alchemists wrote in the form of poetry, quite literally.
NOVA: Did all alchemists share the same code, use the same terminology?
NEWMAN: They shared lots of common elements, but it did vary from alchemist to alchemist. It's extremely tricky for Newton. He was reading alchemists over a period of time, ranging over perhaps a thousand years, and there was a lot of development in these treatises. But Newton generally thinks they're all saying the same thing, so that's a problem.
NOVA: Why did Newton spend so much time copying the writing of other alchemists?
NEWMAN: He wasn't for the most part just copying verbatim. What he was doing in many cases was weaving together extracts from different authors, trying to make sense out of them. I think alchemy was the ultimate riddle. Newton delighted in riddles, and this provided a challenge to him that he just couldn't resist.
Revealed Wisdom For a Chosen Few
NOVA: Why did Newton think that Greek myths somehow encoded alchemical recipes and a path to the philosophers' stone?
NEWMAN: That theory had been in existence for quite a long time. Newton's major source in alchemy, George Starkey, shared this theory. Michael Maier is a famous writer of the early 17th century who tried to decipher as much Greek mythology as he could get his hands on. So it was a common belief.
NOVA: Was it part of a broader belief in some sort of "revealed wisdom" about the natural world?
NEWMAN: Oh, yes. There's a tradition of scholarship that was very popular in the Renaissance called the prisca sapientia, the primal wisdom. It claimed that there was a secret wisdom that was first transmitted by an archetypical figure—say, for example, Moses—and then passed down through a line of successors, usually including Pythagoras, Plato, and so forth, and that this wisdom was really the ultimate tool for understanding the universe. Newton clearly believed that.
NOVA: Did Newton view himself as one of these chosen few, one of the people ordained to receive this wisdom?
NEWMAN: I suspect he did, yes. I don't think he would have admitted it publicly, but one of his pastimes was concocting alchemical pseudonyms for himself. And one of these pseudonyms was Jehovah Sanctus Unus—that is, Jehovah, the Holy One.
NOVA: That's how Newton described himself?!
NEWMAN: Yes!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/newton/alch-newman.html
:cloud9: He also studied and found evidence of, the ELS bible codes in the text of the Torah, no small feat without benefit of computers, considering the distance of some of the skips.
Giants are big and large.
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 24, 2010, 08:44:47 AMGiants are big and large.
Can't giant refer to fame, skills or intelligence?
For example the giants of chess are the top five chess players.
???
Here is a small therad about giants: http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/giants_or_men_3678.msg39314.html#msg39314
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 24, 2010, 08:44:47 AM
Giants are big and large.
(Only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaites. His bed was made of iron and was
more than thirteen feet long and six feet wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites.)
--Deut 3:11
Quote from: WhiteWings on December 24, 2010, 09:01:59 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on December 24, 2010, 08:44:47 AMGiants are big and large.
Can't giant refer to fame, skills or intelligence?
For example the giants of chess are the top five chess players.
???
Here is a small therad about giants: http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/members_lounge/giants_or_men_3678.msg39314.html#msg39314
Yes. I believe so