The question Is Nimrod connected to the discussion of Nephilim and Giants, even though he may not have been a giant himself?
led to the following discussion as a certain Eddie Lau replied:
Yes, likely.
The Hebrew Word to describe giants in Genesis 6:3 and 10:8 is גבר, a good connection to both.
Furthermore, there is a doubt so far of why Noah cursed Canaan and not Ham who is Canaan’s father. The answer can also link to the many giants found inside Canaan , the Anak in Numbers 13 etc. In fact, Goliath was a giant but killed by David, foreshadowing our Lord Jesus bruised the serpent’s head in Genesis 3:15.
The doubt may be resolved if Canaan was already a giant or Noah could foresee (by the help of The Holy Spirit) that Canaan’s descendants consisted of giants.
As Ham from Noah should be pure man (not from fallen angel as in Genesis 6:2, the sons of God), the only possibility was that Ham’s wife might be descendant of giant that Noah originally did not know. She bore giants for Ham, like Canaan and Cush (possible), and resulted in Nimrod as giant from Cush.
These are just guess from The Bible Word.
Pray that The Holy Spirit will guide us (John 16:13) to see more if He wants to.
Praise the Lord.
I, Ken Ammi, replied:
Did you mean, “Yes, likely” since it’s likely that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Ironically, in my answer, I noted, “some people merely assert that he did have something to do with Nephilim since he’s referred to as a gibbor and so were they. Yet, such people are tragically myopic and never bother mentioning that gibbor is merely a descriptive form for might/mighty and so is used of Angels, Nephilim, humans, and God.”
Since you write in terms of “giants” no one can really know to what you’re referring unless you answer: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?
You seem to be using that term in two ways so when it comes to, “the only,” mind you, “possibility was that Ham’s wife might be descendant of giant that Noah originally did not know” you mean she was a Nephil.
You think that Noah, “did not know” but what about God? He also missed that and so the flood was much of a waste?
That’s not, “the only” possibility: the biblical scenario is that Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
What’s, “The Bible Word”?
Why do post-flood-Nephilologists always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus?
Eddie Lau
Your words indicate you are not a believer of Jesus Christ, right? Your first task is to prove God failed. Ok, if that’s the fact, you should be greater than God then😂
Nephilims (נפלים) is the translation from Hebrew, meaning giants.
Ham’s wife should not be giant but had the genes to bear giant. That’s a possibility as a guess to the strange incident of Noah cursing Canaan as well as giants found after The Flood.
Post-flood-Nephilology, according to your name, should mean Nephilims after the flood, is from Genesis 6:4 ‘in those days, and also afterward’. The fact that Goliath whom David killed was described as a giant in 1Samuel 17:4. And Goliath’s brothers (2Samuel 21:19), in fact the whole tribe of Anak (Numbers 13:33) were described as giants also. Were they not belonging to the post-flood period?
Of course, you can have the ‘privilege’ of not believing any words of The Bible, according to your given freewill from God (is that irony)?
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Right.
I’m beginning to see why you claimed the things you claimed? Why would it be my, “first task is to prove God failed” since I noted, “Did you mean, ‘Yes, likely’ since it’s likely that God failed, missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.” Thus, that was clearly a question for you since that is the implication of your view.
As for, “Nephilims (נפלים) is the translation from Hebrew, meaning giants” no it’s not: that’s not a translation, it’s a rendering.
I asked you, “What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your usage? Do those two usages agree?” but you don’t seem to be interested in helping me understand you.
Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to hundreds of people who go on and on (and on and on [and on and on]) about “giants” and 99.999999% can’t even reply—three that did got it wrong and one got close to getting it right.
So, “Nephilims (נפלים) is the translation from Hebrew, meaning giants” only still begs the question since I read that as, “Nephilims (נפלים) is the translation from Hebrew, meaning ______” so you need to fill in the blank.
Until you let me know to what you’re referring (and I get the feeling you don’t know the English Bible’s usage), I can’t know what you mean by statements such as, “Ham’s wife should not be giant…”
The, “strange incident of Noah cursing Canaan” is that his dad had sex with Noah’s wife.
You then switched to referring to Nephilim, in which case, there’s no such thing as, “Nephilims after the flood” since God didn’t fail, didn’t miss a loophole, the flood wasn’t much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Why do post-flood-Nephilologists always begin by throwing God and His Word under the bus?
As for, “is from Genesis 6:4 ‘in those days, and also afterward’” well, sure, when you slice God’s word you can make up stuff: by why did you slice that verse in half just before it was going to tell you to what days it’s referring.
How about you quote all of it.
You then switched to referring to giants again.
As for, “Goliath…was described as a giant” why didn’t you tell me that the Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
When you say, “described as giants also” you seem to be referring to generically vague subjectively unusual height above the parochial average but I can only imagine that when you make the huge claim, “Goliath’s brothers [his children, actually] (2Samuel 21:19), in fact the whole tribe of Anak (Numbers 13:33) were described as giants also” you really meant 1) only one of them is generically referred to as having been of whatever, “great stature” means and 2) that Anakim were subjectively, “tall,” which is just as vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage as, “giants.”
Also, when you cited Num 13:33, why didn’t you tell me that you’re relying on an unreliable, “evil report” by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked?
As for, “Were they not belonging to the post-flood period?” yes, of course, that’s the only time they existed.
This is part of why you have to stop using the term, “giants,” just say to what you’re referring, and stop switching between English and Hebrew: they were Rephaim who were 100% human and had nothing to do with pre-flood Nephilim who were hybrids.
Eddie Lau
Are you a believer of Christ? If yes, please read from The Holy Bible with the help of The Holy Spirit (John 6:63, 16:12–13).
If no, then sorry to quote so many scriptures. Please repeat the one question you are asking.
For me, I just see that you want to know the meaning of Nephilims and that simply ‘giants’. Is that ok? Or ask again if not.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Sadly, I’ve been through this many times with people who make claims, are corrected, refuse correction, want to keep making claims, and so they play the lower-case gnostic card, “read from The Holy Bible with the help of The Holy Spirit.”
Well, I’ve been there and done that and wrote some dozen research and prayerful books on Nephilology after familiarizing myself with over two millennia worth of relevant data.
As for, “you want to know the meaning of Nephilims and that simply ‘giants’” see, even that statement doesn’t make any sense: if you demand that Nephilim means giants that doesn’t mean anything, I would then have to ask you what you mean by giants.
That’s why over two weeks ago I asked:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage?
Do those two usages agree?
Eddie Lau
The usage is let every believer to know the evil scheme of satan and how God used this evil scheme later for His people.
Hebrews 4:12 NKJV
[12] For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Our objective is to know the truth by the help of The Holy Spirit (John 16:13) but not just see dead words.
Praise the Lord.
Ken Ammi
Well my friend, you’re clearly unfamiliar with this subject and you’re not interested in learning more nor do you accept correction.
Be blessed and be a blessing.
Shalom!
Eddie Lau
Same to you, friend. No one can boast familiar, I am afraid.
Let’s keep humble before God’s Word.
Shalom to you.
Praise the Lord.
And that, as they say, was that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.
Leave a Reply