I titled this the way I did since it’s interesting that the eBibleFellowship’s X page, where they posted that which follows, self-describes that fellowship as holding the view that, “The Church Age is Over! May 21, 2011 WAS Judgment day! God took over the Kingdoms of this world from Satan and is Dividing them”—it doesn’t elucidate to what is Dividing them refers.
The post, written by a certain Chris McCann, reads as follows—my review follows it:
There were Giants in the Earth in Those Days
Genesis 6:4 There were giants [#5303] 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 Genesis 6:4, the Hebrew word for “giants” is Strong’s #5303, and it is not the typical or usual word for “giants.” The Hebrew word is nephilim and it is only used three times in two verses: here and in Numbers 13:33.
The most common word for “giants” is Strong’s #7497, which is rapha, so it is not close to this word as far as the spelling. Rapha is used regarding King Og who was a giant (e.g., Deuteronomy 3:11), and it is used to refer to some of the Philistine giants, among others, so God intentionally did not use that word.
This word in Genesis 6:4, Strong’s #5303, is only found one other place, and it was when Israel came out of Egypt and into the wilderness. The men that were sent to search out the land came back with an evil report, except for Caleb and Joshua.
Numbers 13:32 And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.
33 And there we saw the giants [#5303], the sons of Anak, which come of the giants[#5303]: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
The word “giants” is the same word as used in Genesis 6:4, and they were the sons of Anak. These giants were very tall men. How tall were they? What would have been considered a “giant” in the time before the flood? Since God used the same word “giant” here, we can get some idea of the height of the men that lived at the time of Noah before the flood.
In Harold Camping’s book, Time Has An End (2005), he went into some detail concerning a cave named Liang Bua that had been discovered in Indonesia. There were several skeletal remains of people that were found in a cave that was 1,640 feet above sea level. What was significant about these remains was that there was evidence of a flood found in the same cave; there was sediment remains in the cave with these individuals. This is amazing when you think that it was 1,640 feet above sea level. How could a flood occur at that height? Of course, the Bible provides the answer because the flood of Noah’s day was a worldwide, cataclysmic event. Genesis 7:20 informs us that the flood waters were 15 cubits above the highest mountain of that day (each cubit is about 18 inches). When the flood began and the rain kept falling day after day, what would be the natural response? It would be to seek higher ground. If people were in a plain or valley, they would get flooded out quickly, but if there were mountains on either side, they would begin climbing up that hill or mountain in the hope that at some point the rain would stop.
We know the historical fact that the rain poured down for forty consecutive days in an unprecedented deluge (Genesis 7:12). Sometimes we see a downpour of rain and exclaim, “It is raining cats and dogs.” During a cloudburst so much water can fall in just a few minutes that it’s enough to overflow creeks and streams, but normally the rainfall soon slows down or stops. But that was not the case with the flood of Noah’s day. That terrible flood was a continuous downpour of unparalleled proportion. It kept raining and raining, so of course, people would have desperately tried to seek higher and higher ground. We do not know the specifics about the amount of rainfall or what the earth was like after it had rained for a week straight. If you started out on high ground, then your situation would have been different than people that lived near sea level. But it seems obvious that as it kept raining, people would have sought the highest ground possible. This is probably what led these people to climb to the Liang Bua cave in what is now Indonesia. These poor people had done everything physically possible that they could do to escape the flood waters, but they could not go any higher than the cave atop this mountain, and eventually, even way up there, the water rose to the level of the cave, and since there was nowhere left to go, they drowned.
The average height of these fully grown people found in this cave was three feet tall and Mr. Camping went into some detail to speculate that this would have been the average height of people living before the flood. This is one of the few times I disagreed with Mr. Camping. I thought it was too much of a generalization. That particular group or family had a height of about three feet, but that does not mean that we can say that the average height of everyone in that day was only three feet. Mr. Camping also speculated that Noah and his family were like “giants” because they were about six feet tall, but in Numbers 13, God is using this same Hebrew word for “giants” as found in Genesis 6. These sons of Anak, according to the report of the spies, were extremely tall men: “all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature.”
We now have a description of what a “giant” is and it is considered to be men “of a great stature” (Strong’s #4060). Is this phrase found anywhere else in the Bible? Yes, it is found in 1 Chronicles 11:23:
1 Chronicles 11:22 Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a valiant man of Kabzeel, who had done many acts; he slew two lionlike men of Moab: also he went down and slew a lion in a pit in a snowy day.
23 And he slew an Egyptian, a man of great stature [#4060], five cubits high; and in the Egyptian’s hand was a spear like a weaver’s beam; and he went down to him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and slew him with his own spear.
What does the Bible consider to be the height of a man of great stature? It was five cubits high and, as noted, a cubit is 18 inches. If you are five cubits tall and of great stature, how tall are you? Five cubits would equal seven feet, six inches tall. That is a very tall person for that time, as well as by our standard today. Let us say the average height for a man is about six feet tall, but when we see a person that is seven feet tall, we think, “Wow! That man is really tall.” You sometimes see seven-foot individuals, but 7½ feet tall is very rare and that comes to the level of “giants.” It is a person that is 1½ feet taller than those of average height, so I think that we can understand that when God says in Genesis 6:4, “There were giants in the earth in those days,” and it is only used in Numbers 13:33 where it describes men of a “great stature.” God uses that term to describe a man that was five cubits or 7½ feet tall.
Certainly, men before the flood could have been smaller than they are today, but I think it would be speculating too much to take the example of the individuals found in one cave in Indonesia and say, “This was the average height for people who lived at that time.” For instance, let’s say a cataclysmic event took place in Australia. If a family of Pygmies were discovered and there were no other skeletal remains of humans of other sizes, do you see how one could err in arriving at the conclusion that everyone was the height of the Pygmies? Also, there are some tribes in Africa that are very tall, and if you isolated those people, you could draw the conclusion that everyone was of exceptional height. We simply do not have sufficient information in regard to the Indonesian cave. If there had been another site found in another part of the world that confirmed this, we could maybe draw that kind of a conclusion, but we do not have that right now, so I think we are comfortable with the Bible’s definition that the man that was called a giant in Numbers 13 was 7½ feet tall and, therefore, average height for men prior to the flood would be about the same average height as after the flood.
It also stands to reason that prior to the flood, health conditions for mankind would have been better because of the water canopy, and men tended to live longer because there was less disease. When people are taller, they tend to be physically stronger and it just seems that the weaker human specimen (as far as size and strength) would not have existed prior to the flood, but would seem to come afterward, although this is speculation on my part.
Following is my review:
It’s quite on point to follow a reference to giants with a discussion of that term since most posting on Nephilology use it without answering these key questions: 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?
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% can’t even attempt a reply & the less than a handful that attempted it got it wrong.
The reason why Chris McCann noted, “the Hebrew word for ‘giants’…is not the typical or usual word for ‘giants’” is statistical since, “The most common word…is rapha.” The usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word giants in English Bibles is that it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so, just in case, never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
Since the root, “Rapha is used regarding King Og” then biblically contextually, “who was a giant…some of the Philistine giants” would mean, “who was a Repha…some of the Philistine Rephaim”: it’s identifying their tribal affiliation, not describing anything about their size.
It’s not accurate to generically write, “The men that were sent to search out the land came back with an evil report, except for Caleb and Joshua.” At least Chris McCann did an unusual thing amongst pop-Nephilologists, which is to include the part about that the narration is telling us, “they brought up an evil report.” Yet, it wasn’t, “The men that were sent” since there were 12 of them but that was stated by the 10 unfaithful, disloyal, contradictory, embellishers whom God rebuked.
As for, “they were the sons of Anak” that’s only in non-LXX versions of that verse.
In short, pun intended, anyone appealing to Num 13:33 needs to mention that they’re relying on:
1. One single unreliable sentence
2. From strictly non-LXX versions (since that version’s version of that verse doesn’t even mention Anakim)
3. Of an unreliable “evil report”
4. By 10 unreliable guys
5. Whom God rebuked—to death
6. Who made five mere assertions unbacked by even one single other verse in the whole Bible
7. Who contradicted Moses, Cable, Joshua, God, and the rest of the whole entire Bible
8. Then post-flood Nephilologists have to invent un-biblical fantasy tall-tales about how Nephilim got past the flood, past God.
I could go on but see my post Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal—which I’m currently updating.
As for, “These giants were very tall men” since that’s one single unreliable non-LXX sentence from one single unreliable evil report spoken by 10 unreliable guys whom God rebuked and it’s the only physical description we have of Nephilim then the dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology—the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales.
As for Anakim, the only contextually relevant thing we’re told about them is that they were, “tall” (Deut 2) subjective to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days.
Thus, the real, actual, biblical answer to, “How tall were they?” is that we don’t know.
Sadly, at this point, he falls into the word-concept fallacy of merely assuming that giants must and can only refer to well, something vaguely generic about subjectively unusual height of some unknown level above the parochial average (and yes, that is how useless the common parlance usage of that modern English word is)—it’s odder still since he previously told us of the Hebrew roots behind what English readers read as giants.
You can see what I mean further since he wrote, “in Numbers 13, God is using this same Hebrew word for ‘giants’ as found in Genesis 6. These sons of Anak, according to the report of the spies, were” and then a phrase that only means subjectively taller than the parochial average, “extremely tall” which was his paraphrase of, “great stature.”
He asked a great question to assist in cutting through the generic vagaries, “What does the Bible consider to be the height of a man of great stature?” Regarding height, the Bible offers 1) generic terms, 2) metaphors, and 3) specific heights. The fact is that, “seven feet, six inches” describes the tallest specified person in the Bible.
Interestingly, Chris McCann didn’t include Goliath in the post so just in case, as an FYI, 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 (the Greek LXX Codex Venetus actually has 5 cubits and a span).
Now, none of any of that has anything to do with, “we can understand that when God says in Genesis 6:4, ‘There were giants…in Numbers 13:33 where it describes men of a ‘great stature’” even if they conclusion, “to describe a man that was five cubits or 7½ feet tall” is correct.
The linguistics issue comes up again via the statement, “Bible’s definition that the man that was called a giant in Numbers 13 was 7½ feet tall” since he’s now dealing with the word giants again and in Num 13 it’s merely rendering Nephilim. For linguistics details, see my book Bible Encyclopedias and Dictionaries on Angels, Demons, Nephilim, and Giants: From 1851 to 2010.
I’m personally comfortable with, “average height for men prior to the flood would be about the same average height as after the flood” give or take. Granted, a comparison of organisms that lived pre-flood that are the same or similar to organisms that lived post-flood, to this very day, shows they were larger pre-flood and there are reasons for that.
Thus, overall the article was on point with the biggest, pun intended, problems being the mis-usage of giants about halfway through the article.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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