Nephilim and Gigantopithecus blackii

While Aramaic would not replace Hebrew as the lingua franca for some time, Aramaic was still a live language quite early. It’s quite possible that there are Aramaisms early on (which even the most conservative scholars acknowledge. This really isn’t controversial).

2 Likes

I don’t recall Heiser making this case. I do know he favors the Aramaic meaning. (Again, however, that’s not the main point here. This is not a hill to die on. But arguing against an appeal to authority while making an appeal to authority is a different thing.)

2 Likes

Ok, that could be plausible, but as I’m sure you’re aware, words can change in their meaning over time; especially over thousands of years. I would be interested to know how we know the meaning of the Aramaic word, and if it could have possibly been influenced by later Jewish tradition.

Nothing is really riding on this, by the way. I don’t have some kind of theological problem with the idea that they could have been giants. I’m just curious if it could possibly be a legendary development. Either way, it’s clear they were supernatural and against God’s will.

That’s a false accusation. I never made an appeal to authority, but in demeaning Dr Sarfati on the basis of credentials, you did.

As with any ancient language, we have relatively few texts the further back in time we go, so it is a guessing game in some ways. But Aramaic is a much older language than many assume. Actually this helps the conservative case in many ways, b/c in times past scholars have argued that “Aramaisms” are a clear sign of late dating. We now know this isn’t the case.

I agree with this essentially. I don’t think anything ultimate is riding on this. I guess I was just triggered to see Safarti used as an expert on something on which he really has no expertise (also, I’ve seen him pontificate on things, such as text criticism concerning the genealogies of Genesis and Luke, that make him quite vulnerable to critique).

2 Likes

You brought up Safarti about Hebrew. That’s an appeal to authority. (It’s not necessarily wrong, but it does open up critique of his expertise.)

1 Like

You really should read through the whole of this thread that I started. Nephilim and Genetics I think by the end you will be convinced that nephilim are giants. But especially notice the AIG link I included there and below; it goes through all the biblical references they definitely existed after the flood. Also maybe be more open-minded?

From the AIG article: Giants in the Bible | Answers in Genesis

Og’s bed or coffin was about 13.5 feet long and 6 feet wide.

Since gigantopithecus blackii were 10-12 feet tall, this fits.

I went down the rabbit hole and now I’m a Bigfoot believer. :rofl: Not that they exist now but they are the same as the Nephilim back then - at least I’m 60% on it.

I checked it out. All we have are lots of teeth and a few mandibles. For many decades it was thought to be a hominin. There’s still not a lot of of reason to think it isn’t human, especially if you are YEC and the Bible refers to many extraordinarily tall giants. Is that protein work actually credible? I have my doubts.

This was a non-hyperbolic overview I appreciate. What do we actually know about gigatnopithecus?

  • They had cavities

  • They didn’t have incisors to tear up meat like animal carnivores do

  • Mandibles do support bi-pedalism

A technical paper that was interesting. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.23150

Native American cultures have a Cain and Abel stories and are aware of giant creatures: http://saintclaircountybigfoot.wikifoundry.com/page/Indian+Folklore+{Bigfoot%2CSasquatch}

Lots of cultures around the world have a Bigfoot myth: Why Do So Many Cultures Have a Version of Bigfoot? | Live Science Notice the legends mentioned are in East Asia and western North America specifically.

Given all the other legends discussed in my earlier post, this evidence, the Bible telling us there are giant humans, it’s at least slightly possible we’ve been looking at Nephilim teeth for a century. :slight_smile: I like the idea anyway… :sweat_smile:

@swamidass

Ken seems to have done a far better job that I could on the linguistics. The point I make in my book (borrowed from others, in fact), is that the way that this passage of Scripture is (as they say) “under-determined” in its meaning strongly suggests that it was well known to the original readers, and Moses was therefore able to condense it to place it in the Genesis context.

We, however, have to struggle to understand the references, and to rely (for example) on second temple interpretations is simply to struggle with their struggles to understand the ancient text.

“Giants” as an interpretation has its own problems. Are they human descendants of Adam, just a few generations before, in which case what unrecorded genetic accident caused them? Does the reproductive system of non-embodied angels produce giants if they marry humans, and if so why? Does not genealogical science suggest that we all now carry “giant blood” in the same way we carry “Neanderthal blood”?

What does the word mean in any case - “giants” as a race of above average height, “giants” as in pathologically tall, or “giants” as in “Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum” treetop height?

2 Likes

You think that teeth and mandibles aren’t diagnostic? And you’re the one who brought up the protein work. This is just rejection of science in favor of…

Whether you like something should not be a standard for belief. That’s just you fooling yourself.

1 Like

You gotta prefer @thoughtful’s approach to aggressive pseudoscience, right?

1 Like

I don’t find either approach preferable. They are both problematic in many ways, some of them quite similar. Among the similarities are a refusal or inability to engage with argument or evidence. @thoughtful, unlike the others, is Minnesota nice. But Minnesota nice is also passive-aggressive.

Let’s say you’re right and they were giants. What does that have to do with Gigantopithecus? There’s certainly nothing in the Bible to suggest they were apes, or even ape-like. They are described as the offspring of a preternatural union between fallen angels and human women. I cannot see why that would produce apes.

1 Like

For decades I’ve been trying to get a clear description and identification of “flood strata” (especially in terms of geologic strata) where the Noahic flood is concerned.

And Young Earth Creationist ministries usually emphasize that humans and apes are of entirely different baramin (created kinds.)

I find that the Argument from Authority fallacy is often misunderstood on Internet forums. A genuine Argument from Authority fallacy is one where the credentials/prestige/fame of an authority is the sole evidence being wielded—rather than the peer-reviewed research and publications of an authority as an established expert in the associated field. Where it can get less obvious is when we naturally tend to use the name of an expert as a concise reference to their peer-reviewed scholarship. Thus:

When we cite Isaac Newton on the fundamentals of gravity and objects in motion, we are not depending upon fame or credentialism (and thereby an Argument from Authority fallacy)—because everybody understands that Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation and Laws of Motion have survived centuries of peer review. We often refer to Newton as an authority but we are actually referring to Newton’s published, well-established scholarship as that authority.

Likewise, when I mention Frederick Danker on the definition and use of a Greek word in the New Testament, I’m actually referring to his standard Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament (which in turn was based on the Bauer lexicon in German and the revision of Arndt & Gingrich), which is the primary lexicographic reference used by NT scholars. So a reference to Danker is not an argument from authority fallacy.

So an argument from authority is not a problem per se—because there is nothing wrong with a valid citation of a respected source. It is only a problem when it constitutes an argument from authority fallacy.

Perhaps it helps to put it this way: If my argument depended upon Newton on gravity and laws of motion and Danker for a NT Greek word’s definition, those are arguments from authority but not fallacies----but if I cite Newton on NT lexicography and Danker on physics, those who would be argument from authority fallacies. Their fame alone (or even strong opinions about the New Testament in the case of Newton) does not qualify them in fields outside of their expertise.

Likewise, citing Jonathan Sarfati on Hebrew lexicography can constitute an Argument from Authority fallacy (depending upon the context) because he is not a Hebrew scholar and certainly not a lexicographer. (The surname “Sarfati” means “Frenchman” in Sephardic Hebrew but that’s just a free bonus.)

Could you explain why you believe it is “clear” that they [NEPHILIM] were “supernatural”?

1 Like

Does the Biblical text describe them that way? Or is that one of the popular traditions of how the text can be interpreted?

The Biblical text describes them that way. The “sons of God” is a reference to angels, and in general it’s a term that refers to people or beings who have no natural fathers. Adam is called “son of God” in Luke 3:38. And of course, Jesus is the ultimate Son of God, also having no human father.

The Alexandrian LXX even goes so far as to translate this as “angelos”, and there’s ample evidence that ancient Jews understood the passage to refer to angels, not humans.

So really I don’t know what more evidence you could expect to find.

This is confusing in a couple ways. First, don’t conflate citing a source with an argument from authority. Citing sources is just a good practice so that you can show people where you got your information. It’s not intended to imply an argument from authority.

Second, the non-fallacious argument from authority is a weak inductive argument at best. It goes something like “Often, authorities are correct in what they say, therefore in this case this authority is also likely to be correct.” You can certainly use the argument if you wish, but it’s very weak.

Sigh. Angels cant produce children. Marriage in the OT is a sexual union, unless one is already married. Jesus said that angels do not marry. Read through my thread I linked for you.

According to the Bible they can, assuming they’re willing to disobey God.

Actually it’s a covenant of fidelity …

Actually he was talking about angels in heaven who obey God, not fallen angels.

It’s imaginative play. Never claimed it was science. Just an interesting idea. :laughing:

This is one of two rabbinical traditions. The other tradition is that “sons of God” refers to the sons of Seth.

Christian tradition has often rejected the “fallen angels” interpretation based upon Jesus statement in Matthew 22:30, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.”

On the other hand, 2 Peter chapters 2 and 3 as well as Jude 5-7 are often cited in favor of the “fallen angels” tradition.

There are additional possibilities beyond these two traditions but I don’t want to start a new sub-topic and thread. I will simply point out that according to traditional Christian thought, Genesis 6:1-8 describes events long before those described in the Old Testament’s Children of Israel timeline and even long before the development of Hebrew as a language—so one must also be cautious about anachronistic etymologies.

I have no idea how you’re interpreting the passage with Nephulim now, but before you comment, if you not have read the thread, read it and understand my interpretation. Basically I’m saying this passage was hard to understand because we didn’t regain an idea of how genetics worked until recently in history.