.............................T. A. MCMAHON...................................................ANDY WOODS
In Genesis 6:4 how should נְפִילִים (nephilim/giants) be translated?
Short Answer: "Generally it is the only translation" (but it is complicated)
First, there are two (three?) different words in the references you give. The Nephilim (נְפִילִים; a word only ever found in plural form in OT) only appears three times in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 (twice). The word in 1 Ch 20:8 (also 1 Ch 20:6 and 1 Ch 8:2; cf. also 1 Ch 4:12) is Rapha (רָפָא; singular), also only found these three times (though that depends on interpretation of homonyms, see below). In Josh 15:8 is the word Rephaim (רְפָאִים; plural), which is always found its eight times (also Josh 18:16; 2 Sam 5:18, 22; 23:13; Isa 17:5; 1 Ch 11:15; 14:9) in connection with the word for valley, Emeq (עֵמֶק), hence in the translations either translated "valley of giants" or transliterated "valley of Rephaim."
Second, many major lexicons essentially uphold the word "giant(s)" as the translation in these spots, though you will find some differences as to what "giant" even should "mean." Many choose not to translate the words because of issues in knowing what translation is best, and so they transliterate the Hebrew sounds into English (hence, Nephilim and Rephaim).
Of the Nephilim (נְפִילִים):
(1) The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm) gives some varying thoughts on the word:
giants, arising from miscarriages or hurled down from heaven (Koehler Mensch 38) :: H. Gese Vom Sinai zum Zion (1974):11047: those who have fallen heroically in a battle, the giant-like early inhabitants of Palestine Nu 1333aβ (gloss, which links them with the עֲנָקִים, GnAp 2:1; Fitzmyer GenAp2 81), with a mythical origin Gn 64, Sept. γίγαντες (A. Schmitt ZAW 86 (1974):152f); Morgenstern HUCA 14:76ff; Albright Steinzeit 295; Humbert Fschr. W. Vischer 70ff, 76; Reicke-R. Hw. 1601; Stolz BZAW 118 (1970):97; Westermann BK 1:510f.
(2) Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs) essentially just gives "giants" with no real expanded commentary.
(3) Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. (Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles) gives more discussion, but also a key point about etymology (emphasis added), which explains some variation of opinion on what "giant" refers to:
giants, Gen. 6:4; Nu. 13:33. So all the ancient versions (Chald. נִפְלָא the giant in the sky, i.e. the constellation Orion, plur. the greater constellations). The etymology of this word is uncertain. Some have compared نَبِيلُ, نَبِيلَةُ, which Gigg. and Cast. render, great, large in body; but this is incorrect; for it means, excellent, noble, skilful. I prefer with the Hebrew interpreters and Aqu. (ἐπιπίπτοντες) falling on, attacking, so that נָפִיל is of intransitive signification. Those who used to interpret the passage in Genesis of the fall of the angels, were accustomed to render נפילים fallers, rebels, apostates.
(4) Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (James Swanson) notes the theological debate specifically (of which there are other variations than the two he notes):
Nephilim: a renown race of giants (Ge 6:4; Nu 13:33+), note: whether this race was a spirit-human race, or godly-ungodly race is debated among theologians
**(5) Article “1393 נפל.” (Milton C. Fisher) in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke) gives more discussion about that uncertain etymology:
giants, the Nephilim (Gen 6:4; Num 13:33, only). While some scholars attempt to relate this term etymologically to nāpal I via the noun nēpel “untimely birth” or “miscarriage” (as productive of superhuman monstrosities), a more likely reconstruction is the proposal of a root nāpal II, akin to other weak verbs, pûl II “be wonderful, strong, mighty,” pālāʾ “be wonderful,” and even pālâ “separate, distinguish,” pālal “discriminate.” This pattern of semantically related groups of weak verbs with two strong consonants in common is a notably recurrent phenomenon in Hebrew lexicography. Actually, the translation “giants” is supported mainly by the LXX and may be quite misleading. The word may be of unknown origin and mean “heroes” or “fierce warriors” etc. The RSV and NIV transliteration “Nephilim” is safer and may be correct in referring the noun to a race or nation
Of Rapha (רָפָא) and Rephaim (רְפָאִים):
These words seem clearly related as far as the Hebrew root goes (רפא). However, not all the lexicons necessarily seem to link what would seem to be the singular and the plural forms.
(1) The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm).
For Rapha gives the following, and sees three different referents:
רפא short form “he (יהוה/אֵל) has healed” ... 1. ... Sept. (acc.) Βαθρεφαν, the designation of a place or a clan in Judah, constructed according to the name of an ancestor ... 2. a son of Benjamin, a Benjaminite clan named after an ancestor ... 3. [notes only Hebrew construction and reference in 1 Ch 20:6, 8]
For Raphaim, they discuss it under the entry for Emeq (עֵמֶק; valley), without any elaboration.
(2) Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs)
For Rapha they simply list references, no elaboration.
For Rephaim, they give two entries (as there is apparently a homonym meaning "shades, ghosts"). The second relates to your question:
old race of giants (perhaps = I. ר׳, as extinct and powerless; v. especially WRS in Dr Dt 2:11; or as shadowy, vaguely known, SchwallyZAW xviii (1896), 127 ff. v. also Stal.c.);—ancient inhab. of Canaan ...
Even their second definition notes the possibility of "shadowy, vaguely known," which would seem to indicate possible closer connection to the homonym.
(3) Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. (Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles)
Of Rapha (second idea, as it notes homonym also) he mainly simply gives the references, but notes of 1 Chr 20:4 "the ancestor of the Canaanitish nation of the Rephaim."
Of Rephaim, he treats that both under the entry for Rapha and that of Emeq (עֵמֶק; valley). Under the first, he considers it related to the homonym idea and htus meanign "shades living in Hades," under the valley entry stating "('the valley of Rephaim'), southwest of Jerusalem, towards the land of the Philistines."
(4) Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament) (James Swanson)
For Rapha:
- son of Benjamin (1Ch 8:2+) 2. one from Gath (1Ch 20:6, 8+), see also 8335; note: some sources translate as a common noun “giant;” also, a part of a compound name, Beth Rapha
For Rephaim he relates it to the homonym idea:
the dead, i.e., a class of beings that are the spirits of the departed, with a focus on the beings as ghost-like, not having material substance
He also notes the valley so named: "broad relatively flat valley about 2 mi. WSW of Jerusalem temple mount"
(5) Article “2198 רָפָה.” (William White) in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke).
There is much discussed, both on the side of each word relating to "Ghosts of the dead, shades" and "Giants, Rephaim," with the latter considered for the references you gave. Of the giants, he states in part (note my last emphasized phrase):
A term of Ugaritic origin, the designation for one of the most primitive pre-Semitic peoples of Palestine. According to the Ugaritic myths and legends the hero Danel (no relationship to the biblical Daniel), and the champion of Baal are both called “Rephaites.” Whether this is a folk etymology or a term based upon some ancient historical term is unknown. The OT historians used it to describe the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine. Deuteronomy 2:20 mentions that the Ammonites called them the “Zamzummim” but no data is extant on this name. The versions are confused in translating the term.
Since 2011 Herescope and the Discernment Research Group has published over 50 articles warning of the massive movement to alter plain biblical eschatology by corrupting it with fantastical endtime scenarios including UFO and space aliens. These aberrant teachings, as we have repeatedly pointed out, do not look for the soon return of Jesus Christ based on the simplicity of the Gospel, but rather promulgate bizarre Hollywood-ish science fiction and wacky conspiracy theories. Here is a comprehensive list
https://herescope.blogspot.com/search?q=Nephilim+Eschatology
Patrick Wood, a well-known speaker, writer, researcher and author, has just issued a public statement withdrawing his name from the 2019 Red River Prophecy Conference 2019.
I received an invitation to speak at this Prophecy Conference with the request that I address the topics of Technocracy, Transhumanism and globalization in relation to Bible prophecy.
Since these are all within my particular specialties and expertise, I accepted. Since then, it became known to me that the other main co-presenter is Paul McGuire, author of 22 books and a frequent and popular speaker at prophecy conferences around the nation.
Paul promotes a particular doctrine that I believe is far afield of good Biblical exegesis. The error starts with a misinterpretation of Genesis 6
Nephilim theory of one sort or another has been identified in gnostic teachings as far back as the early church, and it was consistently rejected by careful students of the Bible. It was popularized in the last century by William Branham (1909-1965), who taught the “serpent-seed” doctrine that claimed the Devil himself had sexual relations with Eve in order to give birth to Cain.
There are many twists and turns to this false Nephilim doctrine, and different teachers may have slightly different versions. Notably, however, it has spread like wildfire throughout the modern church and many are believing it without checking the Biblical text to see if it is true. Paul McGuire is simply one of many who are promoting through books, DVDs, videos and conferences. For those, it has become big business. Some other notable individuals who have promoted the Nephilim theory include Tom Horn, the late Chuck Missler, L.A. Marzulli, I.D.E. Thomas, Douglas Hamp, Gary Stearman, John Peck, Terry James and Steven Quayle.
The Bible exhorts Christians to “avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.” (Titus 3:9) and to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) Paul further commands Timothy to “shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” This is good advice for all born-again Christians who stake their future on the Word of God.
In conclusion, it is my hope that the reader will understand the reason why it is impossible for me to participate in the 2019 Red River Prophecy Conference alongside Paul McGuire, where my appearance would be interpreted as approval by many attendees and online viewers. It is my sincere hope that Paul will reconsider his Nephilim doctrine in light of the clear teaching of the Bible.
We’ve received a lot of questions about the Paracas skulls in Peru, which look like human skulls, only deformed. However, they are claimed to have DNA unlike any living creature on earth, let alone humans.
We know that there were humans in Peru at the time of the Paracas skulls. Maybe these people were unusually tall, and their skulls were unusually large, but there is also proof that some genetic diseases cause unusual skull size. Even among people living today, there are huge variations in human stature (from 4 1/2 feet tall pygmies in Africa to 7+ feet tall basketball players). And skulls can be intentionally deformed, and it is well known that some Mexican and South American cultures did this by placing heavy weights on a child’s soft skull. In other cultures children's skulls were tightly wrapped in bandages to create this appearance. Such practices were often done as a status symbol of sorts. So if we find what look like the distorted skulls of possibly diseased and/or purposefully deformed humans, the logical conclusion is not that “we must have found aliens!”
And this is aside from the unlikelihood of life on other planets and the improbability of making the leap from life to human-like consciousness. Even if life evolved on other planets, travelling to earth would be problematic because it would be impossible to travel the distances involved within normal lifespans.
When we examine the content of the claims, and who is making them, we find lots of reasons to be skeptical of the hype about the skulls. The announcement was not made in a scientific journal, but via the media—the same media that promotes mermaids, Bigfoot, and other sensational claims. Brien Foerster, one of the men who made the announcement, the assistant director of a private museum with no relevant credentials, runs ‘paranormal’ tours in Peru. The geneticist who did the testing wants to be anonymous, at least for now, so his expertise cannot be used to bolster the claim until he is willing to make it public.
Christians should be cautious about buying into such sensational claims. And there is reason to be skeptical of the claim that the DNA is unlike anything we’ve ever seen. First of all, why would aliens have DNA? If life evolved elsewhere, what are the chances its information code would look anything like DNA, or produce something as human-like as the skulls?
These DNA claims are similar to the ‘Atacama child’, which we covered in our review of the Sirius documentary. In reality, DNA analysis of the Atacama child revealed that it was human, not alien. Some Christians are also keen to invoke the skulls as pre-Flood nephilim relics.
Christians should be cautious about buying into such sensational claims, especially when the conclusions are anti-biblical in nature.
https://creation.com/paracas-skulls
Question [composite of several]: I’ve been reading books and listening to tapes about the nephilim in Genesis 6. What is your belief in this regard?
Response: The nephilim are presumed to be the race of giants born prior to the flood and their destruction was supposedly a major reason for the flood. The phrase from verse 4, “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,” is cited to justify the belief that demons or fallen angels had sex with women to produce this hybrid race. The term “sons of God” seems to refer to angels in Job:1:6
, 2:1, 38:7, and appears to be in contrast to “daughters of men.” That Jude 6 refers to “angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation” seems to give support to this belief, which a great many Bible scholars accept.
For myself, I cannot believe that angels or demons, which are spirits, can have sex with women and produce children. That would raise the possibility of continual “virgin” births. One would have to explain why this hasn’t happened down through history and why it isn’t going on today. Some say it is. If so, they ought to be able to offer proof, but I haven’t seen it.
Furthermore, the statement that “...sons of God...took them wives of all which they chose” seems to indicate something more than temporary illicit sex. Yes, demons and angels can manifest themselves in apparent bodily form, but just how genuinely corporeal it is remains a question and we have no example in Scripture of such a manifestation lasting longer than a brief appearance. That these “sons of God” took wives seems to indicate a lasting relationship, which argues against the idea of demons or angels being involved.
Then who are these “sons of God”? Some say they represented the “godly line of Seth,” but that idea requires consider- able adding to Scripture. Adam was called a “son of God” in Luke:3:38
, no doubt because he was created by God. It then seems possible that this expression could also refer to the children born to Adam and Eve before they sinned. That they had such children seems likely. God told them, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth...” (Gn 1:28); and after they sinned, God told Eve, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception” (Gn 3:16). These earlier offspring would have sinned on their own, of course; but how and when and how long they lived we don’t know. Having been born to Adam and Eve prior to their sin, they could be called “sons of God.” Whoever these “sons of God” were, I cannot accept the idea of angels or demons taking wives!
No comments:
Post a Comment