The Giants

[101G]

Grailhunter said:
1. Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife. Pretty early on to be populated so is there another genesis that occurs before Adam and Eve?
Cain "knew" his wife in nod, scripture, Genesis 4:16 "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden."Genesis 4:17 "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
the bible never said Cain met his wife in nod.

Grailhunter said: Your point?
the point is, the bible didn't say he took a wife in no, it said he "KNEW" his, his, his, Wife in nod. so your statement was false.

Grailhunter said: Do me a favor and show me a woman that lived two hundred years.
don't have to, because I never made that statement..... (smile). but show he a man who lived ... "AFTER", "AFTER", the Flood who lived over two hundred years according to the KJV Bible.

Grailhunter said: My statement was--> It is around the discussion of the sons of God that God notes the wickedness on earth.
I said God notice the wickedness when Cain killed Able.

Grailhunter said: You are striking out right and left here....Do you think you can do better than this?
nope... (smile), you been struck out with those false statement.

here is more than one speculation on the bloodline of Goliath counting the genesis of the females involved...if you do not believe me look it up. Beyond that it is speculation not intended to be sola scriptura.
I have alread have look up Goliath background. he came feom HAM. scripture,
Genesis 9:18 & 19 "And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread”. Knowing this, the only people to exist on the entire planet came from these three sons of Noah. No giants came from any other unions but of men, this is bible.
With this knowledge one of the most well-known giants in the bible is Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:23 "And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them”. Here the scriptures say that Goliath was a Philistine. And Goliath himself tells us that he is a Philistine. 1 Samuel 17:8 "And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them, Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? am not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me”. We know without a doubt that Goliath of Gath is a Philistine.
Now the question comes, where did the Philistine come from? Answer, let’s look at the genealogy of Noah sons and trace back to Goliath of Gath who is a Philistine. Genesis 10:6 "And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan”. One of Ham’s sons were Mizraim. Let’s look at Mizraim sons. Genesis 10:13 "And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 "And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim”. As we can see Mizraim had a son name Casluhim which out of him came a people called Philistim. The term Philistim is the Philistines
This is the same exact genealogy out of 1 Chronicles 1:12. Let’s compare them

1 Chronicles 1:12 "And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (of whom came the Philistines,) and Caphthorim”. BINGO.
Genesis 10:14 "And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim”.
Perfect match, so we know that Philistim in Genesis 10:14 is the Philistines 1 Chronicles 1:12. Knowing this, the Philistines came from HAM, one of Noah sons, who had Mizraim, who had Casluhim.

so there is no speculation as to where Goliath came from. so again you're reproved... and it was by the scriptures.

Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Grailhunter]

You're misunderstanding what that verse says. "In those days" is not before and after the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. That is "in those days" (at the same.time, this "when") ....speaking of the time when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, there were giants on the earth during that time....and also after (which would be obvious since they reproduced and filled the land).

No it says what it says and it means what I said it means.

The Nephilim were on the Earth in those days....without the event of the son of God the Nephilim were there, in those days. Then it goes on to say..... and "also" afterwards ....so before and after the Nephilim were there. Then it goes on to describe... when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Then it uses the word "those" meaning different. "We were eating lunch, but those guys were playing football." Those were the mighty men who of old, men of renown. It does not define their children as giants. "Those were the mighty men who of old, men of renown." This is a positive statement about them. There is really nothing good that can be said about the Nephilim.

That is all I can do for you. It is one of several scriptures that have been misunderstood for a long time....But do not feel bad you are in good company.

 

[Grailhunter]

he point is, the bible didn't say he took a wife in no, it said he "KNEW" his, his, his, Wife in nod. so your statement was false.

Mr. you do not know enough to talk to me, so go away. And you have the wrong attitude for me to take the time to take you to school. There is no biblical requirement for a wedding in the Old or New Testament. The word knew means he had sex, with a woman and that union is the marriage. Men in the Old Testament "took" wives. Now go away!

 

[Ziggy]

Sons of God are those that follow God.
Daughters of men are those who followed pagan gods.
It happened in Peor..

HUGS

 

[Davy]

Interesting and glad you are asking questions.
Here we are still in the early part of the Old Testament...a lot of time is ticking....and this is an extremely abbreviated portion of history.
Some of these short statements beg for more information and as they say, speak volumes but not a lot of words. Volume as in loud but not a lot of information.

This sounds like it could be closer to the truth, but in reality it's just an opinion that steers away from the actual Biblical and archaeological evidence.

1. Cain goes to the land of Nod and takes a wife. Pretty early on to be populated so is there another genesis that occurs before Adam and Eve?

Most aren't aware of the Hebrew of eth'ha'aadaam in Genesis 1:26-27 that has the Hebrew article and particle and makes a distinction between a specific man Adam which God created to till His Garden, and then the word aadaam without the article and particle which means 'mankind' and applies to the races, created on the same day as Adam. I already presented that in a previous post, so I won't go over it again here, but this is the 2nd time I've had to bring that up because those who don't believe (like yourself) are just BYPASSING it.

Furthermore, the history of Sargon I, a Semite who suddenly appeared among the ancient Sumerians in 3800 B.C. (per the Babylonian tablet histories), shows that Sargon gave them knowledge of canal building and the sciences, and also an account of the creation, and he built the first city there. So there is archaeological evidence also suggesting that Sargon was in fact Cain, and that ancient Sumer was most likely the Biblical "land of Nod".

2. Early on in the Old Testament story the Hebrew men develop an attraction to Pagan women...Lamech takes two wives...the land of Nod? Their sons develop iron and bronze tools and weapons and music. This places the "Iron age" long before documented history of it.

The Lamech of Genesis 4 is not the same Lamech of Genesis 5. The Lamech in Gen.4 was of Cain's son Enoch. The one in Gen.5 was descended from Seth. Because God cursed the ground to Cain, he could no longer farm, so he had to make his living other ways. That is why Cain's genealogy in Gen.4 shows traits other than farming, like building cities, workers in iron and brass, cattle men, musicians, and a tendency to do murder.

4. It is around the discussion of the sons of God that God notes the wickedness on earth. So that brings up the question of how many humans were on earth at that time to fill it with wickedness? This is pretty early in the story, so things were so evil that God decided to wipe them out with the flood? And what was this evil? Well In chapter 6 verses 11-13 violence and corruption of flesh is sited. What is corruption of flesh? He is tracking evil because He takes out Sodom and Gomorrah too.

Using the 'wickedness' ticket only is a poor excuse to steer around what Genesis 6 actually teaches. We are told that Noah was 'perfect' in his generations, which the Hebrew for that word perfect is the same word used in regard to required blood purity of a sacrificial animal per the old covenant sacrifice. So the subject most definitely... was about Noah's genealogy, and the fact that he had not mixed his bloodline.

The first part of Gen.6 plainly reveals the angels sinned with taking wives of the daughters of men, and the result were the giants, a race of hybrids, men of the name, men of the old legends, ancient mythology. Gen.6 also tells us with "also after that" there was a 2nd eruption after... the flood, and thus we have the Anakin and Rephaim in the lands of Canaan which the Israelites reported as being of great stature, which is certainly NOT... a simple reference only to wickedness!

Isa 26:14
14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased (rapaaiym), they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.
KJV

The above is one of two places in the KJV where the translators failed to translate a name for the giants from Hebrew as a proper name, which is Rephaim. What is especially important about the above is that it says "they shall not rise", meaning they will not be resurrected from the dead. The 'wicked' dead will be resurrected to stand before Christ's Judgment Seat (John 5:28-29). But those Rephaim (giants) will not, which further proves Biblically that those indeed WERE... a hybrid race on earth which God did not create, and they came from a LITERAL mating of fallen angels with the flesh daughters of man.

5. Then we come to actual lengths of periods and sequence of events. From there we move through and until chapter 12. Through these chapters we have the story of Noah, the flood, and the genealogies. Some say that these events are not in the right order. Since the Nephilim and their variants obviously existed after the flood, and the lifespan of males continued to be several centuries long, that the story involving the sons of God occurred sometime after the flood, the tower of Babel, and Abraham. Abraham lived 175 years and Jacob lived 147 years and Moses lived 120 years, so the story would have occurred after Abraham and before Moses. (Was it the mating with Pagan women, which were from another genesis that caused the shortening of lifespans?) So it is a possibility that the story of the sons of God occurred during the time the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt?

Genesis 6:4 already covered that:

Gen 6:4
4 There 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.
KJV

Matters not exactly when after the flood that 2nd eruption of the giants from the angels mating with flesh women happened. What matters is recognizing that they were already in the lands of Canaan waiting on the children of Israel to come there. What many fail to understand about this is all this was Satan's plan to try and TAINT the seed that Christ Jesus would later be born through. Satan was trying to prevent Christ's birth and thus His crucifixion so no one could be saved. That is also why Satan tried to split up Abraham and Sarah before Isaac was born. This is what the verse in the first part of Rev.12 is pointing to when the red dragon was ready to devour the woman's Child as soon as it was born. It began with Cain's murder of Abel, and continued all the way down to Herod who tried to murder baby Jesus. But some folks just can't see the forest for the trees I guess.

6. And this ties into the elongated skulls that have been found, that some suggest are the tall Nephilim and the members of the royal families of Egypt that are depicted as having elongated heads. It also ties into your reference to "the existence of god's co-habitation with humans on earth" and the question of, are these beings the foundation of Greek and Roman mythologies...

Let's not forget all the evidences from news articles especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries where even Smithsonian Institute reps were present and testified of finding skeletal remains over 11 feet tall in burial mounds. As for skull evidence, there was an ancient practice of binding the skull of children that elongated them. However, there exist some skulls, like in Peru, that have just one parietal plate (humans have two). That in itself disproves the theory of elongation with those skulls that have just one parietal plate. It proves the existence of a different specie altogether.

 

[Grailhunter]

Are you posting more statements or addressing the sons of God, the Nephilim and the children of the sons of God.
I do agree there are many opinions of what was going on in this section of Genesis. And I do believe there were giants, as in real giants and a separate race with elongated heads. I have already posted the pictures of elongated heads.

Archaeological evidence? On what topic?

 

[Grailhunter]

Using the 'wickedness' ticket only is a poor excuse to steer around what Genesis 6 actually teaches. We are told that Noah was 'perfect' in his generations, which the Hebrew for that word perfect is the same word used in regard to required blood purity of a sacrificial animal per the old covenant sacrifice. So the subject most definitely... was about Noah's genealogy, and the fact that he had not mixed his bloodline.

The first part of Gen.6 plainly reveals the angels sinned with taking wives of the daughters of men, and the result were the giants, a race of hybrids, men of the name, men of the old legends, ancient mythology. Gen.6 also tells us with "also after that" there was a 2nd eruption after... the flood, and thus we have the Anakin and Rephaim in the lands of Canaan which the Israelites reported as being of great stature, which is certainly NOT... a simple reference only to wickedness!

I did not use the wickedness ticket, the scriptures did.
From what it looks like Noah had not mixed the "Holy Seed"
As far as the sons of God being angels? I have heard that opinion but it does not have biblical support. It get into the discussion of what type of heavenly beings have genitalia.
And as worded in the scriptures the offspring of the sons of God were not described as giants.

The above is one of two places in the KJV where the translators failed to translate a name for the giants from Hebrew as a proper name, which is Rephaim. What is especially important about the above is that it says "they shall not rise", meaning they will not be resurrected from the dead. The 'wicked' dead will be resurrected to stand before Christ's Judgment Seat (John 5:28-29). But those Rephaim (giants) will not, which further proves Biblically that those indeed WERE... a hybrid race on earth which God did not create, and they came from a LITERAL mating of fallen angels with the flesh daughters of man.

Do not get me wrong I am not against speculation and opinions, but even among scholars it all varies. You are putting a whole lot on thinking that the sons of God were angels and thinking you know when the fall of the angels occurred.

 

[Grailhunter]

Furthermore, the history of Sargon I, a Semite who suddenly appeared among the ancient Sumerians in 3800 B.C. (per the Babylonian tablet histories), shows that Sargon gave them knowledge of canal building and the sciences, and also an account of the creation, and he built the first city there. So there is archaeological evidence also suggesting that Sargon was in fact Cain, and that ancient Sumer was most likely the Biblical "land of Nod".

Is Sargon I in fact Cain.
Some suggest that Cain lived around 3800 BC. So could Cain be Sargon 1? This sharply contrasts with mainstream scholarship which dates Sargon to the 23rd century BC.

As far as the "land of Nod" being, or the beginnings of the Sumerian culture, that is a rough speculation, but certainly not impossible. In or around 3500 BC - Much of lower Mesopotamia is inhabited by numerous Sumer city-states such as Ur, Uruk, Eridu, Kish, Lagash, and Nippur.

The difference of what you and I are doing here is that I admit my suggestions are speculation, except the correct interpretation of the sons of God scriptures. There are so many short statements made that are significant, but do not have detailed explanations. So there will be differing opinions and speculations that have been made over the centuries.

 

[101G]

Mr. you do not know enough to talk to me, so go away. And you have the wrong attitude for me to take the time to take you to school. There is no biblical requirement for a wedding in the Old or New Testament. The word knew means he had sex, with a woman and that union is the marriage. Men in the Old Testament "took" wives. Now go away!

first thanks for your reply, second, we can take this that you cannot properly reply to Genesis 4:17 "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

see, a wedding was never even in the equation... the scriptures, as I states, he "KNEW" his already wife in, in, nod...

the term "KNEW" here is An euphemism, or modest expression of the act of coition. ..... n YIKES! you're REPROVE.

third, don't worry I'm not going away. now if you decide to.... that your business.....

NOW PAY ATTENTION,
Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Ziggy]

Cain meet wife..

Job 15:35 They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit.

 

[Davy]

I did not use the wickedness ticket, the scriptures did.
From what it looks like Noah had not mixed the "Holy Seed"
As far as the sons of God being angels? I have heard that opinion but it does not have biblical support. It get into the discussion of what type of heavenly beings have genitalia.
And as worded in the scriptures the offspring of the sons of God were not described as giants.

The Genesis 6 scripture is clear, the "sons of God" is put for angels, just as the Book of Job uses that label for angels also. So what your doing is telling a lie against God's written Word in order to keep an agenda of man, which is also... a working against God and His Word.

Gen 6:2
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
KJV

Gen 6:4
4 There 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.
KJV

It's a show of ignorance to try and downplay The Bible descriptions of the great physical stature of the hybrid giant race as merely acts of wickedness. Easy to smell a rat with that baloney.


Num 13:28-33
28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.
29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.
30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.
31 But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
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, 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.
KJV

 

[Davy]

Is Sargon I in fact Cain.
Some suggest that Cain lived around 3800 BC. So could Cain be Sargon 1? This sharply contrasts with mainstream scholarship which dates Sargon to the 23rd century BC.

What Bristowe suggested in Sargon The Magnificent does contrast with some of the 'theory' Assyriologists have had where they changed the evidence to align with Darwin's theories. For example, one Assyriologist originally translated the date that Sargon appeared among the Sumerians as 3800 B.C. Because that early date did not fit the Assyriologist's theories of the time, so he changed that date to later. Bishop Ussher in the 17th century, and E.W. Bullinger in the 19th century, traced the lineage of Christ back to the man Adam and came up with the date of God forming the man Adam in 4004 B.C. That date is where the 6,000 year old earth creation theory comes from. 4004 B.C. is only 204 years from 3800 B.C. with Sargon appearing among the ancient Sumerians.

 

[Grailhunter]

What Bristowe suggested in Sargon The Magnificent does contrast with some of the 'theory' Assyriologists have had where they changed the evidence to align with Darwin's theories. For example, one Assyriologist originally translated the date that Sargon appeared among the Sumerians as 3800 B.C. Because that early date did not fit the Assyriologist's theories of the time, so he changed that date to later. Bishop Ussher in the 17th century, and E.W. Bullinger in the 19th century, traced the lineage of Christ back to the man Adam and came up with the date of God forming the man Adam in 4004 B.C. That date is where the 6,000 year old earth creation theory comes from. 4004 B.C. is only 204 years from 3800 B.C. with Sargon appearing among the ancient Sumerians.

It is good that you are interested in the history of all that, so am I. But as you probably know the theories, opinions, and interpretations vary depending on what academic source you are reading. Then you have the history of the evolution of those theories, opinions, and interpretations. It was not long ago that the academic scholarship was really butting head with the Bible. Over time they began to discover some of the cities that appear in the Bible.

A good example of it is the period known as the Iron age which was defined as the 12th century but when they spoke of it, it mostly equated to the 11th century. But the Bible places iron very early on. As time went on the academics finally had to admit that it was inaccurate to define any of it by metal ages, because the development of metal was a cultural / regional thing that was not synchronous with every culture. That explains the pot and pan history a little, but that is another story.

Then the other issue is dates…when you move into the academics then the dates get blown out past biblical timelines and limits. For example elongated skulls, some date back to 12,000 bc. I do not have issues with time frames but some people do.

There have been several that have tried to put arithmetic to the Old Testament period and usually they do not agree and usually most of that does not agree with academic history or science.

 

[Davy]

It is good that you are interested in the history of all that, so am I. But as you probably know the theories, opinions, and interpretations vary depending on what academic source you are reading. Then you have the history of the evolution of those theories, opinions, and interpretations. It was not long ago that the academic scholarship was really butting head with the Bible. Over time they began to discover some of the cities that appear in the Bible.

A good example of it is the period known as the Iron age which was defined as the 12th century but when they spoke of it, it mostly equated to the 11th century. But the Bible places iron very early on. As time went on the academics finally had to admit that it was inaccurate to define any of it by metal ages, because the development of metal was a cultural / regional thing that was not synchronous with every culture. That explains the pot and pan history a little, but that is another story.

Then the other issue is dates…when you move into the academics then the dates get blown out past biblical timelines and limits. For example elongated skulls, some date back to 12,000 bc. I do not have issues with time frames but some people do.

There have been several that have tried to put arithmetic to the Old Testament period and usually they do not agree and usually most of that does not agree with academic history or science.

Brethren in Christ, look closely at the above reasoning. It is designed to cast 'doubt' against the written Scriptures of God's Word. That is what men's doctrines do against The Word of God. The reason they use that tool of casting doubt is so they can prepare your mind for 'their' doctrines instead which they want to put into your mind.

Because what is actually 'written' in God's Word may be difficult for some to accept, simply because it may go against their learning or what theories of men they have accepted (like evolution theory), God's written Word is thus put on a back burner so to speak, or refused altogether, and the descriptions purposefully misinterpreted.

We are to believe God's Word as written, regardless of whether or not we understand all of it. In time it often proves to have been true all along. This is no different with the subject of the fallen angels mating with flesh woman and producing the hybrid offspring called giants, which God's written Word declares were of great size, an aberration from the size of men that God created.

 

[Taken]

101G-
Grailhunter-

"Concerning Giants" -
where did they come from ?

You're both right. All Scripture is True, but not All of Scripture is in the Same Context.

The Offspring of multiple Male Angel's And multiple Human Woman, reproduced A breed of Giants.

The Angels in Scripture were "Called sons of God" ... "going forward with some True some speculating" ...
• the Angels Were Holy in Heaven
(their estate),
• the Angels came to Earth as Holy Angels, i.e. sons of God,
• the Angels saw Daughters of man, acknowledged their fairness (beauty), and took them as wives.

Here we find information ...
• Apparently Angel's IN Heaven Can Not SEE People ON Earth. ( these Angles didn't see a human females look, till they were ON Earth)
• Already Known...Angel's have the Power to APPEAR AS A Human.
• People do not SEE Angel's as they are.
• Women, who married these Angel's "Appearing" as a human man, were unaware, they were Angels.

• Scripture reveals The Angels who took Human wives, were cast into prison, in Hell.
• noting-
-Angel's who became Unholy IN Heaven were Cast DOWN to the Earth's surface.
-Angel's Unholy ON Earth, become cast Down To IN the Earth.

Simply-
A breed of Giants...were the Offspring ..
OF an "Angel AND Human."

A breed of Giants...were the Offspring...
OF a "Giant AND Human".

You are both talking about Giants...
But WHAT they "sprung forth FROM" are "Two different things."

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Ziggy]

What is leaven?

 

[101G]

The Offspring of multiple Male Angel's And multiple Human Woman, reproduced A breed of Giants.

The Angels in Scripture were "Called sons of God" ... "going forward with some True some speculating" ...
• the Angels Were Holy in Heaven
(their estate),

ERROR, the bible say no such thing.

scripture, Genesis 6:4 "There 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."

what do the term "Giant" mean here,
H5303 נְפִיל nphiyl (nef-eel') n-m.
נְפִל nphil (nef-eel')
(properly) a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant.
[from H5307]
KJV: giant.

so the bible right here tells us who this term Giants identify, lets see, "the same became mighty men" BINGO. there is our answer. GIANTS in context have two meaning. why do we say that, because the term "Giants" identify tow class or type of HUMAN men.


"MIGHTY MEN"

Type I. “Mighty Men”, Ordinary men of valor, “A Warrior”.

Type II. “Mighty Men”, Ordinary men in stature, “A Giant”

God gives us the answer, so why go after comic books stories?

Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

 

[Ziggy]

ERROR, the bible say no such thing.

scripture, Genesis 6:4 "There 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."

what do the term "Giant" mean here,
H5303 נְפִיל nphiyl (nef-eel') n-m.
נְפִל nphil (nef-eel')
(properly) a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant.
[from H5307]
KJV: giant.

so the bible right here tells us who this term Giants identify, lets see, "the same became mighty men" BINGO. there is our answer. GIANTS in context have two meaning. why do we say that, because the term "Giants" identify tow class or type of HUMAN men.


"MIGHTY MEN"

Type I. “Mighty Men”, Ordinary men of valor, “A Warrior”.

Type II. “Mighty Men”, Ordinary men in stature, “A Giant”

God gives us the answer, so why go after comic books stories?

Remember, Don't argue with 101G, argue with the scriptures, God Holy Word.

PICJAG
101G The "Spiritual Saboteur"

That's why I said I found the Sons of God going into the daughters of men.
It's in the book of Kings when Israel was messing around with the Medianite women and following after their pagan gods.
So was it Balak who would have been a "Giant", in that he was King over Midian..
I started this thread looking for Giants, and I believe I found them with lots of help from my friends.
Than you all very much.

This is now your playground I give to you..
HUGS

 

[101G]

That's why I said I found the Sons of God going into the daughters of men.
It's in the book of Kings when Israel was messing around with the Medianite women and following after their pagan gods.
So was it Balak who would have been a "Giant", in that he was King over Midian..
I started this thread looking for Giants, and I believe I found them with lots of help from my friends.
Than you all very much.

This is now your playground I give to you..
HUGS

what is the exact scripture in kings?

thanks very much.

 

[Ziggy]

Sorry I meant Numbers:
Num 31:9
And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
Num 31:10
And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
Num 31:11
And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
Num 31:12
And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
Num 31:13
And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
Num 31:14
And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
Num 31:15
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
Num 31:16
Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

Here.. sorry MOAB,, same thing ?

Num 25:1
And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
Num 25:2
And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
Num 25:3
And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.