Was Jimmy Akind the One Blocking after 10:12? · Whether Yes or No, He Made Up for the Displeasure!
Update - no, it wasn't, it was probably a youtube software set on blocking certain terms.
Giants! (Biblical Giants, Goliath, Nephilim, Tallest Man Ever) - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World
Jimmy Akin, 27 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N29UiJy_KZs
3:43 This day, and the Lord will deliver thee into my hand, and I will slay thee, and take away thy head from thee: and I will give the carcasses of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the air, and to the beasts of the earth: that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.
Prophetically, King David is foretelling his Descendant's victory over Antichrist, obviously, at which all men will know God is God.
But immediately in the historical context, he's talking about "not just people, but birds and beasts too" - that and the blessing of animals and of minerals should tell any Catholic that in Mark 10:6 "the beginning of creation" does not simply mean "the beginning of mankind" ... but needs to coincide with it.
6:02 I am noting, the actual word giant is not used in I Kings 17 in DRBO, so, I suppose it's useless to look up the Hebrew interlinear to see if the Hebrew has gebor or sth else.
6:43 If in early post-Flood times Fu Hsi of China and Kekrops of Athens had below the waist a structure that was considered as "a snake below the waist" there is actually a malformation, rare but extant, where legs grow together. I think I have heard it described as "Siren syndrome" ... this kind of malformation can very well have inspired snake legged giants, even without going outside real human creatures.
8:09 Which latter* David had also
9:03 A few things to unpack here.
1) No direct mention of great height.
2) Baruch 3 referring back to this condition also has no direct mention of great height (from memory, 4 is when I look it up).
3) Both Genesis 6 and Baruch 3 involve mentions of violence, both involve mentions of might, in Baruch 3 linked about giants ("expert in war").
4) I must say I have not previously noticed "of great stature" in Baruch 3, I wondered if it had been added on the internet (I am not accessing the Bible on paper), but looking at LXX, I find the word here is εὐμεγέθεις:
εὐμεγέθης • (eumegéthēs) m or f (neuter εὐμέγεθες); third declension
of good size, large
considerable, weighty, important
It doesn't seem to be limited to great height. It could be great bulk in the other dimensions.
5) It says in Genesis 6 they were of renown
6) It says in Baruch 3 they did not attain "the way of knowledge" (ὁδὸν ἐπιστήμης), and this seems to mean knowledge of the good life, since technology seems implied in their status as expert warriors (ἐπιστάμενοι πόλεμον).
7) If we look at archaeology, Neanderthals and probably Denisovans (if morphology is similar to Atapuerca men, who had a similar genome) and certainly Homo erectus soloensis were of great muscle bulk, but not of great height. At least for Denisovans and Neanderthals we have a good evidence of smartness in technology.
8) If we look at non-Hebrew mythology, forget about Zeus or Hercules, they were post-Flood, we should look at Mahabharata - there is a one world state with a war about who shall rule it, and at least the Kauravas are very ignorant on how to live a good and decent life. Trying to force oneself on a woman bought in gamble is bad enough, but repeatedly trying to denude her when some supernatural agency (guardian angels comes to my Christian mind) protects her, it's as bad as Achilles dragging the corpse of Hector. (One could of course imagine that detail was borrowed from Greek epic, all manuscripts of Mahabharata are posterior to Alexander's invasion).
The idea they were tall may be a misuderstanding starting with men like Og and Goliath.
10:12 This could be one of the indicators for my theory that the text of the Torah started out linguistically in a different shape from what we have and was modified along the way of how Hebrew developed.
Nephelim for Nophelim could be the equivalent of ... shall we say Homeric lost digamma? Treating Anax or oinos as if they started with w-?
I am not a Hebraist, just a general idea.
I looked on Heiser 2013 (google search "naphila"), and while it is clear that "naphila" means "giant" it is not clear that "naphila" doesn't come from an Aramaic version of "naphal"** ....
[This*** was not able to be added:]
I note from the discussion that one of the pro-Heiser points is Hebrew translators being familiar with their own culture.
But by the time we are dealing with, the concept of nephilim could very well have been coloured for a pretty long time by the memory of Goliath.
Baruch 3 and much of Mahabharata descriptions of the Kauravas do describe them as morally fallen.
Neanderthals and "Atapuerca Denisovans" have been found in circumstances indicating cannibalism - dental calculus on Belgian, but not El Sidrón Neanderthals involve remains of human flesh, Atapuercans have been found with bones treated in ways that indicate they were regarded as the shell of shellfish - things to discard to get to in this case bone marrow. Cannibalism seems also indicated about Solo man (Homo erectus soloensis).
* The former, help of God, the latter, being small and nimble.
** Dr. Michael Heiser himself linked to what the post answers, namely this one:
Remnants of Giants : Michael Heiser’s (Mis)interpretation of “Nephilim” as “Giants” not “Fallen Ones”
https://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/michael-heisers-misinterpretation-of-nephilim-as-giants-not-fallen-ones/
*** I have sent Jimmy Akin a mail asking if it was he ...
No comments:
Post a Comment