“…it appears the proper definition is more apt to be declaring they were bullies rather then men of gigantic proportions…”

It appears? Just because, out of ALL the possibilities in all of the definitions given, the word ‘bullies’ shows up once? Yes. It does appear. Let’s see what else appears:

Brown-Driver-Briggs (Old Testament Hebrew-English Lexicon):

– giants, the Nephilim

Strong’s (Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament):

– From H5307; properly, a feller, that is, a bully or tyrant:—giant.

…always check the provided root references with Strong’s, like H5307:

Brown-Driver-Briggs (Old Testament Hebrew-English Lexicon):

1) to fall, lie, be cast down, fail
—1a) (Qal)
——-1a1) to fall
——-1a2) to fall (of violent death)
——-1a3) to fall prostrate, prostrate oneself before
——-1a4) to fall upon, attack, desert, fall away to , go away to,
————fall into the hand of
——-1a5) to fall short, fail, fall out, turn out, result
——-1a6) to settle, waste away, be offered, be inferior to
——-1a7) to lie, lie prostrate
—1b) (Hiphil)
——-1b1) to cause to fall, fell, throw down, knock out, lay prostrate
——-1b2) to overthrow
——-1b3) to make the lot fall, assign by lot, apportion by lot
——-1b4) to let drop, cause to fail (fig.)
——-1b5) to cause to fall
—1c) (Hithpael)
——-1c1) to throw or prostrate oneself, throw oneself upon
——-1c2) to lie prostrate, prostrate oneself
—1d) (Pilel) to fall

(…an interesting and informative index, to say the LEAST…)

Continuing with H5307

Strong’s (Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary of the Old Testament):

A primitive root; to fall, in a great variety of applications (intransitively or causatively, literally or figuratively):—be accepted, cast (down, self, [lots], out), cease, die, divide (by lot), (let) fail, (cause to, let, make, ready to) fall (away, down, -en, -ing), fell (-ing), fugitive, have [inheritamce], inferior, be judged [by mistake for H6419], lay (along), (cause to) lie down, light (down), be (X hast) lost, lying, overthrow, overwhelm, perish, present (-ed, -ing), (make to) rot, slay, smite out, X surely, throw down.

We’ll keep this post as confined as possible, but there’s more, and much of it informative over at:

http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/5307.html

Now back to H5303

NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible with Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries:

Nephilim (658c); from 5307; “giants,” name of two peoples, one before the flood and one after the flood:—

Let us also pay attention to the LOCATIONS of this word in the WORD:

Genesis 6:4. Numbers 13:33, 33.

Do these numbers carry some significance? Of course they do. Especially the Book heading by the name NUMBERS. (Threads like these demand to be explored.)

Moreover, have you taken the time to cross-reference the occurrence of this word NEPHEEL? Assuming you have done so, what have you uncovered by way of supporting evidence for the word meaning BULLIES?

I think it’s safe to say that there isn’t anything. And yet you have attached yourself to the one tiny particle which gives hope to your position from all of the above, to the exclusion of the vast remainder. Is that really the best way to practice rightly dividing the word of Truth?

“This also shows how the devil can easily distort a single word in the bible to generate a totally different outcome.”

Rather a preposterous assertion in light of the above, no? Or do you hold that Satan is responsible for the Lexicons and Concordances as well as the poor quality and intentionally misleading translations of Scripture?

“Back then, the word “giant” had one meaning, today another.”

Let the evidence show that this is a baseless claim.

“The Word of God is thousands of years old and cannot be defined by today’s languages.”

Perhaps the Word of God cannot be defined by today’s languages IN ALL CASES. However, in the vast majority of cases, the true meaning of the original text can very effectively be communicated using modern vernacular and modern words and concepts. Were it not so, then modern language would be an insufficient vehicle for transmitting the Word of God. But modern language is sufficient. That’s because the Most High knows what He is doing. He knew He would have to communicate with His people using these modern tongues. Virtually none of us are initiate in the mysteries of Ancient Languages.

“Without understanding what the words meant to the people in the day it was penned, you cannot possibly know what the truth is on any given topic if in fact that topic carries a word changed by modern man.”

As I say – we all have access to the same reference material you do. Are you claiming some more perfect and intimate relationship with the Ancient Languages than that afforded you by today’s Lexicons and Concordances?

“So be careful when studying the Word of God.”

And perhaps even MORE careful.

“When the word is examined in all formats (dictionary, Strong’s Concordance, Encyclopedias, bible commentaries, etc) it proves the word “giants” in Genesis 6:4 is still better translated using words of today like, “bullies, cruel, terrible, sinister, felons, etc”…”

Let the evidence show that this is a baseless claim. While those appellations may be appropriate descriptions of the concept, they do not embody the broader sense of the term. The term as we see it defined above is far more complex, and inclusive of a far greater sense, than that to which you would see it narrowed. Rather, the evidence points strongly away from those artificial confines, and overwhelms your imaginary boundary to fill out a much greater meaning.

“Only in man’s “opinion” do we hear this strange concoction of demonic monsters raping women.”

The Scriptures say nothing of ‘rape.’ The Scriptures say these beings ‘took them wives.’ Perhaps it was a consensual union, perhaps not. The Word is silent on that topic, yet we find you here pretending to possess the knowledge in question. That is very telling. That shows you falsely augmenting your argument in the absence of true substance. An unwise tactic. It is within the written Word that we find these specific creatures as being PROPAGATED by the Sons of God – not that the offspring issued forth from the Giants, as you erroneously depict* with the above statement. The Sons of God were the issue of the seed which impregnated the Daughters of Men. The Giants themselves were not the seed-bearers but the offspring. (*Unless you intended to refer to the Sons of God as demonic monsters, which I do not believe you did.)

“…when you look at the meek and gentle people of God in contrast to the, fighters, bullies, and felons of the Nephilim, we find they would indeed appear as giants because of their strange and hateful ways that “overpower” the meek.”

This is brazen speculation at the best. Why are you doing this? Was Samson meek? Was Gideon meek? Was David meek? The NEPHEEL appeared as giants because they WERE giants. “We are as grasshoppers in their sight.” “A people GREAT and TALL.” “His bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? Nine cubits was the length thereof…” Is it really your contention that these verses mean only to imply that the subjects were meaner and tougher than the Israelites, but were in no wise of a far greater physical stature?

“Scientific fact is, before the flood, all people were “giants” in the true sense of the word by today’s standard.”

Scientific ‘facts’ of this nature are abundantly supported by evidence. Please point to your evidence.

“Men were on average 16 feet tall and women around 14 feet.”

Yet further brazen speculation until you have supported your claim with sound evidence.

“If you investigate the word “giants ” in Genesis 6:4 you will find it speaks more of their “attitude” size rather then their “physical” size.”

This claim is now weighed and found to be wanting. To adopt your position, one must overlook a very significant portion of scripturally valid information which demands a far different conclusion. Your argument is supported by the weakest perspective, not the strongest.

“…men of great size…”

So, according to your argument, Vladimir Putin is a man of great size.

According to my argument, he is not.

Which argument bears the strictest relationship with reality?

Men of great size means what it say, Amminadab. It does not mean what you are arguing it means. You are arguing that Scripture should not be taken at its word in this case. I am ALWAYS wary of that argument. (Please don’t mistake that statement for meaning that I am a slave to literal interpretation. I doubt that Israelites will ever gorge themselves on milk from Gentile King’s teats. Etc. etc. But who knows…)