I believe Deuteronomy 3:11 definitely teaches that some of the giants were unnaturally tall and certainly taller than 7 feet: "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man." That's about 13.5 feet long.
Another interesting difference is between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1. There's been so much talk about NT criticism but so little about OT. There are some interesting places where the LXX, Samaritan Pent, DSS, Josephus, and other sources disagree with the Masoretic.
This was a fun series of conversations. The textual evidence on Goliath's height is enough for me. However on the brother of Goliath, I'm a bit weird. I think it's almost certainly right. However since the right reading is in Chronicles and not Samuel, I wouldn't want to do that. There's always the possibility of Chronicles being a correction (it does correct), so I wouldn't want it in the body of the text but a footnote. It's like a translational version for the NT. The Greek text is preserved well enough (unlike the OT) that I have to have a strong reason to use a versional reading. It should almost always be in the footnotes and stick to the text we have actual evidence for...even if I think the other reading is better.
There's evidence of giantism in other species from the pre-flood era, I think things were a lot different then and it's possible those giants were larger. There was probably more oxygen and much better genes - they lives hundreds of years afterall. The genetic squeeze down to Noah's family reflects in the lifespans decreasing greatly and probably a reduced stature.
Between this video and the last one on OT variants (Mark and John variants came up) I am not a JM fan. My guess is he is convinced by “modern” view points which are WAY too humanistic for my liking.
Having a joke about adding things to the Bible and then outright saying there are translator errors in 1 Samuel is wildly hypocritical. In fact saying that 1 Samuel is not correct is mind blowing. We know for an absolute fact that David killed Goliath so it doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever that Elhanan killed Goliath. Yet in Chronicles it makes it clear that it was the brother of Goliath. It’s a massive trap to go all ‘da vinci code’ on the text.
The fact that these new age translations allowed these type of obvious mistakes in their bibles and go out in print is a reason why I view their work as sloppy. The ESV made me KJVO.
Are you kidding? Every English translation we have uses the corrupted Masoretic text as their basis for the Old Testament. So your beloved KJV is also corrupt.
Should check out Mark Ward’s video on Job 17:6. KJVO is a trap. It’s full of untrue claims, ignorance of textual criticism, historical revisionism, circular reasoning, and of course, malice and just straight up cruelty towards brothers and sisters in Christ who use other translations.
I believe Deuteronomy 3:11 definitely teaches that some of the giants were unnaturally tall and certainly taller than 7 feet:
"For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man."
That's about 13.5 feet long.
Love it! His argument on Goliath’s height is exactly what my Hebrew prof taught
Another interesting difference is between 2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1.
There's been so much talk about NT criticism but so little about OT. There are some interesting places where the LXX, Samaritan Pent, DSS, Josephus, and other sources disagree with the Masoretic.
From my Beard Era - th-cam.com/video/0vwXpawpgYE/w-d-xo.html
This was a fun series of conversations.
The textual evidence on Goliath's height is enough for me.
However on the brother of Goliath, I'm a bit weird. I think it's almost certainly right. However since the right reading is in Chronicles and not Samuel, I wouldn't want to do that. There's always the possibility of Chronicles being a correction (it does correct), so I wouldn't want it in the body of the text but a footnote. It's like a translational version for the NT. The Greek text is preserved well enough (unlike the OT) that I have to have a strong reason to use a versional reading. It should almost always be in the footnotes and stick to the text we have actual evidence for...even if I think the other reading is better.
But the killing of Goliath by David is in 1 Sam 17:49-51. That's why you should use the LXX before the masorites corrupted the text.
Re: Who killed Goliath? th-cam.com/video/C6X9gK67wsU/w-d-xo.html
The slide on the video says 2 Chronicles 20:5, but I think it should be 1 Chronicles 20:5.
Your right!
There's evidence of giantism in other species from the pre-flood era, I think things were a lot different then and it's possible those giants were larger.
There was probably more oxygen and much better genes - they lives hundreds of years afterall.
The genetic squeeze down to Noah's family reflects in the lifespans decreasing greatly and probably a reduced stature.
Interesting! Can you explain the difference in Eph 6:12 geneve bible vs kjv?
@8:26 , supposed to be 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 chronicles 20:5 not 1 Samuel 21:19 and 2 chronicles 20:5 👍
2 Samuel 21:19 would be one of Ruckman's proofs that the KJV "corrects" and is superior to the original. 😃
Between this video and the last one on OT variants (Mark and John variants came up) I am not a JM fan.
My guess is he is convinced by “modern” view points which are WAY too humanistic for my liking.
Having a joke about adding things to the Bible and then outright saying there are translator errors in 1 Samuel is wildly hypocritical. In fact saying that 1 Samuel is not correct is mind blowing.
We know for an absolute fact that David killed Goliath so it doesn’t make any logical sense whatsoever that Elhanan killed Goliath. Yet in Chronicles it makes it clear that it was the brother of Goliath.
It’s a massive trap to go all ‘da vinci code’ on the text.
The fact that these new age translations allowed these type of obvious mistakes in their bibles and go out in print is a reason why I view their work as sloppy. The ESV made me KJVO.
Are you kidding? Every English translation we have uses the corrupted Masoretic text as their basis for the Old Testament. So your beloved KJV is also corrupt.
Should check out Mark Ward’s video on Job 17:6. KJVO is a trap. It’s full of untrue claims, ignorance of textual criticism, historical revisionism, circular reasoning, and of course, malice and just straight up cruelty towards brothers and sisters in Christ who use other translations.