Is there any evidence for the giants mentioned in the bible?

[Cainkane1]

Have any fossils of giants been excavated? Any tombs containing the remains of giant men or women? It seems to me that had they existed there would be remains. Goliath may have been over six feet tall but while that was tall for that day and time would he really have been considered a supernatural type giant being?

[kerikiwi]

Nope, no fossils.
No fossils of unicorns or leprechauns either.
Mythological beings tend to not leave clues.

[HeyLeroy]

What, haven't you seen the bigfoot threads? :D

[Personal Grudge]

Of course we have fossils of the biblical giants! They're kept next to the aliens in Area 51! DUH! ;)

[Mojo]

Have any fossils of giants been excavated?


Here you go (http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/20041001_en.html). ;)

[runnah]

The Giants? No, God was a Patriots fan.

[Akhenaten]

The statues of Ramesses the Great at Abu Simbel are life-size, if I recall correctly.

[Mojo]

The statues of Ramesses the Great at Abu Simbel are life-size, if I recall correctly.


I'll have to take your word for it: it was before my time.

[William Parcher]

Bigfoot & Mormons? (http://www.ourbigfoot.com/bigfoot_mormons.html)

You are going to be amazed at this report. Could Cain and his descendents be running around the forests of the United States or the Himalayas in Asia?

The Journal of Mormon History published an investigation into stories suggesting that the Bigfoot creatures are actually Cain from the bible, who murdered Adam and Eve's other son, Abel. The article was written by Matthew Bowman who cited a manuscript dating back to 1919. The manuscript tells of a missionary being attacked by a "huge hairy creature" whom the missionary drove off in the name of Christ! This event brought up a discussion at the time between missionaries concerning another story from famed Mormon missionary, David W. Patten, who had also encountered a Bigfoot in Tennessee. Patten described the Bigfoot as having no clothes, hairy and dark. Patten further explained in his story from 1835, that the Bigfoot wanders the Earth, has no home, is very miserable, unable to die, and seeks the souls of lost men. In Patten's story, he says he rebuked the beast in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and told him to leave. So, the Bigfoot departed. Uh-huh.

Clan of Cain: the Genesis of Bigfoot (http://www.mormonstoday.com/011207/A2Bigfoot01.shtml) is a newly published book that offers a different dimension to the Bigfoot mystery. A recently uncovered document reveals a possible connection between the origins of the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and Bigfoot. Searching through the archives of historical church documents the author; Shane Lester uncovered an extraordinary story that becomes the foundation of a new theory about the origins of Bigfoot.

[blutoski]

Have any fossils of giants been excavated? Any tombs containing the remains of giant men or women? It seems to me that had they existed there would be remains. Goliath may have been over six feet tall but while that was tall for that day and time would he really have been considered a supernatural type giant being?

By 'giants' I'm thinking you're not talking about giant creatures such as Leviathan, but just individual biblical characters who were described as giants?

I'm thinking maybe that's unreasonable expectations: even if they did exist, the odds of their particular remains surviving are pretty astronomical.

[Akhenaten]

By 'giants' I'm thinking you're not talking about giant creatures such as Leviathan, but just individual biblical characters who were described as giants?

I'm thinking maybe that's unreasonable expectations: even if they did exist, the odds of their particular remains surviving are pretty astronomical.


Nup. Generic Genesis Giants™. Lots of them.

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.

[Toke]

Well there are plenty of evidence remaining of the Cyclops (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythiccreatures/land/images/2Dwarf-elephant-skull_lg.jpg).

[Bikewer]

Contemporary humans suffering from Giantism have all manner of severe health problems.
Very difficult to show healthy, strong human beings much out of the range of say, NBA Basketball stars, who likely represent the upper range of size for humans.
Despite lower average height and size for our ancestors, I think it's likely that some specimens might have approached that seven-foot-ish height, and would have been pretty impressive to a bunch of guys averaging in the mid 5-foot range.

Then the stories grow in the telling....

[dafydd]

There was The Cardiff Giant,need I say it was a fake?

http://www.apatheticagnostic.org/articles/meds2/images/irish.jpg

[Marduk]

Have any fossils of giants been excavated? Any tombs containing the remains of giant men or women? It seems to me that had they existed there would be remains. Goliath may have been over six feet tall but while that was tall for that day and time would he really have been considered a supernatural type giant being?

been through all this before
here
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5039376&postcount=98
as you'll see the only mention of the word giant in the Hebrew bible (thats the original version before it made the bestsellers list) are as references to Goliath who is clearly shown to be 6'7, the later references that appear in the KJV are only there as mistranslations for "tall"

goliath wasn't a giant in the terms that we think of, he especially wasn't considered supernatural as much as the rock in Davids slingshot was
:D

[Marduk]

Nup. Generic Genesis Giants™. Lots of them.

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.

but in the original version it doesnt say that
4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown

and lots of other passages make it very clear that what the christian rewriters of the KJV called "giants" the Hebrews just called "tall"

[C_Felix]

The Giants? No, God was a Patriots fan.

Then why did God make the Pats lose and not have a perfect season?!

:rolleyes:

[Correa Neto]

Punishment for their sins. It could have been worse, He could have sent them fire and brimstone....

[Bob Blaylock]

Well there are plenty of evidence remaining of the Cyclops (http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/mythiccreatures/land/images/2Dwarf-elephant-skull_lg.jpg).


Indeed, there are. I, myself, have photographed several, and posted the photographs here.

Some examples:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4517743&highlight=cyclops#post4517743
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4590267&highlight=cyclops#post4590267
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4810914&highlight=cyclops#post4810914

[Rrose Selavy]

Contemporary humans suffering from Giantism have all manner of severe health problems.
Very difficult to show healthy, strong human beings much out of the range of say, NBA Basketball stars, who likely represent the upper range of size for humans.
Despite lower average height and size for our ancestors, I think it's likely that some specimens might have approached that seven-foot-ish height, and would have been pretty impressive to a bunch of guys averaging in the mid 5-foot range.

Then the stories grow in the telling....

Indeed, It's notable also that even recent candidates for the world tallest man, (usually due to a pituitary giganitism or acromegaly) tend to even exaggerate their own height - they would have been so much more impressive back then.
Assuming it was based on an actual incident, there is a speculative theory that David was able to dodge Goliath's restricted line of vision due to his tunnel vision (which is a common symptom of untreated pituitary tumour pressing on the optic chiasm etc ) and the stone caused internal bleeding (pituitary apoplexy) -

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/176/1/288.2.full.pdf

[Marduk]

Indeed, It's notable also that even recent candidates for the world tallest man, (usually due to a pituitary giganitism or acromegaly) tend to even exaggerate their own height - they would have been so much more impressive back then.
Assuming it was based on an actual incident, there is a speculative theory that David was able to dodge Goliath's restricted line of vision due to his tunnel vision (which is a common symptom of untreated pituitary tumour pressing on the optic chiasm etc ) and the stone caused internal bleeding (pituitary apoplexy) -

http://radiology.rsna.org/content/176/1/288.2.full.pdf

you assume too much
lets not do the "it could be true because the bible is evidence" route please, it never is....
David didn't need to dodge Goliath anyway, he didn't get a chance to draw his sword because David killed him from a distance with a slingshot

[Rrose Selavy]

Eh? You'll be telling me Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden didn't really exist next...

[Toke]

Indeed, there are. I, myself, have photographed several, and posted the photographs here.

Some examples:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4517743&highlight=cyclops#post4517743
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4590267&highlight=cyclops#post4590267
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4810914&highlight=cyclops#post4810914

Interresting pictures, but I am pretty sure that 135 micrometer disqualify for giant.:)

[Akhenaten]

Nup. Generic Genesis Giants™. Lots of them.

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.





but in the original version it doesnt say that


4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown


and lots of other passages make it very clear that what the christian rewriters of the KJV called "giants" the Hebrews just called "tall"


You know, I excised the word Nephilim from my quotation on purpose, but I don't know now why I did. Thank you for the correction.


As always,

Dave

[UnrepentantSinner]

The statues of Ramesses the Great at Abu Simbel are life-size, if I recall correctly.

His mummy says otherwise.
Rrrraaawwwrrr! Statues not life-sized! Rrraawwwrrr!
:mummy:

[Akhenaten]

The statues of Ramesses the Great at Abu Simbel are life-size, if I recall correctly.





His mummy says otherwise.

Rrrraaawwwrrr! Statues not life-sized! Rrraawwwrrr!
:mummy:


:D


Pick-a-Response™


A. He shrank.

B. She's lying Tuya

C. His Daddy ain't his Daddy but his Daddy don't know.

D. Sorry, it was just a tall story.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've seen the Brendan Frasier movies so I'm not going to argue with the mummy... but I'll go with:



A. He shrank.



Because, obviously, the most powerful pharoah would get the most powerful natron.

[CynicalSkeptic]

because David killed him from a distance with a slingshot

goliath wasn't a giant in the terms that we think of, he especially wasn't considered supernatural as much as the rock in Davids slingshot was
:D

A sling,
http://www.grannysstore.com/Wilderness_Survival/images/Sling.gif

not a slingshot.
http://doyouspeakeasy.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/jackspade_slingshot_speakeasy.gif

[CynicalSkeptic]

http://z.hubpages.com/u/226873_f520.jpg

[Vortigern99]

The assertion "Joe Taylor... was commissioned to sculpt this... femur" rather undermines the legitimacy of the supposed "fossil".

It's also worth noting that the "anatomically correct" sculpture diverges from the anatomical drawing underneath it at several key points.

[CynicalSkeptic]

Just in case you're not entirely familiar with this world renowned Fossil Museum (http://www.mtblanco.com/AboutUs.htm):
I’m Joe Taylor, the director and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum. If you like fossils, dinosaur digs and other old things you have come to the right place. Check the news reports. We want to show you why we do not believe that the evolution theory or the millions of years concept is good science.(emphasis mine)

And the story (http://mtblanco.com/TourGiantArticle.htm) behind the fossil sculpture
Dear Christian Friends, I was born and lived in the Middle East from 1938 to 1968. I was Ain-Tell and Euphrates water works Engineer and was very interested in archaeology and history and had some very interesting findings, some of which may sound unbelievable. I have brought with me a few silex arrow heads, etc., from the very battle-field where King Nebuchadnezzar and Pharo-Necho’s armies fought. And what about the giants mentioned in Genesis? In south-east Turkey in the Euphrates Valley and in Homs and at Uran-Zohra, tombs of about four meters long once existed, but now roads and other construction work has destroyed the spots. At two places, when unearthed because of construction work, the leg bones were measured about 120 cms. It sounds unbelievable. I have lived with my family at Ain-Tell for more than 14 years at the very spot where King Nebuchadnezzar had his headquarters after the battle of Charcamish, where I dug the graves of kings’ officers and found their skeletons like sponge, and when you touch them they become like white ash, with spears and silex and obsidian tools and ammunition laying by.
See, it was written in a letter to "Christian Friends", so it must be true.

[blutoski]

Nup. Generic Genesis Giants™. Lots of them.

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.

Regardless, I still think the expectation is a bit unreasonable. A scenario where giants truly did roam the middle east, but their remains are not available due to their small numbers, is entirely plausible.

[Akhenaten]

Regardless, I still think the expectation is a bit unreasonable. A scenario where giants truly did roam the middle east, but their remains are not available due to their small numbers, is entirely plausible.


At least as plausible as bigfeets.

[dropzone]

Regardless, I still think the expectation is a bit unreasonable. A scenario where giants truly did roam the middle east, but their remains are not available due to their small numbers, is entirely plausible.Which, however, places them in the same "possible, but not likely" class that ANY OTHER CREATURE occupies. The odds are so very against ANY animal being fossilized AND found millions of years later in some random site in South Dakota or Vegas that people would ignore them. Paleontologists and archaeologists hope for the occasional offering of Fate, and spend careers not finding it.

[UncaYimmy]

Which, however, places them in the same "possible, but not likely" class that ANY OTHER CREATURE occupies. The odds are so very against ANY animal being fossilized AND found millions of years later in some random site in South Dakota or Vegas that people would ignore them. Paleontologists and archaeologists hope for the occasional offering of Fate, and spend careers not finding it.

Did these giants wear shoes? Use tools? Build houses?

[Bikewer]

Or suffer from osteoarthritis? Hip problems? Ankle joint problems....Etc, etc. As I noted, very large humans have lots of health problems. Circulation, weight bearing, etc.

Very very large humans would have such problems in spades; we are simply not well-suited structurally to be enormous. We are just barely suited to be the size we are.....

[Marduk]

A sling,
http://www.grannysstore.com/Wilderness_Survival/images/Sling.gif
not a slingshot.
http://doyouspeakeasy.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/jackspade_slingshot_speakeasy.gif

next you'll be telling me he wasn't wearing grey flannel shorts and a school cap either

[Akhenaten]

I think that's Dennis and Goliath you've got hold of there mate. ;)

[blutoski]

At least as plausible as bigfeets.

I don't think it's a fair comparison, in the sense that bigfoot is alleged to be a contemporary species, and so some remains would be currently decaying. Whereas: these biblical giants would have to have been decaying for thousands of years at least.

I hike a great deal, and I have watched deer carcasses decompose over, say, a decade, until there's nothing left. My understanding is that with rare exceptions, human remains typically are reduced within a century.

[blutoski]

Which, however, places them in the same "possible, but not likely" class that ANY OTHER CREATURE occupies. The odds are so very against ANY animal being fossilized AND found millions of years later in some random site in South Dakota or Vegas that people would ignore them. Paleontologists and archaeologists hope for the occasional offering of Fate, and spend careers not finding it.

Obviously.

[Akhenaten]

I don't think it's a fair comparison, in the sense that bigfoot is alleged to be a contemporary species, and so some remains would be currently decaying. Whereas: these biblical giants would have to have been decaying for thousands of years at least.

I hike a great deal, and I have watched deer carcasses decompose over, say, a decade, until there's nothing left. My understanding is that with rare exceptions, human remains typically are reduced within a century.


No arguments with your observations about bodily remains, but I'll refer to the things that UncaYimmy mentioned such as tools and other artefacts, houses and all the the types of evidence we have for other ancient peoples.

The bigfeets are apparently hiding, but these Nephilim fellows were "men of renown". Where are their mighty works?

[blutoski]

No arguments with your observations about bodily remains, but I'll refer to the things that UncaYimmy mentioned such as tools and other artefacts, houses and all the the types of evidence we have for other ancient peoples.

The bigfeets are apparently hiding, but these Nephilim fellows were "men of renown". Where are their mighty works?

Well, the key problem is the terminal vagueness. Maybe they were great singers. Maybe there were only ten of them. It's hard to say we don't find what we would expect to, when we don't know what to expect to find.

[King of the Americas]

The bigfeets are apparently hiding, but these Nephilim fellows were "men of renown". Where are their mighty works?

The Walls of Troy, the Great Pyramid, Stone Hinge, Machu Pichu, Tiwanaku...I could go on.

[CynicalSkeptic]

Stone Hinge? Tell me about this.

[Akhenaten]

Well, the key problem is the terminal vagueness. Maybe they were great singers. Maybe there were only ten of them. It's hard to say we don't find what we would expect to, when we don't know what to expect to find.


Handbills. Really big handbills. Advertising upcoming concerts.



The Walls of Troy, the Great Pyramid, Stone Hinge, Machu Pichu, Tiwanaku...I could go on.


Most of those things are still there alright. All you need to do now is refute all the evidence that they were built by normal people and substitute the new evidence that you've collected for giants building them and your fame and fortune are assured.



Stone Hinge? Tell me about this.


Well, there was this really, really big door you see . . .

[Marduk]

Most of those things are still there alright. All you need to do now is refute all the evidence that they were built by normal people and substitute the new evidence that you've collected for giants building them and your fame and fortune are assured.


I actually know someone who believes this, he claims that the evidence of the boat pits which he claims are actually giants graves is the evidence, but hes not famous or rich, hes just a nut, and everyone knows it
;)

[Rrose Selavy]

next you'll be telling me he wasn't wearing grey flannel shorts and a school cap either

There's been a new and exciting archeological finding.... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211390/Scrawled-pack-Players-Dennis-Menace.html)

-

[King of the Americas]

Stone Hinge? Tell me about this.

:)

"Stonehenge"

My bad.

Do I, still need to tell you about it?

[Marduk]

:)

"Stonehenge"

My bad.

Do I, still need to tell you about it?

just for the etymological pedants out there

Hinge and Henge are both derived from the root of the OE verb Hang.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Stonehenge
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hinge
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hang
:p

so you were right if you were directing your post at 800+ year old Anglo Saxons

[King of the Americas]

Most of those things are still there alright. All you need to do now is refute all the evidence that they were built by normal people and substitute the new evidence that you've collected for giants building them and your fame and fortune are assured.


The crowning/cap stone, of the queen's chamber is TOO big for 'men' alone to lift and position. Even if the strongest men in the world put their hands all around and or were under it, they couldn't 'lift' it.

The stone itself was 'slid' into place from the upper shaft, and lowered into place without any chips or cracks to the stone itself, or the placement stones on which it rests... The stone is simply too big to be 'handled' and positioned by men.

*There's no 'evidence' that men built the Great Pyramid, theories however abound about who built it and why abound. (Egyptologists further claim that the Sphinx is no more than 3,000 years old, even if water erosion marks present suggest a much old age...)

---

This has already been posted ad nausum, but it bares repeating.

From- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html

and "ZAHI HAWASS, Director General of Giza"

...in a NOVA experiment we found that 12 men could pull a 1.5 ton block over a slick surface with great ease...in 21 days, 12 barefoot men quarried 186 stones. Now they did it with an iron winch, an iron cable and a winch that pulled the stone away from the quarry wall, and all their tools were iron. But other than that they did it by hand... (*BAD testing, why not test w/o 'iron'?)

...to complete the pyramid in the time egyptologists suggest you need 340 'finished' stones to be delivered to you, every day, and that's 34 stones every hour in a ten hour day, right. Thirty-four stones can get delivered by x number of gangs of 20 men, and it comes out to something like 2,000, somewhere in that area. We can go over the exact figures. So now we've got 1200 men in the quarry which is a very generous estimate, 2,000 men delivering. And so that's 3,200. OK, how about men cutting the stones and setting them? Well, it's different between the core stones which were set with great slop factor, and the casing stones which were custom cut and set, one to another, with so much accuracy that you can't get a knife blade in between the joints, so there's a difference there. But let's gloss over that...

...Presently, current estimates are that 5,000, 4 to 5,000 men could build the Great Pyramid within a 20 to 40 year period...

BWAAA HAAAA HAAAA!!!

THAT'S a load of camel manure.

They've NEVER tested this 'theory', and the tests that they did do, are NOT at all comparable to what was actually employed during the building.

5,000 men + 40 years does NOT = ONE "Great Pyramid".

There's exactly ZERO 'evidence' for this, period.

Currently, that 5,000 men without iron tools could accomplish the feat in 2 score is an unproven 'theory', without evidentiary support.

The question posed was "...these Nephilim fellows were "men of renown". Where are their mighty works?"

I provided several examples of mighty works, that 'lack' man's physical fingerprints...

[thaiboxerken]

I've heard apologists claim that these "giants" mentioned were the dinosaurs.....

[King of the Americas]

Well, there was this really, really big door you see . . .

No that's the Coral Castle, in Florida...

http://www.amazingabilities.com/amaze10a.html

...that features a 9 ton door...put in place by ONE 100 lb man...

...who mentioned he knew how the ancients constructed the wonders...

...he employed no other workers...

...children claimed to see him floating stones into place under the cover of night, but there's no evidence as to 'how' he managed the feat in a mere 28 years, other than the sight, that is.

---

I know this doesn't support a "Nephilim" solution, but it is an interesting sight non-the-less.

[Marduk]

No that's the Coral Castle, in Florida...

http://www.amazingabilities.com/amaze10a.html

...that features a 9 ton door...put in place by ONE 100 lb man...

...who mentioned he knew how the ancients constructed the wonders...

...he employed no other workers...

...children claimed to see him floating stones into place under the cover of night, but there's no evidence as to 'how' he managed the feat in a mere 28 years, other than the sight, that is.

---

I know this doesn't support a "Nephilim" solution, but it is an interesting sight non-the-less.

all the equipment used is on display in the coral castle museum, along with pictures of Ed using it, his claim that he "discovered the secrets of the pyramids" applies just as well to basic engineering principles as any other

and perhaps you should read up on the work of wally wallington, who does things you claim are impossible, all on his own
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/

[Marduk]

The crowning/cap stone, of the queen's chamber is TOO big for 'men' alone to lift and position. Even if the strongest men in the world put their hands all around and or were under it, they couldn't 'lift' it.

DENY DENY DENY

All you are stating is that you couldn't do it, this is no mystery to most of us
:p

instead of researching how the pyramids were not built from woo sites and agreeing with everything thats written on them, perhaps you should read some credible ones to balance out your ignorance a little.
:rolleyes:
even Wally states
For many years people have tried to solve the mystery of the Egyptian pyramids, some even claiming extra terrestrial intervention. I have always enjoyed the challenge of a mystery and I know that ET did not have anything to do with ancient construction. Similar works were done in different places on earth and at different times in history and there has to be a more accurate explanation. I believe skilled individuals performed the work. I have found that this work could easily be done using only primitive tools and physics.
but I expect you don't believe him because his income is not based on your incredulity

[King of the Americas]

and perhaps you should read up on the work of wally wallington, who does things you claim are impossible, all on his own
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/

Too bad you have to 'pay' $15 to SEE the techniques demonstrated...

Although, I understand the principle, I think.

[Marduk]

Too bad you have to 'pay' $15 to SEE the techniques demonstrated...

Although, I understand the principle, I think.

you have to pay $15 if you want to see his "most recent projects"
there are four pages for free where he shows you how its done,
:D

[King of the Americas]

but I expect you don't believe him because his income is not based on your incredulity

5,000 men + 20-40 years...

340 'finished' stones every DAY...

Without 'iron', you'd need WAY more people swinging hammers onto chisels. Moving is the easy part. 'Fitting' them together is gonna take more man-hours.

[Marduk]

5,000 men + 20-40 years...

340 'finished' stone every DAY...

are you basing your math on what you got from wiki ?
:rolleyes:

if not, source please ?

Without 'iron', you'd need WAY more people swinging hammers onto chisels. Moving is the easy part. 'Fitting' them together is gonna take more man-hours.
uhuh, seems you've been at the woo again
what about this looks like it was done with precision
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_7u4lUlKPJ6c/SDTUWoxtAmI/AAAAAAAAAIA/xVS5lVWP4oA/IMG_0314.JPG

[King of the Americas]

you have to pay $15 if you want to see his "most recent projects"
there are four pages for free where he shows you how its done,
:D

I think I may have found a new hobby...

These techniques are beyond interesting. I've GOT to employ some of these techniques.

[King of the Americas]

are you basing your math on what you got from wiki ?
:rolleyes:

if not, source please ?

uhuh, seems you've been at the woo again
what about this looks like it was done with precision
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_7u4lUlKPJ6c/SDTUWoxtAmI/AAAAAAAAAIA/xVS5lVWP4oA/IMG_0314.JPG

Everything I've posted came from- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid.../builders.html

and "ZAHI HAWASS, Director General of Giza"

---

This Wallington's "round road", and the ease at which he can move a massive piece of stone is awesome...

---

The picture you featured is of the 'outside', where the 'gaps' have been widened due to erosion. Post some pictures of the inner blocks' gaps...

[Marduk]

Everything I've posted came from- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid.../builders.html...
no it didnt, theres no math there

and "ZAHI HAWASS, Director General of Giza"

thats a title that he ceased using more than a decade ago, quite a few advances in understanding have happened since then, the one thats most relevant is that Zahi Hawass stated that there are 1,000,000 blocks, not the 2,3,000,000 you mentioned, it was a number arrived at by taking the dimensions and dividing it by an arbritrarily decided upon standard pyramid block. This does not of course take into account the fact that
1. the pyramid was built on a mound
2. the pyramid was constructed with filler made from loose rubble and sand
3. the pyramid is not solid



The picture you featured is of the 'outside', where the 'gaps' have been widened due to erosion. Post some pictures of the inner blocks' gaps...
erosion does not widen gaps, you are looking at it with your "belief", have a look at the picture again with an eye to the sizing of the blocks.
heres an inside picture
http://www.delange.org/Inside_Khufu/gpiv9nos.jpg
how precise is that corner
:D
or here
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/greatpyramid3-19.jpg
last time I saw a room with this type of perspective it was at a crazy house at the beach
or the famous grand gallery, take a real good look at the precision
http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/Egypt/Memphis/GreatPyramidPassage.jpg
and the less said about this the better
http://www.shunya.net/Pictures/Egypt/Memphis/GreatPyramidInterior1.jpg
are you perhaps taking images like this
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wX0ryj-RWpw/RwmxkMEnoYI/AAAAAAAAAIg/VGkedzdcUac/s320/iside%2Bthe%2Bgreat%2Bpyramid.jpg
and extrapolating the precision used in the burial chamber into the rest of the structure

and the outside hasn't been exposed to the elements that long, they only became visible 800 years ago when the tura limestone casing fell off during an earthquake, I would posit to you that the reason they fell off was not because they were precision engineered in the way youre claiming

the great pyramid is not the most astounding architectural feat in Ancient Egypt, Khufus father, Sneferu was responsible for moving far more stone for his monuments of which there are several than Khufu ever did, why do you think no one is claiming that the Egyptians didn't do that

1. because there is not a pseudoSneferu market for making wild unsupported claims, supported by people who don't know the facts nor are interested in finding them out
2. Aliens did it

youre gonna go for 2 arent ya

:D

[King of the Americas]

no it didnt, theres no math there

I don't know what 'math' you looking for, but EVERYTHING I supplied here, came from that link.

thats a title that he ceased using more than a decade ago, quite a few advances in understanding have happened since then, the one thats most relevant is that Zahi Hawass stated that there are 1,000,000 blocks, not the 2,3,000,000 you mentioned, it was a number arrived at by taking the dimensions and dividing it by an arbritrarily decided upon standard pyramid block. This does not of course take into account the fact that
1. the pyramid was built on a mound
2. the pyramid was constructed with filler made from loose rubble and sand
3. the pyramid is not solid

Wouldn't we need to completely do-construct it to 'know' that any of these things are true for sure?

This sounds like conjecture and speculation intended to make their present explanation more plausible.

http://www.greatdreams.com/giza.gif

Where's this 'mound', and how do you keep these shafts from collapsing, when they go through mere 'rubble'?

erosion does not widen gaps, you are looking at it with your "belief", have a look at the picture again with an eye to the sizing of the blocks.

The blocks aren't uniform...but that just means that those working at the quarry didn't have the means to rough cut the stones in an exacting manner... After the rough cut, the finishers did what they could, to fit the pieces together.

and extrapolating the precision used in the burial chamber intothe rest of the structure

Guilty as charged... Only I used the gaps of the Grand Gallery to begin my extrapolations.

and the outside hasn't been exposed to the elements that long, they only became visible 800 years ago when the tura limestone casing fell off during an earthquake, I would posit to you that the reason they fell off was not because they were precision engineered in the way youre claiming

I thought the outside was stripped, ages ago for another building project...?

Do you have a source from your earthquake induced defacing of the outer casing?

Could such an earthquake have caused a mis-alignment of ALL the stones?

the great pyramid is not the most astounding architectural feat in Ancient Egypt, Khufus father, Sneferu was responsible for moving far more stone for his monuments of which there are several than Khufu ever did, why do you think no one is claiming that the Egyptians didn't do that

1. because there is not a pseudoSneferu market for making wild unsupported claims, supported by people who don't know the facts nor are interested in finding them out
2. Aliens did it

youre gonna go for 2 arent ya


I'll 'land' where the evidence plops me.

[Marduk]

I don't know what 'math' you looking for, but EVERYTHING I supplied here, came from that link.

In that case I hate to break it to you but Nova PBS is not a credible source, most other people figured that out when they aired "Mysterious Origins of Man" which was total bs



Wouldn't we need to completely do-construct it to 'know' that any of these things are true for sure?


no, the dimensions can be easily worked out, they are after all one of the most measured and remeasured things in the world, the 2,300,000 claim is victorian iirc, would you not rather a more recent estimate by someone whos spent his entire life working in the field or a 19th century adventurer who excavated using dynamite


This sounds like conjecture and speculation intended to make their present explanation more plausible.

the reverse is true, you refuse to accept it because it doesn't match a preconceived idea of yours, this is getting very deja vuey isn't it, we've been here before



Where's this 'mound', and how do you keep these shafts from collapsing, when they go through mere 'rubble'?


the mound is on the bottom, obviously
the fill is behind the walls, the pyramids load bearing was worked out very carefully in advance, the fill is in areas that don't carry the weight.
Not only are the backing stones irregular, they are also progressively smaller toward the top. Behind the backing stones, the core stones are actually even more irregular. We know this because, in the 1830s, Howard Vyse blasted a hole in the center of the south side of Khufu's's Pyramid while looking for another entrance. This wound in the pyramid can still be seen today, and in it, we can see how the builders dumped great globs of mortar and stone rubble in wide spaces between the stones. Here, there are big blocks, small chunks of rock, wedge shaped pieces, oval and trapezoidal pieces, as well as smaller stone fragments jammed into spaces as wide as 22 centimeters between larger blocks. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidcore.htm


The blocks aren't uniform...but that just means that those working at the quarry didn't have the means to rough cut the stones in an exacting manner... After the rough cut, the finishers did what they could, to fit the pieces together.

it means that they weren't being precise, imo this destroys your claim that they were, how is it precise when the stones needed to be "trimmed to fit", and again you are making an assumption that the quarriers couldn't do precise work, there are plenty of examples when they did, just not in the GP


I thought the outside was stripped, ages ago for another building project...?

Do you have a source from your earthquake induced defacing of the outer casing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#Casing_stones
the bent pyramid has more of its casing stones left than any other
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Egypt/Dahshur/AllPyramids/CroppedBentPyramidFromTheWest.jpg

this again is more to do with the fact that they are not valuable white tura limestone than precision

Could such an earthquake have caused a mis-alignment of ALL the stones?

no, so are you admitting they're not precise now ?

I'll 'land' where the evidence plops me.
in my experience with you this is not the case
;)

[Akhenaten]

The crowning/cap stone, of the queen's chamber is TOO big for 'men' alone to lift and position. Even if the strongest men in the world put their hands all around and or were under it, they couldn't 'lift' it.





By this reasoning, the Statue of Liberty isn't there.

Here's another problem. There's grafitti left by the workers in the human-sized crawl space above that chamber.



The stone itself was 'slid' into place from the upper shaft, and lowered into place without any chips or cracks to the stone itself, or the placement stones on which it rests... The stone is simply too big to be 'handled' and positioned by men.





Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.







*There's no 'evidence' that men built the Great Pyramid, theories however abound about who built it and why abound.





There's oodles of evidence. Theories abound in regard to most things. So?



(Egyptologists further claim that the Sphinx is no more than 3,000 years old, even if water erosion marks present suggest a much old age...)

---





Perhaps the Sphynx is younger than the rock from which it is carved. For my own part, I can see how that might work.



This has already been posted ad nausum, but it bares repeating.





No, it doesn't. And it doesn't bear repeating either, so I won't.



The question posed was "...these Nephilim fellows were "men of renown". Where are their mighty works?"

I provided several examples of mighty works, that 'lack' man's physical fingerprints...





Guess what, Sparky?

[dropzone]

I believe we've gone off-topic with a battle between an Egyptian god, a Sumerian god, and a guy who is honest enough to have just made up his godhood, but, as far as Woo is concerned, I have to go with the guy with the most millenia between his being recognized as a god and now. Had you named yourself Aten, Akhenaten, there'd be some argument, but your patron left his claims in the hands of a mere mortal, and you lose. Sorry. :( You just can't fight the Gods.

[Marduk]

I am not a God, thats Bel Marduk the Chief God of Babylon (not Sumer) youre thinking of, I think he posts over at Atlantis Rising, though of course he does watch over me, sometimes
:p

[Akhenaten]

I believe we've gone off-topic with a battle between an Egyptian god, a Sumerian god, and a guy who is honest enough to have just made up his godhood, but, as far as Woo is concerned, I have to go with the guy with the most millenia between his being recognized as a god and now. Had you named yourself Aten, Akhenaten, there'd be some argument, but your patron left his claims in the hands of a mere mortal, and you lose. Sorry. :( You just can't fight the Gods.


Nah, I'm not a god. I'm not even a pharaoh; I just play one on an internet forum.

And definitely no battle. Babylon and I get on just fine. In fact, the point is, as spokespersons for our respective entities, I rather think we present a fairly unified front for the proposition that there's no evidence for the giants mentioned in the bible.


Sun gods, on the other hand . . .

[Bikewer]

I am of the understanding that Egyptologists have discovered considerable writings detailing the diet, lodgings, numbers, etc. of the pyramid workers. They even have graffiti from work gangs, with colorful names.
Odd no one has found any mentions of the work crew of really big guys.
"Pharaoh, those giants are eating us out of house and home! Maybe we could find something better for them to do?"

[Akhenaten]

"We'll send them on an expedition by sea to the Pacific North West of America. Nobody will ever find them there."

[Toke]

Bikewer have a good point with the scaling problems of the human body.
It would take either magic or SF-genetic engineering to make functional giants.

[Marduk]

I have never seen any evidence for Giants in Mesopotamia, if they existed you could bet they'd have several "on the team" and would have been written about extensively. There isn't even a noun for giant in mesopotamian language, you have to use "towering/exalted/strong" or describe something as akin to something big, this would not be the case if Giants existed anywhere but in the imagination. Despite this I will now allow KotA an opportunity to post several pictures of Mesopotamian cylinder seals which he will no doubt believe show giant sized humans
:rolleyes:



And definitely no battle. Babylon and I get on just fine. In fact, the point is, as spokespersons for our respective entities, I rather think we present a fairly unified front .

mušĝiri mušĝiri
I've just seen a button on the formulate message box that is highlighted in yellow and says "Hittite"
quick call out the guard
:eye-poppi

[King of the Americas]

It looks like I've got a lot of conceding to do...

First, I'll admit that I've been tainted by reading authors like Daniken, Hancock, and watching a few too many one-sided History channel programs... Only recently, have I found that these investigators are looking for evidence of their claims, and are not always reliable in mentioning the stuff that conflicts with their pre-conceived notions.

Second, I have never seen ANY pyramid, much less those at Giza, in person. ALL of my knowledge has come at the hands of self-proclaimed experts, including ZAHI HAWASS.

That said, we DON'T have detailed plans, worker's reports, or elaborately painted burial chambers of or within the Great Pyramid. All that we have is some graffiti. On a trip to the Kimble in Dallas, I got to see a replica of King Tut's Tomb. What a sight! The walls and the ceiling were 'mostly' painted with the Book of the Dead, in vast and varied colors. However, some of it looked 'rushed and unfinished'...due to the King's unexpected murder... I have a childhood friend who grew up in Cairo, and used these monuments as his playground, literally. He as his brother would climb the structures for poo & laughs. His memory was that the Giza pyramid ALL lacked inner paintings, compared to the other tombs he'd been in... Why would you build a THE biggest tomb ever, and then fail to give the King a copy of the Book of the Dead, in which to navigate the afterlife?

Given this I am not convinced the this structure WAS a tomb...but again, I'm no expert.

We KNOW how the Statue of Liberty was built, we have detailed plans, pictures of the actual construction, and we even know who and when it was built. The same can NOT be said about the GP. History has consumed those details, we now only have the structure, which CAN be measured, but 'investigations' aren't exactly free flowing.

---

I have to go, but I'll return to this response later this evening...

[Marduk]

consider,
1. the interior of the great pyramid is supposed to be secret to protect the king from tomb robbers, why is it surprising that there are no blueprints
2. the egyptians used papyrus for plans, Papyrus does not survive well, there is in fact only one papyrus in existence from this period and it belonged to an accountant. Do you see anyone saying its significant that the thousands of others that must have existed don't ?
3. there are admonitions in the book of the dead against tomb robbers, this is the book painted on the walls of later pyramids, so it must have had a precedent. the only earlier pyramids this can possibly refer to are those of the earlier dynasties.
4. It has a burial chamber
5. the burial chamber has a sarcophagus
6. the pyramid is in the middle of a necropolis
7. there is a mortuary temple outside, mortuary temples were built next to pyramids to facilitate the prayers and offerings for the dead. If it is not a tomb why would they bother
8. the structure of the pyramid evolved from Mastabas, Mastabas are tombs
9. the claims they are not tombs are only ever made by non experts, why do you think education changes this
10, the only sustainable point the woo brigade make is that it can't be tombs because there is no body, there are lots of reasons this may be the case, the most likely is that pyramids when broken into were again accessed by priests who removed the body to a safer place, caches of mummies are found hidden away far removed from the tombs they originally inhabited quite often


also, the book of the dead didn't exist in the 4th dynasty, and no other pyramid from that period had decorations,
decorating the burial chambers in pyramids began at the end of the fifth dynasty, so you thinking it odd is akin to thinking it odd that the victorians didn't go in for art nouveau.

your statue of liberty analogy is only correct if you were asking why there were no plans for the GP 150 years after it was built, do you think there will still be plans for the statue in the year 6000, if so why is that ?

;)

[King of the Americas]

your statue of liberty analogy is only correct if you were asking why there were no plans for the GP 150 years after it was built, do you think there will still be plans for the statue in the year 6000, if so why is that ?

;)

"...we DON'T have detailed plans, worker's reports, or elaborately painted burial chambers of or within the Great Pyramid. All that we have is some graffiti."

My point in mentioning this, is because 'we don't KNOW anything else' beyond this about the GP. The ONLY inscriptions on the structure are "graffiti", left by workers, and the singular mention of Khufu, again in graffiti style...

NO elaborate carvings, paintings, or anything of the sort. Granted, I 'know' next to nothing about Egyptian burial rituals from ANY dynasty, but the mere fact that the inscriptions aren't 'carved' into or onto the walls of the actual burial chamber IS a break from other burial chambers I've seen or heard about.

Please forgive my lack of knowledge upon ancient Egypt. I actually do HAVE a copy of the Book of the Dead, but I never saw the 'real' original publication date.

I'm not 'surprised' that there are no plans or detailed descriptions of the building of the GP, I'm just saying we "don't know", BECAUSE we don't have these things...

The Statue of Liberty HAS lots of inscriptions, and is indeed young enough that we know how it was made, by whom, and why. The same can not be said of the GP.

The only thing we KNOW about the GP is what we can see and measure...the rest is speculation...even if it is educated speculation...

Let's bring this back to the original OP- Is there any evidence for the giants mentioned in the bible?

I'll take the GP 'off' my list...

Originally Posted by Akhenaten
The bigfeets are apparently hiding, but these Nephilim fellows were "men of renown". Where are their mighty works?

*The Walls of Troy, the Great Pyramid, Stone Hinge, Machu Pichu, Tiwanaku...I could go on.

There's actually a written work that attributes the Walls of Troy to a couple of Zues's kids, a punishment for betrayal, or something like that. Homer's Iliad, maybe?

How about Machu Pichi, Tiwanaku, or the one in central South America...ongo bongo, ungo bong-something...?

---

Stonehenge...was built and added to for a long time...it seems like I saw some program that managed to carbon date one of the original circular posts...but all the details escape me...

Do we KNOW when the stones themselves were put in place, and by whom, or are these conclusion speculative as well?

[Marduk]

How about the thunder stone, as its the largest stone ever moved in earth history (1500 tonnes) then it must have been moved by giants, obviously if it can be proven that normal sized humans did it then any other megalith smaller than it can equally be shown to not need giants and so cannot be used as evidence

right ?

[Akhenaten]

"...we DON'T have detailed plans, worker's reports, or elaborately painted burial chambers of or within the Great Pyramid. All that we have is some graffiti."

My point in mentioning this, is because 'we don't KNOW anything else' beyond this about the GP. The ONLY inscriptions on the structure are "graffiti", left by workers, and the singular mention of Khufu, again in graffiti style...

NO elaborate carvings, paintings, or anything of the sort. Granted, I 'know' next to nothing about Egyptian burial rituals from ANY dynasty, but the mere fact that the inscriptions aren't 'carved' into or onto the walls of the actual burial chamber IS a break from other burial chambers I've seen or heard about.

Please forgive my lack of knowledge upon ancient Egypt. I actually do HAVE a copy of the Book of the Dead, but I never saw the 'real' original publication date.

I'm not 'surprised' that there are no plans or detailed descriptions of the building of the GP, I'm just saying we "don't know", BECAUSE we don't have these things...

The Statue of Liberty HAS lots of inscriptions, and is indeed young enough that we know how it was made, by whom, and why. The same can not be said of the GP.

The only thing we KNOW about the GP is what we can see and measure...the rest is speculation...even if it is educated speculation...

Let's bring this back to the original OP- Is there any evidence for the giants mentioned in the bible?

I'll take the GP 'off' my list...

Originally Posted by Akhenaten
The bigfeets are apparently hiding, but these Nephilim fellows were "men of renown". Where are their mighty works?

*The Walls of Troy, the Great Pyramid, Stone Hinge, Machu Pichu, Tiwanaku...I could go on.

There's actually a written work that attributes the Walls of Troy to a couple of Zues's kids, a punishment for betrayal, or something like that. Homer's Iliad, maybe?

How about Machu Pichi, Tiwanaku, or the one in central South America...ongo bongo, ungo bong-something...?

---

Stonehenge...was built and added to for a long time...it seems like I saw some program that managed to carbon date one of the original circular posts...but all the details escape me...

Do we KNOW when the stones themselves were put in place, and by whom, or are these conclusion speculative as well?


This post is a mess a contains nothing that I can find worth addressing, even for humourous effect.

[Marduk]

This post is a mess a contains nothing that I can find worth addressing, even for humourous effect.

well I was going to mention the swindon stone which is a feature of Avebury stone circle and is the heaviest stone ever moved in the UK, but naah, let him do at least a little research, I think hes finally starting to understand why he used to find woo sites so convincing and is on that slippery slope to intellectual freedom, of course I might be wrong, "But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd"

:p

[King of the Americas]

How about the thunder stone, as its the largest stone ever moved in earth history (1500 tonnes) then it must have been moved by giants, obviously if it can be proven that normal sized humans did it then any other megalith smaller than it can equally be shown to not need giants and so cannot be used as evidence

right ?

The original OP asked the question: "Is there ANY evidence for the giants mentioned in the bible?"

The short answer is "Yes."

But the evidence isn't scientific or concrete 'proof' of giants.

The "Thunder Stone"?

A quick google landed me with "Pokemon" garb...

Got a link?

[King of the Americas]

This post is a mess a contains nothing that I can find worth addressing, even for humourous effect.

THIS post truly contains NOTHING, period.

So why did you post at all...?

AND it wasn't even addressed to you...so there was no need for you to respond at all...

[Marduk]

The original OP asked the question: "Is there ANY evidence for the giants mentioned in the bible?"

The short answer is "Yes."

the real answer is "no", I suggest you actually read the previous posts properly rather than skim over them, I have already shown that the original hebrew bible has only one person described as a giant (Goliath) and his height is given as 6'7


The "Thunder Stone"?

A quick google landed me with "Pokemon" garb...

Got a link?

suggest you do a longer google then, perhaps adding "peter the great" to the search parameters will bring you more success

;)

[King of the Americas]

the real answer is "no", I suggest you actually read the previous posts properly rather than skim over them, I have already shown that the original hebrew bible has only one person described as a giant (Goliath) and his height is given as 6'7


suggest you do a longer google then, perhaps adding "peter the great" to the search parameters will bring you more success

;)

My bad, I thought we got past the "giants" thing, and were talking instead of the "men of renoun"...

---

No sense of scale to size of the stone in the pictures...

Are you certain this IS the biggest stone man/men of renoun have ever moved?

[Marduk]

My bad, I thought we got past the "giants" thing, and were talking instead of the "men of renoun"...

men of reknown arent giants either, the clue would be in the term "men"

No sense of scale to size of the stone in the pictures...

Are you certain this IS the biggest stone man/men of renoun have ever moved?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thunder_Stone.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Horseman#The_largest_stone_ever_moved_by_ma n.3F

:rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

men of reknown arent giants either, the clue would be in the term "men"

Do you concede that these men of 'reknown' were "Nephilim"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim) Are you working from an alternative description of the physical nature of "Nephilim"?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'll concede that they were "men", if you'll concede that they were "big"...?

---

Not to derail the discussion but do you have any knowledge as to who or what the "Anakim" were?

[Akhenaten]

Do you concede that these men of 'reknown' were "Nephilim"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim) Are you working from an alternative description of the physical nature of "Nephilim"?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


What's to concede? That the "men of renown" were the Nephilim is where Marduk and I started from.


The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown


Isn't it?

[King of the Americas]

What's to concede? That the "men of renown" were the Nephilim is where Marduk and I started from.

Isn't it?

Why are you choosing to ignore the description of their size?

[Foster Zygote]

Toke already hit on what I think to be the most likely explanation for the legends and myths of giants and many other mythical creatures of the ancient world. I recommend Adrienne Mayor's fascinating book The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times.

[Akhenaten]

Why are you choosing to ignore the description of their size?


I must have missed it. Cite?

[King of the Americas]

Toke already hit on what I think to be the most likely explanation for the legends and myths of giants and many other mythical creatures of the ancient world. I recommend Adrienne Mayor's fascinating book The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times.

Mastodon skulls being mistaken for cyclops skulls?

[Akhenaten]

Mastodon skulls being mistaken for cyclops skulls?


Has your research revealed any better evidence? What is the nature of this research, by the way?

[King of the Americas]

Has your research revealed any better evidence? What is the nature of this research, by the way?

I got all this from my sack of chicken bones, a couple of shrunken heads, and a bowl of fermented pig's urine...

Where did I go wrong?

---

Other than that, I've done no 'direct' research as to the source of tales of giants.

That said, I'll gladly concede that there may NOT have been giants, in those days.

Would someone as big as "Yoa Ming" have been considered a giant, if he were alive then?

I mean even the term "giant" is subjective isn't it?

[Toke]

Mastodon skulls being mistaken for cyclops skulls?
Yes of course, like a whale tooth for a unicorn horn.
Didn´t you notice the central eyehole in the cyclop skull?

[Foster Zygote]

Mastodon skulls being mistaken for cyclops skulls?

Good point. I mean, all you have to do is compare a mastodon skull to a real cyclops skull and the differences become obvious.

[Akhenaten]

I got all this from my sack of chicken bones, a couple of shrunken heads, and a bowl of fermented pig's urine...

Where did I go wrong?

<snip>




Here:

The Walls of Troy, the Great Pyramid, Stone Hinge, Machu Pichu, Tiwanaku...I could go on.

[King of the Americas]

Here:

Who built the Walls of Troy, according to what source?

[Akhenaten]

Yes of course, like a whale tooth for a unicorn horn.
Didn´t you notice the central eyehole in the cyclop skull?



Good point. I mean, all you have to do is compare a mastodon skull to a real cyclops skull and the differences become obvious.


So, did mastadons or cylopses build all these big things? I'm confused.

[Akhenaten]

Who built the Walls of Troy, according to what source?


Cyclops, according to Toke, I think. Awaiting clarification.

[Toke]

Cyclops, according to Toke, I think. Awaiting clarification.

I don´t think so.
According to the oddysee cyclops were solitary creatures not much better than wild beasts. The one mentioned drank his wine unwatered!!

That is not the kind of people you want on your construction projects.

[King of the Americas]

Cyclops, according to Toke, I think. Awaiting clarification.

I thought it was Zues's kids...

Cyclops gave Zues lightening, he wouldn't have punished them.

[Akhenaten]

I don´t think so.
According to the oddysee cyclops were solitary creatures not much better than wild beasts. The one mentioned drank his wine unwatered!!

That is not the kind of people you want on your construction projects.





Unwatered wine! Shocking!

It must have been mastadons then.



I thought it was Zues's kids...

Cyclops gave Zues lightening, he wouldn't have punished them.


Some joking aside, the walls of Troy were built by Trojans, and there is no evidence that they were giants. In any case, the OP asks for evidence of the giants mentioned in the bible. Is Troy in the bible? Stone Hinge? Machu Picchu?

[King of the Americas]

Some joking aside, the walls of Troy were built by Trojans, and there is no evidence that they were giants. In any case, the OP asks for evidence of the giants mentioned in the bible. Is Troy in the bible? Stone Hinge? Machu Picchu?

Nope, I guess you guys are correct, other giants NOT mentioned in the Bible must have done it.

How much work could you get out of a mastodon drinking watered down wine?

*How does a mastodon fold papyrus building plans?

They don't. You 'roll' papyrus up.

[Marduk]

this is the third time I'm going to post this now KotA so pay attention
the many claims for giants in the bible were not in the origianl version
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
there is only one giant mentioned, it was Goliath, his height is given as 6'7

so the hebrews described people of that height as giants, so to the OP, is there any evidence for giants mentioned in the bible, No there bloody isn't in fact theres no mention of giants even in the bible (bar one) unless you are using a later version which has been translated badly where the word tall has been replaced by the word giant

now here is a link to my original post on this subject which features a line by line comparison between every mention of giant in the King James Version and the Hebrew Bible
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5039376&postcount=98
if you are incapable of doing this little research by clicking on the link and if neccessary comparing what I have posted with the Hebrew Bible link above then youre just being wilfully ignorant, or christian, which when it comes to believing in biblical giants amounts to the same thing
:D

[Marduk]

Nope, I guess you guys are correct, other giants NOT mentioned in the Bible must have done it.

How much work could you get out of a mastodon drinking watered down wine?

*How does a mastodon fold papyrus building plans?

They don't. You 'roll' papyrus up.

the walls of troy were not built by giants, they were built by Poseidon
THE KETOS TROIAS was a gigantic sea-monster sent by Poseidon to plague the land of Troy as punishment for King Laomedon's refusal to pay him for the building of the city's walls. An oracle declared that the only way to be rid of the beast was to offer the king's daughter as sacrifice. Laomedon did so, chaining Hesione to the rocks, where she was rescued by Herakles who despatched the beast with a fish-hook or volley of arrows. The creature may have been associated with the Constellation Cetus.
http://www.theoi.com/Ther/KetosTroias.html
this story is so famous I am surprised that you could think there were giants involved in the construction, parts of the tale also later appear in the book of Job
23 Behold, if a river overflow, he trembleth not; he is confident, though the Jordan rush forth to his mouth.
24 Shall any take him by his eyes, or pierce through his nose with a snare?
25 Canst thou draw out leviathan with a fish-hook? or press down his tongue with a cord?
26 Canst thou put a ring into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a hook?
so again, no giant, just a sea monster
:p

[Vortigern99]

Marduk, I disagree with your assertion that the Nephilim weren't giants. Here's the direct translation of the Hebrew, from your own post:

Numbers 13:33

33 And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'

The bolded portion appears to be consistent with an interpretation that the Nephilim were, indeed, giants. If the people to whom the author(s) belong(ed) were "grasshoppers" in the sight of the Nephilim, then surely it is reasonable to conclude that the Nephilim were giants in the modern English sense of the word.

NOTE: I'm not suggesting that such beings actually existed, merely that Genesis, Numbers, etc. describe them as being supernaturally huge.

[Marduk]

right, so you don't think the term grasshoppers (meaning locusts) has a more imperitive meaning than size ?

how often do you hear people say when sighting a swarm of locusts "look how small they are"

its a reference to their number, that is all, if you read it carefully
and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers,
so the Hebrews were as grasshoppers

and so we were in their sight.'
and the nephilim saw them as grasshoppers

so to the Nephilim the hebrews were many.
If you read the entire passage this becomes very clear
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0413.htm
Moses has sent representatives of each tribe under his command to spy out canaan prior to his invasion
he actually says
'Get you up here into the South, and go up into the mountains and see the land, what it is; and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they are strong or weak, whether they are few or many;

so why is it a surprise that when they get back they describe their own numbers as "like grasshoppers" compared to the enemy

seems you missed the context Vortigern, lots of people do that, its why I said to check the passages against the Hebrew bible in my previous post, if you continue to read the passage it gives the number of the enemy as 250 while the Hebrews at that point are "allegedly" supposed to be more than 2 million in number

cheers
;)

[Vortigern99]

Well said! I'm sold. After re-examining various sources, it looks like the traditional reading of the Nephilim as giants is based on a misinterpretation of the original text.

The fragment in Genesis which started all this confusion has something of a unique significance for me, since I based several chapters in my unpublished Arthurian novel on a belief that the Nephilim were the children of angels, who had descended to earth, and normal human women. It looks now as though this traditional reading might be incorrect as well.

Thanks for the clarifications, Marduk. :cool:

[Akhenaten]

right, so you don't think the term grasshoppers (meaning locusts) has a more imperitive meaning than size ?

how often do you hear people say when sighting a swarm of locusts "look how small they are"

its a reference to their number, that is all, if you read it carefully

so the Hebrews were as grasshoppers


and the nephilim saw them as grasshoppers

so to the Nephilim the hebrews were many.
If you read the entire passage this becomes very clear
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0413.htm
Moses has sent representatives of each tribe under his command to spy out canaan prior to his invasion
he actually says
'Get you up here into the South, and go up into the mountains and see the land, what it is; and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they are strong or weak, whether they are few or many;

so why is it a surprise that when they get back they describe their own numbers as "like grasshoppers" compared to the enemy

seems you missed the context Vortigern, lots of people do that, its why I said to check the passages against the Hebrew bible in my previous post, if you continue to read the passage it gives the number of the enemy as 250 while the Hebrews at that point are "allegedly" supposed to be more than 2 million in number

cheers
;)


Well, I've been as wrong as anyone about some of this, and I'm very pleased to have this point cleared up.

When I first quoted the Genesis reference to Nephelim/giants I actually removed the word Nephelim and used giants instead because I belived them to be more-or-less interchangeable.

And I've been making exactly the same mistake as Vort in thinking that the "grasshoppers" was a reference to size rather than number.

Thanks Mate. Looks like everyone has been enlightened a bit here.


Cheers,

Dave

[Akhenaten]

Well said! I'm sold. After re-examining various sources, it looks like the traditional reading of the Nephilim as giants is based on a misinterpretation of the original text.

The fragment in Genesis which started all this confusion has something of a unique significance for me, since I based several chapters in my unpublished Arthurian novel on a belief that the Nephilim were the children of angels, who had descended to earth, and normal human women. It looks now as though this traditional reading might be incorrect as well.

Thanks for the clarifications, Marduk. :cool:


Well, it's obviously incorrect for a few reasons, including a general lack of angels, but apart from that I think the idea of the human/angel hybrid is still what the author was intending to describe.

The compunding error seems to be on the part of others, including me, misunderstanding Nephilim to be really huge dudes.

Your novel sounds pretty interesting. I wouldn't worry about the source's accuracy too much though, since it's also just a story.

[Marduk]

but apart from that I think the idea of the human/angel hybrid is still what the author was intending to describe.
so did you wonder why the author didn't just say "Angel"
I think the only reason that the Nephilim are mentioned in the same passage as the Elohim are as a time stamp, this is attested over and over from every source in the ancient world, when there was no real recognised calendar you simply date something by adding something which everyone understands the timing of, on cylinder seals this was usually a picture of a constellation such as the famous VA243, which has a picture of the Pleiades upon it showing that the events portrayed (the akitu festival) took place on the vernal equinox, the second Akitu festival took place 6 months later and bears a scorpion indicating that month.

In the case of the Nephilim who were annihilated by Moses when he invaded Canaan, they are mentioned merely as a way of saying "this was before Moses Annihilated them"
4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown
which is the reason for the "and also after that" reference
;)
we still use language in this way today, when describe events "before the second world war", its like saying "before 1939" and the war reference is only in there as a reference to the date, what is being described has nothing to do with military action, but everyone immediately grasps the meaning

There's no reference to Angels in the text because when it was written Angels hadn't been accepted into Judaistic belief, that didn't happen until after the Diaspora, so at this point in literary history, the sons of God refers to the line of Adam via seth,

the next few lines clearly support what I'm saying as it is the reasoning behind God sending the flood, so this biblically speaking is after men had multiplied and is there to set up a dating for the flood in a cosmological manner.

all cosmologies do this, the Enuma Elish for instance starts off
When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
which is like saying "at the dawn of time"

;)

[King of the Americas]

Marduk,

Some questions:

Is there a distinction in your mind between the "sons of God" and "men". You've written that the "sons of God" were descendants of... Seth or Canne?

Why is Josephus NOT a good source?

What kind of physical description IS there for the- Rephaim and Anakim?

In mentioning "Og, King of Bashan", why is there a reference to the size of his bed, at all? Why mention this along side the fact the he too was "Rephaim" or a remnant thereof?

Why call the "Rephaim", a "remnant of the giants". Isn't the definition of 'remnant' here- 'the last of its kind'?

*Your explanation of the "grasshoppers" line was insightful, thanks. Keep up the fine work. You've answered lots of questions. Just a few more, por favor?

[Marduk]

Is there a distinction in your mind between the "sons of God" and "men". You've written that the "sons of God" were descendants of... Seth or Canne?

With a lot of Hebrew mythology importance is placed on being pure blooded by descent from some great and historical figure. The identity of the sons of God is therefore variable over time depending on mainly the political perspective of the author, you need to remember that most of the bible is redacted history sometimes written many hundreds of years after the event and is written mainly to give a new cosmology to abunch of Canaanite shepherds who had suddenly found out how dynastic kingship operated, they wanted strong leadership so they used the Bene Elohim title to apply to add weight to whoever was being sponsored, this was mainly a method of control, the population would be far happier being led by someone they thought was destined to rule them than a usurper



Why is Josephus NOT a good source?

Because he was an apologist

What kind of physical description IS there for the- Rephaim and Anakim?

Here
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5039376&postcount=98
this has a search function
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm


In mentioning "Og, King of Bashan", why is there a reference to the size of his bed, at all? Why mention this along side the fact the he too was "Rephaim" or a remnant thereof?

Rephaim again is a reference to bloodline, in the case of the king it defines his right to rule an area that belonged to him, the reason for this becomes clear if you take a land from the rightful king by your conquest you have proven yourself more worthy to rule it, this is exactly what that part of Deuteronomy is about, dividing up Canaan from its rightful owners toitsnew rightful owners, the Hebrews. The claim for the bed is a bit meaningless, it was supposed to have been made from Iron and this was immediately after the exodus. Thats a pre iron age period in canaan, so Og never had a bed made of Iron if he indeed existed at all, remember this is all redacted history designed to give the Hebrews a cosmology acceptable within their beliefs, the greatest of which is that as the chosen people of God they could take whatever they wanted because God has let them


Why call the "Rephaim", a "remnant of the giants". Isn't the definition of 'remnant' here- 'the last of its kind'?

the original doesn't say that
11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--
as the remnant of the Rephaim the rightful owners of the land taken over by the Hebrews he is mentioned as the last because after him the land is free, so no one else can then make a claim to the land more righteous than the Hebrews. This is like writing a title deed to your house stating that you got it off the previous owner who you killed just before moving in, it doesn't make any sense unless you can also claim "God said it was ok". When a belief in God was total, no one would argue against that statement if you were one of Gods employees (a priest)

*Your explanation of the "grasshoppers" line was insightful, thanks. Keep up the fine work. You've answered lots of questions. Just a few more, por favor?
:p

[King of the Americas]

Marduk,

I read your response, but I didn't see your answer to:

What kind of physical description IS there for the- Rephaim and Anakim?

---

Bloodlines...There are several families in the area in which I live, that are 'tall'. I was 5'8" growing up, and these guys were all 6'6" and bigger... I always referred those shaped or blessed with that kind of size- "thorough-breeds". I was fast, strong, and a 'good' athlete...but these guys were BIGGER, STRONGER, FASTER and 'sometimes' the better athlete...

So, the question is, was there a time when these differences were REALLY extreme?

Was there a time when one group of men's height was about 5 foot, and across the valley there are a race of 'giants', who are 7 foot tall...?

I am just looking to qualify what is and isn't a "giant".

[Marduk]

Marduk,

I read your response, but I didn't see your answer to:

What kind of physical description IS there for the- Rephaim and Anakim?

I posted you two links, in the original bible they are simply described as "tall", thats about it, this was mistranslated into giants later on
---



Was there a time when one group of men's height was about 5 foot, and across the valley there are a race of 'giants', who are 7 foot tall...?

I am just looking to qualify what is and isn't a "giant".
the only person in the original bible described as a giant is Goliath of Gath the philistine. He was 6'7 tall, as thats tall in our day it was considered giant in theirs. This is more to do with nutrition in those days than it was genetics.

[King of the Americas]

I posted you two links, in the original bible they are simply described as "tall", thats about it, this was mistranslated into giants later on
---



the only person in the original bible described as a giant is Goliath of Gath the philistine. He was 6'7 tall, as thats tall in our day it was considered giant in theirs. This is more to do with nutrition in those days than it was genetics.

So, where's the line? Goliath was 6'7"...? 'I' wouldn't call that "giant", these days. How short WAS David 4'10", or shorter?

Where did those 'tall' genes come from, where both of his parents big people, who happened to have an even bigger kid?

Did some tall people ever sleep with really short people, and result in tall kids, rather than short, or medium sized ones?

What if a tall person, took a wife from a group of smaller women, but chose the tallest among them...could the resulting child be even taller than both of their parents?

Is 'tall' dominant or recessive?

[Marduk]

Height is a multigenic trait
a good indicator for a childs size is by comparison with parentage
e.g. I am 6'4

Mother 5'11
Father 5'10

they were both raised in the post war years so their height was affected by bad nutrition, or else my father may well have also been 6'4, My father was quite spoiled so got to eat what he wanted, mainly best cuts of meat which were not in plentiful supply
my mother by comparison was tall because she was bought up to eat anything, she wasn't at all fussy, she'd still eat sheeps brains and offal when I was growing up. She was used to it

I would have been considered a giant by the Hebrews, I think you can define giantism in those days when the height is matched by width, its not just about height. I know lots of other tall people but none of them are near my 290lbs which is a result of too much gym. So the Anakim and Rephaim are described as tall, while Goliath is described as a giant.

I think its quite likely that Goliaths parents were both tall and quite wealthy, he was fed well.

[King of the Americas]

Height is a multigenic trait
a good indicator for a childs size is by comparison with parentage
e.g. I am 6'4

Mother 5'11
Father 5'10

they were both raised in the post war years so their height was affected by bad nutrition, or else my father may well have also been 6'4

I would have been considered a giant by the Hebrews, I think you can define giantism in those days when the height is matched by width, its not just about height. I know lots of other tall people but none of them are near my 290lbs which is a result of too much gym. So the Anakim and Rephaim are described as tall, while Goliath is described as a giant.

I think its quite likely that Goliaths parents were both tall and quite wealthy, he was fed well.

'I' ate just fine, and yet I wasn't tall...

How about some answers to my questions...

So, where's the line? Goliath was 6'7"...? 'I' wouldn't call that "giant", these days. How short WAS David 4'10", or shorter?

Where did those 'tall' genes come from, where both of his parents big people, who happened to have an even bigger kid?

Did some tall people ever sleep with really short people, and result in tall kids, rather than short, or medium sized ones?

What if a tall person, took a wife from a group of smaller women, but chose the tallest among them...could the resulting child be even taller than both of their parents?

Is 'tall' dominant or recessive?

[Marduk]

I have answered all your questions, you are now being deliberately obtuse
:rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

:O

I don't think you have, Marduk.

---

I think 'tall' IS likely to result when tall and short people mate. Two tall people of different lines are likely to result in even taller kids...

It seems to me (anecdotal I know), that 'tall' is a dominant gene, so I see no problem NOT trying to stretch or mangle some of the Bible's mentions of "giants", their large beds, or any mention of them being remnants of "tall" or "long necked ones", into meaning anything other than what it says: "tall, big, or even giant" to some.

In the days of old, I am sure there wasn't as common the intermingling of species/tribes of people, as we do today. Even today, I can pick out subtle differences between my home town kids and the kids from the next town over. Surely two peoples who'd never met, would see much starker differences???

If 6'7" was considered a "giant", then SURELY there were other 'races/people' of 'tallER'.

And if tall begets tall or tallER, then surely tall people who CHOSE other tall people to mate with, might very well beget EVEN taller people...

These people tend to stick out in a crowd, and given that physical stature was everything in the old world, I think it makes sense to accept that there WERE "big peope/giants/tall ones" in some days of the world, that could very well have been men of renown...hell they around today! Yoa Ming would have dwarfed Goilath. Imagine seeing someone Shac's size in full body armor, as you stood there, an average size man of the day? He's 7'3", and over 300 lbs...To someone 5'5" and 160 lbs...that's a mountain of a man. AND Shac can 'move', he's not a big lumbering lump of a man...or at least he didn't used to be...

Spartans would send an infant to the Hill of Skulls, if they were born weak or feeble looking. If the Spartans came to town, would they look to breed with the weak or sickly looking? I doubt it. I think they'd look for the big strong, athletically gifted women...

The resulting children would LIKELY be bigger, stronger, and faster.

[Marduk]

Height is a multigenic trait
.

now off you go and study genetics so you know what that means and how it answers all your questions, except the one that I clearly already answered when I told you that height does not make a giant, overall mass is more relevant. There are no giants but one in the Hebrew Bible and even then Goliath was not named as a giant in the relevant passage that describes his death, but later when David now king again attacks the philistines either him or his sons (same bloodline) kill Goliaths four sons who are named as "born to the giant in Gath";

so its not really all that credible from a redacted point of view but a facet of a story told to make Davids actions seem blessed by Gods. Who's line could defeat five giants, only the righteous one. This is made even more unrealistic from a rational perspective with the claim that one of Goliaths sons had 24 digits, that from a religious standpoint makes him sound even more militarily skilled and fearsome, but 6 fingers is not an advantage in humans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly
when you look at the archaeological evidence for support for this story it doesn't exist.
I see no reason to believe that a shepherd boy killed a fully armed and overly large trained soldier with a pebble either, so again, what evidence is there in support of Biblical giants, if you discount the bible then none.

you cannot read a religious text as you would a factual history book, it wasn't designed as one and doesn't have the accuracy as one, if it did we would still be in Petrarch's dark ages.

:rolleyes:

having big soldiers as elite troops is attested in the actions of Frederick I of Prussia, one of his troops (James Kirkland) was way taller than Goliath, but he wasn't a giant either, but you can bet if they ever had seen combat the enemy they were advancing against would have been thinking it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Giants
This is the reason I never have trouble getting served in a crowded bar, people think I'm a giant and treat me accordingly to circumvent me picking people up and biting their heads off in true Ray Harryhausen style

:D

[Correa Neto]

I wonder why people care about such a small piece of a book known for major historical flaws. Example- much of its "core", the Exodus, has little if any support from archeological hard, reliable data. Why then should I care about some small refferences to giants, consider them as accurate and seek ways to validate them?

[Marduk]

yush
If anyone were really serious they'd try to back up the biblical source by showing evidence from its original sources,
lets try Mesopotamia
this is EPSD, the Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary
when you search for the word "Giant"
it says
0 hits for giant
so this means there were no giants in Mesopotamian texts between 3500bce and 0ce, which means there were no giants in Mesopotamia between 3500bce and 0ce and it also gives us a clue to the giants physical ability, as its only 500 miles between the city og Gath, where Goliath was supposed to live and Babylon the major city of Babylonia we can presume that giants don't like to go on long walks
:D
anyone know enough about Egypt to do the same, feel free
:D

[King of the Americas]

I wonder why people care about such a small piece of a book known for major historical flaws. Example- much of its "core", the Exodus, has little if any support from archeological hard, reliable data. Why then should I care about some small refferences to giants, consider them as accurate and seek ways to validate them?

Personally, I find some small joy, in finding actual historical evidence. It started with arrow heads, as a small child. I had to walk miles of motorcycle trails with my father, as we checked trot-lines we'd set along the Red River, here in North Texas. While walking we'd look for "worked pieces", well that's what my Dad picked up. I only ever kept actual arrow heads, something that 'could' have been a scraper was of no interest to me...

Rather than a misplaced or lost projectile point, 'I' wanted to find the place where they 'made' these things.

Where would YOU have started looking? Would you have just continued walking these trails, hoping for a more dense location of finds?

OR

Would you look for stories or writings of these local peoples, and their descriptions of work areas?

Troy was a myth, until someone decided to take Homer seriously.

I don't take ANY historical document or story as gospel, but I DO find they re useful as roadmaps to THE truth.

(*Look to fresh water sources, washouts, and other favorable camp grounds...as arrow head work spaces.)

[King of the Americas]

yush
If anyone were really serious they'd try to back up the biblical source by showing evidence from its original sources,
lets try Mesopotamia
this is EPSD, the Electronic Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary
when you search for the word "Giant"
it says

so this means there were no giants in Mesopotamian texts between 3500bce and 0ce, which means there were no giants in Mesopotamia between 3500bce and 0ce and it also gives us a clue to the giants physical ability, as its only 500 miles between the city og Gath, where Goliath was supposed to live and Babylon the major city of Babylonia we can presume that giants don't like to go on long walks
:D
anyone know enough about Egypt to do the same, feel free
:D

So, where did these 'big/tall/giant' genes come from, if not from some remote sect/tribe of wandering lanky lover boys?

[Marduk]

So, where did these 'big/tall/giant' genes come from, if not from some remote sect/tribe of wandering lanky lover boys?

http://www.dembot.net/images/facepalm/double_presidential_facepalm.jpg

[King of the Americas]

Did it mention anywhere in there about those tall people having big ears, a tendency to say what you were really thinking, and an inability to put together a convincing argument in favor of government run health care option?

[Correa Neto]

...snip...
Would you look for stories or writings of these local peoples, and their descriptions of work areas?

Troy was a myth, until someone decided to take Homer seriously.

I don't take ANY historical document or story as gospel, but I DO find they re useful as roadmaps to THE truth.

(*Look to fresh water sources, washouts, and other favorable camp grounds...as arrow head work spaces.)

The Bible is a roadmap showing many roads which are not actually there.

The answer to the question "Is there any evidence for the giants mentioned in the bible?" is "NO"(*).

Now, taking the above in to consideration, answer me- why should I consider the brief mentions to giants as reliable and start building wild speculations about who they were and how they came to be giants?

Remember, you are looking at a book which is known for not being historical accurate. You are looking at a book built based on older myths and texts from other civilizations. You are looking at a book which has been translated, adapted, censored, fixed, mended several times by several Europeans thousands of years after it was compiled and written by Levant people.

And yes, you are not seeking for evidences or truth; what you are actually doing is to build wild speculations over brief mythological mentions of giants. First find or provide evidences that they existed; ask questions such as why they were tall later.

(*) Note that a civilization of people who were in average say, 1.8m tall, living in Europe, for example, would only qualify if you could actually tie them to the biblical giants.

[Marduk]

Did it mention anywhere in there about those tall people having big ears, a tendency to say what you were really thinking, and an inability to put together a convincing argument in favor of government run health care option?

youre still not getting it are you
let me outline a few facts we have established
1. the only giant named in the bible is Goliath at 6'7
2. none of his sons are described as giants
3. no one in Mesopotamia ever heard of him
4. no one in Egypt ever heard of him
5. he only appears in one book which is redacted
6. the story he appears in is a political attempt to claim a righteous bloodline for a peasant shepherd
7. the bible has no archaeological support for the existence of giants and none has ever been found anywhere in the Middle east
8. there is no such thing as giants in the real world, there are people who are tall, but no one who is giant sized
9. a human woman could not deliver a giant baby
10. Goliath was descended from the Rephaim, who are described in the bible as tall.


any questions or do you want to know what type of DNA fictional characters have again ?
:rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

10. Goliath was descended from the Rephaim, who are described in the bible as tall.


any questions or do you want to know what type of DNA fictional characters have again ?
:rolleyes:

Who were these "Rephaim", and where did they hail from?

Were they a 'terrestrial' tribe, or were they associated with the 'sky dwellers'?

I am NOT arguing about giants, I just want to know the source of these tall genes...

[Marduk]

Who were these "Rephaim", and where did they hail from?

Were they a 'terrestrial' tribe, or were they associated with the 'sky dwellers'?

I am NOT arguing about giants, I just want to know the source of these tall genes...


they were canaanites. no one was associated with sky dwellers as the term didn't exist until the 1970s
the rephaim have been discussed several times in this thread
maybe you should read it

ridiculous that you think that there are any genes to be sourced when your only source is a book full of easily disproven lies, no one was tall, the Israelites were short because of bad nutrition, DO YOU UNDERSTAND NUTRITION,
:rolleyes:
and again
http://www.scienceblogs.de/frischer-wind/picard-facepalm.jpg

[hamelekim]

this is the third time I'm going to post this now KotA so pay attention
the many claims for giants in the bible were not in the origianl version
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
there is only one giant mentioned, it was Goliath, his height is given as 6'7

so the hebrews described people of that height as giants, so to the OP, is there any evidence for giants mentioned in the bible, No there bloody isn't in fact theres no mention of giants even in the bible (bar one) unless you are using a later version which has been translated badly where the word tall has been replaced by the word giant

now here is a link to my original post on this subject which features a line by line comparison between every mention of giant in the King James Version and the Hebrew Bible
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5039376&postcount=98
if you are incapable of doing this little research by clicking on the link and if neccessary comparing what I have posted with the Hebrew Bible link above then youre just being wilfully ignorant, or christian, which when it comes to believing in biblical giants amounts to the same thing
:D

Actually the Bible is very clear that there were Giants in Genesis 6. References to Ogg, Goliath, and being referenced as grasshoppers validate the giants argument.

They were most definitely Giants, and those stories can be found around the world, which would make sense since they were located around the world.

[hamelekim]

youre still not getting it are you
let me outline a few facts we have established
1. the only giant named in the bible is Goliath at 6'7
2. none of his sons are described as giants
3. no one in Mesopotamia ever heard of him
4. no one in Egypt ever heard of him
5. he only appears in one book which is redacted
6. the story he appears in is a political attempt to claim a righteous bloodline for a peasant shepherd
7. the bible has no archaeological support for the existence of giants and none has ever been found anywhere in the Middle east
8. there is no such thing as giants in the real world, there are people who are tall, but no one who is giant sized
9. a human woman could not deliver a giant baby
10. Goliath was descended from the Rephaim, who are described in the bible as tall.


any questions or do you want to know what type of DNA fictional characters have again ?
:rolleyes:

Goliath is not the only giant referenced in the Bible.

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/O/OG/

OG

(`ogh; Og): King of Bashan, whose territory, embracing 60 cities, was conquered by Moses and the Israelites immediately after the conquest of Sihon, king of the Amorites (Nu 21:33-35; Dt 3:1-12). The defeat took place at Edrei, one of the chief of these cities (Nu 21:33; Josh 12:4), and Og and his people were "utterly destroyed" (Dt 3:6). Og is described as the last of the REPHAIM (which see), or giant-race of that district, and his giant stature is borne out by what is told in Dt 3:11 of the dimensions of his "bedstead of iron" (`eres barzel), 9 cubits long and 4 broad (13 1/2 ft. by 6 ft.), said to be still preserved at Rabbath of Ammon when the verse describing it was written. It is not, of course, necessary to conclude that Og's own height, though immense, was as great as this. Some, however, prefer to suppose that what is intended is "a sarcophagus of black basalt," which iron-like substance abounds in the Hauran. The conquered territory was subsequently bestowed on the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (Nu 32:33; Dt 3:12,13). Other references to Og are Dt 1:4; 4:47; 31:4; Josh 2:10; 9:10; 13:12,30). The memory of this great conquest lingered all through the national history (Ps 135:11; 136:20). On the conquest, compare Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, I, 185-87.

[Marduk]

Actually the Bible is very clear that there were Giants in Genesis 6. References to Ogg, Goliath, and being referenced as grasshoppers validate the giants argument.

They were most definitely Giants, and those stories can be found around the world, which would make sense since they were located around the world.

you need to go back and read all the posts in this thread before you start claiming anything, the two points you raised in these two threads have already been dealt with, and no, the grasshoppers reference does not validate giants, you would know this if you'd read anything more of that chapter than that one single passage. There is only one giant referenced in the bible, and he wasn't that big
:rolleyes:

[Correa Neto]

Some, however, prefer to suppose that what is intended is "a sarcophagus of black basalt," which iron-like substance abounds in the Hauran.
Basalt as an iron-like substance...
So much for scientific accuracy, as almost always.

Once again, nothing solid, no backing for the "in the past there were giant men" stuff.

Show us evidence, show us bones (no, not some wild claim about someone having found giant human bones somewhere witout displaying the actual material), show us archeologic remains which could actually be attributed to a civilization of giants (remains of a village where only large tools are found, for example).

Myths (especially myths twisted and cherry-picked by fringe subject proponents) are nowhere close of being reliable evidence.

[UnrepentantSinner]

They were most definitely Giants, and those stories can be found around the world, which would make sense since they were located around the world.

Bones please.

[CynicalSkeptic]

Bones please.
http://z.hubpages.com/u/226873_f520.jpg

[Marduk]

http://z.hubpages.com/u/226873_f520.jpg

firstly thats not a bone, its a sculpture and its design is based on an anecdotal statement
http://mtblanco.com/TourGiantArticle.htm
secondly the source is the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum which is a creationist museum
The Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum is a creationist museum in Crosbyton, Texas, opened in 1998. Its motto is "Digging up the facts of God's Creation: One fossil at a time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Blanco_Fossil_Museum
http://www.mtblanco.com/

so
Bones please ?
:p

[CynicalSkeptic]

Thanks Marduk, I wasn't aware of that (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5075874&postcount=31).

[Marduk]

misplaced humour ?
:rolleyes:
still if somethings worth saying, its worth saying twice
:D

[hamelekim]

Basalt as an iron-like substance...
So much for scientific accuracy, as almost always.

Once again, nothing solid, no backing for the "in the past there were giant men" stuff.

Show us evidence, show us bones (no, not some wild claim about someone having found giant human bones somewhere witout displaying the actual material), show us archeologic remains which could actually be attributed to a civilization of giants (remains of a village where only large tools are found, for example).

Myths (especially myths twisted and cherry-picked by fringe subject proponents) are nowhere close of being reliable evidence.
It's enough evidence to win a court case.

In other words we destroy peoples lives on less evidence than you require to prove something happened or exists.

By your estimation the entire legal system is broken because it doesn't prove anything.

[Correa Neto]

Oh, really?

Can we cross-examinate the folks who claim to have seen these giants?
Nope, in many cases even the myth-twisters and cherry-pickers are not available.

Legal system, last time I checked, favors hard proof such as DNA, bones, fingerprints, etc.
Got some?

"Correa Neto is the father of my kid". OK, check the kids' DNA.
"Correa Neto murdered Goliath". OK, first where's Goliath's corpse?

And yes, there are flaws with the legal system, science tends to be more rigorous when it comes down to evidence quality by removing (or attempting to remove) emotional components from the decision-making process. But this is a subject for another thread.

[Marduk]

It's enough evidence to win a court case.

In other words we destroy peoples lives on less evidence than you require to prove something happened or exists.

By your estimation the entire legal system is broken because it doesn't prove anything.

oh goody so you have some evidence for the existence of giants then ?
what is it ?

[Marduk]

I'll take that as a no then
:D
so you were saying
we destroy peoples lives on less evidence than you require to prove something happened
which means in the light of your epic fail that we destroy peoples lives on less than no evidence
thats only true if you believe in an out of date middle eastern cult religion I guess
:rolleyes:

[Correa Neto]

Well, I guess there's an endless number of religious intolerance episodes which prove many people's lives were ruined by beliefs in out of date middle eastern cults and religions... Religions and cults quite often based on less than no evidence.

[power2012]

Many ancient lost cities that are mentioned in the bible were at one time thought to be myths and thought not to have actually existed by archaeologists, until they found them! So to find a giant might be much harder than a lost city, but it could be possible.

[Marduk]

Many ancient lost cities that are mentioned in the bible were at one time thought to be myths and thought not to have actually existed by archaeologists, until they found them! So to find a giant might be much harder than a lost city, but it could be possible.

ok lets take this one step at a time
1. If one thing is true then the credibility of that one thing extends as far as that one thing and no further
2. if something else has been proven to be incorrect many times the chances of anything associated with it also being true is much less credible
3. there is only one giant mentioned in the original bible, he is stated to be 6'7 tall
4. there are no giants, there are just tall people (see 3)
5. bearing in mind 1 to 4 above would you like to give a percentage of likelihood for the existence of giants based on a text written not as a book of science but an article of faith

then after youve done that go ahead, name me these many lost cities ? where many is defined as "Being one of a large indefinite number"

bet you can't name more than 3 and bet you can't back up those 3 with any credible evidence.

credible evidence in this case is defined as "not using biblical evidence to support biblical contentions"

;)

[imjohn]

Many ancient lost cities that are mentioned in the bible were at one time thought to be myths and thought not to have actually existed by archaeologists, until they found them! So to find a giant might be much harder than a lost city, but it could be possible.

Possible, yes.

Probable, no.

[power2012]

ok lets take this one step at a time
1. If one thing is true then the credibility of that one thing extends as far as that one thing and no further
2. if something else has been proven to be incorrect many times the chances of anything associated with it also being true is much less credible


So you are engaging in a sort of biased or hypocritical logic. When something you disagree with is supported by evidence it proves nothing, but when something you disagree with has evidence against it then that proves it is all false....um, ok. You can't have it both ways.


3. there is only one giant mentioned in the original bible, he is stated to be 6'7 tall
4. there are no giants, there are just tall people (see 3)


Certainly giant people are something that needs to be extensively studied in the context of ancient giants and who our ancestors really are.


5. bearing in mind 1 to 4 above would you like to give a percentage of likelihood for the existence of giants based on a text written not as a book of science but an article of faith


I believe many other cultures and ancient accounts also have references to giants in the distant past though as well, not just the bible, so it could then be independently corroborated by different independent ancient accounts.



then after youve done that go ahead, name me these many lost cities ? where many is defined as "Being one of a large indefinite number"

bet you can't name more than 3 and bet you can't back up those 3 with any credible evidence.

credible evidence in this case is defined as "not using biblical evidence to support biblical contentions"

;)


I'm not sure what you will accept as "credible evidence" or proof as you are demanding. This is after all a simple discussion forum and only so much "evidence" can really be proven over a format like this lol! I can post words, but I can't send you artifacts lol! What do you even want?

I simply made some fairly mundane comments and you jump the gun and demand "proof" of every thing I say lol....google is your friend ok?

Ok, I was going to link to wikipedia entries but it does not let me post URLs


1.The entire Hittite Empire was once thought to be only myth and not have really existed-


2. There's also Abraham's city of Ur-


3. the Egyptian city of Pithom is an important biblical archaeological find

[Akhenaten]

Hello power2012.

Just thought I'd get in a quick cheerio before you get too busy defending the above drivel from the devastating Babylonian assault it is about to suffer.

Have fun with that.

The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold.

- Lord Byron


Cheers,

Waenre

[Marduk]

So you are engaging in a sort of biased or hypocritical logic. When something you disagree with is supported by evidence it proves nothing, but when something you disagree with has evidence against it then that proves it is all false....um, ok. You can't have it both ways.

Hi Power
youre missing the point, let me give you an example from another book, War of the Worlds by HG Wells, according to your logic because the locations mentioned in it exist we must also believe that there is a hostile alien presence on Mars, and that those Martians invaded England during the victorian period, and that that invasion consisted of tripod war machines armed with a heat ray. Just because the locations are real does not mean that any story set there is also real
does it ?



Certainly giant people are something that needs to be extensively studied in the context of ancient giants and who our ancestors really are.

It is well known to science who our ancestors were, here is an image of them
http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/fossil-hominid-skulls.jpg
note that none of them are Giants. In the case of the only individual named as a giant in the bible, he was 6'7 and his parents were homo sapiens. So consider the OP, is there any evidence of biblical giants, well there wouldn't be would there, as by our modern definition Goliath was just taller than average. Today he would still be tall, but compared to say Robert Wadlow hes rather short. Would you say that Robert Wadlow (the tallest man who ever lived) was a different species or that he had hypertrophy of his pituitary gland causing his deformity. Was he a giant or just a rather splendid mutant



I believe many other cultures and ancient accounts also have references to giants in the distant past though as well, not just the bible, so it could then be independently corroborated by different independent ancient accounts.

We have covered this already, the Mesopotamians didnt even have a word for Giant and there are no stories from Egypt about them either, as these were the two civilisations bordering Canaan where Goliath lived and were contemporary with the biblical events don't you find it rather odd that theyd never heard of them, they did after all leave us something that could be corroborated which is not true of the Bible, namely their writings. I have read quite a few stories with giants as characters, Treebeard for instance was a giant animated tree (an ent) in the Lord of the Rings and an excellent companion for hobbits, but I don't think he lives in the really real world do you ?



I'm not sure what you will accept as "credible evidence" or proof as you are demanding. This is after all a simple discussion forum and only so much "evidence" can really be proven over a format like this lol! I can post words, but I can't send you artifacts lol! What do you even want?

links to credible websites are acceptable, links to answersingenesis or other creationist websites are not as they have been continually caught manufacturing evidence to match their beliefs. This was discussed twice in this thread already, I urge you to read all the way through it before posting anything for a third time


I simply made some fairly mundane comments and you jump the gun and demand "proof" of every thing I say lol....google is your friend ok?

The onus of proof is on the person making the statement, not the people listening to it. do you have any proof to back up what you said or is it just "your belief". We have after all seen that your bible is not the Hebrew one but most probably the KJV which is full of errors in translation, most notably in the case of the OP where it has translated all instance of "Tall" as "giant"

1.The entire Hittite Empire was once thought to be only myth and not have really existed-
There is a difference between what the bible claims as Hittites and what the Hittites really were, none of the actual details concerning the biblical Hittites has been verified, its much more a case of Believers claiming theres a match where none exists, if you had read the entire wiki article you would already know that, so I will presume until you present more evidence that you believed that to be true because you had "heard it somewhere"
here is the wiki link for your perusal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hittites
it does not say this in the first paragraph for nothing
This nomenclature is used today as a matter of convention, regardless of debates about possible identities between the Anatolian Hittite Empire and the Biblical Hittites.

2. There's also Abraham's city of Ur-
So you are sure that the Mesopotamia city of Ur is the place of Abrahams birth, thats a confidence not shared by your fellows
here is a christian science website that discusses this
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/ur.htm
the simple fact that Abraham could not be from Ur of the Chaldees seems to have escaped you, Ur of the Chaldess did not exist until 800 years after his claimed biblical birthday around 1800bce as it had to wait for the Chaldeans to take control in Babylonia which didn't occour until around 1000bce
3. the Egyptian city of Pithom is an important biblical archaeological find
again there have been several attempts to claim an ancient city as Pithom, this is because biblical commentators are desperately looking for it as evidence of the exodus, so they have a tendency to claim any new city that fits the bill as pithom before the excavation has been completed. Twice now Pithom has been claimed to have been found
1. Tell-el-Maskhuta claimed as Pithom by Édouard Naville was found to date to the 7th century bce and to have been built by Pharoah Necho II
2. Tell er-Rebata claimed as Pithom by Kenneth Kitchen was found to have been unoccupied during the relevant period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pithom#Location

google apparently is my friend, I have not seen any evidence so far that it is yours.

;)

so do you have any evidence of Biblical giants or not ?
we can leave your claim for "many lost cities" if you like as its not relevant to this thread (or supportable)
as we have seen your "mundane comments" collapse under the slightest scrutiny, have you perhaps been using a book of faith as a book of science, is that really what its supposed to be used for ?

[Marduk]

The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold.

- Lord Byron


Cheers,

Waenre
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
:p