Out Of Place Artifacts

[Dan56]

Just a couple of interesting sites;

GIANTS

FOOT PRINTS

[Kingfisher]

I think we got off on the wrong foot here, Brother Mike... I certainly didn't intend for my replies to come across as an offhand rejection of everything the site contains. I objected because much of their evidence seems to be intentionally arranged to mislead those who do not dig deeper into the mysteries, not that the information itself is necessarily errant. I've been dealing with that sort of mindset (based on faulty logic and abysmal scientific procedure) for a long time now, so if my frustration bled through and my posts seem dismissive or offensive I sincerely apologize. Frankly, I find your opinion of the topics to be more reliable than theirs. We may still disagree on some things, but you've brought some interesting items to my attention and I look forward to learning more.

Peace.

[mererdog]

some of the giant skeletons which have been found are examples of fully functioning people who have the usual stresses and strains to the body... some are obviously super tall as the result of something going awry with the body... there are methods to determine this as you apparently know...

How do you test for an unknown illness or unheard of deformity? Edited April 13, 2010 by mererdog

[Fawzo]

The Old Testament really doesn't say there were Giants except maybe for Goliath who was thought to be about 6'7''

All the other refrences were interpreted from the Hebrew word for "tall" they went through this debate at the Great Randi's educational forum.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5039376&postcount=98

[Brother Michael Sky]

How do you test for an unknown illness or unheard of deformity?

i would suppose by examining the bones for tell tale signs?? as in pathology...

pa·thol·o·gy   /pəˈθɒlədʒi/ Show Spelled[puh-thol-uh-jee]

noun,plural-gies.

1.the science or the study of the origin, nature, and course of diseases.

then perhaps the unknown becomes known?

the unheard of deformity test has me stumped... please enlighten me....

interesting angle you interject with here mererdog...

The Old Testament really doesn't say there were Giants except maybe for Goliath who was thought to be about 6'7''

All the other refrences were interpreted from the Hebrew word for "tall" they went through this debate at the Great Randi's educational forum.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5039376&postcount=98

well fawzo...

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

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

And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

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.

-- Genesis 6: 1-4 (KJV)

but who or what are the " giants ".......

That was originally how i wanted to start this... just clumsy i guess....

a quote from a web page:

Regardless of whether the Anakim were actually related to the Nephilim, it is obvious that the Israelites were dealing with giants. If our understanding is correct that a cubit was approximately 18 inches, then Goliath, at "six cubits and a span," was somewhat over 9 feet tall.

never looked up the length of a cubit tho...

I think we got off on the wrong foot here, Brother Mike... I certainly didn't intend for my replies to come across as an offhand rejection of everything the site contains. I objected because much of their evidence seems to be intentionally arranged to mislead those who do not dig deeper into the mysteries, not that the information itself is necessarily errant. I've been dealing with that sort of mindset (based on faulty logic and abysmal scientific procedure) for a long time now, so if my frustration bled through and my posts seem dismissive or offensive I sincerely apologize. Frankly, I find your opinion of the topics to be more reliable than theirs. We may still disagree on some things, but you've brought some interesting items to my attention and I look forward to learning more.

Peace.

I must admit to being hasty in my presentation of this idea..... I would have received a better response had i explained myself better... my apologies as well...

The last video I posted explains how a tumour pressing on the anterior pituitary gland will cause a constant and abnormally large secretion of growth humans from childhood. The pituitary gland and tumor are not likely to survive the rotting of the flesh off the skeleton. The remaining evidence would be the giantism.

That said.... at least some of the giant skeleton pictures have been proven to be hoaxes.

truth is, i never actually intended to argue your opinion... your miles ahead of me here actually... but thanks for all the opinion and info.....

Years ago, I was at the Museum of Natural History (NYC) looking over one of their exhibits. The exhibit demonstrated how large bones of certain very real animals could be put together in such a way that they would look like the skeleton of a humanoid giant.

This points to one of the problems with evidence. It is not enough to have evidence. The evidence must be correctly understood. It is possible to have very real evidence and interpret badly, ending up with a false consclusion. This is why Science is constantly self correcting.

One more thing. It is very good, in my opinion, to be open minded. We just don't want to be so open minded that the brain falls out.

Jonathan Lobl

wise words in my opinion.... I make the mistake at times of assuming others verify their own facts as well as i do myself... however, there can be no arguing the wealth of information this site contains.... as with any information, discretion is the keyword.... am i not correct?

Edited April 13, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Brother Michael Sky]

pssst. fawzo.....

"Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. . . . We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of great stature. And there we saw the GIANTS, the sons of Anak, which come of the GIANTS: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so were we in their sight" (Numbers 13:28-33).

The word for "giants" here is the same word used in Genesis 6:4 -- the Nephilim. Obviously, therefore, some of them lived after the Flood.

from a website using the companion bible...:

In the book of Deuteronomy, Moses writes of the land of Moab, "The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims" (Deut.2:10-11). The word for "giant" here is Raphah, which means "giant." Interestingly, the same word also means "ghost, dead, deceased." The Rephaim were another of the lines of giants which existed after the Flood. Moses tells us of the land of Moab, "That also was accounted a land of giants; GIANTS dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead" (v.20-21).

Og, the king of Bashan, conquered by Moses and the Israelites on their entrance into the Promised Land, was one of the giants. "For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits [approximately 14 feet!] was the length thereof, and four cubits [6 feet] the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man [i.e., a normal man -- the normal cubit measured 18 inches]" (Deut.3:11). Bashan, the land of Og, was called "the land of giants"(v.13; see also Josh.12:4, 13:12). The valley of Hinnom, the refuse dump for Jerusalem, a type of the final Gehenna fire, lay eastward of the "valley of the giants" (Josh.15:8; 18:16). Joshua 17:15 mentions the "Rephaim," another branch of the "giants." These dwelt in the region near Sodom and Gomorrah in the time of Abraham (Gen.14:5; 15:20; see also II Sam.5:18,22; 23:13).

In an ancient text of the Jews, we read an astonishing description of some of these gigantic Amorites whom the Israelites conquered. In Buber's Tanhuma, Devarim 7, the text tells us of a Rabbi Johnanan ben Zakkai's encounter with the Roman Emperor Hadrian. This event occurred in about A.D. 135, soon after the Roman victory in the Bar Kochba war, when the Jews rebelled against the Romans. The text reads:

"The wicked emperor Hadrian, who conquered Jerusalem, boasted, 'I have conquered Jerusalem with great power.' Rabbi Johanan ben Zakkai said to him, 'Do not boast. Had it not been the will of Heaven, you would not have conquered it.' Rabbi Johanan then took Hadrian into a cave and showed him the bodies of Amorites who were buried there. One of them measured eighteen cubits [approximately 30 feet] in height. He said, 'When we were deserving, such men were defeated by us, but now, because of our sins, you have defeated us'" (quoted in Judaism, edited by Arthur Hertzberg, p.155-156, George Braziller, New York: 1962).

Thirty feet tall! The bones of these men were still in existence during the time of Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century!

Edited April 14, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Fawzo]

This guy makes some excellent points on his page http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/~articles/giants.html

GIANTS IN THE LAND" [with additional comments by me, E.T.B.]The Bible mentioned the "nephilim" and "rephaim" in Genesis and Exodus.

It was the King James translators who rendered those words "giants" while other translators simply transliterate the Hebrew word into English as "Nephilim." Scholars argue over the exact meaning of the word. The context of Genesis 6 is not precise enough to determine anything about the Nephilim except that they appear as unusual individuals... Concerning Numbers 13:33, the comparison of the spies being like grasshoppers next to the Nephilim certainly must have been an exaggeration. Otherwise, if the comparison were taken literally, the Nephilim would be more than one hundred feet tall. [Oddly enough a few Christians in the past DID take such a comparison literally and argued that the Nephilim were over a hundred feet tall. I mentioned such extravagant beliefs in my article on the web. The Book of Enoch, Cotton Matter and some unnamed Frenchman suggested fantastically large "giants in the earth." -- E.T.B.]...

If the Anakim were tall compared to the Hebrews, how tall were the Hebrews? Based on ancient Hebrew skeletons excavated at archeological digs, the average male's height ranged from 5'5" to 5'7". Since the ancient Hebrews generally saw themselves as smaller than other peoples, the biblical writers often noted unusual height. (For instance Isaiah 18:2,7 described the Ethiopians as a people "tall and smooth." Also, the fact that Saul stood taller than other Israelites was noted in 1 Sam. 10:23) ... King Og of Moab, Deut. 3:11 had a bed measuring 9 cubits long and 4 cubits wide (13 ft by 6 ft) [but that does not mean King Og was the same size as his bed. -- E.T.B.]... The record of the height of Goliath, as mentioned in 1 Sam. 17:4 is not consistent among all the ancient versions of 1 Samuel. The Hebrew records for Goliath say he was 6 cubits and a span (a cubit was roughly 18 inches, a span about 9 inches), so Goliath would be about 9'9" tall. Other ancient versions like the Septuagint lists Goliath at 4 cubits and a span, which would make Goliath closer to 6'9" in height. Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews says Goliath was about 6'8", which would still be considered a giant among the Hebrew people. However, the description of the weight of Goliath's armor suggests a much larger man than even a 7 foot tall individual to carry such weight. His bronze coat weighed "5,000 shekels," an astounding 125 pounds. [Of course, speaking of the number "5,000" as in the afore mentioned weight of "5,000" shekels, it must be kept in mind that the Hebrew authors were prone to rounding off and probably exaggerating them, which was common in the ancient world regarding the numbers of people and booty captured during wars. It can also be seen the case of enemies killed by Hebrews in battle as mentioned in the book of Judges, featuring reports of "500" or "600" or even "1000" enemies all killed by one Hebrew in a single fight, the Hebrew only using either an ox goad, a spear, or even the jawbone of an ass. Elsewhere in the Bible, King David leaves his son a huge rounded off number of pounds of gold and silver in order to build a temple, but the number given in the Bible is so huge it's nearly enough to nearly fill a modern day Fort Knox, which seems unusual for a relatively small kingdom in the ancient world that didn't have modern mining techniques. So, the number "5000" for the weight of Goliath's armor is probably an exaggerated and rounded off estimate. See the two pieces at the end of my email on Samson and Solomon. -- E.T.B.]

END OF EXCERPTS, ABOVE, FROM "GIANTS IN THE LAND"

ED: So where are the truly gigantic human bones? Can you show me one? I have already discussed the Mt. Blanco sculpture of a "giant human femur," but the word, "femur," was not found in the letter they based their scupture upon. So out of the "hundreds" of cases you know about, show me one truly gigantic human bone that is from a human being who was much taller than 9 feet in height. (Big Foot "prints," and Gigantopithecus bones, excluded.)

The largest-known primate was Gigantopithecus, of the Middle Pleistocene of what is now northern Vietnam and southern China. Males would have stood an estimated 2.74 m 9 ft tall and weighed about 272 kg 600 lb. It is risky, however, to correlate tooth size and jaw depth of primates with their height and body weight, and Gigantopithecus may have had a disproportionately large head, jaws and teeth for his body size. The only remains that have been discovered so far are three partial lower jaws and more than 1,000 teeth.

[Tsukino_Rei]

This guy makes some excellent points on his page http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/~articles/giants.html

If the Anakim were tall compared to the Hebrews, how tall were the Hebrews? Based on ancient Hebrew skeletons excavated at archeological digs, the average male's height ranged from 5'5" to 5'7". Since the ancient Hebrews generally saw themselves as smaller than other peoples, the biblical writers often noted unusual height. (For instance Isaiah 18:2,7 described the Ethiopians as a people "tall and smooth." Also, the fact that Saul stood taller than other Israelites was noted in 1 Sam. 10:23) ... King Og of Moab, Deut. 3:11 had a bed measuring 9 cubits long and 4 cubits wide (13 ft by 6 ft) [but that does not mean King Og was the same size as his bed. -- E.T.B.]... The record of the height of Goliath, as mentioned in 1 Sam. 17:4 is not consistent among all the ancient versions of 1 Samuel. The Hebrew records for Goliath say he was 6 cubits and a span (a cubit was roughly 18 inches, a span about 9 inches), so Goliath would be about 9'9" tall. Other ancient versions like the Septuagint lists Goliath at 4 cubits and a span, which would make Goliath closer to 6'9" in height. Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews says Goliath was about 6'8", which would still be considered a giant among the Hebrew people. However, the description of the weight of Goliath's armor suggests a much larger man than even a 7 foot tall individual to carry such weight. His bronze coat weighed "5,000 shekels," an astounding 125 pounds. [Of course, speaking of the number "5,000" as in the afore mentioned weight of "5,000" shekels, it must be kept in mind that the Hebrew authors were prone to rounding off and probably exaggerating them, which was common in the ancient world regarding the numbers of people and booty captured during wars. It can also be seen the case of enemies killed by Hebrews in battle as mentioned in the book of Judges, featuring reports of "500" or "600" or even "1000" enemies all killed by one Hebrew in a single fight, the Hebrew only using either an ox goad, a spear, or even the jawbone of an ass. Elsewhere in the Bible, King David leaves his son a huge rounded off number of pounds of gold and silver in order to build a temple, but the number given in the Bible is so huge it's nearly enough to nearly fill a modern day Fort Knox, which seems unusual for a relatively small kingdom in the ancient world that didn't have modern mining techniques. So, the number "5000" for the weight of Goliath's armor is probably an exaggerated and rounded off estimate. See the two pieces at the end of my email on Samson and Solomon. -- E.T.B.]

END OF EXCERPTS, ABOVE, FROM "GIANTS IN THE LAND"

ED: So where are the truly gigantic human bones? Can you show me one? I have already discussed the Mt. Blanco sculpture of a "giant human femur," but the word, "femur," was not found in the letter they based their scupture upon. So out of the "hundreds" of cases you know about, show me one truly gigantic human bone that is from a human being who was much taller than 9 feet in height. (Big Foot "prints," and Gigantopithecus bones, excluded.)

The largest-known primate was Gigantopithecus, of the Middle Pleistocene of what is now northern Vietnam and southern China. Males would have stood an estimated 2.74 m 9 ft tall and weighed about 272 kg 600 lb. It is risky, however, to correlate tooth size and jaw depth of primates with their height and body weight, and Gigantopithecus may have had a disproportionately large head, jaws and teeth for his body size. The only remains that have been discovered so far are three partial lower jaws and more than 1,000 teeth.

It is also notable that malnurishment stunts skeletal growth. The lands where the tall people lived are often described as prosperous and fruitful,so presumably the people living in those civilizations would be well fed. The Israeli had what, mana from heaven and whatever they could forage along the way while they nomaded around? Presumably they didn't have many trading partners since the Bible seems to suggest that everyone other than them was evil. It's hard to make friends while calling everyone evil.

[Fawzo]

It is also notable that malnurishment stunts skeletal growth. The lands where the tall people lived are often described as prosperous and fruitful,so presumably the people living in those civilizations would be well fed. The Israeli had what, mana from heaven and whatever they could forage along the way while they nomaded around? Presumably they didn't have many trading partners since the Bible seems to suggest that everyone other than them was evil. It's hard to make friends while calling everyone evil.

Yes calling everyone evil, having a reputation for killing them and trying to snip their tallywackers while talking to your invisible friend is no way to make friends.

Of course the alternative of killing them and destroying their countires and helping then rebuild afterwards is only moderately better.

[Tsukino_Rei]

snip their tallywackers

well said.

[mererdog]

i would suppose by examining the bones for tell tale signs??

How would we know what tell tale signs to look for, if we had never seen them before?

the unheard of deformity test has me stumped... please enlighten me....

If someone living some time in a forgotten past had a unique deformity, and they lived a long and otherwise healthy life, leaving behind only their bones for us to examine... I suspect many of us would be convinced the remains were those of an abnormal human, and many of us would be equally convinced the remains were those of something not quite human (alien, monster, or missing-link?). And I honestly see no way to prove the point either way short of a full genetic workup- and, even then, my knowledge of genetics is too poor to really be certain the results would be conclusive....

If our forgotten deformity had been passed down for a number of generations before dying out, examples to study would be more prevalent, but I don't see how they'd make the truth more obvious, so much as just give people on all sides more evidence to build their shaky conclusions on...

Edited April 15, 2010 by mererdog

[Brother Michael Sky]

How would we know what tell tale signs to look for, if we had never seen them before?

how can i tell you if we've never seen them before? perhaps by moving along there will be an answer....

If someone living some time in a forgotten past had a unique deformity, and they lived a long and otherwise healthy life, leaving behind only their bones for us to examine... I suspect many of us would be convinced the remains were those of an abnormal human, and many of us would be equally convinced the remains were those of something not quite human (alien, monster, or missing-link?). And I honestly see no way to prove the point either way short of a full genetic workup- and, even then, my knowledge of genetics is too poor to really be certain the results would be conclusive....

If our forgotten deformity had been passed down for a number of generations before dying out, examples to study would be more prevalent, but I don't see how they'd make the truth more obvious, so much as just give people on all sides more evidence to build their shaky conclusions on...

didn't the whole " island of hobbitts " thing give us all a little idea how they figure these things?

Is it really your point that there can be no conclusive decision?

On one hand, your knowledge is such that you have an answer for giant skeletons, on the other you don't have the proper training to decide...... but you are quick to point to " shaky conclusions ".... is it possible to consider such things without resorting to the consideration of " shaky conclusions "? It was once a " shaky conclusion " that the world was round..... tightened the sphincters of many a sailor for a long time.... ....

with no exploration of the unknown there can be no new discoveries...

Yes calling everyone evil, having a reputation for killing them and trying to snip their tallywackers while talking to your invisible friend is no way to make friends.

Of course the alternative of killing them and destroying their countires and helping then rebuild afterwards is only moderately better.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[mererdog]

how can i tell you if we've never seen them before? perhaps by moving along there will be an answer....

Perhaps. But perhaps not. There are limits to our ability to figure things out...

didn't the whole " island of hobbitts " thing give us all a little idea how they figure these things?

There are currently multiple theories being argued, and while some have garnered more acceptance than others, none seem to have been conclusively proven.

Is it really your point that there can be no conclusive decision?

My point is that I don't see how there can be.

On one hand, your knowledge is such that you have an answer for giant skeletons

Coming up with possible answers is easy. Being comfortable with the answers we come up with is also easy. Conclusive proof is hard. Which means that knowing is much harder than thinking we know.

is it possible to consider such things without resorting to the consideration of " shaky conclusions "?

That depends on whether we are considering the facts, or are going beyond the facts to consider the theories invented to explain the facts. If we are considering theories, how well (or poorly) they are proven is going to come up eventually.

It was once a " shaky conclusion " that the world was round.....

Of course, since the world still existed, we were able to test the theory. If all we had to go on were left-over fragments and historical references, it would be a whole nother kettle of fish... Edited April 16, 2010 by mererdog

[Brother Michael Sky]

Perhaps. But perhaps not. There are limits to our ability to figure things out...

There are currently multiple theories being argued, and while some have garnered more acceptance than others, none seem to have been conclusively proven.

My point is that I don't see how there can be.

Coming up with possible answers is easy. Being comfortable with the answers we come up with is also easy. Conclusive proof is hard. Which means that knowing is much harder than thinking we know.

That depends on whether we are considering the facts, or are going beyond the facts to consider the theories invented to explain the facts. If we are considering theories, how well (or poorly) they are proven is going to come up eventually.

Of course, since the world still existed, we were able to test the theory. If all we had to go on were left-over fragments and historical references, it would be a whole nother kettle of fish...

so until there is conclusive proof, there is no point in discussing a topic? You are in an interesting place for such a sentiment.... ( a philosophical thread on a religious forum.... )

for an example of how study makes for understanding : hobbitt article

and no, they are not 100% sure yet.... and neither were the early explorers who found a round world..... there must be an idea before it can be proven... if you wait for the facts first, there will be no investigation... there is enough existing to search for an answer.... too frequently anomolies which do not fit the established view are completely ignored...

and while merrerdog is arguing about the likelyhood of a subject which cannot, at this time, be explained.... i was wondering how our more fundamental friends feel on the subject...... what does one with a literal view of the bible feel about this subject?

Edited April 17, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Dan56]

... i was wondering how our more fundamental friends feel on the subject...... what does one with a literal view of the bible feel about this subject?

I believe the literal view is clear from the verse you previously quoted; "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" The sons of God (fallen angels) had children with women. Their progeny were giants (Nephilim). The Israelites failed to kill all of the Nephilim, and its unknown how many escaped to other countries. Enoch 6:2 confirms Genesis 6:4.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Dan54

[Brother Michael Sky]

I believe the literal view is clear from the verse you previously quoted; "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" The sons of God (fallen angels) had children with women. Their progeny were giants (Nephilim). The Israelites failed to kill all of the Nephilim, and its unknown how many escaped to other countries. Enoch 6:2 confirms Genesis 6:4.

what is the age of the earth in your belief Dan? I ask this, because this has been a question in my mind for a long time. Attending services way down south i was first introduced to the idea that fossils and such were planted in the earth during creation to test the faith of man. Is this your view? I've wondered at the reasoning behind this for a long time....

Not that i automatically dismiss it, I rather feel that the time periods referred to are confused... or that the facts of the matter are understood a little different than was originally the case... I'm not looking to argue about this, i honestly want understanding from another view...

This discussion, i feel, complicates the idea.... why giant bones? why plant them alongside giant lizards? why the bones of giants, which are talked about in the book... doesn't this confuse a literal faith?

I am curious how this is put to rest in your own mind......

[Cornelius]

I believe the literal view is clear from the verse you previously quoted; "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" The sons of God (fallen angels) had children with women. Their progeny were giants (Nephilim). The Israelites failed to kill all of the Nephilim, and its unknown how many escaped to other countries. Enoch 6:2 confirms Genesis 6:4.

From all the looking into this matter I have done over the years. Nephilim (although it could possibly mean Giant) in Hebrew translates as fallen ones and giant is most likely a mistranslation.

The etymology of the Hebrew word נְפִילִים (nephilim) means "fallen ones."[1][2][3]

Abraham ibn Ezra proposes that they were called fallen ones because men's hearts would fail at the sight of them. Some suggest that they were giants and when they fell, the ground shook, causing others to fall too.[citation needed] Jean Leclerc and Peter of Aquila among others suggest that it is derived from the warlike nature of the Nephilim, comparing the usage of Naphal in Job 1:15 "And the Sabeans fell upon them" where Naphal means "to take in battle". Alternatively, Shadal understands nephilim as deriving from the Hebrew word פלא Pele which means wondrous.[4] Another possibility is that the term is a generic term for "giants" in general,[5] which is consistent with the Septuagint and Vulgate translations of the word. Some expositors believe it may refer more to the ferocity and strength of the people who are referred to, rather than their physical height,[6][7] though in the Book of Numbers intentional stress on height is apparent, whether metaphorical or actual (see below on Anakim).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

Does the literal view take into context the fact that the bible is not an english writing?

Have you ever read the Book of Enoch. Which goes into detail about the Grigori and their offspring and which was considered canon by the church for many years?

Personally I'm fascinated by the story and the imagery within it.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Blackthorn

[Cornelius]

what is the age of the earth in your belief Dan? I ask this, because this has been a question in my mind for a long time. Attending services way down south i was first introduced to the idea that fossils and such were planted in the earth during creation to test the faith of man. Is this your view? I've wondered at the reasoning behind this for a long time....

Not that i automatically dismiss it, I rather feel that the time periods referred to are confused... or that the facts of the matter are understood a little different than was originally the case... I'm not looking to argue about this, i honestly want understanding from another view...

This discussion, i feel, complicates the idea.... why giant bones? why plant them alongside giant lizards? why the bones of giants, which are talked about in the book... doesn't this confuse a literal faith?

I am curious how this is put to rest in your own mind......

I've been lurking on this topic for a while. A theory I've found quite interesting related to this subject is that prehistoric people were known to find fossils then misidentify them as giants, dragons, and the sort.

Ancient greeks would find fossils and think they were mythical heros or demigods. Then they would even sometimes bury the bones rearranged and give the hero or demigod a proper funeral.

In the ancient imagination, heroes of the remote past would have towered over puny, present-day humans. The second-century A.D. Greek geographer Pausanias described the buzz of excitement that surrounded the supposed discovery of the bones of the great Greek champion Ajax, who fought in the Trojan War. According to the Iliad, Ajax's grave was at Rhoeteum, where the Greek ships had landed to attack Troy. When bones of heroic dimensions suddenly appeared there, people took them to be the remains of Ajax. An eyewitness explained to Pausanias how the sea had washed out the beach, revealing a jumble of big bones. "Ajax's kneecaps were exactly the size of a discus for the boy's pentathlon," wrote Pausanias. A boys discus was about five or six inches across. Kneecaps big enough to be worthy of the hero Ajax would most likely belong to a Miocene era (ca. 8 million years ago) mastodon or rhinoceros; the remains of both animals have been found in the region around Rhoeteum.

http://www.archaeology.org/0003/abstracts/monsters.html

Philostratus (ca. A.D. 218) remarked, it was logical to accept that "giants once existed, because their awesome remains could be seen all around the world

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Gods/Ajax.html

This even happened in more modern times as this case with robert plot in 1677 shows.

However; some stones he did recognise as the petrified remains of organisms. The thigh-bone of a dinosaur he accepted as the remains of a creature. He knew nothing of dinosaurs, and, by comparison with a living specimen, was able to reject the idea it was the femur of an elephant. Instead, he concluded it was the fossil of the bone of a man or woman - believing us and all other creatures to have had the stature of giants in the days before the Flood.

In another case, the detached base of a dinosaur thighbone which measured two feet (60 cm) in diameter was identified and described as the scrotum of this giant man, and named Scrotum Humanum.

The thigh bone has since been identified as that of the Megalosaurus.

http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_205_Fossils_History.htm

[Brother Michael Sky]

I wonder at the idea of a Fallen Angel.... would an angel, by very description, be a being with advanced knowledge of some sort? some knowledge which made that being seem " great "... In this context, I'm very curious... even nefarious characters can be remembered as Great...

according to the book of enoch, the fallen angels were guilty of teaching the arts and sciences to man...

supposedly, before he was ready....

Isn't the book of enoch an interesting read? sacred-texts_Book of Enoch

support that site !!!

Personally, I don't know what to believe at this point.... and i've been at this point for a long time... i wonder how many of the bones that have been found are gracing a front porch in west virginia, instead of a scientist's lab...

Edited April 18, 2010 by Brother Michael Sky

[Dan56]

what is the age of the earth in your belief Dan? I ask this, because this has been a question in my mind for a long time. Attending services way down south i was first introduced to the idea that fossils and such were planted in the earth during creation to test the faith of man. Is this your view? I've wondered at the reasoning behind this for a long time....

Not that i automatically dismiss it, I rather feel that the time periods referred to are confused... or that the facts of the matter are understood a little different than was originally the case... I'm not looking to argue about this, i honestly want understanding from another view...

This discussion, i feel, complicates the idea.... why giant bones? why plant them alongside giant lizards? why the bones of giants, which are talked about in the book... doesn't this confuse a literal faith?

I am curious how this is put to rest in your own mind......

I don't know the age of the earth, but suspect its hundreds of millions of years old. There's nothing in the bible that suggest otherwise.

I believe there was an earth age prior to the one we're in. This first earth age ended (was utterly destroyed) and Genesis 1 describes the creation of the second earth age. It is argued that the correct translation of Genesis 1:2 is that the earth 'became' void and without form, it wasn't created that way. Millions of years passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I believe Jeremiah 4:19-28 describes the destruction of that first earth age, 2 Peter 3: 5-6 also describe this. 3 Earth Ages

Not all Christians subscribe to this, but it makes sense to me.