Giant Skeletons Found?

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm guessing the reason we don't have any fossil evidence of these guys is they jumped into the air and got caught by the sun's gravity.

Perhaps if you read another version of Enoch, you'll find that God "took" them up. (Or down as the case may be.)

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Hey, so I've been reading and looking into the finding of giant skeletons all throughout history lately and I just wanted some opinions. Or if anyone else knows a lot about them I'd be down. Books to read, etc.

The eyes of that species of extinct giants whose bones
fill the mounds of America have gazed on Niagara, as
ours do now. - Abraham Lincoln 1848

This quote has spurred on an interest to look into them again.

Whether it was the hundreds of giant skeletons ranging between 7ft tall and taller being destroyed admittedly by the smithsonian institute after they took the findings from those who found them and that trusted the institute with their findings. Or the countless other occurrences and finds involving skeletons in the indian mounds, or in random places buried beneath the ground all throughout the globe, giants did exist, just as the bible tells us they did.

My question is again, not wanting to debate the existence of these finds, but just wanting more input on this topic. If anyone is well versed in these things, come at me. I'm down for all the evidence and books and sites and what have you that you've got. I just want to learn.

The book of enoch tells us what those weird giant "god" men that are depicted all throughout ancient civilizations that had no way to contact one another all coming down and teaching them how to smelt metals, use herbs for medicine, teaching them about the stars, etc. It even describes why they all have smilier histories involving these beings, how the people fed them, and served them until all the food ran out and the beings ended up eating the people. The book of enoch gives answers to these things, and I feel that the government is riding our history of the skeletons and our proof of the existence of giants so it becomes less obvious that the bible exists, and more likely that it's "aliens". Hogwash, aliens don't exist. Giants that came from the seed of fallen angels however...
Many people will deny the fact that there have been many many many gigantic skeletal remains found, not only in the continental US but South America and, in fact, the world over.

They will also deny that the Smithsonian has admittedly, as you have stated, destroyed, hidden or "lost" a wealth of actual hard core evidence of a giant race that existed on this earth.

To add to this botched archaeological operational activities, there was also a contest, on the internet, to see who could use Photoshop to produce the most true looking fake image. Many of the images were of gigantic skulls and other skeletal images.

This has prompted any skeptic to deem that ALL giant photographic evidence is fake.

However, there are numerous news paper articles from the US in the 1800's and early 1900's with articles of the findings of remains of giant proportions.

These, of course, are also written off as publicity stunts and random hyperbole.

However, look up L.A. Marzulli, Steve Quayle and Brien Foerster...... These guys have gone to great personal sacrifice, both physical effort and financial input, to search for the truth of the biblical fact of giants existing on this earth.

These three have found and investigated a large number of elongated huge skulls in South America and, through much trouble, difficulty and resistance, finally found three accredited laboratories, that are analyzing the DNA of several of these skulls.

The results of this DNA testing should be out any week now.

It will never cease to confuse me as to why Christians, who believe the bible to be the word of God, are so skeptical when modern research finds something that proves the bible to be true.

The archaeological field is controlled by a Darwinian motivated group of evolutionists. I can totally understand why they don't want any of this highly factual and credible evidence to surface and reach the mainstream media.

Their whole world IS going to come crushing down with all the focus on the fact that intelligence has not been gradually increasing, technology that is greater than what we have today had been lost and there were beings that were far greater in size than we humans and they possessed abilities and had knowledge that has been lost.

It is not life from other planets... It is that of angelic hybridization of the human race, that started before the flood and continued after that......

One more name to google.... Rob Skiba, who has three excellent books out, that deal with Genesis and all the events that bible believing people have not had the courage to believe in the past.

All the evidence that these people have unearthed, fought the cover up and presented to the world, with great opposition from both evolutionist and biblical people, is vast, solid and proves beyond any doubt that the bible is true in every detail... even the ones that boggle our simple minds.

So, don't believe the scoffers and deniers when you look into this stuff and your eyes are open to the wonders of the world before the flood and after that... even up to the last century.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Link to the document this 'quote' is recorded. All I see thus far is hearsay.

Well, Lincoln did write it, in some unfinished notes made after visiting Niagara Falls. Apparently the passage is famous for being quoted out of context by conspiracy theorists.

"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastodon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested,"

But it's not at all clear whether these "giants" Lincoln mentions are people or mammoths, nor is it clear whether these "giants" were more than, say, 7 feet tall.
 
Upvote 0

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Hey, so I've been reading and looking into the finding of giant skeletons all throughout history lately and I just wanted some opinions. Or if anyone else knows a lot about them I'd be down. Books to read, etc.

The eyes of that species of extinct giants whose bones
fill the mounds of America have gazed on Niagara, as
ours do now. - Abraham Lincoln 1848

This quote has spurred on an interest to look into them again.

.
Which species? Mammoths, Mastodons or some other extinct creature? Where's the whole quote and that document being kept? With only those few words the only 100% sure thing is everybody is assuming it's some type of humanoid. You know what they say about the word assuming.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They will also deny that the Smithsonian has admittedly, as you have stated, destroyed, hidden or "lost" a wealth of actual hard core evidence of a giant race that existed on this earth.

The Smithsonian never admitted it because it never happened.

The cause of Christianity is not helped when people tell lies.

However, look up L.A. Marzulli, Steve Quayle and Brien Foerster...... These three have found and investigated a large number of elongated huge skulls in South America

These skulls are human skulls (elongated probably as a result of head-binding). They are within the ordinary human size range. They are not "giant."

The results of this DNA testing should be out any week now.

The results actually came out last year. They showed that the skulls were human.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Well, Lincoln did write it, in some unfinished notes made after visiting Niagara Falls. Apparently the passage is famous for being quoted out of context by conspiracy theorists.

"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastodon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested,"

But it's not at all clear whether these "giants" Lincoln mentions are people or mammoths, nor is it clear whether these "giants" were more than, say, 7 feet tall.
True... but what bones "fill the mounds of America"? Did Mammoth and Mastodon bones fill these mounds?
From what documents tell us, the answer would be no.... In fact the bones that "filled the mounds of America" were those of giant human like beings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devin P
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Many people will deny the fact that there have been many many many gigantic skeletal remains found, not only in the continental US but South America and, in fact, the world over.

They will also deny that the Smithsonian has admittedly, as you have stated, destroyed, hidden or "lost" a wealth of actual hard core evidence of a giant race that existed on this earth.

To add to this botched archaeological operational activities, there was also a contest, on the internet, to see who could use Photoshop to produce the most true looking fake image. Many of the images were of gigantic skulls and other skeletal images.

This has prompted any skeptic to deem that ALL giant photographic evidence is fake.

However, there are numerous news paper articles from the US in the 1800's and early 1900's with articles of the findings of remains of giant proportions.

These, of course, are also written off as publicity stunts and random hyperbole.

However, look up L.A. Marzulli, Steve Quayle and Brien Foerster...... These guys have gone to great personal sacrifice, both physical effort and financial input, to search for the truth of the biblical fact of giants existing on this earth.

These three have found and investigated a large number of elongated huge skulls in South America and, through much trouble, difficulty and resistance, finally found three accredited laboratories, that are analyzing the DNA of several of these skulls.

The results of this DNA testing should be out any week now.

It will never cease to confuse me as to why Christians, who believe the bible to be the word of God, are so skeptical when modern research finds something that proves the bible to be true.

The archaeological field is controlled by a Darwinian motivated group of evolutionists. I can totally understand why they don't want any of this highly factual and credible evidence to surface and reach the mainstream media.

Their whole world IS going to come crushing down with all the focus on the fact that intelligence has not been gradually increasing, technology that is greater than what we have today had been lost and there were beings that were far greater in size than we humans and they possessed abilities and had knowledge that has been lost.

It is not life from other planets... It is that of angelic hybridization of the human race, that started before the flood and continued after that......

One more name to google.... Rob Skiba, who has three excellent books out, that deal with Genesis and all the events that bible believing people have not had the courage to believe in the past.

All the evidence that these people have unearthed, fought the cover up and presented to the world, with great opposition from both evolutionist and biblical people, is vast, solid and proves beyond any doubt that the bible is true in every detail... even the ones that boggle our simple minds.

So, don't believe the scoffers and deniers when you look into this stuff and your eyes are open to the wonders of the world before the flood and after that... even up to the last century.
Absolutely! Right? I'll never get why people debate this considering they existed in the bible. Although I do believe it was in the enemies best interest to remove the scripture that testifies of these things, considering now the majority of people condemn the books that prove the bible historically, scientifically, and these findings. Without those texts, and more elaboration on genesis 6 and pre-flood gigantism, the natural choice would be evolution (which most people fail to realize is technically just a theory, despite how much they push it on people) or aliens.

I definitely agree that this evidence regarding the found giants will completely rip apart evolution once it comes to light, absolutely. If you take away aliens, already evolution makes no sense considering the technology they had back then greatly surpasses ours when it comes to lifting and cutting, and even when it comes to the astrological knowledge they had.

I love Rob Skiba! In fact, he's the one that ultimately led to my Torah observance. Him and Jim Staley.

I'll definitely have to check out the other names mentioned for sure, thank you brother!

You're the reason I made this post :)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Smithsonian never admitted it because it never happened.

The cause of Christianity is not helped when people tell lies.
This might have been false, but they have done exactly that in the past. It's why there's accounts of people finding them and not wanting to give them to a museum, because they know it would be destroyed or "stolen" as has happened before.

These skulls are human skulls (elongated probably as a result of head-binding). They are within the ordinary human size range. They are not "giant."



The results actually came out last year. They showed that the skulls were human.
No, they weren't human skulls. There is a history of people binding their heads with boards, but why would people do this? They were emulating something they had seen before.

There are finds of women with elongated heads bearing unborn babies also with elongated heads, so not all of them were modifications. That and even if humans did do this, their suture patterns wouldn't have changed, yet in many finds their suture patterns are different than that of a humans, and the space for their brains is much more than ours - another thing that wouldn't of changed regardless of head boarding.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married

Well, I used to trust "Snopes" at one point in my life. However, if you look into the actual operating body of those who give this "final word" on all questionable facts... the people of Snopes... their not perfect or infallible. They also are not the most unbiased people either.

Always take what you read in Snopes or Wiki with a grain of salt... do some research yourself.

These are not the final word.

The cause of Christianity is not helped when people tell lies.

Exactly.... thank goodness people are starting to realize this.
Lies about the race of giants and the fact that there is more and more evidence being uncovered every month, should open the eyes of people to realize the we have been lied to by the main stream archaeological "experts" for years.



These skulls are human skulls (elongated probably as a result of head-binding). They are within the ordinary human size range. They are not "giant."

This is a common belief. However, you cannot change the bone structure of a skull by headboarding.
What I mean is that the human skull, every single human skull, has definite and tell tale bone plates and structure that give the exact same suture lines in every single human skull.

These skulls do not have the same bone plate structure.

Also, headboarding a skull can change the shape of a skull but cannot increase the cranial capacity....These skulls have as much as 1/3 more volume inside the skull.

One more point that is evidence is that the place where the spinal column enters the skull on these skulls is not the same as any human skull. It is also impossible to do this with head boarding.



The results actually came out last year. They showed that the skulls were human.

These are not the results that these gentlemen are expecting to come out this month.... or next. There have been other tests but these are being done by laboratories that now have enough material to get mitochondrial DNA.

Take some time and look into this. It has been a struggle for these gentlemen to get cooperation from any accredited labs.... one took their money and gave them nothing in return...

Nobody wants to report any find that goes counter current to the predetermined fake truth of evolution.



PEOPLE... this new evidence is pro Christianity... PRO Bible.... we should be spreading this new found knowledge... expose the hoax of fake history and pray that this exposure will bring more souls to Christ.

Why perpetuate the lies of men when the truth of God is coming to light.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
From what documents tell us, the answer would be no.... In fact the bones that "filled the mounds of America" were those of giant human like beings.

Contemporary newspaper accounts, which Lincoln may perhaps have been referring to, talk about human skeletons which were at the most 6 to 8 feet high. This is in fact the normal human range for basketball players.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, they weren't human skulls.

Yes they were.

yet in many finds their suture patterns are different than that of a humans

Not true.

and the space for their brains is much more than ours

Not true.

Always take what you read in Snopes or Wiki with a grain of salt... do some research yourself.

I do... but it's up to you to disprove what Snopes says here.

PEOPLE... this new evidence is pro Christianity... PRO Bible.... we should be spreading this new found knowledge...

These are lies. Lies come from Satan. Lies are not "pro Christianity" or "pro Bible."
 
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Contemporary newspaper accounts, which Lincoln may perhaps have been referring to, talk about human skeletons which were at the most 6 to 8 feet high. This is in fact the normal human range for basketball players.
These are bigger than 8 feet. Also Og of Bashan was over 15 ft tall. Biblical.
 

Attachments

  • published-may-4-1908-new-york-times-e28093-giant-skeletons-found.jpg
    published-may-4-1908-new-york-times-e28093-giant-skeletons-found.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 6
  • wisconsin_mound_kjempe_arti1.gif
    wisconsin_mound_kjempe_arti1.gif
    32.7 KB · Views: 7
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, Lincoln did write it, in some unfinished notes made after visiting Niagara Falls. Apparently the passage is famous for being quoted out of context by conspiracy theorists.

"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastodon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested,"

But it's not at all clear whether these "giants" Lincoln mentions are people or mammoths, nor is it clear whether these "giants" were more than, say, 7 feet tall.
Well, when you look at the accounts that are in city records, or books, or news papers from back in that time, they ranged from 7-11 ft tall. At least the ones I've seen. I've seen and heard of longer and taller, but not when it comes to news paper articles. I know they existed because Og of Bashan was between 14-16 ft tall, and that is from the bible. That and other scriptures that the bible quotes as fact, the book of enoch for example talk of giants being between 10-40 ft tall.

The whole quote talks about men, and it insinuates that the bones mentioned were in fact giant men, because the next line after mentioning the bones found refers to them, and not another species. Just look at the two files I've attached, they're early 1900's and late 1800 articles written by the New York Times, and they wrote on some early finds of the skeletons I'm talking about. Some were in the mounds, and others were just in random places buried that people stumbled upon while excavating or digging, or mining, etc.
 
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You know, it also strange that between the time Adam was driven out of the Garden, until the flood is relatively short. Yet by the time Noah is ready to build the ark, we have the antediluvians.
It was over 1000 years, which is a 6th of the time we've been on earth, so I definitely wouldn't say it was relatively short.
How is it possible, that even though with the "breeding" of the "Watchers" with the daughters of man, that women were able to give birth to children that would grow to 40' tall or higher?

How come man over the last 5000 years, has not evolved enough to have children over, in rare cases, 9' tall?
I don't know why it was possible, no one does. All I know is that the bible talks of giants, before and after the flood, and that the bible quotes from, and references Enoch, and it also talks of it. There are greek texts of enoch, that I don't believer are to be trusted, but there are Ethiopian and Aramaic and Hebraic books of Enoch, that all line up with one another. There are more than one book of enoch, there's three I think. I've only been reading the first one so far, but it's done nothing but line perfectly up with scripture, and it even sheds light on some confusing parts of scripture. So long as you're not reading the greek (the text that talks of 3000 ells) it lines perfectly up with the bible. That verse 7:11 or whatever only exists in the greek, and isn't found in literally any other translation of Enoch. All the other versions, Aramaic, Hebraic, and Ethiopian don't mention it. That verse doesn't exist. It stops at 7:6, and then begins chapter 8.

That, and evolution isn't real. It's only technically a theory at this point. I know they push it really hard, and there seems to be absolute proof, but there is no proof for it as of now, it's still technically, the "theory" of evolution.
Look at nature. The largest mammal to give "live birth, produce milk" for their children to drink, is the blue whale. A newborn "blue whale" weighs around 30 tons! And look at its mother, how big is she?

In all honesty, how big of a uterus would a woman have to have to give birth to a baby that would grow 40 feet, or 450 feet, or even 4500 feet tall?
Well, considering the bible talks of giants, and talks of the fallen mating with women, my guess is that women can give birth to them, so they couldn't of been huge at first, but that they just continually grew afterwards.

Much like the liger - tiger lion hybrid. It exists now, "thanks" to science... but regardless, it's birthed in the womb of an ordinary tiger or lioness, but yet it grows much much larger than any of the two it's born from. It doesn't have the gene that tells it to stop growing, so compared to lions, or tigers, it's ridiculously huge! Much like ligers, I think it would have been with the giants. Small at birth, but they just didn't stop growing. I'm not sure on this, all that I know is that the bible says they mated with women, and that the result were giants. So it leaves me to believe, either they couldn't live through it, and died and therefore the babies weren't born, and the bible is false, or somehow the women could have their children.

The biggest "natural born" baby in the world was born in 1878 to Anna Bates in Ohio, she herself, stood 7'11". The baby weighed 23 lbs, 12 oz, he was 28" long, but sadly, only lived 11 hours after birth. (See Guinness Book of World Records)

40 feet tall. That's almost as tall as a Semi-Truck and trailer. (53 feet)

I wonder how big a baby would have to be when born, to grow to the size of a semi-truck?

God Bless

Till all are one.
Look into ligers. Like I said, they are born normally, but because of the hybridization, they don't have the gene that stunts growth, and they keep growing. They actually have a full grown liger that is still to this day growing larger, and it's already 900 lbs. (at least it was last time I looked into it)

Actually, I just looked into it just for this. So apparently:
Lions on average weigh 550 lbs
Tigers can get up to 800 lbs

Ligers, on average are 1000 lbs, and there is one that was 1600 lbs. So, twice the weight of tigers, and over three times the size of lions. Yet, they're the same size when born, because they're sterile, and are born in the wombs of the animals they're brought forth from.
 
Upvote 0

Devin P

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2017
1,280
631
31
Michigan
✟99,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Well, Lincoln did write it, in some unfinished notes made after visiting Niagara Falls. Apparently the passage is famous for being quoted out of context by conspiracy theorists.

"But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Mastodon---now so long dead, that fragments of their monstrous bones, alone testify, that they ever lived, have gazed on Niagara. In that long---long time, never still for a single moment. Never dried, never froze, never slept, never rested,"

But it's not at all clear whether these "giants" Lincoln mentions are people or mammoths, nor is it clear whether these "giants" were more than, say, 7 feet tall.
Well, when you look at the accounts that are in city records, or books, or news papers from back in that time, they ranged from 7-11 ft tall. At least the ones I've seen. I've seen and heard of longer and taller, but not when it comes to news paper articles. I know they existed because Og of Bashan was between 14-16 ft tall, and that is from the bible. That and other scriptures that the bible quotes as fact, the book of enoch for example talk of giants being between 10-40 ft tall.

The whole quote talks about men, and it insinuates that the bones mentioned were in fact giant men, because the next line after mentioning the bones found refers to them as
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nonaeroterraqueous

Nonexistent Member
Aug 16, 2014
2,915
2,724
✟188,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The spirits of the giants in the book of enoch were 3,000 ells which is 20 miles.

So much certainty about a lost unit of measurement. You may be right or wrong, but I've seen so many different guesses by experts on the length of an ell that I hope you'll pardon me for not accepting the declaration of a complete stranger on an internet forum.

450' tall men. That is what Enoch teaches.

Is it? I thought it was twenty miles.

In this version, the height is given until verse 12: "Whose stature was each three hundred cubits.

Is that different? Do we really know? That would make an ell somewhere on the order of a tenth of a cubit. A cubit, also, is not a standardized length. If I'm not mistaken, it was based on the length of a man's forearm, which differed between men, and it would have been shorter for people of that time period than ours.

An "ell" in biblical measurements could have been as much as 3.75 feet.

It could have been a lot of things. So much wild speculation.

At 3000 ells, that's higher than 2 miles!

Oh, good. First it was twenty miles. Then you said it was 450 feet. Now, we're back up to two miles. Look, man, I don't care if you want to believe in the Book of Enoch or not, but you're using pure speculation and inconsistent math to disprove something weathered by thousands of years, a few translations and the crossing of multiple cultural paradigms. Your math is based on units of measurement that were relative when they were used, which are now thousands of years forgotten.

Impossible stature? Yeah, probably. Not to be included as canon? Of course not. Incredibly foolish argument against an ancient book? Definitely.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Much like the liger - tiger lion hybrid. It exists now, "thanks" to science... but regardless, it's birthed in the womb of an ordinary tiger or lioness, but yet it grows much much larger than any of the two it's born from. It doesn't have the gene that tells it to stop growing, so compared to lions, or tigers, it's ridiculously huge!

A liger (as distinct from a tigon) always has a tiger mother. The upper size limit for a liger is about the same as that of the largest tigers. That stuff about not having the "gene that tells it to stop growing" is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Contemporary newspaper accounts, which Lincoln may perhaps have been referring to, talk about human skeletons which were at the most 6 to 8 feet high. This is in fact the normal human range for basketball players.
True... however, there are some much taller. Whatever the size, the Smithsonian wanted them gone.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Well, when you look at the accounts that are in city records, or books, or news papers from back in that time, they ranged from 7-11 ft tall. At least the ones I've seen. I've seen and heard of longer and taller, but not when it comes to news paper articles. I know they existed because Og of Bashan was between 14-16 ft tall, and that is from the bible. That and other scriptures that the bible quotes as fact, the book of enoch for example talk of giants being between 10-40 ft tall.

The whole quote talks about men, and it insinuates that the bones mentioned were in fact giant men, because the next line after mentioning the bones found refers to them, and not another species. Just look at the two files I've attached, they're early 1900's and late 1800 articles written by the New York Times, and they wrote on some early finds of the skeletons I'm talking about. Some were in the mounds, and others were just in random places buried that people stumbled upon while excavating or digging, or mining, etc.
True.

Not only that but they all have six fingers and toes and double rows of teeth.

Remember, Goliath had six fingers and six toes...

These are not people with the disease the Andre the Giant had either. These are healthy strong and very intelligent beings that built the megalithic structures that are still standing today and we cannot match the technology that was used to create these wonders.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,483
62
✟570,626.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
You know, it also strange that between the time Adam was driven out of the Garden, until the flood is relatively short. Yet by the time Noah is ready to build the ark, we have the antediluvians.

How is it possible, that even though with the "breeding" of the "Watchers" with the daughters of man, that women were able to give birth to children that would grow to 40' tall or higher?

How come man over the last 5000 years, has not evolved enough to have children over, in rare cases, 9' tall?

Look at nature. The largest mammal to give "live birth, produce milk" for their children to drink, is the blue whale. A newborn "blue whale" weighs around 30 tons! And look at its mother, how big is she?

In all honesty, how big of a uterus would a woman have to have to give birth to a baby that would grow 40 feet, or 450 feet, or even 4500 feet tall?

The biggest "natural born" baby in the world was born in 1878 to Anna Bates in Ohio, she herself, stood 7'11". The baby weighed 23 lbs, 12 oz, he was 28" long, but sadly, only lived 11 hours after birth. (See Guinness Book of World Records)

40 feet tall. That's almost as tall as a Semi-Truck and trailer. (53 feet)

I wonder how big a baby would have to be when born, to grow to the size of a semi-truck?

God Bless

Till all are one.
Firstly, the children that these women gave birth to were angel/human hybrids. They grew rapidly.

We don't "evolve" never did. We are human and have human DNA. God put limitations on the growth of the human body by the blue print in our DNA..

In the womb, the fastest a baby grows is the last trimester.

Growth%20Velocity.jpg



Or doctor told us that if the baby maintained this growth rate for a year or two, it would be incredibly larger than typical humans..

The growth slows down.
 
Upvote 0