Giant Skeletons Found?

disciple1

Newbie
Aug 1, 2012
2,168
546
✟61,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
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...
1 Samuel chapter 17 verse 4
Then Goliath, a Philistine champion from Gath, came out of the Philistine ranks to face the forces of Israel. He was over nine feet tall!
 
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
1 Samuel chapter 17 verse 4
Then Goliath, a Philistine champion from Gath, came out of the Philistine ranks to face the forces of Israel. He was over nine feet tall!
Absolutely right brother! 9'4" actually is the height I found out after looking further into it just now haha.
 
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It isn't really that hard to fathom the existence of giants. Given the archaeology evidence of "dinosaurs" which were gigantic which the entire world does not dispute, the fact that God's own word states that there were giants. There were giant dinosaurs that were the product of sin. The bible states that mankind sinned against beasts, birds, you name it. Also, when you consider the amount of myths that sprung up all over the world concerning giant peoples that were referred to as gods, like Hercules, it isn't that farfetched. Careful examination of the history of the world via the Bible grants the reader the knowledge that you seek. Also, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church uses the book of Enoch as Scripture ad not just a history book. While there are some things in it of which I question , I am not familiar with that denomination that well, as I grew up with the King James Version. All 66 books making one complete message, to which the book of Enoch doesn't really go with. It emphasizes too much worldly things and things which no one truly knows about that in my honest opinion only warranted one specific thing to be included in the "word of God" and that was the fact that the Lord would come with ten thousands of his saints. You could ignore the rest and not miss anything because the Bible explains everything perfectly. Kind of an interesting read though, as it is a work of the 2nd century b.c. I believe.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
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.


Thank you!! I've been saying this for years and in return have gotten some really silly stuff---like the usual answer is--the babies were normal babies that just grew tall! I've asked how tall are these so called fallen angels for it is from them that the height came. Were they "proportional"--would a woman live through the encounter to go on to produce such a giant. Would she even be able to breast feed the thing if she could possibly survive giving birth---it would take at least 6-10 women to keep up with the milk demands! One guy insisted that these women were very willing to mate with these fallen angels---Willing to be ripped up?--Right! They were lining up. "Little women" today are giving birth to normal sized babies. Their pregnancies are classified as high risk and have to be very careful and is usually by a C-section, their pelvic area can't handle the size. A normal sized woman giving birth to one of these giant babies would have been unable to carry such a size, much less give birth to one. Common sense is not big with these concepts.
Also have asked about the fact that there are angels that have wings. They are spoken of in the bible as some having 2--some having 6. Nothing anywhere about babies being born with wings. That would have made the birth even more difficult.
All angels in the bible are spoken of as male, they all have male names. Why would God make all male angels with the ability to reproduce and have no way to do so? Answer was--they were only able to reproduce after they fell! If they couldn't before---God would have had to recreate them to give them the ability to mate with women. They can not do this on their own. They can only appear human--they are not human, we were created lower than them. That makes God responsible for these creatures being born and then He wipes them off the face of the planet and everybody with them (they insist this is the real reason God send the flood!) He made it possible then He kills everybody for it!
Logic is just not something that these people have much of it seems. Even their answers to the obvious make no sense.
I've posted articles about the words giants and what the words "sons of God" and "daughters of men" mean--written by Jewish scholars and they dismiss them. I still have them if anyone is interested. I quite posting them cause they do not read them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DeaconDean
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Thank you!! I've been saying this for years and in return have gotten some really silly stuff---like the usual answer is--the babies were normal babies that just grew tall! I've asked how tall are these so called fallen angels for it is from them that the height came. Were they "proportional"--would a woman live through the encounter to go on to produce such a giant. Would she even be able to breast feed the thing if she could possibly survive giving birth---it would take at least 6-10 women to keep up with the milk demands! One guy insisted that these women were very willing to mate with these fallen angels---Willing to be ripped up?--Right! They were lining up. "Little women" today are giving birth to normal sized babies. Their pregnancies are classified as high risk and have to be very careful and is usually by a C-section, their pelvic area can't handle the size. A normal sized woman giving birth to one of these giant babies would have been unable to carry such a size, much less give birth to one. Common sense is not big with these concepts.
Also have asked about the fact that there are angels that have wings. They are spoken of in the bible as some having 2--some having 6. Nothing anywhere about babies being born with wings. That would have made the birth even more difficult.
All angels in the bible are spoken of as male, they all have male names. Why would God make all male angels with the ability to reproduce and have no way to do so? Answer was--they were only able to reproduce after they fell! If they couldn't before---God would have had to recreate them to give them the ability to mate with women. They can not do this on their own. They can only appear human--they are not human, we were created lower than them. That makes God responsible for these creatures being born and then He wipes them off the face of the planet and everybody with them (they insist this is the real reason God send the flood!) He made it possible then He kills everybody for it!
Logic is just not something that these people have much of it seems. Even their answers to the obvious make no sense.
I've posted articles about the words giants and what the words "sons of God" and "daughters of men" mean--written by Jewish scholars and they dismiss them. I still have them if anyone is interested. I quite posting them cause they do not read them.
Sons of God is taken to mean godly men, as it does every where else in Scriptures. Daughters of men is taken to mean daughters of ungodly men. Angels cannot reproduce. An easy similar story in scriptures is how Israel was warned against the taking of wives of other peoples that were not Israel. The angels continue to exist as this states in scriptures.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mmksparbud
Upvote 0

Neal of Zebulun

Active Member
Oct 21, 2017
326
132
33
Texas
✟21,491.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sons of God is taken to mean godly men, as it does every where else in Scriptures. Daughters of men is taken to mean daughters of ungodly men. Angels cannot reproduce. An easy similar story in scriptures is how Israel was warned against the taking of wives of other peoples that were not Israel. The angels continue to exist as this states in scriptures.

Job 1:
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan came also among them.​

Revelation 12:
9 ..Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Job 38:
1 Then Yahweh answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We've already linked to this Ken. The very next sentence after the mention of the giants attests that he was in fact talking of giant men, considering in his very next sentence he says "Co[n]temporary with the whole race of men, and older than the first man, Niagara is strong, and fresh to-day as ten thousand years ago.".

But yes, having the whole paragraph definitely does help verify that he was in fact talking of giant humans.
I saw that, but like I said, it all in context is important. It is a bad habit to get into when we take a verse or line from something and build on it. Most of the anti-Judaic bias comes from people taking a line from the Talmud (which usually was part of an argument and that line was rejected) and then trumping it around as if it represents Jewish thought when again, the idea was presented and rejected. Context is important.

As for giants on earth... we know they existed because the bible says so, but we have yet to unearth OR MAKE PUBLIC a true skeleton. Everything I have seen so far has been photo-shop internet nonsense. :)
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Sons of God is taken to mean godly men, as it does every where else in Scriptures. Daughters of men is taken to mean daughters of ungodly men. Angels cannot reproduce. An easy similar story in scriptures is how Israel was warned against the taking of wives of other peoples that were not Israel. The angels continue to exist as this states in scriptures.
I disagree. The phrase appears on 2 times in the OT. Once, when the "sons of God" took human women as wives. Why would it say human women? Isn't that the most obvious and redundant thing to say unless they weren't human? And the phrase appears in Job where the sons of God and satan stand before God (in heaven?) and petition for Job whom they are granted permission to do all to him but take his life. That isn't "mean godly men" that is people with the ability to manipulate the fleshly realm. In the NT we are called sons of God but that is specifically through Yeshua and then meant clearly as righteous godly men not mean godly men. Go outside of the canon and look at Enoch and even writings from other cultures that date back beyond Christ's time... and we have that phrase being applied to fallen ones.
 
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

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The bible is clear that there were giants in those days. The thing is, Nobody seems to be able to state just how tall Adam and Eve were and how tall their children were. And they refuse to take genetics into consideration. It just says there were giants in those days-doesn't say "some giants" just a blanket statement. What makes anyone think that Adam and Eve were only around our present height? They lived for hundreds of years--no reason to think they weren't very tall. The land also was not as it is today. Even after the flood, there were pockets of people and land that carried on with an inherited height and production which shows up with sometimes whole towns containing "Goliaths" with 6 fingers and land that produced gigantic produce (and there are contests today for huge produce) Even today, there are people with 6 fingers. Their DNA is still human. I have 2 brothers, 6ft 5"----the runt is only 5'9"--they are quite human. There was a TV show about very tall people, over 7 feet--whole families--all quite human also.
passion.jpg
categories.jpg
thomas.jpg

Sultan-Kosen.jpg
Sulltan Kosen 8 feet 3 in
Morteza Mehrzad 8 feet 1 in
Morteza-Mehrzad.jpg


4). Ajaz Ahmed 7 feet 11 in

Ajaz-Ahmed.jpg




6-email-newsletter-essentials-for-small-businesses.jpg

th
th
th

th




Somebody bring in DNA that says these are not human
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Give it one more try--I'll break it up for easier read

Genesis 6:1
and it came to pass that the human began to increase in number upon the face of the ground, and daughters were brought forth for them,
Genesis 6:2
and the sons of the Elohiym saw the daughters of the human, that they were functional, and took for them women from all which they chose,
Genesis 6:4
the Nephilim existed in the land in those days and also afterward, when the sons of the Elohiym came to the daughters of the human, and they brought forth children for them, they are the courageous ones which are from a distant time, men of the title,
Genesis 6:4
the Nephilim existed in the land in those days and also afterward, when the sons of the Elohiym came to the daughters of the human, and they brought forth children for them, they are the courageous ones which are from a distant time, men of the title,
אדם
a-dam
(masc.) HUMAN: Of, relating to, or characteristic of man. The first man. All of mankind as the descendants of the first man. Strong's #: 120
שם
sheym
(masc.) TITLE: A word given to an individual or place denoting its character. The character of an individual or place. Strong's #: 8034, 8036
TITLE

The following is an excerpt from the book Ancient Hebrew Dictionary.
When we see a name, such as "King David" we see the word "King" as a title and "David" as a name. In our western mind a title describes a character trait while a name is simply an identifier. In the Hebrew language there is no such distinction between names and titles. Both words, King and David, are descriptions of character traits. The Hebrew word melekh (king) is "one who reigns," while daviyd (David) is "one who is loved". Both of these words are titles, describing the character of David. It is also common to identify the word "Elohiym" (Elohiym) as a title and YHWH (Yahweh) as a name. What we do not realize is that both of these are character traits. YHWH is both a word and title meaning "one who exists" and Elohiym is a word and a title meaning "one who has power and authority". The Hebrew word "shem" more literally means "character". When the Bible speaks of taking Elohiym's name to the nations, he is not speaking about the name itself but his character. When we are commanded to not take Elohiym's name in vain, this literally means not to represent his character in a false manner. This is similar to our expression, "have a good name," which is not about the name itself but the character of the one with that name.
FUNCTIONAL
The following is an excerpt from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center Website.
What does "good" mean? The first use of this word is in Genesis chapter one where calls his handiwork "good". It should always be remembered that the Hebrews often relate descriptions to functionality. The word tov would best be translated with the word "functional". When looked at his handiwork he did not see that it was "good", he saw that it was functional, kind of like a well oiled and tuned machine. In contrast to this word is the Hebrew word "ra". These two words, tov and ra are used for the tree of the knowledge of "good" and "evil". While "ra" is often translated as evil it is best translated as "dysfunctional".
Elohiym

The following is an excerpt from the book The Living Words.
If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.Exodus 22:8 (KJV)
A judge is one who possesses great "power" and "authority." The Hebrew word behind the word "judges" in the passage above is אל הים elohiym [H:430], the plural form of the word אל וה elo’ah [H:433]. You may notice the first two letters of this word is the word אל el [H:410], meaning "mighty one," which we discussed in the last section. Because the word elo’ah is derived from el, they are very similar in meaning.
The word elo’ah, "one of power and authority," can also be applied to God or any other god.
Oh that I might have my request; and that God (elo’ah) would grant me the thing that I long for! Job 6:8 (KJV)
Then shall he sweep by as a wind, and shall pass over, and be guilty, even he whose might is his god (elo’ah). Habakkuk 1:11 (ASV)
The word אל הים elohiym [H:430], the plural form of אל וה elo’ah [H:433], is frequently used as a proper name for Yahweh, the creator of heaven and earth.
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth in their filling, in the day that Yahweh Elohiym made the earth and the heavens.Genesis 2:4
The "power and authority" of Yahweh can be, and is, passed on to others as we see in the following verse.
And Yahweh said unto Moses, "See, I have given you Elohiym for Pharaoh: and Aaron your brother will be your prophet." Exodus 7:1
What does Yahweh mean by "See I have given you"? Is there something physical about Moses that Yahweh gave to him which could have been "seen" showing his "power and authority"? In our discussion of the word אל el [H:410], we learned this word represented horns of power and the staff of authority. Did Moses also have these symbols?
And Yahweh said to [Moses], "What is this in your hand?" And he said, "A staff." And he said, "Cast it down to the ground" and he cast it down to the ground and it became a serpent and Moses fled from before it. Exodus 4:2,3
Yahweh took an ordinary staff of a shepherd, turned it into an instrument of power and authority and gave it to Moses to do great miracles. We do know Moses did carry a staff representing his authority, but what about the horns?
And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in Moses' hand, when he came down from the mount, that Moses knew not that the skin of his face shone by reason of his speaking with him. And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw
Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him.Exodus 34:29,30 (ASV)
In this verse, we find there was a physical change in Moses which created fear in the people. Was it just a light coming off him that generated this fear? No—as we shall see, the above translation "skin of his face shone," is a poor translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew word translated as "shone" is קרן qaran [7160], which literally means "to have horns."
Interestingly, many paintings and sculptures of Moses depict him with horns such as in Michelangelo’s sculpture of Moses.
It has been speculated the "horns" on Moses’ face are "rays" of light that shone from his face, hence the translation we read in all English Bibles. However, there are other Hebrew words meaning "to shine" and if that was what the author had intended, he would have used one of those. Instead, he deliberately chose to use the word qaran to show Moses was indeed one of power and authority. This is an example of my reasons for desiring a "mechanical" and "literal" translation of the Hebrew Bible, so the reader can read the text without the translators’ bias being interjected into the text.
In my book His Name is One I go into detail about the different names of God. In the next section, I am taking an excerpt from that book.
The following is an excerpt from the book Ancient Hebrew Dictionary.
The plural form of elo'ah, meaning power, is elohiym and is often translated as Elohiym. While English plurals only identify quantity, as in more than one, the Hebrew plural can identify quantity as well as quality. Something that is of great size or stature can be written in the plural form. Elohiym is the one of great strength and authority.

Genesis 6:5
and Yhwh saw that the dysfunctions of the human in the land was abundant, and all the thoughts of inventions of his heart was only dysfunctional every day,
Genesis 6:8
and No'ahh found beauty in the eyes of Yhwh,
Genesis 6:9
these are the birthings of No'ahh, No'ahh existed a steadfast one and mature man in his generations, No'ahh walked himself with the Elohiym,
Genesis 6:11
and the land was damaged to the face of the Elohiym and the land was filled with violence,
Genesis 6:12
and Elohiym saw the land and look, she was damaged given that all the flesh destroyed his road upon the land,
Genesis 6:13
and Elohiym said to No'ahh, a conclusion of all the flesh has come to my face, given that the land of violence was filled from their face, and look at me, I am destroying them with the land,
13down voteaccepted
The word "nephilim" as used in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 is simply an anglocizing of the Hebrew word nephiyl. If it were to be translated it would be simply "the fallen".
this opens up a whole new hermeneutical question about how then should we interpret these people described both before the flood in Gen 6 as "the fallen" and then again after the flood when the spies brought back their report about the promised land being filled with "the fallen" who are also described as giants.
Different interpretations have described the nephilim as fallen angels, others as fallen men, some have categorized only the sons of Cain as the nephilim in Gen 6, but then how are they reappearing after the flood? or if it is fallen angels, do we see the earth invaded by fallen angels not once but twice?
I think the most consistent view of the Nephilim would consist of those who have fallen away from faith and reliance upon God. Those who think that they can achieve greatness absent from God's presence. Here is Clarke's reference...
Genesis 6:4
[There were giants in the earth] npiliym , from naaphal , "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim , the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi , i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym , which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar , "he prevailed, was victorious." and °ansheey hashem , "men of the name," anthroopoi onomastoi , Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...english-equivalent-for-nephilim-of-genesis-64
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The word "nephilim" as used in Gen 6:4 and Num 13:33 is simply an anglocizing of the Hebrew word nephiyl. If it were to be translated it would be simply "the fallen".
this opens up a whole new hermeneutical question about how then should we interpret these people described both before the flood in Gen 6 as "the fallen" and then again after the flood when the spies brought back their report about the promised land being filled with "the fallen" who are also described as giants.
Different interpretations have described the nephilim as fallen angels, others as fallen men, some have categorized only the sons of Cain as the nephilim in Gen 6, but then how are they reappearing after the flood? or if it is fallen angels, do we see the earth invaded by fallen angels not once but twice?
I think the most consistent view of the Nephilim would consist of those who have fallen away from faith and reliance upon God. Those who think that they can achieve greatness absent from God's presence. Here is Clarke's reference...
Genesis 6:4
[There were giants in the earth] npiliym , from naaphal , "he fell." Those who had apostatized or fallen from the true religion. The Septuagint translate the original word by gigantes, which literally signifies earth-born, and which we, following them, term giants, without having any reference to the meaning of the word, which we generally conceive to signify persons of enormous stature. But the word when properly understood makes a very just disinction between the sons of men and the sons of God; those were the nephilim , the fallen earth-born men, with the animal and devilish mind. These were the sons of God, who were born from above, children of the kingdom, because children of God. Hence, we may suppose originated the different appellatives given to sinners and saints, the former were termed gigantes (Greek), "earth-born", and the latter, hagioi , i.e. saints, persons not of the earth, or separated from the earth.
[The same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.] giboriym , which we render "mighty men", signifies properly conquerors, heroes, from gaabar , "he prevailed, was victorious." and °ansheey hashem , "men of the name," anthroopoi onomastoi , Septuagint; the same as we render men of renown, renominati, twice named, as the word implies, having one name which they derived from their fathers, and another which they acquired by their daring exploits and enterprises.
It may be necessary to remark here that our translators have rendered seven different Hebrew words by the one term giants, viz., nephilim. gibborim, enachim, rephaim, emim, and zamzummim; by which appellatives are probably meant in general persons of great knowledge, piety, courage, wickedness, etc., and not men of enormous stature, as is generally conjectured. (from Adam Clarke's Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1996, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...english-equivalent-for-nephilim-of-genesis-64
There were high ranking priests, rather than choosing godly women, fell and went after ungodly women. These men, probably because of the importance of their fathers, also became men of authority and power--some were mighty hunters and warriors.
 
Upvote 0

mmksparbud

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2011
17,312
6,821
73
Las Vegas
✟255,978.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The average height of men in the ancient near east was about 5' tall. There is a textual explanation that the Nephilim/Giants were appropriately 6'6", which would be like giants to a 5 foot tall man

There is no proof of how tall Adam and Eve and their children were. There are only skeletons of man after the flood.
 
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

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
There is no proof of how tall Adam and Eve and their children were. There are only skeletons of man after the flood.
Not THAT ancient lol, I was referring to about the time of the conquest of the holy land
 
Upvote 0

MyGivenNameIsKeith

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2017
687
380
xcxb xcvb n bv b
✟33,371.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Let me rephrase to pour water on your fire ken. Sons of God is taken to signify, godly men. Mean is used here as in the word meaning, or definition. Not mean as in the word brutal. You twist my words. Also, before Christ in the flesh, the Word of God was God. It was not found with the fallen angels. I have read Enoch. And as it is incomplete, and thoroughly talks of demons, fallen angels, and the hierarchy thereof, I tend not to indulge in it. Though it is tempting to indulge in books of things that pique our curiosity, concerning giants and so forth as it seems like an easy way to learn about stuff n a clear concise manner. But God does not want us to learn sin. You cannot fashion words of light because of the darkness. Also, it has a very 2nd century thought on the origins of the world and do not even resemble anything Moses wrote in Genesis. The work wasnt even written by Enoch but is in fact falsely attributed to him. It is largely at odds with scriptures. There is only a few things that are in agreement and that is why the whole of the Bible only eludes to one thing Enoch said. The book of Enoch was made based upon that one verse. Then everything else was filled in with Jewish myth and fables of which scriptures warn you of. But yet all your life, you were not privy to the book of Enoch, and in fact were saved without it never even considering it, so why do you question the very saving grace and power which did in fact save you from the darkness you had found yourself in? Trust that God is just. He told you the truth. Why do you not believe it?
 
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

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
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.

There is an old saying that: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion."

For how many years have people been saying there is a "Bigfoot" and/or the "Yeti"? There have also been pictures, camera footage supplied to support their evidence.

Stories of the "Bigfoot" in America extend back to a hundred years before the settlers came to America.

Stories of the Yeti in Mongolia, Siberia, etc., go back as far as well.

Yet in all these years, in all these expeditions, not shred of evidence has been produced to show for a fact, they exist!

Even now, with all the expeditions being formed, I have seen the documentaries, there is still no evidence other than "legends", "folklore", stories handed down from generation to generation to support it.

There are over 4000 satellites in orbit around the earth. They can see through water to find a car in a lake that's been there over 10 years. They can zoom in on a person sitting on a park bench in "Anytown, U.S.A." and see that they are reading a newspaper. Satellites that have "infra-red" capabilities, that can see a deer running through a forest. Satellites that can detect a missile being fueled underground, preparing for launch.

Now your going to tell me that for the last 180years, the Smithsonian Institution has gone world wide, destroyed, or hidden evidence of 40 foot tall "men"?

upload_2017-11-2_0-39-24.jpeg


Dr. Evil said:
Yea...right.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0