Genesis 6 Giants in scripture

[seventysevens]

LOL Not so confusing....I'm speaking of real, live, Genesis 6 giants. Alive today. Numbering in the thousands.

Where did you find information about thousands living today ? After seeing a show about giants and other most unusual things i did some research and found numerous articles that speak of the giants skeletons that range from 18 to 30+ feet tall and reports that back in time up until the 18th century reports of these giant skeletons in the thousands found all over the world , common reports in newspapers until an an agency called the Entity that operates out of the Vatican and the Vatican has massively huge vaults that store these giants skeletons among a bunch of things they don't want the world to know about , These vaults are only open to few select people on rare occasions just so there can be legit people who can say they been there and seen these things . A couple of years ago in irag I believe it was a military squad came across a live one and it was killed , don't recall the details but they had it on a vary large trailer when it was reported to the top brass they confiscated it and told the military men they were not allowed to have pictures of it calling it a matter of national security , of course they say that about anything they want to keep for themselves

 

[Denadii]

Where did you find information about thousands living today ? After seeing a show about giants and other most unusual things i did some research and found numerous articles that speak of the giants skeletons that range from 18 to 30+ feet tall and reports that back in time up until the 18th century reports of these giant skeletons in the thousands found all over the world , common reports in newspapers until an an agency called the Entity that operates out of the Vatican and the Vatican has massively huge vaults that store these giants skeletons among a bunch of things they don't want the world to know about , These vaults are only open to few select people on rare occasions just so there can be legit people who can say they been there and seen these things . A couple of years ago in irag I believe it was a military squad came across a live one and it was killed , don't recall the details but they had it on a vary large trailer when it was reported to the top brass they confiscated it and told the military men they were not allowed to have pictures of it calling it a matter of national security , of course they say that about anything they want to keep for themselves

Not to mention the Smithsonian which has absconded with thousands of thousands of giant bones and artifacts.
Yes, there are Youtube hustlers who will make up stories but there are also the real researchers out there for us to find.

 

[JackRT]

There are physical limitations to the size a human can grow to. The first such is known as the square-cube law. If a human were to be expanded to, say, three times his size while maintaining his same proportions he would not be three times heavier he would be three cubed or twenty seven times heavier. However, bone strength increases as the square of bone diameter so this hypothetical giant’s bone strength would not be three times greater, it would be three squared or nine times greater. In other words such a giant would have difficulty supporting his own weight without his bones collapsing under him. To illustrate, if a six foot tall man weighing 200 pounds were to be magnified three times, he would be eighteen feet tall and weigh 5400 pounds while his bone strength would only have increased enough to support 1800 pounds. Large creatures in the animal kingdom can compensate for this by having a much more massive bone structure to carry the weight. Think here of animals like the elephant, the rhinocerus and the hippo.. Some animals can also compensate by spending a lot of time being bouyed in an aquatic environment. Whales are the largest creatures to have ever lived and they must spend their entire lives in water. In the event of beaching they eventually die of asphixiation because they lack the strength to work their own lungs without the support of water. Some humans suffering from genetic gigantism have grown as tall as 9 feet. Such individuals have mostly been “bean poles”. Almost all of them have been extremely frail and clumsy. The clumsyness arises from the speed with which nerve impulses can travel from brain to muscle. In modern times the largest in proportion human being was Angus MacAskill who stood 7’9” tall and was 425 pounds. He seems to represent an upper limit to “normal” human giants.

 

[seventysevens]

There are physical limitations to the size a human can grow to. The first such is known as the square-cube law. If a human were to be expanded to, say, three times his size while maintaining his same proportions he would not be three times heavier he would be three cubed or twenty seven times heavier. However, bone strength increases as the square of bone diameter so this hypothetical giant’s bone strength would not be three times greater, it would be three squared or nine times greater. In other words such a giant would have difficulty supporting his own weight without his bones collapsing under him. To illustrate, if a six foot tall man weighing 200 pounds were to be magnified three times, he would be eighteen feet tall and weigh 5400 pounds while his bone strength would only have increased enough to support 1800 pounds. Large creatures in the animal kingdom can compensate for this by having a much more massive bone structure to carry the weight. Think here of animals like the elephant, the rhinocerus and the hippo.. Some animals can also compensate by spending a lot of time being bouyed in an aquatic environment. Whales are the largest creatures to have ever lived and they must spend their entire lives in water. In the event of beaching they eventually die of asphixiation because they lack the strength to work their own lungs without the support of water. Some humans suffering from genetic gigantism have grown as tall as 9 feet. Such individuals have mostly been “bean poles”. Almost all of them have been extremely frail and clumsy. The clumsyness arises from the speed with which nerve impulses can travel from brain to muscle. In modern times the largest in proportion human being was Angus MacAskill who stood 7’9” tall and was 425 pounds. He seems to represent an upper limit to “normal” human giants.

I can understand your view if coming from exclusively mankind's point of view - but mankind is limited in his understanding
Mankind in modern science will say that humans cannot possibly live longer than 120 years old or such because there is no record in man's recorded journals

But if you are Christian and believe GOD's Word that tell us that in Genesis that humans lived to be at least several hundred years of age and many up to nearly 1000 years of age - you have to ask why would God lie about it

The scripture declares that the race of Giants existed , you either believe God or you don't
The many many documented reports and physical findings of thousands of skeleton remains - the entire skeletons - not just a couple of bones - that show the physical stature of them to be 13 to 30+ feet tall

there are things in life that mankind's level of understanding just cannot understand
With all the great levels of science and technology in our present day -still science cannot explain or replicate how a cow eating grass can turn it into milk

 

[JackRT]

I am reminded of a piece by Carl Sagan:

The Dragon In My Garage

by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

****

Well Carl, it could also be a world-wide conspiracy to hide the evidence of dragons and giants.

 

[Denadii]

There are physical limitations to the size a human can grow to. The first such is known as the square-cube law. If a human were to be expanded to, say, three times his size while maintaining his same proportions he would not be three times heavier he would be three cubed or twenty seven times heavier. However, bone strength increases as the square of bone diameter so this hypothetical giant’s bone strength would not be three times greater, it would be three squared or nine times greater. In other words such a giant would have difficulty supporting his own weight without his bones collapsing under him. To illustrate, if a six foot tall man weighing 200 pounds were to be magnified three times, he would be eighteen feet tall and weigh 5400 pounds while his bone strength would only have increased enough to support 1800 pounds. Large creatures in the animal kingdom can compensate for this by having a much more massive bone structure to carry the weight. Think here of animals like the elephant, the rhinocerus and the hippo.. Some animals can also compensate by spending a lot of time being bouyed in an aquatic environment. Whales are the largest creatures to have ever lived and they must spend their entire lives in water. In the event of beaching they eventually die of asphixiation because they lack the strength to work their own lungs without the support of water. Some humans suffering from genetic gigantism have grown as tall as 9 feet. Such individuals have mostly been “bean poles”. Almost all of them have been extremely frail and clumsy. The clumsyness arises from the speed with which nerve impulses can travel from brain to muscle. In modern times the largest in proportion human being was Angus MacAskill who stood 7’9” tall and was 425 pounds. He seems to represent an upper limit to “normal” human giants.

Why do you keep talking about giant humans? The Genesis 6 giants are not human.

 

[Denadii]

I can understand your view if coming from exclusively mankind's point of view - but mankind is limited in his understanding
Mankind in modern science will say that humans cannot possibly live longer than 120 years old or such because there is no record in man's recorded journals

But if you are Christian and believe GOD's Word that tell us that in Genesis that humans lived to be at least several hundred years of age and many up to nearly 1000 years of age - you have to ask why would God lie about it

The scripture declares that the race of Giants existed , you either believe God or you don't
The many many documented reports and physical findings of thousands of skeleton remains - the entire skeletons - not just a couple of bones - that show the physical stature of them to be 13 to 30+ feet tall

there are things in life that mankind's level of understanding just cannot understand
With all the great levels of science and technology in our present day -still science cannot explain or replicate how a cow eating grass can turn it into milk

That's because cows do not turn grass into milk. Cows us grass for nutrition and their bodies produce milk.

 

[JackRT]

Why do you keep talking about giant humans? The Genesis 6 giants are not human.

My comments apply to all talk of giants.

 

[Denadii]

My comments apply to all talk of giants.

Ok But I'll say again. Humans with Giagantism are not Genesis 6 giants. They are human but the giants are not.

 

[Almost there]

Believers and unbelievers don't produce giants

Also, regarding angels procreating with women:

Matthew 22:30
In the resurrection,people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.

This seems to suggest that Angels are not sexual creatures.

 

[Denadii]

Also, regarding angels procreating with women:

Matthew 22:30
In the resurrection,people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.

This seems to suggest that Angels are not sexual creatures.

The bible says they don't...It does not say they can't. That's an assumption. The bible said fallen angels bred with human women...So stop telling God what He means when He says something.

 

[JackRT]

The bible says they don't...It does not say they can't. That's an assumption. The bible said fallen angels bred with human women...So stop telling God what He means when He says something.

Bolding above is mine.

It is ironic that there is a huge assumption in your post above.

 

[Denadii]

Bolding above is mine.

It is ironic that there is a huge assumption in your post above.

I have made no assumptions....Listen! If the bible says they are coming back, do you think they are coming back dead? Gee! Giant zombies.....LOL

Why is it that Christians change or ignore verses they don't like, or verses that upset their paradigms? For example; There were giants in those days, and after. Christians just love to ignore the 'and after' part...They just go 'Oh wonderful! All the giants died in the flood....What about the 'and after'? Why ignore that? Its stupid, and suicidal.

 

[JackRT]

I have made no assumptions....Listen! If the bible says they are coming back, do you think they are coming back dead? Gee! Giant zombies.....LOL

Just because the Bible says something does not make it true that God said it. That is your assumption.

 

[Denadii]

Just because the Bible says something does not make it true that God said it. That is your assumption.

Excuse me?! The bible IS Gods Word. Nobody elses. If you do not believe that then you and I have NO basis for converstation.

 

[JackRT]

Excuse me?! The bible IS Gods Word. Nobody elses. If you do not believe that then you and I have NO basis for converstation.

Then go with God my friend.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
Please refrain from further flaming and goading.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Almost there]

The bible says they don't...It does not say they can't. That's an assumption. The bible said fallen angels bred with human women...So stop telling God what He means when He says something.

Seriously?

Have you actually examined the original hebrew and greek regarding this subject as discussed in both the old and new testaments? The amount of assumptions based on scetchy interpretations regarding this subject boggles the mind.

I think of "angels" as being as sexual as a '56 buick. YMMV.

 

[Denadii]

Seriously?

Have you actually examined the original hebrew and greek regarding this subject as discussed in both the old and new testaments? The amount of assumptions based on scetchy interpretations regarding this subject boggles the mind.

I think of "angels" as being as sexual as a '56 buick. YMMV.

Well then, why don't you stop trying to interpret it. Take it as it says it.

 

[Almost there]

Well then, why don't you stop trying to interpret it. Take it as it says it.

I do. But I do it within the context of my tag line.