How large would a bird need to be to carry us aloft?

[Radrook]

I am not saying that no human could reach 8'8", I am simply stating that at 8'8" a human would make a poor and easy to beat warrior. Slow and weak due to a highly unfavorable strength to mass ratio.
You're living proof of that. With even a rudimentary STEM background I'd not have to point out the strength to mass ratio issue.
Not at all, its tantamount to saying that in this case, with respect to this subject, you're demonstrably clueless.
The same laws of physics cover insects and humans. What you are missing is that as you approach the absolute maximum size your excess capacity (strength) is greatly reduced.
No need to do that, already done by the said authors.

Really? The Opinion section of the LA Times vs. the laws of physics? And you don't immediately recognize the problem? The hole you are standing in gets ever deeper.

To be honest I really don't care what your statistics say is possible or impossible in reference to what the Bible clearly tells me happened. That's why I unceremoniously shunt your opinion aside as drivel. You see, it's your atheist word against the Bible writers word that he indeed was a mighty warrior and I, ummm, [surprise!] choose to accept their word over your atheist word because your atheist word, based on my extensive personal experience, simply can't be trusted when it comes to biblical matters.

So, ummm, I guess you will simply have to walk away with the disappointingly sad realization that you miserably failed to make the slightest dent in my convictions. Better luck next time with the help of the certifiably insane moron sponsor.

BTW
An article is evaluated on its own merit and not on where it appears. That would be extremely mypopic

 

[Radrook]

Could it refer to dinos? I would have no problem with giants having lived such as Goliath. But when we see a book like the so called book of Enoch talking about sky high people...that is very hard to believe, in fact seems ridiculous.

Sky high? You mean actually with head in the cumulous clouds? Would feel constantly faint from oxygen deprivation and would be forced to scamper about on hands and knees.

BTW
Such a being would be a menace to human society since you would never know when he would black out from oxygen deprivation and come crashing down.

 

[Radrook]

Could it refer to dinos? I would have no problem with giants having lived such as Goliath. But when we see a book like the so called book of Enoch talking about sky high people...that is very hard to believe, in fact seems ridiculous.

If the original Hebrew word permits that understanding then perhaps the idea might appear acceptable. However, it would go contrary to the belief that Dinos survived the deluge and are spoken about in the book of Job as Behemoth and Leviathan.

 

[Radrook]

The bones don't become weaker, but rather more strain is put upon them. Birds and other flying organisms have a limit on how heavy they can be and still fly, so their bones can't be very dense. Since larger animals need stronger and denser bones to support their bodies, this limits how large birds can be. However, the larger bird species, such as Argentavis magnificens, could probably have carried an adult human into the air a bit, considering its size http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/images/species/a/argentavis-size.jpg

The largest pterosaurs probably could carry an adult human a great distance without much trouble https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8675df89046e6c09437c168ed39b5f3-c

The bones become weaker in the sense that their structural strength doesn't keep up with its increased weight but falls behind until the bird is grounded.

 

[dad]

If the original Hebrew word permits that understanding then perhaps the idea might appear acceptable. However, it would go contrary to the belief that Dinos survived the deluge and are spoken about in the book of Job as Behemoth and Leviathan.

Not necessarily. Those creatures are not really known, and some interpret them as the mammoth, and maybe a sea serpent or something..etc. My opinion is that most dinos may have died off before the flood. Or, even if there were a lot left by the time of the flood, I think they might not have been original created kinds, but evolved and adapted from kinds. I think God only picked the (created original) kinds for the ark! Since evolving happened real real real fast in the former nature, I assume there were a LOT of creatures that didn't rank as the original kind, and were not called to the ark.
It could easily be assumed that the creatures you mentioned were created kinds...but later died off. Who knows?!

 

[dad]

Sky high? You mean actually with head in the cumulous clouds? Would feel constantly faint from oxygen deprivation and would be forced to scamper about on hands and knees.

BTW
Such a being would be a menace to human society since you would never know when he would black out from oxygen deprivation and come crashing down.

I seem to recall claims of giant men over 100 feet. That seems silly to me.

 

[Radrook]

I seem to recall claims of giant men over 100 feet. That seems silly to me.

Well, some people still hold on to such ideas.

Evidence for Ancient Giants! in Racial Origins - Giants / Nephilim Forum

 

[dad]

Well, some people still hold on to such ideas.

Evidence for Ancient Giants! in Racial Origins - Giants / Nephilim Forum

If it was in the bible we could look at it. Since it is in a strange book of Enoch no one really knows much about, we can have a good laugh at it. Yes, the bit Jude quoted from Enoch was correct. The rest of what is in the so called book of Enoch we take with a grain of salt.

 

[Radrook]

they

If it was in the bible we could look at it. Since it is in a strange book of Enoch no one really knows much about, we can have a good laugh at it. Yes, the bit Jude quoted from Enoch was correct. The rest of what is in the so called book of Enoch we take with a grain of salt.

I have always found it unusual that Jude is said to be quoting from an extra biblical literary source. However, I have to admit that many of the verses seem to make prophetic references to a Messiah and do harmonize both OT prophecies and NT fulfilments. That feature initially made me wonder why it is classified as apocryphal.

But then I started noticing what came across as excessive detailed explanations concerning rebel angels and the usage of certain terms in reference to God which don't appear anywhere else in the biblical canon and would stand out as esoteric or idiosyncratic if it were included.

As to actual heights of giants and other such data, I don't recall. I do remember descriptions of their cannibalistic tendencies and voracious appetites to the point of running out of food and turning on one another. All of which I found as unnecessary in relation to our salvation.

So I emerged from the reading convinced that its exclusion was justified.

But more compelling to me is that Jesus said that no man had ascended to heaven.

John 3:13 ►
Verse (Click for Chapter)
New International Version
No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

Yet the book blatantly contradicts that clear statement.

But others have provide still more reasons why it should be rejected:\

Is it Scripture?
Is this the Holy-Spirit inspired word of God? This is where we can pretty confidently say "no". If it were Scripture, we would expect it to be free of false doctrine. What we find instead is that false doctrine is one of the most prevalent themes in the book!

Taking a cursory look at the text up through Chapter 59, I found the following false doctrines. (I may be off on one here or there, but it should be sufficient to get my point across.)

• 1:1 Implies restoration during tribulation - not congruent with scriptures.
  
  
• 1:8 In conflict with the doctrine that peace was made at the cross. Also, in the last days tribulation will increase for the righteous - this "verse" seems to dispute that.
  
  
• 2:2-3 Appears to contradict 2 Pet 3:3-7
  
  
• 5:4 Is an admonition to some unknown party - this is very irregular relative to the scriptures (i.e. authentic ancient writings by God-fearing Jews)
  
  
• 6:3 Semjaza seems to be listed as the leader of the angels, which is not scriptural
  
  
• 6:3,8 None of these angels are mentioned in the Bible
  
  
• 8:1 Azazel isn't even listed in 6:8 as one of the angels that fornicated with women
  
  
• 8:3 Araqiel and Shamsiel aren't listed in 6:8 either
  
  
• 10:2 Enoch allegedly wrote about Noah, even though the Bible teaches that Enoch was taken up to heaven years before Noah was born.
  
  
• 10:4-6,12 Implies angels can be bound & hid in holes under rocks. This is contrary to scripture.
  
  
• 10:8 Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel - not scriptural.
  
  
• 10:15-11:2 Seems to imply that permanent restoration took place after the flood - clearly not true. It seems the true author of this book confused scriptures pertaining to the future restoration.
  
  
• 13:5-6,14:4-5,7 Implies fallen angels can't talk to God - this contradicts Job. Also implies that angels were repentant, but weren't received back by God - very strange doctrine.
  
  
• 14 Gives a very strange description of Heaven that conflicts with many scriptures
  
  
• 15:8-10 Very strange doctrine about "evil spirits" proceeding from unredeemable giants
  
  
• 17-18,21,23 Gives a very strange description of the earth & universe which is clearly not true. Also alludes to the ancient model of astronomy that held that there were 7 stars (the closest planets) which burned like the sun (they don't.)
  
  
• 19:3 Discredits all other prophecy about the consumation of the ages.
  
  
• 20 Lists strange angels not in scripture, and incorrectly assigns the roles of Michael (the warrior) and Gabriel (the messenger)
  
  
• 21:7-10 Seems to contradict Biblical descriptions of the present & final judgement places for the fallen angels
  
  
• 22 Contradicts the Biblical descriptions of past, present & future dwelling places for the righteous who die
  
  
• 32:2-6 Seems to imply the Garden of Eden was still in existance after the Flood
  
  
• 33:1-2 Says Heaven rests on a foundation that is at the Eastern edge of the earth
  
  
• 33:3 He claims he counted the stars & individually mapped them, which is impossible scripturally (& scientifically)
  
  
• 34 Says the winds come out of a "portal" at the Northern edge of the earth
  
  
• 36:3 Says the stars come out of portals at the Eastern edge of the earth & move West
  
  
• 38:5-6 Contradicts Daniel & other prophecies about the Mellinial Reign
  
  
• 39:1-2 Very strange implications here about the "seed" of angels dwelling with men at the end... this contradicts the scriptures
  
  
• 40:7 Talks about the "Satans" - plural, different than the Bible, who gives that name to only one fallen angel. Also, implies Satan can't stand in God's presence, contrary to Job.
  
  
• 40:9 Once again mixes up the roles of the 2 Archangels & adds more names in. Michael's role in scripture is related to conquoring nations & fighting spiritual wars, while Gabriel's relates to bringing messages & visions to people.
  
  
• 41:1-2 Says the Kingdom of God is divided - it's not & can't be scripturally. Also describes sinners being repelled from a mansion, which is also not scriptural, unless you look at a parable Jesus told, which was not intended to be literal.
  
  
• 41:4-5 Says the sun, moon, winds, etc. are stored in chambers & released at appointed times.
  
  
• 41:6-7 Implies the sun & moon move opposite of each other
  
  
• 43:1-3,44 Very weird model of the nature of stars & lightning
  
  
• 47:4 Says God requires the blood of the saints... very strange
  
  
• 51:1 Says Sheol & Hell will give back to the earth, which isn't scriptural - also Hell is a NT term, not OT
  
  
• 51:2 Disputes the Biblical doctrine that we are chosen. (We don't have to wait until Christ's return to be chosen.) This isn't scriptural.
  
  
• General: Seems to imply Enoch came back down to earth after being taken up to Heaven, which is not scriptural.
• Why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical?
• 
  

• 
  

 

[dad]

they

I have always found it unusual that Jude is said to be quoting from an extra biblical literary source. However, I have to admit that many of the verses seem to make prophetic references to a Messiah and do harmonize both OT prophecies and NT fulfilments. That feature initially made me wonder why it is classified as apocryphal.

They used the good bits but it is the whole package of the book of Enoch that is in question, not that there may be actual prophesy included in the book with the rest.

But then I started noticing what came across as excessive detailed explanations concerning rebel angels and the usage of certain terms in reference to God which don't appear anywhere else in the biblical canon and would stand out as esoteric or idiosyncratic if it were included.

Right, I could write a book starting with John 3:16, and then get into some sci fi tale of aliens or whatever I wanted. It would not be a book from God based on the fact that it had a real verse in it.

As to actual heights of giants and other such data, I don't recall. I do remember descriptions of their cannibalistic tendencies and voracious appetites to the point of running out of food and turning on one another. All of which I found as unnecessary in relation to our salvation.

Jesus never mentioned such things, or anyone else in the bible.

So I emerged from the reading convinced that its exclusion was justified.

But more compelling to me is that Jesus said that no man had ascended to heaven.




Yet the book blatantly contradicts that clear statement.

Excellent. We then can rule it out.

 

[Radrook]

Not necessarily. Those creatures are not really known, and some interpret them as the mammoth, and maybe a sea serpent or something..etc. My opinion is that most dinos may have died off before the flood. Or, even if there were a lot left by the time of the flood, I think they might not have been original created kinds, but evolved and adapted from kinds. I think God only picked the (created original) kinds for the ark! Since evolving happened real real real fast in the former nature, I assume there were a LOT of creatures that didn't rank as the original kind, and were not called to the ark.
It could easily be assumed that the creatures you mentioned were created kinds...but later died off. Who knows?!

One thing about dinos was their vulnerability to have their eggs either snatched or destroyed, Mankind would have immediacy noticed such a vulnerability. I mean, can you imagine humans putting up with all that bellowing and harassment without taking action? Predators such as lions can calmly attack buffaloes and other such animals retire and not have to worry about being systematically hunted down in reprisal. But put humans under that kind of stress it's a guaranteed first class ticked to extinction. Maybe that's why Behemoth and Leviathan are gone.

 

[dad]

One thing about dinos was their vulnerability to have their eggs either snatched or destroyed,

Yummy, dino omelettes.

Mankind would have immediacy noticed such a vulnerability. I mean, can you imagine humans putting up with all that bellowing and harassment without taking action? Predators such as lions can calmly attack buffaloes and other such animals retire and not have to worry about being systematically hunted down in reprisal. But put humans under that kind of stress it's a guaranteed first class ticked to extinction. Maybe that's why Behemoth and Leviathan are gone.

That could have been a big factor.

 

[Radrook]

Yummy, dino omelettes.

That could have been a big factor.

I don't agree with all the claims that science makes. For example, I don't accept abiogenesis and evolution.

 

[dad]

I don't agree with all the claims that science makes. For example, I don't accept abiogenesis and evolution.

Good for you. Me either. (in that life came FROM evolving..not that evolving did happen to created kinds)