Mountains were giants (cool pics!)

[Lost4words]

And, how did they move these giant stones..... any explanation... or just hearsay.

Just like you say about gigantic beings! Lol

Its a lot more credible, plausible and believable to think skilled human beings constructed these stone monuments than fictitious giants!

 

[mmksparbud]

LOL ... in order for a tool to make a mark or remove material from an object.... the tool must be of a harder material than the object....

Unless, of course, you can drill though steel with a piece of wood..... OR, cut iron with a copper saw......

Sorry.. I'm done here....

Well, I guess it beats having to answer the questions.

 

[lasthero]

Do you believe that you have two lower leg bones and one upper leg bone?
Do you believe that every other human is the same and has the same bones?

But... the skull... it's different? And, you want proof of a physiological fact of human anatomy?

Where’s the research, Jack?

If NASA is one of the least funded... at 53 million a day.. then why pick on a group that is asking 5K to go to South America on an extensive, all inclusive, investigative and exploration yourself... where you actually get something out of it?

What, exactly, would you get out of it that you couldn’t just read from the books?

 

[Rick Otto]

There is no 18 foot skeleton---those were contests for a site that no longer exists--it was called worth1000. Contests for various computer generated Photoshop for the most realistic photos in all sorts of categories, from giant skeletons to mermaids and Pegasus and movie stars with horrible scars and pimples and wrinkles, and famous artworks---it was great.

Evidence predates photoshop. Anecdotal as well as photographic.
Sounds like I'm missing out on all the entertainment, though.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well, I guess it beats having to answer the questions.

Explaining the false premises of so many questions is exhausting, especially when it's all negative, dismissive, and worse.

 

[Rick Otto]

Its a lot more credible, plausible and believable to think skilled human beings constructed these stone monuments than fictitious giants!

Well of course it is for many.
But we're not inclined to equate scripture with fiction.

It is however, completely plausible for us, that humans would claim skills that were basically a fiction.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="lasthero, post: Where’s the research, Jack?

Safely outside the corruption of the peer review process where those too emotionally invested fear to tread.
Certainly this much is obvious after so much time in this forum.

What, exactly, would you get out of it that you couldn’t just read from the books?

Direct observation is a core element of scientific evidence.
How is this not obvious.

 

[mmksparbud]

Evidence predates photoshop. Anecdotal as well as photographic.
Sounds like I'm missing out on all the entertainment, though.

Then post what that evidence is--documented and verified, I take it?
And you can also explain why an angel ( though fallen is still of a higher order than we) would lower himself even more by "marrying" a human? Why would a being that has refused God's authority, accept the religious formality of a marriage to a lowly human whom they loathe? Jesus became human in order to experience human frailty----He literally became lower than the angels to be one of us. That had to be done through the power of the Holy Spirit, yet an angel could just come down and have sex with a woman?? They are not our kind---we can not have the offspring of something that is not our kind---that was set at creation, we can only -- as all nature---reproduce after our own kind. Even though apes are considered by scientists to be our ancestors and very similar in DNA--yet we can not have an apes baby, they can not have one by us. I would say that angels and us are about as far apart as we are to apes. And Jesus took 2 steps down to become one of us. He did that for love. No fallen angel would lower himself to have to submit to a "marriage" to a human. JacksBratt has not answered my questions---can you?


















by "marrying" any woman.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="mmksparbud, post: Then post what that evidence is--documented and verified, I take it?

Absolutely not.
What I present as evidence is usually spat upon and I owe you nothing. Believe what you want.

And you can also explain why an angel ( though fallen is still of a higher order than we) would lower himself even more by "marrying" a human?

Sure. easy. In fact embarrassingly easy.

Why would a being that has refused God's authority, accept the religious formality of a marriage to a lowly human whom they loathe?

1st of all, I'm sure formality was rare.
Secondly, what better way to express loathing for God than to defile His creation?

Jesus became human in order to experience human frailty----He literally became lower than the angels to be one of us. That had to be done through the power of the Holy Spirit, yet an angel could just come down and have sex with a woman??

They had offspring according to scripture. What is it exactly is a problem with that?

They are not our kind---we can not have the offspring of something that is not our kind---that was set at creation, we can only -- as all nature---reproduce after our own kind.

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

I really don't care if you believe that scripture or not.

Even though apes are considered by scientists to be our ancestors and very similar in DNA--yet we can not have an apes baby, they can not have one by us. I would say that angels and us are about as far apart as we are to apes.

Believe what you want.

And Jesus took 2 steps down to become one of us. He did that for love. No fallen angel would lower himself to have to submit to a "marriage" to a human.

Obviously, "wives" in scripture means SOMEthing to me if not to you. Hatred & revenge lowers even angels.
"That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

JacksBratt has not answered my questions---can you?

Of course, all day long, but I don't have the time.
I am happy to disagree and move on.


















by "marrying" any woman.[/QUOTE]

 

[mmksparbud]

Absolutely not.
What I present as evidence is usually spat upon and I owe you nothing. Believe what you want.

Right. Thank you, I will.

Sure. easy. In fact embarrassingly easy.

1st of all, I'm sure formality was rare.
Secondly, what better way to express loathing for God than to defile His creation?

These were magnificent beings---the women would probably feel honored!

They had offspring according to scripture. What is it exactly is a problem with that?

Because that isn't what the scripture says. The word Nephilim means fallen. The accepted Jewish rendering of that passage was godly men of authority, leaders, priests--marrying unbelieving women. The Targums reveal that. And the passage itself says they were MEN---not half breed angels.
There is no basis for half breed angels, but you are certainly entitled to disagree with Jesus if you want. As usual---no one has any proof of these speculations---thank you for continuing to make that obvious.

 

[Lost4words]

Well of course it is for many.
But we're not inclined to equate scripture with fiction.

It is however, completely plausible for us, that humans would claim skills that were basically a fiction.

People got a habit of twisting scripture and misinterpreting it to suit their beliefs. Like 6k earth, flat earth, super duper sized people etc etc. Plus, we look at it and try to understand it with our modern minds! This can be very 'dangerous'.

 

[JacksBratt]

Evidence predates photoshop. Anecdotal as well as photographic.
Sounds like I'm missing out on all the entertainment, though.

Yes, it's been quite a show here.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="mmksparbud, post: ~...Because that isn't what the scripture says.

We disagree.

The word Nephilim means fallen. The accepted Jewish rendering of that passage was godly men of authority, leaders, priests--marrying unbelieving women. The Targums reveal that. And the passage itself says they were MEN---not half breed angels.

'Sons of God & daughters of men'... and you think they are synonymous. Feel free to have your accepted Jewish opinion.

There is no basis for half breed angels, but you are certainly entitled to disagree with Jesus if you want. As usual---no one has any proof of these speculations---thank you for continuing to make that obvious.

That you are unable to see the basis of fallen angels having offspring with human women is your freedom from what's obvious to many Christians even if not to any Jews.

 

[Rick Otto]

People got a habit of twisting scripture and misinterpreting it to suit their beliefs. Like 6k earth, flat earth, super duper sized people etc etc. Plus, we look at it and try to understand it with our modern minds! This can be very 'dangerous'.

I've noticed that in a lot of generic anti-conspiracy posts.

 

[mmksparbud]

We disagree.

Obviously. You can believe Daffy Duck is real also, won't change my life any.

'Sons of God & daughters of men'... and you think they are synonymous. Feel free to have your accepted Jewish opinion.

Thank you, I will, after all, God gave them His word, and it is their language and they would know better what their words mean---but that's just my opinion.

That you are unable to see the basis of fallen angels having offspring with human women is your freedom from what's obvious to many Christians even if not to any Jews.

Unfortunately--there were no Christians at the time so only the Jews knew what this meant. But then, I also prefer to take Jesus at His word when He said angels do not marry--but what does He know, He's a Jew.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="mmksparbud, post: Obviously. You can believe Daffy Duck is real also, won't change my life any.

Well that's an absolute relief. Thank you for absolving me of such an awesome responsibility.

Thank you, I will, after all, God gave them His word, and it is their language and they would know better what their words mean---but that's just my opinion.

Better than you, anyway. I can see that.
Yes, your opinion, thank you for clarifying.

.​

Unfortunately--there were no Christians at the time so only the Jews knew what this meant

LOL.

But then, I also prefer to take Jesus at His word when He said angels do not marry--but what does He know, He's a Jew.

He was talking about angels in heaven, not fallen angels, but I'm not a jew so my opinion doesn't count in your book.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well that's an absolute relief. Thank you for absolving me of such an awesome responsibility.




Better than you, anyway. I can see that.
Yes, your opinion, thank you for clarifying.





LOL.

He was talking about angels in heaven, not fallen angels, but I'm not a jew so my opinion doesn't count in your book.

You're welcome.

Well, in reality--not an opinion--it is a fact there were no Jews (as a people they only came into existence after Abraham--the word itself derives from Judah) when this happened, and it is a fact that the scriptures were given only to the Jews who wrote them down in their own language---no Christians at all then---not opinion--fact.

He was talking about angels---we will be AS the angels in heaven. Again -- why would God give angels body parts they have no need for? There are only male angels--no females ever mentioned. There is no command written that says He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. Only God creates---is it your opinion that God recreated the fallen angels to make them able to reproduce??! The command to reproduce and multiply AFTER THEIR KIND was given at creation---the angels were already created---and that means WE can only reproduce after our own kind---angels are noit our kind--we were created lower than the angels. You all do not address those concerns about your theory.

 

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="mmksparbud, post: You're welcome.

Well, in reality--not an opinion--it is a fact there were no Jews (as a people they only came into existence after Abraham--the word itself derives from Judah) when this happened, and it is a fact that the scriptures were given only to the Jews who wrote them down in their own language---no Christians at all then---not opinion--fact.

LOL, I guess confusion can be fun. Terminology is endlessly arguable.
Jews didn't come into existence until after Solomon. The tribes were united as Hebrews. Fact is, there were no "Jews" until the tribes split up because of Solomon's son (WAY after Abraham).
As a point of significance to this conversation, it's a non-starter.

He was talking about angels---we will be AS the angels in heaven.

That's MY point. "In Heaven". Not as FALLEN angels.

Again -- why would God give angels body parts they have no need for?

That's full of way to many assumptions
You still haven't dealt in any way shape or form for any fraction of a nanosecond why God would distuinguish "Sons of God" from "Daughters of men" if they were all of the same species.

There are only male angels--no females ever mentioned.

That's no reason to assume they were not anatomically male.
They would not be males if they didn't have the distinguishing equipment. It is hilarious to imagine what you're suggesting.

There is no command written that says He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.

"FALLEN" angels are not defined by their interest in FOLLOWING God's commandments. Your loss of distinction is epic & comedic.

Only God creates---is it your opinion that God recreated the fallen angels to make them able to reproduce??!

You are talking to yourself at this point, having no real interest in verifying what you've assumed to be true, is in fact true.

The command to reproduce and multiply AFTER THEIR KIND was given at creation---the angels were already created---and that means WE can only reproduce after our own kind---angels are noit our kind--we were created lower than the angels. You all do not address those concerns about your theory.

Because I addressed how they are not real concerns. Have a wonderful day.

 

[mmksparbud]

LOL, I guess confusion can be fun. Terminology is endlessly arguable.
Jews didn't come into existence until after Solomon. The tribes were united as Hebrews. Fact is, there were no "Jews" until the tribes split up because of Solomon's son (WAY after Abraham).
As a point of significance to this conversation, it's a non-starter.

The first time the word is used is in Esther. Point is---no Christians until after Jesus resurrection---and only the Jews had the word of God. It only stands to reason that what the Jews--Hebrews, Israelites--understood a word to be should have some merit!! They would know more of what their own language means is---I'm not asking a modern day German to tell me what an ancient Spanish word means. The Tagrums show that the Jews understood Nephilim to mean high ranking men who married unbelieving women--something God has always hated.

I already posted this:
Pgs. 35-47
Ch. 1-6
THE TARGUM OF ONKELOS
ON THE BOOK BERESHITH
OR
GENESIS.
SECTION I.
BERESHITH BARA ELOHIM.

"VI. And Noach was a son of five hundred years, and Noach begat Shem, Cham, and Japheth. And it was when the sons of men had begun to multiply upon the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of the mighty[32] saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, and took to them wives of all whom they pleased.[33] And the Lord said, This evil generation shall not stand before me for ever, because they are flesh, and their works are evil. A term (or length) will I give them, an hundred and twenty years, if they may be converted. Giants were in the earth in those days; and also when, after that the sons of the mighty had gone in unto the daughters of men, there were born from them giants who from of old were men of name."

That's MY point. "In Heaven". Not as FALLEN angels.

They are still angels.

That's full of way to many assumptions
You still haven't dealt in any way shape or form for any fraction of a nanosecond why God would
distuinguish "Sons of God" from "Daughters of men" if they were all of the same species.

And this whole theory is way too full of many assumtions. The distictions are important only to those who want to know the truth of Gods word and not fairytails.

 

[mmksparbud]

That's no reason to assume they were not anatomically male.
They would not be males if they didn't have the distinguishing equipment. It is hilarious to imagine what you're suggesting.

Why would you make that assumption when there are no females around and God simply doesn't make useless. They are His messengers, not created for reproduction. It's more hilarious to suggest what you are suggesting--00billions of angels all running around lusting after a way to copulate and unable to do so. No wonder they fell!

"FALLEN" angels are not defined by their interest in FOLLOWING God's commandments. Your loss of distinction is epic & comedic.

They weren't created fallen!!

You are talking to yourself at this point, having no real interest in verifying what you've assumed to be true, is in fact true.

Your theory is made on assumptions.

Because I addressed how they are not real concerns. Have a wonderful day.

Not concerns to those who do not care how wrong and foolish they are. I always have a wonderful day.