Not really. For example, you haven't explained why you think it is more likely stories are falsified than true - even though I challenged that. Let's look at the assumptions you're making, even though you say you're not assuming anything. So, you assume falsifying is more likely (#1).
You assume ...
#2: He couldn't stand up straight
#3: that the Philistines weren't bluffing - that they didn't put a rod in Goliath's armor that supported him and forced him to stand straight
#4: that he had to stand straight to scare the Israelites - that they wouldn't be scared by his sheer size
#5: that their fear wasn't amplified by other factors such as a king (Saul) who wasn't committed to the battle but was looking for a way out - that the Philistines in general were intimidating.
#6: that the Israelites were "seasoned warriors" and their ranks weren't filled with a bunch of farmers, herders, and shopkeepers.
#7: that it wouldn't accomplish anything to defeat Goliath if he were actually weak, which dismisses the power of symbolism - the idea of a "champion" and that Goliath had been chosen as such by the Philistines even if you wouldn't choose Goliath.
#8: The idea that 2m76 is "not anywhere near" Goliath's height, given the questions about how to properly interpret the text: How tall was Goliath? Even if we take the 9'6" (2m90) often used, that is only a 14 cm difference (5%). Sounds pretty close to me.
#9: that age is somehow relevant ... I don't even get this one. So the one guy died at 22. So what? Goliath couldn't have been younger than 22? Alexander the Great was only 16 when he began his rampage.
Those are the assumptions I noticed. I'm sure other people could point out a few more.
The Smithsonian and removes certain evidence from public view. Wonder why? Cuz it views them as childish? Hmmmm? Something seems to indeed be in a state of advanced decomposition in the state of Denmark!
That would be real exciting if it were real. But alas it is fake, really fake. By the by, why do you think they would hid it? Do you know how many people would go to see? It would create so much money. And the people who found it would be world famous.
That would be real exciting if it were real. But alas it is fake, really fake. By the by, why do you think they would hid it? Do you know how many people would go to see? It would create so much money. And the people who found it would be world famous.
The website acknowledges that there are faked photos. It isn't referring to those faked photos as the ones which Smithsonian is shelving away since they never received anything from those fake photos to shelve away to begin with.
Why would I not doubt that evolutionist scientists would hide it? Because they have hid or glibly dismissed or totally ignored other evidence which just doesn't fit in with their evolutionary concept before.
They were very "sure" of Goliath's height, because they decapitated him, and the Philistines fled. They were right upon him, and they had his head, armor and sword to be absolutely certain of the height (hint: if they knew how to manipulate metal for weapons, one can safely assume they had a system of measurement too. Indeed, it was the cubit, for the most part.)
"Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled." 1 Samuel 17:51
"And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his tent." 1 Samuel 17:54
Goliath was 9ft tall, with armour and the ability to weild a sword; as per the OP he definitely didn't have acromegaly. His bones were strong enough to wear armour for someone his height, and his arms were strong enough to weild a sword for one his size. These rule out most human "abnormalities" that befall humans.
There was a reference to "The Mountain" (Gregor Clegan) from Game of Thrones. It is great example of what a champion (bohemoth of a human) should look like in the context of the OP. But, he is only 2.06 m - 13% taller than the average man. He weighs 180kg - 158% more than the average man. Goliath was 49% taller than average man, so to look like a champion (using Gregor as the archetype for a champion) Goliath would weigh 1659kg. The weight of the armor would be another 200kg, and his sword about 45kg. So, Goliath was a 3m "creature," weighing in total ~1900kg (not pounds.) This was not a human.
Now, the Hebrew word for champion is "benayim" - which means "a man between the space of two armies." This motif is done in epic and actions movies many times: perhaps most notably in 300 in the way Xerxes was introduced - in the middle of the already fearsome Persian army on either side of him as he is carried through a space made for him. That entire situation makes the "benayim," or "champion."
Do we remember how important it was that Leonidas at least wound their champion, Xerxes? Can you imagine how the Persians would react if Leonidas killed him - with the confidence and providence of David?
Goliath was two feet taller than Xerxes was portrayed in the movie, and even the mythos acknowledges that his height, form and abilities (along with his musculature and athleticism) imply he was "from the gods," or touched divinely somehow.
My Commentary on Giants [not] in the Canon
That is part of the problem of reconciliation the Church has uad with accepting Gen 6 sons of God as angels, or even Goliath and Og as Anakim. It makes people fearful of the possibility of hybrids among us, and naturally brings about witch hunts that identify by inspection. It is a large reason why it has been muddied over denomination and generation, treated as mythos - because as it stands now, especially, no one would be ready to accept that they, perhaps, have 1% or 1% of angelic/hybrid genes, and it contributes to their abilities and form. It has been a well kept secret for a while - which is another reason why Enoch was "de-canonized" in the west especially. The Eastern regions especially east of Jeruselum have a culture of acknowledging creatures and entities most Westerners scoff at - including abilities and form. We can't continue to pretend the canon has not been amended, or manipulated - that canonized text had political and spiritual skew. One can make the same arguments for the invalidity of the canon as is made with the apocryphal books. Indeed, these arguments are made even by non theists. Cross referencing, and comparing text whether approved or not is the best way to ascertain a pattern that can at least make a line of connection.
Goliath was not entirely human - even when we scale him to proportion of a human representation of a champion, or even a godly mythological example. Goliath was an Anakim - an actual race described in the bible as opposed to an ethnic group (like ethiopian, or philistine.)
The website acknowledges that there are faked photos. It isn't referring to those faked photos as the ones which Smithsonian is shelving away since they never received anything from those fake photos to shelve away to begin
Why would I not doubt that evolutionist scientists would hide it? Because they have hid or glibly dismissed or totally ignored other evidence which just doesn't fit in with their evolutionary concept before.
How is giants a problem for evolution? Humans can't get that big or tall without problems and/or death but if they could how would that be a problem for science? There has been lots of other animal giants. Including primates.
How is giants a problem for evolution? Humans can't get that big or tall without problems and/or death but if they could how would that be a problem for science? There has been lots of other animal giants. Including primates.
If humans could get that big then that would appear to lend credence to the statement that there were giants on the Earth in those days before the flood and to the statement that such giants were also present after the flood. In turn it becomes a problem because it would lend credence to the biblical time-line account which differs drastically from the evolution chronology which demands millions of years of animal existence.
If humans could get that big then that would appear to lend credence to the statement that there were giants on the Earth in those days before the flood and to the statement that such giants were also present after the flood. In turn it becomes a problem because it would lend credence to the biblical time-line account which differs drastically from the evolution chronology which demands millions of years of animal existence.
That is what I thought you meant .I used to think the same. Just because the bible is right sometimes (which it is) doesn't mean the whole things true since evidence shows otherwise. If we did find giants would that mean everything the native Americans said be true and all the other cultures that have stories about giants? Which almost all of them do.
That is what I thought you meant .I used to think the same. Just because the bible is right sometimes (which it is) doesn't mean the whole things true since evidence shows otherwise. If we did find giants would that mean everything the native Americans said be true and all the other cultures that have stories about giants? Which almost all of them do.
No, it doesn't mean that all fantastic stories about giants are true just because the Bible might be true. Those other ideas could be based on a distant memory of a time that the Bible speaks of.
The problem with accepting whatever science claims to contradict the Bible is that if we discard one crucial statement of fact, then we are obligated to cast doubt on the entire Bible including Jesus who did speak of the Genesis account as literal. Once we view Jesus as essentially a clueless man going casually about propagating lies, then we have to consider him delusional in his claim to be the Son of God.
We are also forced to reject the clear statements that the entire Bible was inspired of God. Not just a few scriptures, but all things written therein as we are clearly told by the Apostle Paul.
No, it doesn't mean that all fantastic stories about giants are true just because the Bible might be true. Those other ideas could be based on a distant memory of a time that the Bible speaks of.
The problem with accepting whatever science claims to contradict the Bible is that if we discard one crucial statement of fact, then we are obligated to cast doubt on the entire Bible including Jesus who did speak of the Genesis account as literal. Once we view Jesus as essentially a clueless man going casually about propagating lies, then we have to consider him delusional in his claim to be the Son of God.
We are also forced to reject the clear statements that the entire Bible was inspired of God. Not just a few scriptures, but all things written therein as we are clearly told by the Apostle Paul.
So it's like a house of cards in which you topple the foundation and the whole things comes crashing down.
Indeed if that is the choice some have made, then that is there choice. I personally don't feel obligated to choose that road.
I understand what you mean. I was a litrealist. Of course I respect your opinion but it doesn't have to be all lies or all litreal true. You know there is parables and allegory already. Jesus especially was famous for it. Why not just add a few more?
I understand what you mean. I was a litrealist. Of course I respect your opinion but it doesn't have to be all lies or all litreal true. You know there is parables and allegory already. Jesus especially was famous for it. Why not just add a few more?
Please note that if we classify the events in Eden and Jesus' genealogy leading back to it as allegories then we remove all the reasons why we should be Christians. In short, Christianity itself only makes sense if they were literal events which caused our fall and placed us in need of redemption. If the fall never happened then Christ becomes superfluous or totally unnecessary and his death on the cross a useless meaningless exercise no better than sticking a fly with a pin to watch to squirm. That is why maintaining that foundation a literal is essential.
BTW
Do you fully comprehend why Christ had to die? The reason I ask is because it took me weeks to understand it.
Please note that if we classify the events in Eden and Jesus' genealogy leading back to it as allegories then we remove all the reasons why we should be Christians. In short, Christianity itself only makes sense if they were literal events which caused our fall and placed us in need of redemption. If the fall never happened then Christ becomes superfluous or totally unnecessary and his death on the cross a useless meaningless exercise no better than sticking a fly with a pin to watch to squirm. That is why maintaining that foundation a literal is essential.
BTW
Do you fully comprehend why Christ had to die? The reason I ask is because it took me weeks to understand it.
Well most Christians disagree. In general it is said Jesus died for everyone sins. Why do you think he died? Because of Adam and eve's sins that they brought to the world?
Well most Christians disagree. In general it is said Jesus died for everyone sins. Why do you think he died? Because of Adam and eve's sins that they brought to the world?
Romans 5:12 ► New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--
I don't see how. As you would say, every human sins whether Adam and eve were real or not. But I think I'll stop here because I think Christians who accept science can tell you how they fit science and the bible. I'm not Christian anymore.
I don't see how. As you would say, every human sins whether Adam and eve were real or not. But I think I'll stop here because I think Christians who accept science can tell you how they fit science and the bible. I'm not Christian anymore.
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Caesar was supposed to be the genetic birthright "god on Earth," which can trace his lineage to Ancient Egyptian royalty - the Pharaoh - whose title was "god on earth."
I don't know about the other skeletons... they seem to be new finds of antediluvian skeletons of either of the four races of hybrids. But I am commenting on Caesar''s alleged hight (and, specifically any alleged "renown/mythos/powers" general Caesars were supposed to have.
Whether they faked their power by psychology or politics, physically showed it, mentally showed it, or a combination of them all, the "lore" is that Caesars are the Romans equivalent - even genetically linked - to the Pharaohs (possibly even Phoenician and Sumer Ian supremes) who were the "gods on earth." That was the "spiel" that kept them in power up until "now" - even when they fled to the Iberian Peninsula, and then UK islands when their numbers allegedly dwindled.
