Page 4 of 9 [ 142 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

19 Aug 2014, 7:20 am

Hahaha please! Taller people do not look like giants to shorter people unless perhaps you a dwarf. I am only five foot five and I wouldn't describe anyone as a giant unless they produced too much growth hormone that made then exceptionally large and tall then they would need to be really large for me to describe them as that. A giant implies a really physically big being of some kind. And why would we make fun of whomever described them as giants since we were not there and didn't see what they saw. Ever occur to anyone they might, just might, have good reason to call them giants? Question is, why? What was it about these people that stood out so much?

The obvious is they were large physically but why were they?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,153
Location: temperate zone

19 Aug 2014, 7:39 am

To Janissey: thats true that weve all been told this myth that "they thought Columbus was crazy but he was right".

His superstitious unlettered crewmen may have worried about falling off the edge of the earth, but the educated elite of Europe (like King Ferdinand, and Queen Isabella) knew the world was a sphere (atleast since Erasthones) so the question was size, and not shape.

Columbus insisted that Eurasia was longer than it really is, and that the whole planet is smaller than it really is. And concluded that the country of Japan was only 600 miles west of the Azores ( just a puddle jump away). In reality the Atlantic (3000 miles), the American continents (3000 miles wide), and the Pacific (another 6000 miles) lay between the Azores and east Asia. So he was actually wrong. Everyone else was right. BUT Columbus's error caused him to stumble upon the American continents. So Columbus does deserve credit: for being the first person in history to get a research grant ( ie to get the powers-at-be to gamble money to test a theory). Even though he was wrong-putting the theory to the test payed off.

To Anna: I think that youve gotten things backward. Even if people did "used to believe the world was flat"- you're forgetting that people ALSO used to believe in giants . The same trend away from flat earth believing also caused folks to stop believing in giants.

Science was open to human giants centuries before it became open to the idea of dinosaurs or trilobites. No holy book mentions trilobites. So early rockhounds had no reason to look for them. But giants were a common meme in folklore -so if evidence for giant humans were unearthed it would have been accepted as such. The total absence of evidence of human giants, and the omnipresence of trilobites in the rock strata convinced scientists long before Darwin that there were never any human giants, and that trilobites must have once lived.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,153
Location: temperate zone

19 Aug 2014, 7:48 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Hahaha please! Taller people do not look like giants to shorter people unless perhaps you a dwarf. I am only five foot five and I wouldn't describe anyone as a giant unless they produced too much growth hormone that made then exceptionally large and tall then they would need to be really large for me to describe them as that. A giant implies a really physically big being of some kind. And why would we make fun of whomever described them as giants since we were not there and didn't see what they saw. Ever occur to anyone they might, just might, have good reason to call them giants? Question is, why? What was it about these people that stood out so much?

The obvious is they were large physically but why were they?


A) Why did our ancestors talk about unicorns, griffins, Chimera, witches flying on broomsticks, and islands inhabited by men with no heads -but with faces in their chests? If you're gonna take giants seriously why stop there?

B) Okay. So we should take giants seriously. So where is the evidence? Where are the bones of these giant humans? Where are the stone, or bronze, or iron, tools, made for giant human users?

C) How big is 'big' anyway? How tall do you envision these giants being?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

19 Aug 2014, 7:54 am

Now wait a second...people did not "believe" in giants. We are not talking about witches, warlocks or fairies that have nothing to back them up. We actually have the remnants of a mammoth sized ancient city to suggest it was built by something really incredibly large. These stones are much larger than the vast majority used to construct cities, even in ancient times. They had no cranes. We wouldn't even attempt to move stones this size with cranes today. They are just too large.

Nimod was described as an actual giant and he built that enormous city Baalbek. It's still there!



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,153
Location: temperate zone

19 Aug 2014, 8:08 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Now wait a second...people did not "believe" in giants. We are not talking about witches, warlocks or fairies that have nothing to back them up. We actually have the remnants of a mammoth sized ancient city to suggest it was built by something really incredibly large. These stones are much larger than the vast majority used to construct cities, even in ancient times. They had no cranes. We wouldn't even attempt to move stones this size with cranes today. They are just too large.

Nimod was described as an actual giant and he built that enormous city Baalbek. It's still there!


In the same breath you say "they didnt believe in giants", and "so and so was described as being a giant". Which is it? Did they believe in giants or not?

Modern giant humans cant even get their own bodies out of bed. Much less move big rocks.

Normal sized primitive people were able to move big rocks on Easter Island, and at Stonehenge, so why not at Baalbek? Or are you suggesting that Easter Island was inhabited by an extinct race of giants at one time?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

19 Aug 2014, 8:55 am

They are much bigger stones at Baalbek than those other locations and sources just happen to say King Nimrod was a "giant" and not only do they describe Nimrod like that and there's this city, they also described specific regional wars with people they say are giants. It's not like a group of people believing in giants the way children believe in Santa Claus.

These same sources didn't describe all the ones who built cities as giants. Why these particular ones? Most are located near or in the Dead Sea and are thought of as worshiping various idols and that they were generally brutish people who didn't really care about much. They are said to be sons of Canaan, descendants of him, and had six toes on each foot, various genetic anomalies such as these...so what does it mean?



Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,390
Location: Missouri

19 Aug 2014, 9:02 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Cash__ wrote:
I thought Jewish mythology had the nephilim drowning in the flood during Noah's time? Not that they were wiped out by the Israelites?


These aren't the Nephilim. There are more than one group of giants. Remember David and Goliath?

The Hebrew scriptures does use the word nephilim in the book of numbers when describing them.
So if there were giants before the flood and after the flood, then they must have been huge. Tall enough to keep their heads above the flood waters. LMAO.

Seriously though. If you want to know where in Jewish mythology the giants come from, then read the Book of Enoch. It explains the Jewish myth. It's a rather old book so it's not some modern theory of what someone thinks it is. I'll give you a spoiler, the fallen angels had sex with women and reproduced.

Or you could go with the ancient alien theory. That they were really an alien race called the annunaki from the planet nibiru.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

19 Aug 2014, 9:55 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
They are much bigger stones at Baalbek than those other locations and sources just happen to say King Nimrod was a "giant" and not only do they describe Nimrod like that and there's this city, they also described specific regional wars with people they say are giants. It's not like a group of people believing in giants the way children believe in Santa Claus.

These same sources didn't describe all the ones who built cities as giants. Why these particular ones? Most are located near or in the Dead Sea and are thought of as worshiping various idols and that they were generally brutish people who didn't really care about much. They are said to be sons of Canaan, descendants of him, and had six toes on each foot, various genetic anomalies such as these...so what does it mean?

We can't take ancient texts like these at face value, the style of writing and the intent were quite different from today. They would not let accuracy get in the way of a good story, especially if it taught a moral lesson. And they were retold and elaborated constantly. It could merely be some largely built tribe, a convenient explanation for large masonry or a geological formation, or fossil dinosaur bones. Or just made up entirely.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

19 Aug 2014, 9:56 am

Janissy wrote:
...


In college I learned something about Christopher Columbus that gave me a paradigm shift. ....

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

19 Aug 2014, 10:14 am

AspE wrote:
It could merely be some largely built tribe,


that is what I am saying...they were some kind of strange tribe that inhabited certain cities, very large, brutish and thuggish and they could have had anomolies of various types - like a certain race of people that went extinct.

I seriously wonder if some of you understand the reason I started this thread...it was not to pontificate the lost tribe of Shrek...


In the case of the "giants" it is quite possible they could have experienced a genocide inflicted upon them during the War of Kings described in Genesis.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,153
Location: temperate zone

19 Aug 2014, 10:23 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
AspE wrote:
It could merely be some largely built tribe,


that is what I am saying...they were some kind of strange tribe that inhabited certain cities, very large, brutish and thuggish and they could have had anomolies of various types - like a certain race of people that went extinct.

I seriously wonder if some of you understand the reason I started this thread...it was not to pontificate the lost tribe of Shrek...


.


I think that that is the problem. We're all waiting for YOU to explain WTF you're talking about!

If you're not "pontificating about the lost tribe of Shrek" then what ARE you talking about? A strange tribe of people in some small region? Kraishgauer floated that very idea (the Philistines being tall compared to the Isrealites, and then getting exagerrated into being giants), and you laughed at that notion.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

19 Aug 2014, 10:27 am

naturalplastic wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
AspE wrote:
It could merely be some largely built tribe,


that is what I am saying...they were some kind of strange tribe that inhabited certain cities, very large, brutish and thuggish and they could have had anomolies of various types - like a certain race of people that went extinct.

I seriously wonder if some of you understand the reason I started this thread...it was not to pontificate the lost tribe of Shrek...


.


I think that that is the problem. We're all waiting for YOU to explain WTF you're talking about!

If you're not "pontificating about the lost tribe of Shrek" then what ARE you talking about? A strange tribe of people in some small region? Kraishgauer floated that very idea (the Philistines being tall compared to the Isrealites, and then getting exagerrated into being giants), and you laughed at that notion.


Well...what you should do is watch the video I posted!! ! Think there could be a reason I posted it in the first place :roll:

it just seems like very few people want to have a serious discussion unless it completely conforms to their preconceived notions otherwise they dismiss it entirely.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

19 Aug 2014, 12:24 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Hahaha please! Taller people do not look like giants to shorter people unless perhaps you a dwarf. I am only five foot five and I wouldn't describe anyone as a giant unless they produced too much growth hormone that made then exceptionally large and tall then they would need to be really large for me to describe them as that. A giant implies a really physically big being of some kind. And why would we make fun of whomever described them as giants since we were not there and didn't see what they saw. Ever occur to anyone they might, just might, have good reason to call them giants? Question is, why? What was it about these people that stood out so much?

The obvious is they were large physically but why were they?


I think the ancient Hebrews and other Semites would have seen the Philistines and others as giants if they had never seen such large people anywhere else before. Even among the cosmopolitan Egyptians and Phoenicians, who had a wide view of the world compared to everyone else, were still limited in their knowledge because of primitive means of travel and communication of the day, and so news would probably often be tainted with exaggeration. And so, tall, muscular warriors were turned into giants by second and third hand accounts. Plus, when the Hebrews reoccupied Canaan, they could tell their grandchildren about how they had defeated "giants," in order to make their victories spicier.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,471
Location: Aux Arcs

19 Aug 2014, 12:47 pm

^Like fishermen stories,the two inch minnow turns into a ferocious gar as long as a man's leg. :D


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

19 Aug 2014, 12:47 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
AspE wrote:
It could merely be some largely built tribe,


that is what I am saying...they were some kind of strange tribe that inhabited certain cities, very large, brutish and thuggish and they could have had anomolies of various types - like a certain race of people that went extinct.

I seriously wonder if some of you understand the reason I started this thread...it was not to pontificate the lost tribe of Shrek...


In the case of the "giants" it is quite possible they could have experienced a genocide inflicted upon them during the War of Kings described in Genesis.

I doubt there is a tribe that has been so socially isolated they formed unique features. At least not in the Middle East, which is on trade routes. Especially not in the past 5,000-10,000 years of recorded history.



Danixia
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 31

19 Aug 2014, 12:56 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Danixia wrote:

Think about it for a second did you wathch the big bang ocour ? No, do you belive in it ? Yes. Why do you belive in it ?since sciense says that you can only prove something if that thing is tested and it happens again again and again, observation experiment, you know that stuff i dont need to tell you, you cant do that can you? Big bang ocorred billions of years before, but you still belive in it without you seeing it, that my friend is having faith in a theorie that you dont know if it realy happened you can just say that is logical that there is evidence etc.

The same goes for creation, so we are not that diferent.

That isn't quite right. We need evidence, we need observations, we need to repeat our experiments, but we don't need to directly see something happen to know that it happened. For example, if I took DNA samples from you and your parents, I could tell that you were their child even though I have witnessed neither your birth nor your conception - but I might want to take multiple DNA samples in case something goes wrong, and my experiment should be one that anyone can replicate.

wrt. the Big Bang, anyone can (with the right equipment) observe the cosmic background radiation, Red Shift, etc. These are scientific, repeatable, falsifiable, empirical observations that demonstrate that the universe was once a point singularity.

Now, what evidence is there for your claim that the universe was created, which cannot be better explained by other hypotheses?

Quote:
(and talking snakes .... like i said animals could be more advancend then now whu knows ? FAITH XD )

Even amongst the religious, the talking serpent is held to be the personification of Satan rather than an actual talking serpent. We know snakes did not suddenly have their legs removed; we also know serpents could never talk (they would require significantly larger brains for that).


Hmm I see what you guys are saying (you and AspE and others) I respect it I try to concel it with science and religion XD . and as you asked what evidence do I have , first of all you can belive in what you want, im just giving an other side of the coin here okay ? XD The fact that our brain is wired to belive. We have to belive in something even if its not God we belive in us, we have this principals (principles? dont mind me english is not my native language) and we try to live by them, religion is the same, humanism is like a religon too even thogh people dont like to admit it ... XD And there are actuly studies on that go search for dr newberg. :)

As for the sanakes XDD well since the text says it was a normal snake and then satan took it over and start to talk by her .... I take it literaly but now that you mention it i did read somewhere (Ellen G. White one of her books I think) that Eve got suprised that she was talking so...maybe she didnt realy talk it was more like ...a mirical? XD

And thats that.
Those where my ideias i hade a good debate here :)