There are no giants in the original bible

a reply to: Marduk

you can deny the smithsonian connection all you want, but this is pretty well documented by Jim Vieira and Childress is a clown not worth talking about, imo


Megalithomania Interview with Jim Vieira: Giants on Record in North America
youtu.be...

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: Marduk

if you are so concerned about fakery, just research the theory of evolution and all the hoaxes they have perp'd over the years to sway public opinion…

Heroditus too, mentions a Spartan blacksmith who discovers a giant skeleton buried in a large coffin…

I am well aware of evolutionary theory, the modern version which is both a fact and a theory, your denial clearly shows your bias

Herodotus made a lot of claims which have been shown to be false, his description of the walls of Babylon for instance clearly show that he was never there. In the case of the Spartan Blacksmith, he is relating a tale told to him by someone else, so at best its second hand hearsay and has no credible support

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: Marduk

you can deny the smithsonian connection all you want, but this is pretty well documented by Jim Vieira and Childress is a clown not worth talking about, imo

I have, there is no evidence for it outside of pseudohistorians who use it as an excuse as to why their claims have no evidence. For you to accept it shows that not only have you never done any real research on the subject yourself, but you're happy to swallow whatever is spoonfed to you because it happens to ally with your religious beliefs.

This thread is about Biblical giants and how they don't appear in the original versions of the bible, if you want to start a thread of your own on long debunked conspiracies do it somewhere else

a reply to: Marduk

and your supposed debunk of Jim Vieira is total rubbish… it looks like TEDx has been banning anyone who comes up with anything that threatens the dominant paradigm… like Rupert Sheldrake "Science set Free" where he finds that the speed of light was measures by scientists around the world to fluctuate…

Rupert says they use "intellectual phase locking" and other techniques to deny the data…


just because hoaxes were common does not deny all the data in support of giantism, as w Heroditus and Alexander the Great's reports, among MANY other reports, of giants… and the fossil record of other animals still alive today but that were giant thousands of years ago… some of these get tossed under the bus as well, like with polystrate trees, fields of whale fossils (whales float and rapidly decay when they die), etc

a reply to: Marduk

I am talking about Biblical giants… and establishing that the reports are accurate because it is not just in the Bible where these reports exist…

you seem like a shill out to debunk something by excluding massive amounts of data and trying to parse language however you want.

a reply to: Marduk

as for swallowing pills, my basic faith in the Bible and Jesus Christ is certainly not predicated on the parsing of the existence of giants, but the existence of giants is known to be very inconvenient to the theory of evolution and to the satanic agenda unfolding generally…

so aside from all the data, I like to keep the story alive because so much has been hidden and destroyed and denied it would not be surprising if the Smithsonian has been destroying skeletons… Lord knows they don't hesitate destroying someone's career when the person becomes inconvenient…

Ok, so far you've proven that your bias is caused by your religious beliefs which have already led you to deny the theory of evolution, which is about the best attested scientific theory in existence. You haven't read the entire thread so are unaware that the meaning of the word giant has changed from when it was introduced in the Septuagint, and when originally used didn't mean large humanoid at all. It just meant powerful, but leaving your ignorance of the facts aside
Lets cut out all the crap

How about you link me to just one genuine giant bone, from anywhere on earth, that proves the existence of just one non homo sapiens giant...

a reply to: Verum1quaere

I don't recall asking you to post a load of nonsense about your religious beliefs
this is what I asked you

originally posted by: Marduk
How about you link me to just one genuine giant bone, from anywhere on earth, that proves the existence of just one non homo sapiens giant...

Obviously, you cannot back up your beliefs with any real evidence
Why am I not surprised

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: Verum1quaere

How about you link me to just one genuine giant bone, from anywhere on earth, that proves the existence of just one non homo sapiens giant...

There's plenty examples of giant bones in the following:
Pcitures of Giants (including bones)

a reply to: Marduk

I do think that you are misinterpreting the original text. The books mentions the sons of ANAKIM and the Anakim people. ANAKIM translated from hebrew is giants therefore, we have the giants mentioned throught the old testament.

a reply to: Marduk

Just basing on your original post since you affirm there is no mention of the Anakim=Giants in the bible. To make such affirmation u must have a thorough knowledge of the hebrew and Aramaic language just a thought though....

originally posted by: cooperton

There's plenty examples of giant bones in the following:
Pcitures of Giants (including bones)

That's about the biggest fail I've seen posted here at ATS
One picture of a femur is actually a fake created by a creationist museum, the fact that its in there should have given you some pause for thought, surely
www.andywhiteanthropology.com...

The pictures are from Ancient cultures who's art always depicted people larger in relevance to their importance to the scene and even then, some of the pictures aren't even showing people but statues. The rest are pictures posted out of context with stories which have no attestation in reality. Now if you want, I suggest you actually provide me with what I asked for, just one giant bone credibly attested. can you do that ?

In future, you should know, that creationist websites are not credible as sources for anything but lunacy

originally posted by: JLart
a reply to: Marduk

Just basing on your original post since you affirm there is no mention of the Anakim=Giants in the bible. To make such affirmation u must have a thorough knowledge of the hebrew and Aramaic language just a thought though....

So you missed all the following posts which show that the word giant wasn't used to describe massive people until the 15th C and originally meant "powerful"
Looks like you have some reading to do

a reply to: Marduk

Sry m8 I only read the bible in hebrew so it has a different meaning than the western normally has. Many of the words and phrases are totally misunderstood. One I thing I know is that most that read in other translations are missing the real meaning of the texts. unfortunately the veil still covering the eyes of humanity.

originally posted by: Marduk

That's about the biggest fail I've seen posted here at ATS

Your OP is a fail. This was mentioned on the first page, and showed clearly the etymology of Nephilim:

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

You have no idea what you are talking about, but your chauvinism blinds you.

a reply to: cooperton


Oh, Look at that... You stopped looking at information once your confirmation bias kicked in and skipped over where the actual etymology Of the word "giant" Was demonstrated. That's nearly as big a shocker as making the claim that most geneticists believe our genetics are degrading and instead of providing a single citation, you provide quote mines. Well done. Scholar of the Year to be sure. And I really liked the random inclusion of Dr. Collins who doesn't believe any of the tripe you just posted at all. Well done by your research department. The only fail here is your parents failure to get you Hooked on Phonics sooner.

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
a reply to: Marduk

as for swallowing pills, my basic faith in the Bible and Jesus Christ is certainly not predicated on the parsing of the existence of giants, but the existence of giants is known to be very inconvenient to the theory of evolution and to the satanic agenda unfolding generally…

I don't know about the "satanic agenda" (which is a new religious concept within Christianity -- did you know that?) but I *DO* know that giants would not be "inconvenient to the theory of evolution." It would, in fact, add more material to the evidence for evolution.

originally posted by: cooperton

Your OP is a fail. This was mentioned on the first page, and showed clearly the etymology of Nephilim:


You have no idea what you are talking about, but your chauvinism blinds you.

Yeah, really, its not the etymology of Nephilim which has been questioned anywhere in this thread, your brain get stuck ?
Its the etymology of the word "Giant", which originally meant "powerful" and didn't start to mean "huge human" until about 1500 years after the biblical account was written, so when the narrative was changed during the writing of the Septuagint, they weren't writing about giant humans at all
If you knew anything about the Bible at all, you should have realised that at no point did anyone fight a tribe of giants anywhere in it. But I guess you haven't read that either...

originally posted by: Marduk


If you knew anything about the Bible at all, you should have realised that at no point did anyone fight a tribe of giants anywhere in it. But I guess you haven't read that either...

Most of them haven't bothered to actually read it. It's more about cherry picking and quote mining than it is scholarship.

www.patheos.com... /