It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
yes, the biggest in the Bible is 13 feet tall, and skeletons back this up. 450 feet is preposterous, and NO skeletons have ever been found larger than 12 feet.
Originally posted by guidanceofthe third kind
reply to post by NOTurTypical
also in the bible it says "there were giants in the world in those days." so yes, it is possible there were building sized people. i dont know what they mean by giants but it is totally possible
Originally posted by Unregistered
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Thanks.
So who was it that compiled the Bible (Popular Versions)?
Originally posted by notsympl
reply to post by NOTurTypical
you might want to consider the fact that it was originally written in Ethiopian, not a very popular language at the time the Bible was compiled
wiki reference
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jinx880101
Don't be duped my friend... Enoch lived during the time of Genesis, if he wrote that book it would have been in the OT like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, or Isaiah.
A "cubit" is 1.5 feet. The ark which Noah built was 300 cubits long (Genesis 6:15). Do you mean to tell me that some women had children who were as tall as the ark was long? You've got to be joking! Such foolish conjecture is a violation of the simplest teachings of the Bible. In Genesis 6: we read, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
Then what do we have here in verse 4? As I see it, Genesis is a book of genealogies—it is a book of the families. The sons of God are the godly line who have come down from Adam through Seth, and the daughters of men belong to the line of Cain.
Without a doubt, the primary claim of the Book of Enoch is that fallen angels had sex with human women and produced 450-feet tall giants upon the earth. This teaching is ridiculous, unscriptural, and has no solid evidence to support it (Biblically or scientifically). This is another good reason why the Book of Enoch should continue to be rejected. It is nonsense.
I'm not sure you read that correctly, when Christ walked the Earth there was only the OT. The Maessoretic Text. He never commissioned the Apostles to spread the gospel of Christ until the time of His resurrection. And the NT books, many of which were written by Paul, Peter, Timothy, James and John were written after Christ died.
Originally posted by Unregistered
reply to post by NOTurTypical
From what I read, it indicated that the Antiochian Bible is the one that was sent and approved by Jesus. Does this include the OT? Does this exclude Revelations and other post-Christ scriptures?