Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biblical Tall Tales
John Williams
Member (Idle past 4999 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 286 of 302 (316902)
06-01-2006 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Jesus Addict
05-09-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Of course the Bible is true
Giant sized footprints? lol, you must be refering to the Paluxy prints.
those were clearly misidentified Dino tracks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Jesus Addict, posted 05-09-2006 10:09 PM Jesus Addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2006 7:29 PM John Williams has not replied

Damouse
Member (Idle past 4905 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 287 of 302 (317075)
06-02-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Jesus Addict
05-09-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Of course the Bible is true
There isnt really evidence saying that there was a water canipy other than the fact that it says the water came pooring from the heavens etc...I think it is something more to make sense of it i guess...it would explain giant size human footprints found i guess
I see. so when you have an idea, build a theory out of it. Once you have a theory, imagine facts to support it. Once you have your "facts", invent supporting evidence for them. Good one.
If i dare to say theres no possible scientific reason behind a "water canonpy" (speaking of which, where did it go?) The response will be "God put it there". And hence the point where we say no and you say yes, where we have physics and you have no proof. But...
"There really isn't evidence saying that there was a water canopy..." So you even know that this was made up to explain something that didn't happen. This is most definatly a "biblical Tall Tale"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Jesus Addict, posted 05-09-2006 10:09 PM Jesus Addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Jesus Addict, posted 06-03-2006 5:42 PM Damouse has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 288 of 302 (317079)
06-02-2006 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by John Williams
06-01-2006 6:44 PM


Re: Of course the Bible is true
Giant sized footprints? lol, you must be refering to the Paluxy prints.
those were clearly misidentified Dino tracks.
they weren't misidentified. the paleontologists who first found, cataloged and studied them knew exactly what they were.
they were misrepresented by creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by John Williams, posted 06-01-2006 6:44 PM John Williams has not replied

Damouse
Member (Idle past 4905 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 289 of 302 (317226)
06-03-2006 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Jesus Addict
05-09-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Of course the Bible is true
it would explain giant size human footprints found i guess
Misinterpereted by creationists? Who would do that?
Again the realm of unprovable, created ideas.
Edited by Damouse, : Sp

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Jesus Addict, posted 05-09-2006 10:09 PM Jesus Addict has not replied

Jesus Addict
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 302 (317294)
06-03-2006 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Damouse
06-02-2006 7:23 PM


Re: Of course the Bible is true
It is a theory jus like evolution is too...Evolution is a theory based on what?...
And the bible says that in the flood rain came from the heavens and below the earth...so that would explain where the canopy went to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Damouse, posted 06-02-2006 7:23 PM Damouse has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by CK, posted 06-03-2006 5:53 PM Jesus Addict has not replied
 Message 292 by Damouse, posted 06-03-2006 6:16 PM Jesus Addict has not replied
 Message 293 by MUTTY6969, posted 06-04-2006 3:09 AM Jesus Addict has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 291 of 302 (317299)
06-03-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Jesus Addict
06-03-2006 5:42 PM


Re: Of course the Bible is true
quote:
It is a theory jus like evolution is too...Evolution is a theory based on what?...
Decades of care research by 100,000s of experts in various physical sciences?
Do you understand what "theory" means in science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Jesus Addict, posted 06-03-2006 5:42 PM Jesus Addict has not replied

Damouse
Member (Idle past 4905 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 292 of 302 (317307)
06-03-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Jesus Addict
06-03-2006 5:42 PM


Re: Of course the Bible is true
It is a theory jus like evolution is too...Evolution is a theory based on what?...
And the bible says that in the flood rain came from the heavens and below the earth...so that would explain where the canopy went to.
rofl
-evolution is a theory based on facts.
-Creation is an idea based on 2-4000 year old hearsay, no facts, and no way of proving it.
as to the "went below the earth" statement, im to lazy to take the height of everest in relation of the center of the earth, then take the radius from sea level to the center, find volumes of both spheres, then subtract for the minimum amount of water that had fallen during the flood. Law of conservation of energy and matter: nothing can be created or destroyed (except for certain exceptions). Therefor that titanic figure that was the amount of floodwater must have gone someplace; if it had gone underground, it would still be there now.

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Jesus Addict, posted 06-03-2006 5:42 PM Jesus Addict has not replied

MUTTY6969
Member (Idle past 6191 days)
Posts: 65
From: ARIZONA
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 293 of 302 (317476)
06-04-2006 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Jesus Addict
06-03-2006 5:42 PM


Re: Of course the Bible is true
Jesus Addict writes "It is a theory jus like evolution is too...Evolution is a theory based on what?..."
I think your definition of theory as it pertains to science is a little off. It is not a fat drunk guy on a couch looking at his buddy and saying hey I got a theory, that is not the same as the definition used by a scientists which refers to a logical, tested, well-supported explanation for a great variety of facts.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Jesus Addict, posted 06-03-2006 5:42 PM Jesus Addict has not replied

Crue Knight
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 302 (318552)
06-07-2006 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
12-30-2005 11:14 AM


Re: Giants?
quote:
A Giant is Nearly Twice as Tall as Average People
The average height of people after the Flood was probably a little more than five feet. A man like Goliath was almost twice as tall and was called a giant. With this in mind, when we consider that before the Noachian Flood, people about three feet tall were possibly very common, then the people who came after the Flood, and who were almost twice as tall, would be qualified to be called giants.
The question is, when we read Genesis 6:4, where God says, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,” is He speaking in the historical physical sense of men like Goliath or King Og? Or is God speaking of the whole post-Flood human race whose average stature is more than five feet, and, therefore, qualify as giants when compared with humans before the Flood whose average stature may have been only three feet?
The King Og giants became extinct and the Goliath giants appeared to be confined to one family whose sons were killed. Their families do not appear to be in view in the statement of Genesis 6:4. It appears that many pre-Flood people averaged about three feet in height. Therefore, the giants spoken of in Genesis 6:4 must refer to a number of the pre-Flood people who were much taller than three feet. Some of the taller individuals must have lived after the Flood to become progenitors of the post-Flood people.
That brings us back to the archaeological discovery of the disaster that occurred in the Liang Bua cave in Indonesia. The finding of the bones of seven individuals which identify with humans who were three feet tall at maturity suggests very strongly that the pre-Noachian Flood population possibly consisted of many small people.
Thus, when the Bible stipulates, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,” God must be implying that Noah and his sons were giants compared with most pre-Flood people. They were the only survivors of the Flood. They were the progenitors of the whole human race following the Flood. And the average height of the human race following the Flood was much taller than three feet. Therefore, they must have been considered giants compared with the average pre-Flood human. Only through the descendants of Noah could “giants” continue after the Flood.
This conclusion concerning the giants of Genesis 6:4 appears to receive strong support by the recent archaeological discovery in the Liang Bua cave in Indonesia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 12-30-2005 11:14 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by ringo, posted 06-07-2006 1:39 AM Crue Knight has not replied
 Message 296 by John Williams, posted 06-07-2006 4:36 AM Crue Knight has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 295 of 302 (318565)
06-07-2006 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Crue Knight
06-07-2006 12:55 AM


Re: Giants?
If you're going to copy/paste from a website, you should at least give a link.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Crue Knight, posted 06-07-2006 12:55 AM Crue Knight has not replied

John Williams
Member (Idle past 4999 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 296 of 302 (318598)
06-07-2006 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Crue Knight
06-07-2006 12:55 AM


Re: Giants?
Well, I don't know of any archaeological evidence that people even in 'pre-flood' Mesopotamia (5000 years ago?) would have averaged only 3 feet tall. People even back then were actually averaging around 5'3 or 5'5 for men, but certainly I could see how a solidly built 7' man could very well seem twice as tall as an average guy at first glance.
When the bible mentions king Og or Goliath, it does seem there are true historical kernels, but extraoplated and condensed into the Hebrew chronicles. The giants are always the bad guys as it were.
Based on the earliest readings of Samuel, Goliath was infact around 6'7 and wore 100 lbs of Mycenaean style armor. The Philistines seem to have been of a taller Anatolian or Aagean stalk, perhaps averaging 5'10 or 6 feet in stature. The king Og described in Deutoronomy and Numbers, seems to represent a conglomerant of Aramean and Ammonite traditions concerning an ancient Bashanite ruler of great stature whome the Israelites later added locale lore to. The "Iron Bedstead" may have referred to his ancient Tomb or Sarcophagus (13ft long) was known during the time Deutoronomy was compiled c.700 bc.
Whatever the case, these giants seem to have grown throughout the centuries, capturing the imagination of biblical readers by their brute strength and unimaginable wickedness. But in modern terms, I'd just say that the ancient Jews were simply prejudice against their taller neighbors who may have been of caucasoid or Dinaric bodybuild which could account for a 5-6 inch height advantage above the shorter Semites. Whatever the case, height was a respected quality in ancient times. King Saul was "head and shoulders" above average people (Sam. chpt.9) and this was evidently a noble and distinguishing quality.
The names, Anak, Rephaim, and Nephilim, do seem to echo ancient Canaanite traditions of a tall and strong warrior class in the ancient past who were later immortalized and re-introduced into ancient Hebrew history. All of this is very intriguing to hypothesis though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Crue Knight, posted 06-07-2006 12:55 AM Crue Knight has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 8:41 AM John Williams has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 297 of 302 (318642)
06-07-2006 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by John Williams
06-07-2006 4:36 AM


Re: Giants?
There is a difference in the height mentioned in the story of David and Golliath in the DDS, and from the masoric text (which from around the same time period). The version of the Dead sea scrolls had Goliath's height at 4 cubits (about 6'4 inches), while the standard text used today has it at 6 cubits (over 9 feet).
6'4 inches sounds much more reasonable. And, when people were only 5'3/5'4 on average, definately a big enough difference to promote awe
at height.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by John Williams, posted 06-07-2006 4:36 AM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by John Williams, posted 06-07-2006 3:21 PM ramoss has not replied

John Williams
Member (Idle past 4999 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 298 of 302 (318796)
06-07-2006 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by ramoss
06-07-2006 8:41 AM


Re: Giants?
I agree there ramoss, a 6'4 guy would seem pretty huge back in the day.
Scholars believe that the DSS Samuel texts are from about 200 bc and agree very well with the earliest Greek Septuagint which was translated in 200 bc aswell. Both texts state that Goliath was "four cubits and a span" tall, and this seems to retain the most ancient of the traditions.
4 cubits roughly equaled 5'10-6ft.
1 span = 8-9 in.
This makes Goliath roughly 2 meters, and if you add his hundred lb armor and fancy bronze helmet, he'd probably seem 8 ft tall to the Hebrews.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by ramoss, posted 06-07-2006 8:41 AM ramoss has not replied

Tryannasapien Rex
Junior Member (Idle past 4599 days)
Posts: 21
Joined: 02-15-2006


Message 299 of 302 (319152)
06-08-2006 3:07 PM


imperfect word of god
the bible is a gross contradiction period.
heres one example,
god orders abraham to murder Issac's his son.
and gods word "you know he's commandment's"
says u shall not kill.
so Abraham is screwed ether way
ether he breaks the law and obeys god or
keeps the law and disobeys god
hmmmm what to do?
just because Abraham didn't actually
kill his son doesn't let him off the hook
because he was willing to kill the innocent for his god
makes him a murderer.
don't think for one minute u can justify breakin the law
becuase ur god oders u to
because sin is sin.
remember jesus said if u think to sin
your just as guilty as if u did sin
when u kill someone else and its not self defense or an accident
its murder! period!
u don't get to use your own son as some animal sacrifice!

your perfect god is a joke to have created such a flawed test
just proves that ur god is man created
one can clearly see that this story is just an attempt to promote the evil idea known as slavery
and this father figure up in the sky as the tool to promote it

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by John Williams, posted 06-08-2006 4:58 PM Tryannasapien Rex has replied

John Williams
Member (Idle past 4999 days)
Posts: 157
From: Oregon, US
Joined: 06-29-2004


Message 300 of 302 (319211)
06-08-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Tryannasapien Rex
06-08-2006 3:07 PM


Re: imperfect word of god
Homo rex, "thou shalt not kill" is one of the cammandments given to Moses in the stone tablets at Mt Horeb. Abram was centuries earlier than the Moses story.
Killing first born was an ancient tradition the Canaanites and neighboring peoples used as a sacred right to appease the gods so that famine wouldn't strike the land. Abram would't have been too out of place in ancient times, sacrificing his firstborn to El.
Sacrifice and murder, unlike in modern America, were not seen as the same in many ancient civilizations. Indeed, some sacrifice victims considered it a privalge that they were chosen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Tryannasapien Rex, posted 06-08-2006 3:07 PM Tryannasapien Rex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Tryannasapien Rex, posted 06-08-2006 8:33 PM John Williams has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024