Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 9:07 PM
24 online now:
dwise1, frako, Tanypteryx (3 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,628 Year: 3,665/19,786 Month: 660/1,087 Week: 29/221 Day: 29/36 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
24Next
Author Topic:   Giant People in the bible?
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 972 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 226 of 352 (493592)
01-09-2009 4:06 PM


My guess is that anyone over 6 ft was likely considered a giant in the time period covered in the OT. Relatively poor diets, particularly for Hebrew slaves coming out of Egypt and wandering around in the wilderness would not promote maximum growth. Also the fact that Goliath, who was about 7 feet tall if one can believe the text, was considered remarkable, suggests that his height was considerably above average even for the Philistines. All it would take for the spies to carry back tales of "giants" would be to see several above average height men, imo. These were fearful people and the tendency to exaggerate must have been strong indeed. This plus the fact that the spies were likely crouching/crawling in the underbrush probably produced the observation of "giants".
Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Brian, posted 01-10-2009 6:29 PM deerbreh has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 227 of 352 (493613)
01-09-2009 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by AdminNosy
01-09-2009 9:32 AM


Re: Topic
actually i thought that neanderthals were supposed to be much largeer then us

hence why i asked.

according to a book on archeology i have, their brains were much bigger then ours, hence their head size must have been bigger and so i assume they would bodies that were in proportion to the size of their heads


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by AdminNosy, posted 01-09-2009 9:32 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Coyote, posted 01-09-2009 8:35 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 232 by Granny Magda, posted 01-10-2009 10:48 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 228 of 352 (493616)
01-09-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Peg
01-09-2009 8:29 PM


Re: Topic
according to a book on archeology i have, their brains were much bigger then ours, hence their head size must have been bigger and so i assume they would bodies that were in proportion to the size of their heads

Cranial capacity was slightly larger than ours, but not enough to make any difference. The range of variation in modern humans is huge.

The bodies seem to have been emphasizing strength over speed. Many muscle attachments are found at a greater distance from the pivot point than in modern humans giving increased power but decreased speed.

It is possible that these folks were extremely robust, and adapted to the cold.

But "giants" is normally interpreted to mean tall as well as large, so I don't think the Neanderthals would fit the bill.

Bigfoot might qualify as a giant, but there's one small problem with that...


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Peg, posted 01-09-2009 8:29 PM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Blue Jay, posted 01-09-2009 11:22 PM Coyote has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 777 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 229 of 352 (493635)
01-09-2009 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Coyote
01-09-2009 8:35 PM


Re: Topic
Hi, Coyote.

Coyote writes:

But "giants" is normally interpreted to mean tall as well as large, so I don't think the Neanderthals would fit the bill.

In defense of this statement:

quote:
For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.

Deuteronomy 3:11 (KJV)


quote:
And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

1 Samuel 17:1 (KJV)


Height is the primary characteristic of "giants" from the Bible (admittedly, Goliath isn't actually called a "giant" in the Bible, but still...).


I'm Bluejay.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Coyote, posted 01-09-2009 8:35 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 01-09-2009 11:29 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 230 of 352 (493636)
01-09-2009 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Blue Jay
01-09-2009 11:22 PM


Re: Topic
Those descriptions would make Bigfoot look small.

Sorry, I don't believe a word of it. (Good hooch that night?)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Blue Jay, posted 01-09-2009 11:22 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Blue Jay, posted 01-10-2009 1:35 AM Coyote has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 777 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 231 of 352 (493638)
01-10-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Coyote
01-09-2009 11:29 PM


Re: Topic
Hi, Coyote.

Coyote writes:

Sorry, I don't believe a word of it.

Well, that wasn't the point. I was just confirming your argument that Neanderthal couldn't have been the biblical "giants." This, I think, is a good, simple line of argumentation because it doesn't rely on radiometric dating, which would instantly turn this thread into another groaner.


I'm Bluejay.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 01-09-2009 11:29 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Coyote, posted 01-10-2009 10:48 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 232 of 352 (493708)
01-10-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Peg
01-09-2009 8:29 PM


Cranial Capacity
Hi Peg,

quote:
actually i thought that neanderthals were supposed to be much largeer then us

hence why i asked.


As I thought. I stand by my previous comments.

quote:
according to a book on archeology i have, their brains were much bigger then ours

a) Much bigger? I doubt very much that your book claims that. The claim is usually that their brains were marginally bigger; not enough to result in a giant.

b) Your book is wrong anyway. Take another look at the Wiki;

Wiki writes:

The assertion persists that neanderthal cranial capacity was much larger than modern humans, indicating their brain size may have been larger; however, a 1993 analysis of 118 hominid crania concluded that the cranial capacity of H.s. neandertal averaged 1412cc while that of fossil modern H.s. sapiens averaged 1487cc.

I have checked out the reference for this study and it does indeed come to this conclusion. This is clear proof that Neanderthals were not the giants of the Bible.

Well, that and the fact that they lived tens to hundreds of thousands of years ago. Just out of interest, when was your "book on archeology" published?

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Peg, posted 01-09-2009 8:29 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 185 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 233 of 352 (493709)
01-10-2009 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Blue Jay
01-10-2009 1:35 AM


Re: Topic
Hi, Coyote.

Coyote writes:

Sorry, I don't believe a word of it.

Well, that wasn't the point. I was just confirming your argument that Neanderthal couldn't have been the biblical "giants." This, I think, is a good, simple line of argumentation because it doesn't rely on radiometric dating, which would instantly turn this thread into another groaner.


Sorry, I misread the tone of your post.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Blue Jay, posted 01-10-2009 1:35 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3038 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 234 of 352 (493779)
01-10-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by deerbreh
01-09-2009 4:06 PM


Source?
Hi Deerbreh,

I just noticed this: who was about 7 feet tall if one can believe the text,

Can I ask where you get this from?

The reason I ask is because it is fairly well known in theology circles that Goliath was almost ten feet tall. The text says 6 cubits and a span, around 9ft 9in, some texts say "over 9 feet tall".

At the back of my mind I recall that there was a text, perhaps in an early version of 1 Samuel where Goliath was described as 4 cubits and a span, which would fit in well with your information.

Do you recall where you get your height for Goliath from as I am very interested in this.

Many thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by deerbreh, posted 01-09-2009 4:06 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by deerbreh, posted 01-11-2009 8:24 PM Brian has responded

    
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 972 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 235 of 352 (493941)
01-11-2009 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Brian
01-10-2009 6:29 PM


Re: Source?
I just noticed this: who was about 7 feet tall if one can believe the text,

Can I ask where you get this from?

The reason I ask is because it is fairly well known in theology circles that Goliath was almost ten feet tall. The text says 6 cubits and a span, around 9ft 9in, some texts say "over 9 feet tall".

At the back of my mind I recall that there was a text, perhaps in an early version of 1 Samuel where Goliath was described as 4 cubits and a span, which would fit in well with your information.

From the OP citing the Dead Sea Scrolls.....

Goliath was probably about seven feet tall according to the Dead Sea scrolls, which are the oldest record of the Book of Sam1.
Dead Sea scrolls say he was 4 cubits and a span. His armor was the same weight as described in the KJV though (125lbs).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Brian, posted 01-10-2009 6:29 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Brian, posted 01-12-2009 4:37 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3038 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 236 of 352 (493965)
01-12-2009 4:37 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by deerbreh
01-11-2009 8:24 PM


Re: Source?
Cheers mate, thanks for taking the time to point it out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by deerbreh, posted 01-11-2009 8:24 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2072 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 237 of 352 (494039)
01-13-2009 1:24 AM


Built in proportion
Minor digression

When the Windies cricket team were touring Australia, someone asked their 'giant' fast bowler, Joel Garner, if it was true that their tall men were 'hung' in proportion.Joel mulled it over for bit and said' Nah, that`s not true, because I`d have to be eight feet, six inches,'


    
ochaye
Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 307
Joined: 03-08-2009


Message 238 of 352 (501919)
03-08-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Williams
08-06-2004 1:59 AM


"There were giants in the earth in those days" Gen. 6:4

This is much better translated:

'Men on the earth were arrogant in those days and also afterwards when these sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the tyrants of old, men of [who desired] renown.'

The term 'sons of God' is an ironic one here, denoting the fall of man from his proper god-like state (which is humble and not high-handed).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Williams, posted 08-06-2004 1:59 AM John Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 03-08-2009 5:20 PM ochaye has not yet responded
 Message 240 by Granny Magda, posted 03-08-2009 5:31 PM ochaye has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 183 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 239 of 352 (501931)
03-08-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ochaye
03-08-2009 4:29 PM


This is much better translated:

'Men on the earth were arrogant in those days and also afterwards when these sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the tyrants of old, men of [who desired] renown.'

Why is that a better translation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ochaye, posted 03-08-2009 4:29 PM ochaye has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 240 of 352 (501932)
03-08-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ochaye
03-08-2009 4:29 PM


Hi ochaye, and welcome to EvC.

I wonder what you think about other references to giants in the Bible. Do you think that only Gen 6:4 is speaking of tyrants, or do you think that other Biblical references to giants have similar explanations?

Mutate and Survive


"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ochaye, posted 03-08-2009 4:29 PM ochaye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by ochaye, posted 03-08-2009 7:38 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
24Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019