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:   Giant People in the bible?
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 16 of 352 (131445)
08-07-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Williams
08-07-2004 12:27 AM


Re: Ron Wyatt's discovery of giant human bones.
John Williams
Have you looked at the photos? The midshaft of the bone differs in both photos as well as the condyles{knuckle end} so just a cursory view of the photos makes it unecessary to go further in the investigation.I am surprised it did not occur to you to do so. Have I missed something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Williams, posted 08-07-2004 12:27 AM John Williams has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 17 of 352 (131447)
08-07-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by John Williams
08-07-2004 12:27 AM


Re: Ron Wyatt's discovery of giant human bones.
edit to remove double-post
This message has been edited by sidelined, 08-07-2004 09:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by John Williams, posted 08-07-2004 12:27 AM John Williams has not replied

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


Message 18 of 352 (131493)
08-08-2004 12:51 AM


Re: Tall individuals is one thing...
I also agree that an entire "race" or Nationality of giants most likely never existed. But tribes and family groups of giant people most definately existed in the past, and do exist today.
The tallest nationality as a whole would be the people of the Netherlands, whose men are on avg. 6ft1, which is about 3-4 inches taller than avg American men.
Yes, Africa has the tallest "tribes" today. There are people among the Tutsi, Dinka, and other tribes where men are often close to 6.5-7 feet avg.I have personally talked to a man from Ghanna who said that if you visit Sudan, you will see people 7 feet tall commonly.
The apparent lack of archaeological evidence for very tall humans does
not mean they didn't exist. For one thing, in which specific locality are you talking about? I'm sure there are plenty of extra tall skeletons in Sudan.

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 08-08-2004 9:36 AM John Williams has replied

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


Message 19 of 352 (131496)
08-08-2004 1:05 AM


Re: Ron Wyatt's discovery of giant human bones.
Yes, I have looked at the photos and studies them to the best of my knowledge. But since I am not a physician I don't know for sure if that is or is not a possibly very large human bone.
But I appreciate your analysis of the bone. I want to see what people who know about the anatomy of the human hand have to say about it.
However, I don't agree with you that it wouldn't be "necessary to go further in the investigation" based on simply looking at the photograph.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-08-2004 1:08 AM John Williams has replied
 Message 22 by sidelined, posted 08-08-2004 1:42 AM John Williams has replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 20 of 352 (131497)
08-08-2004 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by John Williams
08-08-2004 1:05 AM


Re: Ron Wyatt's discovery of giant human bones.
John, could I ask you to look at and follow the advice given in this post?

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe


http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John Williams, posted 08-08-2004 1:05 AM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by John Williams, posted 08-08-2004 1:19 AM AdminAsgara has not replied

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


Message 21 of 352 (131500)
08-08-2004 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by AdminAsgara
08-08-2004 1:08 AM


Re: Ron Wyatt's discovery of giant human bones.
Sorry about that, I will make sure to use the red arrow button.
Thanks for telling me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-08-2004 1:08 AM AdminAsgara has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 22 of 352 (131509)
08-08-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by John Williams
08-08-2004 1:05 AM


Re: Ron Wyatt's discovery of giant human bones.
John Williams
If the contention is that the two photos are of the same "thumb bone"
when it is obvious upon visual examination of the pictures that they are not then why would we proceed with further investigation?
If I were to present to you photos of a UFO and you were to show me the flaw in the optics of my camera that produced the "UFO" why would you further investigate what has already been satifactorily explained?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by John Williams, posted 08-08-2004 1:05 AM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by John Williams, posted 08-08-2004 3:35 AM sidelined has not replied

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


Message 23 of 352 (131529)
08-08-2004 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by sidelined
08-08-2004 1:42 AM


Re: Ron Wyatt's discovery of giant human bones.
hmm. I don't see it as being odvious they are two different bones. They look like the same bone but at different angles and photo quality to me.
But maybe you are right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by sidelined, posted 08-08-2004 1:42 AM sidelined has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 352 (131559)
08-08-2004 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by John Williams
08-08-2004 12:51 AM


Re: Tall individuals is one thing...
I believe there is archaeological evidence that humans at the end of the hunting\gathering stage (before agriculture) were in the height range of your skeletons. I asked for references to see where it would go. In many cases height is limited by diet: there has always been a trend for immigrant peoples to the US to have taller kids due to diet. One could argure that between 6 and 7 feet is 'normal' for well fed sapiens.
As to taller 'giants' you may want to look at some other sources. A book that has some ideas on the bases for some mythological creatures is:
The First Fossil Hunters (click) Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times
Adrienne Mayor - Princeton Univ Pr; (October 1, 2001)
She discusses Cyclops briefly - the book is mainly about the basis for griffins. A good read, imho.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John Williams, posted 08-08-2004 12:51 AM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John Williams, posted 08-08-2004 5:29 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 25 of 352 (131682)
08-08-2004 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
08-08-2004 9:36 AM


Re: Tall individuals is one thing...
Thanks for the reference.
I think that lots of the skeletons of giants and cyclopses that the Greeks found where nothing more than mammoth and extinct elephant or bear fossil bones and skeletons.
If a Mammoth skeleton was arranged in an erect bipedal form, it would probably appear to be a huge 18-20ft tall giant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 08-08-2004 9:36 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 08-08-2004 5:59 PM John Williams has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 352 (131684)
08-08-2004 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by John Williams
08-08-2004 5:29 PM


Re: Tall individuals is one thing...
Adrianne posits just that with the addition that the small eye holes would have been missed in favour of the large nostril (trunk) opening and that this was the basis for cyclops.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John Williams, posted 08-08-2004 5:29 PM John Williams has not replied

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


Message 27 of 352 (132790)
08-11-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Williams
08-06-2004 1:59 AM


The height of Golith.
Actually, a verison of the story of goliath in the Dead sea scrolls had Goliths height at 4 cubits, which is about 6'4"... Considering the
average height of men during that time period was about 5'1, that is plenty tall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John Williams, posted 08-06-2004 1:59 AM John Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John Williams, posted 08-11-2004 7:22 PM ramoss has not replied

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


Message 28 of 352 (132985)
08-11-2004 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ramoss
08-11-2004 12:05 PM


Re: The height of Golith.
You are right Ramoss, except that it says "Four cubits and a span"
a span was about half a cubit. the distance between your thumb and small finger. (8-9 inches)
If the Hebrew common cubit of David's day was ~18 in. this would mean
that Goliath was ~6 ft 9 ins tall either with or without his helmet atop his head. He would tower head and shoulders over most men of that day by nearly 20 inches.
But infact, Goliath was not the tallest giant mentioned in the good book. The Egyptian mentioned in 1Chron. 11. was infact considerably taller than goliath. He was "five cubits high." Even if this were an approximate measure, the image we get is a man 7 ft 6 ins tall.
That would be a giant compared to any ancient man of those days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ramoss, posted 08-11-2004 12:05 PM ramoss has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 29 of 352 (133556)
08-13-2004 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John Williams
08-06-2004 1:59 AM


Short People
I don't think we are meant to be short. Everything was/is affected by poor choices.
The following is one of my favorite bible promises....
But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
It is from Malachi 4, and would indicate that we will, in due time, regain our original stature.
Now.....may the Sun of Righteousness arise......for you.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 08-13-2004 12:20 PM PecosGeorge has replied
 Message 31 by CK, posted 08-13-2004 12:39 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 30 of 352 (133575)
08-13-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by PecosGeorge
08-13-2004 11:47 AM


Re: Short People
"Grow up as calves of the stall??!!"
You mean we'll end up as McDonald's Quarter-Pounders??!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-13-2004 11:47 AM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-13-2004 1:11 PM Coragyps 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