There are no giants in the original bible

a reply to: Seede
a reply to: JackReyes

Ok. so what you are saying is, apart from all the irrelevant waffle, which has nothing to do with the premise of this thread at all
IS THAT NEITHER OF YOU CAN PRODUCE A SINGLE GIANT BONE
despite me asking you several times and you both ignoring the request

Get out of the thread until you can back up your assertions with evidence gentlemen, this isn't your soapbox

a reply to: Seede

No just because the accuracy of the later extent codexes and scrolls are verifiable does not mean that the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls were part of God's inspired word. In order to be so they have to be consistent with the whole Biblical texts, harmonizing with the contents therein.

There were indeed many other works, but none of them claimed to be inspired, and some even contradict the Biblical narrative, such as the Book of Enoch, an apocryphal book, which rightly does not claim a place in the Bible cannon.

But I believe we're all getting widely off topic. I just came in to give the OP my understanding that there is sufficient proof of there being giants in the Bible, not whether all the Dead Sea Scrolls were divinely inspired (which obviously they weren't all inspired, even if they were preserved in tact in the caves near the Dead Sea for two thousand years or so.)

Even when Solomon was alive, almost a thousand years before Christ he mentioned that there was a dedication to making of many books. So even in his day books abounded. And his conclusion was, that a dedication to all of them is wearisome to the flesh:

(Ecclesiastes 12:12) 12 As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.

So we should not be surprised to find other religious and secular works in history that are not divinely inspired.



ETA:

I read the post above mine and it appears that we are getting booted from the thread by the OP. I don't want to overstay my welcome so I'm outta here. Nice conversation.

a reply to: Marduk

Ok. so what you are saying is, apart from all the irrelevant waffle, which has nothing to do with the premise of this thread at all IS THAT NEITHER OF YOU CAN PRODUCE A SINGLE GIANT BONE despite me asking you several times and you both ignoring the request Get out of the thread until you can back up your assertions with evidence gentlemen, this isn't your soapbox

Producing silly giant bones was not the premise of this thread. The premise of this thread was your silly bashing Christians with your stupid premise of proving the KJV bible wrong. That was the entire purpose of your ill thought rant.

On page seven I told you that I would produce your giant bones if you would first produce your proof of the KJV bible being translated wrong. You would not answer my request which was in direct demand to your added silly giant bones.

Page 7 Now if we play the game of detraction and name calling then further discussion fails to accomplish anything. I could also insist that I will show you the bones if you will first show me the autographs. After all it is your claim that you can prove mistranslations when in fact you cannot prove mistranslations of any translator. So show us the claim that you made in your OP that you can prove the KJV translators were wrong. That is your claim. Not show me the bones.

You did not reply to my post whatsoever and your very own thread proves this.
[snipped]

originally posted by: Seede
Producing silly giant bones was not the premise of this thread.

The premise of this thread was to show that the word Giant, did not mean "massive human" when it was used to translate certain nouns in the Bible. That has been more than proven, you seemed to think this was an attack on your faith, because your faith is particularly weak

On page seven I told you that I would produce your giant bones if you would first produce your proof of the KJV bible being translated wrong. You would not answer my request which was in direct demand to your added silly giant bones. .

This has been posted all the way through this thread

In Greek mythology, the Giants or Gigantes (Greek: Γίγαντες, Gigantes, singular Gigas) were a race of great strength and aggression, though not necessarily of great size, known for the Gigantomachy
Archaic and Classical representations show Gigantes as man-sized hoplites (heavily-armed ancient Greek foot soldiers) fully human in form

Imagine that, the word derived from Greek Gigantes (Giant) did not mean massive human to the Greeks, it meant "powerful", but again, because you are a self deluded middle eastern cult believer you don't have the mental faculties to accept anything that you didn't read in your book...

The Greek word was used in Septuagint to refer to men of great size and strength, hence the expanded use in modern languages; in English of very tall and unusually large persons from 1550s

Wow, again, this has been posted all the way through the thread, isn't that the exact thing you were asking for, when it was written it meant "Powerful", but again, your self delusion has blinded you to the facts

Page 7 Now if we play the game of detraction and name calling then further discussion fails to accomplish anything. I could also insist that I will show you the bones if you will first show me the autographs. After all it is your claim that you can prove mistranslations when in fact you cannot prove mistranslations of any translator. So show us the claim that you made in your OP that you can prove the KJV translators were wrong. That is your claim. Not show me the bones.

Its the same question, if you think there were giants and then can't produce any bones, then that significantly weakens your argument, your claim that I produce the names of the authors also weakens your case, but you can't see that because of sky daddy lol

You did not reply to my post whatsoever and your very own thread proves this.

Again, the evidence you have asked for has been posted all the way through the thread, but again, your self delusion has blinded you...

You are indeed disingenuous and very inconsistent as well as a rude and uninviting host. I have also noted your constant insults to ones who disagree with you and your mean spirited foul temper. Your ignorance in this matter is very profound and not worthy of further conversation. You are typical of the hate group on ATS. You, sir, are a loser and a sore loser at that. And to add insult to your injury there is ample evidence of giants as well as Nephilim bones but you are not worthy to that information.

Help, help, I'm being attacked by a person who thinks that there is an invisible man living in the sky...
Lol. your argument is one big ad hominem because you didn't get your way, this thread is not your soapbox and I can imagine how awful it must be for everyone who knows you that whenever they ask you a question, you reach for the Bible.
Grow up man, I have asked you repeatedly to show me, just one giant bone, from the thousands and thousands that you claim must exist and you couldn't do that one simple thing
Your argument is a complete and utter failure, come back when you can actually produce the evidence which you claim exists, but I'm going to say here, that as you are lying about the evidence, pretty much everything else you have said is invalid in light of your dishonest approach to the facts

While we are here, perhaps you can produce the autographs you were asking for yourself, because obviously, if you can't, then the bible has no provenance at all does it. Because you don't have a clue who wrote it
Stick that in your theological pipe and smoke it

originally posted by: Marduk
Kind of, giant is a term used by the translators of the King James version of the bible, because they didn't know what any of the nouns meant. So using the descriptions of "tall" which accompanied the texts, they just translated them all as "giants". Because they believed that giants existed and because it sounds better to say, the Hebrews defeated a tribe of giants, rather than, the Hebrews slaughtered all the tall people.

But the reality is that you're just arguing semantics, here. Sure, the modern notion of what a giant was isn't what the Rephaim or Nephilim, but that's irrelevant to the use of the term to anyone with half of a brain and critical thinking skills. The term "giant" truly is a relative term, and a generic term, to boot. While there is a wide gamut of skin colors that can be called black, that doesn't mean that calling Michael Jackson and Wesley Snipes "black" in the same book would be incorrect, even if their physical attributes differ greatly.

And quite honestly, I'm only 5'5" tall, which would be on the tall side of the apparent average back then. I'd consider someone a foot-and-one-half taller than the average a giant, regardless of their tribal affiliation. My 4'9" mom married someone who was 6'4" tall, so imagine what they looked like walking hand-in-hand down the street.

Used as a relative and generic term for the races of abnormally tall people in translations is not necessarily an incorrect thing to do, but I do agree that using the original terms and names is a more appropriate way to go about recounting something that is supposed to be inspired by one's god.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Marduk
Kind of, giant is a term used by the translators of the King James version of the bible, because they didn't know what any of the nouns meant. So using the descriptions of "tall" which accompanied the texts, they just translated them all as "giants". Because they believed that giants existed and because it sounds better to say, the Hebrews defeated a tribe of giants, rather than, the Hebrews slaughtered all the tall people.

But the reality is that you're just arguing semantics,

Ah, so you need to appreciate the difference between being tall and being a different species.
I started this thread because other posts in this forum are constantly bombarded by creotards making claims like
"Biblical giants built the pyramids"
"Biblical giants built Baalbek"
"Biblical giants built the Golan heights"
All believers think that these tribes mentioned were all mythical giants of great height and strength, a different species of human, later wiped out by the righteous tribes of Israel for being wicked and sinful

As has been shown in this thread, the word giant when used in the Bible, never meant giant, its primary usage was "powerful", or tall but even so, lifting a 2 ton block and moving it half a mile is beyond any human that ever existed..

So thanks for your observations, but maybe you should have paid more attention to the rest of the thread before you posted. Its not semantics, its the difference between reality and fiction. Fiction that doesn't exist in the original version.

a reply to: Marduk

Nah, it is semantics. This was in response to your comment (not including your own comments) four replies into the thread. I was responding to the comment you made at that point with the thread in mind up to that point.

What happened after that is irrelevant to my comment, no matter how many comments were added between mine and the one of yours to which I replied.

So, you're welcome for my observation, because paying attention to the rest of the thread was unnecessary in terms of the comment that I made, nor is it dependent on what "creotards" might say.

You're wrong about the Numbers passage... and you deliberately omitted part of the verse to suit your agenda. Your deceit has been uncovered.

originally posted by: Marduk

And there we saw the giants ... And we were in our own sight as grasshopper, and so we were in their sight.

Nice try...

Here's the full verse:

Numbers 13:33 (Youngs Literal)

‘We are not able to go up against the people, for it [is] [stronger than we (32) and they bring out an evil account of the land which they have spied unto the sons of Israel, saying, ‘The land into which we passed over to spy it, is a land eating up its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in its midst [are] men of stature; (33) and there we saw the Nephilim, sons of Anak, of the Nephilim; and we are in our own eyes as grasshoppers; and so we were in their eyes.’

And no.... the "grasshoppers" reference doesn't mean the number of the armies... it means that we were the size of grasshoppers in their eyes. Most, if not all Bible scholars concur on that point.

So you're just wrong.... again.

1 Samuel 17:4-7

A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. (a) 5 He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels (b); 6 on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. 7 His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels.(c) His shield bearer went ahead of him.

(a) 9' 9" tall or over 3 meters
(b) 125 lbs or 58 kg
(c) 15 lbs or 6.9 kg

Nope no mention of giants... pfft....

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
You're wrong about the Numbers passage... and you deliberately omitted part of the verse to suit your agenda. Your deceit has been uncovered.

I think all you've uncovered here for all to see is your own idiocy and inability to read English


.

The passage quite clearly says
"we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'"
So they saw each other like grasshoppers
Heres an enlightening video



The first thing when you see these grasshoppers is not, "oooh theyre giants" is it. lol
Its the number of them which makes them good for descriptive purposes.

back to the relevant passage again
"we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'"
So they both looked the same size to each other
So unless you are now trying to claim that the Israelites were also giants, which wouldn't make any sense, then you have it wrong
And I think you actually know that deep down inside, but are too proud to admit that something you've believed since Sunday school is completely erroneous.

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
1 Samuel 17:4-7

A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. (a) 5 He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels (b); 6 on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. 7 His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels.(c) His shield bearer went ahead of him.

(a) 9' 9" tall or over 3 meters
(b) 125 lbs or 58 kg
(c) 15 lbs or 6.9 kg

Nope no mention of giants... pfft....

We already knew you were desperate, there was no need for you to go prove it

Goliath's stature grew at the hand of narrators or scribes: the oldest manuscripts—the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, the 1st century historian Josephus, and the 4th century Septuagint manuscripts—all give his height as "four cubits and a span" (6 feet 9 inches or 2.06 metres) whereas the Masoretic Text gives this as "six cubits and a span" (9 feet 9 inches or 2.97 metres

en.wikipedia.org...

Or if you prefer to read it in a bible about 1900 years older than the piece of crap you believe in
www.ellopos.net...

And there went forth a mighty man out of the army of the Philistines, Goliath, by name, out of Geth, his height [was] four cubits and a span.

four cubits and a span = 6'9

would you like one more opportunity to show us all what your ignorance doesn't tell you ?

a reply to: Marduk

Let the facts speak for themselves, Marduk you should know better I see you all the time on ATS with some good info and helpful.

The others I dont know too well, but same goes. Throw facts out while quoting the poster. No need to get bitchy

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Marduk

Let the facts speak for themselves, Marduk you should know better I see you all the time on ATS with some good info and helpful.

I do know better, I know that if you really piss someone off, they will go research to prove you wrong rather than rely on their memory, When they do that they actually learn something
when I am proving someone wrong I always behave like this for that reason. If I was non committal no one would learn anything
I don't dislike anyone here (Maybe Harte) and no one here has ever made me slightly angry, this is the internet after all, not the real world
But I figure some people need to be educated. And the best person to do that is themselves
And of course, if that fails and they come back with even more and more bizarre claims to try to justify their incorrect viewpoint, well then, everyone reading it learns..
I know its abrasive, but if that's the only way to get through to someone then that's the only way...

originally posted by: Marduk
I don't dislike anyone here (Maybe Harte) and no one here has ever made me slightly angry, this is the internet after all, not the real world

Watch it, or I'll start pointing out all your little errors like the grammar police.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Marduk
I don't dislike anyone here (Maybe Harte) and no one here has ever made me slightly angry, this is the internet after all, not the real world

Watch it, or I'll start pointing out all your little errors like the grammar police.

Harte

You are responsible for me being here buddy
This is all on you

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Marduk
I don't dislike anyone here (Maybe Harte) and no one here has ever made me slightly angry, this is the internet after all, not the real world

Watch it, or I'll start pointing out all your little errors like the grammar police.

Harte

You are responsible for me being here buddy
This is all on you

Tell me you regret it.

Harte

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
You're wrong about the Numbers passage... and you deliberately omitted part of the verse to suit your agenda. Your deceit has been uncovered.

I think all you've uncovered here for all to see is your own idiocy and inability to read English


.

The passage quite clearly says
"we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'"
So they saw each other like grasshoppers
Heres an enlightening video



The first thing when you see these grasshoppers is not, "oooh theyre giants" is it. lol
Its the number of them which makes them good for descriptive purposes.

back to the relevant passage again
"we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'"
So they both looked the same size to each other
So unless you are now trying to claim that the Israelites were also giants, which wouldn't make any sense, then you have it wrong
And I think you actually know that deep down inside, but are too proud to admit that something you've believed since Sunday school is completely erroneous.




Your insults don't lend much credence to your argument.... and I seriously doubt that you would have the balls to insult me to my face. Actually, I KNOW that you don't have the balls.

The only thing erroneous here is your explanation of the passage in question. As I pointed out earlier, most bible scholars agree on the interpretation that I put forth.... not your completely fabricated, ridiculous and incorrect explanation.

If you disagree with me, just tell me I'm wrong instead of hiding behind your keyboard slinging insults my way. That's just pathetic and clearly shows you have no valid rebuttal or a spine for that matter.

So the legend of Jack the Giant Killer is a lie when Jack killed the giant named Cormoran ?

Cornelius who Cornwall is named after was with Brutus of Troy (Britain) when they invaded England.

Why does legend not say 8ft tall wraith / banshee or tall man (Og) in terms of the Rapha that Cornelius confronted down here in Cornwall, UK ?

There is a circular grave stone that is very large on St Michaels Mount where Cormoron was allegedly buried by Jack.

a reply to: Rapha

Wiki that Jack!

Nice! Had to look it up after hearing about the grave

originally posted by: Rapha
So the legend of Jack the Giant Killer is a lie when Jack killed the giant named Cormoran ?

A lie?

The giant eventually known as Cormoran is attributed with constructing St. Michael's Mount, a tidal island off Cornwall's southern coast. According to the folklore, he carried white granite from the mainland at low tide to build the island. In some versions, the giant's wife, Cormelian, assisted by carrying stones in her apron. According to one version, when Cormoran fell asleep from exhaustion, his more industrious wife fetched greenstone from a nearer source, eschewing the less accessible granite. When she was halfway back, Cormoran awoke to discover Cormelian bringing different stones than he wanted, and kicked her. The stones fell from her apron and formed Chapel Rock

Why, no. Not at all.
Sounds perfectly plausible to me.


Harte