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.

 

Proof of Ancient Giants?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by JOHNNYMURDER
Another prime example Marduk

You kill a thread by ridiculing someone.

Please feel free to prove what he is saying is wrong...Oh...you can't can you?

Does anyone else see a pattern forming here?



While you and some may not agree with Marduk's choice of argument and methods of persuasion, I think you will find that if you check his data, in most instances he is correct. Honestly, I see Marduk as a serious researcher who has spent more time than need be necessary regurtitating the same facts over and over again every time a new poster comes in. As for remarks on "experts" and whatnot on ATS trying to defend their "livelihood and status", do you honestly believe these people got to where they were on some puffed up bs? You attain status on ATS based on actual credential. ATS is made up of skeptics, and as the popular saying goes, "you can't con a conman."
We've all been in positions where we thought we knew something and were proven wrong. It happens. As you said, we are human. The difference is in the evidence provided. So what if 99.9 percent of people don't believe what is right in front of them? The only thing that this proves is that 99.9 percent of people are blind to truth. They either don't want to believe, or refuse to. Granted, certain people might defend to the death an ideal they have spent a considerable amount of time molding and smoothing into their livelihood, but the evidence will speak for itself. I could understand your point if these ATS "experts" were standing on the side of an obviously losing battle, but at least in this case, the sides are clear, and only one really makes sense when you review all that there is to be seen.
Do I agree with the ridicule? No. Do I find it necessary at times? Maybe. People vent frustration in different ways. I might go about things a little differently myself, but the basic point is still the same. Pay attention, you are often presented with the answer to your question by the people you don't really want to hear from. If you are truly seeking knowledge and not a quarrel, pride comes before the fall. Swallow it.

[edit on 20-11-2006 by EdenKaia]




posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   


Another prime example Marduk

You kill a thread by ridiculing someone.

Please feel free to prove what he is saying is wrong...Oh...you can't can you?

Does anyone else see a pattern forming here

if you'd like me to prove that angels are based on the sumerian leser gods the IGIGI then ask me to
that is simplicity itself
you know if someones bluffing and you call them on it they back down
as I'm not backing down on this one Johnny what does that suggest to you



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I think that the Seraphim have no shape at all, at least none that can in any way be perceived by such lowly creatures as ourselves.
Harte


Now, if you consider the New Testament a valid source, then no. (I personally take it with more than a grain of salt)

Seraphim take on at least 3 different forms within the Bible, New and Old Testament.

1- They are seen as spinning wheels on fire within Daniel.
2- They are seen as men with 6 wings and 4 heads in Isaiah or Daniel. (Not too sure on this one)
3- They are beasts with different heads who's bodies are completely covered by eyeballs.

The not viewable by man part is cleared up by the descriptions being personal accounts. John himself sees them.
Hope this helps.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
I stumbled upon this website that I am going to provide the link for and I must say, this is the first time I have been presented with actual evidence of any kind, substantial evidence, of the existance of giants tens of thousands of years ago, or possibly sooner.

The book of Genesis tells us there were giants in the early days of mankind, and that these giants were offspring of fallen angels who had children with human women. This would lead one to consider that angels are actually physical beings, being able to 'fall to earth' and physically have intercourse with human women, according to the book of Genesis. When I say physical beings, I'm talking about intelligent lifeforms from somewhere other than the planet Earth originally. But if the giants existed, whether they were actual halfbreed offspring of other worldly beings and humans or they were simply the 'large' version of us isn't important. There were huge versions of modern animals and insects, like the Great Shark(60ft), the Crocodile's ancestor of similar stature, bugs as big as small animals, etc.

Instead of paraphrasing and presenting the persons arguements, I thought i'd link to the site so you can draw your conclusions from the source.

s8int.com...


[edit on 19-9-2006 by runetang]



The one thing that is taken out of context here & is incorrec,t is the part about Fallen Angels (or Angels in general for that matter) having sexual intercourse with women, & producing offspring.

Angels are Non-Coporial, non reproductive beings. Meaning, They don't have a "physical" body like humans do, & they were not created with the ability to reproduce.

Jesus also made it clear that angels do not engage in sexual activities, (Matthew 22:30).

So while I DO believe that giants did inhabit the earth, I don't believe that they were the offspring of Angels..... fallen or otherwise.

Articles like the one given, are partly to blame for people questioning the validity of the Bible.
False teachings, whether blatantly meant to mislead, or just out of an innocent misinterpretation of the scriptures cause sooooo much confusion among newer Christians, & Non-Believers.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
A quick note concerning Matthew 22:30.....
You might ask, "What does this have to do with having sexual intercourse?"

Well, God's reason for marriage was to join a man & woman, so they may reproduce & bear children in a legitimite relationship. (paraphrasing here)

God does not advocate sexual relations outside of marriage.
So in Matthew 22:30, when they question was asked about the widow who married seven brothers, & who's wife would she be in heaven?......

Jesus was saying, "Nobody's."
We will be like the Angels. We won't be "married" & won't be given in marriage... (which again, is the ceremonial procedure for a man & woman, to "lawfully" bear children).

Hopefully that might help clear up any confusion my post may have presented.
;o)



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
thats funny because the Bible that I have (i.e. the original hebrew version and not a later redaction) calls them Nephilim
and Enoch says the Nephilim were giants and children of the watchers (spiritual angels) and human women



"But now the giants who are born from the (union of) the spirits and the flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, because their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth. Evil spirits have come out of their bodies. Because from the day that they were created from the holy ones they became the Watchers; their first origin is the spiritual foundation.

so which version of the Bible are you quoting from
You are aware no doubt that the Bible has been discredited by the Catholic church
www.timesonline.co.uk...
what do you think of that ?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
thats funny because the Bible that I have (i.e. the original hebrew version and not a later redaction) calls them Nephilim
and Enoch says the Nephilim were giants and children of the watchers (spiritual angels) and human women



"But now the giants who are born from the (union of) the spirits and the flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, because their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth. Evil spirits have come out of their bodies. Because from the day that they were created from the holy ones they became the Watchers; their first origin is the spiritual foundation.

so which version of the Bible are you quoting from
You are aware no doubt that the Bible has been discredited by the Catholic church
www.timesonline.co.uk...
what do you think of that ?



Personally I think the catholic church has a few problems to begin with....
So I'm not bothered by their stance on why they may choose to discredit the bible.
But that's a whole different subject anyway.

You say you have the original Hebrew version of the bible? Is it IN Hebrew? (And you're fluent in hebrew?) Or was it translated to English?

The thing to look at is, what do the other verses that go with the example you gave say?
If you take a singal verse, & read it alone, you may not understand the context of what is being said. So it's important to read more than just one verse, to fully understand the meaning.

I think you may be misinterpreting what you've read.
But I can't be sure, because I have no idea what the complete subject & topic is.



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
have you read the book of Enoch
www.ccel.org...
or is it not allowed because its apocryphal ?
this is the Hebrew Bible translated into English
www.mechon-mamre.org...
both these sources claim that the Nephilim were physical entities born from spiritual Angels
the Nephilim were sometimes described as giants but not in a physical way more as today you would call someone a giant of industry

so what makes you think Jesus got it right when none of the words in the new testament were written by him
have you read a Gospel according to Jesus lately
you see the dilemma don't you
the Bible is subject to change through time like any other good story is
in the septuagint (thesedays called the Apostles bible) for instance which is supposedly the most accurate version of the original bible still in existence translated by 70 Rabbis at Alexandria (so they'd know right) they claim that not only did they build Pithon and Ramses for Pharoah but that they also built Heliopolis which was On. Heliopolis was a predynastic city so this simply isn't possible. but of course that doesn't matter if its fictional does it. this little detail seems to have been cut from later editions of the bible like for instance the very heavily agendised KJV that you have been studying ( apparently/allegedly
)
Church fathers have been tinkering with the book over the last 1500 years attempting to make it more and more believable by cutting the errors and pretending they never exised as they become apparent

trust me on this I'm not taking anything at all out of context
so to suggest that I am because you don't understand what I'm telling you isn't an answer at all



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Giants = Genetic abnormalities. I know in the early forms of earth people were naturally short, midgets maybe, if you want to say that. I'm 6'8 and still growing. I can't disagree or agree with the relevance of giants being the offspring of angles and earth women because i did not live back then. There will NEVER be evidence of that. If you cant catch an angel on tape, then what makes you think you'll catch an angel in the act



posted on Dec, 4 2006 @ 05:41 AM
link   
english.pravda.ru...
Pravda says its true so that seals it for me
it isn't



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I didn't read all of this pointless argument so I apologize if I say something already said, but someone mentioned that no Jewish scholars believe that the Nephilim were giants . . . well, they may not today, but it was a common belief in Biblical times. As well, the historian Josephus wrote in his book on Jewish history that the Nephilim were giants. I apologize for not having an exact quote or the name of the book; "The Jewish Antiquities" or something like that; I don't have it where I'm at, but it's a fairly well known work.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Antiquities 5.125 (5.2.3) by Flavius Josephus

For which reason they removed their camp to Hebron; and when they had taken it, they slew all the inhabitants. There were till then left the race of giants, who had bodies so large, and countenances so entirely different from other men, that they were surprising to the sight, and terrible to the hearing. The bones of these men are still shown to this very day, unlike to any credible relations of other men.

so doesn't really prove anything does it seeing as he wrote that over 600 years after the Biblical account was written
he was just reporting the same claims that later turn up in the Christian versions of the Bible funnily enough which came from a catholic source
and that Flavius was a roman you know
must be some connection eh






posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
However, he was basing his claims on the beliefs of Jews at the time. While the Christian Bible was compiled at a later date, the Old Testament already existed and Josephus merely recounted the interpretations of the Jews at the time. Whether true or false, this was the accepted norm in the early first millenium.



posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
nope
he was basing his beliefs on Greek translations of the Septuagint
in which the word Nephilim was translated as "gigantes" which does not mean “giant” but “earth-born,” from the Greek gigas.
In Latin the word Gigas means Giant so its a pure mistranslation on his part
later editions of the Bible picked up on this mistranslation and people have been confused by its meaning ever since because they don't read ancient greek too well

this greek version of the Hebrew text had been in existence for 350 years by the time Flavius Josephus was born. So the idea that the Nephilim were giants had long been established by everyone but the Hebrews.

the book of Enoch which is most responsible for this error which in its most complete version is translated from Ethiopean also post dates this mistranslation error and got to Ethiopea in the first place via Rome

so
all the claims that the Nephilim were giants come from the same source
an error made around 300bce at the library of Alexandria when the Hebrew bible was first translated into Greek



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Even if this is true (not saying that it is, necessarily) this doesn't explain Goliath, or the Anakim, which were specifically said to be large in stature, if not giants.

It makes sense to me that if an angel and a human had offspring, the offspring would be great in size. I'm going to do some reading in the Book of Enoch, which I know speaks extensively of this event.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
That didn't take very long. This is a portion from the Book of Enoch, which deals quite a bit with the fall of the angels.

Enoch 7

1
And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms
2
and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they
3
became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed
4
all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against
5
them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and
6
fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   


Seen nearer, the Thing was incredibly strange, for it was no mere
insensate machine driving on its way. Machine it was, with a ringing
metallic pace, and long, flexible, glittering tentacles (one of which
gripped a young pine tree) swinging and rattling about its strange
body. It picked its road as it went striding along, and the brazen
hood that surmounted it moved to and fro with the inevitable
suggestion of a head looking about. Behind the main body was a huge
mass of white metal like a gigantic fisherman's basket, and puffs of
green smoke squirted out from the joints of the limbs as the monster
swept by me.


look look the decription I found of a martian war machine in a book must prove that it was real and that Mars was inhabited up until the end of the 19th century when they invaded Surrey in England
or else why would someone write that it was
doh


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Added Link



[edit on 10/12/06 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Giants of the Breitenwinner Cave
Events recently discussed on talk shows and through published articles are providing strong evidence that bones of a giant race have been discovered in Breitenwinner Cave in Germany.
The developing story, ancient evidence backing the discovery, graphics, and a video of an exploration can be accessed at The Breitenwinner Cave: cavelore.com...
An article published this discovery: Giants - Myth or Reality?www.ufodigest.com...



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
so you're claiming a 500 year old claim which was never substantiated and a picture of a 9" long arm bone is proof of Giants ?

hmmmm

I'm not convinced






posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Ligers. Genetic crossbreeding can produce gigantism. Perfectly feasible that a sub-human race of "angels" could breed with humans to produce "giants".



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join