thehomer:

And there are giants available now. In fact, some of them actually suffer from an illness known as gigantism.

^^The Bible describes several races of giants not isolated individuals suffering from excessive growth hormone production.

thehomer:

Then, I take it that you do not think angels are mythical creatures.
So, can you describe an angel? What reasons do you have to believe that these angels are available?

Angels are not mythical creatures. They may sometimes appear as men. . .descriptions of them are in the Bible.

aletheia:

^^The Bible describes several races of giants not isolated individuals suffering from excessive growth hormone production.

Angels are not mythical creatures. They may sometimes appear as men. . .descriptions of them are in the Bible.

Do you believe that Zeus is mythical? What about Jinns(that appear in the Koran)? Whats your belief about them, are they real or mythical?

aletheia:

^^The Bible describes several races of giants not isolated individuals suffering from excessive growth hormone production.

We're talking here about nephilim not just giants.

aletheia:

Angels are not mythical creatures. They may sometimes appear as men. . .descriptions of them are in the Bible.

Could you please provide a summary of what angels are supposed to be? The descriptions in the Bible are not quite consistent.
Why do you think these angels are available? Those that appear as men, how do you know they are not just men?

thehomer:

We're talking here about nephilim not just giants.

^^We 've been talking about giants all these while.

aletheia:

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

thehomer:

And there are giants available now. In fact, some of them actually suffer from an illness known as gigantism.

Nephilim is a generic name for a race of giants that populated the earth during Noah's time and also afterward in Canaan during Abraham's time and just before the Israelites invaded the land. The word is derived from the Hebrew nâphal (to fall) referring to their origins as the offspring of fallen angels. In the Bible we find references to subgroups of the nephilim going by the names of Anakim, Zamzummim, Horim, Avim, Emim, Rephaim and Zuzim.

#1. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33)

#2. Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there. (Deuteronomy 1:28)

#3. That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead: (Deuteronomy 2:20-21)

#4. As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even unto this day: And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.) (Deuteronomy 2:22-23 q.v. Deu 2:12)

#5. The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. (Deuteronomy 2:10-11)

#6. And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,(Genesis 14:5)

thehomer:

Could you please provide a summary of what angels are supposed to be? The descriptions in the Bible are not quite consistent.
Why do you think these angels are available? Those that appear as men, how do you know they are not just men?

I am willing to do that; but first you need to let me know which descriptions you find inconsistent---the Bible does include descriptions of different types of supernatural beings: e.g Cherubim, Seraphim etc. The word angel (malak) simply means messenger and could be used of human beings. For those that appeared as men; the Bible passages detailing the encounters with them showed how they transcended being merely mortal men.

aletheia:

^^We 've been talking about giants all these while.

That would be so if you consider all giants to be nephilim.

aletheia:

Nephilim is a generic name for a race of giants that populated the earth during Noah's time and also afterward in Canaan during Abraham's time and just before the Israelites invaded the land. The word is derived from the Hebrew nâphal (to fall) referring to their origins as the offspring of fallen angels. In the Bible we find references to subgroups of the nephilim going by the names of Anakim, Zamzummim, Horim, Avim, Emim, Rephaim and Zuzim.

#1. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33)

#2. Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there. (Deuteronomy 1:28)

#3. That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead: (Deuteronomy 2:20-21)

#4. As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even unto this day: And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.) (Deuteronomy 2:22-23 q.v. Deu 2:12)

#5. The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. (Deuteronomy 2:10-11)

#6. And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,(Genesis 14:5)

Are all giants nephilim? If they are not, then one cannot substitute all mention of giants in the Bible for nephilim.

aletheia:

I am willing to do that; but first you need to let me know which descriptions you find inconsistent---the Bible does include descriptions of different types of supernatural beings: e.g Cherubim, Seraphim etc. The word angel (malak) simply means messenger and could be used of human beings. For those that appeared as men; the Bible passages detailing the encounters with them showed how they transcended being merely mortal men.

Those with wings in various numbers.
Described as a man wearing linen with a gold belt with funny eyes and skin colour in Daniel 10 and other places.
They were described as being like lightening with white clothes in Matthew 28.

Then we also consider the fact that just because it is mentioned in the Bible does not make it real just as the mention of the Balrog in J. R. R. Tolkien's works does not make them real.

So my question again, how do you know that angels are real and not just mythological creatures?

thehomer:

That would be so if you consider all giants to be nephilim.
Are all giants nephilim? If they are not, then one cannot substitute all mention of giants in the Bible for nephilim.

I honestly don't see what you find confusing about the nephilim. The Bible is clear that this refers to a race of giants descended from fallen angels. . .and gives the names of the different groups. That this is not a description of isolated cases of excessive growth hormone (gigantism) is clear from the passages; e.g: And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33)
You do not accept the authority of the Bible but at least be honest enough to admit that it's description of the nephilim is consistent. In the Bible the word translated giant is nephilim in Hebrew except in Genesis 14 where Rephaim is derived from rapha. . .a word that I already pointed out to you refers to their origins: as always something is lost in translation but if you examine the Hebrew; you find my claim correct. The Bible makes clear the distinction between men of great stature (e.g Saul; first king of Israel) and the various giants. Cf. this description of Saul:
(1Sa 10:23)  And they ran and fetched him thence: and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward.

thehomer:

Those with wings in various numbers.

Cherubim and Seraphim

thehomer:

Described as a man wearing linen with a gold belt with funny eyes and skin colour in Daniel 10 and other places.
They were described as being like lightening with white clothes in Matthew 28.

thehomer:

Then we also consider the fact that just because it is mentioned in the Bible does not make it real just as the mention of the Balrog in J. R. R. Tolkien's works does not make them real.

^^The Bible records and sets forth true happenings: JRR Tolkien's are works of fiction. Mention in the Bible means it's real.

thehomer:

So my question again, how do you know that angels are real and not just mythological creatures?

^^Here is my extended answer based on the Bible:

Angel (מלאך, mal'ākh; ἄγγελος, ággelos):

I. Definition and Scripture Terms

The word angel is applied in Scripture to an order of supernatural or heavenly beings whose business it is to act as God's messengers to men, and as agents who carry out His will. Both in Hebrew and Greek the word is applied to human messengers (1 Ki 19:2; Luk 7:24); in Hebrew it is used in the singular to denote a Divine messenger, and in the plural for human messengers, although there are exceptions to both usages. It is applied to the prophet Haggai (Hag 1:13), to the priest (Mal 2:7), and to the messenger who is to prepare the way of the Lord (Mal 3:1).

Other Hebrew words and phrases applied to angels are benē hā-'ĕlōhı̄m (Gen 6:2, Gen 6:4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1) and benē 'ēlı̄m (Psa 29:1; Psa 89:6), i.e. sons of the 'ĕlōhı̄m or 'ēlı̄m; ḳedhōshı̄m “holy ones” (Psa 89:5, Psa 89:7), a name suggesting the fact that they belong to God; ‛ı̄r, ‛ı̄rı̄m, “watcher,” “watchers” (Dan 4:13, Dan 4:17, Dan 4:23). Other expressions are used to designate angels collectively: ṣōdh, “council” (Psa 89:7), where the reference may be to an inner group of exalted angels; ‛ēdhāh and ḳāhāl, “congregation” (Psa 82:1; Psa 89:5); and finally cābhā', cebhā'ōth, “host,” “hosts,” as in the familiar phrase “the God of hosts.”

In New Testament the word ággelos, when it refers to a Divine messenger, is frequently accompanied by some phrase which makes this meaning clear, e.g. “the angels of heaven” (Mat 24:36). Angels belong to the “heavenly host” (Luk 2:13). In reference to their nature they are called “spirits” (Heb 1:14).  In two passages the word archággelos, “archangel” or chief angel, occurs: “the voice of the archangel” (1Th 4:16), and “Michael the archangel” (Jud 1:9).

Continued. . .

. . .continuing

II. The Reality of Angels

A belief in angels, if not indispensable to the faith of a Christian, has its place there. In such a belief there is nothing unnatural or contrary to reason. Why should there not be such an order of beings, if God has so willed it? For the Christian the whole question turns on the weight to be attached to the words of our Lord. All are agreed that He teaches the existence, reality, and activity of angelic beings. So we find ourselves restricted to the conclusion that we have the guaranty of Christ's word for the existence of angels; for most Christians that will settle the question.

The activity of angels may not be visible to us, because their mediating work is done; Christ has founded the kingdom of the Spirit, and God's Spirit speaks directly to the spirit of man. This new and living way has been opened up to us by Jesus Christ, upon whom faith can yet behold the angels of God ascending and descending. Still they watch the lot of man, and rejoice in his salvation; still they join in the praise and adoration of God, the Lord of hosts, still can they be regarded as “ministering spirits sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation.”

(Joh 1:51) And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

aletheia:

I honestly don't see what you find confusing about the nephilim. The Bible is clear that this refers to a race of giants descended from fallen angels. . .and gives the names of the different groups. That this is not a description of isolated cases of excessive growth hormone (gigantism) is clear from the passages; e.g: And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33)
You do not accept the authority of the Bible but at least be honest enough to admit that it's description of the nephilim is consistent. In the Bible the word translated giant is nephilim in Hebrew except in Genesis 14 where Rephaim is derived from rapha. . .a word that I already pointed out to you refers to their origins: as always something is lost in translation but if you examine the Hebrew; you find my claim correct. The Bible makes clear the distinction between men of great stature (e.g Saul; first king of Israel) and the various giants. Cf. this description of Saul:
(1Sa 10:23)  And they ran and fetched him thence: and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward.

Let me get this straight. So according to you, nephilim equals giant except in Genesis 14? This is a very interesting conclusion. This of course means a group of people encountering another group whose population was generally bigger than them, concluded that they were giants and thus sons of angels.

aletheia:

Cherubim and Seraphim

^^The Bible records and sets forth true happenings: JRR Tolkien's are works of fiction. Mention in the Bible means it's real.

This is debatable. There are lots of phenomena in the Bible that we generally do not accept as true. Except for people with "true faith".

aletheia:

^^Here is my extended answer based on the Bible:

Angel (מלאך, mal'ākh; ἄγγελος, ággelos):

I. Definition and Scripture Terms

The word angel is applied in Scripture to an order of supernatural or heavenly beings whose business it is to act as God's messengers to men, and as agents who carry out His will. Both in Hebrew and Greek the word is applied to human messengers (1 Ki 19:2; Luk 7:24); in Hebrew it is used in the singular to denote a Divine messenger, and in the plural for human messengers, although there are exceptions to both usages. It is applied to the prophet Haggai (Hag 1:13), to the priest (Mal 2:7), and to the messenger who is to prepare the way of the Lord (Mal 3:1).

Other Hebrew words and phrases applied to angels are benē hā-'ĕlōhı̄m (Gen 6:2, Gen 6:4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1) and benē 'ēlı̄m (Psa 29:1; Psa 89:6), i.e. sons of the 'ĕlōhı̄m or 'ēlı̄m; ḳedhōshı̄m “holy ones” (Psa 89:5, Psa 89:7), a name suggesting the fact that they belong to God; ‛ı̄r, ‛ı̄rı̄m, “watcher,” “watchers” (Dan 4:13, Dan 4:17, Dan 4:23). Other expressions are used to designate angels collectively: ṣōdh, “council” (Psa 89:7), where the reference may be to an inner group of exalted angels; ‛ēdhāh and ḳāhāl, “congregation” (Psa 82:1; Psa 89:5); and finally cābhā', cebhā'ōth, “host,” “hosts,” as in the familiar phrase “the God of hosts.”

In New Testament the word ággelos, when it refers to a Divine messenger, is frequently accompanied by some phrase which makes this meaning clear, e.g. “the angels of heaven” (Mat 24:36). Angels belong to the “heavenly host” (Luk 2:13). In reference to their nature they are called “spirits” (Heb 1:14).  In two passages the word archággelos, “archangel” or chief angel, occurs: “the voice of the archangel” (1Th 4:16), and “Michael the archangel” (Jud 1:9).

Continued. . .

Is this why it should be taken as real? Simply because it's in the Bible?

aletheia:

. . .continuing

II. The Reality of Angels

A belief in angels, if not indispensable to the faith of a Christian, has its place there. In such a belief there is nothing unnatural or contrary to reason. Why should there not be such an order of beings, if God has so willed it? For the Christian the whole question turns on the weight to be attached to the words of our Lord. All are agreed that He teaches the existence, reality, and activity of angelic beings. So we find ourselves restricted to the conclusion that we have the guaranty of Christ's word for the existence of angels; for most Christians that will settle the question.

There is a lot contrary to reason. It only become reasonable if one simply first accepts that their holy book or angel mythology book is true.

aletheia:

The activity of angels may not be visible to us, because their mediating work is done; Christ has founded the kingdom of the Spirit, and God's Spirit speaks directly to the spirit of man. This new and living way has been opened up to us by Jesus Christ, upon whom faith can yet behold the angels of God ascending and descending. Still they watch the lot of man, and rejoice in his salvation; still they join in the praise and adoration of God, the Lord of hosts, still can they be regarded as “ministering spirits sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation.”

(Joh 1:51) And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

So angels are no longer needed? Or is it that their activities are not distinguishable from regular occurrences.

The word, "Nephilim", means "those who from the sky came". The term does not mean, giants. But in the sumerian mythology, these nephilims were tall, much taller than humans and that is why they were regarded as giants. They were reputed to be of heights starting from 7 to 8 feet and above. I guess one call those of such heights giants.
Don't we have humans of such heights today? All we have to look for proofs are those basketball players and those show wrestling ballet dancers who call themselves wrestlers. Aren't those giants already?

thehomer:

Let me get this straight. So according to you, nephilim equals giant except in Genesis 14? This is a very interesting conclusion.

How you twist my words; simply because you refuse to accept the authority of the Bible. Do you know of any where else where nephilim is not translated as giant? Do my words suggest that the word nephilim occurs in Genesis 14? No. As I said:

aletheia:

I honestly don't see what you find confusing about the nephilim. The Bible is clear that this refers to a race of giants descended from fallen angels. . .and gives the names of the different groups. That this is not a description of isolated cases of excessive growth hormone (gigantism) is clear from the passages; e.g: And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33)
You do not accept the authority of the Bible but at least be honest enough to admit that it's description of the nephilim is consistent. In the Bible the word translated giant is nephilim in Hebrew except in Genesis 14 where Rephaim is derived from rapha. . .a word that I already pointed out to you refers to their origins: as always something is lost in translation but if you examine the Hebrew; you find my claim correct. The Bible makes clear the distinction between men of great stature (e.g Saul; first king of Israel) and the various giants. Cf. this description of Saul:
(1Sa 10:23)  And they ran and fetched him thence: and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward.

I wrote in plain English. Your misapprehension arises from not been well acquainted with the language of the Bible and the etymology of certain words. Let me summarize and clarify for you:
#1. Nephilim is a generic name for giant offspring born by human females to fallen angelic beings that occurs twice in the Bible.
#2. It is consistently translated in the Bible as giants.
#3. Both times it is so used and translated; the text makes clear it refers to races or groups of people of beyond human height.
#4. Rephaim used in Genesis 14 is derived from the Hebrew word rapha meaning giant. It occurs 25 times in the Bible and is translated as giant 17 times and as Rephaim the remaining times.
#5. The Bible distinguishes between tall men and giants.

thehomer:

This of course means a group of people encountering another group whose population was generally bigger than them, concluded that they were giants and thus sons of angels.

Not so. The Bible quite clearly states the origin of these nephilim:

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

thehomer:

This is debatable. There are lots of phenomena in the Bible that we generally do not accept as true. Except for people with "true faith".

As you well know: that certain phenomena are not generally accepted does not make them untrue. Truth has never been a question of the majority report.

thehomer:

Is this why it should be taken as real? Simply because it's in the Bible?

Actually yes. I consider the Bible to be a faithful and true record of God's dealings with mankind.

Jenwitemi:

The word, "Nephilim", means "those who from the sky came". The term does not mean, giants. . .

Source for this etymology?

Am I the only person who thinks that aletheia's postings are incomprehensible gibberish? Putting aside the rubbish about mythical creatures called nephilim, his arguments seem to be "the bible says so, it must be true."
The problem with this approach is the bible has been proved to be wrong in so many respects, that this approach has been discredited many times over.
It seems to me that people like him are so dismissive of science that does not support their stone-aged views, but are very eager to jump on the scientific bandwagon when it seems to support their superstitious views.
This topic is serious woo.
 
There are a couple of fairies at the end of my garden. They come out every night when the moon is full. I have never seen them but I have a book which tells me that they exist. If I insisted on this being true, I risk being committed to a psychiatric unit  until I am cured of my fantasies. Yet literalists bible readers are allowed to get away with such nonsense.

aletheia:

How you twist my words; simply because you refuse to accept the authority of the Bible. Do you know of any where else where nephilim is not translated as giant? Do my words suggest that the word nephilim occurs in Genesis 14? No. As I said:

I twisted your words? Please do not confuse yourself.

aletheia:

I wrote in plain English. Your misapprehension arises from not been well acquainted with the language of the Bible and the etymology of certain words.

I'm no biblical scholar but I do understand English well enough. Here's your quote again (emphasis mine) In context.

aletheia:

I honestly don't see what you find confusing about the nephilim. The Bible is clear that this refers to a race of giants descended from fallen angels. . .and gives the names of the different groups. That this is not a description of isolated cases of excessive growth hormone (gigantism) is clear from the passages; e.g: And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33)
You do not accept the authority of the Bible but at least be honest enough to admit that it's description of the nephilim is consistent. [size=14pt]In the Bible the word translated giant is nephilim in Hebrew except in Genesis 14 where Rephaim is derived from rapha. . .a word that I already pointed out to you refers to their origins: [/size]as always something is lost in translation but if you examine the Hebrew; you find my claim correct. The Bible makes clear the distinction between men of great stature (e.g Saul; first king of Israel) and the various giants. Cf. this description of Saul:
(1Sa 10:23)  And they ran and fetched him thence: and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward.

As you can see, from the sentence in bold an italics above nephilim equals giant except in Genesis 14.

aletheia:

Let me summarize and clarify for you:
#1. Nephilim is a generic name for giant offspring born by human females to fallen angelic beings that occurs twice in the Bible.
#2. It is consistently translated in the Bible as giants.

This is what I said.

aletheia:

#3. Both times it is so used and translated; the text makes clear it refers to races or groups of people of beyond human height.

i.e giants. Especially when compared to the regular Israelites.

aletheia:

#4. Rephaim used in Genesis 14 is derived from the Hebrew word rapha meaning giant. It occurs 25 times in the Bible and is translated as giant 17 times and as Rephaim the remaining times.
#5. The Bible distinguishes between tall men and giants.

So, how tall were the nephilim?

aletheia:

Not so. The Bible quite clearly states the origin of these nephilim:
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)

But, the veracity of the Bible is also in question.

aletheia:

As you well know: that certain phenomena are not generally accepted does not make them untrue. Truth has never been a question of the majority report.

While truth does not depend on consensus, it is generally plausible especially about historic events.

aletheia:

Actually yes. I consider the Bible to be a faithful and true record of God's dealings with mankind.

Then, this is the source of your problem. One does not accept myths uncritically.

thehomer:

As you can see, from the sentence in bold an italics above nephilim equals giant except in Genesis 14.

So what is your point exactly? Did I not clarify for you that the word nephilim occurs twice in the Bible and is on both occasions translated as giant? Did I also not show you that the other word translated as giant in the OT is rapha? As I stated earlier you may choose to disbelieve the Bible but nonethless; that doesn't detract from the fact that it's description of the nephilim is consistently that of a race of giants; not isolated individuals suffering from gigantism.

thehomer:

This is what I said.
i.e giants. Especially when compared to the regular Israelites.
So, how tall were the nephilim?

Were the Israelites a race of pygmies; or normal sized men like us? Are you saying if you were to encounter a race of giants, you wouldn't recognize them for what they were?

How tall were the nephilim? The measured heights of some of these giants are given in the Bible. I'm not going to spoon-feed you. You are intelligent enough to dig up the answers from the Bible.

thehomer:

But, the veracity of the Bible is also in question.
While truth does not depend on consensus, it is generally plausible especially about historic events.
Then, this is the source of your problem. One does not accept myths uncritically.

The same "experts" on historic events once told us that Hittites did not exist and that the city of Troy also did not exist. One does not accept myths uncritically but often within those myths; one finds here and there a seed of truth. Why do you think in several disparate and disjoint cultures across the world; there exist tales of a group of supernatural beings descending upon the earth and cohabiting with human women? Aren't these folk memories of an event that took place at some time in the distant past?

For me the Bible is not a book of myths and it's veracity is no longer in question. Once that might have been the case but now no longer.

aletheia:

So what is your point exactly? Did I not clarify for you that the word nephilim occurs twice in the Bible and is on both occasions translated as giant? Did I also not show you that the other word translated as giant in the OT is rapha? As I stated earlier you may choose to disbelieve the Bible but nonethless; that doesn't detract from the fact that it's description of the nephilim is consistently that of a race of giants; not isolated individuals suffering from gigantism.

I hope you remember this quote of yours below. Which also implies that "giant" = nephilim. i.e any group of people taller than the Israelites were giants and thus nephilim. How do they know they are nephilim other than just concluding from their heights?

aletheia:

. . . .
Nephilim is a generic name for a race of giants that populated the earth during Noah's time and also afterward in Canaan during Abraham's time and just before the Israelites invaded the land. The word is derived from the Hebrew nâphal (to fall) referring to their origins as the offspring of fallen angels. In the Bible we find references to subgroups of the nephilim going by the names of Anakim, Zamzummim, Horim, Avim, Emim, Rephaim and Zuzim.

#1. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33)

#2. Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there. (Deuteronomy 1:28)

#3. That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead: (Deuteronomy 2:20-21)

#4. As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even unto this day: And the Avims which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, the Caphtorims, which came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead.) (Deuteronomy 2:22-23 q.v. Deu 2:12)

#5. The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims. (Deuteronomy 2:10-11)

#6. And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,(Genesis 14:5)

. . . .

aletheia:

Were the Israelites a race of pygmies; or normal sized men like us? Are you saying if you were to encounter a race of giants, you wouldn't recognize them for what they were?

Human height varies according to genetics and nutritional status of the populations being compared. And these ancient Israelites may not have had good nutrition. Then one can also consider that those making the reports may have also been exaggerating.

aletheia:

How tall were the nephilim? The measured heights of some of these giants are given in the Bible. I'm not going to spoon-feed you. You are intelligent enough to dig up the answers from the Bible.

I don't consider the Bible as a credible source of such evidence.

aletheia:

The same "experts" on historic events once told us that Hittites did not exist and that the city of Troy also did not exist.

Therefore nephilim existed? This is a fallacy. Besides, There is a difference between ancient cultures and mythical entities.

aletheia:

One does not accept myths uncritically but often within those myths; one finds here and there a seed of truth. Why do you think in several disparate and disjoint cultures across the world; there exist tales of a group of supernatural beings descending upon the earth and cohabiting with human women? Aren't these folk memories of an event that took place at some time in the distant past?

No they are not necessarily memories. They are simply myths. Besides, lots of books have stories about giants and mythical entities such as the Lord of the Rings and even the Harry Potter series.

aletheia:

For me the Bible is not a book of myths and it's veracity is no longer in question. Once that might have been the case but now no longer.

Why do you believe the Bible as being completely true?

thehomer:

I hope you remember this quote of yours below. Which also implies that "giant" = nephilim. i.e any group of people taller than the Israelites were giants and thus nephilim. How do they know they are nephilim other than just concluding from their heights?

^^You still don't get it. nephilim = giant not giant = nephilim. Your disavowal of the Bible prevents you from following the simple logic of my statements:
#1. The word nephilim is translated as giant in English (no doubt because one of the defining characteristics of these beings were their great heights) and in it's etymology pertains to the origins of these race of giants as descendants of fallen angels.
#2. Other words were far more likely to have been translated as giant e.g rapha
#3. Taller than average men are not described in the Bible as nephilim (cf. example of Saul as I showed you).

Like I pointed out earlier; something is always lost in translation so here is Num 13:33 with the Hebrew word nephilim put back in:

And there we saw the nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the nephilim: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33) The phrase "which come of" is describing their origin or genetic descent.

As I have repeatedly stated:

aletheia:

Nephilim is a generic name for a race of giants that populated the earth during Noah's time and also afterward in Canaan during Abraham's time and just before the Israelites invaded the land. The word is derived from the Hebrew nâphal (to fall) referring to their origins as the offspring of fallen angels. In the Bible we find references to subgroups of the nephilim going by the names of Anakim, Zamzummim, Horim, Avim, Emim, Rephaim and Zuzim.

So I fail to see how this can be construed to mean that men of above average height are nephilim. You may disagree with Bible; but you cannot fault that it consistently describes the nephilim as a race of giants. Look for another line of argument. The Israelites did not call every tall person they encountered nephilim.

thehomer:

Human height varies according to genetics and nutritional status of the populations being compared. And these ancient Israelites may not have had good nutrition. Then one can also consider that those making the reports may have also been exaggerating.

This argument is weak and a tepid response. Just say you don't believe the Bible and leave it at that; I am willing to accept that but don't insult both our collective intelligence.
#1. Human height will vary according to a normal distribution curve. So we would not expect to routinely encounter 11 feet tall individuals. Most individuals will be clustered around an average height. That is why we describe individuals as being of average height.
#2. If I encounter a race of individuals whose average height is in the range of 10 feet or so: the unbiased conclusion is that this is a race of giants. Simple.
#3. What is your evidence that the ancient Israelites did not have good nutrition? This is just mere speculation on your part based on a lack of familiarity with the Bible, human biology and ancient history.
     a) The diet of the Israelites would not have varied much from that of their neighbours; apart from the prohibition on clean and unclean foods. In fact it
         was healthier, when you consider for example the prohibition on taking animal fat: something that "modern" science only recently "discovered" is
         detrimental to health.
     b) Even if it is conceded that the Israelites were nutritionally deficient; the supposed stunting that would have occurred would be only a matter of being a
         few inches short of what would have been the final adult height in the presence of optimum nutrition.
         Surely, thehomer, you do not consider the difference on average of a few inches sufficient grounds to refer to someone as a giant, do you?
         If that is the case with you; why would it be different for the ancient Israelites?

thehomer:

I don't consider the Bible as a credible source of such evidence.

Nonetheless: the same Bible that describes the Nephilim; also reports the measured heights of some of them. That is the scientific method of which you empiricists are so proud but dismiss when it is recorded in the Bible. If I say that someone is a giant; how do I prove my case; by measuring his height! You are being somewhat inconsistent: you say the Israelites were nutritionally stunted and so mistook a group of individuals taller than them as giants but you refuse to consider that these same Israelites actually measured and recorded the heights of the giants to support their claim that these were giants. This totally blows your nutritional stunting theory out of the water.

thehomer:

Therefore nephilim existed? This is a fallacy. Besides, There is a difference between ancient cultures and mythical entities.

I repeat:

The same "experts" on historic events once told us that Hittites did not exist and that the city of Troy also did not exist.

The point is no archaelogist alive today can authoritatively tell us what did and did not exist. You cannot authoritatively tell me nephilim didn't exist. You missed my point about the story of Troy. Your nairaland username suggests that you 've heard or read Homer's Iliad and the story of the siege of Troy. This was dismissed out of hand as myths by "experts" such as yourself; no doubt because it contained references to figures such as Achilles, Poseidon, Memnon etc. But as I pointed out:

aletheia:

One does not accept myths uncritically but often within those myths; one finds here and there a seed of truth.

Wikipedia: While the Age of Enlightenment had rejected the story of the Trojan War as fable, the discoveries made by Heinrich Schliemann at Hisarlik reopened the question in modern terms, and the subsequent excavation of Troy VIIa and the discovery of the toponym Wilusa in Hittite correspondence has made it plausible that the Trojan War cycle was at least remotely based on a historical conflict of the 12th century BC, even if the poems of Homer are removed from the event by more than four centuries of oral tradition.

Wikipedia: Heinrich Schliemann was a German businessman and archaeologist, and an advocate of the historical reality of places mentioned in the works of Homer. Schliemann was an important archaeological excavator of Troy, along with the Mycenaean sites Mycenae and Tiryns. His successes lent material weight to the idea that Homer's Iliad and Virgil's Aeneid reflect actual historical events

Wikipedia: In Homer’s description of the city, a section of one side of the wall is said to be weaker than the rest. During his excavation of more than three hundred yards of the wall, Dorpfeld came across a section very closely resembling the Homeric description of the weaker section. Dorpfeld was convinced he had found the walls of Homer’s city, and now he would excavate the city itself. Within the walls of this stratum (Troy VI) much Mycenaean pottery dating from LH III A and III B was uncovered, suggesting a relation between the Trojans and Mycenaeans. The great tower along the walls seemed likely to be the ‘Great Tower of Ilios’

thehomer:

No they are not necessarily memories. They are simply myths. Besides, lots of books have stories about giants and mythical entities such as the Lord of the Rings and even the Harry Potter series.

Apparently you don't know that there is a difference between myths and works of fiction or fables. And the term I used was "folk memories" which is quite distinct from individual memories. These are precise terms.

Wikipedia: Folk memories is a term sometimes used to describe stories, folklore or myths about past events that have passed orally from generation to generation. The events described by the memories may date back tens, hundreds, or even thousands of years and often have a local significance. They may explain physical features in the local environment, provide reasons for cultural traditions or give etymologies for the names of local places.

Wikipedia: The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story, but academic use of the term generally does not pass judgment on truth or falsity. In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.

Consider this example: In the Greek mythology or folk memory; Greeks are descendants of Iapetus or Japetus through his sons; but looking at the table of nations in Genesis 10 in the Bible (which is the touchstone of truth); we discover the that Japheth the son of Noah is the ancestor of the Greeks. Thus it becomes apparent how through the embellishments of been passed orally from generation to generation: Japheth the man becomes transmuted into Japetus the Titan. And so we see within the myth or folk memory of Iapetus; seeds of the truth about Japheth as the ancestor of the Greeks.

thehomer:

Why do you believe the Bible as being completely true?

#1. The internal testimony: Though spanning several thousand years and scores of writers; its theme and message is consistent. 
#2. The external testimony: History bears witness to it's veracity. There is no archaeological finding that contradicts it. The manuscript evidence for the faithful transmission of its text shows that it remains unchanged apart from minor copyists errors.
#3. My personal experience: I am a witness to the transforming power of Jesus in a man's life. He saved me.

thehomer said:

A single foot print is not enough. Even Bigfoot has numerous foot prints.

What in your view would constitute ''proof''?

Please answer directly.

aletheia:

In the Greek mythology or folk memory; Greeks are descendants of Iapetus or Japetus through his sons; but looking at the table of nations in Genesis 10 in the Bible (which is the touchstone of truth); we discover the that Japheth the son of Noah is the ancestor of the Greeks.

The bible is not the touchstone of the truth. . . .Do you have any DNA evidence for this claim that Japheth is the ancestor of the Greeks?. . . .

Thus it becomes apparent how through the embellishments of been passed orally from generation to generation: Japheth the man becomes transmuted into Japetus the Titan. And so we see within the myth or folk memory of Iapetus; seeds of the truth about Japheth as the ancestor of the Greeks.

What is is apparent here is your own confirmation bias. . .You completely accepted biblical mythology and its embellishments at the same time hypocritical questioning Jewish folk-are as mere mythology. . . According to biblical mythology some guy named Japheth was the father of the Greeks, while according to Jewish folk-are some Titan was the father of the Greeks. . . .How do you know this for sure?. . . .

#1. The internal testimony: Though spanning several thousand years and scores of writers; its theme and message is consistent.

Very False, the OT is NOT consistent with the NT, hence NO internal harmony. . . .The God portrayed in the OT is completely different from the God portrayed in the NT. . . .The message of salvation are both different, Concepts like hell a permanent place of torture after death does not appear in the OT, The Jews who own the OT are still alive today and they do not believe in any part of the NT at all. . . .Infact they believe that Christians only hijacked their OT , used at as a foundation for setting up their new religion and turned it into something else. . . . .A simple reading of the bible will show an evolution of the God of the bible, his morality and the inconsistencies of the nature or character of the said God. . . .

#2. The external testimony: History bears witness to it's veracity. There is no archaeological finding that contradicts it. The manuscript evidence for the faithful transmission of its text shows that it remains unchanged apart from minor copyists errors.

Lets take two of the major events in the bible, Exodus and the Noah's flood, No historical or archeological evidence supports any of the biblical narrative for the exodus, No historical or scientific evidence supports a global flood that happened about 4000 years ago. . . .

#3. My personal experience: I am a witness to the transforming power of Jesus in a man's life. He saved me.

What did Jesus save you from?. . . .

mazaje:

The bible is not the touchstone of the truth. . . .Do you have any DNA evidence for this claim that Japheth is the ancestor of the Greeks?. . .

The Bible is the repository of truth, the plumb-line by which every idea and thought is measured. As it is written: "TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting".

Do you have any DNA evidence that Japheth is not the ancestor of the Greeks? You forget that evidence for origins can be deduced from anthropology and language.

mazaje:

Very False, the OT is NOT consistent with the NT, hence NO internal harmony. . .

How would you know: not having studied the Bible. You were at best a nominal Christian, brainwashed and blinded by traditions of men before you began your descent. Have you decided what you are yet? You were like a "a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting [yourself] now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before [you]" The Bible is the great ocean of truth; unless you get in and swim, how will you discover the truth?

mazaje:

The God portrayed in the OT is completely different from the God portrayed in the NT. .

The same God is portrayed from Genesis to Revelation. Eternal, unchanging. The Bible unfolds God's promises and their fulfillment. It details God as Creator, Law-giver, Redeemer and Righteous Judge. The Bible is about Promise and Fulfillment.

mazaje:

The message of salvation are both different, Concepts like hell a permanent place of torture after death does not appear in the OT, The Jews who own the OT are still alive today and they do not believe in any part of the NT at all. . . .Infact they believe that Christians only hijacked their OT , used at as a foundation for setting up their new religion and turned it into something else. . . . .A simple reading of the bible will show an evolution of the God of the bible, his morality and the inconsistencies of the nature or character of the said God. . .

The message of salvation is the same. It is the message and lesson of Atonement by the shedding of Blood. . .taught to men by similitude, metaphor and example until it's culmination and fulfillment at the cross. Jesus crucified and resurrected!

mazaje:

Lets take two of the major events in the bible, Exodus and the Noah's flood, No historical or archeological evidence supports any of the biblical narrative for the exodus, No historical or scientific evidence supports a global flood that happened about 4000 years ago. . .

Oh please; this is a constantly recycled argument based on false assumptions about the chronology of the Exodus: You wont find what you are looking for if you look in the wrong place.

‘Before Moses, the Bible records that the Israelites were enslaved by their Egyptian hosts (Exodus 1:8-14). In the Brooklyn Museum resides a papyrus scroll numbered Brooklyn 35:1446 which was acquired in the late 19th century by Charles Wilbour. This dates to the reign of Sobekhotep III, the predecessor of Neferhotep I and so the pharaoh who reigned one generation before Moses. This papyrus is a decree by the pharaoh for a transfer of slaves. Of the 95 names of slaves mentioned in the letter, 50% are Semitic in origin. What is more, it lists the names of these slaves in the original Semitic language and then adds the Egyptian name each had been assigned, which is something the Bible records the Egyptians as doing, cf. Joseph’s name given to him by pharaoh (Genesis 41:45). Some of the Semitic names are biblical and include:- Menahem, Issachar, Asher, and Shiprah (cf. Exodus 1:15-21).

That 50% of the names are Israelite means that there must have been a very large group of them in the Egyptian Delta at that time, corroborating the testimony of Exodus 1:7 which alludes to how numerous the Israelites became. The sceptics look for Israel in the Egypt of the Nineteenth Dynasty and remain sceptics, because the proof is in the Egypt of the Thirteenth Dynasty. The site of Avaris has been uncovered by the Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak in the land of Goshen underneath that of the city of Ramesses. It provides plenty of proof, says Fulton, for Israel’s presence and sufferings in Egypt:

‘The people who lived in Avaris were not Egyptian but Asiatic Palestinian or Syrian. The finds there included numerous pottery fragments of Palestinian origin. Several factors about the graves were particularly fascinating:- 65% of the burials were of children under 18 months of age, the normal for this period being 20-30%. Could this be due to the killing of the male Israelite children by the Egyptians, recorded in Exodus 1:22? A disproportionately high number of adult women as opposed to adult men are buried here, again pointing to the slaughter of male Israelite babies. There are large numbers of long-haired Asiatic sheep buried which indicate these people to be shepherds. Large numbers of weapons found in the male graves indicate the warlike nature of the people.’

Sobekhotep IV/Khenephres was the Pharaoh of the Oppression from whom Moses fled, about 1487 BC. The forty years Moses spent in Midian were likely to have been 1487-1447 BC. The Pharaoh of the Exodus was Dudimose. Fulton records that the Austrians found evidence both of God’s slaying of the firstborn and the sudden departure of Israel from Goshen:

‘The Tenth Plague to be sent on Egypt just before the Exodus was the plague on the first-born, recorded in Exodus 12:29,30. At the end of stratum G/l at Tell ed-Daba or the ancient city of Avaris (p.293), archaeologists found shallow burial pits into which the victims of some terrible disaster had been thrown. These death pits were not carefully organized internments; the bodies were simply thrown in on top of one another. Could these be the burial pits of the first-born Egyptians? What is more, immediately after this disaster, the remaining population left Avaris en masse; this fits perfectly with the Exodus of the Israelites following the final terrible plague.’

Manetho, the Egyptian historian wrote how Egypt collapsed in the reign of Dudimose:

‘Tutimaos: In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land (Egypt). By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods and treated all our natives with cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.’

The invaders were the Amalekites Israel encountered after leaving Egypt. They found Egypt, devastated by Divine judgment an easy prey.

^On the Day of Judgment: you will be without excuse; for enough evidence abounds as to the truth of the Bible---which you can investigate and confirm for yourself; only that you willfully choose to ignore it.

mazaje:

What did Jesus save you from?. . . .

What you need to be saved from.

aletheia:

^^You still don't get it. nephilim = giant not giant = nephilim. Your disavowal of the Bible prevents you from following the simple logic of my statements:
#1. The word nephilim is translated as giant in English (no doubt because one of the defining characteristics of these beings were their great heights) and in it's etymology pertains to the origins of these race of giants as descendants of fallen angels.
#2. Other words were far more likely to have been translated as giant e.g rapha
#3. Taller than average men are not described in the Bible as nephilim (cf. example of Saul as I showed you).

Like I pointed out earlier; something is always lost in translation so here is Num 13:33 with the Hebrew word nephilim put back in:

And there we saw the nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the nephilim: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. (Numbers 13:33) The phrase "which come of" is describing their origin or genetic descent.

Did you not read your quote? You said the Rephaims were a sub group of nephilim and this word rephaim was gotten from rapha which also means giant. It seems you are confused about what you're saying.

aletheia:

As I have repeatedly stated:
So I fail to see how this can be construed to mean that men of above average height are nephilim. You may disagree with Bible; but you cannot fault that it consistently describes the nephilim as a race of giants. Look for another line of argument. The Israelites did not call every tall person they encountered nephilim.

It looks like they did except those in their own population.

aletheia:

This argument is weak and a tepid response. Just say you don't believe the Bible and leave it at that; I am willing to accept that but don't insult both our collective intelligence.
#1. Human height will vary according to a normal distribution curve. So we would not expect to routinely encounter 11 feet tall individuals. Most individuals will be clustered around an average height. That is why we describe individuals as being of average height.

Yes but it also varies within various ethnic groups. Thus the variation in the average height of say the Japanese compared to that of the Dutch.

aletheia:

#2. If I encounter a race of individuals whose average height is in the range of 10 feet or so: the unbiased conclusion is that this is a race of giants. Simple.

Sure but if the height of your group was 5 feet and the other population you saw was 6 feet, they would still look like giants to you but not to another group whose average population height was say 5 feet 8. You see at a certain height range, merely observing using just the eyes would give you innacuate information.

aletheia:

#3. What is your evidence that the ancient Israelites did not have good nutrition? This is just mere speculation on your part based on a lack of familiarity with the Bible, human biology and ancient history.

Sure there is some speculation but this is based on a few reasons. They seemed to be nomads coming upon a settled population. And I don't think it is quite easy for the body to set aside the required energy for promoting growth while wandering and of course fighting.

aletheia:

     a) The diet of the Israelites would not have varied much from that of their neighbours; apart from the prohibition on clean and unclean foods. In fact it
         was healthier, when you consider for example the prohibition on taking animal fat: something that "modern" science only recently "discovered" is
         detrimental to health.
     b) Even if it is conceded that the Israelites were nutritionally deficient; the supposed stunting that would have occurred would be only a matter of being a
         few inches short of what would have been the final adult height in the presence of optimum nutrition.
         Surely, thehomer, you do not consider the difference on average of a few inches sufficient grounds to refer to someone as a giant, do you?
         If that is the case with you; why would it be different for the ancient Israelites?

They could also have simply been exaggerating. You know like the game of telephone.
They would be a few below their usual for their ethnicity but keep in mind the height of the group they are meeting may also have some genetic advantage over theirs when it comes to height. Besides, where are the nephilm today? They seemed so widespread according to the Bible. Also, are the children of nephilim also nephilim? I forgot to ask that last one.

aletheia:

Nonetheless: the same Bible that describes the Nephilim; also reports the measured heights of some of them. That is the scientific method of which you empiricists are so proud but dismiss when it is recorded in the Bible. If I say that someone is a giant; how do I prove my case; by measuring his height! You are being somewhat inconsistent: you say the Israelites were nutritionally stunted and so mistook a group of individuals taller than them as giants but you refuse to consider that these same Israelites actually measured and recorded the heights of the giants to support their claim that these were giants. This totally blows your nutritional stunting theory out of the water.

I'm sorry I did not come across the measured heights except for the comparison to grasshoppers which I think is an exaggeration especially when we consider the height difference between a grasshopper and a toddler. So, could you provide this measured height?

aletheia:

I repeat:The point is no archaelogist alive today can authoritatively tell us what did and did not exist. You cannot authoritatively tell me nephilim didn't exist. You missed my point about the story of Troy. Your nairaland username suggests that you 've heard or read Homer's Iliad and the story of the siege of Troy. This was dismissed out of hand as myths by "experts" such as yourself; no doubt because it contained references to figures such as Achilles, Poseidon, Memnon etc. But as I pointed out:

Yes I have read the Iliad but, the seed of truth was the war not the sons of the Gods nor the Gods themselves.

aletheia:

Apparently you don't know that there is a difference between myths and works of fiction or fables. And the term I used was "folk memories" which is quite distinct from individual memories. These are precise terms.

I do know the difference but, one can become the other.

aletheia:

Consider this example: In the Greek mythology or folk memory; Greeks are descendants of Iapetus or Japetus through his sons; but looking at the table of nations in Genesis 10 in the Bible (which is the touchstone of truth); we discover the that Japheth the son of Noah is the ancestor of the Greeks. Thus it becomes apparent how through the embellishments of been passed orally from generation to generation: Japheth the man becomes transmuted into Japetus the Titan. And so we see within the myth or folk memory of Iapetus; seeds of the truth about Japheth as the ancestor of the Greeks.

Oh really? And from which of the sons of Noah did Native Americans, Australian aborigines and the Polynesians descend from?
How about the similarity of the name Japheth to Jupiter? Could it not be that they called themselves children of Jupiter?

aletheia:

#1. The internal testimony: Though spanning several thousand years and scores of writers; its theme and message is consistent.

No it's not consistent. e.g compare the mass murders ordered by God in the Old Testament to the peace preached by Jesus in the New.

aletheia:

#2. The external testimony: History bears witness to it's veracity. There is no archaeological finding that contradicts it. The manuscript evidence for the faithful transmission of its text shows that it remains unchanged apart from minor copyists errors.

This is also not true. It is not even consistent about the order of appearance of humans. Were they the first organisms present or the last? Snakes do not eat dust, the colour of animal coats are not decided by the colour of sticks they are facing while they are copulating etc.

aletheia:

#3. My personal experience: I am a witness to the transforming power of Jesus in a man's life. He saved me.

Good for you. By the way, what did he save you from?

ROSSIKE:

thehomer said:

What in your view would constitute ''proof''?

Please answer directly.

We would also need to match pictures, collection of faecal matter, hair samples etc.