Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 01-01-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

. . . Evidence exists that there was no conquest of Canaan, period,

Care to share the evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

. . . so the whole question is really only a hypothetical, but we can play many versions of the same game. The Canaanites were more powerful than the Israelite refugees, and being better fed could have been taller (ok, a stretch, but work with me). . .

Actually, that's not such a stretch (pun intended), since the Canaanites were well fed for at least over 400 years (in the land flowing with milk and honey) while the Israelites spent that time in Egypt in less than ideal conditions. The following study seems to indicate that poor diet, stress, etc can lead to height shrinkage amongst the population while good diet over time increases the average height of the population.

Quote:

A Chicago native who is a professor at the University of Munich, Komlos made a name for himself several years ago when his research revealed that the average height of adult Americans, once the tallest folk to roam the planet, had stopped rising after World War II and has since been surpassed by that of several European nations. The Dutch now lay claim to the title of tallest.

Komlos' latest findings, based on the NHANES data, suggest that after nearly 25 years of stagnation, the average height of adult Americans born from 1975 to 1986 has edged up again — with the exception of black women, whose height is moving in the opposite direction.

The reason this matters, according to Komlos, is because "height is a very good overall indicator of how well the human organism thrives in its socioeconomic environment."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._shrink26.html

badger3k · 01-01-2009, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And yet their fossils have been found. As recently as 2004 Russian Scientists discovered the graves of Giants. Also those megalithic stones that has scientists scratching their heads as to how such stones were moved coupled with the finds of giants and the depiction of dinosaurs in ancient art presents a big problem to established views.

What you believe has been told you from men but evidence is stacking against them.

Would you have some links?

We have the Saudi Giant :P (http://www.hoax-slayer.com/giant-skeleton.html)

Then there's this one about giant skeletons, including one from 2003-4 (actually, it's an interesting read) http://www.strangemag.com/recentaddi...eforteans.html

I found this http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/charts/charts.html , but it leads to a creationist site which also claims the Ica stones as genuine. LOL

This one, which also leads to a hoax site (which may be the same picture from the first link): http://www.morocco.com/forums/open-b...keleton-2.html

As interesting as this is, I can't find anything off google that is of any worth, nor any mention of Russian giant skeletons found. I did a search of Russia, Giant, Skeleton, and 2004 (in a few variations) on my EBSCOHost database, with a lot of sources, and found nothing like it. How about a link to a news release, even, or better, a peer-reviewed paper on the find (of, if they are still writing it after 4 years, a link to anything dealing with that, perhaps from the university or institution that was sponsoring the dig)?

badger3k · 01-01-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

. . . Evidence exists that there was no conquest of Canaan, period,

Care to share the evidence?

Sure, let's start with the works of William Dever (Who were the ancient Israelites and where did they come from?), continue with Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed), Secrets of the Bible (Archaeology Magazine), for starters in popular literature, then continue with a review of the literature (the peer reviewed kind). I'd suggest looking into the population/settlement patterns, the lack of disruption in such things as pottery traditions, language (IIRC), and even look at the entire lack of evidence suggesting military conquest, from remains and a change in culture (building habits, etc). Couple the complete lack of any mention of an invasion of the area, as would have been noticed by the Egyptians who controlled the area during the supposed conquest (although they do mention bandits). Of course, depending on the dating, you can also mention the other countries that were in existence at the time, the ones that were supposed to have been wiped out, yet somehow weren't...everything adds up to the conquest narrative being a cultural construct - a national creation mythology.

Quote:

Actually, that's not such a stretch (pun intended), since the Canaanites were well fed for at least over 400 years (in the land flowing with milk and honey) while the Israelites spent that time in Egypt in less than ideal conditions. The following study seems to indicate that poor diet, stress, etc can lead to height shrinkage amongst the population while good diet over time increases the average height of the population.

Quote:

A Chicago native who is a professor at the University of Munich, Komlos made a name for himself several years ago when his research revealed that the average height of adult Americans, once the tallest folk to roam the planet, had stopped rising after World War II and has since been surpassed by that of several European nations. The Dutch now lay claim to the title of tallest.

Komlos' latest findings, based on the NHANES data, suggest that after nearly 25 years of stagnation, the average height of adult Americans born from 1975 to 1986 has edged up again — with the exception of black women, whose height is moving in the opposite direction.

The reason this matters, according to Komlos, is because "height is a very good overall indicator of how well the human organism thrives in its socioeconomic environment."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._shrink26.html

We actually lost height since the development of agriculture, as suggested from skeletal remains of pre-agricultural neolithic (IIRC, maybe paleolithic?) homo sapiens. It took years for us to recover and gain height back. Of course, this is going by memory of news reports (well, off the RSS for archaeology or New Scientist, or something), and this may not have been confirmed through more evidence and I may be wrong on that.

Edit - I do have to say that the continued change in average height for humans has been growing - skeletons from the bronze age on up have indicated that humans have been experiencing an increase in average height, which increased after the green revolution (IIRC - damn, too many things in my head - I can't remember if it was the Renaissance or increased agricultural techniques and development - perhaps the same time? - that was a prime factor). Sorry I can't give more right now.

sugarhitman · 01-03-2009, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

In the 1800s there were reports of Giants being discovered in the mounds of America. Some fossils of Giants have been found recently as well why does the scientific community ignore these finds. Also on ancient art Dinosaurs are clearly depicted (see inca stones) how did they know? good guesses? People the reason why these things are ignored because it presents a great challenge to the accepted views of the mainstream scientific community which is employed to refute the bible.....but evidence is growing that supports the bible.

I know it's been a while since I was back here, but I can't wait to read to the current post to respond. The Ica stones, reputedly showing dinosaurs, are a fraud, a hoax. Here is a summary: http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

Now I'll go back and read the rest to see what responses I may want to make. I have to admit I am still not sure what the argument is - that the Israelites believed they were slaughtering monsters, and that makes genocide justifiable? Surely the idea can't be that we are to buy into the mythology of giants and believe that, if they existed, would have been a moral justification for slaughtering thousands (potentially) of people? It would only be plausible if one buys into quite a few suppositions already. Since history is written by the victors (or rather, we read history based upon evidence and texts that survive), there is a perfect bit of spin to consider.

Evidence exists that there was no conquest of Canaan, period, so the whole question is really only a hypothetical, but we can play many versions of the same game. The Canaanites were more powerful than the Israelite refugees, and being better fed could have been taller (ok, a stretch, but work with me). Since Goliath was estimated around 7 feet tall (IIRC based on the earliest texts we have), there may have been others. These, purely human, people were considered to be the descendants of the Nephilim by the superstitious among the Israelites, and this legend may have gone down through time to the writers, who used this as a post hoc explanation and justification for their slaughter.

However, since they believed that their nation was given to them by their god, YHVH, as the other nations were given to them by theirs, they did not see this slaughter as bad (well, at least the writer possibly considered it that). Perhaps the "giants" term was also used to show that the Israelites did not conquer just normal people (as their neighboring empires such as the Hittites and Egyptians did), but they fought supernatural beings as well. A big boost to a national ego. Especially if these books were written during a time of trouble and national crisis.

How's that for a scenario or two?

Whether it is fact, or fiction is irrevelent to my post. My argument is this in the bible texts it clearly shows that Adamic peoples were displacing the Nephilim. So one cannot accuse God of supporting Genocide against other peoples, or innocent nations or simply because they had a different culture. There was a very good reason in the texts.....and not just unjust slaughtering.

The Dagda · 01-03-2009, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by badger3k

I know it's been a while since I was back here, but I can't wait to read to the current post to respond. The Ica stones, reputedly showing dinosaurs, are a fraud, a hoax. Here is a summary: http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

Now I'll go back and read the rest to see what responses I may want to make. I have to admit I am still not sure what the argument is - that the Israelites believed they were slaughtering monsters, and that makes genocide justifiable? Surely the idea can't be that we are to buy into the mythology of giants and believe that, if they existed, would have been a moral justification for slaughtering thousands (potentially) of people? It would only be plausible if one buys into quite a few suppositions already. Since history is written by the victors (or rather, we read history based upon evidence and texts that survive), there is a perfect bit of spin to consider.

Evidence exists that there was no conquest of Canaan, period, so the whole question is really only a hypothetical, but we can play many versions of the same game. The Canaanites were more powerful than the Israelite refugees, and being better fed could have been taller (ok, a stretch, but work with me). Since Goliath was estimated around 7 feet tall (IIRC based on the earliest texts we have), there may have been others. These, purely human, people were considered to be the descendants of the Nephilim by the superstitious among the Israelites, and this legend may have gone down through time to the writers, who used this as a post hoc explanation and justification for their slaughter.

However, since they believed that their nation was given to them by their god, YHVH, as the other nations were given to them by theirs, they did not see this slaughter as bad (well, at least the writer possibly considered it that). Perhaps the "giants" term was also used to show that the Israelites did not conquer just normal people (as their neighboring empires such as the Hittites and Egyptians did), but they fought supernatural beings as well. A big boost to a national ego. Especially if these books were written during a time of trouble and national crisis.

How's that for a scenario or two?

Whether it is fact, or fiction is irrevelent to my post. My argument is this in the bible texts it clearly shows that Adamic peoples were displacing the Nephilim. So one cannot accuse God of supporting Genocide against other peoples, or innocent nations or simply because they had a different culture. There was a very good reason in the texts.....and not just unjust slaughtering.

No your idea conflicts with the text and logic, and suggests God is particularly poor at killing Nephelim when he means to. The fact that no religion except yours I presume believes the Nephilim survived the flood should set off alarm bells, much like when a cult leader tells you that the mothership is coming and we have to drink the magic potion. It's not true.

sugarhitman · 01-03-2009, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Whether it is fact, or fiction is irrevelent to my post. My argument is this in the bible texts it clearly shows that Adamic peoples were displacing the Nephilim. So one cannot accuse God of supporting Genocide against other peoples, or innocent nations or simply because they had a different culture. There was a very good reason in the texts.....and not just unjust slaughtering.

No your idea conflicts with the text and logic, and suggests God is particularly poor at killing Nephelim when he means to. The fact that no religion except yours I presume believes the Nephilim survived the flood should set off alarm bells, much like when a cult leader tells you that the mothership is coming and we have to drink the magic potion. It's not true.

Moses and Joshua said giants which in Hebrew is Nephilim. My idea does not conflict with the texts because all you have to do is read what the texts says and they say "Giants." Any other views are in conflict.

Question does the text say Giants or not?

The Dagda · 01-03-2009, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

No your idea conflicts with the text and logic, and suggests God is particularly poor at killing Nephelim when he means to. The fact that no religion except yours I presume believes the Nephilim survived the flood should set off alarm bells, much like when a cult leader tells you that the mothership is coming and we have to drink the magic potion. It's not true.

Moses and Joshua said giants which in Hebrew is Nephilim. My idea does not conflict with the texts because all you have to do is read what the texts says and they say "Giants." Any other views are in conflict.

Question does the text say Giants or not?

Moses was referring to the past, and Joshua was wrong, because God killed them all. Thus Jewish scholars believe that Joshua was mistaken because of his lack of piety. Christians think that all the Nephelim were destroyed in the flood and that 60ft giants is ass, I'm pretty sure Muslims believe the same as the Jews, and the Eastern Orthodox Church believes the same but with some nice little embelished stories about Adam, Jubilees and so on which is if not canonical not apocryphal to the Jews. And historians think that people who genuinely believe there were 60 ft giants walking around the ME are slightly unhinged.

sugarhitman · 01-03-2009, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Moses and Joshua said giants which in Hebrew is Nephilim. My idea does not conflict with the texts because all you have to do is read what the texts says and they say "Giants." Any other views are in conflict.

Question does the text say Giants or not?

Moses was referring to the past, and Joshua was wrong, because God killed them all. Thus Jewish scholars believe that Joshua was mistaken because of his lack of piety. Christians think that all the Nephelim were destroyed in the flood and that 60ft giants is ass, I'm pretty sure Muslims believe the same as the Jews, and the Eastern Orthodox Church believes the same but with some nice little embelished stories about Adam, Jubilees and so on which is if not canonical not apocryphal to the Jews. And historians think that people who genuinely believe there were 60 ft giants walking around the ME are slightly unhinged.

Ohh so the Jewish scholars are disregarding the text? And where is your source that says Joshua was not a pious man?

And still irrevelant because these texts existed before Modern Jewish Scholars. You said my idea conflicts with the texts and yet the Hebrew bible says Nephilim. It is obvious both you and your sources are in conflict with the texts.....and not me.

Lugubert · 01-03-2009, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Question does the text say Giants or not?

Obviously, the Hebrew text(s) don't use the English word 'giants'. Today, it's impossible to say if the author by nefilim meant physical giants, or "fallen ones", whatever that may mean, or something else.

The Dagda · 01-03-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

Moses was referring to the past, and Joshua was wrong, because God killed them all. Thus Jewish scholars believe that Joshua was mistaken because of his lack of piety. Christians think that all the Nephelim were destroyed in the flood and that 60ft giants is ass, I'm pretty sure Muslims believe the same as the Jews, and the Eastern Orthodox Church believes the same but with some nice little embelished stories about Adam, Jubilees and so on which is if not canonical not apocryphal to the Jews. And historians think that people who genuinely believe there were 60 ft giants walking around the ME are slightly unhinged.

Ohh so the Jewish scholars are disregarding the text? And where is your source that says Joshua was not a pious man?

And still irrevelant because these texts existed before Modern Jewish Scholars. You said my idea conflicts with the texts and yet the Hebrew bible says Nephilim. It is obvious both you and your sources are in conflict with the texts.....and not me.

But not before Jubilees, which is why scholars modern and ancient say this. Yours is the only faith I've ever heard of that questions this, I have to ask why considering? Is your faith more correct than every one else, if so why?

You also haven't tackled the logic of all those except Noah's immediate relatives dying here, which is perhaps the single greatest reason. When God says he's getting rid of all evil and the nephilim particularly, what about his promise makes him a liar?

Also Nephilim means the fallen ones.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.