Freethought & Rationalism Archive

juergen · 12-30-2008, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jedi Mind Trick

Sugar, wasn't the flood supposed to have wiped out the giants. What happened? Did God fail? I ask sincerely to because it is a question I have.

SHM thinks there was a 2nd hanky panky between angels and humans, so God had to kill them all over again.

Weird how the supernatural reproduction stopped. I guess the sons of god got compassionate of having their earthly descendants wiped out so they kept it in their spiritual pants.

juergen · 12-30-2008, 06:53 AM

This tidbit is from David and Solomon (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Finkelstein and Silberman, pages 196-197.

Quote:

Goliath's armor, as described in the Bible, bears little resemblance to the military equipment of the early Philistines as archaeology has revealed it. Instead of wearing bronze helmets the Peleset shown on the walls of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III in Upper Egypt wear distinctive feather-topped headdresses . . . yet the biblical description of Goliath's armor is not simply a fanciful creation, every single item has clear parallels to archaeologically attested Aegean weapons and armor from the Mycenaean period to classical times . . . it is only with the appearance of the heavily armed Greek hoplites of the sevent through fifth centuries BCE that standard equipment comes to resemble Goliath's . . . in fact, the standard hoplite's accounterments were identical to Goliath's . . . and this suggests that the author of the biblical story . . . had an intimate knoledge of Greek hoplites of the late sevent century BCE.

According to the authors, right around that time Greek mercenaries from the coasts of Asia minor served in the Egyptian army, who took over the Philistine coast in the late seventh century BCE, in the days of Psammetichus I.

A footnote on p. 199 mentions

Quote:

It is noteworthy that the name Goliath has been compared etymologically to the Lydian (that is, west Asia Minor) name Alyattes. The historical Alyattes, king of Lydia (c. 610-560 BCE), was the great grandson of Gyges - the monarch who is said to have sent hoplite troops to help Psammetichus I of Egypt.

World Builder · 12-30-2008, 07:06 AM

Taking the Bible on its word, for just a moment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis 10:6

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.

And much like like the Israelites are said to have descended from Israel [Jacob], the Canaanites were descended from Canaan and, via Ham, from Noah. A nice neat tidy human lineage. See Genesis 9:20+ for why Canaan and his descendants were so cursed. Hint: it involved someone else accidentally seeing his father naked.

arnoldo · 12-30-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

What, you never heard about David and Goliath!?

. . . or the archaelogical evidence of the name of Goliath?

The “Goliath Inscription” from Tell es-Safi/Gath

Giants were 60ft tall or more. Goliath is very precisely measured in The Bible as being well over 7ft tall. Big but hardly a giant. This is weak stuff also. The tallest man in history was nearly 9ft tall.

No one is stating that 60 ft tall people are referenced in the Bible. And here is some archaelogical proof of the name of Goliath's foe. . .

The ‘House of David’ inscribed on a victory stele Tel Dan

Lugubert · 12-31-2008, 05:07 AM

I am among those who don't read bytdwd as "House of David". From here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamal Salibi

In line 9, the reading of BYTDWD as a construct (BYT + DWD) referring to the "house of David" by name is unjustified, as + BYTDWD + features in that line as a single word. Taken as one word, the initial B in B-YTDWD would be the prepositional B, leaving YTDWD as possibly a place name (archaic noun formation from the _hithpa`el_ form of DWD, "love, have affection for, be related"?) One would only be justified in reading the word as the construct BYT + DWD if it can be demonstrated that other constructs in this inscription, or in the Moabite stele, feature as one word, which to my knowledge they do not.

Exciter · 12-31-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

Giants were 60ft tall or more. Goliath is very precisely measured in The Bible as being well over 7ft tall. Big but hardly a giant. This is weak stuff also. The tallest man in history was nearly 9ft tall.

I don't know... the guys standing around Goliath appear to be around six to seven foot tall in the picture.

Hey arnoldo! Do you know if the artist drew that at the scene of the battle or did he draw it from imagination like the artists for Walt Disney did with

Willie the Giant?

Image: Not Safe for Work

The Dagda · 12-31-2008, 01:12 PM

http://epistlesofthomas.wordpress.co...l-was-goliath/

Quote:

Hebrew Bible: 9’9” (6 cubits + 1 span)
Greek Old Testament: 6’9” (4c + 1s) [Not all Greek manuscripts however]
Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSam): 6’9” (4c+1s)
Josephus (Ant. 6.171): 6’9” (4c+1s)

All English Bibles read 9-10 feet tall except the New English Translation (NET) which reads “close to seven feet tall.” Clearly the majority of translations have chosen to follow the Hebrew text. The UBS Handbook on 1 Samuel references the UBS Hebrew Old Testament Text Project and concludes that because the HOTTP fails to mention this problem the Hebrew text should be followed! (352). I am awestruck by this statement. I do however agree with the authors’ conclusion that “The height of Goliath will need to be expressed in an understandable form in the receptor language. But it need not be expressed in precise terms.”

It's contentious apparently, but 9'9" is not giant, nor is it beyond the realms of possibility. Although it seems doubtful.

arnoldo · 01-01-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

Giants were 60ft tall or more. Goliath is very precisely measured in The Bible as being well over 7ft tall. Big but hardly a giant. This is weak stuff also. The tallest man in history was nearly 9ft tall.

I don't know... the guys standing around Goliath appear to be around six to seven foot tall in the picture.

Hey arnoldo! Do you know if the artist drew that at the scene of the battle or did he draw it from imagination like the artists for Walt Disney did with

Willie the Giant?

Image: Not Safe for Work

Good question! BTW, do you know that hobbits were once also thought to be mythical creatures?

however there recently has been found archealogical proof of their existence.

Image: Not Safe for Work

Survival of the biggest - hobbits wiped out by man

juergen · 01-01-2009, 02:31 PM

There has been proof of Hobbit-sized humans, not actual hobbits, as described in LOTR.

badger3k · 01-01-2009, 02:34 PM

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?

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

01-01-2009, 02:31 PM	#169
juergen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: South America Posts: 1,856	There has been proof of Hobbit-sized humans, not actual hobbits, as described in LOTR.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.