Answerer

I do agree that the two main misconception of evolution theory is that we are descendent of monkeys and the fact which no monkeys evolve into man or humans in the modern age show us that the theory is wrong. Of course, both of these could be easily refuted.

Michael Ledo

THe Nephilm pop in and out of the Bible and their story is not really told there, but are preserved in other Hebrew literature or myths from where the story came. "Hebrew Myths" by Robert Graves has a chapter dedicated to the notion. In Greek mythology these giants were the 24 violent sons of Mother earth, born at Phlegra, in Thrace and the 2 Aloeids, all of whom rebelled against Zeus. I make sport of the giants in my book "Bible Bloopers..."

The Giants

“There were giants in the earth in those days...”
–Genesis 6:4


Strange as it may seem I could not find a quote by Josh McDowell preaching as to the authenticity of the giants which inhabited the interiors of our planet. Josh does not tackle the flood/giant issue. Instead he passes the buck and informs his adherents to read Whitcomb and Morris’s The Genesis Flood. So I did. While the book (likewise as most preachers) loves to dwell on the sinful ways of man as the reason why God destroyed the earth, it fails to mention how man became that way.
 
It seems there were these sons of God, who were out of control of the almighty. The sons of God had this passion for Semite women. They found earth girls to be easy, and begat some naughty offspring who apparently took the planet over when they got older and put naked pictures on the Internet or something. God got upset and decided to suck the life out of everything he created except for a handful of humans and animals.
 
Now by this time I think I would have used that cosmic eraser and started over, maybe improving some on the panda’s thumb and female plumbing.
 
In all honesty, The Genesis Flood does make some reference to the giants by picturing large human footprints from the Paluxy River Bed. These have since been proven to be forgeries.
 
The Bible, however, may be more factual in this case than most of us would be willing to concede. First, let’s examine the word “giant” for correctness. The Hebrew word in this verse is “nefeel,” also translated as “bully” or “tyrant.” “Rapha” is the word normally used in the Bible for “giant.” “Nefeel” is a rare word used only twice in the Bible. The word “tyrant,” in my opinion, is a better translation than “giant” as these men “became mighty” and “renown.”
 
In the Negev Desert large underground sites are being uncovered where a group of people lived in the Chalcolithic (copper) age. They lived underground. They made copper weapons. Ashes indicate they were at war with some of the local tribes. In 4200 B.C. they were forced out of their underground dwellings because they were living in a flood plane.

 According to Bishop Ussher’s chronology, the world was created in 4004 B.C., and the Flood came in 2459 B.C. After going through nearly 500 pages to prove the Bible is the inerrant word of God, using inane arguments from obsolete ideas rejected by the scientific community, Whitcomb and Morris confess that the Flood did not occur in 2459 B.C. as the Bible would have us believe, but claim it “may have occurred as much as three to five thousand years before Abraham,” proclaiming the “possibility of gaps in the genealogy of Genesis 11.” I guess the right hand of God got a cramp when he realized he must pen 200,000 years of genealogy.

beausoleil

I find links between mythology and history fascinating - like that stuff about the Black Sea flooding that was raised some time back. But here's what worries me a bit, presented as a thought experiment.

Suppose 5000 years from now, one of the few documents left from our culture is a fairly distorted retelling of the Lord of the Rings story. There's also archaeological evidence of massive wars including nuclear weapons. Wouldn't our descendants be tempted to think of one as representing a memory that grew out of the other, when in fact it is just fiction? Isn't it always possible that people just made stuff up without its being motivated by history or a need to explain?

lpetrich

Where are these sites described?

Were they really underground or were they above-ground sites that have become buried, as many sites have been?

I ask that because living underground requires either living in a cave or else a lot of digging that may not be thought worth the trouble.

Michael Ledo

According to the magazine article they were underground. The article had pictures of carved out caverns/rooms where they lived.