Epistles of Thomas

July 5, 2007

How tall was Goliath?

Filed under: Old Testament,Translation — Thomas @ 23:20

You may have noticed that when you read 1 Samuel 17:4 the text said that Goliath was close to ten feet tall but there was a footnote that stated that not all manuscripts read this way. Below is a break down of the various texts. They all read either six cubits and one span or four cubits and one span. A cubit is the length of a person’s forearm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger (i.e. 18″) and a span is the length between the tip of the thumb and the tip of the little finger when the hand is fully extended (i.e. 9″).

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.”

So why would these other manuscripts/translations differ from the Hebrew text? There are two possibilities usually voiced by commentators. First the original text said Goliath was ten feet tall but later scribes thought this too unbelievable so they downsized him to a more plausible but still incredible 6’9″. We must remember that in the ancient world someone reaching five feet would be considered of fair stature. The second possibility is that Goliath started out as about seven feet tall and as in any “fish story” he grew in stature with each retelling. Most translations agree with the Hebrew text and therefore with the first explanation. This seems more likely to me as well because the Septuagint and Josephus are much later than the period from which the Hebrew text originated. The DSS may reflect a different early Hebrew text or it may reflect the consensus of its generation.

Another consideration is the weight of Goliath’s armour. The footnote in the NET states that commentators have placed it at anywhere from 126 lbs (57kg) to 200 lbs (100 kg). It seems clear that only a man of considerable size and strength could have worn such armour and managed to wield such large weapons in battle. Let’s hope that the NET revisits this issue or offers more compelling reasons for presenting a different text than all other English translations.

I have occasionally been chided for being too obtuse so let me say it plainly for those who are still unclear: Goliath was six cubits and one span tall. :-) Goliath was soon zero cubits tall because he was defeated on account of David’s faith in God’s deliverance.

About these ads

95 Comments »

  1. Thank you very much! That was incredibly insightful. God bless :)

    Comment by Liz — May 23, 2009 @ 14:19 | Reply

    • You’re welcome Liz, I’m glad you found it helpful.

      Comment by Thomas — May 23, 2009 @ 14:42 | Reply

  2. Very Insightful! I measured my arm and fingers stretched out. Came out exactly as you said. So are you saying that the English language butchered the translation or the original language was just over time turned into a “fish story”. Thanks, my email is ********@mac.com
    Looking forward to the answer

    Comment by Charm — June 28, 2009 @ 7:07 | Reply

    • For further information you will want to check out this article in Bible Study Magazine. The issue is with the original text not the English translation.

      Comment by Thomas — June 29, 2009 @ 0:01 | Reply

  3. The Hebrew texts that we get the ten foot measurement from are the Masoretic texts which were circulated in the seventh century. Though Hebrew was the original language there is plenty of time for copyist errors to creep in which I think adds weight to the Dead Sea Scrolls’ height as the genuine one. Also, height does not always translate into strength. There’s no reason to think a 10′ tall person would be any stronger than a 6’9″ person. Think of the actor Lock Martin.

    Comment by Matt — August 19, 2009 @ 14:38 | Reply

    • There are definitely advantages to accepting the DSS height as the original one but almost no modern translations have done so. The DSS text of 1 Samuel differs considerably from the MT in both the a and b renditions so we must be careful not to place too much weight on this evidence. Why does the DSS text of 1 Samuel differ so much? That’s a question that must first be addressed. I had never heard of Lock Martin but I see your point. Clearly Goliath was strong and whether he was 7 or 9 feet, he was highly unusual for that age.

      Comment by Thomas — August 25, 2009 @ 19:21 | Reply

      • Hey Thomas, Willie here, first of all thanks for having me on your site, it is so refreshing that brothers in Christ can sit down and commune with each other. I don’t think Saul panic when he became King I just think he wanted to do things his way, and in the process of doing things his own way, disobeyed GOD, then he became confused. When a person starts doing things contrairy to the word of GOD then a fear would settle in that person, not right away but in order for that to happen that person would have to continue to disobey GOD, like King Saul did. King saul disobedience was so foul to GOD that GOD sent an evil spirit to torment him.

        Comment by willie holmes — December 1, 2011 @ 5:13

    • What ever the case may be I’m sticking with the 9- 10 foot tall Goliath, my reason for this would be if Goliath was 6’9 then I don’t believe that Saul would have been afraid of him. My reason for this is because Saul was 8’0 feet tall, Saul was the tallest man in the tribe of the Benjamites. Beside do you think David would have giving God the glory if Goliath was 6’9.

      Comment by Willie Holmes — November 29, 2011 @ 19:40 | Reply

      • Willie, I think you’re forgetting Saul’s panic when they decided to make him king. Tall or not he was hiding! Also remember that David was just a young lad, too small to wear Saul’s armour and he was facing a huge seasoned warrior. He understood that the victory was the Lord’s, not his. Goliath’s height really doesn’t effect our understanding of the story’s full meaning. Goliath was their hero, God defeated him through a young lad and the entire army was in turmoil resulting in complete victory for the Hebrews. The day before, even the hour before, there was only fear; not just of Goliath but the enemy he represented. His demise resulted in them knowing that God was on their side and they were a changed army.

        Comment by Thomas — December 1, 2011 @ 4:12

  4. Wow, that’s really helpfull.

    Comment by zalt — February 2, 2010 @ 18:04 | Reply

    • Thanks zalt! I appreciate knowing I helped you out.

      Comment by Thomas — February 2, 2010 @ 18:54 | Reply

  5. Many people incorrectly think Goliath was 9 ft. 9 inches tall or taller. Not true. He was between 6′ 7″ and 6′ 9″ according to the Dead Sea Scrolls which date from 100 BC, the Historian Flavius Josephus 100 AD, and the oldest version of the Greek Bible (LXX) which was first translated from Hebrew to Greek in the 200’s BC.

    The tradition that Goliath was “six cubits and a span,” or 9 feet 6 inches tall, is now understood to be a much more recent scribal error which dates to the Medieval period, from between the 7th to 10th centuries AD, or about 1,000 years later.

    It’s best to understand that there are two different types of “cubits”.

    Just how long is a cubit? It depends on whom you ask. Noah’s cubit was somewhat longer than the Egyptian, Greek and Roman cubit. For Noah, the cubit was the measurement from his elbow to the tip of his middle (longest) finger. This inexact measurement likely caused great problems throughout the world, particularly in Africa, where a cubit could range anywhere from less than 12 inches (for pygmy cultures) to more than 36 inches (for the Watusi).
    Most sources agree that a cubit in the Bible was equal to 21.8 inches, an Egyptian cubit was equal to 20.6 inches, a Greek cubit was equal to 18.3 inches, and a Roman cubit was equal to 17.5 inches.
    To complicate things, there is another type of cubit. A “short” cubit is the length of the forearm, not including any part of the hand. Scholars believe that this unit was occasionally used in the Bible as well, as in the case of the height of Goliath. Said to be “six cubits and a span” tall, David’s target would have been nearly 11 feet tall using a regular cubit, but a more likely height of 6′ 9″ using the “short” cubit. Because humans were shorter during ancient times, a man of that height could have been considered a giant, despite the fact that he would have had difficulty dunking on Patrick Ewing.

    Of course, it’s wise too to note that there is no other historical record of any Goliath existing at all, and the whole story could be untrue like the rest of the Bible.

    Comment by Hookie — March 9, 2010 @ 9:58 | Reply

    • I find it interesting that you took the time to write all this when you reject the Bible’s truthfulness. BTW, I don’t think they were thinking of pygmies or extra tall tribesmen when they calculated their cubits. There was an established length; they didn’t just grab the nearest pygmy’s arm. I agree with you that the ancient Hebrews were short and even a typical NBA player of today would shock them.

      Comment by Thomas — March 9, 2010 @ 19:12 | Reply

      • Glad you found it interesting. Fact, the three earliest versions of biblical text have Goliath at four cubits and a span, not six cubits and a span. Don’t get all curmudgingly with me, but rather at the ancient texts themselves with which you built your belief system. That they don’t agree is a testament in itslef that the “word of god” is NOT unchanging, divinely protected truth.

        Comment by hookie — March 11, 2010 @ 12:09

      • It’s funny but I was reading God Has Spoken:Revelation and the Bible 2nd ed. by J.I. Packer this morning which is a classic defense of the inspiration of Scripture. I think he would agree if I say that the Word has not changed regardless of manuscript differences concerning the exact height of Goliath.

        Comment by Thomas — March 11, 2010 @ 18:54

      • Thomas ~ “What of the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that there is almost no change between the first century and today’s Hebrew text. Is that not good enough?”

        That is not accurate.
        “8,000 Differences Between the N. T. Greek Words of the King James Bible and the Modern Versions Review”
        – Product Description
        This is a superb scholarly work that demonstrates the significant differences between the New Testament Greek texts of Westcott and Hort, Nestle/Aland, or United Bible Societies and the Greek Words underlying our King James Bible. The differences are in the Greek Words, but the English translations are also given to show where the changes affect translation. There are over 356 of these differences that affect BIBLE DOCTRINES in one way or another.

        Brian Fagan writes “…some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100 Fagan, Brian M., and Charlotte Beck, The Oxford Companion to Archeology, entry on the “Dead sea scrolls”, Oxford University Press, 1996

        Thomas ~ “You would like me to choose from one of your three options?”

        No. Actually, I posed those options as questions. Meaning, having not extensively read text apologists, I was asking for a summation of their general stances, and posed three guesses of what their reasoning might be. I was actually looking for clarification by you since you said that you have read them and they have satisfied you. Any or all of my three guesses may not accurately portray the general stance of apologists.

        Thomas ~ “Have you studied the texts?”

        No.

        Thomas ~ “Do you know how minuscule the differences are? Are you aware that they do not change any of our doctrine?”

        See above.

        Thomas ~ “Muslims claim that the Qur’an is perfect and unchanged from the time of Muhammad but I don’t see this convincing everyone to run off and read it.”

        And is it unchanged? If so, that would be impressive and more in keeping with the kind of perfect, unchanging message a deity would create.

        Thomas ~ “They also claim that it contains modern scientific principles but I don’t see this convincing everyone to run off and read it.”

        I am not versed on the Qur’an. But these scientifically minded claims you refer to…are they from clear and unmistakable passages or fuzzy, up to the reader to fill-in-the-blanks writings?

        Thomas – “Which method is better – to compare all copies and arrive at a standard, or to destroy all divergent copies and claim that there is only one version?”

        That we’re left with the need to choose a method at all is the problem. A perfect god with a perfect word who created the world and everything we have ever seen should have the power to make someone’s hand turn to stone the first time they intentionally or not changed the way he wanted his book to be read. There are simply no apologetics I have yet read that can surmount that problem.

        Thomas – “If the Bible mentioned London Bridge and guns and rockets and airplanes would you fall down and worship?”

        No, but I would definitely take more notice. And that would mean that a bible that mentioned such things would do a whole lot better than the version we have now, at least for me. And wouldn’t that be serving god’s purpose better than our version? So why were such things not mentioned?

        Thomas ~ “Or would you claim that those things were only invented as a result of their being mentioned in the Bible?”

        Good point. Possibly I would. So let’s scrap that and use my other suggestions. Tectonic plates, the mountain gorilla, viruses, the jet stream…there are hundreds of naturally occurring examples that we as modern people know that the people of those times did not.

        Thomas ~ “The Bible goes back to the first humans so it’s not surprising that you find parallels between biblical truth/story and other cultures/nations stories.”

        That’s not accurate on the very face of it. These similarities between the bible and the myths of other cultures can not be used to validate the authenticity of the bible. For many reasons – the least of which is that the flood, Jesus (savior-figure – pick a name) and many, many other parts of the bible are but refined or altered versions of stories that existed far before the earliest version of biblical text. They are in no way parallel but rather preceding or succeeding. Surely you know this.

        Thomas ~ “He (Paul) was convinced that Christ did arise from the dead and lived in the light of that.”

        I’m not sure why you took this somewhat into a discussion of Paul, but….there has been a lot of talk by scholars and historians with more credentials behind their names than you or I that the epistles present an early belief in a purely mythical savior-figure who was subsequently historicized (perhaps in a conscientiously allegorical fashion) by the Gospel According to Mark, with Matthew, Luke, and John. They read as if Paul assumed Jesus was mythical or at least spiritual and had not actually existed in flesh and blood. Remember, Paul travelled that tricky timeline between the death of Jesus and the writings of the gospels, some forty to sixty years after Jesus’ death, no less. Lots of time for word of mouth, inaccurate retelling and embellishment. But that’s another story. Anyway, I hardly think it follows that just because Paul may have believed Jesus arose from the dead that this means Paul by extension had to believe that Jesus existed in the flesh. Paul wrote and said many things. He’s even seen by some religious people as the first ‘corrupter’ of Jesus’ message. He’s hardly universally revered by the religious. Speaking of “sufficient evidence”…I think there’s sufficient evidence that Paul wanted to be seen as a great figure and great thinker. He made use of many of the ideas of Plato in his epistles, sometimes even using the same metaphors and language. It’s also clear enough to me that Paul thought the end would come in his very own lifetime. Contrary to what he thought, here we still are, thousands of years later.

        Thomas ~ “There’s been enough written about Jesus to satisfy anyone’s desire for all bases to be covered.”

        Really? Then why isn’t everyone satisfied that the bases are covered? Do you think I or others are just being wise-crackers? Troublemakers? Jokesters?

        You say it better in your last sentence…” The evidence is sufficient for me to base my faith on.”

        That can only mean that there are vastly varying degrees of evidence that individuals will use to base their faith or belief system on, rather than speaking at all to the validity of that faith or belief system.

        So what started as a discussion between four cubits and a span and six cubits and a span as it reflects biblical accuracy has come down to this: There is not sufficient evidence for a belief in an omnipotent creator who can somehow write a book purporting to represent himself that has caused the death of millions of people while at the same time failing to be agreed upon by…..drum roll……it’s OWN BELIEVERS.

        How could a religious person who argues the tenants of his own faith with OTHER religious people ever hope to convert a non-religious person by any other means than catching someone during a momentary lapse of reason?

        There’s a reason religion and the belief in god steadily wanes each decade.

        Comment by Hookie — March 19, 2010 @ 14:36

      • BTW Thomas. I didn’t realize this was blog style or that you were the creator of this site.

        Just so you know, I admittedly don’t respect certain beliefs, but will always respect the right to have beliefs.

        I need not continue this on here. I stumbled upon it from a Google search on Goliath. I didn’t look into this site until now and assumed it was an open forum type.
        In hindsite, I look like an ass, charging in to an essentially cozy semi-private party and dancing around like a goof ball.

        Anyway, no disprespect intended.

        Comment by Hookie — March 19, 2010 @ 14:49

      • Hi Hookie,
        It is an open forum in a sense but I am its creator…but not god! It’s been an enjoyable discussion and no disrespect taken. I believe there is ultimate truth and am glad that you are concerned with truth and error. One of us is wrong and the consequences touch every area of our lives. I’ll respond to your long comment tomorrow but just one point – organised religion has been decreasing in the last decades but polls tell us that spirituality and religiousness has never been stronger. There are very few strict atheists in this world. I once wrote a philosophy paper arguing for atheism and discovered that the arguments are no stronger than for theism. Most atheists do not think their way to atheism, they merely decided to cease being religious for personal reasons. Have a good one!

        Comment by Thomas — March 19, 2010 @ 17:33

      • ” I once wrote a philosophy paper arguing for atheism and discovered that the arguments are no stronger than for theism.”

        I wish I could read it. I would like to dissect it.

        “Most atheists do not think their way to atheism, they merely decided to cease being religious for personal reasons.”

        I’ve found the exact opposite of this. How is that possible?

        Comment by Hookie — March 20, 2010 @ 12:00

    • “it’s wise too to note that there is no other historical record of any Goliath existing at all”

      Take this as you will… but here is a link showing that there is historical evidence of a man with the name Goliath existing in the Philistine culture during the time of David

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9997587/

      You don’t have to believe the story… but this was reported in 2005 and seems like a historical record that may shed light on the story.

      Comment by Patrick — July 15, 2010 @ 18:28 | Reply

      • It says that they have found evidence that Goliath was a name used in that area which is not surprising. Unfortunately it is circumstantial evidence at best from a historian’s point of view.

        Comment by Thomas — July 20, 2010 @ 9:51

  6. I would have to say then, that the word of god (the bible) is composed of….words. And if the words change, then the word of god changes because the word of god IS the bible. It’s not that hard to understand.

    There IS a difference between four cubits and a span and six cubits and a span. That’s just a fact.

    There are numerous translations and versions of the bible that disagree with one another. That too, is a fact.

    I also find it interesting that even J.I. Packers own “word” has changed, by changing or adding words (like the bible does) as evidenced by the fact that there’s a “2nd ed.” attached to the title of his work.

    Point is, again, that the EARLIEST versions of biblical text (which to any logical person means the most reliable so far, because no one had yet erred in translating them)have Goliath at between 6’7″ and 6’9″.

    That people want to imagine, wide-eyed as they read Davids story, that Goliath was 9 feet or taller only speaks to our inner childs sense of boogey-man wonder, rather than any a logic or reason.

    Comment by Hookie — March 12, 2010 @ 8:24 | Reply

  7. Thomas, please read post number six, which is above your post of number seven, for my reply.

    Comment by Hookie — March 18, 2010 @ 10:14 | Reply

  8. Hookie, Your posts seem to keep coming up ahead of my last one. Anyway. There is a fundamental difference between words on a page that have been translated and copied over centuries and the unchanging Word of God, by which I mean Jesus Christ, the fullness of God’s Revelation. I have no issue with Goliath’s height because either way he was a giant and this can be interpreted no other way. King Saul and his army weren’t afraid of his halitosis! Do we have the exact measurement? – No. Does that make any difference in this story? No – both the details (he was tall) and the reaction of the soldiers (fear) does not change. The point that David relied on God and not human strength is firmly planted within the details.

    The point which you are getting at – that there are differences between our current critical text and the autographs is a complicated one but one that has been well answered by Christian apologists. The real question is whether I am being rational in accepting their answers. How can I as a rational 21st century person believe that the Bible contains God’s unchanging Word for all humans alive today and for all those already dead and those yet unborn? Is the evidence sufficient? Some base their relationship with God on “blind faith” and do not feel a need to examine the evidence. Others like Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel write reams on “evidence that demands a verdict” explaining the “case for Christ.” Perhaps you need to have faith in their method but that applies to those who object as well.

    I have no problem accepting the Bible as God’s word because I see my faith built on evidence. It’s like getting a car loan. The dealership places faith in you based on your credit record but at the end of the day it is only faith. I have seen the results of belief in the Bible; seen it turn a person’s life from darkness to light. I see the effect of Holy Spirit providing the fruit of the Spirit to those who talk in his ways. Do I stop believing because of a few bad apples who turn away? Should a dealership stop selling cars because some stop paying their loans? Life in Christ is a choice and there are many variables but the Bible has provided a strong foundation for thousands of years and changed the lives of billions. Has the Bible changed or have I changed? Do I rely on God or my own human strength?

    Comment by Thomas — March 18, 2010 @ 12:45 | Reply

    • Thomas ~ “There is a fundamental difference between words on a page that have been translated and copied over centuries and the unchanging Word of God, by which I mean Jesus Christ, the fullness of God’s Revelation.”

      Then the Word of God is just a phrase that doesn’t actually have anything to do with real words, apparently. Because, as I said, if the Word of God has anything to do with text, translation, or interpretation of text, then it is as a fact not at all unchanging. It is the opposite; very fluid and prone to near countless errors and changes over the centuries.

      Thomas ~ “The point that David relied on God and not human strength is firmly planted within the details.”

      Yes, and there are hundreds of such stories written after and BEFORE the Goliath story, all with different men relying on the strength of different gods. There is nothing unique or particularly fascinating about David’s’ story.

      Thomas ~ “The point which you are getting at – that there are differences between our current critical text and the autographs is a complicated one but one that has been well answered by Christian apologists.”

      In a sentence, can you sum up what the apologists use as a defense? Would it be something like the following:

      The changing of the text throughout the years doesn’t really matter because Gods basic message is there.

      Or

      God allows for some measure of human error but will not allow really important stuff to be copied or translated wrong.

      Or

      There IS a 100% accurate translation/version out there, but God only reveals it to the people he “calls”. The incorrect translations/versions are but red herrings allowed to exist by God to weed out those who are not worthy or are not yet ready for God to reveal himself to them.

      I’ve run out of guesses. But the above apologetics don’t cut it for me. It’s simple and as black and white as paper and ink….If a perfect God had his book written using humans directly inspired/controlled by God, God would not allow any confusion or leave any room for human error. No amount of apologetics can transcend that simple logic. None, no matter how desperate an apologists need might be to explain this away in order to preserve his fragile belief system.

      Strobel is intellectually dishonest and underhanded, whether intentionally or by accident – the result is the same. He poses as skeptical and in his writings wisely stays away from anyone credentialed who holds the scientific opinion.

      Timothy J. Callahan wrote of Strobel ~ “Strobel is not presenting the real arguments for evolution to those skeptical of it. Instead, he only presents a caricature of evolution — a straw man — as an easy target to those who wish to attack it. That the whole exercise is a sham can be seen by the fact that following the overwhelming majority of these interviews Strobel does not take the arguments of the intelligent design advocates to scientists who oppose their views to see what sort of rebuttal they might give. Thus, there is no debate. In The Case for a Creator, creationists have the first, last and only word, and their arguments are presented as irrefutable.”

      That’s poor apologetics in my book.

      And even after all the work McDowell has done, which I disagree with most of his conclusions, McDowell himself claims that the “evidence for Christianity in the Scriptures is not exhaustive, but it is sufficient.”

      Sufficient? Okay, if he feels his belief system is based at least on “sufficient” findings, so be it. My problems with that aside, where does McDowell stand on the changing text and different translations of a supposed holy, iron-clad, locked in stone book said to be written by God?

      Thomas ~ “Perhaps you need to have faith in their method but that applies to those who object as well.”

      If I don’t put my faith in an unchanging bible that seems to always change, why would I put any faith in an author?

      Thomas ~ “I have no problem accepting the Bible as God’s word because I see my faith built on evidence.”

      Subjective.

      Thomas ~ “I have seen the results of belief in the Bible; seen it turn a person’s life from darkness to light.”

      Subjective.

      Iapetos, Hyperion, Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, Hera, Demeter and Hestia. Apollo, Bona Dea, Bacchus, Carmenta, Ceres, and Cybele were all gods too. Millions believed in them and prayed to them and saw them “turn a person’s life from darkness to light” too.
      But for some strange reason, us smart, wise modern folks know better than to believe in such silly gods. WE know better, wink wink. Silly ancient people.

      Thomas ~ “…the Bible has provided a strong foundation for thousands of years and changed the lives of billions.”

      The bible has endorsed slavery, murder, prejudice, torture, and the slaughter or women and children. Literally millions have died as a direct result of the bible and the “god” therein. Morals evolved long before the bible. Research this. The golden rule existed long before the bible. There is not one thing written in the bible that could not have been thought of and written down by a man. Not one mention of a germ, not one mention of a virus. Not one mention of tectonic plates, black holes, the Chinese, the mountain gorilla, the jet stream or a coherent “prophesy” for the future. Just ONE clear mention of cancer, the London Bridge, antibiotics, guns, rockets or airplanes and we would not even be having this discussion.

      Thomas ~ “Has the Bible changed or have I changed?”

      Both.

      Comment by Hookie — March 19, 2010 @ 9:49 | Reply

      • Hookie, thanks for your exhaustive reply. :). To get back to your original question and what seems to be your overriding concern. You seem to believe that if even one word of the Bible differs from the autograph (original copy) then we have a different Bible today. Is that correct? You would like me to choose from one of your three options? What of the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that there is almost no change between the first century and today’s Hebrew text. Is that not good enough? Should I throw out my critical edition of the Greek New Testament because it leaves room for error? I studied textual criticism under Gordon Fee and see no reason to reject the Bible because of differences between manuscripts. Have you studied the texts? Do you know how minuscule the differences are? Are you aware that they do not change any of our doctrine? Regardless, human claims about the nature of Scripture will not convince you. Muslims claim that the Qur’an is perfect and unchanged from the time of Muhammad but I don’t see this convincing everyone to run off and read it. They also claim that it contains modern scientific principles but I don’t see this convincing everyone to run off and read it. If the early Christians had burned all divergent copies of the Bible as Muslims did with the Qur’an would you be convinced? Which method is better – to compare all copies and arrive at a standard, or to destroy all divergent copies and claim that there is only one version?

        If the Bible mentioned London Bridge and guns and rockets and airplanes would you fall down and worship? Or would you claim that those things were only invented as a result of their being mentioned in the Bible? Or that it is just coincidence? I ask because the Bible does mention hundreds of things that we take for granted because we think of them as part of life, with or without the Bible. The Bible goes back to the first humans so it’s not surprising that you find parallels between biblical truth/story and other cultures/nations stories. Ultimately the Bible brings us to Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. As Paul stated, without Christ’s resurrection we believe a lie and are to be pitied. He was convinced that Christ did arise from the dead and lived in the light of that. I am also convinced that Christ rose from the dead and I live in the light of that. I agree that Strobel’s populist style prevents him from engaging too many objections but I can only assume that when he made his own step of faith he seriously considered what he was doing. There’s been enough written about Jesus to satisfy anyone’s desire for all bases to be covered. At the end of the day, Jesus has still be resurrected and the Bible still testifies to that fact and the apostles and Christians died for that belief. The evidence is sufficient for me to base my faith on.

        Comment by Thomas — March 19, 2010 @ 11:37

      • Actually the bible does mention germs…in a way…read the dietary laws. Man at that time did not understand germs, but God did. He isn’t going to give them a lesson they are not going to understand, He simply said wash your hands.

        Comment by Jennifer — September 18, 2010 @ 21:45

  9. I will wait for yor response. I will also save my replies concerning your last post and add them in…as there are assertion in it that I feel need to be addressed/refuted.

    Comment by Hookie — March 19, 2010 @ 18:15 | Reply

    • Thomas ~ “What of the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that there is almost no change between the first century and today’s Hebrew text. Is that not good enough?”

      Hookie~That is not accurate. “8,000 Differences Between the N. T. Greek Words of the King James Bible and the Modern Versions Review” Brian Fagan writes “…some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences …

      The DSS are only related to the Old Testament, not the New. I would suggest that Fagan is being a little overly dramatic in his statement. I would suggest you read Tov’s volume on Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible which is a detailed and exhaustive account (0800634292). I know more about the NT because I studied Greek and textual criticism. The quote you provided is taken from a KJV-only publication which seeks to say that the KJV is somehow superior to modern translations. The KJV translators used the best Greek texts they had available at the time but, as mentioned, these texts differed from our modern Greek NA27 and UBS4. This is not surprising because thousands of new manuscripts have been discovered since 1611 and we are much closer to the Autographs.

      Thomas ~ “You would like me to choose from one of your three options?”
      Hookie~… three guesses of what their reasoning might be. I was actually looking for clarification by you since you said that you have read them and they have satisfied you. Any or all of my three guesses may not accurately portray the general stance of apologists.

      I think that you are right, these three options are often mentioned (and also caricatured by those who oppose). It’s a complicated topic but in order to get what you want (a perfect text in creation and transmission) you have to desire a dictated text. In other words you want the biblical authors to merely hear and write down what God told them to write down. This is simply not the case although it would provide a stronger case but would possibly result in bibliolatry (people worshipping the book rather than God). The Bible was produced by God’s inspiration but the author’s were given free rein to use their own language and such. Thus the Bible only records what was known to the people at that time (and not Big Ben or scientific constructs).

      Thomas ~ “Have you studied the texts?”
      Hookie~No.
      Feel free to start :)

      Thomas ~ “Muslims claim that the Qur’an is perfect and unchanged from the time of Muhammad but I don’t see this convincing everyone to run off and read it.”
      Hookie~And is it unchanged? If so, that would be impressive and more in keeping with the kind of perfect, unchanging message a deity would create.
      As I mentioned the burned all the divergent copies but I just recently read that some Germans are working on producing a “critical edition” of the Qur’an showing all the extent variants. I’m not “perfection” would reflect the deity better. As soon as someone declared they had the unchanging word of God, someone else would come along and change a few words just to prove they could. Look at all the cults that most major religions have today. They change a few things here and there and then claim that they alone have the unchanged word of God.

      Hookie~I am not versed on the Qur’an. But these scientifically minded claims you refer to…are they from clear and unmistakable passages or fuzzy, up to the reader to fill-in-the-blanks writings?

      Let’s just say that they were all “discovered” after science had arrived at a particular understanding of how things work. Of course the science method allows its mind to be changed at any time which kind of negates the profitability of this kind of argumentation.

      Hookie~A perfect god with a perfect word who created the world and everything we have ever seen should have the power to make someone’s hand turn to stone the first time they intentionally or not changed the way he wanted his book to be read. There are simply no apologetics I have yet read that can surmount that problem.

      Where would “Free Will” exist in such a system? You picture of the perfect god sounds like the vision of a perfect dictator who sees all, knows all, and immediately punishes all. God doesn’t want us to follow him out of fear. He wants to have a relationship with us based on love.

      Hookie~So let’s scrap that and use my other suggestions. Tectonic plates, the mountain gorilla, viruses, the jet stream…there are hundreds of naturally occurring examples that we as modern people know that the people of those times did not.

      The problem with this line of thought is that this only works if the Bible was hidden for 3000 years and came to light today. If those examples had been in the Bible they would have been seen as natural human knowledge and not have been discovered by “modern” people. They would be on the same level as scraping mould off your house wall before it spread. What you are really asking for is some massive universe “owner’s manual” with schematic breakdowns of everything. The Bible is concerned with our relationship to our Creator, the creation is ours to figure out.

      Thomas ~ “The Bible goes back to the first humans so it’s not surprising that you find parallels between biblical truth/story and other cultures/nations stories.”
      Hookie~That’s not accurate on the very face of it. These similarities between the bible and the myths of other cultures cannot be used to validate the authenticity of the bible. For many reasons – the least of which is that the flood, Jesus (savior-figure – pick a name) and many, many other parts of the bible are but refined or altered versions of stories that existed far before the earliest version of biblical text. They are in no way parallel but rather preceding or succeeding.

      They cannot be used to invalidate the Bible either which is what many do.

      Thomas ~ “There’s been enough written about Jesus to satisfy anyone’s desire for all bases to be covered.”
      Hookie~Really? Then why isn’t everyone satisfied that the bases are covered? Do you think I or others are just being wise-crackers? Troublemakers? Jokesters?

      I meant that there is a large smorgasbord and we are free to pick any theory we want off the table and live with it. I chose to follow the Jesus of both history and faith. I think the evidence for his life and resurrection is sufficient to believe that he is my Lord and my God. This gets to what I meant about Paul who was the earliest writer we still have. He did an about turn in his life based on an experience with the risen Jesus. The gospel writers investigated the accounts and wrote their records of Jesus’ life (Lk 1). These people were willing to die for the faith. This wasn’t something they saw from a distance or stories they heard about a man who lived before their time. They appealed to the own experience Peter; 1 Pet 5:1) and to the witness of others still living (1 Cor 15:3-7). They obviously thought these events were true enough to die for. Why did they abandon their comfortable lives to die for a lie? Were they all crazy?

      That’s enough for today. I await your thoughts on this and my last short post.

      Comment by Thomas — March 20, 2010 @ 13:29 | Reply

      • Thomas ~ “…in order to get what you want (a perfect text in creation and transmission) you have to desire a dictated text.”

        Absolutely. Additionally, I would desire that when god dictated his text, he did so by speaking audibly to the scribe – with three objective, independent witnesses listening too to ensure accuracy.

        Thomas ~ “In other words you want the biblical authors to merely hear and write down what God told them to write down.”

        Well of course! But with the aforementioned independent witnesses.

        Thomas ~ “…it would provide a stronger case but would possibly result in bibliolatry (people worshipping the book rather than God).”

        That one’s easy. God could simply add, in the Bible…”Thou shalt not worship my book.”

        Thomas ~ “The Bible was produced by God’s inspiration but the author’s were given free rein to use their own language and such.”

        Why? It makes no sense to allow for human error. Remember, this is the book that proclaims constantly how imperfect we humans are, how we are nothing without God, how we can’t even direct our own footsteps ect…ect…ect….

        Thomas ~ “Thus the Bible only records what was known to the people at that time…”

        Why is that? Why when it claims to be timeless and written for all ages and claims to have relevance right now?

        Thomas ~ “Have you studied the texts?”
        Me ~ No.
        Thomas ~ “Feel free to start :)”

        But why, when all I’ve studied already doesn’t hold water for me? Why dig deeper when the surface down to the middle, used by billions over time to build their belief system, is so porous?

        Thomas ~ “I’m not “perfection” would reflect the deity better.”

        It couldn’t help but reflect it better. Perfect god should by definition equate to perfect word/book/bible.

        Thomas ~ “As soon as someone declared they had the unchanging word of God, someone else would come along and change a few words just to prove they could.”

        Not if an all powerful god wouldn’t allow anyone to sully his perfect book.

        Thomas ~ “Look at all the cults that most major religions have today. They change a few things here and there and then claim that they alone have the unchanged word of God.”

        Could that be because god exists but doesn’t care? Could that be because god doesn’t exist?

        An all powerful god has allowed his book to be misinterpreted, abused and mistranslated. It has been used to start wars, famines, condoned slavery and the subjugation of women. It has been used for people to refuse blood transfusions, to die from handling poisonous snakes, beheadings and exorcisms. There isn’t enough room to write all the damage the bible has done. And your answer is free will? Please, dictate over me and strip me of my free will god, lest one more child die.

        Thomas ~ “Your picture of the perfect god sounds like the vision of a perfect dictator who sees all, knows all, and immediately punishes all.”

        To see all and know all would suffice. Dictating and punishment need not follow.

        Thomas ~ “God doesn’t want us to follow him out of fear.”

        Many religious people would disagree heartily with you. They would like to ‘put the fear of God in you.’

        Me ~ ‘So let’s scrap that and use my other suggestions. Tectonic plates, the mountain gorilla, viruses, the jet stream…there are hundreds of naturally occurring examples that we as modern people know that the people of those times did not.
        Thomas ~ “The problem with this line of thought is that this only works if the Bible was hidden for 3000 years and came to light today. If those examples had been in the Bible they would have been seen as natural human knowledge and not have been discovered by “modern” people.”

        But they couldn’t have been seen as natural human knowledge. They would have been seen for thousands of years as some hokey unscientific crap and scoffed at. Then, when science finally caught up and confirmed those things, religious people would dance on rooftops because science actually verified things in the bible – things that bible writers could not have tested and known about at the time. These new discoveries, long ago mentioned in the bible, would boost the validity of the bible by untold bounds. And isn’t that what the bible and god wants? More followers? More believers? So why not add these things? Sorry, but I can’t see how any apologetics or text study could explain that away.

        Me ~ ‘These similarities between the bible and the myths of other cultures cannot be used to validate the authenticity of the bible.’

        Thomas ~ “They cannot be used to invalidate the Bible either which is what many do.”

        But they can. The savior born of a virgin, dying and rising three days later ALL precede the bible and Jesus’ life. As does the flood.

        Thomas ~ “The gospel writers investigated the accounts and wrote their records of Jesus’ life (Lk 1).”

        Why? And why wait so long? Why not hear these stories from people who were actually there?

        Thomas ~ “These people were willing to die for the faith.”

        So are Jehovah’s Witnesses. So are many Muslims. So are suicide bombers. So are atheists.

        Thomas, let’s pretend God emailed you. Which out of the two email versions below would you expect or prefer?

        “Thomas, I will meet you at the west most part of Vancouver when the sun has reached its zenith. We will go inside the place across from the haven for gluttons on the street named after one of the original thirteen colonies that revolted from the British in the states. Over two hot concoctions we will converse, for the wise know that only through thought and learning does true enlightenment blossom.”

        Or, would you prefer…

        “Thomas, I can meet you at the Tim Horton’s on West Georgia Street at noon. It’s across the street from that Diet & Health Clinic ‎. We can have coffee and talk.”

        Comment by Hookie — March 21, 2010 @ 11:57

      • Thomas ~ “…in order to get what you want (a perfect text in creation and transmission) you have to desire a dictated text.”
        Hookie~Absolutely. Additionally, I would desire that when god dictated his text, he did so by speaking audibly to the scribe – with three objective, independent witnesses listening too to ensure accuracy.
        This would only work if you were one of the three witnesses because how could you trust them any more than you trust the biblical authors?
        All the rest of your objections about God not dictating things, etc. relies on an idea that God is not at work in history revealing himself to a stubborn, sinful people.
        God did give very specific commands that were written with his own finger on stone tablets (the Ten Commandments), however almost immediately the people had already broken those commands. How would you have ensured that God’s word was transmitted down through the generations? By striking dead everyone in sight or by preserving as many people as possible and slowly training them to see that his way was best and to live by it? Law is ineffective unless people want to live by it. God could dictate revelation but if people refuse to live according to his commands what should he do? The Bible is mostly a record of how he did what he did and it climaxes with Jesus Christ who arrived in the fullness of time to accomplish the reunion of God and humankind. If you assume for the moment that God is real and does desire a relationship with us, how else could he have done it?

        Thomas ~ “Thus the Bible only records what was known to the people at that time…”
        Hookie…There isn’t enough room to write all the damage the bible has done. And your answer is free will? Please, dictate over me and strip me of my free will god, lest one more child die.
        So it’s bad for a child to die but ok for an octogenarian to die? Death entered this world through Adam and it left this world through Jesus. Atheism claims to have conquered God but it certainly hasn’t conquered death. Even if science could prolong a human life indefinitely and we could live the age of the universe we cannot escape death. If people dying (especially children) is your definition of evil I don’t see any hope of it being solved by atheism. Even dying at 105 is a short life relative to the age of the universe or the life of a tree. We say they “lived a good life” but did they? God provides us with the hope of eternal life. I can’t prove that I will live eternally but I hold it to be true just as much as that you will die some day. Death is the great equaliser but the Bible teaches that after death comes judgment and there will not be universal equality at that time.

        Thomas ~ “God doesn’t want us to follow him out of fear.”
        Hookie~Many religious people would disagree heartily with you. They would like to ‘put the fear of God in you.’
        The Bible talks about “the fear of the Lord” being the beginning of wisdom but fear is being used in a different way. Fear means to reverence, respect, obey, etc. I could fear being electrocuted by an 80v power line but because I know its boundaries I know I will not be harmed if I remain within them.

        Hookie~But they couldn’t have been seen as natural human knowledge. They would have been seen for thousands of years as some hokey unscientific crap and scoffed at. Then, when science finally caught up and confirmed those things, religious people would dance on rooftops because science actually verified things in the bible – things that bible writers could not have tested and known about at the time. These new discoveries, long ago mentioned in the bible, would boost the validity of the bible by untold bounds.
        How would these things have been explained? What language would have been used? Let’s say that 3000 years ago God wanted to reveal E=MC2. How would he have gone about it in a way that made sense to us using their language and understanding? Even if he specifically stated: “Write down this weird looking thing and keep it recorded for all time, E=MC2” when it finally came to Einstein inventing the formula he used the English language but even then C doesn’t linguistically relate to the word “light.” I don’t see how you can have anything hidden that could suddenly come to light that related to a scientific fact. If you described it in the language of the day then it would immediately become common knowledge. If you hide mathematical formulas or something you are depending on the convergence of that hidden formula with modern explanations of that formula using the language of today. What would that prove?

        Thomas ~ “They cannot be used to invalidate the Bible either which is what many do.”
        Hookie~But they can. The savior born of a virgin, dying and rising three days later ALL precede the bible and Jesus’ life. As does the flood.
        You are oversimplifying the evidence. The flood is simple = if it was worldwide then every people on earth would have access to that history and of course it would be present in earlier civilizations. With regard to Jesus there have been many attempts to find parallels between his life and the tales of “gods” and such previously in circulation. However, none of those attempts have been successful (feel free to debate that with evidence). The best argument against these claims is that we do have records from eyewitnesses. I’m not sure why you ask “Why? And why wait so long? Why not hear these stories from people who were actually there?” Luke 1:1-4 states “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

        You ask the final question about God emailing me. God did speak face to face with people. For example, Moses was chosen by the people to be their intermediary with God and he met with God and was given the Law. The question isn’t about how God met with him but about how God subsequently makes himself known to all the world. If I want to meet someone who has never been to Vancouver and has no idea about Tim Horton’s or where West Georgia is then I had better give different instructions, instructions that will be valid for all people throughout history. Those instructions were to believe in Jesus Christ and accept guidance from his Spirit. You don’t need to go to a certain location on earth or speak a particular language. You don’t need to have a PhD or be an athlete. Anyone at any time in any place can immediately speak with the God of the universe and enter into a personal relationship with him. He didn’t want humanity to have to wait until science discovered atoms or until humans land on Mars. He began that relationship during pre-scientific days using the knowledge they had. He basically said this is the way things are, you can do it my way or your own way, here are the consequences. Too often we have chosen our own way and that has gotten humanity into a lot of trouble.

        Comment by Thomas — March 22, 2010 @ 14:59

  10. Hi there, I didn’t read the whole response, but restpectfully, I can’t see a 6 foot person carrying a sword that weighed what the bible says it does!!! Wasn’t the sword like a couple hundred of pounds? I’ll go check it out :)

    Comment by charlene — June 28, 2010 @ 21:28 | Reply

  11. Sorry, I re-read it and the coat was 125-200pds. Still seems alot to be for the average 6 ft person!

    Comment by charlene — June 28, 2010 @ 21:38 | Reply

  12. I read most of the conversations above and was pulled in. Goliath was a big man “giant”. I have wondered for years why creationist and evolutionist argued (did we come from apes) or did we begin in the garden of eden? What I have read seems to me to or should bring science and religion together. The story of Cain and Able. You all know the story…Cain kills his brother right? What happens to Cain afterwards is where my belief comes in to the equation. He was shunned/barred sent away from the garden of eden and went to live with other peoples? Now…Adam and Eve…Cain and Abel. I believe God is the Father of evolution and the other peoples could have been the neanderthal’s or some prehistoric humanoid? Why not? Gods creation of the heavens and the earth could have been many millions of years pryor to the garden of eden. A day is like a thousand years, or a thousand years is a day to God.

    Post Script: Scientist have recently shown that the neanderthal “gene” is carried by us! Whether it’s true or not, I can still see the Almighty Creator as The creator of evolution. May God bless us all!

    Comment by wayne — July 26, 2010 @ 18:31 | Reply

  13. God created science, and the science that humans understand today probably does not even scratch the surface of all the science that exists. Humans will never come close to understanding how everything works. Knowledge in a sense can be compared to money. The more we have the less we think we need others or God. If we are rich and powerful we put less value on other people. The same with knowledge. People today believe our knowledge of science has become so great that that it allows us to disprove God’s existence, when we actually know very little. As far as Goliath not being able to carry such heavy battle gear, I believe he could have because God could have very well made him strong for the purpose of providing a test to the Israelites’ and David’s faith. God made Samson strong in a way that we cannot understand with our scientific knowledge.

    Comment by Matt — August 3, 2010 @ 11:30 | Reply

  14. Thanks for your answer. I get frustrated when I read Christopher Hitchens-type scofters try to sound scholarly, like this answer of “Answers”…

    “Many people incorrectly think Goliath was 9 ft. 9 inches tall or taller. Not true. He was between 6′ 7″ and 6′ 9″ according to the Dead Sea Scrolls which date from 100 BC, the Historian Flavius Josephus 100 AD, and the oldest version of the Greek Bible (LXX) which was first translated from Hebrew to Greek in the 200’s BC.

    The tradition that Goliath was “six cubits and a span,” or 9 feet 6 inches tall, is now understood to be a much more recent scribal error which dates to the Medieval period, from between the 7th to 10th centuries AD, or about 1,000 years later than the earlier original! These earlier and therefor more accurate (since they had not yet been mistranslated) versions actually have Goliath at four cubits and a span, NOT six cubits and a span.

    It’s best to understand that there are two different types of “cubits”.

    Just how long is a cubit? It depends on whom you ask. Noah’s cubit was somewhat longer than the Egyptian, Greek and Roman cubit. For Noah, the cubit was the measurement from his elbow to the tip of his middle (longest) finger. This inexact measurement likely caused great problems throughout the world, particularly in Africa, where a cubit could range anywhere from less than 12 inches (for pygmy cultures) to more than 36 inches (for the Watusi).
    Most sources agree that a cubit in the Bible was equal to 21.8 inches, an Egyptian cubit was equal to 20.6 inches, a Greek cubit was equal to 18.3 inches, and a Roman cubit was equal to 17.5 inches.
    To complicate things, there is another type of cubit. A “short” cubit is the length of the forearm, not including any part of the hand. Scholars believe that this unit was occasionally used in the Bible as well, as in the case of the height of Goliath. Said to be “six cubits and a span” tall, David’s target would have been nearly 11 feet tall using a regular cubit, but a more likely height of 6′ 9″ using the “short” cubit. Because humans were shorter during ancient times, a man of that height could have been considered a giant, despite the fact that he would have had difficulty dunking on an NBA center. It’s also worth noting that there is no independent historical record showing that the Goliath of the Bible ever really existed. Like most of the Bible, the whole story is likely just an invented parable to boost the image of God. It’s also worth noting that unlike the stripped down, fairytale telling of the story that is most often read to children, the real story is quite gruesome. After David kills Goliath he actually beheads him!”

    Thanks for your answer – much better.

    Comment by Curtis — September 23, 2010 @ 10:54 | Reply

  15. Actually “Curtis” I’m the one that WROTE that answer on Answers.com. Instead of calling me a Hitchens wannabe, why don’t you refute what I wrote????

    Although Goliath as we know the story from the Bible, and what happened between him and David almost for sure did not happen, it is nonetheless clear that the earliest writings on the subject confirm Goliath to be between 6’7″ and 6’9″.

    Your “belief” or “faith” has absolutely no bearing on the height of Goliath. Facts are facts. The top Bible SCHOLARS…people who believe the Bible don’t think Goliath was anywhere near 9 feet tall. These scholars study ancient manuscripts for a LIVING;

    Please reconsider your statement, Curtis.

    Comment by Hookie — October 6, 2010 @ 9:52 | Reply

    • Welcome back Hookie, it’s been a while.
      I appreciate your position but to say in one breath that “Although Goliath as we know the story from the Bible, and what happened between him and David almost for sure did not happen” and at the same time state that “it is nonetheless clear that the earliest writings on the subject confirm Goliath to be between 6’7″ and 6’9″” seems somewhat ingenious, like having your cake and eating it too.

      However, you want to take Goliath’s height the point is that all Israel’s other warriors were afraid of him and he was obviously “something” big. I’ve been reading Three Kingdoms recently which is a history of China during the Three Kingdoms period. In almost every battle in the book (and there are a lot!) each side has a champion and they fight each other before the armies fight. The story of David is the story of one army’s champion fighting a pipsqueak from the other side. David credits his victory to God just as a similar victory in ancient China would be credited to the “mandate of heaven.” There is nothing un-possible about the story. It is either the world’s most improbably victory or God was with David as he indicated. At this point you can accept either side but both must be done via presupposition (i.e. faith) because we are historically removed and could not have seen God in any event.

      Comment by Thomas — October 19, 2010 @ 19:49 | Reply

  16. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.”

    – 1 Corinthians 1:18-29

    Comment by Steve in Long Island — October 19, 2010 @ 13:26 | Reply

    • Hi Thomas.

      I don’t see it as having my cake and eating it too. Even though I posit that the story likely didn’t happen, I can still form an opinion on a detail of the story (the height). The details are the details whether the story is true or not. See what I mean?

      And I’ll say again, the EARLIEST versions of the story state four cubits and a span. That is a fact. There is no arguing out of it. There were problems translating the earliest version to the later version. That is a fact.

      It doesn’t do the religious much good to argue about there own writings.

      Imagine I witness an event and write it down, then years later someone translates it to Chinese. The Chinese version is widely copied and read, even studied. Soon my original version is lost. Imagine a century later it’s translated to Greek, then BACK to English. This English version, or translation, is widely circulated, read and studied. Another century later my original is found.

      My original English version is then compared to the recent, accepted English translation and differences are found. Which version is the most reliable?

      Do you see what I mean??

      My original serves as the most accurate version of the event, NOT the later translations or copies.

      This concept is not hard to understand.

      I’ll say it again, the EARLIEST version of the story has Goliath at four cubits and a span, placing him at about 6’7″.

      That is a fact and not arguable.

      Steve in Long Island. Yes, yes, I get your point. We humans with our silly “wisdom” are stupid to god and tainted and child-like and simpletons. I get it. I get it.

      Verses like the ones you quoted are brought out whenever theists can’t argue their way out of a logical impasse.

      The problem with the old “we’re too stupid to rely on our own understanding of things” standpoint is that by extension we would also be too stupid to pick which god to believe in or, having picked one, which religion to believe in for that matter.

      No. I think we humans are pretty smart. Even wise too.

      Comment by Hookie — October 20, 2010 @ 8:10 | Reply

      • How about “picking” the one (and only) who created us?

        Comment by Steve in Long Island — October 22, 2010 @ 8:20

      • Hookie,

        I understand your point. The LXX and DSS (and Josephus) are clearly older that the MT Hebrew text. However scholars don’t always conclude that the LXX and DSS reflect an earlier textual tradition. Regardless, in this case 6’9″ would be enormous for an ancient. He also apparently ‘suffered’ from sexdactyly which is genetic and also unusual. In any event, the point of the story is that young David, untrained, unarmed and outmatched defeated a much larger warrior. This resulted in the ‘creation’ of David as God’s warrior and his reputation only grew with the years, eventually eclipsing that of King Saul who was the tallest and fairest in the land.

        Steve in Long Island,

        I’m not sure how Goliath being ‘only’ 6’9″ is a problem to the point of the story. Hookie doesn’t accept the Goliath story as historical ‘fact’ but all history is conveyed by those who write. Goliath’s nation left us no records so we only have the Hebrew version. We either trust (put our faith in) the Hebrew historian or we don’t. Even if we dug up the bones of a headless 6’9″/9’9″ giant it would not prove to Hookie that the Goliath story was true. It would merely show that it is probable. Personally, I believe that because the writer was working within that milieu anything he wrote would be probable given the genre. In other words if I was writing something about events in 2010 I would only include probable events, lest I alienate my listeners. e.g. if I want to enhance the president’s reputation I might exaggerate his honesty with a story about a cherry tree but I’m not going to claim that he cut down a cherry tree the size of a redwood because that’s impossible and detracts from the legend about his honesty rather than adding to it. David had many enemies and if there was no historical “tall guy” it seems improbable that they wouldn’t have attacked him on the issue and undermined his kingship. Much of David’s legitimacy in holding the kingship depends on his character; that he is a “man after God’s own heart.” If he never defeated a giant in battle I think it improbable that he could have become king and gained the reputation he did. This is an example of faith in history based on probability. I wasn’t there so I have to ask myself (and others) whether the story he tells is probable. Because I judge the Old Testament to be probable in most cases, in those cases where we might doubt it we trust it based on the greater whole. Blessed are those who believe even though they have not seen…but that does not mean that we should believe everything we haven’t seen. Christ sent Holy Spirit to testify to what is true. I can relate things, just as the ancient historians did, but I cannot force others to accept them. I must trust that Holy Spirit will do this as I am faithful with the little I have been given.

        Take care guys and remember to have fun out there in God’s creation!

        Comment by Thomas — October 23, 2010 @ 4:15

  17. No human being will be able to convince you of the truth. Only God, Himself, can do that. I (personally) would suggest the following:

    “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”

    -Matthew 7:7-11

    “When thou shalt beget children, and children’s children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you. 28And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.”

    – Deuteronmy 4:25-31 (KJV)

    “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.”

    -Hebrews 11:6

    Comment by Steve in Long Island — October 22, 2010 @ 8:39 | Reply

  18. You’re right, no human can. And if god wants a shot at convincing me, he’ll need to do it BIG. It can be in a charitable way too. God, pick any nursing home and roll back the age of its residents by 35 years. Not only would it convince me, but think of how happy god would make those patients! Should be easy for someone so omnipotent.

    I’m curious Steve, were you imagining that you were imparting some new information to me with those scriptures?

    Comment by Hookie — October 22, 2010 @ 10:27 | Reply

    • It will only become “new” to you when you embrace it within your heart (spirit).

      (I speak from experience. It took me forty years to “see” it for myself so I am certainly not trying to be condescending. I appologise if it seems that I am.)

      Comment by Steve in Long Island — October 22, 2010 @ 11:13 | Reply

  19. What are your thoughts on this:

    http://www.returnofthenephilim.com/ReturnOfTheNephilim.html

    Thank-you for your time and efforts. I appreciate your desire for truth. I (like you) do not blindly believe everything I am told. I do; however, believe firmly in the existence of God and in His original (and ongoing) revelation of Himself to us. Unfortunately, a great deal of this original revelation has been polluted over time (some from laziness, some for nefarious reasons). So I do appreciate your diligence…

    Comment by Steve in Long Island — October 22, 2010 @ 11:09 | Reply

  20. I don’t believe in giants, whether they be Nephilim or the kind that live in beanstalks. Please study the history and origin of the bible. I can’t research and learn for you. There is simply no logical way to conclude that the bible, or the Nephilim in it are anymore than stories told by word of mouth for generations (sometimes) before being written down and called “holy”.

    You yourself Steve apparently didn’t know that the dead sea scrolls listed Goliath at between 6’7″ and 6’9″. Why would anyone trust such a book so full of holes? Why should I trust your understanding of the bible when you incorrectly believed Goliath to be much taller than he was (if he even existed)?

    Comment by Hookie — October 22, 2010 @ 12:15 | Reply

  21. I just checked out that link. The site is full of lies and conspiracy theorists. It uses quotes from learned, highly educated men to support belief in giants. Problem is, these men died a hundred years ago! Their respective scientific fields have come a long way since then.

    The site is rather crude and not at all well thought out. It even uses the same old trick that hasn’t worked for YEARS! First, it belittles science and the scientific method. This is really not wise. It calls scientists close minded, liars, hiders of evidence – any bad thing you can think of. THEN, when the site can cherry-pick something – ANYthing that a scientist might say or write that SUPPORTS something the site believes in, it quotes the scientist in bolded letters, saying, “See? See what this scientists said? Gotcha!”

    You can’t write that scientists are evil, wrong assholes but then turn around and quote them when something looks like it’s written in favor of your stance. It’s juvenile, dishonest and no one falls for it (except the gullible believers in secret societies, flying saucers, the NWO and 9/11, Bigfoot and the Nephilim).

    Comment by Hookie — October 22, 2010 @ 12:35 | Reply

    • I was really focusing mostly on the artificats that were dug up.

      Why are you so angry??? Why do you feel that God has let you down???

      Comment by Steve in Long Island — October 22, 2010 @ 14:34 | Reply

  22. What about Deuteronomy 3:11 ?

    “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead [was] a bedstead of iron; [is] it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits [was] the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.”

    It would seem that the “giants” were much taller earlier on. No doubt, by the time of Goliath, there was more human DNA mixed in with the Nephilim DNA from Noah’s day???

    Comment by Steve in Long Island — October 22, 2010 @ 15:34 | Reply

  23. So Steve, do you have anything to dsicuss without quoting the bible?

    Your protests so far reference the bible as “evidence”.

    Let’s try using reason and logic instead. Thanks.

    Comment by Hookie — October 23, 2010 @ 17:19 | Reply

    • Whatever you would like to discuss. I was only replying to what I thought was being discussed (Giants and the Bible). What would you like to educate me on or what would you like my opinion on?

      Comment by Steve in Long Island — October 24, 2010 @ 19:13 | Reply

  24. I came across this, and felt the need to post. Steve, and Thomas, may God bless you.

    Hookie – May you find Jesus, and accept Him. His works and teachings were recorded not only by multiple Bible writers but also by historians of Roman and Jewish descent. Your desire to test God and have him do ridiculous things like roll back the age of an old persons’ home speaks volumes. Who are you? Mere dust. What do you do? Confuse and lead people off the path of righteousness. Instead of worrying about God proving himself to you, try proving yourself to God. When your spirit leaves your body, you will know the truth. That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Lord and Savior, is the Truth, the Life, the Way. The only way into Heaven. You are not sinless, you must seek forgiveness like you seek strokes to your inflated ego. I will not be checking this post again, but I pray for people like you every day. Not because I’m special, I’m nothing, I do it because God loves all. Read up on NDE’s and a book called The Case For Christ. God bless everyone.

    Comment by The Truth — April 6, 2011 @ 19:25 | Reply

  25. You guys are amazing. Goliath was obviously a massive guy for his time. Let it go. Now go outside and play.

    Comment by Simon — April 7, 2011 @ 20:56 | Reply

  26. I’m glad ‘The Truth’ cowardly proclaimed he/she wouldn’t come back to check this post again. But he/she’s right. I am mere dust, as are we all. And God is even less that, having been imagined into existance by humans.

    Comment by Hookie — April 18, 2011 @ 12:14 | Reply

  27. We could waste our time discussing this all day. The seed has been planted. If someone refuses to believe, there’s nothing we can do but pray. There are so many more out there who can use the Good News.

    Comment by Jon — May 17, 2011 @ 3:41 | Reply

  28. Thomas…
    I feel confident that you are wrong in your assumption that the bible is wrong… However, I guess for your sake, I wish you were right. If you are wrong then you have to consider the future for yourself. Is it worth the chance that you are wrong? Eternity is a long time to live completely void of a loving God and in missery as well. How much more faith does it take to believe that God is in controll and then give yourself over to Him? There is a hope then for the future. I will pray that God’s Holy Spirit speaks to your heart and that you come to a realization that He is in control and that He is everything that you have read about Him… obviously you have read.

    Comment by Dean — July 21, 2011 @ 9:17 | Reply

    • Actually Dean, it’s me Hookie that doesn’t believe. I have considered the future for me, and very carefully, after much thought, study, reading and discussing. That is how i arrived at the conclusion that there is no aferlife, heaven or hell and the bible is full of fairytales. Please do not pray for god’s holy spirit to speak to my heart. If you really need to pray for something please pray for world hunger to end.

      Comment by Hookie — August 30, 2011 @ 9:10 | Reply

  29. One more thing Dean. Why should I believe in a loving god that will punish me in hell for all eternity just because I don’t “believe that God is in controll and then give (myself) over to Him?”

    That’s a despicable god. Every time a baby dies it proves there is no god. You or I would save any baby we could. But god doesn’t – and that’s because he isn’t there.

    Comment by Hookie — August 30, 2011 @ 12:39 | Reply

  30. The comments and conversation about this topic have been going on since 2009. Wow, i’m definitely bookmarking this.
    I’ve come to the belief that the Bible – not only for the historic sense – is only for born-again Christians. Much like a technical science paper is for Scientists. Since I’m not a scientist, I would probably not find the same sort of depth in the article that a scientist would. The Spirit uses the Bible to clarify God’s “expectations” for individuals – on a general level and a personal level. This is where Steve in Long Island was going with those scriptures. It’s not up to God to convince Hookie (or anyone else) of any truth in the Bible. If it was, God WOULD take a rest-home full of elderly people and give them back the previous 35 years. However, that would only satisfy Hookie’s disbelief – maybe. According to some, when that event is written in the annuls of some historic text 500 years from now, it would be “convoluted” in some manner. The translation from English to Greek to Chinese to Russian to “ENTERTHELATESTFORIEGNLANGUAGEOFTHATTIME” would make questions regarding the validity of such an event. “without faith it is impossible to please Him he who comes to God must believe that He is and He rewards those who seek Him” (Heb 11:6). This text doesn’t say, “When God finally convinces those unbelieving by doing some miraculous thing, he will reward you with…”. Miraculous events can always be justified.

    It is up to individuals to come to God, not the other way around. It would show no true faith in God if God had to come to an individual to convince them. Sort of like coming to the fact that 2+2=4. This may be oversimplified, but the idea is the same. Or even E=MC2. One has to go to the equation and verify for themselves – in whatever manner that verification is for the individual. The unfortunate thing is some wait until after death. The Bible is the standard in which to come to God. This is the “rule” book. Like a football game. If there’s a question on the play, what do the rules say.

    I hope you don’t mind if I comment on your post number 29, Hookie.
    Hookie – “Why should I believe in a loving god that will punish me in hell for all eternity just because I don’t ‘believe that God is in control and then give (myself) over to Him”?
    You shouldn’t. God doesn’t work that way. He protects only his children and looks out for his children – like a father would his children. Those that are not his children are left to “fend” for themselves. There is a devil also who would want you to believe that God the Father loves every individual that ever walked on the face of the planet. And the devil has been doing a great job of convincing people, even Christians, of this. This idea that “God loves all individuals” is not the case though. The only part of God that loved/loves individual sinners is Jesus Christ. He walked among them. Those that are not children of God have no regard for God. They don’t care to know him or find out about Him. Look through the Old Testamant for what God did for the Isrealites (whom he considered children through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). More recently in the New Testament, those who have been saved by the faith in the blood of Jesus Christ. “I am the way the truth and the life noone comes to the father but through me.” (John 14:6). He wants individuals to come to Him. He’s provided the way. He doesn’t wish anyone to perish in eternal hellfire, but it’s not up to him to convince anyone. It’s up to the individual to come to Him – that is true faith.

    Hookie – “Every time a baby dies it proves there is no god. You or I would save any baby we could. But god doesn’t – and that’s because he isn’t there.”
    Evil does exist and is in direct contention with God, and in EVERY manner available that tries to convince everyone and anyone otherwise. Do you picket at abortion clinics? Do you protest when your tax dollars are spent taking a baby’s life from a young teen mother’s womb? Do you holler, make noise, stand up? or do you just vote for those that say “it’s a woman’s body. Who has the right to say what she can and cannot do to her body?” Do you believe life starts at conception? And every life is precious? What about the lives of those soldiers who go to war and die for a government that only cares about itself – with total disregard for the people that that government is supposed to be “protecting”? Do you stand and oppose that?
    I find it “amazing” that there are so many people willing to blame God for every wrong thing that happens in the world, or every “evil” harm that is done. They ask “Where is God. Why didn’t he stop this?”, but then don’t do anything themselves to make it right. It’s a “we should be living in a perfect world” mentality. REALLY?!?!? That perfect world won’t come until Christ has ruled for his 1000 year reign and only during Christ’s reign will world hunger end. Even in God’s heaven, there are angels that have made evil decisions.

    Christians are not here to convince people that the Bible is true or right or real or whatever. That is a decision that each individual will have to conclude themselves. I know there is a God. I know he is righteous and holy and true. There is no “well, for your sake, I hope you are correct”. My response is “I come in the name of the LORD” just like David did when he met Goliath on the battle field.

    Comment by mike — April 14, 2012 @ 7:40 | Reply

    • I completely agree Mike. Hookie, Jesus came to earth to save us, and who are you to tell us he didn’t? Can you look God in the eye on judgement day and say that you believed? What have you read that proves there is know afterlife? What a sad way to live your life, convinced that when you die there will be complete darkness. My friend is like that, and she is dead afraid to die. is that you?

      Comment by keiraine — May 15, 2012 @ 9:17 | Reply

      • Keiraine – In love do I respond to you. Hookie can tell us whatever is on his/her mind. It is what we know in our hearts and what the Spirit of God has told us through His word that we believe in. Not what someone else tells us. Even the preachers behind pulpits. We need to make sure that we can stand before God, or fall before his presence in humbleness, and say that we love him and we obeyed him. “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your sould and with all your strength and with all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27)” That is our job. It doesn’t matter what anyone else has read, or what they believe. It is not up to us to convince them. It is our job to love them. And not until one comes to the understanding of the relationship between themselves and God, that one will know the truth.

        Comment by mike — May 17, 2012 @ 12:00

  31. hookie ~Why should I believe in a loving god that will punish me in hell for all eternity just because I don’t “believe that God is in controll and then give (myself) over to Him?”

    If you believe you won’t go to hell.

    hookie ~Every time a baby dies it proves there is no god. You or I would save any baby we could. But god doesn’t – and that’s because he isn’t there.

    Babies die for many reasons. To test a persons faith, to test a persons character, or because that baby just wasn’t meant to be. If a girl gets pregnant and she isn’t married, that baby might ruin her life.

    Comment by Keiraine — May 14, 2012 @ 13:32 | Reply

  32. Mike and keiraine. Your words fall under the umbrella of christian apologetics and argument from emotion. keiraine, if there is a god and a judgement day, I will gladly not follow such a cruel dictator. A dictator who pretends to give free will but will cast me into a lake of fire if I don’t believe in him on faith alone. If there is such a cruel god why would I follow him? Mike, when will this 1000 year reign end? And seriously keiraine, what kind of maniac god would let a baby die to test someone’s faith? Seriously???? You call that loving? Would you not stop a baby’s death if you could? I submit that you would, and that you are more moral than the god you worship.

    Comment by Hookie — June 4, 2012 @ 5:32 | Reply

  33. Hookie – If you want to call this “christian apologetics” or “argument from emotion”, whatever helps you digest what i’ve said, that is fine.

    However, when babies die, there is going to be emotion. Christ’s 1000 year reign will end 1000 years after it has begun.

    Comment by mike — June 8, 2012 @ 10:30 | Reply

  34. When will Christ’s 1000 year reign begin? And there is no reason to “call” what you wrote anything in attempt to “digest” it. It is what it is. Argument from emotion and apologetics. What is not, is factual, logical or relevant.

    Comment by Hookie — June 12, 2012 @ 6:04 | Reply

    • When will Christ’s 1000 year reign begin?
      – why are you asking? How is this a concern for you?

      And there is no reason to “call” what you wrote anything in attempt to “digest” it. It is what it is. Argument from emotion and apologetics. What is not, is factual, logical or relevant.
      – this is why one needs to come to God on their own. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us that are saved it is the power of God.” 1 Cor 1:18

      Like i said previously, it is not up to the saved to convince the unsaved of God or anything of God. It is the saved person’s responsibility to live in obedience to God.

      Comment by mike — June 12, 2012 @ 8:25 | Reply

  35. I ask when his reign will begin and end because you said during it the world would be perfect. So when will this happen? When will god or jesus start saving helpless babies and turn back the clock on the aging? Yes, 1st Cor. is correct. The preaching of the cross is to me foolishness. Please research the previous “jesus’s” that were born of a virgin, died for three days and ascended to heaven. That’s right. Please research those and then tell me why I should believe jesus’ version unstead of theirs, particularly when they came before he did. You are an athiest Mike. You choose to not believe in thousands of Gods. Zeus, Februus, Mithras,Tonatiuh, Apollo and scores more. We agree on every other god, except one. I simply don’t believe in one more god than you. We aren’t that different you see. When you understand why you don’t believe in them you’ll understand why I don’t believe in yours.

    Comment by Hookie — June 12, 2012 @ 11:44 | Reply

    • The time of Christ’s 1000 year reign is of no regard to you. why do you keep asking? Is “saving babies” and “anti-aging creme” your idea of perfect?

      I’m not telling you you should believe in Jesus or God the father. Sounds like you’ve done your research and have made your choice. it’s not my place to convince you otherwise.

      Not sure how the “we agree on ever other god” topic came into play. Originally, I just wanted to know if you had ever done anything to save a baby?

      Comment by mike — June 12, 2012 @ 14:11 | Reply

  36. I’m curious. Why does it appear that you are allowed to decide what is or is not of regard to me? Also, why is that, as you stated, I keep asking, but you keep refusing to answer? That’s a far more interesting question don’t you think?

    It is indeed interesting that you would target my level of baby-saving activity and let your god use a get-out-of-jail free card on the whole matter because his “reign” either hasn’t started, has started but isn’t over, or has ended. Sorry I don’t know which of the three that is, but as you said, I keep asking and you keep evading the subject. Why ask me what I have done yet not hold your omnipotent, all seeing all knowing god accountable for his lack of action?

    I’m even more curious. Do you believe in miracles? That god sometimes heals the sick? I think you do. If so, ask yourself what god has against amputees? Is he mad at amputees? Never in recorded history has he made a severed arm grow back. But for some reason he cures an aunt Betsy’s cancer here and there.

    Can you seriously not see the logic in the following sentence? God does not grow back limbs, save babies, turn the old young, let innocent people prosper and bad one’s falter, stop famine and murder because god, like Zeus, Februus, Mithras, Tonatiuh and Apollo…just isn’t there.

    Comment by Hookie — June 12, 2012 @ 14:40 | Reply

    • “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea], and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.”

      – 1 Corinthians 1:18-29

      Hookie – if you didn’t listen then, you won’t listen now.
      Goodbye

      Mike

      Comment by mike — June 12, 2012 @ 19:15 | Reply

  37. Only the fool saith in his heart that there is no God! KJV~Bible

    Comment by Saint Leah — June 12, 2012 @ 15:32 | Reply

  38. Goodbye? Don’t say goodbye Mike. We were just getting started. But if you must go, as most do when faced with opposition to unsupportable ancient beliefs that fail miserably when subjected to logic, then please take this with you on your departure. You do not give a very good account of yourself or your position. Quoting (or copying/pasting) scripture? Really? I mean…..really?

    “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

    No one has destroyed the wisdom of the wise or the understanding of the prudent. Instead, since those words were written, the wise and the prudent have defeated near countless diseases.

    Here is the cure for leprosy that the wise and prudent have produced. Antibiotics.

    Here is the cure for leprosy that your very own holy, sacred and infallible bible recommends.

    Leviticus 14 “4 the priest shall command them to take for him who is to be cleansed two live[a] clean birds and cedarwood and scarlet yarn and hyssop. 5 And the priest shall command them to kill one of the birds in an earthenware vessel over fresh[b] water. 6 He shall take the live bird with the cedarwood and the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, and dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the leprous disease. Then he shall pronounce him clean and shall let the living bird go into the open field. 8 And he who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes and shave off all his hair and bathe himself in water, and he shall be clean.”

    Mike, if you were afflicted with leprosy, would you go to your docs and get antibiotics? Or would you go find yourself some cedarwood, scarlet yarn and hyssop?

    “hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

    No. God has not. It has been profoundly and EXACTLY the opposite.

    Go if you must Mike. But take with you this. You are smarter and more moral than the non-existent god you worship. And this: You have failed to address a single point I have made and refused to answer when christs 1000 year reign will begin or end. You have brought nothing to this table of conversation besides quoting ancient scripture, written by uneducated, sexist, slave-owning men in mud huts thousands of years ago.

    I won’t “listen”? But I have Mike. I have, which is exactly and precisely why I don’t believe.

    ~Hookie

    Comment by Hookie — June 13, 2012 @ 2:37 | Reply

  39. Thanks for the research on this! Very interesting. We will know one day for sure but I like to take the Bible just as I read it today. KJV.
    As for trying to discuss with closed minded non-believers it’s a waste of time. There is plenty of evidence of their Father when they look out their window. If they refuse to see that there is nothing you can show them to open their hearts. I say speak the gospel and if they won’t hear it, dust off your feet and move on.

    Comment by SuperSid — June 21, 2012 @ 10:03 | Reply

  40. Interesting that it takes sometimes a year for fervrent believers to weigh in on such a subject that hinges on their entire belief system. And when they do, mostly, they run away as intellectual cowrads – never to be heard from again.

    Preach, brother, preach.

    Comment by Hookie — June 21, 2012 @ 19:00 | Reply

  41. It is interesting that other references to Giants, and their size is not mentioned. As a case in point, their are more than 20 references to giants, their cities, and kingdoms, including their general size description in the Old Testament.

    For example, Moses says in Deut. 3; 11 “For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man”. . (ibid: 13′ long and 6′ wide) and Moses continues in Deut. 3; 13: “And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants”.

    Without making any unnecessary claims, the 20 or so references to several dozen different giants and remnants of giants, is historically accurate, because the city of Bashan with 10′ doorways and 12′ rooms, was rediscovered in the Syrian border area of the Golan Heights in the late 19th century. What you have is historical (Old Testament) records of Giants, (Og, King of Bashan, and Goliath and his 4 siblings 400 years later), and actual Archaeological remains of entire cities, indicating that giants and their cities were a historical fact in the region of the Golan Heights.

    What is also interesting in this light, is that Mt. Hermon in the Bashan district, was a major religious center before Jerusalem was organized as the seat of David’s empire. In addition, the ancient platforms of Baalbek are less than 30 miles north of the city of Giants. Also, it is noteworthy that the giant stones of Baalbek and the megaliths under Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem have many of the same characteristics. That is they are very large, well dressed and put in place with an accuracy that defies modern stone cutting capabilities. It has often been speculated by non biblical theorists, that the stones were moved by “..either Extraterrestrials or by Giants….” The historical records support ‘Giants’ as the the answer.

    I am neither a blind believer or any kind of antagonist. What I care about is intellectual honesty, and historical accuracy, regardless of which side of the Creation-Evolution side that information ‘seems’ to favor. I am personally, on neither side. To me, it is a no brainer. The Old Testament as a historically accurate document, and seems to have much factual data that can be verified outside the boundaries of faith and prejudice. Giants lived around the Golan Heights within the historical record, they built modern (surviving) cities, and it seems to me more likely, rather than less likely that they were involved in the building of local megalithic sites like the Temple of Baalbek and the Temple base in Jerusalem.

    John Jensen
    Earth Epochs

    Comment by John Jensen — September 11, 2012 @ 15:48 | Reply

  42. The Old Testament is not a historical record and so negates all of your other points. And please see Jean-Pierre Adam for the moving of the Baalbek rocks. Thanks for playing.

    Comment by Hookie — November 19, 2012 @ 14:37 | Reply

    • Your response basically says… “The Bible is not an accurate record, therefore your entire arguments are invalid.” You couldn’t get away with that lame a response in first year debate class.

      In what world do you live in that advocates the Old Testament is NOT a historical record? Regardless of its religious merit, it most certainly IS a historical record. It was written, copied, reproduced from other records across a period of time roughly equivalent to the zenith of Sumerian record keeping about the time of Ashurbanipal through modern translations. However, if you choose to disregard its historical accuracy, there are many archaeological sites, not the least of which is the actual city of Bashan, as well as several hundred authenticated burial sites of hominid skeletons ranging in size from 7′ to more than 30′ in height. You blindly accept that giant reptiles (dinosaurs) weighing more than a quarter of a million pounds roamed the earth at some period in our past, because you can go look at their skeletal remains in many museums of the world. While at the same time denying evidence of giant hominids, and other super sized flora and fauna. Giant Flora and Fauna are facts, not suppositions. That includes hominids.

      One instance is the historical document of Antonio Pigafetta —a Venetian nobleman, and Chronicler of Magellan’s World Voyage, in which he defined a tribe of giants in Patagonia as; “..so tall we reached only to his waist and he was well proportioned.”

      It is significant to note that the above narrative is taken from the journal of the ‘Official Chronicler’ of Magellan’s voyage of discovery. That is the one person above all others, who is tasked with recording and keeping the most accurate records of events, activities, etc. whether exotic or mundane. This person is not only responsible to the Commander of the voyage, but also to King and Country for his eye witness accounts as a complete, precise and accurate testimony of events that occurred during the voyage. Based on his position and responsibilities alone, his first hand eye witness testimony of encounters with 10′ giants MUST be taken as factual information by an unimpeachable witness. To do otherwise, is to trivialize the importance of the Chronicler’s fundamental accountability and responsibilities.

      In addition, the following are other actual historical records regarding giants:

      The Book of Giants: The Book of Giants was a work apparently composed in Syriac (an eastern dialect of Aramaic). The book was entirely lost until the twentieth century, although a few scant references to it survived in Latin, Greek, and Arabic, indicating that it involved battles of the ancient giants. Then about a century ago many highly fragmentary Manichean works written in Central Asian languages were recovered archaeologically at Turfan, in China (and much of the find remains unpublished even at present). The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of the ‘Book of Giants’.

      The Epic of Gilgamesh: What is claimed as the oldest surviving epic-story in the world; ‘The epic of Gilgamesh’ also includes a references to giants. Gilgamesh and Enkidu go together to fight the evil Humbaba at the cedar mountains. (Mount Hermon) The evil giants face was like a lion, a roar like a flood, a mouth of flames, breath that burns trees, and teeth like a dragons. In the end they cut off his head.

      Herodotus in Book 1, Chapter 68: Describes how the Spartans uncovered in Tegea the body of Orestes which was seven cubits long — around 10 feet. In his book, ‘The Comparison of Romulus with Theseus’ Plutarch describes how the Athenians uncovered the body of Theseus, which was of more than ordinary size. The kneecaps of Ajax were exactly the size of a discus for the boy’s pentathlon, wrote Pausanias. A boy’s discus was about twelve centimeters in diameter, while a normal adult patella is around five centimeters, suggesting Ajax may have been around 14 feet tall.

      Pliny: The Arabian giant Gabara was 9 feet 9 inches. This Arabian giant is mentioned by Pliny, who says he was the tallest man seen in the days of Claudius.

      Andronicus II. was 10 feet in height. He was grandson of Alexius Comnnus. Nictas asserts that he had seen him.

      Elea’zer: was 7 cubits (nearly 10.5 feet). Vitellius sent this giant to Rome; and he is mentioned by Josephus. (Josephus speaks of a Jew 10 feet 2 inches).

      Caesar Maximinus Thrax Pius Felix Invictus Augustus Augustus (Roman Emperor 235-238 AD) was 8’6″ tall and so strong he could pull laden carts unaided. That is as historical as it gets

      The above historical documents are just a few of the hundreds that document giants in the mid to late Holocene.

      The 21 different Bible references to Giants, as well as the above historical evidence is just a few of the references in my soon to be published books, The first two are out next spring. They contain more than 60 pages on megaliths and stone structures from Baalbek, the Temple of Solomon, the Giza Plateau to the interlocking walls of Puma Punku. And more than 300 references to Giants in the historical past.

      Sorry, your opinions don’t have much merits when it comes to historical facts. And to dismiss my entire arguments on the basis that you claim the Bible is not a historical document, is silly on its merits. My arguments are not based on the validity of the Bible as a religious document, but on other historical facts. (The giant city of Bashan, for example) that happens to be supported by Biblical narrative.

      I don’t think I will continue this dialogue. To be dismissed on such a silly point is demeaning and insulting. I expect better.

      Comment by John Jensen — November 19, 2012 @ 18:00 | Reply

  43. Correct. If you think the OT is a historically accurate work and that 30′ people existed, there is certainly no need in continuing this dialogue. Because the Bible (sometimes) uses real names and events and cities makes it no more accurate than Anne Rice peppering her novels with painstakingly accurate historical events, places and people. Should I also believe in vampires?

    Comment by Hookie — November 27, 2012 @ 11:09 | Reply

    • Go back and read my reply to your original post. I did not make the claim that the OT is ‘historically accurate’, only that it is in fact a ‘historical’ document. You are confusing the two. Your reply continues to argue against validity of Biblical references, on a factual or ‘accuracy’ basis, rather than responding to my presentation of historical records and information. All of the quoted references may not be accurate, or even true, but they are not all inaccurate, mythology or lies either. Which is also true of Biblical records regarding Giants. What we are left with is, a very large body of evidence, including Bible references that taken together suggests giants of varying size lived during the current Holocene epoch. It is not ‘proof’, and I am not suggesting these reports are absolute proofs. What I am suggesting is that any reasonable person, in our system of Jurisprudence in the Western Hemisphere, can, by law, take preponderance of evidence as material fact.

      ‘Belief’ in vampires, or anything else is a canard. You have presented no factual based information that argues any information I have presented.

      Comment by John Jensen — November 29, 2012 @ 8:31 | Reply

  44. John Jenson ~ “….encounters with 10′ giants MUST be taken as factual information by an unimpeachable witness. To do otherwise, is to trivialize the importance of the Chronicler’s fundamental accountability and responsibilities.”

    Utter, complete, nonsense.

    “Although modern scholastic impressions of Pigafetta are not terribly favorable (Percy Adams calls the chronicler “superstitious and addicted to the marvelous, delighting to record wonders and exaggerations”), more contemporary audiences read Pigafetta with wonder, creating a martyr of Magellan and a hero-by-proxy of Pigafetta, whose fame far outstripped his actual literary merit.” http://www.lawrence.edu/news/pubs/lt/fall04/giants.shtml

    “The rumors of Patagonian giants were only definitively proven to be fictitious when the official account of Byron’s voyage appeared in 1773. This account revealed that Byron had indeed encountered a tribe of Patagonians, but that the tallest among them measured only 6 feet 6 inches. In other words, they were tall, but not 12 foot giants.” http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/patagonia.html

    Please point me to a non-religious source where I can read about your 30’ giant, so I can put that to bed too.

    John Jenson ~ “What I am suggesting is that any reasonable person, in our system of Jurisprudence in the Western Hemisphere, can, by law, take preponderance of evidence as material fact.”

    Sure, go right ahead. But the real fact is that it will only be a fact to you. Real facts are just that, facts. If you choose to believe in something as fact when there’s no proof, have at it. Some of us though, have higher standards.

    Comment by Hookie — December 3, 2012 @ 6:36 | Reply

    • You will change your opinion the moment you are the recipient of judicial procedure where three material eye witnesses can cause you to be found guilty and put to death on their testimony alone. That has been the standard since Mosaic Law was first codified. To trivialize it, while at the same time (I assume) you will defend Einstein’s ‘thought experiments’ as material fact, shows the nature of your bias. Newtonian Physics and Relativity are unraveling faster than the speed of the sound of loneliness.

      Arguing the absolute nature of a ‘fact’ when you have no more than some other ‘antagonists’ report to base your response on, is NOT an argument of ‘fact’. It is an argument of opinions.

      You guys (everything is a hoax) rest your arguments on calling anything and everything you can’t counter, either a ‘hoax, a lie, or ‘unscientific’. Not every report of an anomaly is true, or accurate. Not every one is a hoax or a lie either.

      You, like I rely on others testimony to form the basis of our opinions. I am the original discoverer of some data and information that is mine alone to argue, Though it does not have anything to do with this discussion, I am well aware of the personal and character attacks that are launched when refutation of the material is impossible to do. (While not my discovery, the same exact sequence regarding ‘The Windover Bog People’ . Was used to discredit the material and discoverers.

      As a point, I am not claiming any Biblical source is ‘religious’, I am claiming they are historical. You say I can’t argue ‘Religious’ data or information, Sorry, you don’t get to choose what is in fact historical documents. Here is a list of my ‘historical’ sources:

      . The Book of Giants – Portions of which are included in the Dead Sea Scrolls,

      . The Epic of Gilgamesh

      . Herodotus, Book 1

      . Pliney, The Elder

      . Plato, Dialogues

      . Andronicus II

      . Eleazer

      . The Talmud, and The Bible, Old Testement

      . The Giant City of Bashan

      . The Chronicles of the Voyage of Magellan

      . The New York Times, 23 articles of ‘Skeletons of Giants’

      It gets a little more ‘dicey’ when looking at other ‘Giants’ in the historical record. The DNA testing of dinosaurs (Hadrosaurs, Stegasours) showing late Pleistocene-early Holocene dates; and lets not forget the ‘flexible collagen tissue and hemoglobin elements’ (that’s blood, swifty) found inside a T-Rex hind limb, by Dr. Mary Schweitzer. The order of magnitude of rock art, cave art, stone carvings, figurines, clay figures, and woven fabric depicting contemporaneous man-dinosaurs interface is huge. The data base is way too large now to shuffle all those artifacts off into the junk pile.

      Anyone that has walked half a mile off the the road a couple of miles from the Mt. Rushmore can see the fossilized remains of trees that are 6-8 times bigger than our largest Sequoias.

      The remains of very sophisticated cultures-civilizations, many of which are either tens to hundreds of feet underwater (Gulf of Khambhat, Yonaguni, Bimini Road, Jamaica Shelf city plan off South Florida coast) to those that show inundation or complete submergence (some at least twice, such as; The Giza Plateau, Valley of the Whales, Puma Punku-Bolivia, etc.).

      Like the religious zealots of the Inquisition period, today’s Scientific zealotry has many of the same features. You demonize what you can’t disprove, and you create myth and magic for all the rest.

      ‘Thought Experiments’…..Is the best you have to validate Scientific Law? Please Homee, you should hide your head in shame. Your Gurus are Charlatans. And that specifically includes Einstein. Making up ‘Gnome in the Garden’ postulates for Astrophysics (Black Holes, Dark Matter, Strings, fixed C rate, etc.) doesn’t fit the new science of current measurement and testing technology. It is all mostly myth and magic with very little basis in reality. The Electric Universe folks are closer to the truth than classic physics, and they are a whole order of magnitude off.

      You are a protector of the current Scientific paradigm. An ‘Arguer in Chief’ defending the bulwarks of Science’s Holy inner sanctum. You just haven’ realized yet that your enemy (the heathen unwashed) have access to the same data and information you do, Information and the control thereof, made your group the most powerful in the world for awhile. Now, access to data for even the great unwashed, means your power is disintegrating. Sorry to see you go, don’t hurry, but like all hard right wing bigots, just go away. You aren’t relevant anymore.

      Comment by John Jensen — December 16, 2012 @ 11:26 | Reply

  45. Well? Let’s see here what standard the great unwashed use to arrive at their conclusions. I asked once already. Links please. Non-religous references to your 30′ giant please. I can’t believe I’m even having a discussion with a young-earther. Please, if you have kids, please don’t take them to the creation museum. Choose Disney, because at Disney, they actually acknowledge they’re fairytale in nature.

    Comment by Hookie — December 18, 2012 @ 12:33 | Reply

  46. Not once have I made the slightest reference to ‘creation’, let alone ‘young earth’. I HAVE specifically made it ta point to clarify that my research does NOT support either Creationism- Intelligent Design or Evolution-Gradualism. I reject both equally as ill informed, irrational and simply wrong, and intend to prove my case without supporting either view.

    The difference is, I don’t attack one side from a perspective of the other. I attack both equally when the facts require it. It just seems I have less of an argument with the historical record (including the geologic column) than I do with Newtonian Physics. So called ‘Objects Out of Place’, man made objects found in coal beds, Nano Tech items found 65′ deep in alluvial wash, as well as many other documented articles argue for many ages of mankind over many Epochs, to a much greater degree than Gradualism would ever acknowledge. That perspective in no way argues for any kind or level of ‘creationism’.

    My view is that the world we live in is much more complex as an ecological cataclysmic environment than either side would even recognize given their specific prejudices.

    As before, I reject your personal attacks and Disneyland comments for the emotional smoke screen they are. But bringing my kids into an academic discussion is not only wrong, it is distasteful…No, ‘detestable’ and ‘despicable’ is more like it. You are not very well schooled in Rules of Debate, as your responses demonstrate.

    You sir, are an intellectual lightweight.

    Comment by John Jensen — December 18, 2012 @ 17:00 | Reply

  47. Let me quote myself. I like doing that since I’m so smart.

    Hookie~ “And don’t forget. 30′ giant references please.”

    Umm…cough….hack….cough. It’s the third request now. Please provide the evidence to me and whomever may read this for the 30′ giant you referred to. How many time must I request this?

    Jensen ~ “As before, I reject your personal attacks and Disneyland comments for the emotional smoke screen they are”

    Jensen ~ “You sir, are an intellectual lightweight.”

    Nonsense. I am brilliant. You accuse me of personal attacks in one sentence and then use such an attack yourself. LOL! Rookie? A blaring error like this can usually be contributed to two reasons; the lack of intellectual merit or the use of a smoke-screen itself. You are you. Please let the blog know which one you attribute this obvious logical error to. Thanks. They’re all reading.

    Talk about smoke screens! LOL! You completely ignored almost my entire post. I correctly called into question your research/investigation skills for (correctly) their lack of thoroughness. For you to gloss over (pretend they don’t exist) is hurtful to your own arguments. Let me put it this way. If we were in the ring, boxing, I would at this moment look over to the ref in amazement and implore him to stop the fight before serious damage was done. But, much like the other fighter, you won’t quit. Which is fine, and noble. But you’ll still lose in the end.

    Oh. And you forgot again. 30′ giant references please.

    I’m not holding my breath. I would be dead by now, waiting for salient points.

    Comment by Hookie — December 18, 2012 @ 20:03 | Reply

  48. Oh sorry. I perhaps read between the lines concerning your stance on young earth. I must have been in error. I seem to be under the impression that you think men and dinsaurs lived together at the same time.

    Ahem. Silly me. Am I wrong?

    Please state for us all that you do not believe in an earth that’s only between 6 or 10 thousand years old. That would be great. Thanks in advance.

    Comment by Hookie — December 18, 2012 @ 20:13 | Reply

    • ‘Perhaps reading between the lines’ is your excuse for lack of intellectual regimen?

      The evidence is beyond question that hominids and some dinosaurs co-existed up into the late Pleistocene and possibly as late as the mid Holocene. Proof begins where I have referenced above Dr. Schweitzer’s discovery of ‘elastic collagen and hemoglobin elements’ in a T-Rex hind limb. I have included many other references to support my arguments, you have included none to refute them. The first set of facts to refute a claim of 65 million year old extinction of dinosaurs is the fact that all dinosaur bones found to date have been discovered in the top layers (current surface) of the earth. The current surface (top soil layers) are NOT 65 million years old. At best, 65 million year old strata is several miles deep. Second, at least 27 different 14c tests have been done on various non fossilized different specimen dinosaurs, with dates ranging from 12.8 K to 43 K years ago. Dinosaurs (and other giants, including hominids) living in the late Pleistocene age is demonstrated beyond question in the historical and geologic record.

      ‘Belief’ has nothing to do with facts, I neither ‘believe’ in a young earth postulate, nor do I know of any actual evidence in the geologic column that supports that viewpoint. The deepest geological core drills, oceanographic bores and ice core samples (Vostock) pretty much support a cataclysmic cycle of about 7K years on average for the earth, some much shorter and a few longer, with a repeating ‘rapid advance’ ice ageu cycles of roughly 110K years each with an inter-glacial period of about 10K years. Because our drill efforts are short depth limited, does not in any way suggest the same pattern does not continue deeper into the crust-mantle. Which means, if you are not paying attention, that basically we live on a very dynamic, cataclysmic planet that goes through geological. ‘ages’ or Epochs on a rather regular short term basis. Some of those Epochs produced giant flora and fauna, which demands a different explanation than Newtonian Physics provides with a fixed law of gravity, and some Epochs produced various species of hominids, both giant and pygmy. Some Epochs produced changes in Pole location and Axis of Spin. Some Epochs produced very advanced technological civilizations, probably including solar and galactic travel. I said ‘probably’. And some Epochs produced shorter and longer solar rotation paths.

      There are hundreds of references to giants (of various sizes) in the historical record, Many 12′ to 16′ and some 22′ to 30′ plus. You should do your own research, (Google ‘Giant Humans’) though here is a 4′ footprint from an upthrust section of the geological column in South Africa. The commentator has 4 books published and his credibility is well established.

      http://consciouslifenews.com/michael-tellinger-explains-foot-print-god/1122959

      Usually, I don’t spend my time talking to people who don’t listen to the things that I am saying, hoping someone’s gonna hear. (To paraphrase Kris) And as you have already insulted us both by bringing my children into the conversation without apology, I will not respond further.

      Comment by John Jensen — December 19, 2012 @ 4:58 | Reply

  49. Jensen ~ “You should do your own research”

    Clearly, I do. If I didn’t, I would have taken you at your word and believed that The New York Times published 24 articles that support the prior existence of human giants. But thanks for the advice anyway.

    Jensen ~ “already insulted us both by bringing my children into the conversation without apology”

    Sure. Feel insulted. There is a good reason I don’t apologize. I think bringing up children to believe that an invisible sky daddy in the sky is looking out for them is child abuse. Now why would I apologize to you for that? Yes, let’s not continue this until you apologize to, not me, but your children.

    Comment by Hookie — December 19, 2012 @ 6:54 | Reply

  50. And. Again. Cricketts.

    Left the discussion (not worthy to call it a debate) under the guise of being insulted. Actually it’s because Jensen knows he’s out of his league. How can anyone be taken seriously when they believe in 30′ giants, have terrible research skills, and argue that I personally attacked him in one sentence then do the same thing he accused me of in the next?

    See folks…these are the people who believe in such things as gods, aliens and ghosts.

    Comment by Hookie — December 23, 2012 @ 18:23 | Reply

    • Hookie said “See folks…these are the people who believe in such things as gods, aliens and ghosts.”

      “Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.” [1]

      Since science can say nothing about whether the supernatural exists or not, I see no reason why “we”, as our ancestors have done since the beginning, should believe otherwise. Especially since our oldest written texts talk about the supernatural and his dealings with man. Not to mention the majority of our greatest scientific minds incl. Albert Einstein (died 1955), believed in a supernatural Creator as well. Aside from secular indoctrination, bias and ad hominem attacks, do you have any credible evidence to support your position that:

      A. There is no supernatural Creator(s)
      B. A belief in the supernatural is illogical

      Didn’t think so.

      So, when we read the ramblings of popular atheist’s and their followers, who claim science has killed God, what science or evidence are they using to make that assumption? None, it isn’t science, it’s a belief system. It is their belief, their faith in pure methodological naturalism and materialism that forces ridiculous claims such as these. They have NO evidence just wishful thinking and weak philosophy. Sticking their heads in the sand, like an Ostrich, repeating over and over “there is no God” won’t save them when they are called to account for the way in which they lived their lives.

      Atheism is an untenable position for any intellectually honest, rational, and informed person.[3]

      Also, with regards to aliens…how can you attempt to discredit people who believe in the existence of aliens when we have SETI? I mean, their mission statement reads:
      “SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is an exploratory science that seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology.” [4]

      Do we assume the 120+ scientists working here are not to be taken seriously?

      I would argue it is you Mr Hookie, who has allowed his blind faith and secular belief system, to cloud your better judgement. Your faith affects your ability to rationalise and apply critical thinking skills. There is NO evidence to disprove the existence of God, yet you choose to believe HE doesn’t exist. This is a faith statement, no different from those who choose to believe.

      [1] The National Academies Press 1998.
      [2] http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
      [3] http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/is-atheism-rationally-justifiable/
      [4] – http://www.seti.org/node/647

      Comment by humble — January 24, 2013 @ 16:34 | Reply

  51. What’s the matter Humble? Cat got your tongue?

    Comment by Hookie — March 1, 2013 @ 5:50 | Reply

  52. That comment above was left by me.

    Comment by Hookie — March 13, 2013 @ 12:33 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: