Yowiehunters Forum

Just been surfing the net and found .Giant from 14-17 feet.

Holy cow that is massive.

Nice find.

Hey Yowie88,

I found this youtube vid, it says they have been found all over the world! Dose this mean gilieith did once exisit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-8bVEIVUh8&NR=1

Dreamcatcher wrote:Hey Yowie88,

I found this youtube vid, it says they have been found all over the world! Dose this mean gilieith did once exisit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-8bVEIVUh8&NR=1

Religion aside, the bible as an historic document has not to date had any facts disproved. One of the the biggest riddles was the Hittite Kingdom, whose very existence was disputed for centuries, was not only found but we have much of it's library of clay tablets. In answer to your question - yes. There was a doco on Goliath sometime ago I believe.

andrew wrote: Religion aside, the bible as an historic document has not to date had any facts disproved.

Quite an amazing statement......It rarely works out well putting a religious doctrine forward as historical "facts". Though I guess it would contain certain truths .......People did exist in those days apparently ,even within different races/geographical locations etc. From there on it gets a bit iffy though IMO..........

The historical "facts" in the doctrine of Scientology has never been disproved either AFAIK. Though many would consider it a mind control cult. I guess if your talking of the Old Testament, in a similar way, much of it can't really be proved wrong simply because for the most part it seems not falsifiable. The same as we can't prove it wrong if someone claimed all sorts of ancient knowledge about giant gingerbread men also roaming the earth at one time.

Though if you're talking New Testament, it seems enough has been proved historically inaccurate to the point where the central character appears quite possibly to have not existed at all (going purely by historical facts).

The video seemed quite funny really, with a little research it looks like photoshop is popular. I guess it's not possible to prove giants did not exist at one stage, especially as Rex has their endocasts and stone implements . It would be interesting if they did, though I think Gigantopithecus was the largest of primates ever to have lived that we know of, if we are not to accept unfounded stories/myths. Ancient man appears to have been generally smaller than us.

I was talking from an archeological perspective, which I would have thought was pretty obvious. As an historical document it is used extensively to search for ancient cities and populations still today. Do not misconstrue what I say. I am not interested in the slightest in any of the other issues you raise because they are irrelevant to the point I was making.

andrew wrote:I was talking from an archeological perspective, which I would have thought was pretty obvious. As an historical document it is used extensively to search for ancient cities and populations still today. Do not misconstrue what I say. I am not interested in the slightest in any of the other issues you raise because they are irrelevant to the point I was making.

Fair enough. In that case I apologise for my misunderstanding. Though in fairness, your claim appeared to be that the bible was an accurate historical document with inference Goliath was real due to one of its stories. This seems to go beyond Archeology. Goliath is slain twice in the one bible, by different people, as if to reinforce it as a myth (though ammended in the KJ version)......... Because the bible often mentions races of people and places that are known to have existed, or were found to have existed, obviously doesn't prove the historical accuracy of the events themselves.

There is much that scientists, even archeologists, dismiss as psuedo science and seems only supported by Christian scientists and creationists. In this context my points were quite relevant and even in the purely archeological sense I still find your original statement untrue. Much of the Bible is disputed by science, even in an archeological sense. No flood, no Hebrew slaves in Egypt, no exodus, no parting/crossing the red sea, no spending forty odd years in the desert etc. It looks unlikely from an archeological perspective that there was an inhabited town called Nazareth two millenia ago. Lack of historical sources have also lead some historians to wonder whether there was even a region known by that name at the time. There are other instances where geology and archeology are in conflict with what the bible says.