On his Facebook page, a certain Jerry Locklair posted a notification about:
A conversation about the Bible’s account of Giants on Earth! Nephilim giants did exist before the Flood of Noah. Was the Giant that David killed with his sling and rock, a Nephilim also, created after the Great Flood of Noah’s time? Those who know the Scriptures, please respond.
Darrell E. Smith responded:
We have evidence from all over the world…but because of scientists clinging to the debunked theory of evolution(DNA and Microbiology debunked it in the mid 1980’s)…hundreds of giant skeletons were destroyed. The largest destruction of giant skeletons came in 1910 when The Smithsonian hired a new curator(an evolutionist) who had all their collection of giant bones and skeletons destroyed. Evolution wrongly teaches that man was small and got larger over 2 million years. Lol. We know better than that…and The Smithsonian had proof. However…the Old newspaper articles from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s still tell of the excavations of these giant skeletons…all over the US and the world.
I, as True Freethinker, had to spoil the fun with questions and facts:
Darrell E. Smith “all over the world” is a bit of a vague citation.
What makes you assert “hundreds of giant skeletons were destroyed”?
What the citation for the specific assert of 1910?
Regarding “Old newspaper articles” have you double checked them?
In any case considering the reference to “the Bible’s account of Giants”: The key questions are: What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles? What’s your and Jerry’s usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”? Do those two usages agree?
I have to ask because they certain don’t agree.
“Nephilim giants” biblically contextually reads as “Nephilim Nephilim.”
As for “Was the Giant that David killed with his sling and rock, a Nephilim also, created after the Great Flood of Noah’s time?” no, he was a Repha, not a Nephil, and most reliably just shy of 7 ft.
Darrell E. Smith
Actually I never said Goliath was a Nephilim…and his stature according to scriptural accounts was just over 9 feet. If you care to do research about the Smithsonian…you will find that one of its employees at the time of the bone disposal kept some of the records and a few of the bones. The fact that these giant bones have indeed been found “all over the world” is not a disputed fact…except in the minds of evolutionists.
Jerry Locklair
True Freethinker, reread what I wrote! I’m asking questions about giants, after the flood! I never said they are the same kind of giants as the pre flood giants!
True Freethinker
Darrell E. Smith I was just grouping together your comment with the post’s comment.
When you refer to Goliath’s “stature,” whatever that has anything to do with anything, “according to scriptural accounts” it’s ironic that you refer to accounts, plural, since you’re myopically appealing to the Masoretic text but the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and even the earlier Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft and so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
When I ask people about their assertions about the Smithsonian I get the same vague non-quotation and non-citation you offered.
Likewise with following up my noting, “‘all over the world’ is a bit of a vague citation” by doubling down with, “giant bones have indeed been found ‘all over the world’”
Tracy Jayne
I’m Genesis 6, I’ve been taught that the the term,”sons of God” refers to those of the lineage of Jesus and the term, “daughters of men” refers to women who were not of the lineage of Jesus. It was not God’s plan for the sons of God to marry with unbelievers but they did and that is why evil proliferated before the flood. He urges us Christians today as well not to marry an unbeliever.
This passage is not about angels and humans getting together, it’s about believers and nonbelievers. The confusion comes from the book of Enoch which is not a part of the cannon of the protestant Bible.
Darrell E. Smith
Tracy Jayne I agree…but this does not negate the Nephilim…and The Bible’s statement that “There were giants in the earth in those days”.
True Freethinker
Tracy Jayne Job 38:7 allow for understanding “sons of God” to refer to non-human beings—which the LXX has as “Angelos.”
Jude and 2 Peter 2 combined set the sin of Angels to pre-flood days and correlate it to sexual sin.
Such is how the overwhelming majority of Jews and Christians understood it from BC days well into centuries into AD days.
Until, that is, someone decided to tell a myth such as that, “This passage is not about angels and humans getting together.”
1 Enoch is Bible contradicting folklore from millennia after the Torah.
Tracy Jayne
Darrell E. Smith Have you seen Shaquil O’Neil in person?
Tracy Jayne
True Freethinker Don’t agree with you, respectfully.
Darrell E. Smith
Tracy Jane and Freethinker, It is a distinct possibility that all Antedeluvians were Giants…considering the earth’s very different conditions…with people living to be over 900 years old. We know there was 50% more oxygen and greater air pressure which would have pressurized both oxygen and Co2 to fauna and flora. This is why we find fossil remains of insects that are ten times their normal size.
True Freethinker
Tracy Jayne Are you asserting that he’s not fully human?
True Freethinker
Darrell E. Smith But if “all Antedeluvians were Giants” then none of them were giants. The key questions are:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s your usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants”?
Do those two usages agree?
Darrell E. Smith
True Freethinker Lol!
True Freethinker
Darrell E. Smith Fascinatingly, I’ve asked those key questions to dozens upon dozens upon dozens of people who go on and on and on about “giants” and literally zero have replied to them. That’s part of why Nephilology has become the cesspool of un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales which it is.
Darrell E. Smith
True Freethinker I just look at the bone evidence…and know they existed. I have no way of determining their origin. When Christ returns I will ask him.
True Freethinker
Darrell E. Smith But you look for “bone evidence” of people who’s bones you don’t know what they looked like.
Darrell E. Smith
True Freethinker That is true…which is why I said: “I just look at the bone evidence and know they existed…even though I don’t know their origin”. That would include “what they look like”.
True Freethinker
Oh, I see. Origin would be ontology, looked like would be morphology but, no worries. That still gets us to that we wouldn’t know their bones even if we were looking right at them. And, of course, the answer to, “a Nephilim also, created after the Great Flood of Noah’s time?” is no.
Phil BeePositive Burrell
Goliath was a descendant of the off spring of sons of GOD and daughters of woman..
True Freethinker
Phil BeePositive Burrell There’s literally zero reliable indication of that and only one single sentence in its favor that was spoken by unreliable guys who presented an evil report and were rebuked by God. Also, now you have to invent a way to have God fail since He clearly would have missed a loophole and the flood was much of a waste.
Phil BeePositive Burrell
True..OK if you say so..
True Freethinker
Phil BeePositive Burrell I don’t say so: it’s literally in the Bible : just read the narratives of Num 13 and 14. And yes, post-flood Nephilologists have to invent a way to have God fail since He clearly would have missed a loophole and the flood was much of a waste.
Olga Flemen Kievitt
There were people on the earth long before Adam. When God turned the earth upside down there were people and animals . Plenty of reference to that in the bible. Yes there were giants. Why does it tell us in Genisis to REPLENISH the earth 🌎 if it had never been plenished before. The answers are all there in the bible
True Freethinker
Olga Flemen Kievitt If there is “Plenty of reference to that in the bible” I’m surprised you didn’t offer any—except, I suppose one single word “REPLENISH” which you appeal to misread because it contains the letters “RE” but back when that word was used it didn’t mean to re-do, re-fill, or anything like that. Please don’t assert an entire all-encompassing theory on two English letters.
And well, that ended the discussions with these individuals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.