Originally posted by checkbaiter The "Nephilim" were fallen angels who were spirit but left their "domain" and took on a fleshy form. They "took" human woman probably against their will and had sexual relations with them....the offspring were Caananites, and many other ites. Joshua, David, etc., were commanded to completely destroy these people. They were not entirely human, they could ...[text shortened]... you will see the word the dead, or something else...you will need a bible concordance..
I don't believe in magic and superstition and spirits and all that nonsense. I read the Bible as a history book which is absolutely mundane and free from the influence of any spirits, demons, gods, Gods, Trinities, or any of that.
Originally posted by RJHinds Maybe I should go in and change that part about men being apes. We are clearly not apes or monkeys. Monkeys are more like apes than men. I think apes are just monkeys without tails. Should I write that in the wiki article?
I think you are onto something there, just edit their foolishness down to something that resembled truth. While you are editing, you might also want to mention that unlike 100% humans, the liberal evolution crowd might in fact have evolved from apes and are still in that process (having been unsuccessful at evolving beyond their simian intellect).
Originally posted by CLL53 hahahahaha, Pastafarianism...
Yep, that is indicative of how carefully researched wikipedia articles are.
What do you mean?
You agree it is carefully researched and indicative of other articles?
(Contrary to your earlier post)
OR You are being sarcastic and find the article not well researched?
(In which case enlighten us to the faults)
OR You do not know what you mean and are just rambling?
Originally posted by CLL53 I think you are onto something there, just edit their foolishness down to something that resembled truth. While you are editing, you might also want to mention that unlike 100% humans, the liberal evolution crowd might in fact have evolved from apes and are still in that process (having been unsuccessful at evolving beyond their simian intellect).
That might take a few years to do. I don't know if I have the time to fool with it. I might think about it again when I am a little more rested.
Originally posted by CLL53 The issue is the validity of anything posted there. To accept the validity of something like wikipedia as a truthful factual source of information is the depth of stupidity.
The issue is what is the common use or biological definition of the words 'ape' and 'monkey'. Surely Wikipedia, which relies on multiple people to give input, is one of the best ways to find out common usage? Do you have any better suggestions at to a reliable source?
I know RJ believes a definition is only correct if it is in the Bible, but it is the height of stupidity to think you will find any English language definitions in a book written prior to the existence of English and even stupider to think it will tell you anything about the modern common usage of a word.
Originally posted by CLL53 The issue is the validity of anything posted there. Obviously they allow and encourage posts from anyone. I doubt seriously that the founders/owners/whomever have the time and/or resources to research every bit of minutia that gets posted. Unless something violates some constraint, I would imagine one could post that the sky is purple and inhabited by littl ...[text shortened]... something like wikipedia as a truthful factual source of information is the depth of stupidity.
no, depth of stupidity is to accept myths written by primitive barbarians some thousands of years ago as having any factual relevance.
the invitation still stands for you to post your rubbish on wikipedia and see how long it stays before it's taken down.
Scattered reports have them found at various places around the planet.
I looked into this a bit and some of them appear to be fake. I'm one who actually believes giants did live on the earth as in Gen 6 but there is even question as to how tall these giants were. The cubit was not a consistent measurement. Example Goliath could have as short as 6'6" which is still tall but he could of been as tall as 9' + Also there is some formula which says that humans could only be so tall but some of the youtube stuff is fake.
30 Aug '12 00:58
What about those giant human skeletons?
Back to Top