# How tall was Goliath?



## Six million dollar ham

I'm looking at 1Samuel 17 and ponder this D vs G parable.  Where does Goliath stack up in the all time list of giants?

Bigger than Andre?






Taller than Manute Bol?





Robert Wadlow - tallest man ever.  No way he was taller than this guy.


----------



## gordon 2

Goliath means "Exile"if I recall. Exile is tall and wide, much taller and wider than any man.


----------



## groundhawg

Per 1 Samuel 17:4 Goliath's height was six cubits and a span.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

groundhawg said:


> Per 1 Samuel 17:4 Goliath's height was six cubits and a span.



1 in = 2.54 cm

Help me out...I don't know any other length conversions.


----------



## groundhawg

Sorry just messing with you on giving the cubits and a span - anyway a cubit was 18 inches and a span 6 inches so 6X18=108inches and add the 6 inches for a span a total of 114 inches which would be 9 feet 6 inches tall.

Have not been able to find any information on his weight.


----------



## christianhunter

Six million dollar ham said:


> 1 in = 2.54 cm
> 
> Help me out...I don't know any other length conversions.



How tall was Darwin?


----------



## Ronnie T

How tall was Goliath laying flat on his back??


----------



## Six million dollar ham

christianhunter said:


> How tall was Darwin?



I'm not sure why you lack the self-control necessary to resist the urge to cause trouble by injecting irrelevant, immature remarks such as the above into a thread.  Do you know why?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Ronnie T said:


> How tall was Goliath laying flat on his back??



Why don't you start a new thread and quit trying to screw up mine?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

groundhawg said:


> Sorry just messing with you on giving the cubits and a span - anyway a cubit was 18 inches and a span 6 inches so 6X18=106inches and add the 6 inches for a span a total of 115 inches which would be 9 feet 7 inches tall.
> 
> Have not been able to find any information on his weight.




Thanks.  By the givens, I'm coming up with 108" + 6"=114"
which is 9ft 6 inches.  At any rate, I wonder why we've never seen anybody that tall since.  I find it suspicious that the biggest guy in the bible is the biggest to have ever lived.


----------



## gtparts

If it helps, he was a head shorter after he died.


----------



## rjcruiser

Six million dollar ham said:


> Thanks.  By the givens, I'm coming up with 108" + 6"=114"
> which is 9ft 6 inches.  At any rate, I wonder why we've never seen anybody that tall since.  I find it suspicious that the biggest guy in the bible is the biggest to have ever lived.



What makes you think he was the biggest to have ever lived?

By your own admission, you've given us Robert Wadlow above.  He was pushing 9 ft tall (officially, 8 ft 11.5 inches) when he died at the young age of 22 due to an infection.  He was still growing.


Also, these men were from a certain family....genetic tree.  They were almost all wiped out by Joshua....obviously, not all were as Goliath and 4 others are mentioned in I Samuel.  But, as populations grew, battles were fought and races intermingled, the genetic purity of these giants would have been mixed with that of normal sized people.  And over time, the height avg lowers.

Makes perfect sense to me....but again, I'm just an ignorant Bible believing Christian.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

rjcruiser said:


> What makes you think he was the biggest to have ever lived?
> 
> By your own admission, you've given us Robert Wadlow above.  He was pushing 9 ft tall (officially, 8 ft 11.5 inches) when he died at the young age of 22 due to an infection.  He was still growing.



He was taller than Wadlow by precisely 7 inches.  Wadlow's in the Guinness Book as tallest man.  That's why I say he's the tallest.  Tallest documented.  Why aren't you making the same case?

Thanks for keeping Wadlow in the picture too.  Poor guy was disabled by his size.  It makes me think at 9'6", Goliath wouldn't have made much of a warrior.  The bible is the truth though right?  What's your take?



rjcruiser said:


> Also, these men were from a certain family....genetic tree.  They were almost all wiped out by Joshua....obviously, not all were as Goliath and 4 others are mentioned in I Samuel.  But, as populations grew, battles were fought and races intermingled, the genetic purity of these giants would have been mixed with that of normal sized people.  And over time, the height avg lowers.



Why rjcruiser, are you suggesting they evolved in some manner?



rjcruiser said:


> Makes perfect sense to me....but again, I'm just an ignorant Bible believing Christian.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

gtparts said:


> If it helps, he was a head shorter after he died.



It does not.


----------



## Rich Kaminski

He don't scare me. The bear in my avatar is bigger than he was!


----------



## rjcruiser

Six million dollar ham said:


> He was taller than Wadlow by precisely 7 inches.  Wadlow's in the Guinness Book as tallest man.  That's why I say he's the tallest.  Tallest documented.  Why aren't you making the same case?


  Because the GBWR wasn't established until the 50's and really doesn't go back that far or reach everyone on the world.  It truly is a small % of the population.



			
				Six million dollar ham said:
			
		

> Thanks for keeping Wadlow in the picture too.  Poor guy was disabled by his size.  It makes me think at 9'6", Goliath wouldn't have made much of a warrior.  The bible is the truth though right?  What's your take?


Yes...the Bible is the truth.  And Goliath wasn't much of a warrior after all, was he.  



			
				Six million dollar ham said:
			
		

> Why rjcruiser, are you suggesting they evolved in some manner?



Of course genetic mutations and evolution occurs.  You get a white person to breed with a black person and you get a baby with a lighter complexion.  Is that too difficult for a scholar like you to understand?


Six...you really do love to troll around in here.  You come off as holier than thou when confronted about it, yet your true motives can't be hidden.  All it takes is one serious reply and your back to your usual self.


----------



## dawg2

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?


----------



## whitworth

*I don't know about height wise*

But I'm sure some Christian archers could compete on waist size.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

rjcruiser said:


> Six...you really do love to troll around in here.  You come off as holier than thou when confronted about it, yet your true motives can't be hidden.  All it takes is one serious reply and your back to your usual self.



You must be hallucinating.  I'm answering you, who appears to be the only one (on your team; besides groundhawg) offering up refutation or challenge, ie, debate.  The only potstirring in this thread has been by christians like Christianhunter and RonnieT.  I made sure to smack them into their place too.  So please stay on topic here and quit trying to make every thread about me.  I realize that's much easier than actually trying to engage in any meaningful discourse, but just resist the urge to go there.

At any rate, after further review, I retract any assertion that Goliath was tallest...Og, king of Bashan was clearly taller if his bedframe is any sort of guide.  



> Deuteronomy 3:11 - Only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaites. His bed was made of iron and was more than *thirteen feet long *and six feet wide. It is still in Rabbah of the Ammonites.



  Now that's a giant!  

So here's another question - if Moses killed Og, why do Christians make such a fuss over David killing the much smaller Goliath?  Why do we have a goliath beetle and not an og beetle?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

dawg2 said:


> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?



How old are you?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Rich Kaminski said:


> He don't scare me. The bear in my avatar is bigger than he was!



Thanks for telling us that you killed a bear.  I notice you have a scoped rifle instead of any sort of gravel shooter.  Why?


----------



## dawg2

Six million dollar ham said:


> How old are you?



You should Google the quote.  It is a metaphor of historical significance particular to debates.  I am surprised, being I thought you were "well read" while apparently you are "not."


----------



## Six million dollar ham

dawg2 said:


> You should Google the quote.  It is a metaphor of historical significance particular to debates.  I am surprised, being I thought you were "well read" while apparently you are "not."



Link to where I claimed that?  If there's not one, it's your unsolicited, unnecessary opinion on display here.  

But yes, now that I've looked up the meaning, I see what you're saying.  What is the job of a moderator here...to berate posters?


----------



## dawg2

Six million dollar ham said:


> Link to where I claimed that?  If there's not one, it's your unsolicited, unnecessary opinion on display here.
> 
> But yes, now that I've looked up the meaning, I see what you're saying.  What is the job of a moderator here...to berate posters?



It is not berating.  My comment was illustrating a point that you tend to delve into minutia of little or no significance.  Why not focus on something of substance or significance?

If someone says they "got a turkey" you don't ask how many feathers it has nor how long were its legs nor what was its wingspan.  You ask how long were the spurs / beard or how much did it weigh. 

Understand?

However, if your passion lies in insignificance, then carry on.


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?



cherubim or seraphim?



Oh...and how big is the head of the pin?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

dawg2 said:


> It is not berating.



Then we have different opinions.



dawg2 said:


> My comment was illustrating a point that you tend to delve into minutia of little or no significance.  Why not focus on something of substance or significance?



It's interesting that you dismiss any such inquiry as minutiae.  It wouldn't be because stories such as this and Jonah discredit the bible because they are so ridiculous?  Is not the bible the truth?  What does it mean to be tried in the fiery furnace anyhow?  It's all subject to scrutiny.

Remember when I asked why people don't live to be 900 anymore?  Basically, why don't people grow to 10, er uh, 13 feet tall anymore?


----------



## dawg2

Six million dollar ham said:


> Then we have different opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that you dismiss any such inquiry as minutiae.  It wouldn't be because stories such as this and Jonah discredit the bible because they are so ridiculous?  Is not the bible the truth?  What does it mean to be tried in the fiery furnace anyhow?  It's all subject to scrutiny.



Goliath's actual height in inches or feet does not discredit the bible.  He was obviously very large.  If the written record is off by a foot or inches, it does nothing to change the fact that a small insignificant individual armed with a strap of leather and a rock defeated an adversary with superior armament and stature.  Whether it was pure luck or God is where the debate lies, not in height.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

dawg2 said:


> Goliath's actual height in inches or feet does not discredit the bible.  He was obviously very large.  If the written record is off by a foot or inches, it does nothing to change the fact that a small insignificant individual armed with a strap of leather and a rock defeated an adversary with superior armament and stature.  Whether it was pure luck or God is where the debate lies, not in height.



Og is the leader, not Goliath.  More discrediting for you to ponder.


----------



## stringmusic

Six million dollar ham said:


> Og is the leader, not Goliath.  More discrediting for you to ponder.



How is Og the leader? You stated that "if" we go by his bed frame. People are weird, maybe he liked to jump on his bed, or maybe alot of people slept in it with him. I would give him more credit for creating the first moon walk inflatable than being the tallest person ever.


----------



## christianhunter

Six million dollar ham said:


> I'm not sure why you lack the self-control necessary to resist the urge to cause trouble by injecting irrelevant, immature remarks such as the above into a thread.  Do you know why?



Maybe if you looked at your avatar a little closer,you might be able to figure me out.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

christianhunter said:


> Maybe if you looked at your avatar a little closer,you might be able to figure me out.



Is it really my fault that you can't control yourself?  Or is it that you can justify any action as long as it's in the lord's name?  At any rate, stay on topic or stay off the thread.  Please and thanks.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

stringmusic said:


> How is Og the leader? You stated that "if" we go by his bed frame. People are weird, maybe he liked to jump on his bed, or maybe alot of people slept in it with him. I would give him more credit for creating the first moon walk inflatable than being the tallest person ever.



Fair enough.  I'm sure you think they sunk excess resources into his bed for extra, unnecessary space.  I'm not sure why.  

Is there much difference in these stories and Jack and the beanstalk though?


----------



## dawg2

Six million dollar ham said:


> Fair enough.  I'm sure you think they sunk excess resources into his bed for extra, unnecessary space.  I'm not sure why.
> 
> Is there much difference in these stories and Jack and the beanstalk though?



Sure.  Og had a large bed most likely to accommodate all of his wives / concubines.  While I am pretty sure that Jack was unmarried.


----------



## stringmusic

Six million dollar ham said:


> Fair enough.  I'm sure you think they sunk excess resources into his bed for extra, unnecessary space.  I'm not sure why.


Og was a king, I'm sure he used all his resources in any way he seen fit.  



> Is there much difference in these stories and Jack and the beanstalk though?


I believe one to be the truth and believe the other, which never claimed to be true in the first place, to be false.


----------



## atlashunter

Six, there is a theory among some Christians that goliath descebded from angels who interbred with people. i will try to get you a source.


----------



## atlashunter

Look up nephilim and first few verses of Genesis 6.


----------



## funandgun

Six's avatar offends me.  If he think the first time was ok, can you imagine what he would think about the 2nd birth?


----------



## Crubear

He was tall, why does the rest matter?

And he couldn't have been from the nephilim, David was post flood.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

atlashunter said:


> Six, there is a theory among some Christians that goliath descebded from angels who interbred with people. i will try to get you a source.



Are you one such Christian?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

funandgun said:


> Six's avatar offends me.



What is it that you find so upsetting?


----------



## pbradley

How tall do you say Goliath was, Ham?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Crubear said:


> He was tall, why does the rest matter?



Are you suggesting that it's none of my business?  Man that requires audacity.

Do you ever sit around and wonder why people don't grow to 10 feet tall anymore?  Ever wonder why they don't make it to 900 years these days?  

Or is it just easier to do this when people like me bring up such questions?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

pbradley said:


> How tall do you say Goliath was, Ham?



9'6" according to the bible.  That's about 2 feet beyond Andre.


----------



## Michael F. Gray

It is difficult to determine precisely the size of Goliath excepting the stated 6 cudits & a span. In Bible College I was taught most kingdoms during Bible days measured their kings arm from the elbow to the finger tips, and that was their "cubit". There exist ancient writing indicating differing lengths. I am 6'4" and just measured my own arm, elbow to finger tips is nearly 19 inches. A span was half a cubit. The 18 inch figure is rounded, or averaged. Even at nine and a half of our feet, Goliath was a very tall man.


----------



## Crubear

Nice try to pick a fight Ham, don't like an intelligent response? 

I wonder a lot of things, but we're too far separated from the writing and the culture to get a definitive answer.

The best reasoning I ever got about the 900 years was the actual individuals used one calendar and the historians/translators used another. Ancient Babalonian's (or whoever) used a different calendar that had six parts in our current year. The translater/story teller kept the count, but lost track of the meaning. 

If you divide the ultra long life spans by 6, they all of a sudden seem more plausable. I'm not saying it isn't so, but the current Hebrew calendar was established under Moses. Abraham's and before? Who can say for sure?

M Gray has the best response for measuring. It changed with the royal dimensions. So if Herbert the Short had a 12" cubit, how tall would Goliath have been?

The reason I asked why it matters is because I can imagine a couple thousand years from now that Ham25x will be asking how much a British pound weighed against an American pound


----------



## Disciple1st

Do you know who Lee Strobel is?


----------



## rjcruiser

Crubear said:


> Nice try to pick a fight Ham, don't like an intelligent response?
> 
> I wonder a lot of things, but we're too far separated from the writing and the culture to get a definitive answer.
> 
> The best reasoning I ever got about the 900 years was the actual individuals used one calendar and the historians/translators used another. Ancient Babalonian's (or whoever) used a different calendar that had six parts in our current year. The translater/story teller kept the count, but lost track of the meaning.
> 
> If you divide the ultra long life spans by 6, they all of a sudden seem more plausable. I'm not saying it isn't so, but the current Hebrew calendar was established under Moses. Abraham's and before? Who can say for sure?



Hmmm...interesting.  Never heard that before.

So does that mean the earth was created in just 1 day?


----------



## thedeacon

The exact size of the giant is not improtant at all. He was about 91/2 feet tall. Thats a big man and God was with David and he defeated the giant.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Crubear said:


> Nice try to pick a fight Ham, don't like an intelligent response?


No, I wasn't trying to pick a fight.  Spiritual Discussion.  




Crubear said:


> The best reasoning I ever got about the 900 years was the actual individuals used one calendar and the historians/translators used another. Ancient Babalonian's (or whoever) used a different calendar that had six parts in our current year. The translater/story teller kept the count, but lost track of the meaning.



Got a link?



Crubear said:


> If you divide the ultra long life spans by 6, they all of a sudden seem more plausable.



150?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

thedeacon said:


> The exact size of the giant is not improtant at all. He was about 91/2 feet tall. Thats a big man and God was with David and he defeated the giant.



About 9.5 feet tall.  Wonder why God doesn't make 'em like that anymore?  Back at square 1 now.


----------



## rjcruiser

Six million dollar ham said:


> About 9.5 feet tall.  Wonder why God doesn't make 'em like that anymore?  Back at square 1 now.



Why do you really care?  Answers have been given...you disregard them and troll for more.

Like I said before....move along....it is obvious that your only motive here is to sow doubt and discord in the minds of others.


----------



## stringmusic

Six million dollar ham said:


> About 9.5 feet tall.  Wonder why God doesn't make 'em like that anymore?  Back at square 1 now.



GREAT QUESTION HAM!, God doesnt make'em that way anymore because you would have another thread entitled, "why does God, of whom which I do not think is real, make people so dang tall?"


----------



## Six million dollar ham

rjcruiser said:


> Why do you really care?  Answers have been given...you disregard them and troll for more.
> 
> Like I said before....move along....it is obvious that your only motive here is to sow doubt and discord in the minds of others.



Well which is it?  Am I trolling or am I trying to sow doubt?



I'll give you this one, ole chap.  It's the latter.  Remember this is spiritual discussion, not Christians only.  You have another forum for that.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

stringmusic said:


> GREAT QUESTION HAM!, God doesnt make'em that way anymore because you would have another thread entitled, "why does God, of whom which I do not think is real, make people so dang tall?"



I'm definitely not saying that in the context of God being real.  That's abundantly clear.  Nice try though.  Sorta.


----------



## Ronnie T

Six, I've got to hand it to you, you're really good at what you do.
Over and over again you keep pulling the rug from under people's (our) feet, and we keep coming back for more.
It has to be amusing to you!


----------



## mtnwoman

My take on Goliath.  David had many Goliaths in his life...some he brought on himself.

I take the story of Goliath as, goliath is something that I think is bigger that I am, to take on.  If I come across something i need to to, something about money or whatever, I ask God to give me the right tool/weapon to defeat the giant/giants in my life. 

If I can't move a piece of furniture or plant my garden, I may just bow my head in near defeat and say...Lord give me the help I need to slay this goliath. That may seem minute to some of you men...but when you're an older woman sometimes you face a lot of goliaths just in everyday life.


----------



## mtnwoman

Ronnie T said:


> Six, I've got to hand it to you, you're really good at what you do.
> Over and over again you keep pulling the rug from under people's (our) feet, and we keep coming back for more.
> It has to be amusing to you!



Just a chance to testify....the good book says so.


----------



## mtnwoman

Six million dollar ham said:


> Well which is it?  Am I trolling or am I trying to sow doubt?*Well only you know that...which is it?*
> 
> 
> 
> I'll give you this one, ole chap.  It's the latter.  Remember this is spiritual discussion, not Christians only.  You have another forum for that.



*Do you believe there is a spiritual side to every religion, or just Christians, or do you even believe in  spirituality?
In your mind you may be able to "defeat" Christians, but can you refute spirituality totally?*

Just curious.


----------



## kyle86

gtparts said:


> if it helps, he was a head shorter after he died.



hahaha!!


----------



## mtnwoman

gtparts said:


> If it helps, he was a head shorter after he died.




you just ain't right.....hahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## dawg2

I will add this.  He was obviously very large and or tall.  If he was not, then the name / word "Goliath" would not have been used for millenia to describe large "things."  His exact stature really doesn't matter.  Maybe he was 6' 5" in a land where the average male at the time was barely 5-1/2 feet.  I just got back from Central America and I towered over the vast majority of the people I was around.  They probably thought I was Goliath and I am not 9' tall.


----------



## crackerdave

dawg2 said:


> Goliath's actual height in inches or feet does not discredit the bible.  He was obviously very large.  If the written record is off by a foot or inches, it does nothing to change the fact that a small insignificant individual armed with a strap of leather and a rock defeated an adversary with superior armament and stature.  Whether it was pure luck or God is where the debate lies, not in height.



David was an expert slinger,because his job was to defend the sheep he was entrusted with._David's trust was in the power of God,though - not just his own skill/luck._ Predatory animals and giants were no match for this:


----------



## Six million dollar ham

dawg2 said:


> I will add this.  He was obviously very large and or tall.  If he was not, then the name / word "Goliath" would not have been used for millenia to describe large "things."  His exact stature really doesn't matter.  Maybe he was 6' 5" in a land where the average male at the time was barely 5-1/2 feet.  I just got back from Central America and I towered over the vast majority of the people I was around.  They probably thought I was Goliath and I am not 9' tall.



What?  His height was in the Bible.  Do you not believe it to have been so?


----------



## Les Miles

I like bacon


----------



## dawg2

Six million dollar ham said:


> What?  His height was in the Bible.  Do you not believe it to have been so?



I do not see everything as "literal" in the Bible.  So nice try.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

dawg2 said:


> I do not see everything as "literal" in the Bible.  So nice try.



Thanks.....for inspiring a new thread.


----------



## Huntinfool

The bottom line is that there was no English or Metric standard of measurement at that time.

There were standard measures.  But they were very subjective and based on things like peoples hands, the standing height of an animal, etc.

If you think that his listed height is accurate to the mm, you're wrong.  If you think it matters....you're wrong again.  The point made was that he was very very tall in comparison to his counterpart in that particular battle.


----------



## dawg2

Huntinfool said:


> The bottom line is that there was no English or Metric standard of measurement at that time.
> 
> There were standard measures.  But they were very subjective and based on things like peoples hands, the standing height of an animal, etc.
> 
> If you think that his listed height is accurate to the mm, you're wrong.  If you think it matters....you're wrong again.  The point made was that he was very very tall in comparison to his counterpart in that particular battle.


I agree.  The message was not the exact height of Goliath.  That was a detail, not the message.


----------



## stringmusic

Huntinfool said:


> The bottom line is that there was no English or Metric standard of measurement at that time.
> 
> There were standard measures.  But they were very subjective and based on things like peoples hands, the standing height of an animal, etc.
> 
> If you think that his listed height is accurate to the mm, you're wrong.  If you think it matters....you're wrong again.  The point made was that he was very very tall in comparison to his counterpart in that particular battle.



Great post!
I want to say, "why is this so hard to understand" but something tells me it's mostly.....


----------



## stringmusic

stringmusic said:


> Great post!
> I want to say, "why is this so hard to understand" but something tells me it's mostly.....



You know what? the more I think of it, it's all.....


----------



## Six million dollar ham

stringmusic said:


> You know what? the more I think of it, it's all.....



Keep in mind...nobody asked what you think.


----------



## atlashunter

Six million dollar ham said:


> Thanks.....for inspiring a new thread.



That one is good enough to inspire a new signature.


----------



## stringmusic

Six million dollar ham said:


> Keep in mind...nobody asked what you think.



You are correct, but remember we are on an internet forum, and from my understanding(I might be wrong)the whole point of GON forums is for people to express what they think, I did just that. Maybe I should have just put  in my post as to not throw you so badly.


----------



## HawgJawl

I completely understand a human telling a story that is not completely accurate on some tiny detail that is not relevant to the point of the story.  That type of small mistake is human nature and is almost expected when a human tells a story.

If some of the details in the Bible are not literally correct, because they weren't really relevant to the point of the story, WHO do you think made the small mistake?


----------



## Huntinfool

HawgJawl said:


> I completely understand a human telling a story that is not completely accurate on some tiny detail that is not relevant to the point of the story.  That type of small mistake is human nature and is almost expected when a human tells a story.
> 
> If some of the details in the Bible are not literally correct, because they weren't really relevant to the point of the story, WHO do you think made the small mistake?



Who said it wasn't correct?  It was correct.  The person who measured it, measured it at that height...based on the current system of using hands, animal heights, etc. 

The point is that you can take those types of measures 100 times and you'll get 100 different measures when you put it on the English or Metric scale...which did not exist.

You are trying to force accuracy when there was none.


----------



## HawgJawl

Huntinfool said:


> Who said it wasn't correct?  It was correct.  The person who measured it, measured it at that height...based on the current system of using hands, animal heights, etc.



So, the Word of God, being relayed to all future generations, came from "the person who measured it"?


----------



## rjcruiser

Huntinfool said:


> Who said it wasn't correct?  It was correct.  The person who measured it, measured it at that height...based on the current system of using hands, animal heights, etc.
> 
> The point is that you can take those types of measures 100 times and you'll get 100 different measures when you put it on the English or Metric scale...which did not exist.
> 
> You are trying to force accuracy when there was none.



HF...you have to realize that Hawg only believes in 25% of the Bible.  The rest was made up by man to help fill the rest of the pages.


----------



## dawg2

dawg2 said:


> How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?



...


----------



## Huntinfool

HawgJawl said:


> So, the Word of God, being relayed to all future generations, came from "the person who measured it"?



It was accurately measured in the way it was possible to measure at the time.  If I say you are 15 hands high and I measure you with my hand, then you are accurately 15 hands high.  Now have Andre the Giant measure you in hands.  Same accurate measure....two answers.  Both are correct, but they are different.

I would venture to say that standardized rulers and tape measures were not easily purchased at the local Home Depot back then.


----------



## HawgJawl

rjcruiser said:


> HF...you have to realize that Hawg only believes in 25% of the Bible.  The rest was made up by man to help fill the rest of the pages.



RJ,
Do you believe the timeline in the Old Testament is correct, which would place the Great Flood at about 2348 BC?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

stringmusic said:


> You are correct, but remember we are on an internet forum, and from my understanding(I might be wrong)the whole point of GON forums is for people to express what they think, I did just that. Maybe I should have just put  in my post as to not throw you so badly.



I really don't care what you do.


----------



## ted_BSR

I think it is funny that Ham and Ambush spend more time over here than in the AAA forum now. No problem for me, it is a free country and all. They just seem to like to pick a fight, and I guess they were running out of pigeons in the AAA forum.

Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say they like intelligent discussion, not to pick a fight!


----------



## Six million dollar ham

ted_BSR said:


> I think it is funny that Ham and Ambush spend more time over here than in the AAA forum now. No problem for me, it is a free country and all. They just seem to like to pick a fight, and I guess they were running out of pigeons in the AAA forum.



Do you take Ritalin by chance?  I wonder about your attentions span at times.


----------



## Ronnie T

ted_BSR said:


> I think it is funny that Ham and Ambush spend more time over here than in the AAA forum now. No problem for me, it is a free country and all. They just seem to like to pick a fight, and I guess they were running out of pigeons in the AAA forum.
> 
> Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to say they like intelligent discussion, not to pick a fight!



Now, you'd have to go back to the original post to understand why Ham is at this thread.  You see, Ham is interested in knowing how Goliath stacks up against modern giants.  Simple.


----------



## stringmusic

Ronnie T said:


> Now, you'd have to go back to the original post to understand why Ham is at this thread.  You see, Ham is interested in knowing how Goliath stacks up against modern giants.  Simple.


----------



## rjcruiser

HawgJawl said:


> RJ,
> Do you believe the timeline in the Old Testament is correct, which would place the Great Flood at about 2348 BC?



I think that that date is close....maybe a touch closer to 2300BC.


----------



## HawgJawl

rjcruiser said:


> I think that that date is close....maybe a touch closer to 2300BC.



There is evidence of human habitation in the southwest corner of Egypt before 8000 BC with habitations along the Nile River dating back to 11,000 BC.  By 6000 BC organized agriculture with advanced irrigation systems and large building constructions were occuring in the Nile Valley.

An ancient Egyptian calendar recorded the year 4241 BC.  The ancient Egyptian Dynasties began around 3150 BC, with pharaohs ruling and ordering the construction of the pyramids.

The Bible is not the only historical document for this time period.  Egyptian history shows that King Khufu completed the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza in 2680 BC and King Khafre completed the construction of the Great Sphinx at Giza in 2540 BC.  

Around 2350 BC, Egyptian historical records show that King Unas of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt was building his pyramid in the pyramid field of Saggara near Cairo.  Urukagina, the ruler of Mesopotamia was developing the first known example of government self-reform, consisting of a judicial code to combat corruption and laws to protect the rights of the poor.  The Prime Minister of Egypt, the philosopher Ptahhotep authored his famous literary work Maxims of Ptahhotep, a papyrus copy of which is is on display at the Louvre in Paris.  During this time period, the Egyptians developed the first courier service for the circulation of written documents, and invented advanced methods of beekeeping for the production of honey.  

These historic events were documented well by the ancient Egyptians and others, however, these historical documents fail to mention a Great Flood that covered the entire earth during this same time period.  Not only were the ancient Egyptians not completely destroyed by the Great Flood, but they didn't seem to even notice it.


----------



## rjcruiser

HawgJawl said:


> There is evidence of human habitation in the southwest corner of Egypt before 8000 BC with habitations along the Nile River dating back to 11,000 BC.  By 6000 BC organized agriculture with advanced irrigation systems and large building constructions were occuring in the Nile Valley.
> 
> An ancient Egyptian calendar recorded the year 4241 BC.  The ancient Egyptian Dynasties began around 3150 BC, with pharaohs ruling and ordering the construction of the pyramids.
> 
> The Bible is not the only historical document for this time period.  Egyptian history shows that King Khufu completed the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza in 2680 BC and King Khafre completed the construction of the Great Sphinx at Giza in 2540 BC.
> 
> Around 2350 BC, Egyptian historical records show that King Unas of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt was building his pyramid in the pyramid field of Saggara near Cairo.  Urukagina, the ruler of Mesopotamia was developing the first known example of government self-reform, consisting of a judicial code to combat corruption and laws to protect the rights of the poor.  The Prime Minister of Egypt, the philosopher Ptahhotep authored his famous literary work Maxims of Ptahhotep, a papyrus copy of which is is on display at the Louvre in Paris.  During this time period, the Egyptians developed the first courier service for the circulation of written documents, and invented advanced methods of beekeeping for the production of honey.
> 
> These historic events were documented well by the ancient Egyptians and others, however, these historical documents fail to mention a Great Flood that covered the entire earth during this same time period.  Not only were the ancient Egyptians not completely destroyed by the Great Flood, but they didn't seem to even notice it.





From wikipedia.

"Taking all things into consideration, it seems that we must give the credit of erecting this, the world's most wonderful statue, to Khafre, but always with this reservation: that there is not one single contemporary inscription which connects the Sphinx with Khafre; so, sound as it may appear, we must treat the evidence as circumstantial, until such time as a lucky turn of the spade of the excavator will reveal to the world a definite reference to the erection of the Sphinx."

So...the only evidence that the sphinx was built before the flood is circumstantial.  Sounds like it is less accurate than the Bible


----------



## HawgJawl

rjcruiser said:


> From wikipedia.
> 
> "Taking all things into consideration, it seems that we must give the credit of erecting this, the world's most wonderful statue, to Khafre, but always with this reservation: that there is not one single contemporary inscription which connects the Sphinx with Khafre; so, sound as it may appear, we must treat the evidence as circumstantial, until such time as a lucky turn of the spade of the excavator will reveal to the world a definite reference to the erection of the Sphinx."
> 
> So...the only evidence that the sphinx was built before the flood is circumstantial.  Sounds like it is less accurate than the Bible



We're not talking about 2540 BC.  I said 2348 BC and you said 2300 BC.  Concentrate on that time period.


----------



## rjcruiser

HawgJawl said:


> We're not talking about 2540 BC.  I said 2348 BC and you said 2300 BC.  Concentrate on that time period.




And what I am saying is your evidence is circumstantial at best.  Mine, well, per your thoughts....circumstantial at best.

You can believe what you want to.  I'll believe what I want to.  There are many sources that back up what I believe and I think it is a stronger case.  At the end of the day, I'm not going to convince you out of your lack of belief in the Bible....and you're not going to convince me out of my belief in the Bible.

It really is worthless to continue going back and forth on these things.  I admit...I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  You admit that it is chock full of errors.  Don't get so upset when I inform others of your (dis)beliefs.


----------



## HawgJawl

rjcruiser said:


> And what I am saying is your evidence is circumstantial at best.  Mine, well, per your thoughts....circumstantial at best.
> 
> You can believe what you want to.  I'll believe what I want to.  There are many sources that back up what I believe and I think it is a stronger case.  At the end of the day, I'm not going to convince you out of your lack of belief in the Bible....and you're not going to convince me out of my belief in the Bible.
> 
> It really is worthless to continue going back and forth on these things.  I admit...I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  You admit that it is chock full of errors.  Don't get so upset when I inform others of your (dis)beliefs.



I'm not upset in the least.

I'm not offering my "opinion" of what was going on in ancient Egypt around 2348 BC.  I'm offering historical facts of a civilization that existed, survived, and didn't notice an event that reportedly wiped out the entire world, save Noah and his family.  

I'm not addressing whether or not the Great Flood occurred. I'm addressing whether or not it occurred around 2348 BC as reported in the Bible.


----------



## rjcruiser

HawgJawl said:


> I'm not offering my "opinion" of what was going on in ancient Egypt around 2348 BC.  I'm offering historical facts of a civilization that existed, survived, and didn't notice an event that reportedly wiped out the entire world, save Noah and his family.



When your "facts" are based on circumstantial evidence, it becomes opinion.


----------



## HawgJawl

rjcruiser said:


> When your "facts" are based on circumstantial evidence, it becomes opinion.



The lengthy, uninterrupted, documented existence of a specific civilization in a specific location is not opinion nor is it circumstantial in relation to a claim that the entire civilization was completely destroyed at a particular time.


----------



## HawgJawl

Since RJ doesn't seem to want to play, does anyone else want to take a stab at post #87?


----------



## dawg2

HawgJawl said:


> Since RJ doesn't seem to want to play, does anyone else want to take a stab at post #87?


  What exactly was "Noah's world"?


----------



## JFS

rjcruiser said:


> There are many sources that back up what I believe



Really?  What legitimate source supports the idea of the global flood at that time?


----------



## HawgJawl

dawg2 said:


> What exactly was "Noah's world"?



The New Living Translation of the Holy Bible states that it was the entire human race.

Genesis 6:7    And the Lord said, "I will completely wipe out this human race that I have created. Yes, and I will destroy all the animals and birds, too. I am sorry I ever made them."


----------



## dawg2

HawgJawl said:


> The New Living Translation of the Holy Bible states that it was the entire human race.
> 
> Genesis 6:7    And the Lord said, "I will completely wipe out this human race that I have created. Yes, and I will destroy all the animals and birds, too. I am sorry I ever made them."



The Nephilim are gone.


----------



## gtparts

HawgJawl said:


> I'm not upset in the least.
> 
> I'm not offering my "opinion" of what was going on in ancient Egypt around 2348 BC.  I'm offering historical facts of a civilization that existed, survived, and didn't notice an event that reportedly wiped out the entire world, save Noah and his family.
> 
> I'm not addressing whether or not the Great Flood occurred. I'm addressing whether or not it occurred around 2348 BC as reported in the Bible.





rjcruiser said:


> When your "facts" are based on circumstantial evidence, it becomes opinion.



I am sure that as the flood waters rose many knew it. It is only reasonable that those who perished left no record, HJ,  ......... they were dead. Just sayin'.   


Sure would explain why we don't see a lot of Ra or Osiris or Isis worship today.


----------



## HawgJawl

gtparts said:


> I am sure that as the flood waters rose many knew it. It is only reasonable that those who perished left no record, HJ,  ......... they were dead. Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> Sure would explain why we don't see a lot of Ra or Osiris or Isis worship today.



I don't understand what you're saying.  I never asked for a record of the flood.

There IS a long, uninterrupted record of the ancient Egyptian civilization.  There is no break in that historical record all the way back to well before the Great Flood reportedly occurred.

If you possessed records of your paternal ancestory from present back to 1400 AD, and I told you that your entire family line was completely wiped out in 1600 AD, what would your response be?  Would not the uninterrupted record of your family history and the fact that your family still exists prove my assertion incorrect?


----------



## HawgJawl

dawg2 said:


> The Nephilim are gone.



I'm not saying that the Great Flood did not occur.  I'm saying that uninterrupted historical records of the Egyptian civilization prove that the Great Flood could not have occurred in 2348 BC.


----------



## ted_BSR

Six million dollar ham said:


> Do you take Ritalin by chance?  I wonder about your attentions span at times.



Is that a contribution to the discussion, or just a personal attack?

You don't know me Six, don't pretend that you do.

Dang it, I said Ambush again instead of Atlas, sorry again Ambush.


----------



## dawg2

HawgJawl said:


> I'm not saying that the Great Flood did not occur.  I'm saying that uninterrupted historical records of the Egyptian civilization prove that the Great Flood could not have occurred in 2348 BC.



I agree.  I also agree the world is much older than 6,000 years old.


----------



## HawgJawl

dawg2 said:


> I agree.  I also agree the world is much older than 6,000 years old.



Then would you agree that the timeline that is clearly presented in the Old Testament is inaccurate?


----------



## dawg2

HawgJawl said:


> Then would you agree that the timeline that is clearly presented in the Old Testament is inaccurate?



I believe it is a guideline, not a calendar.


----------



## HawgJawl

The OT says that when Abram was 99 years of age God changed his name to Abraham, and when Abraham was 100 his son Isaac was born.  When Isaac was 60 his twin sons Jacob and Esau were born.  When Jacob was 87 his son Levi was born.

By applying simple math, we can say that Levi was born 87 plus 60 plus 100 years (247 years) after Abraham was born.  

Do you believe that Levi was born 247 years after the birth of Abraham?


----------



## dawg2

HawgJawl said:


> The OT says that when Abram was 99 years of age God changed his name to Abraham, and when Abraham was 100 his son Isaac was born.  When Isaac was 60 his twin sons Jacob and Esau were born.  When Jacob was 87 his son Levi was born.
> 
> By applying simple math, we can say that Levi was born 87 plus 60 plus 100 years (247 years) after Abraham was born.
> 
> Do you believe that Levi was born 247 years after the birth of Abraham?



1) The Bible is not a "scientific" log nor journal.
2) Since I have no access to what Abraham was using as a "calendar" or measurement of time, I have no way to say how his age relates to ages of today.

If you take a Mayan or Aztec calendar, their ages will not coincide with ours.  So to answer your question, it is impossible for me to answer accurately, since the Bible does not clearly define the calendars nor measurements of that time.


----------



## HawgJawl

dawg2 said:


> 1) The Bible is not a "scientific" log nor journal.
> 2) Since I have no access to what Abraham was using as a "calendar" or measurement of time, I have no way to say how his age relates to ages of today.
> 
> If you take a Mayan or Aztec calendar, their ages will not coincide with ours.  So to answer your question, it is impossible for me to answer accurately, since the Bible does not clearly define the calendars nor measurements of that time.



I understand.

Do you believe that the calendar used by the Egyptians during their Fifth Dynasty was relatively similar in length to the calendar used by Moses when he wrote the first five books of the Bible?  Moses was Egyptian by birth.


----------



## Huntinfool

Actually.....Moses was Israelite by birth.


He was raised in an egyptian house.  But he was very well aware that he was not egyptian.


----------



## dawg2

Huntinfool said:


> Actually.....Moses was Israelite by birth.
> 
> 
> He was raised in an egyptian house.  But he was very well aware that he was not egyptian.



What he said.


----------



## HawgJawl

I suspect that pulling teeth is much easier.

Do you believe that an Israelite raised in an Egyptian home would use a calendar similar to the Egyptian calendar?


----------



## dawg2

HawgJawl said:


> I suspect that pulling teeth is much easier.
> 
> Do you believe that an Israelite raised in an Egyptian home would use a calendar similar to the Egyptian calendar?



I have no idea.  The Guantanamo prisoners still don't eat pork.


----------



## rjcruiser

dawg2 said:


> I have no idea.  The Guantanamo prisoners still don't eat pork.


----------



## HawgJawl

Moses could be considered an Egyptian because he was "adopted" and raised by Egyptians in an Egyptian household.  Or he could be considered an Egyptian because at birth he was the property of Egypt as a slave.  Or he could be considered an Egyptian simply because he was born and raised in Egypt.  No matter what nationality you wish to assign to Moses, the fact that he was born and raised and educated in Egypt would lead a reasonable person to believe that he used the Egyptian calendar.

We are comparing the actual length of time of a "year" in the Egyptian history records to the actual length of time of a "year" in the first five books of the bible that were written by Moses who was born and raised and educated in Egypt.  I see no reason to believe that there would be a difference in the length of time of a "year" between the two.


----------



## Huntinfool

Then why did he continually refer to the Israelites as "my people"?

If he considered himself egyptian and accepted their traditions, values and other thing, he would not have bothered with the Israelites or their God....reasonably speaking.


What you're really trying to do is make a point that's not there and so we are returning the favor.  Fair enough?


----------



## Ronnie T

Huntinfool said:


> Then why did he continually refer to the Israelites as "my people"?
> 
> If he considered himself egyptian and accepted their traditions, values and other thing, he would not have bothered with the Israelites or their God....reasonably speaking.
> 
> 
> What you're really trying to do is make a point that's not there and so we are returning the favor.  Fair enough?




Excellent point


----------



## HawgJawl

Huntinfool said:


> Then why did he continually refer to the Israelites as "my people"?
> 
> If he considered himself egyptian and accepted their traditions, values and other thing, he would not have bothered with the Israelites or their God....reasonably speaking.
> 
> 
> What you're really trying to do is make a point that's not there and so we are returning the favor.  Fair enough?



And you're arguing a point that I'm not trying to make.  

It doesn't matter if an Egyptian slave believes that he is an Egyptian or an Israelite.  He abides by the rules of his master.  If you have any reason to believe that the Egyptian slaves or an Israelite who was raised and educated as an Egyptian, defined a "year" as a totally different amount of time than the Egytians did, then please present it.


----------



## Huntinfool

> What you're really trying to do is make a point that's not there and so we are returning the favor. Fair enough?



I'll ask you to re-read this.

How tall Goliath was to the milimeter is of no consequence and says nothing to the accuracy or inerrancy of the Bible.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Huntinfool said:


> How tall Goliath was to the milimeter is of no consequence and says nothing to the accuracy or inerrancy of the Bible.



So mm is a bit precise for stone age tales.  Fair enough.  But gosh, seems like the whole 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish for 5000 people is a pretty tough measurement to screw up.


----------



## HawgJawl

Hf,

Dawg2 and I were not talking about Goliath.  Look back a few post.  We were discussing the actual length of a year as it relates to the biblical timeline for when the Great Flood occurred and comparing it to other Egyptian historical documents.


----------



## Huntinfool

I know that.  

You ain't pickin' up what I'm puttin' down.



Ham, did somebody indicate that wasn't accurate?  If they did, I missed it.


----------



## HawgJawl

When Moses says a "year" and when an Egyptian in relatively the same location on earth and in relatively the same time-frame says a "year" it is reasonably assumed that they are speaking of the same length of time.  I proposed that a person raised and educated by Egyptians in Egypt would use the Egyptian definition of a year.  That being a reasonable assumption and given no evidence to the contrary, that assumption should be the default.

If someone presents the theory that the length of time of a "year" was different between the Egyptians and their slaves, the Israelites, then that theory should be presented with some evidence.  It is the duty of the person making the exceptional claim to provide evidence.


----------



## rjcruiser

HawgJawl said:


> When Moses says a "year" and when an Egyptian in relatively the same location on earth and in relatively the same time-frame says a "year" it is reasonably assumed that they are speaking of the same length of time.  I proposed that a person raised and educated by Egyptians in Egypt would use the Egyptian definition of a year.  That being a reasonable assumption and given no evidence to the contrary, that assumption should be the default.
> 
> If someone presents the theory that the length of time of a "year" was different between the Egyptians and their slaves, the Israelites, then that theory should be presented with some evidence.  It is the duty of the person making the exceptional claim to provide evidence.



So if that is the case, does that mean a day in Genesis one is the same day as the Egyptian day?


Just an edit to add....Moses wasn't an egyptian slave....Joseph was.  Moses was an adopted son.  Tell me this...you don't treat your son the same way as you treat your slave, do you?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Huntinfool said:


> Ham, did somebody indicate that wasn't accurate?  If they did, I missed it.



You indicated that his exact height is of no consequence.  My question here is whether or not the amount of food used to feed the masses is of consequence.  After all, it is one of the miracles Jesus performed.  I'd say its significance and meaning lie in the exact numbers of food items and people as presented.  If so, how does one distinguish which quantification to dismiss as inconsequential and which to embrace as gospel?


----------



## rjcruiser

Six million dollar ham said:


> You indicated that his exact height is of no consequence.  My question here is whether or not the amount of food used to feed the masses is of consequence.  After all, it is one of the miracles Jesus performed.  I'd say its significance and meaning lie in the exact numbers of food items and people as presented.  If so, how does one distinguish which quantification to dismiss as inconsequential and which to embrace as gospel?



The number is right, just as the number of cubits is right for Goliath's height.  Now...the size and weight of the fish and loaves...well...that is up to a little debate.  Obviously, they were small enough to fit in the young man's lunch bag.


----------



## HawgJawl

rjcruiser said:


> So if that is the case, does that mean a day in Genesis one is the same day as the Egyptian day?
> 
> 
> Just an edit to add....Moses wasn't an egyptian slave....Joseph was.  Moses was an adopted son.  Tell me this...you don't treat your son the same way as you treat your slave, do you?



The only reason I had to address the issue of slavery is because in post #109 and #115, Hf indicated that it might make a difference.  I say that it doesn't make a difference.

As far as one day in Genesis, I believe that the author's definition of a word should be accepted as is unless the author specifies a difference.  Therefore whatever the length of time made up a day when Moses wrote Genesis, that same definition should be applied where Moses wrote the word day unless he indicated that a different definition should be applied.


----------



## Huntinfool

> The only reason I had to address the issue of slavery is because in post #109 and #115, Hf indicated that it might make a difference.  I say that it doesn't make a difference.



In no way did I indicate that he was a slave.




> As far as one day in Genesis, I believe that the author's definition of a word should be accepted as is unless the author specifies a difference.  Therefore whatever the length of time made up a day when Moses wrote Genesis, that same definition should be applied where Moses wrote the word day unless he indicated that a different definition should be applied


.

Except that the word "day" is translated for several different words in the original language.  "day" may not mean "day" depending on what word was used for "day".....know what I mean?

Bottom line is you're speculating.  You have no idea what calendar he used or what he meant by a year....and it is of little consequence.  If you're intent is to point out inconsistencies in the Bible, have at it.  You see inconsistencies, we don't.  I'll refer you to a recent post of RJ's in another thread (do a search for his posts).  It was full of reasons (many from Proverbs) that you don't see what we see.


----------



## HawgJawl

Huntinfool said:


> In no way did I indicate that he was a slave.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Except that the word "day" is translated for several different words in the original language.  "day" may not mean "day" depending on what word was used for "day".....know what I mean?
> 
> Bottom line is you're speculating.  You have no idea what calendar he used or what he meant by a year....and it is of little consequence.  If you're intent is to point out inconsistencies in the Bible, have at it.  You see inconsistencies, we don't.  I'll refer you to a recent post of RJ's in another thread (do a search for his posts).  It was full of reasons (many from Proverbs) that you don't see what we see.



I have seen a whole lot of redirecting and attempts to distract from the issue of the length of a year.  I have seen no reason presented by anyone to believe that a "Moses" year is any different than an "Egyptian" year.  Lots of smoke and mirrors but no one has even attempted to address the issue.


----------



## HawgJawl

When Moses wrote in Genesis 50:22

"So Joseph and his brothers and their families continued to live in Egypt. Joseph was 110 years old when he died."

was he referring to Moses years or Egyptian years?


----------



## HawgJawl

Huntinfool said:


> Except that the word "day" is translated for several different words in the original language.  "day" may not mean "day" depending on what word was used for "day".....know what I mean?
> 
> Bottom line is you're speculating.  You have no idea what calendar he used or what he meant by a year....



I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me make sure I understand in case I'd like to refer back to this in another debate.

Do you believe that there is scripture that we have no idea of what it means or what it refers to because of differences in translations, etc?


----------



## Huntinfool

HawgJawl said:


> When Moses wrote in Genesis 50:22
> 
> "So Joseph and his brothers and their families continued to live in Egypt. Joseph was 110 years old when he died."
> 
> was he referring to Moses years or Egyptian years?





I don't know....how's that?  Do you?


.


----------



## HawgJawl

Huntinfool said:


> I don't know....how's that?  Do you?
> 
> 
> .



Please refer back to post #122.


----------



## Huntinfool

HawgJawl said:


> I don't want to put words in your mouth, so let me make sure I understand in case I'd like to refer back to this in another debate.
> 
> Do you believe that there is scripture that we have no idea of what it means or what it refers to because of differences in translations, etc?



There are several different words that are translated as the english word "day".  That's what I mean.  One word is most typically used to refer to what we would understand as 24hrs.  One is most typically used to refer to a "period" (i.e. "in my day we use to whittle pipes from corn cobs").

I didn't imply anything other than the fact that "day" does not necessarily mean 24hrs.




HawgJawl said:


> Please refer back to post #122.



"it is reasonably assumed..."


----------



## HawgJawl

It is my position, based upon what I have posted above, that 2348 "Moses years" is equal to 2348 "Egyptian years".

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, lets hear it.


----------



## Huntinfool

Did I miss the significance of 2348 years somewhere? You're concerned about how old the Earth is based on the flood?



It is my position that what the Bible says is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

It is my position that what's in the Bible is true.

It is my position that I do not 100% understand everything that is out there whether it's in the Bible or not.

It is my position that I'm ok with the fact that I don't understand everything.


I can't remember if this is the post I was talking about or not.  But this will do...



> I Cor 1
> 
> 18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
> 
> 19For it is written,
> 
> "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
> and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
> 
> 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
> 
> 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
> 
> 22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
> 
> 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
> 
> 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
> 
> 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.


----------



## groundhawg

HawgJawl said:


> Hf,
> 
> Dawg2 and I were not talking about Goliath.  Look back a few post.  We were discussing the actual length of a year as it relates to the biblical timeline for when the Great Flood occurred and comparing it to other Egyptian historical documents.



Then why highjack this thread?  Could you not start your own about time and years and discuss there?


----------



## HawgJawl

Huntinfool said:


> Did I miss the significance of 2348 years somewhere?



It started with post #80,  #86,  and #87.


----------



## HawgJawl

groundhawg said:


> Then why highjack this thread?  Could you not start your own about time and years and discuss there?



I apologize if I interfered with anyone's ability to discuss Goliath.


----------



## rjcruiser

I'll wrap up what I believe.

6 24 hr days for creation.  No reason to view it otherwise.

The years in the OT are the same years or very close to what we have today.  No reason to think otherwise.

Now....could there be a mis translation somewhere?  I guess so.  But I have no reason to think otherwise.  Does that mis translation affect the message of the Bible?  Nope.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

rjcruiser said:


> The number is right, just as the number of cubits is right for Goliath's height.  Now...the size and weight of the fish and loaves...well...that is up to a little debate.  Obviously, they were small enough to fit in the young man's lunch bag.



You _really _believe that too don't you?  With all due respect, it's garbage.


----------



## Huntinfool

Six million dollar ham said:


> You _really _believe that too don't you?  With all due respect, it's garbage.



Without the possibility of "miracle", you're absolutely right, it's garbage.  In fact, it's not possible unless, Ham, you are willing to allow for the possibility of "miracle".  

But that's kind of the point of the fish/loaves story...you know that.


----------



## rjcruiser

Six million dollar ham said:


> You _really _believe that too don't you?  With all due respect, it's garbage.




Yup....sure do believe it.

I guess this post really does show everyone on this website your true beliefs and motives for being in this forum.  Nothing more than to sow discord and try and elevate your own personal opinion.

aka---Troll.


----------



## dawg2

I would say this one has gone full circle...or more like a Mobius Strip


----------

