Evidence for God from Science

I find it to really be stretching belief to argue that people could actually live much past 100, yet you see people with extreme lengths of life time in the old testement. You really have to ask... Did that actually happen like that? If so then, how? I guess it seems pretty obvious that the answer to that is...if the environment was totally lacking in viruses, bacteria,radiation/free radicals/great diet and that people had knowledge of their own mortality(e.g.. not likely to walk of cliffs) then it is entirely plausible for lifespans to go past 120(which sort of feels like the hard limit)

Now, 9ft tall giants? Sounds totally possible and believable to me. Now, what kind of giants are we talking about, is this genetic or some kind of pituitary growth hormone overload? If the second, doesn't exactly sound like a very healthy kind of human being.

Now...Samson, I absolutely love his story(and king David's) they are brilliant story's bristling with battles and intrigue. It does seem to be pushing it with some of the feats Samson is said to have done... But really, if the lord is with you: what is there to stop you?

Cactus wrote:I find it to really be stretching belief to argue that people could actually live much past 100, yet you see people with extreme lengths of life time in the old testement. You really have to ask... Did that actually happen like that? If so then, how? I guess it seems pretty obvious that the answer to that is...if the environment was totally lacking in viruses, bacteria,radiation/free radicals/great diet and that people had knowledge of their own mortality(e.g.. not likely to walk of cliffs) then it is entirely plausible for lifespans to go past 120(which sort of feels like the hard limit)

Now, 9ft tall giants? Sounds totally possible and believable to me. Now, what kind of giants are we talking about, is this genetic or some kind of pituitary growth hormone overload? If the second, doesn't exactly sound like a very healthy kind of human being.

Now...Samson, I absolutely love his story(and king David's) they are brilliant story's bristling with battles and intrigue. It does seem to be pushing it with some of the feats Samson is said to have done... But really, if the lord is with you: what is there to stop you?

I love that, Cactus, "if the lord is with you: what is there to stop you?"

I can't respond in detail right now. But regarding people's ages in the early period, yes, that's what some people believe. That is, lack of all those harmful things allowed them to live longer. But as a subject, I don't know much about it.

Also, there are three theories regarding the giants, none of which can really explain them. I will look up those three theories, since I don't have them memorized, and post them here. Since none of the theories really work, however, you need to know that it's a mystery. Also, I had tried to find out if any large skeletons were found at archaeological sites, but I couldn't find anything. In fact, a number of web sites said there was no such evidence.

I'll get back to this later!

Ok Cactus. You wanted some info on the Nephilim, or Giants. Here you go! Vicki


Biblical Giants
Genesis 6:1-4. Who are the “sons of God,” “daughters of men,” and the “Nephilim” (giants; see also Numbers 13:33)?

From Kaiser, Jr., Walter, et al, in Hard Sayings of the Bible (InterVarsity Press, 1996, pp 106-108).

Three major views:

(1) Cosmologically mixed races, angels and humans. This seems to be the oldest view, being elaborated on in the noncanonical book of 1 Enoch. A Greek translation of the OT from the 3rd century BC uses the term “angels of God” instead of “sons of men.” The phrase “sons of men” does refer to angels often in the OT, but it doesn't actually fit well here. The reasons: angels do not marry (and how could they procreate without natural bodies?); only one manuscript refers to them as angels; if angels were the problem, and not humans, the angels should've been judged, not earth and its humans; and, Jude 6-7 does not support this theory as it is not talking about the same thing.

(2) Religiously mixed races, godly Sethites and worldly Cainites. A problem with this is the changing of the word men in verse 1 from all of humanity, to the specific Cainite line in verse 2. Another problem is that of the giant offspring. Why would these unions produce giants?

(3) Sociologically mixed races, despotic male aristocrats and beautiful female commoners. “Sons of God” is an early and typical phrase referring to the nobles and aristocrats. They became power hungry and perverted the system set up by God of dealing with injustices on the earth. They also went against God by becoming polygamous. In Hebrew, the word “gods” is used for magistrates of judges. The account of Lamech is very similar, in Genesis 4:19-24. Near Eastern archaeological discoveries confirm the use of the names of pagan gods and goddesses in governments. The root word of Nephilim means “to fall,” and it is also associated with gibbor, which means “a mighty man of valor, strength, wealth, or power.”

The power hungry men perverted God's authority given to men as well as human sexuality, their hearts became evil, and thus God judged them and enacted the flood.


Archaeological Study Bible (Zondervan, 2005, p 215)

Anakites descended from the Nephilim, and Rephaites seem to be similar. A problem with all three theories is how the Nephilim descendents were around after the flood. This article agrees with Kaiser et al. in that the religiously mixed races theory is weak; it disagrees with Kasier et al, however, in seeing the sociologically mixed races as the best explanation. It views the angelic explanation as best because of Jude 6 and the use of the term “sons of God” for angels (theory one, above). Procreation by angels would have been an aberrant behavior. The word Nephilim as used in Numbers is probably just a reference to something like giants.


Archer, Jr., Gleason, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan, 1982, pp 79-80)

Gleason writes that the phrase “sons of God” refers to either angels or men who are true believers. Whether it means one or the other depends on the context. He therefore takes the view that Genesis 6:1-4 is referring to religiously mixed races (theory two, above). There is no reference to Goliath or any other giants having angelic paternity or ancestry. Another reason that we cannot think of “sons of God” as angels in this situation is that demonic angels would never be referred to that way.


MacDonald, William, Believer's Bible Commentary (Thomas Nelson, 1995, pp 39-40)

We do not know for sure if angels could procreate with humans or not. There are instances of angels appearing in human form, in which they seem to have actual human parts. MacDonald only views the angelic theory (one, above) and the religiously mixed theory (two, above) as serious considerations. Within the context of the chapters, man is viewed as wicked and not angels, so this supports theory two. However, there are other problems with it, especially why those within the lineages were godly or ungodly, and the resultant giant offspring.