Giants-nephilim-alien-demon?

[ONYOUR(6)]

The Bible did say we had Giants that walked the earth. Angels that had sex with us Humans?
So So So much we think we know but don't know. Like our governments are being run by the world bankers
or the globalist, Who are running them?? Check this one out.:freaked:I Love Pink Floyd.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=85...&q=nephilim

P.S. there are other videos on the topic of the Nephilims' If this has been posted befor...sorry about that.I must say this is the biggest forrum ive ever been on.

[wokensheep]

http://urbanlegends.about.combrary/bl_gi...eleton.htm

[ONYOUR(6)]

:(THAT SUXS hope not all of them where fake...grrrr

[SerialExpLain]

Reminded me a little of this song, Fields of the Nephilim, Love Under Will (studio-cut was better but here they are live)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzVIMLf0CfM

[proteinspill]

-edit-

[fjaneson]

Don't be so sure all those skeletons are fake.

For example, Cornell said that the Saudi Arabian Giant found in the Empty Quarter

was in fact a Mastodon skeleton. The only problem is, the light sourcing in the alleged 'real' picture

is ridiculously fake, whereas the alleged 'giant' pic's light sourcing looks fine.

Here is the alleged original image. See the shadows emanating from the wooden posts?

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/outreach/m...rhead-pos03.jpg

Look for yourselves.

[Mickyjay]

From:
http://bennieblount.org/Online/Appendix/app23.htm

Quote:"The Sons of GOD" in Genesis 6:2,4.
This Is Appendix 23 From The Companion Bible.

It is only by the Divine specific act of creation that any created being can be called "a son of God". For that which is "born of the flesh is flesh". God is spirit, and that which is "born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Hence Adam is called a "son of God" in Luke 3:38. Those "in Christ" having "the new nature" which is by the direct creation of God (2 Corinthians 5:17. Ehpesians 2:10) can be, and are called "sons of God" (John 1:13. Romans 8:14,15. 1John 3:1).1
This why angels are called "sons of God" in every other place where the expression is used in the Old Testament. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Psalms 29:1; 89:6. Daniel 3:25. (no article). 2 We have no authority or right to take the expression in Genesis 6:2,4 in any other sense. Moreover, in Genesis 6:2 the Septuagint renders it "angels".
Angels are called "spirits" (Psalm 104:4. Hebrews 1:7,14), for spirits are created by God.
That there was a fall of the angels is certain from Jude 6.
The nature of their fall is clearly stated in the same verse. They left their own Strong's Greek 3613 (oiketerion). This word occurs only in 2Corinthians 5:2. Jude 6, where it is used of the spiritual (or resurrection) body.
The nature of their sin is stated to be "in like manner" to that of the subsequent sins of Sodom and Gomorrha, Jude 7.
The time of their fall is given as having taken place "in the days of Noah" (1Peter 3:20. 2Peter 2:7), though there may have been a prior fall which caused the end of "the world that then was" (Genesis 1:1,2. 2Peter 3:6).
For this sin they are "reserved unto judgement", 2Peter 2:4, and are "in prison", 1Peter 3:19.
Their progeny, called Nephilim (translated "giants"), were monsters of iniquity; and being superhuman in size and character, had to be destroyed (see Appendix 25).This was the one and only object of the Flood.
Only Noah and his family had preserved their pedigree pure from Adam (Genesis 6:9 see note). All the rest had become "corrupt" (shachath) destroyed [as Adamites]. The only remedy was to destroy it (defacto), as it had become destroyed (de jure). (It is the same word in verse 17 as in verses 11,12.) See futher under Appendix 25 on the Nephilim.
This irruption of fallen angels was Satan's first attempt to prevent the coming of the Seed of the woman foretold in Genesis 3:15. If this could be accomplished, God's Word would have failed, and his own doom would be averted.
As soon as it was made known that the Seed of the woman was to come through ABRAHAM, there must have been another irruption, as recorded in Genesis 6:4, "and also after that" (that is to say, after the days of Noah, more than 500 years after the first irruption). The aim of the enemy was to occupy Canaan in advance of Abraham, and so to contest its occupation by his seed. For, when Abraham entered Canaan, we read (Genesis 12:6) "the Canaanite was then (that is to say, already) in the land."
In the same chapter (Genesis 12:10-20) we see Satan's next attempt to interfere with Abraham's seed, and frustrate the purpose of God that it should be in "Isaac". This attempt was repeated in 20:1-18.
This great conflict may be seen throughout the Bible, and it forms a great and important subject of Biblical study. In each case the human instrument had his own personal interest to serve, while Satan had his own great object in view. Hence God had, in each case, to interfere and avert the evil and the danger, of which His servants and people were wholly ignorant. The following assaults of the great Enemy stand out prominently:-
The destruction of the chosen family by famine, Genesis 50:20.
The destruction of the male line in Israel, Exodus 1:10,15, etc. Compare to Exodus 2:5. Hebrews 11:23.
The destruction of the whole nation in Pharaoh's pursuit, Exodus 14.
After David's line was singled out (2Samuel 7), that was the next selected for assault. Satan's first assault was in the union of Jehoram and Athaliah by Jehoshaphat, notwithstanding 2Chronicles 17:1. Jehoram killed off all his brothers (2Chronicles 21:4).
The Arabians slew all his children, except Ahaziah (2Chronicles 21:17; 22:1).
When Ahaziah died, Athaliah killed "all the seed royal" (2Chronilces 22:10). The babe Joash alone was rescued; and, for six years, the faithfulness of Jehovah's word was at stake (2Chronicles 23:3).
Hezekiah was childless, when a double assault was made by the King of Assyria and the King of Terrors (Isaiah 36:1; 38:1). God's faithfulness was appealed to and relied on (Psalm 136).
In Captivity, Haman was used to attempt the destruction of the whole nation (Esther 3:6,12,13. Compare 6:1).
Joseph's fear was worked on (Matthew 1:18-20). Notwithstanding the fact that he was "a just man", and kept the Law, he did not wish to have Mary stoned to death (Deuteronomy 24:1); hence Joseph determined to divorce her. But God intervened: "Fear not".
Herod sought the young Child's life (Matthew 2).
At the Temptation, "Cast Thyself down" was Satan's temptation.
At Nazareth, again (Luke 4), there was another attempt to cast Him down and destroy Him.
The two storms on the Lake were other attempts.
At length the cross was reached, and the sepulchre closed; the watch set; and the stone sealed. But "God raised Him from the dead." And now, like another Joash, He is seated and expecting (Hebrews 10:12,13), hidden in the house of God on high; and the members of "the one body" are hidden there "in Him" (Colossians 3:1-3), like another Jehoshaba; and going forth to witness of His coming, like another Jehoiada (2Chronicles 23:3).
The irruption of "the fallen angels" ("sons of God") was the first attempt; and was directed against the whole human race.
When Abraham was called, then he and his seed were attacked.
When David was enthroned, then the royal line was assailed.
And when "the Seed of the woman" Himself came, then the storm burst upon Him.

NOTES
1 The word "offspring" in Acts 17:28 is quite different. It is Strong's Greek 1085 (genos), which means merely kin or kind, our genus as being originated by God.
2 In Hosea 1:10, it is not beni-ha-Elohim, as here, but beni-el-chai.

http://bennieblount.org/Online/Appendix/toc.htm

[synergy777]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_tema.htm

http://www.nibiru-2012.co.uk/nibiru.php

http://www.viewzone.com/VIEW.ZONE.html

some good info bro.

[ingolf]

Quote:The Bible did say we had Giants that walked the earth. Angels that had sex with us Humans?
So So So much we think we know but don't know. Like our governments are being run by the world bankers
or the globalist, Who are running them?? Check this one out.:freaked:I Love Pink Floyd.

I love Pink Floyd too :biggrin:

The idea that Giants once walked the earth does not seem that far fetched to me. That would explain some of the huge monuments standing today, like the Giza Pyramid, Stonehenge and so on. If there lived huge creatures like the dinosaurs why not giant humans? Or maybe humans somehow took some of these dinosaurs in the ancient age for working animals, and they assisted in the works of the great monuments? Well that is speculation.
But i honestly do not believe that humans build the Great pyramid of Giza some 4000BC, which is estimated to have taken 20 years. It is estimated that the Great pyramid consists of 2 million blocks. Now do the math

20 years is 20*365 days = 7.300 days
2.000.000 blocks / 7.300 = 274 blocks a day
274 / 24 gives roughly 12 blocks every hour. a block in every 5 minutes?

I am aware that the length of day and year was a somewhat longer in the ancient times, but it still does not add up, imo.

The Discovery channel once aired a documentary about Giants and the Nephilim, i'll dig it up if anyone are interested.

Quote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=85...&q=nephilim

Nice clip. btw, you do know the WTC ufo you see in the beginning is a hoax?
Sorry , but old news :smile:

[atomsk]

The Hyde Park Mastodon Photos are a mosaic, several smaller images stitched together in Photoshop to create one large image. When images are taken from slightly different points of reference at slightly different times, you wind up with all kinds of odd perspective shifts.

[fjaneson]

How ironic!!
This is probably the first time that photoshop has been invoked to support the credibility of an image,
instead of the usual reverse scenario, ie the giant humanoid skeleton.

So you are saying that they took a snap of say, the southwest corner on Tuesday,
Then maybe the Northwest corner on Wednesday, etc? Why? Why not just take a pic of the whole site?

Not trying to be a smartass,just trying to understand the concept. :)

[atomsk]

I'm saying that on the website that you linked, they state "Each of these images is actually a digital mosaic made in our Digital Photography Laboratory by carefully processing and assembling the individual camera images to provide a wider field of view than is available in a single image."

They took several images, probably on the same day (though I have no idea whether that's the case--the images may have been shot without any intention of stitching them together), and combined them into one large image. I've done the same thing myself, though mostly for panoramic views of the horizon. For a panoramic shot, you can stand in one spot and turn slightly, but for an overview of a nearby area you have to change position. I don't like doing that specifically because it causes all kinds of weird perspective shifts, and it never looks quite right, no matter how much fussing around you do with the image. Even a panoramic is going to look very odd perspective-wise if the objects being photographed are close.

Why not just take a pic of the whole site? I imagine they wanted to preserve the detail of the site in a larger image. In order to get the whole site in frame they would have had to back up too far, losing all the detail. Much like if you wanted to take an image of a large building. You could move way back to get the whole thing in frame, or get up close to see the detail of the gingerbread trim. Or you could take a whole bunch of close shots and stitch them together into one large image that shows the whole building with all the detail.

[fjaneson]

Thanks for the clarification -I guess I just assumed they were on a crane or cherry picker lift,and that from the comparitively small footprint of the area photographed that there was no need to stitch together several smaller shots. I know that is the explanation given, but I still don't fully understand it. Would they have to have corrected for things like fish eye effect and light gradients? Looking at the scale of the site,can you imagine having to take the photograph in that tedious manner? Prolly I am still confused,tho through no fault of your explanation. Thanks again and forgive my ignorance.

[proteinspill]

-edit-

[fjaneson]

There is a fossil skeleton of a Hominoid called Gigantopithecus which was anywhere from
8 to 10 feet. This is perfectly accepted by orthodoxy. I don't think they have it on the same branch as us though, ie we are not it's descendants,but we share a common ancestor (according to 'evolution')

You might look for a guy called Lloyd Pye. The only vid of his I know of is called 'Hominoids'.
He also has done a radio interview or two.