Where is the archaeological evidence for the Giants that appear in the bible?

Question

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men...." Genesis 6:4

"And there we saw the giants ... And we were in our own sight as grasshopper, and so we were in their sight." Numbers 13:33

"The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants...." Deuteronomy 2:10-11

That also was accounted a land of giants: giants dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims; A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them. Dt.2:20-21

Multiple mentions, but no archaeological evidence. Or does that 'Creation Museum' have some 'Big Foot' bones out on display?

Answer 1

Unicorns are mentioned about 7 times in the bible too. I'm curious about what happened to them and where their fossils are as well.

Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalm 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7.

Answer 2

The ‘Creation Museum’ may claim anything since lying is the foundation of every statement they make. Carl Baugh set the precedent with his dink Creation Museum near Glen Rose, Texas where he claims to have discovered "giant man tracks" in the same stratigraphic limestone layer as dinosaur tracks along the Paluxy River.

His ‘evidence’ turned out to be a combination of dinosaur tracks and geologic features; some intentionally doctored and carved into the rock. Unfortunately for Baugh, he did such a bad job of faking the evidence that even most Creationists no longer take him seriously – despite his numerous advanced degrees from unaccredited or totally bogus universities.

---------------------------

supcch063 –

1. Genesis does not parallel, match, or describe either the creation the known universe or the evolution of biological life. In fact, Genesis is not internally consistent regarding creation. You are just repeating what you have been told, huh?

2. Regarding the flood myth you state, “There is no other "tale" as widespread among ancient humanity as this.”

Oh, but there is a more common creation “tale”, one found in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas: ‘Vagina Dentata’ (“toothed vagina”).

And, there is not a man alive who does not think that a toothed vagina is scarier than any flood - and more real than any God.

Answer 3

Don't go to the Creation museum, go to the evolutionary museums of science and natural history -- no doubt the evidence for the big men that you wonder about is on display with all the other evidence supporting transitional evolutionary forms!

Answer 4

Its a good point but what you have to realize is if you were from a small village in mexico and went to the middle of nebraska and met some cornfed farmer kids well you might believe in giants. A significant portion of human stature is dietarily influenced. But diversion aside the bible has little in the way of verifiable data.

Answer 5

I do not know the answer to this question, but the bible is the infalliable word of G-d, and these scriptures speak truth. I do think I have a few insightful comments to make, nonetheless, after reviewing some of the other answers.

I disagree with the answer that said that there is little evidence to support the bible. The order of events in Genesis 1 perfectly parallels the order of events described in the Big Band and Evolutionary Theories. Civilization began about 6000 years ago, in accordance with the dating of Adam and Eve. There is scarce a people that does not have a tradition of how the divine powers became angry at mankind and destroyed the world by flood, and how one man and his family were saved and became the new progenitor of humanity. There is no other "tale" as widespread among ancient humanity as this. The obvious conclusion is that if everyone has this same story- then it must have happened; this is so obvious that experts in the field grapple to find an explanation for this most improbably coincidence- were it not to be fact. Regarding the Tower of Babel- the ziggurats in ancient babylon support this. We have archeological evidence regarding Ur, the city of Abraham's origination. We have arcehological evidence regarding the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Tomb of Rachel. There has been discovered an ancient Egpytian papyrus which bears reference to some of the plagues that G-d brought upon Egypt, in Exodus. There is archeological evidence to support the fall of the walls of Jericho (which have been discovered). There is even possible evidence for Joshua's having made the sun stand still, as the traditions of the ancient south american indians report a very long night that lasted several days (which can makes sense with the placing of south america vis a vis the middle east, on globe). There has been discovered a fragment of a document bearing the seal of the House of David. There has been discovered the alter that King Jeroboam I set up in Dan. There has been discovered a document written by Mesha the Moabite King describing his subjugation to the Kingdom of Israel and his battle therewith. There has been discovered a document describing Sannacherib the Assyrian Kings conquest of Judea and King Hezekiah of Judea. I dont even need to mention the abundance of clear evidence regarding the existance of both the First and Second Temples, as well as the arch of Titus which bears evidence to the Roman conquest and destruction of the Second Temple and the Jews and the Temple vessels. The evidence goes on and on. If we cannot point to evidence regarding the existance of the giants yet, it does not indicate that they giants did not exist! Not at all- no evidence is not evidence that something is not- the two are not- not at all!

I would like to make a point about the answer that pointed to all the gaps in the fossil record, which serve as a major thorn in the side of evolutionists. If evolution is true- then there should be evidence in the fossil record for all the transitional life forms that occurred as a species evolved. But there is not even one piece of evidence to this at all! Not even one, among all the fossils that have been discovered, from all the life forms for which fossils have been discovered, all over the entire planet. Not one piece of evidence. Bearing in mind that there is no shortage of fossils that have been preserved. This is a major thorn in the side of the evolutionists. So much so, that, isnt it funny that this is the "Theory" of Evolution. Why is it a "theory" and not a "Law," I mean, Darwin proposed this theory more than 160 years ago. Scientists have had 160 years to investigate this theory, and yet it is still a "theory," it still cannot be proven, and still is not a "law." No scientists would ever tell you that he can prove that evolution occurred, he would tell you that he believes it, but he cannot prove it. I thought science was about proof of how things work, not about belief, funny how the roles (between what is usually ascribed to science and what is usually ascribed to religion) have been reversed. Not only this, but scientists cannot report even one case in which they have ever observed even one positive genetic mutation being adopted by a species. Not even one mutation! Not only that, if evolution is true- which states that all types of mutations evolve, most are failures and the creatures which bear those mutations are not fit and cannot survive and die out without these mutations being preserved- if this is true- so where are all the records of the creatures with all these failed mutations? Scientists cannot even provide one such example of a record of such an aberrant creature. None in the fossil record. None at all. No record of these at all. Yet they are essential to the theory of evolution. The idea of homologous structures, while being proposed by evolutionists to advance their theory, raises many difficult questions on the theory as well.
Questioner- you phrased your question to imply that lack of archeological evidence negates the possibility of the existance of the giants. By your own line of reasoning, you will have to concede that lack of archeological evidence to any of the evolving species (ie- the gaps in the fossil record) negates the possibility of evolution. Unless you are willing to discount evolution as well, you cannot discount the Bible based on this argument.

One of the respondents supposed that all of these species were destroyed before the flood. In the interest of intellectual honesty- this cannot be correct. For while the Genesis verse quoted is definately pre-deulge, the verses quoted by the questioner from Numbers, as well as those quoted from Deuteronomy, are all post-deluge (and the verse quoted from Numbers itslef explicitly refers to the same beings as the verse quoted from Genesis refers to).

Answer 6

If you look back to your history books people back in the day were much much much shorter than the people walking around today due to the food they ate. They ate food with not much vitamins and such and they also ate less food, but no in days food is plenty and vitamins and such are plenty too. So when they refer to giants they are probably refering to some sort of people with a good diet; lots of food and vitamins and such.

Answer 7

There is no archaeological evidence for anything in the bible, except for a couple of cities and a temple ruin or two.

Answer 8

Very simple.
They perished with the dinosaurs during The Flood.
No big deal.
They were a mistake to allow to exist, and merely flushed down the evolutionary toilet.
061807 7:30

Answer 9

It was a professional basketball league.