They try to disguise it with mistranslations as being "head and shoulders taller", but in earlier translations and tracing back to the original Hebrew we find in 1 Sam 9:
From his shoulders upward, he was taller than all the people.
Unless he had a real long neck, he must have had a real long head.
One can further infer that longheads were not exceptional at the time, since the Bible doesn't specifically note that. By analogy, one might note that a woman has real big boobs, but would not specifically note that she is a person with boobs since that is taken as literally unremarkable.
I hope I didn't offend anyone by talking about the Bible and boobs in the same comment.
You know, I've thought along those lines but I've never been able to make a rigorous connection between the longheads and the Nephilim. Consider their typical characteristics:
Longheads: long skulls (obv) and tall but otherwise normal human bodies. Infrequently, the skulls have hair and it appears reddish. Apparently lived freely in community with humans.
Nephilim: giants, six fingers, six toes, double rows of teeth, red hair, often violent and cannibalistic, sometimes lived with humans but more often in separate and often hostile communities.
Not much overlap except for the red hair, which is very intriguing but far from conclusive. In years I've never stumbled across evidence as to what their real relationship might have been.
Also, there's the issue of beauty and it's standards. The Nephilim may have been big and powerful, but I don't think I've ever heard them described as beautiful.
Saul is described as "tov" and "bachur". Translations vary, but in any case I think he is being described as attractive. Well, today as in all times, beauty standards are set by the elites in society. Longheads burials have often indicated they were the elites of the day, so you see how it ties together that Saul had "movie star good looks".
It has to be properly decoded, carefully reverse engineering various corruptions, misunderstanding, rewritings, misperceptions, etc. Virtually no one is up to that task.
Those that aren't, though, are completely unaware of that fact and talk loud and with certainty about the Bible anyway.
Doesn't that at the very least demonstrate that it's not inspired word of a divine being? Or if it is, then that divine being clearly doesn't give a shit about preserving his message through the ages.
Which obviously doesn't mean that everything in the bible is false. I'm sure it contains a wealth of priceless historical knowledge.
But when it starts talking about the supernatural, or when people start citing it as a default authority on truth, that's where you lose me.
Oh, I don't at all think it's the inspired word of a divine being.
Nor is it what we might consider the opposite: pure fiction. It's filled with details and holes and bizarre oddities that no one writing a fairy story would ever include. Open it up to a random place, read a few sentences, and ask yourself why the proposed "fiction author" would have put those there.
The Bible--and many other such ancient works--are what they appear to be on the surface: collections of writings considered important enough to be passed down over centuries and millennia.
However, it all comes with the world's biggest asterisk. The narratives were subjected to all manner of forces which would distort them, and it is incredibly difficult to undo that distortion and reveal the information contained and transmitted down to us.
But when you do, I think of this analogy: On one side of town you find a complicated key, and on the other side of town you find a fancy box with an elaborate lock. You find that the key opens the lock. What kind of person says, "Well, this is mere happenstance," and throws away the key and the box without examining it's contents?
I completely agree with everything you said. One of the most fascinating things is how the story of Noah's flood is being validated in some ways, and exactly as you said that is one of the stories that far far predates the old testament.
Now we have prominent scientists and archeologists openly discussing the growing evidence for a world wide flooding event that would've wiped out most if not all civilizations on the planet. And not just one major catastrophic flood, but a series of them spread over a few thousand years.
And what I find really interesting is that the time frame for this flooding puts it at the very dawn of pre-history; the earliest known beginnings of human civilization.
Which seems to strongly imply that the stone age wasn't civilization starting, but rather civilization RE-starting. Which just begs at the mystery of how far along humans had developed before the cataclysm.
Our civilization went from the bronze age to the internet age in 5,000 years. Meanwhile our ancestors before the cataclysm would've had hundreds of thousands of years of a stable environment to develop in.
Enough time for space faring civilizations to rise and fall several times over.
If you're interested in the historicity (as they term it) of Noah's Flood, you may be interested in this:
A few years ago I read a book called "Gods of the New Millennium" by Alan Alford, published in 1999. Just as one tiny part of it, he attempts to date the Flood using a genealogy of patriarchs given in the Bible, starting with a generally accepted year of birth for with Abraham and backing up to Noah.
He observed, though, that the ages at which the men had their sons seemed to be off, being in their late 20's or early 30's, which is fairly late even these days. He surmised that over the immense time span, transcribers had monkeyed with the ages in two ways. First, they had misunderstood numbers written in the Sumerian sexagesimal system (base 60) as decimal. Later, others had thought the high numbers unreasonable and "corrected" them by dividing by a factor of what he believed was five.
Alford undoes these "fixes", adds up the ages, and comes up with a date of 10983 BC for the Flood. Sound familiar? That's pretty much exactly the date of the suspected Younger Dryas Impact, causing huge climatic changes and including a sea level rise of 400 feet. Sounds like we have our Flood!
Alford never mentions the Younger Dryas, the associated Impact Hypothesis, or Meltwater Pulse 1B. I think he was entirely ignorant of these and I believe much of the research had not yet been done. Yet there he is hitting the unknown target dead bullseye.
So then you flip it back around and see that the story of Noah's Flood has been handed down for 13,000 years, starting with people that were basically Stone Age. It makes you give that story a lot of leeway considering, you know, maybe some of the fine details might have gotten changed along the way... lol
Well I’m no expert but I have heard that at least one of these examples is missing the Sagittal suture which is the “seam” in your skull that shows where the skull fused together in infancy.
I don’t know of any conditions that would make it possible to not have one of these.
In Killary's leaked emails a few years ago she mentioned the fact that she is interested in going in person to view the tomb of Gilgamesh in conquered Iraq.
Today you have idiots who put grommets in their earlobes to stretch them out. It's not unreasonable that there were idiots on the past who put straps around their kids heads to create this kind of deformity.
I doubt diets in civilizations a couple of thousand years ago were the best available. Thus if some sort of nutritional deficiency were present, would that not cause some sort of deformaties in humans? Or maybe a recessed gene popped up? Head binding? Or, maybe there was another species of humans on this rock. One of those pics looks like the skull of a gorilla, too. How come our civilization has so much knowledge that we cannot come up with a good explaination of the elongated skulls or how the Egyptian pyramids were built? Something tells me there is a theory out there, yet we haven't looked hard enough for the answer. Plus, it will be the simplist reason which will shed light onto this conunndrum.
your thinking outside of the box, i like it. Diets are an interesting study for 2 reason. They had way less options, but it appears they had a much better diet (mainly because of our use of sugar, and they ate alot of organ meat which is packed full of vitamins.). They can tell because of how strong there teeth are. they didn't have tooth decay or cavities.
tbh im not quite sure about the pyramids yet. there part of a group of megalithic ruins which there is no inscription or even clear purpose for them. Are they religious? who can say, they have no markings or inscriptions. Humans dont do that, we mark our achievements. Our pride in ingrained in our nature.
King Saul was one of these "longheads".
They try to disguise it with mistranslations as being "head and shoulders taller", but in earlier translations and tracing back to the original Hebrew we find in 1 Sam 9:
Unless he had a real long neck, he must have had a real long head.
One can further infer that longheads were not exceptional at the time, since the Bible doesn't specifically note that. By analogy, one might note that a woman has real big boobs, but would not specifically note that she is a person with boobs since that is taken as literally unremarkable.
I hope I didn't offend anyone by talking about the Bible and boobs in the same comment.
That suggests that Saul was a Nephilim descendant. It would explain why he went against God so easily and why his bloodline was extinguished. Hmmmmmm
You know, I've thought along those lines but I've never been able to make a rigorous connection between the longheads and the Nephilim. Consider their typical characteristics:
Longheads: long skulls (obv) and tall but otherwise normal human bodies. Infrequently, the skulls have hair and it appears reddish. Apparently lived freely in community with humans.
Nephilim: giants, six fingers, six toes, double rows of teeth, red hair, often violent and cannibalistic, sometimes lived with humans but more often in separate and often hostile communities.
Not much overlap except for the red hair, which is very intriguing but far from conclusive. In years I've never stumbled across evidence as to what their real relationship might have been.
Also, there's the issue of beauty and it's standards. The Nephilim may have been big and powerful, but I don't think I've ever heard them described as beautiful.
Saul is described as "tov" and "bachur". Translations vary, but in any case I think he is being described as attractive. Well, today as in all times, beauty standards are set by the elites in society. Longheads burials have often indicated they were the elites of the day, so you see how it ties together that Saul had "movie star good looks".
In my view, we still have a mystery on our hands.
Mysteries will soon be revealed.
I'm not convinced.
That statement sounds like it could mean different things.
Then there was Pericles, who Plutarch recorded as having an unusually long head.
Have you considered the possibility of ancient scripture simply being inaccurate?
It has to be properly decoded, carefully reverse engineering various corruptions, misunderstanding, rewritings, misperceptions, etc. Virtually no one is up to that task.
Those that aren't, though, are completely unaware of that fact and talk loud and with certainty about the Bible anyway.
Doesn't that at the very least demonstrate that it's not inspired word of a divine being? Or if it is, then that divine being clearly doesn't give a shit about preserving his message through the ages.
Which obviously doesn't mean that everything in the bible is false. I'm sure it contains a wealth of priceless historical knowledge.
But when it starts talking about the supernatural, or when people start citing it as a default authority on truth, that's where you lose me.
Oh, I don't at all think it's the inspired word of a divine being.
Nor is it what we might consider the opposite: pure fiction. It's filled with details and holes and bizarre oddities that no one writing a fairy story would ever include. Open it up to a random place, read a few sentences, and ask yourself why the proposed "fiction author" would have put those there.
The Bible--and many other such ancient works--are what they appear to be on the surface: collections of writings considered important enough to be passed down over centuries and millennia.
However, it all comes with the world's biggest asterisk. The narratives were subjected to all manner of forces which would distort them, and it is incredibly difficult to undo that distortion and reveal the information contained and transmitted down to us.
But when you do, I think of this analogy: On one side of town you find a complicated key, and on the other side of town you find a fancy box with an elaborate lock. You find that the key opens the lock. What kind of person says, "Well, this is mere happenstance," and throws away the key and the box without examining it's contents?
I completely agree with everything you said. One of the most fascinating things is how the story of Noah's flood is being validated in some ways, and exactly as you said that is one of the stories that far far predates the old testament.
Now we have prominent scientists and archeologists openly discussing the growing evidence for a world wide flooding event that would've wiped out most if not all civilizations on the planet. And not just one major catastrophic flood, but a series of them spread over a few thousand years.
And what I find really interesting is that the time frame for this flooding puts it at the very dawn of pre-history; the earliest known beginnings of human civilization.
Which seems to strongly imply that the stone age wasn't civilization starting, but rather civilization RE-starting. Which just begs at the mystery of how far along humans had developed before the cataclysm.
Our civilization went from the bronze age to the internet age in 5,000 years. Meanwhile our ancestors before the cataclysm would've had hundreds of thousands of years of a stable environment to develop in.
Enough time for space faring civilizations to rise and fall several times over.
If you're interested in the historicity (as they term it) of Noah's Flood, you may be interested in this:
A few years ago I read a book called "Gods of the New Millennium" by Alan Alford, published in 1999. Just as one tiny part of it, he attempts to date the Flood using a genealogy of patriarchs given in the Bible, starting with a generally accepted year of birth for with Abraham and backing up to Noah.
He observed, though, that the ages at which the men had their sons seemed to be off, being in their late 20's or early 30's, which is fairly late even these days. He surmised that over the immense time span, transcribers had monkeyed with the ages in two ways. First, they had misunderstood numbers written in the Sumerian sexagesimal system (base 60) as decimal. Later, others had thought the high numbers unreasonable and "corrected" them by dividing by a factor of what he believed was five.
Alford undoes these "fixes", adds up the ages, and comes up with a date of 10983 BC for the Flood. Sound familiar? That's pretty much exactly the date of the suspected Younger Dryas Impact, causing huge climatic changes and including a sea level rise of 400 feet. Sounds like we have our Flood!
Alford never mentions the Younger Dryas, the associated Impact Hypothesis, or Meltwater Pulse 1B. I think he was entirely ignorant of these and I believe much of the research had not yet been done. Yet there he is hitting the unknown target dead bullseye.
So then you flip it back around and see that the story of Noah's Flood has been handed down for 13,000 years, starting with people that were basically Stone Age. It makes you give that story a lot of leeway considering, you know, maybe some of the fine details might have gotten changed along the way... lol
Data!
Here is a long list of macrocephalic conditions.
Why would anyone say anything else?
Well I’m no expert but I have heard that at least one of these examples is missing the Sagittal suture which is the “seam” in your skull that shows where the skull fused together in infancy.
I don’t know of any conditions that would make it possible to not have one of these.
Bookmarking under abnormal parietal bones and/or Wormian bones.
In Killary's leaked emails a few years ago she mentioned the fact that she is interested in going in person to view the tomb of Gilgamesh in conquered Iraq.
Some are cranial boarding ,some are not.
They point to an ancient now extinct ruling species with red hair, different genetics and elongated skulls.
We are a cargo cult still emulating their looks, clothes , inter-breeding and governance structures without real access to their knowledge.
http://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1689602819042975.jpg
Today you have idiots who put grommets in their earlobes to stretch them out. It's not unreasonable that there were idiots on the past who put straps around their kids heads to create this kind of deformity.
The skulls of the first basic workers that Anunnaki spliced their genes with using a homonid creature from Africa.
I doubt diets in civilizations a couple of thousand years ago were the best available. Thus if some sort of nutritional deficiency were present, would that not cause some sort of deformaties in humans? Or maybe a recessed gene popped up? Head binding? Or, maybe there was another species of humans on this rock. One of those pics looks like the skull of a gorilla, too. How come our civilization has so much knowledge that we cannot come up with a good explaination of the elongated skulls or how the Egyptian pyramids were built? Something tells me there is a theory out there, yet we haven't looked hard enough for the answer. Plus, it will be the simplist reason which will shed light onto this conunndrum.
your thinking outside of the box, i like it. Diets are an interesting study for 2 reason. They had way less options, but it appears they had a much better diet (mainly because of our use of sugar, and they ate alot of organ meat which is packed full of vitamins.). They can tell because of how strong there teeth are. they didn't have tooth decay or cavities.
tbh im not quite sure about the pyramids yet. there part of a group of megalithic ruins which there is no inscription or even clear purpose for them. Are they religious? who can say, they have no markings or inscriptions. Humans dont do that, we mark our achievements. Our pride in ingrained in our nature.