Welcome back to my study/review of Genesis. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
14 In the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, 2 these kings made war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). 3 And all these joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). 4 Twelve years they had served Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled. 5 In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in their hill country of Seir as far as El-paran on the border of the wilderness. 7 Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh) and defeated all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who were dwelling in Hazazon-tamar.
In the 14th chapter of Genesis, we begin with a brief history lesson. This history serves as the prelude to what happens with Sodom and Gomorrah (and Lot’s family) a few verses later. That said, DO NOT SKIP PAST THESE VERSES! This post will be a compilation of information regarding these verses and I will attempt to put together a picture of what is happening at the end. This is a long post but it really only sketches the history here. (Feel free to scroll down to my thoughts section below.)
The Battle of the Vale of Siddim, also often called the War of Nine Kings (But Don’t forget the four races of giants Who Fought There too)
This small section of verses details how four of the world’s most powerful nations came together to subdue five Canaanite city-state kings who employed giants in warfare.
It is important – as best as we can – to explain this history. It’s not recorded for no reason. Let’s start then at the beginning.
Who is Amraphel King of Shinar? Wikipedia does a good job of summarizing a list of candidates:
Beginning with E. Schrader in 1888 this king was usually associated with Hammurabi, who ruled Babylonia from 1792 BC until his death in 1750 BC. However, this view has been largely abandoned in recent years. Other authors identified Amraphel with Aralius, one of the names on the later Babylonian king-lists, attributed first to Ctesias. Recently, David Rohl argued for an identification with Amar-Sin, the third ruler of the Ur III dynasty. John Van Seters, in Abraham in History and Tradition, rejected the historical existence of Amraphel.
Rabbinic sources such as Midrash Tanhuma Lekh Lekhah 6, Targum Yonatan to Exodus 14:1, and Eruvin 53a:2 identify Amraphel with Nimrod. This is also asserted in the 11th chapter of the Sefer haYashar, attested from the early 17th century:
And Nimrod dwelt in Babel, and he there renewed his reign over the rest of his subjects, and he reigned securely, and the subjects and princes of Nimrod called his name Amraphel, saying that at the tower his princes and men fell through his means.— Sefer haYashar 11
Genesis Rabbah 42 says Amraphel was called by three names: Cush, after his father’s name (Gen. 10:8), Nimrod, because he established rebellion (mrd) in the world, and Amraphel, as he declared (amar) “I will cast down” (apilah).
What about Shinar? Where is it?
SHINAR shīn’ är (שִׁנְעָֽר; Σεναάρ, Σενναρ). A designation for the land of Babylonia.
I. Use. Shinar was used early to describe the land which included the cities of Babel (Babylon), Erech (Warka) and Accad (Agade) within the kingdom of Nimrod (Gen 10:10). This was the place where migrants from the E settled and built the city and tower of Babel (11:2). A king of Shinar (Amraphel) took part in the coalition which raided Sodom and Gomorrah (14:1) and was defeated by Abraham. A fine garment looted by Achan near Jericho was described as coming from Shinar (Josh 7:21, KJV “Babylonish”). It was to this land that Nebuchadnezzar took the captives from Jerusalem (Dan 1:2) and from it the prophet foresaw that the faithful remnant would be gathered (Isa 11:11). It was a distant and wicked place (Zech 5:11).
II. Identification. The reference to known Babylonian cities within Shinar (Gen 10:10; 11:2) and the equation with Babylon of the Exile (Dan 1:2) makes the identification with Babylonia almost certain. In this way the LXX read “Babylonia” in Isaiah 11:11 and “land of Babylon” in Zechariah 5:11. No undisputed equivalent of the Heb. shīn’ar has, however, yet been found in early texts from Babylonia itself, since a spelling šim/nğar has not been attested. Sumer, which is the name for the area of ancient Iraq S of Baghdad in the eme.-ku dialect (written ki.en.gi[r] ideographically or keñir in fine Sumer. speech [eme.sal dialect]). The northern part of ancient Babylonia was called Akkad. The term Sumer, used since 2350 b.c. for the land, is today used to describe the whole of ancient Babylonia before the Sem. dynasty at Babylon took control and for its inhabitants.
In Egyp. lists of Asiatic countries known to Seti I and Amenhotep II shankhar is included (ANET , 243, 247). Though this has been taken to be the Babylonian Shinar (A. H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I, 209) others interpret it as a reference to an Upper Mesopotamian Sangara (the modern Sinjar, W of Mosul), which is written ša-an-ḫa-ar in a Tell el-Amarna letter (No. 5) and ša-an-ḫa-ra in Hitt. texts (so W. F. Albright, AJSL XL , 125-127). This northern identification might suit Genesis 14:1 but is of itself not evidence for it. An etymology for the southern (Babylonian) Shinar has been proposed in šingi-uru (A. Poebel, AJSL LXVIII ) and 8th cent. a.d. Syr. Sen’ar denoted the land around Baghdad. The balance of evidence is thus in favor of the equation Shinar=Babylonia used by the Heb.
The evidence for who Amraphel, king of Shinar is, seems to point us in the direction of Nimrod. Genesis 10:9-10 describes Nimrod as being from the land of Shinar. Genesis 11:2 tells us that the Tower of Babel was constructed in the land of Shinar.
Nimrod is himself of some contested origin. I wrote more about him in a previous section HERE.
Who is Arioch, King of Ellesar? I will turn to Wiki again, here, for a compilation of ideas:
Some historians have placed the area where Arioch ruled in Asia Minor, but theories as to its specific locations differ, with some claiming it was in Pontus while others cite Cappadocia and Antioch. There are also sources which associated Ellasar with the kingdom of Larsa and suggested that Arioch could be one of its kings called Eri-Aku, an Akkadian translation for the name Rim-Sin, where rim meant servant and Sin is the Semitic name of the moon god (Agu or Aku in Akkadian).
By the 20th century, this theory became popular so that it was common to identify Arioch with Eriaku — through the alternative reading of either Rim-Sin or his brother Warad-Sin, who were both believed to be contemporary with Hammurabi.
Where is Larsa?
Larsa (Sumerianlogogram: 𒌓𒀕𒆠 UD.UNUGKI, read Larsamki) was an important city state of ancient Sumer, the center of the cult of the sun godUtu. It lies some 25 km (16 mi) southeast of Uruk in Iraq‘s Dhi Qar Governorate, near the east bank of the Shatt-en-Nil canal at the site of the modern settlement Tell as-Senkereh or Sankarah.
The most popular theory here is that Arioch, King of Ellesar = Eriaku, King of Larsa.
What about Chedorlaomer king of Elam?
Chedorlaomer, also spelled Kedorlaomer (/ˌkɛdərˈleɪəmər/; Hebrew: כְּדָרְלָעֹמֶר, Modern:Kədarla’ōmer, Tiberian:Keḏārelā’ōmer,Ancient:Keḏārelāġōmer), is a king of Elam in Genesis 14. Genesis portrays him as allied with three other kings, campaigning against five Canaanite city-states in response to an uprising in the days of Abraham.
The name Chedorlaomer is associated with familiar Elamite components, such as kudur, meaning “servant”, and Lagamar, who was a high goddess in the Elamite pantheon. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia stated that, apart from the fact that Chedorlaomer can be identified as a proper Elamite compound, all else is matter of controversy and “the records give only the rather negative result that from Babylonian and Elamite documents nothing definite has been learned of Chedorlaomer”.
And this for Elam:
Elam (/ˈiːləm/; עֵילָם ‘Elam) in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 10:22, Ezra 4:9) is said to be one of the sons of Shem, the son of Noah. The name is also used (as in Akkadian) for the ancient country of Elam in what is now southern Iran, whose people the Hebrews believed to be the offspring of Elam, son of Shem (Genesis 10:22). This implies that the Elamites were considered Semites by the Hebrews. Their language was not one of the Semitic languages, but is considered a linguistic isolate.
Elam (the nation) is also mentioned in Genesis 14, describing an ancient war in the time of Abraham, involving Chedorlaomer, the king of Elam at that time.
The prophecies of the Book of Isaiah (11:11, 21:2, 22:6) and the Book of Jeremiah (25:25) also mention Elam. The last part of Jeremiah 49 is an apocalyptic oracle against Elam which states that Elam will be scattered to the four winds of the earth, but “will be, in the end of days, that I will return their captivity,” a prophecy self-dated to the first year of Zedekiah (597 BC).
The Book of Jubilees may reflect ancient tradition when it mentions a son (or daughter, in some versions) of ‘Elam named “Susan”, whose daughter Rasuaya married Arpachshad, progenitor of another branch of Shemites. Shushan (or Susa) was the ancient capital of the Elamite Empire. (Dan. 8:2)
Who is Tidal king of Goiim?
Tidal (Hebrew: תִדְעָל, Modern: Tid’al, Tiberian: Ṯīḏe‘āl, Ancient Ṯīḏeġāl), king of Goyim, possibly a Hittite king, was a monarch mentioned in Genesis 14:1. Genesis describes Tidal as one of the four kings who fought Abraham in the Battle of Siddim.
The word goyim in biblical Hebrew can be translated as “nations” or “peoples” or “ethnic groups” (in modern Hebrew it means “Gentiles”), although biblical scholars suggest that in this verse it may instead be a reference to the region of Gutium.
The name Tidal is considered equivalent to Tudhaliya, the name both of a Proto-Hittite king and a Hittite king. The name continued as “Tudal” down to the Neo-Hittite period.
Who are the Hittites?
The Hittites (/ˈhɪtaɪts/) were an Anatolian people who played an important role in establishing an empire centered on Hattusa in north-central Anatolia around 1600 BC. This empire reached its height during the mid-14th century BC under Šuppiluliuma I, when it encompassed an area that included most of Anatolia as well as parts of the northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia.
Between the 15th and 13th centuries BC, the Empire of Hattusa, conventionally called the Hittite Empire, came into conflict with the New Kingdom of Egypt, the Middle Assyrian Empire and the empire of the Mitanni for control of the Near East. The Middle Assyrian Empire eventually emerged as the dominant power and annexed much of the Hittite Empire, while the remainder was sacked by Phrygian newcomers to the region. After c. 1180 BC, during the Late Bronze Age collapse, the Hittites splintered into several independent Syro-Hittite states, some of which survived until the eighth century BC before succumbing to the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
The Hittite language was a distinct member of the Anatolian branch of the Indo-European language family, and along with the closely related Luwian language, is the oldest historically attested Indo-European language, referred to by its speakers as nešili “in the language of Nesa“. The Hittites called their country the Kingdom of Hattusa (Hatti in Akkadian), a name received from the Hattians, an earlier people who inhabited the region until the beginning of the second millennium BC and spoke an unrelated language known as Hattic. The conventional name “Hittites” is due to their initial identification with the Biblical Hittites in 19th century archaeology.
The history of the Hittite civilization is known mostly from cuneiform texts found in the area of their kingdom, and from diplomatic and commercial correspondence found in various archives in Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt and the Middle East, the decipherment of which was also a key event in the history of Indo-European studies.
The development of iron smelting was once attributed to the Hittites of Anatolia during the Late Bronze Age, with their success largely based on the advantages of a monopoly on ironworking at the time. But the view of such a “Hittite monopoly” has come under scrutiny and is no longer a scholarly consensus. As part of the Late-Bronze-Age/Early-Iron-Age, the Late Bronze Age collapse saw the slow, comparatively continuous spread of iron-working technology in the region. While there are some iron objects from Bronze Age Anatolia, the number is comparable to iron objects found in Egypt and other places during the period; and only a small number of these objects are weapons. Hittites did not use smelted iron, but rather meteorites. The Hittite military made successful use of chariots.
In classical times, ethnic Hittite dynasties survived in small kingdoms scattered around what is now Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. Lacking a unifying continuity, their descendants scattered and ultimately merged into the modern populations of the Levant, Turkey and Mesopotamia.
During the 1920s, interest in the Hittites increased with the founding of Turkey and attracted the attention of Turkish archaeologists such as Halet Çambel and Tahsin Özgüç. During this period, the new field of Hittitology also influenced the naming of Turkish institutions, such as the state-owned Etibank (“Hittite bank”), and the foundation of the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations in Ankara, 200 kilometers west of the Hittite capital and housing the most comprehensive exhibition of Hittite art and artifacts in the world.
To summarize: Amraphel king of Shinar (Nimrod King of Babylon/Sumer – modern day Iraq), Arioch king of Ellasar (Eriaku, King of Larsa – modern day Iraq), Chedorlaomer king of Elam (King of unknown historicity but from southern Iran), and Tidal king of Goiim (a Hittite king from modern day Turkey.) These four kings lie to the north, northeast, and east of Canaan.
Who were they fighting?
- Bera king of Sodom
- Birsha king of Gomorrah
- Shinab king of Admah
- Shemeber king of Zeboiim
- The king of Bela (that is, Zoar)
There is very little known about the city-state kings on the other side of this conflict other than what we read here in Genesis. The city-state kings served Chedorlaomer for twelve years, they rebelled in the thirteenth year, and in the fourteenth year, Chedorlaomer and his allies descended upon them for a war more than worthy of a Peter Jackson movie.
To that point, we read something unusual in the 5th verse:
5 In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, 6 and the Horites in their hill country of Seir as far as El-paran on the border of the wilderness. 7 Then they turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh) and defeated all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who were dwelling in Hazazon-tamar.
We are introduced to more combatants.
Who are the Rephaim fighting on behalf of the city-state kings of the Plain?
There are two main groups of etymological hypotheses explaining the origins of the biblical rephaim. The first group proposes that this is a native Hebrew language term, which could be derived either from the root רפא or רפה. The first root, רפא, conveys the meaning of healing and is realized in words such as Hebrew rofe (a physician) or refuah (medicine). The second root, רפה, means being weak, powerless.
The second group of etymological hypotheses treat the word rephaim as a loanword from some other ancient Semitic language. Among the proposals is the Akkadian rabu, a prince, but this explanation enjoys rather limited popularity. Far more support has been gained by the hypothesis which derives the Hebrew refaim from the Ugaritic rpum which denotes the semi-deified deceased ancestors who are mentioned in such sources as the so called Rephaim Text (KTU 1:20–22).
Despite the clash between these hypotheses and although the modern translations clearly distinguish between Rephaites as one of the tribes (e.g. Book of Genesis 14:5; 15:18–21; Book of Deuteronomy 2:11–20) and rephaim as the inhabitants of the underworld (e.g. Book of Isaiah 14:9–11; 26:13–15), the same word is used in the original text. The use of rephaim in the Hebrew Bible suggests that behind the biblical narrative were the legends of some ancient indigenous peoples, who inhabited the valleys of the land of Canaan which was subject to the gradual Hebrew conquest
The literal translation (something scholars seem often to prefer avoiding) for Rephaim means “giant.”
רָפָא râphâʼ, raw-faw’; or רָפָה râphâh; from H7495 in the sense of invigorating; a giant:—giant, Rapha, Rephaim(-s). See also H1051.
From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
ref’-a-im, re-fa’-im (repha’-im, from rapha’, “a terrible one “hence “giant,” in 1 Chronicles 20:4, yelidhe ha-rapha’, “sons of the giant”; the King James Version, Rephaims): A race of aboriginal or early inhabitants East of the Jordan in Ashterothkarnaim (Genesis 14:5) and in the valley of Rephaim Southwest of Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8). They associated with other giant races, as the Emim and Anakim (Deuteronomy 2:10, 11) and the Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2:20). It is probable that they were all of the same stock, being given different names by the different tribes who came in contact with them. The same Hebrew word is rendered “the dead,” or “the shades” in various passages (Job 26:5 margin; Psalm 88:10 margin; Proverbs 2:18 margin; Proverbs 9:18 margin; Proverbs 21:16 margin; Isaiah 14:9 margin; Isaiah 26:14, 19 margin). In these instances the word is derived from rapheh, “weak,” “powerless,” “a shadow” or “shade.”
And… the Zuzims?
זוּזִים Zûwzîym, zoo-zeem’; plural probably from the same as H2123; prominent; Zuzites, an aboriginal tribe of Palestine:—Zuzims.
זִיז zîyz, zeez; from an unused root apparently meaning to be conspicuous; fulness of the breast; also a moving creature:—abundance, wild beast.
From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
zu’-zim (zuzim; (ethne ischura, “strong nations.” So Jerome in Quaest. Hebr.: genres fortes): A people conquered by Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14:5). They dwelt in Ham, a region not otherwise known but, from the connection, inferred to be East of the Jordan. It may also be inferred that they were a race of giants. They were perhaps to be identified with the Zamzummim.
If you are sensing a pattern… let’s continue:
Emim = אֵימִים ʼÊymîym, ay-meem’; plural of H367; terrors; Emim, an early Canaanitish (or Maobitish) tribe:—Emims.
From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
e’-mim (’emim; Ommaein, Ommein, or Ommiein):
Stated to have been the earlier inhabitants of Moab (Deuteronomy 2:10, 11), and to have been of tall stature, and hence, “accounted Rephaim (or giants) as the Anakim” or the Zamzummim of Ammon (Deuteronomy 2:20). As the name was given to them by the Moabites, it may not have been that by which they called themselves. A tall race, known to the Israelites as REPHAIM (which see), once existed in Southern Palestine as well as on the East side of the Jordan, but its exact relationship is unknown. In the time of Abraham the Emim were living in the Moabite district of Shaveh-kiriathaim, identified with the modern Kureiyat (Genesis 14:5).
It’s a good guess that the Horites are also giants, but let’s look anyway:
From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
ho’-rit, ho’-rim (chori, chorim; Chorraioi): Denoted the inhabitants of Mt. Seir before its occupation by the Edomites (Deuteronomy 2:12). Seir is accordingly called Horite in Genesis 36:20, 30, where a list of his descendants is given, who afterward mixed with the invading Edomites. Esau himself married the daughter of the Horite chieftain Anah (Genesis 36:25; see 36:2, where “Hivite” must be corrected into “Horite”). The “Horites” in their “Mt. Seir” were among the nations defeated by the army of Chedorlaomer in the age of Abraham (Genesis 14:6). The Hebrew Horitc, however, is the Khar of the Egyptian inscriptions, a name given to the whole of Southern Palestine and Edom as well as to the adjacent sea. In accordance with this we find in the Old Testament also traces of the existence of the Horites in other parts of the country besides Mt. Seir. In Genesis 34:2 Joshua 9:7, the Septuagint (Cod. A) more correctly reads “Horite” instead of “Hivite” for the inhabitants of Shechem and Gibeon, and Caleb is said to be “the son of Hur, the first-born of Ephratah” or Bethlehem (1 Chronicles 2:50; 1 Chronicles 4:4). Hor or Horite has sometimes been explained to mean “cave-dweller”; it more probably, however, denotes the “white” race. The Horites were Semites, and consequently are distinguished in Deuteronomy 2:12 from the tall race of Rephaim.
Horites = חֹרִי Chôrîy, kho-ree’; from H2356; cave-dweller or troglodyte; a Chorite or aboriginal Idumaean:—Horims, Horites.
We next come to the mystery of the Amalekites:
Amelakites = עֲמָלֵקִי ʻĂmâlêqîy, am-aw-lay-kee’; patronymically from H6002; an Amalekite (or collectively the Amalekites) or descendants of Amalek:—Amalekite(-s).
Amalek (Hebrew: עֲמָלֵק, ‘Ámālēq, Arabic: عماليق ‘Amālīq) is frequently understood to be a nation described in the Hebrew Bible as an enemy of the Israelites. The name “Amalek” can refer to the nation’s founder, a grandson of Esau; his descendants, the Amalekites; or the territories of Amalek which they inhabited. For thousands of years Jewish scholars have debated the meaning of term and its implications for how members of their community should behave.
There is of course a problem with ascribing the Amalekites to being descendents of Esau – namely that we meet the Amalekites long *before* Esau’s birth. Continuing with Wiki:
In Genesis 14:7, the “field of the Amalekites” is mentioned, though the person Amalek had not yet been born.
Some commentators explain this as a reference to the territory which was later on inhabited by the Amalekites. C. Knight elaborates this concept by making a comparison: one might say “Caesar went into France“, though Gaul only later became known as France.
Alternatively, during the Islamic Golden Age, certain Arabic writings claimed that the Amalekites existed long before Abraham. Some Muslim historians claimed that the Amalekites who fought Joshua were descendants of the inhabitants of North Africa. Ibn-Arabshâh purported that Amalek was a descendant of Ham, son of Noah. It is, however, possible that the name Amalek may have been given to two different nations. The Arabians mention Imlik, Amalik, or Ameleka among the aborigines of Arabia, the remains of which were mingled with the descendants of Qahtan (Joktan) and Adnan and became Mostarabs or Mocarabes, that is, Arabians mixed with foreigners.
By the 19th century, there was strong support by Western theologians for the idea that the nation of Amalek could have flourished before the time of Abraham. Matthew George Easton advocated that the Amalekites were not descendants of Amalek by taking a literal approach to Genesis 14:7. However, the modern biblical scholar David Freedman uses textual analysis to glean that the use of Amalekite in Genesis 14:7 is actually an anachronism, and in the early 19th century, Richard Watson enumerated several speculative reasons for having a “more ancient Amalek” than Abraham.
In the exegesis of Numbers 24:20 concerning Balaam’s utterance: “Amalek was the first one of the nations, but his end afterward will be even his perishing”, Richard Watson attempts to associate this passage to the “first one of the nations” that developed post-Flood. According to Samuel Cox, the Amalekites were the “first” in their hostility toward the Israelites.
And finally, we look at the Amorites:
The Amorites (/ˈæməˌraɪts/; Sumerian 𒈥𒌅 MAR.TU; Akkadian Amurrūm or Tidnum; Egyptian Amar; Hebrew: אמורי ʼĔmōrī; Ancient Greek: Ἀμορραῖοι) were an ancient Semitic-speaking people from Syria who also occupied large parts of southern Mesopotamia from the 21st century BC to the end of the 17th century BC, where they established several prominent city-states in existing locations, such as Isin, Larsa and later notably Babylon, which was raised from a small town to an independent state and a major city. The term Amurru in Akkadian and Sumerian texts refers to both them and to their principal deity.
The Amorites are also mentioned in the Bible as inhabitants of Canaan both before and after the conquest of the land under Joshua.
אֱמֹרִי ʼĔmôrîy, em-o-ree’; probably a patronymic from an unused name derived from H559 in the sense of publicity, i.e. prominence; thus, a mountaineer; an Emorite, one of the Canaanitish tribes:—Amorite.
There are several interesting things to consider from this section of verses:
- The Nephilim giants appear to be back. How that return happened is unclear. We were told in Genesis 6 that the Nephilim lived on the earth before the Flood and also after. We should assume evil giants a few chapters later in Genesis represent the “and also after.”
- God uses surrounding nations (even wicked nations) to do His will and to destroy many of these giants.
- God places a priority on destroying these giants. Much of the early portions of the Bible are histories of God wiping these beings from the face of the earth.
- Though large and fierce, the giants are not indomitable. They served an outsider king for twelve years until rebelling. When they rebelled, though it took a significant effort, they were defeated.
- This war against the giants, in Abram’s time, is something we will see repeated when Moses and Joshua lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into Canaan. We see the giants revisited in David’s time, too.
The armies of giants are defeated here in these verses, but God is not done dealing with the cities that allied with and were home to these giants. We will see more in the coming verses.
As a modern reader, we have lost almost all of the original context of these writings. Our scholars almost go out of their way to interpret the text in such a way as to mean something other than what it says. But… is it possible that races of giants once roamed the earth? And in the not *that* distant past?
Almost every culture in the ancient world has myths about giants. But is there hard evidence?
If you are on Instagram, Brien Foerster frequently displays gigantic skulls found in South America – predominantly the Paracas skulls of Peru – but also others. A DNA study was conducted on the Paracas skulls – a study conducted at prestigious research universities such as UCLA – and the study concluded that the skulls appear to match similar elongated skull specimens found between the Black and Caspian Sea. On his website, Foerster claims to be attempting to work with Russian authorities to learn more about the skulls found on the other side of the planet.
Assuming you want to believe that Foerster, these skulls, the DNA tests, etc., are fake in some way, is there more evidence? Yes. Loads.
There have been giant skeletons allegedly discovered in Ecuador.
In the United States, in the 19th Century, you could barely go a week without a journalist from a major newspaper reporting about a find of one kind of giant skeleton or another. HERE is a video of a giant skeleton allegedly discovered more recently in Kentucky. There were also remains of “red haired giants” discovered in Lovelock Cave in Nevada.
There are legends of red-haired giants around the globe, actually. North America (Lovelock, the Si-Te-Cah, and others,) the British Isles, New Zealand, South America (pictures of actual skulls with red hair still attached are available on Brien Foerster’s Instagram page), and China.
The other most common alleged trait among “giants” (beyond the red hair) is the trait of extra fingers. If there were six finger giants in the distant past, perhaps that explains the common statuary pose from said distant past which displays fingers. “Hey, world, we are a ten digit race of people.”
2 Samuel 21:20 20 And there was again war at Gath, where there was a man of great stature, who had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, twenty-four in number, and he also was descended from the giants.
To be clear… NONE of the above is proof, per se. But the evidence is much more than merely suggestive.
And of course *if* there was an ancient race of giants all over the earth, wouldn’t it be prudent to consider how the ancients told us that said race of giants came to be? It goes without saying that there are implications in the present day that accompany the answer.
5 thoughts on “Genesis (Part 56)”
You must log in to post a comment.