Cumberland Academy

This is my Father’s world

Science/Religion Body/Mind Spirit/consciousness There may be many universes in the multiverse and how that ever expanding universe began; before this solar system evolved or whether our solar system is the ORIGINAL universe is not within my realm of knowledge. There may be others who have the key to this knowledge, access to the records which allow us to know if our universe was birthed from another which came before ours and from whence other universes have been birthed. Perhaps in many directions. Picture a ball, a pin cushion and think about how many points or pins can intersect that ball from every direction and every angle. To me this is human perspective. We are each unique individuals but we share consciousness. So much so that scientists, historians and archeologists are afraid to report the truth. The bible contains a great deal of information and from my perspective the truth must be discerned with the heart, mind and soul. The teachings of Jesus and the words attributed to Jesus are the best place to start and perhaps for many no further exploration is necessary. In these days there are many among us who are innocent and this may be as a result of experimentation – vaccines, poisons, bio-chemicals, genetic manipulation, hybridization. Whatever the reason there are many among us who are as children and these individuals increase in chronological years but not in emotional maturity. Perhaps this innocence among us will be the saving grace which Kronos failed to consider. And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer. Revelation 10:6 In the time of innocence, my early childhood – as far back as I can remember my first memory is that it is time to go and be born now. And, so it was. My next memory is at about six months of age and then clearly with the teaching that occurred through my Guardian who appeared as a Mantis type being, a winged angel. I have never seen an alien in the 3D waking world. I have never seen a UFO. Perhaps this is for my own protection because I have NO DOUBT that what is called alien (did not originate on the planet Earth) and was not built on planet Earth that can be seen in the skies and space moving objects exist. I have seen hybrid beings born in HOSPITALS on earth. I have done nutritional consultations for people who describe themselves as hybrids. When I realized that I had never seen a being in the waking 3D world that looked like the Guardian the appearance of the Guardian changed to that of an old man whom I called my Sunday school teacher. The most important lessons I learned were the scriptures and there was great emphasis on specific scriptures: The new testament scriptures. The four gospels, the Acts and second Timothy. Then the maths and symbols, telepathy and finally chemistry, languages and the molecules of emotion. In the waking world my education was possibly more unusual. The grandfather was taking me to learn about native American history and religion, he was also a deacon in the Christian church of the Nazarene. The church of the Nazarene is slightly different from other Christian churches in that the missionaries are instructed to ALLOW the incorporation of the customary cultural costumes, festivals and beliefs into the community. In high school I had a tearing away from the church as I deeply studied native American religion and found it to be far superior to the teachings of the church. Following this I felt the need to be baptized and returned to the church briefly for this purpose. As we have traveled the world we have visited churches, mosques, ashrams and temples on most continents. What we envision is a spiritual community which serves the Father and lives by the teachings of Christ using spiritual guidance as our foundation. A merit based leadership where those who are devoted to ensuring that the community remains a safe place for all to come and where those who are unable to remain are helped on their way. Where people bring what they have and have what they need. A simple life where we grow our own food, have access to clean water, respect one another and respect the environment. One of the earliest mentions of giants in Scripture is found in Genesis 14. In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him came and attacked the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim, and the Horites in their mountain of Seir . . . . Then they turned back and came to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and attacked all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon Tamar. Genesis 14:5–7 The Amorites The Amorites are mentioned more than 80 times in Scripture, and early on, some were allied with Abraham (Genesis 14:13). They were descendants of Noah’s grandson Canaan (Genesis 10:15–16). Although the Bible does not provide this information, the Jewish general-turned-historian Josephus gives the name of their ancestor as Amorreus.1 While the Amorites are mentioned in the same contexts as other giants a few times, they are specifically described as giants in the Minor Prophets. Yet it was I who destroyed the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was as strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath. Also it was I who brought you up from the land of Egypt, and led you forty years through the wilderness, to possess the land of the Amorite. Amos 2:9–10 Through Amos, God clearly stated that the Amorites were generally very tall and strong. Some may downplay the description of the Amorites in this passage, since these verses employ figurative language, but there are some good reasons to take this passage in a straightforward manner.2 The idea that the Amorites were giants is supported by the report of the spies whom Moses sent through the land of Canaan. The Amorites were one of the people groups they saw (Numbers 13:29), and they claimed that “all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature” (Numbers 13:32). It is telling that in their response, Joshua and Caleb did not challenge the size of the land’s inhabitants (Numbers 14:6–9).3 The Emim Deuteronomy 2 reveals that the Emim, which likely means terrors were giants: The Emim had dwelt there in times past, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. They were also regarded as giants [Hebrew rephaim], like the Anakim, but the Moabites call them Emim. Deuteronomy 2:10–11Moses told the people that the Emim used to live in the territory that God had given to the descendants of Lot’s son Moab. Genesis 19:37 The Zuzim (Zamzummim) The Zamzummim (almost certainly the same as Zuzim in Genesis 14:5) were also called giants and listed in the same chapter as the Emim: [The land of Ammon] was also regarded as a land of giants [Hebrew rephaim]; giants [rephaim] formerly dwelt there. But the Ammonites call them Zamzummim, a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. But the Lord destroyed them before them, and they dispossessed them and dwelt in their place. Deuteronomy 2:20–21 Rephaim The most common term used to describe giants in the Bible is rephaim (e.g., Deuteronomy 3:11, 13). It may refer to a certain people group,5 or it may be a term that simply means giants. The singular form, raphah, also appears several times. e.g., 2 Samuel 21:16, 18, 20 [6] The Nephilim The earliest mention in Scripture of giants is just prior to the Flood account. There were giants [nephilim] on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Genesis 6:4 [9] The Anakim The Anakim were mentioned in several of these passages. They were perhaps the best known of the giants dwelling in the land of Canaan at the time of the Exodus. As stated in the verse above, they were part of the nephilim. If nephilim simply refers to giants in general, then the Anakim are just said to be giants in Numbers 13:33, which is consistent with their description in this passage. So the Amorites and other giant people would also be nephilim. If nephilim refers to a particular giant tribe, then the Anakim were part of this line. Numbers 13:22 states that Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai were descendants of Anak, who was obviously the namesake of the Anakim. Both the Emim and Zamzummim were compared to the Anakim, as they were both – a people as great and numerous and tall as the Anakim. Deuteronomy 2:10, 21; 9:2 What is indeed significant is that many giant versions of other creatures existed in the past or still exist today. To name just a few, these include the following: spiders (e.g., the bird-eating spider, up to 12-inch leg span) moths (e.g., the Atlas moth, with a wing span of 11 inches) centipedes (up to 13 inches long) snails (e.g., the African giant snail, up to 15½ inches long) frogs (e.g. Beelzebufo, 16 inches high) dragonflies (e.g., Meganeura, with a wing span of more than 2½ feet) rats (e.g., Josephoartigasia, with a conservatively estimated body mass of 750 pounds) beavers (e.g., Trogontherium, about 7½ feet long) scorpions (e.g., the sea scorpion Jaekelopterus, estimated at more than 8 feet long) crabs (e.g., the giant spider crab, with a claw span more than 12 feet) armadillos (e.g., Glyptodon, up to 13 feet long) turtles (e.g., Archelon, up to 16 feet long) fish (e.g., Xiphactinus, 19 feet long) sloths (e.g., Megatherium, which stood about 20 feet) worms (e.g., the giant earthworm, up to 22 feet long) sea cows (e.g., Hydrodamalis, 25 feet or more in length) crocodiles (e.g., Sarcosuchus, up to 40 feet long) snakes (e.g., Titanoboa, over 42 feet long) crustaceans (e.g., supergiant amphipods 10 times larger than those previously discovered) squid (e.g., Mesonychoteuthis, 50 feet or more in length) sharks (e.g., Rhincodon, up to 65 feet long) octopuses with 100 foot long tentacles.21 The fact that scientists have discovered animals with body sizes far greater than those observed today suggests, at least in theory, the possibility of there having also been giant humans in the past, as recorded in the Bible. Footnotes Josephus, Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews I.6.139. in Whiston, William (translator). 1996. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson. For a good comparison of the Table of Nations in Genesis 10 and the writings of Josephus on this subject, see Bodie Hodge, Josephus and Genesis Chapter Ten. John C. P. Smith worked with the Centre for Biblical and Hebraic Studies in the UK, and he is the founder of Jot & Tittle, a ministry focused on teaching Christians the Hebrew language. Regarding the claim that Amos 2:9 is poetic so one can downplay the comparison of the Amorites’ height to cedars and strength to oaks, Smith wrote the following in personal correspondence: Is it any more poetical than Job 40–41? And even if the language is poetic, it does not necessarily follow that it is exaggerated, especially given that it is God who is describing the size of the Amorite here (and the giant creatures of Job 40–41). An important word here is כְּ (ke), meaning as or like. In English, a significant range of meaning exists between describing two things being vaguely like each other in some general sense and being precisely the same as each other. defines “as” in the following way: “to the same degree, amount, or extent; similarly; equally.” So the wording in the NKJV and NASB, “like the height of cedars,” might give the impression of vague similarity (i.e., They were both tall.), whereas the wording in the NIV and NJB, “tall as the cedars,” implies a greater sense of equality. The context gives a clue to the correct interpretation here. The verse does not simply say, “like/as cedars and oaks”; it explicitly qualifies the comparison with the words height (govah) and strong (chason). The relevant clause translates literally: . . . which as [or like] height of cedars is his height and strong is he as [or like] oaks . . . Amos 2:9 The evidence appears to support a close, as opposed to a loose, correlation between the height of the Amorite(s) and the height of cedars. So perhaps this passage in Amos is similar to biblical accounts of behemoth and leviathan in Job in the sense that they may be extraordinary to the modern reader but are describing a historical reality. As creationists, we rightly point out, for instance, that God’s description of the behemoth’s tail being as/like a cedar (Job 40:17) should be taken literally, so why should we not also take literally God’s description of the height and strength of the Amorites? There’s no possibility of saying that cedar is a wrong translation and that God is describing a much smaller, shorter tree, unless one also concedes that it is a wrong translation for behemoth’s tail, since the same Hebrew word, אֶרֶז (erez), is used in both Amos 2:9 and Job 40:17. The Lord says that He destroyed their fruit above (perhaps meaning their visible presence in that generation) and their roots below (perhaps meaning their ability to recover/regenerate/reproduce). In other words, He wiped them off the face of the earth for all time. This explanation of the terminology here in Amos 2:9 is not dissimilar to C. F. Keil’s comment: For this figure of speech, in which the posterity of a nation is regarded as its fruit, and the kernel of the nation out of which it springs is the root, see Ezekiel 17:9, Hosea 9:16, Job 18:16. [Keil & Delitzsch. 2006. Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume 10, The Minor Prophets, p. 172. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.] Since they dropped out of history so abruptly, it is not surprising that we find little or no records of giants outside of the Bible. In the absence of any contrary evidence, it is surely best to take God at His word, however extraordinary it may appear to us. If He did not mean it literally, then why did He use such specific wording? The non-canonical (Apocrypha) books of Baruch 3:22–28 and Sirach 16:6–9 indicate that giants (Greek; gigantes, gigantōn, respectively) previously lived in the land of Canaan before Israel conquered them. The passage in Baruch states that they perished because they had no wisdom, they perished through their folly. Baruch 3:28, NRSV The next verse in this passage (v. 22) mentions the Horites, who may also have been giants although they are not specifically called giants in Scripture. However, in two of the three chapters in which they are mentioned, they appear in the same contexts with other giants (Genesis 14:6; Deuteronomy 2:12, 22), so they may also have been giants. This was the view of C. F. Keil, who, in commentating on 2 Samuel 21:16–22, asserted thatRaphah was the tribe-father of the Rephaim, an ancient tribe of gigantic stature, of whom only a few families were left even in Moses’ time. [Keil & Delitzsch. 2006. Commentary on the Old Testament, Volume 2, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, p. 680. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers.]. Strictly speaking, there are two singular Hebrew forms with slightly different spellings (and originally pronounced slightly differently): רָפָא (rapha) and רָפָה (raphah). But these appear to be simply two spellings for the same word. Sihon, the Amorite king of Heshbon, may also have been a giant. He was an Amorite and is listed in the same contexts as other giants (e.g., Numbers 21:21–35; Deuteronomy 2:24). For example, William White wrote,As to Og’s famous bed, it may have been a sarcophagus which was large not because Og was a giant but because other objects would have been buried with him. [Harris, Robert Laird, Gleason Archer, Bruce Waltke. 1999. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, electronic ed. s.v. 2198d. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press.] Other items may have certainly been buried with Og, but he was called a giant. Why bother to mention the massive size of this item if Og were not a giant? Perhaps the bed was made of iron instead of wood to support such a large man. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the identity of the sons of God other than to clear up a point that confuses many: the sons of God in this passage are not the same group as the giants (nephilim). For more information on this fascinating subject, please see my article Battle over the Nephilim. The Hebrew verb naphal can theoretically take the form of an active or passive participle, נֹפְלִים (nophelim) or נְפוּלִים (nephulim) respectively. The former occurs 18 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, mostly meaning “those who fall” (as in battle, see Ezekiel 32:22–24 for three examples), but the latter is unattested. Neither of these terms matches the morphology (shape, including vowel pattern) of nephilim (נְפִלִים in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33b or נְפִילִים in 33a). The Hebrew language does not require that the morphology of every single word follow a predetermined pattern. This is particularly true of proper nouns, which sometimes sound like other words sharing the same root letters. If a different vowel pattern was used for this term, then it could possibly be connected to the Hebrew verb naphal (“to fall”). One example of this type of vowel pointing is found with the Hebrew verb מָשַׁח (mashach), which means “to anoint.” The active participle form is מֹשְׁחִים (moshchim, “anointing [ones]”), equivalent in form to nophelim. The passive participle form is מְשֻׁחִים (meshuchim, “anointed [ones]”), equivalent in form to nephulim. An adjectival noun form of the word is מְשִׁיחִים (meshichim, also “anointed [ones]”) is equivalent in form to nephilim. Strictly speaking, the Old Testament does not include the precise form of this final word, but it does exist in combination with a suffix in 1 Chronicles 16:22 and Psalm 105:15. On the other hand, by comparing the variant spellings of nephilim it is easy to see the extra י (yod) in the word from Numbers 13:33a. This may not seem like a big deal, but according to Dr. Michael Heiser (PhD, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages), this extra letter provides a strong clue as to the word’s origin. Aramaic is closely associated with Hebrew, and some small sections of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word naphil (נָּפִיל) has the extra י (yod) and means “giant.” The plural form of this noun is nephilin, which is equivalent to the Hebrew word nephilim (Aramaic masculine plurals have an “-in” ending, whereas Hebrew masculine plurals have an “-im” ending.). Interestingly, this is also the Aramaic word used for the constellation Orion, named for the giant hunter of mythology. [Heiser, Michael S. The Meaning of the Word Nephilim: Fact vs. Fantasy,” available at, accessed December 6, 2011.] Some of the lexicons and dictionaries that support the rendering of nephilim as “giants” include The Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT, Koehler, Baumgardner), The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE, VanGemeren), The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Davidson), and Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (Jastrow). Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Brown, Driver, Briggs) also defines the word as “giants” but lists its etymology as dubious. Many other individuals in Scripture are classified as mighty men (gibborim), but this does not necessarily mean they were giants (e.g., Nimrod in Genesis 10:8 and David’s mighty men in 2 Samuel 23:8–39). So although not all gibborim were giants, it seems as though all giants were gibborim. It is intriguing that in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, Nimrod is called a giant and a “giant hunter” (Genesis 10:8–9)—not a hunter of giants, but a giant who was a hunter. Indeed the Greek word γίγας (gigas)—the plural form is γίγαντες (gigantes)—used in the Septuagint’s rendering of Genesis 10:8–9 is also used to translate both nephilim and gibborim in Genesis 6:4. There are some difficulties with this view of Nimrod. Genesis 10:8 states that Nimrod began to be a mighty one [gibbor] on the earth. How does one begin to be a giant? Either you are one or you’re not. The solution may be found in the ESV’s rendering of this verse, which states that Nimrod was the first on earth to be a mighty man. Yet, there were certainly mighty men on the earth prior to the Flood, so how could he be the first one? Perhaps the meaning of this phrase is that he was the first giant after the Flood, or it could be that the Septuagint is inaccurate here. There is some debate over the truthfulness of these claims since they are included in the “bad report” made by the spies. Some interpreters have argued that the reports of giants were simply exaggerations made by the spies in their efforts to discourage the people. However, the term bad report (Hebrew dibbah) does not focus on falsehood, but grave intentions. Brown-Driver-Briggs place the use of this word in Numbers 13:32 under its third definition: evil report, specif. a (true) report of evil doing. [Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. 2000. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, electronic ed., p. 179. Oak Harbor, Washington: Logos Research Systems.] This same word is used of Joseph’s report of his brothers’ activities in Genesis 37:2, and there is no reason to think he was lying. Also, the narrative reporting found in Numbers 13:21–24 shows that the spies did find out that Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai were in Hebron. Furthermore, neither Joshua nor Caleb disagreed with these facts, but they did encourage the people that they could win the battle because God was on their side. Finally, it appears that the words in parentheses—the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim. Numbers 13:33, NASB —were not spoken by the spies but were an editorial comment from the author (i.e., Moses or a later editor added these words for clarification). Nevertheless, and despite the omission of the parenthetical text in some ancient manuscripts including the Septuagint, the fact remains that the spies claimed to have seen the nephilim. Genesis 23:2; 35:27; Joshua 15:13, 54; 20:7; Judges 1:10. Genesis 23:19 states, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah, before Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan. Some have proposed that Arba was not a personal name but was merely the name of the main city of the Anakim. This is how Arba is viewed in the Septuagint. For example, this particular version of Joshua 15:13 states, καὶἔδωκεν αὐτῷἸησοῦς τὴν πόλιν Αρβοκ μητρόπολιν Ενακ (αὕτη ἐστὶν Χεβρων). Literally translated, this would be,and gave him Joshua the city of Arbok [Arba], capital of Anak (this is Hebron). Similar wording is found in the Septuagint’s rendering of Joshua 21:11. The word Philistine may mean immigrant or stranger, and the Bible informs us that the Philistines came from Ham’s son Mizraim, who was the father of the Casluhim,from whom came the Philistines. Genesis 10:14 Hays, J. Daniel. 2005. Reconsidering the Height of Goliath. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 4:702–715. Hays appealed to the size and strength of an offensive lineman in the National Football League, claiming that one – could carry [the amount of weight] easily. (Hays 2005, p. 709.) The question is not whether a person could carry this weight but whether he could be an effective warrior while carrying the extra 125 pounds of scale armor, plus the helmet and bronze armor on his legs, and wield such a massive weapon. In a footnote, Hays also cited modern soldiers who sometimes need to carry guns and mortars which are similar in weight to Goliath’s gear. Again, this misses the point. The type of gun (MK 19) mentioned by Hays is not carried into hand-to-hand combat but is a grenade launcher often set up on the ground or mounted on a vehicle. A mortar is also fired from a distance. Hays also claimed that only Saul would have had the armor or weapons to match Goliath. He based this on 1 Samuel 13:19–23, which speaks of a time in which the Philistines had subjugated the Israelites and did not allow them to have blacksmiths in the land. He admitted that things may have been slightly different by the time of David’s battle with Goliath, but he missed the fact that 1 Samuel 15:8 reveals the Israelite army destroyed the Amalekites and – utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword. The Israelite army was well-equipped to battle the Philistines in 1 Samuel 17, and they routed their enemies after David defeated Goliath. King Saul was said to be a head taller than any of the people (1 Samuel 9:2), yet he was not considered a giant. If Goliath was a mere 6’9”, it seems strange that Saul would not also have been considered a giant. It is quite simple to resolve this difference in detail. Gob may have simply been a smaller town near the larger city of Gezer or within the area of Gezer (or vice versa). We do the same type of thing today. For example, if someone from another area of the country asked me where the Creation Museum was located, I could say that it’s near Cincinnati. They might think that the museum is in Ohio because Cincinnati is in Ohio, but the Creation Museum is actually near Petersburg, a small town located in northern Kentucky. My direction gave them clear enough details for them to know the approximate location of the museum. If someone from the Cincinnati ar ea asked me where the museum was, then I would tell them that it is located in Petersburg because they will likely know where that is. This somewhat common condition is known as polydactyly. Many popular-level works have ascribed this trait to all of the biblical giants, but the Bible only describes this particular giant in this way. Sources include: The Diagram Group. 1980. The Book of Comparisons. Hampshire, England: Sidgwick & Jackson.;;; Online Encyclopedia (;; Many biblical creationists would place the twelfth dynasty in the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries B.C. See Ashton, John, and David Down. 2006. Unwrapping the Pharaohs, p. 78. Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books. Pritchard, James B. editor. 1958. The Ancient Near East: Volume I, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, p. 225. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Ibid. Hallo, W. W. ed. 2003. The Context of Scripture, 3 vols. 3.9. Leiden: Brill. Cited in Billington, Clyde E. Goliath and the Exodus Giants: How Tall Were They? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 3:487–508. The apocryphal book of Judith mentions Titans and giants. According to this tradition, the Jewish people were about to be attacked by the invading Assyrians led by General Holofernes (These names may have been cryptic for the Greeks and General Nicanor, respectively.). A beautiful Jewish widow was brought before the mighty general who attempted to seduce her. Four days later, Judith consented to eat and drink with him, but she only drank what her maid had prepared, while Holofernes drank so much that he passed out. She proceeded to cut off his head, which eventually led to a Jewish victory. In Judith’s song, the people expressed how the Lord defeated Holofernes:For their mighty one did not fall by the hands of the young men, nor did the sons of the Titans strike him down, nor did tall giants [gigantes] set upon him; but Judith daughter of Merari with the beauty of her countenance undid him. Judith 16:6, NRSV, accessed November 2, 2011. Cody went on to write,This tradition has been handed down from Sioux father to Sioux son since earliest ages. It shows, at least, as the legends of all races do, that the story of the Deluge is history common to all the world. During Solomon’s day – men of all nations, from all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom, came to hear the wisdom of Solomon. 1 Kings 4:34 1 Kings 10:22 explains the vast trade network enjoyed by Israel at the time. Details of Israel’s history could have spread far and wide during Solomon’s rule, which may explain why some of the ancient legends from other nations sound similar to biblical accounts. Eugster, Erica A. and Ora H. Pescovitz. 1999. Gigantism. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 84. Available at, accessed November 2, 2011. An extraordinary case of gigantism involves a young boy whose twelfth chromosome is inverted, which disrupted the HMGA2 gene, which is now known to be crucial to growth., accessed November 3, 2011. Although both men apparently suffered from acromegaly, Andre Roussimoff (aka Andre the Giant, 7’5”, 525 pounds) and the Cape Breton Giant, Angus McAskill (7’9”, 425 pounds) possessed legendary strength in their prime years. Wikipedia defines the square-cube law as follows: “When an object undergoes a proportional increase in size, its new volume is proportional to the cube of the multiplier and its new surface area is proportional to the square of the multiplier.” To calculate volume using the square-cube law, we use the formula v2 = v1 (l2/l1)3, where v2 is the new volume, v1 is the original volume, l2 is the new length, and l1 is original length. The compressive weight refers to the amount of weight a bone can support. While dependent upon bone density and other factors, the average mammal compressive strength is estimated to be 280 MN/m2 (Mega Newtons/square meter). An interesting study on the compressive strength of bone and why this is so important to the size and scaling of animals can be found in Knut Schmidt-Nielsen, Scaling, Why Is Animal Size So Important (New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1984). The compressive strength of bone is related to bone density. If giants had denser bones, then their skeletal system could support more weight than we might expect. One study showed that the ulnar bones in patients suffering from osteoporosis could lose two-thirds of their density, which reduces their compressive strength to a mere one-ninth of its original strength. See Carter, Dennis R. and Wilson C. Hayes. 1976. Bone Compressive Strength: the Influence of Density and Strain Rate. Science 194:1174–1176. Available at, accessed January 4, 2012., accessed December 8, 2011. Purring Cats and Roaring Tigers There are some ligers (offspring of male lion and female tiger) that reach 900 pounds, much larger than what we would expect when scaling up from the average house cat using the square-cube law. Thus, using the square-cube law seems to provide a “ballpark figure” when attempting to determine a scaled-up size of individuals. Giants in the Old Testament: Follow the White Rabbit – Patent on evil by Cumberland academy Medicine Tribe – – – The people are awakening

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s