Giants & the nephilim

[anvilhauler]

Chris spoke about that in one of our Friday morning (for us) Bible studies. He said that he believes the 'sons of God' were the line of Seth, not fallen angels. If angels are spirits, they do not have bodies so cannot procreate with men.

That being said, scientists at CERN have admitted that they are trying to open portals into other dimensions and they have a huge statue of the Hindu god, Shiva, out the front of their property.

I'm writing from work so don't have time at the moment to do the background work to support my reasoning but at the soonest possible time I'll get on to it.  I'll let the administrators decide if they want it in the general public or the born again Christians only section of the forum.

[anvilhauler]

Due to time constraints I'm going to have to write in small postings over a few days.  As always when writing something like this I realize that I may be in error and I stand to be corrected if I can be shown otherwise from the word of God.

Genesis 6 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 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, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair
Why does this not say "the sons of men saw the daughters of men that they were fair".  This would just be normal reproduction of mankind if it was the case and God would be happy because it was what He created and had planned. 

when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men
Again if this was normal reproduction it wouldn't even be worth mentioning.  Sons of God implies these beings have been made directly by God and are not the normal sons of men.

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
So there were giants when only this reproduction happened but not in the normal case when ordinary people got married and just had ordinary children.  So these "Sons of God", why was their DNA different from anyone else's to the extreme that they created "giants".  If they were normal man then they couldn't just change their DNA to suit themselves.


Fast forward to some New Covenant
John 1 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

But going back to Genesis if normal birth made us sons of God then we wouldn't need to be made sons of God through Christ.  Hence, normal birth only makes us sons of men.

Job 1 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. 7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Here's these sons of God again.  These aren't sons of men, these are beings that God Himself has made.

Job 38:4-7 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?
declare, if thou hast understanding.
 
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest?
or who hath stretched the line upon it?
 
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?
or who laid the corner stone thereof;
 
when the morning stars sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The sons of God were present when the foundations of the earth were laid. 

Interesting Note:
Adam was of course a son of God because he had no earthly father.  He was manufactured by God just as the angels were.

Matthew 8 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Jesus identifies Himself as the Son of man.  Because He is born of a woman as is necessary for Him to fulfill His mission.

I've run out of time but there's plenty here for all of us to chew over.

[ThomasHGW]

Just so everyone is clear, we all agree that this is just food for thought? I have witnessed people arguing and getting angry at the disagreement of this topic many times and it's not worth fighting about. I do not believe that it's the biggest deal in the world right now especially concerning salvation. I was not part of the church discussion so I don't know if that was said there but I felt like I should add that disclaimer.

That being said, I personally have not necessarily chosen a side as to which I believe Genesis 6 is referring to. There are strong arguments for both sides.

Something else to take into consideration, angels through out the bible have appeared unto men as if they have a fleshly body,
Genesis 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Genesis 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Genesis 19:12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:
Genesis 19:15 And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.
The angels are referred to as angels and men interchangeably, probably because they took the form of men at the time.
I would be willing to be corrected through scripture  on this as well, but it seems as though angels have free will. How else could lucifer be lifted in his own pride and fall?
 
Daniel 10:5-6 Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

I know all that sounds like I'm leaning toward Gen 6 referring to angels, but I'm not so sure,  in matthew 22, doesn't Jesus teach that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage?

Matthew 22:23-30  The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Sounds to me like angels are not actually flesh but can appear as flesh if they choose. I know that is referring to in the resurrection and angels of God IN heaven but I think it's worth mentioning here.

[creationliberty]

that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair
Why does this not say "the sons of men saw the daughters of men that they were fair".  This would just be normal reproduction of mankind if it was the case and God would be happy because it was what He created and had planned.

Because there is a differentiation between the sons of God and sons of men in this passage under this context; you're asking the question as if the Lord God must use one or the other, or in other words, you're judging how God should write His Word according to your presuppositions. It was not good that Jeanne brings up only a vague sentence about what we discussed in a two-hour-long Bible study without explaining anything, especially since the purpose of that Bible study is train each of us up so that we can explain the Word of God without me having to be there, which is why I chose not to do recordings of it.

The problem is that the angels are not pre-programmed with the lust of the flesh; that is part of mankind specifically, and so angels do not have the lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh. Two genealogies are given in prior chapters; one of Seth and one of Cain. The line of Seth is the one that began to "call upon the name of the Lord" in the previous chapters (i.e. they began to repent), which is why they are called "the sons of God" in this particular passage. The sons of God can mean angels or men depending on how its used.

If you look at what you wrote, you'll see how you went to Job to get one definition, but you didn't continue to list out other definitions because they don't support your presupposition.

ANGELS: Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
-Job 1:6
MEN: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
-John 1:12

Now, unless you want to believe that we become angels (which is false Catholic doctrine), then the "sons of God" have two different meanings depending on the context. The problem was that the "sons of God" (i.e. the line of Seth who followed God) sexually lusted after the "daughters of men" (i.e. the line of Cain who followed the flesh), and took them wives, which is marriage, and that was only instituted for men, and so God would not call that marriage since he did not institute marriage for angels. (i.e. It would be called an abomination since it would be apart from what He created.)

I can't continue to write all this out because I've got too much to do today. I'm sorry, I have to go.

[Jeanne]

I'm sorry, too, that I didn't explain further but I couldn't remember all the stuff we talked about that day.

One thing I DO remember is that there were giants after the flood, too. Og, king of Bashan was one and Goliath was another. When the 12 spies went into Canaan, 10 of them could only see the giants that were there and did not trust God to give the land over into their hands as He had promised (which is why they spent the next 40 years wandering in the wilderness). These giants were called the Anakims (sons of Anak).

[ThomasHGW]

Not sure if anyone here listens to Scott Johnson, he has a ministry called contending for truth and he talks a lot about Gen. 6 and the giants and fallen angels and stuff. Although I believe he teaches truth in some areas, I have to say I disagree with his reasoning for Gen 6 referring to angels.
His main argument is that the old testament only uses the term sons of God to refer to angels. Therefore, when Gen 6 says sons of God, it must be referring to angels.
That would be a logical fallacy to think that way.

[anvilhauler]

*I messed up his post SEE BELOW* -Admin

[creationliberty]

Guys, forgive me; I hit the wrong button. I messed up Kevin's post and replaced it with my own. I hit "modify" instead of "reply" on my administrator tools, and I didn't realize that's what I had done. I'm really sorry Kevin. I feel like such an idiot.

[creationliberty]

The problem is that the angels are not pre-programmed with the lust of the flesh; that is part of mankind specifically, and so angels do not have the lust of the eyes and the lust of the flesh.

Unless satan had used the fallen angels as a means of stamping out mankind and especially making sure that the redeemer (Christ) would not be born.

You just said you didn't base anything on a presupposition; can you not see the presupposition you just proposed? I stated that angels were never pre-programmed with the lust of the flesh, and you said "UNLESS..." and your "unless" explanation had no Scriptural backing--it was based on a presupposition (i.e. an assumption) you have about the methods Satan has used in accomplishing his goals.

Thus, what you are saying is, "Chris, you are wrong because I have a presupposition that is based on my study of the theories I've learned from other ministries." I am simply trying to show people the context of what's being said, and how the explanation of "conspiracy ministries" doesn't match that context.

Notice that you did not go to Scripture to provide evidence that angels are lusting after the flesh of men, because it said "they saw that they were fair." That is that a desire of the flesh, according to the fallen corruption of man. Even if Satan is using devils in special breeding experiments (which may actually be happening via the alien agenda), it doesn't solve the problem of claim that devils lust after the flesh, which has no Scriptural evidence to back it up.

The real source of contention that you're bringing to this is your desire to believe in the theories of nephilim in the days of Noah, which I have an article I have still not finished on that subject. I agree with many of the things concerning the alien agenda that are starting be disclosed, and much of it makes sense to what is going to happen in the final days; so don't misunderstand. However, using Genesis 6 as a supporting argument or basis for that is folly because the context does not teach what you, and many others, are trying to get it to say, and there are problems with it contextually that are not being addressed because of the desire after that presupposition. (i.e. Much like evolutionists, they have a theory, and they desire to protect that theory at all costs.)

Again, you claim there is no presupposition in you, but I can clearly see it in your response. I can't make you see it; all I can do is point it out to the church here and let them judge the matter.

[anvilhauler]

Guys, forgive me; I hit the wrong button. I messed up Kevin's post and replaced it with my own. I hit "modify" instead of "reply" on my administrator tools, and I didn't realize that's what I had done. I'm really sorry Kevin. I feel like such an idiot.

  That's OK.  I tried to see if I could get anything back this end but alas no luck.  Everybody probably thinks I'm an idiot too for writing the nephilim stuff so you're not alone.

Thus, what you are saying is, "Chris, you are wrong because I have a presupposition that is based on my study of the theories I've learned from other ministries.

But I don't have any firm views on the subject.  For me it fits in to the category of "Wow I don't know about this stuff" and just presented the potential evidence that shows that it could be the case.  I'm certainly keeping an open mind and am still not convinced either way.  Hence I was keen to bring the subject up and get others opinions. 

Notice that you did not go to Scripture to provide evidence that angels are lusting after the flesh of men, because it said "they saw that they were fair." That is that a desire of the flesh, according to the fallen corruption of man.

I wouldn't think it too far fetched to think that fallen angels could also lust after the flesh if it was to create chaos for mankind.  re: desire of the flesh. I have often pondered about the thought patterns that would be involved for the reproduction of mankind if Adam and Eve hadn't sinned.  Sexual attraction but not as we know it.

your desire to believe in the theories of nephilim in the days of Noah

No, it's not a desire, but after reading it I do think "Wow, is that a possibility?".  When I read something like the nephilim stuff I certainly do try to figure out what is fact from what is fiction.  Hence I have left people behind who never check anything out and they think tithing and feminism and Roman Catholicism and all sorts of other falsehoods are OK because they never think about anything or check anything out.

I agree with many of the things concerning the alien agenda that are starting be disclosed, and much of it makes sense to what is going to happen in the final days; so don't misunderstand.

Yes, that certainly is a problem and is going to be more of a problem in the future.

(i.e. Much like evolutionists, they have a theory, and they desire to protect that theory at all costs.)

Except when it is examined and it shows there is no potential theory behind it at all as evolution is totally impossible and has absolutely no scientific credibility and they know it too.  A scientific hypothesis has the potential to be correct and the lie of evolution doesn't meet any of the criteria required of a hypothesis.  They stubbornly refuse what is clearly the truth.

Hence some conspiracies actually are true.  The "education system" conspires to teach falsehood and I also believe that a person or persons conspired to murder John F Kennedy as I totally doubt that he shot himself in the head in that car.

[anvilhauler]

I am at a loss to understand where the Paracas skulls do fit in.  The nephilim account does give a possible explanation.  I'm not building anything on it, it is just a possible as I'm at a complete loss to find other answers.  There have been a lot of these skulls found.  Far too many for the universities and others to try to cover up by making them conveniently disappear.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=%22paracas+skulls%22&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz0oyVtNDbAhWKzLwKHd5xCq4Q_AUICigB&biw=1280&bih=601



These skulls have a vastly different morphology from those of man.  The complete absence of the sagittal suture (front to back crack that closes up years after birth) is striking.  The foramina magnum (big hole) in the base of the skull is also in a different place.

There's no shortage of sites claiming the shape of the skull is due to head wrapping but that still doesn't explain the complete lack of the sagittal suture.  Why was the head wrapping done on those that are proven to be those of man?  Was it to make one's children look more like these other beings that they were living around and these other beings were "in charge"? 

A difference between man and animals is that man bury their dead and these skulls have been found in burial sites indicating that they are most likely not to be the skulls of a type of extinct animal.

These skulls came from some kind of creature.  We know that in the past there were giants and now we have this extra information to contend with as well and the mainstream doesn't even want to admit there were giants. 

[Jeanne]

Kevin, the post you thought you got back is actually the second post that appears on this thread. I've wondered about those skulls, too, and what they might be. They don't look like giants, though...

[anvilhauler]

Ooops I messed up with the sending of that second posting again.  In that case the one that got deleted is gone for good.  Not too much of a problem.

I wasn't thinking the skulls were of giants.  I'm puzzled though by the genetics of the giants and then by these elongated skulls that are found around the world.  The size of the foot prints of some of the giants and also of the reports of the skeletons gives the impression they were of huge proportions.  Unless they are all fakes.

https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&biw=1429&bih=944&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=uPchW_2qComm8AX9irTYDA&q=%22giant+footprints%22&oq=%22giant+footprints%22&gs_l=img.12..0l5j0i7i10i30k1j0i30k1j0i5i10i30k1j0i8i30k1l2.6692.6692.0.8025.1.1.0.0.0.0.545.545.5-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.1.542....0.scEMobMIk5M









Fakes?  Well someone has gone to a lot of work if they are and you would really need a CNC (Computer Numerically Controlled) machine with diamond tools to machine these in to rock if they are.  Someone would have had to go to a lot of trouble for very little gain.

That there have been the giants and the creatures with the elongated skulls does make me question if these creatures are God's creation or something that is the result of the work of satan the devil.

Naturally it makes me puzzled about Jesus words

Matthew 13 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. 26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. 27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? 29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

That does make me wonder if there are "people" around today who may not be of God's creation but are the work somehow of satan the devil.  I truly am puzzled as the whether the wheat and the tares are both mankind.

John 8 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father.

Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

It is interesting that Jesus spoke this way to the religious leaders but then later He recruited Paul who was a murderer and also a pharisee.  Surely Paul of all people would have been described as a child of his father satan the devil but he wasn't.  God could have chosen lots of other people but He chose Paul.  Was Paul one of God's creations but the others weren't and so they could never be used.


Matthew 3 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12 whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

The wheat and the chaff come from the same plant.  I get the impression the tares have already been dealt with by this time and thrown in the fire and now it is time to separate the wheat from the chaff. 

My life would be a whole lot easier if it wasn't for the giants and these elongated skulls.

[Jeanne]

As for Paul, I think that one is easy enough. The high priests and other pharisees KNEW of the miracles Jesus did and saw him as a threat to their authority and high positions, which is why they wanted Him out of the way. They paid off the guards of Jesus' tomb to say that the disciples came and stole the body so that they could keep the resurrection a secret.

They saw the miracles the apostles were doing and ordered them to quit preaching about Jesus, even though they were doing many of the same things Jesus did. Then in Acts 5, it says:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man

[anvilhauler]

I think your posting might have got chopped off due to that bug in the software so I put in the reference again.

Acts 5 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

I have often wondered where Paul was while Jesus was doing His ministry.  I don't write that in any kind of accusing way.  If he was a far off and he heard the news he may have written it off as fake news or a conspiracy theory.  When he was persecuting the Christians, surely he must have either been informed of Jesus' miracles or perhaps even met some of those whom Jesus had healed etc.  Interesting stuff.

Any of this stuff I write I write it with forethought so that it can not cause doctrinal disputes in the church but rather that it even just more of the discussion of what we already know that there is wheat and tares and even of the wheat plant there is the wheat and the chaff and that the tares and the chaff are both going in the fire. 

[Jeanne]

Okay, I just kept hitting the 'back' button until I got to the post I originally wrote. I keep forgetting to replace all the apostrophes...

As for Paul, I think that one is easy enough. The high priests and other pharisees KNEW of the miracles Jesus did and saw Him as a threat to their authority and high positions, which is why they wanted Him out of the way. They paid off the guards of Jesus' tomb to say that the disciples came and stole the body so that they could keep the resurrection a secret.

They saw the miracles the apostles were doing and ordered them to quit preaching about Jesus, even though they were doing many of the same things Jesus did. Then in Acts 5, it says:

27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them.

If that's not a case of wilful ignorance, then I don't know what is.

I believe Paul, on the other hand really did have a heart to serve God and that he honestly thought he was doing God a favour by trying to wipe out what he saw as false doctrine. God knew that a personal encounter with Jesus on his part would truly convince him of his error, and that he would turn into the missionary we all now know him to be. The others were too proud and full of themselves to be so converted, however.

Even if this was not the case with Saul/Paul, God still had His own reasons for choosing him to be an apostle.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 for I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

[anvilhauler]

Yes, I agree 100% 

[anvilhauler]

Yes, there's not much point anyone trying to go in to a whole lot about the nephilim. 

The reason I brought it up was because when I was visiting family up in Christchurch a couple of years ago my brother-in-law brought up the subject because he had also seen the same things on the internet as I had i.e. the skulls and the evidence of giants.  Before the flood, were they in to genetic manipulation?  Who knows?  Whatever it was, they were evil.  When my brother-in-law and I get talking my sister always heads off to bed and we stay talking until the small hours of the morning. 

When I became a Christian quite a few of my family "became Christians too" but I have serious doubts about their conversions.  I don't see any of them for years so basically I leave them to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.

Anyway, that's how come I brought up the subject in the forum here.  It was just to throw it out there for comment and I totally doubt there are any websites out there that can give any extra information except pure speculation.

[Jeanne]

Kevin, consider what conditions were like before the flood and the idea that the whole earth was probably like living in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber. EVERYTHING--plants, animals, people, insects--would have grown a lot larger than is possible today. Size probably had more to do with the environment than with genetics.

I'm pretty sure there were dinosaurs living after the flood but that they didn't get to be nearly the size of the ones who lived before the flood.

This is a picture of a rock formation called Devil's Tower in Wyoming. Some people are speculating now that this could be a petrified tree stump. It certainly looks like one to me.

[anvilhauler]

Hi Jeanne

Yes I've seen the Devil's Tower in Wyoming before and wondered the same. 

I have also often wondered about the size of men.  Looking at sites like http://megaliths.org/ it appears that doorways in structures (that surely must have been created before the flood) are in proportion to the average size of man today.  I'm assuming the doorways were for men to walk through.  Also stone carved heads and other structures were both small and large.

The world is littered with broken megalithic structures yet still there are people who deny that a sudden major cataclysm has occured in the past.

The over-arching take home message from back then and more recently Judah and the rest of Israel is that when you're on to something good then one should never jeopardize it by paying more attention to the goodness supplied rather than the one who supplied it.