Bigfoot is in the Bible!

A numbered refutation 1. Con writes, "To be heathen, means to not belong to any religion, such as an atheist." Webster's dictionary: "an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible " "of or relating to heathens, their religions, or their customs". Con does not know what "heathen" means. He should concede this point in his closing remarks. 2. Con writes, "The Bible does NOT say who the Sons of God were, nor do they say who the Nephilim(offspring) were." I don't know if the Con is saying the Sons of God *weren't* angels, but that is is shown by the 1st chapter of Job that "sons of God" refers to angels. The Bible does not give a dictionary-style definition of Nephilim, but the Bible makes clear that Nephilim and their offspring were large: "And there we saw the giants (Nephilim) the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:33) The Con cannot dispute this. He should concede this point in his closing remarks. 3. Con writes, "They were fighting over 1 HUMAN in the whole Bible, and that suddenly means that they are going to take every 'Bigfoot Skeleton' off the face of the Earth every time one dies." It is supporting evidence that angels have a fascination with stealing dead bodies. They are therefore suspect #1 in the disappearance of Bigfoot skeletons. If, for instance, someone in your neighborhood is known for dressing up neighborhood dogs as butterflies, and you find, to your astonishment, that someone has dressed your beloved poodle-doodle as a stately Monarch butterfly, then who are you going to suspect first? Obama? I don't think so. You're going to go the butterfly-dog-dresser fellow. I agree, however, that this is the weakest point I brought up. We can strike it from the evidence locker. 4. Con writes, "One of my opponent's last points implied that as long as you are large(a giant) and you are 'hairy enough,' then you can be considered a Bigfoot and your Grandpa is a heathen devil God." The problem with this is that we do not have scientific classification for the species of Bigfoot, so we must go by their appearance and general characteristics to be able to call them Bigfoot. I argue that if they are: a. Hairy (like a shaggy dog, not like a Bulgarian) b. Smelly c. Big d. Have big foots Then they qualify under the common English word "Bigfoot." The Con will not be able to dispute this. He should concede this point in his closing remarks. 5. Con writes, "If they were 'produced' back in Genesis, they would have had to have lived for around 5,000 years for people to 'have sightings' of them today." The Bible makes clear that Nephilim (who I accuse of Bigfootery) can: a. Have sex b. Make babies Proof text: "And there we saw the giants (Nephilim) the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:33) Anak was not an angel, he had a father named "Arba": "And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, even the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron." (Joshua 15:13) This demonstrates that: a. Arba had sex and begat Anak (wives or girlfriends aren't commonly mentioned in Biblical genealogies, so no implication of Arba actually carrying the Anak child in his womb for 9 months is implied here) b. Anak had sex and begat the sons of Anak This proves that the Con either does not know how sex works, or his argument is flawed. He should concede this point in his closing remarks. 6. The Con writes, "the last point I would like to bring up is when the first sighting of 'Bigfoot' occurred. If you look it up on the internet, you will find the first person to 'see Bigfoot' (excluding native American legends) was a white man in Canada in 1811. If Bigfoot has been around since Bible times, then you would think that someone would have caught a glance of him before 1811." If the Con is correct in this, then the words "Sasquatch", "Yeti", "Alma", etc. were developed after 1811, as I clearly indicated that these were to be taken as synonymous terms in my opening statement. The Con either: a. Believes both Native American and Himalayan culture developed their ideas of Bigfoot from a white Canadian in 1811. b. Didn't read what I wrote. c. Lacked the mental clarity and intelligence to comprehend the words I wrote d. Is dishonestly and ineffictively narrowing the term "Bigfoot" down to his own private definitions. None of these options support the Con as having mounted an effective argument. Let me say, there ARE good arguments against this, but Con isn't bringing them. The problem with option A is that what the Con would need to do is define every hairy hominid that is described in their myths or culture as "not Bigfoot". Of course, if it is hairy, hominoid, is large (and, by implication, possessing of large feetsy-deetsies), then it falls under the heading "Bigfoot", for lack of a more precise classification. Conclusion: It is clear that Bible-believing Churches should add the existence of Bigfoot to their Creedal statements, and gather together teams to track down and hand the Bigfoot Satan monsters over to the CIA, rightly ridding the earth of their abominable presence. Thank you, Con, for your debate but you could have done a bit better.