The structures and even the quarried stone were quite outsized, but the conclusion reached is that this was perceived as being so, by Hebrew advance scouts or spies, in order to just protect Hebron from giants?
A literal reading leads to a very different conclusion.
Looking into extra-Biblical texts, texts that are very controversial, yes, but confirmed as authentic in many instances via the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls from the caves at Qumran, texts such as the books of Jasher, Jubilees and Enoch, indicate that these people were well known, renowned even, and in many instances known by name, as children of Anakim, descendants of Anak. Giants. Literally.
If none of this rings a bell, it goes back to that wild, fallen angels mating with the daughters of men thing, that makes many people so very uncomfortable.
And, Hebron was known as one of their great cities. I'd be tempted to speculate that there's a deliberate gap in knowledge of such a place, because no one wants to be looked upon as crazy, in a field that is so rife with political, scientific and religious undertones, all competing and usually at cross purposes.
So, if there is truth to those ancient texts, one of which, Enoch, is referenced several times in the Bible, there very likely will be some crazy-seeming archaological finds in Hebron. I thought this might add a little life to your thread. Have at it.
very much appreciated, thanks for your input.
Absolutely agreed. I feel pretty strongly that canonical scripture (Gen 6, Exodus, Deut 3, 1 Samuel, Jude, 2 Peter) supports the more detailed accounts in books such as Enoch. If one dares treat the text as it is meant to be read, that is. In fact, in antiquity the stories were taken as such by orthodox Jewry and early Christianity; it was only later that they were allegorized.
What goes around, comes around:
Matt 24:37
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
KJV