Could Neanderthals have been the Nephilim?

a reply to: ElGoobero

the Biblical and science timelines are not compatible as now written. I believe the standard science numbers are hugely inaccurate. if Neanderthals were apes we could not have interbred.

I agree with that completely. What leads me to believe that is the cuneiform tablets which have been numerous and have recorded the celestial angles which have ruled this earth for about 241,200 years before the flood. I assume that the tablets refer to the flood of Noah even though the tablets do not name Noah. Archeology names each angel king and the number of years each king ruled.

I assume that these kings were the fallen angelic host that were cast out onto this earth just as the tablets tell us that they were from heaven. This last king that ruled in the antediluvian period was named Ubra-Tutu and he reigned for a total of 18,600 years. Adam was created and placed in Gan Eden 1,656 years before the flood so that leads me to assume that Adam was created in the 16,944 year of this angelic king Ubra-Tutu.

Here is my point. If any of this can hold true then Adam may have been put in the Gan Eden to protect him from the host of fallen angels that were not numbered but assumed to be about one third of the heavenly host. These angels were governed by their leaders who are these that are listed in the Sumerian kings listings.

As Adam sinned and was cast out onto the earth, the earth became corrupt and was then cursed. I assume, that if all of this rings true, this is when the angelic host was cast into Sheol. Adam then lived a total 930 years and died. So according to the biblical account it was about 725 years after the death of Adam that the flood of Noah occurred. The tablets then show drastic shorter lives of the kings just as the bible also does the same.

Now we are told that in the days of Y/Jared about 200 angels came from the celestial realm and bred with human woman.
Y/Jared was born 460 years after Adam was created and he lived 962 years. In this 962 years the angels and humans bred a race of Great Giants who then bred another race of Nephillim who in turn then bred another race called Elioud. These sub human races of creatures were an abomination to God and were the reason God then destroyed them with a flood.

So here is where we pick up the word Nephillim. This race of sub humans could not have been associated with the Neanderthal race according to either secular science or biblical science. Secular science denies the flood of Noah and is totally confused with the Kings listing cuneiform tablets. They simply disagree in all respects and cannot be connected in any way. Secular science declare that the Neanderthal race became extinct some 40,000 years ago and that would predate Adam by thousands of years which in turn would also predate Noah [whom science denys] by thousands of years. Now if secular science denies Adam, Angelic Kings, and Noah, then how can they accept a race called Nephillim?

originally posted by: ElGoobero

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: ElGoobero

the Neanderthals were not giants but they had big brains and were apparently very strong. they were 'human' but not Homo Sapiens. Any thoughts on whether the Neanderthals might be the Nephilim?

Here is the problem with this. Nephillim were a race of creatures bred by the great giants who in turn were bred by angels and humans in the days of Jered. Yered was born 485 years after Adam and died 1422 years after Adam. So he lived 937 years. The Nephillim became a race during that 937 years. If the Neanderthal were extinct 40,000 years ago then that means that the Niphillim were not even thought about for thousands of years later.

If Neanderthals were extinct about 40,000 years ago in the biblical narrative they could not have bred with humanoids. So in this case you are mixing secular science with biblical theology and they simply cannot mix. The only way to connect the two would be to accept that humans lived some 40,000 years ago and discard the biblical narrative.

My opinion of Neaderthal's is that they are a breed of apes that are now extinct.

the Biblical and science timelines are not compatible as now written.

They don't need to be compatible. Expecting Abrahamic scripture to be a legitimate historical timeline is unrealistic.

I believe the standard science numbers are hugely inaccurate.

Based on what and what do you believe the errors are in the current methods of dating remains, lithics and sites?

if Neanderthals were apes we could not have interbred.

Technically, Neanderthal, like Homo Sapiens Sapiens, are apes. Great apes are Gorillas, Chimpanzee, Bonobo, Orangutan and any member of the genus Homo which includes us, Neanderthal, Denisovans, H. Naledi, H. Antecessor, H. Erectus and H. Habilis and many others who existed contemporaneously for 100's of thousands of years in some cases.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Technically, Neanderthal, like Homo Sapiens Sapiens, are apes. Great apes are Gorillas, Chimpanzee, Bonobo, Orangutan and any member of the genus Homo which includes us, Neanderthal, Denisovans, H. Naledi, H. Antecessor, H. Erectus and H. Habilis and many others who existed contemporaneously for 100's of thousands of years in some cases.

we're all primates but not 'apes'
apes by definition are not humans

a reply to: Raggedyman

IF you had faith, rather than knowing the evidence, you did not know the science. Science is not based on faith, it is based on evidence.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes I call my self a scientist. Race is a construct not born out by genetics. The genetic differences with in a so called race are greater than between the so called races. You could try reading some actual ssciencerather than post Youtube videos.

a reply to: toms54

Since sequencing of some neanderthal iIt is generally accepted that they are different species (Homo neanderthalensis) as opposed to a subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). This would for one thing be bacause they diverged from each other with a common ancestor a couple of steps removed from each other. Unless you want to subscribe to the multi regional hypothesis, thats not how evolution works.

a reply to: Noinden

I understand evolution, genetics, and subspecies. Further, I agree with your statement.

That post is more of a comment on the idea that most people accept different types of animals to be subspecies yet contend that an Asian and an African pygmy are exactly the same physiologically and in all other ways.

There are proven differences between the races. I was working in a hospital pharmacy once and commented upon some medical differences between different racial groups and a technician began to cry. She then went to administration, complained I was being racist and I was forced to apologize to her even though I was not using any derogatory language and only mentioned medical facts about, I think, liver enzymes. Ever since then I became aware that the general public really has no idea what they are talking about and translates everything they hear into a political statement in their minds. Hence the no such thing as race argument popular among sociology students.

a reply to: toms54

And before anyone wants to get outraged, no, I will not elaborate. Look it up yourself if you are intested.

a reply to: toms54

I'm probably used to the idiots who insist those things. So my appologies for jumping to that conclusiin.

I think/feel the problem with what you are describing, is that there are virtually no differences in "racial groups" that are not found in other groups.

So race (especially the way people describe it) is not really a thing. It is based on appearance (from a time when phrenology was acceptable science (and before)) as opposed to actual genetic differences.

Maybe the neanderthal was man, and homo sapiens were the aliens?

a reply to: Noinden

You know why people respect the Kardashians over scientists?
Why people who can kick or throw a ball, pretend to be somebody else on film are more respected
Its a reflection on the intelligence of society and the corruption and ignorance of those in your field

Your science in evolution is a faith, you have no repeatable observable or testable evidence

If you did, I would accept evolution, bitchin and moaning at me is not evidence, its bitchin and moanin

Read your own link bozo
"Although biological aggregates do exist"
And you call yourself a scientist???
"they represent variation below the subspecies level"

WASNT that my whole point, and you call yourself a scientist, maybe a role on the Kardashians would be better suited to you

a reply to: Noinden

Funny isnt it
I am use to idiots as well
And you can tell them in simple english and they still wont/ cant see the obvious

I respect the Kardashians, they readily admit or portray their simpleton nature, they dont pretend they are anything more than they are

a reply to: Raggedyman

He is probably just repeating what he learned in school. Let him believe it. I'm sure he paid enough $$ for that information.

a reply to: toms54

In his defense it is kind of logical and believable
I just dont see the evidence, happy to be shown it but what I see is completely the opposite to what is offered as science

I just found out that lead can be converted to gold, alchemy dammit, I find that so hard to believe but the science seems to be there
We are all learning

originally posted by: ElGoobero

originally posted by: peter vlar
Technically, Neanderthal, like Homo Sapiens Sapiens, are apes. Great apes are Gorillas, Chimpanzee, Bonobo, Orangutan and any member of the genus Homo which includes us, Neanderthal, Denisovans, H. Naledi, H. Antecessor, H. Erectus and H. Habilis and many others who existed contemporaneously for 100's of thousands of years in some cases.

we're all primates but not 'apes'
apes by definition are not humans

Not true, humans ands the other great apes are all members of Hominidae.

The family Hominidae (hominids), the great apes, includes three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies.[1][a][2][3]

a reply to: peter vlar

Who decides what Hominidae is and why they are Hominidae, whats the criteria

Some one is telling me what I have to believe, because its a boffin I am expected to just accept it

The earth is flat, best I believe it because someone told me

Hominidae, just another one of those enforced faith/religious beliefs of the pseudo scientist

That is an interesting theory, in light of Genesis 6, Deuteronomy, Book of Enoch, Jude, Book of Giants, Maccabees, Jubilees, and so forth...

Genetic hybrids ALLLLLLLL throughout Sumerian, Biblical, Egyptian, Norse, Greek, Mayan, African, Native American traditions. BECAUSE SOMETHING FK'ING HAPPENED THAT IMPACTED THE ENTIRE PLANET. We COLLECTIVELY HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN.

According to Erik Trinkaus, professor of physical anthropology at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A., “Neanderthals were people, and they probably had the same range of mental abilities we do.”

Were There “Cavemen”? Awake!—1981

NEANDERTHAL MAN is also one of the better-known parts of the so-called evolutionary chain. When the first skull portion was found one scientist called it the skullcap of an idiot. Gradually interpretations changed as more bones were discovered. From early reconstructions that showed Neanderthals to be stooped and apelike, with long arms dangling down in front, we now have books that say that “Neanderthal probably did not look very different from some people of today.” One encyclopedia now says that they were “completely human, fully erect.” What a change! Comparing the illustrations in various books will show the adjustments in the claimed appearance of Neanderthal man. And rather than his being an idiot, it is now admitted that Neanderthal man had a larger brain than most modern men!

One reason why some scientists thought of Neanderthal as squat and bent is most interesting. An early skeleton found had bowed legs and a bent form. Of course, since they were looking for apelike creatures to fit their theory, how easy it was to make a mistake! Later, upon further examination, it was shown that the skeleton was deformed due to arthritis!

Nor is that all. In their efforts to make their finds look like a link between ape and man, when Neanderthal’s foot bones were first reconstructed by evolutionists, “they were made to look like an ape’s,” says one book. But the same book admits that the feet actually “look and functioned very [much] like those of modern man.” Look at the picture (opposite page) of feet. Do you think they look enough alike to conclude mistakenly that they are the same?

So they changed the storyline. Now it's no longer claimed that Neanderthals are an intermediary form between apes and humans (or between an apelike common ancestor and modern humans, a.k.a. Homo Sapien Sapiens). And they invented another subspecies called Homo Sapien Sapien (rather than just Homo Sapien, allthough not all of them are jumping on this particular bandwagon of classifying Neanderthals as Homo Sapien Neanderthalis to differentiate them from Homo Sapien Sapiens, i.e. modern humans).

"Neanderthals were people", invent a new name to differentiate from the people of today all you want, it's not gonna change the evidence. They were not Nephilim.

Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE BY BRAIN SIZE

Fact: The brain size of a presumed ancestor of humans is one of the main ways by which evolutionists determine how closely or distantly the creature is supposed to be related to humans.

Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator of intelligence?

Answer: No. One group of researchers who used brain size to speculate which extinct creatures were more closely related to man admitted that in doing so they “often feel on shaky ground.”48 Why? Consider the statement made in 2008 in Scientific American Mind: “Scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’s area, which governs speech in people.”49

What do you think? Why do scientists line up the fossils used in the “ape-to-man” chain according to brain size when it is known that brain size is not a reliable measure of intelligence? Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory? And why are researchers constantly debating which fossils should be included in the human “family tree”? Could it be that the fossils they study are just what they appear to be, extinct forms of apes?

What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”50

Honest observers readily recognize that egos, money, and the need for media attention influence the way that “evidence” for human evolution is presented. Are you willing to put your trust in such evidence?

Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.

48. The Human Fossil Record​—Volume Three, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C. Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004, Preface xvi.

49. Scientific American Mind, “Intelligence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke and Gerhard Roth, August/​September 2008, p. 72.

50. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.

a reply to: toms54
And yet...

We Are All One Family: Awake!—2009

Sadly, many view certain races as inferior. “Racism,” according to one reference, is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”
...
Discoveries in genetics have confirmed the fallacy of racism. Researchers studying people from different continents have found that the differences in DNA between any two randomly chosen individuals from virtually anywhere in the world amounted to about 0.5 percent.[ Footnote: The relatively few genetic differences between humans may, however, be significant medically, for some diseases appear to have a genetic link.] And 86 to 90 percent of those differences occurred within any one racial group. Therefore, just 14 percent or less of the 0.5 percent variation occurred between racial groups.

Because “humans are genetically homogeneous,” says the journal Nature, “genetics can and should be an important tool in helping to both illuminate and defuse the race issue.”

Such thinking is not new. Beginning in 1950 the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization published a series of statements intended to combat racism. The statements were authored by anthropologists, geneticists, and sociologists. Yet, racism persists. Clearly, an awareness of the facts is not enough. The heart, or the inner person, must also be reached. “Out of the heart come wicked reasonings,” said Jesus Christ.​—Matthew 15:19, 20.
...

WHAT EXPERTS SAY

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) states that “all human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock.”​—Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978.

WHAT SOME HAVE SAID

During the 20th century, a number of groups adopted racist ideologies. The Nazis, for example, argued that there was a biological basis for beliefs concerning racial superiority. On the other hand, the UNESCO document cited earlier recognized “the essential unity of the human race and consequently the fundamental equality of all human beings and all peoples.”
...

Source: Racism: Awake!—2014

One Human Race: Awake!—1977

SURELY there is a variety of peoples on earth, with strikingly different physical features. Do you view them all as belonging to one human race, as persons to be accepted on their individual merit?
...
Really One Family?

Some people even distort the Bible, and try to show that it teaches “that the Negro, the lower apes and the quadrupeds, all belong to ‘one kind of flesh,’ the ‘flesh of beasts.”’ Professor Charles Carroll made this assertion in his book “The Negro a Beast” or “in the Image of God,” which received wide distribution in the early twentieth century. On the other hand, some evolutionists say that blacks are ‘a lower race of the human species.’

But some blacks argue in an altogether different way. The book Black Nationalism​—A Search for an Identity in America says: “The Caucasians were not the original inhabitants of this earth, but were ‘grafted’ from the black people. . . . Contrasted with the Original Man (the so-called Negroes), the white is inferior physically and mentally. He is also weak because he was grafted from the black. He is the real ‘colored’ man, i.e., the deviant from the black color norm.”

What do the facts show? Are we really one human family? Is there any truth to the claims that we are not?

The Differences Superficial

Consider the flesh and blood. Some argue that it is different in blacks and whites. Yet The World Book Encyclopedia says: “Scientists state that cells which make up the human body are the same for all people. . . In the same way, a biologist can tell human blood from that of lower animals. But all the many types of human blood can be found among all the stocks and races of mankind.”

Much has been written about the differences in body structure of blacks and whites. But what are the facts? Anthropologist Ashley Montagu writes: “A close anatomical study seems to show that the physical differences are confined to quite superficial characters. I may best emphasize this by saying that if the body of a Negro were to be deprived of all superficial features such as skin, hair, nose and lips, I do not think that any anatomist could say for certain, in an isolated case, whether he was dealing with the body of a Negro or a European.”

Brain size is also pointed to as evidence of a basic difference between whites and blacks. It is claimed that, on the average, the brains of blacks are slightly smaller than those of whites. Yet, even if this were true, normal variations in brain size evidently do not affect intelligence. If they did, whites would be less intelligent than Eskimos and American Indians who, on the average, have larger brains.[whereislogic: see my previous comment]

To emphasize that the races are fundamentally alike, Professor Bentley Glass, in his book Genes and the Man, writes: “In all, it is unlikely that there are many more than six pairs of genes in which the white race differs characteristically, in the lay sense, from the black. Whites or blacks, however, unquestionably often differ among themselves by a larger number than this, a fact which reveals our racial prejudices as biologically absurd. . . . The chasm between human races and peoples, where it exists, is psychological and sociological; it is not genetic!”

Noteworthily, the recent book Heredity and Humans, by science writer Amram Scheinfeld, says: “Science now corroborates what most great religions have long been preaching: Human beings of all races are . . . descended from the same first man.”

Since this is true, then what accounts for observable racial differences, such as skin color and texture of hair?

Why Racial Differences
...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Who decides what Hominidae is and why they are Hominidae, whats the criteria

The criteria includes things like a brain larger than other primates of equal body mass, distinctive molars that exhibit what we refer to as a Y5 pattern (5 bumps or curls arranged in a Y pattern), distinctive shoulder/arm patter that allows the arm to freely rotate around the shoulder, rib cage showing a wide, shallow chest, an appendix and no tail.

Some one is telling me what I have to believe, because its a boffin I am expected to just accept it

Nobody is telling you what to believe. I was merely defining the proper taxonomy. Arguing against it is like having issues with how words in a dictionary are defined. People are telling you what those mean everyday and here you are from half way around the world using thst very language where you have been taught and told what the rules of its grammar consist of.

The earth is flat, best I believe it because someone told me

Certainly your prerogative but to come to thst conclusion ignores a whole lot of evidence. Ironically, there's more evidence supporting evolution than the earth being an oblate sphere or even gravity.

Hominidae, just another one of those enforced faith/religious beliefs of the pseudo scientist

You're certainly welcome to obtain a degree in anthropology or evolutionary biology and offer up your own alternative hypothesis with evidence of such.