Could Neanderthals have been the Nephilim?

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: whereislogic

I believe in the existence of race so therefore, I am a racist and a nazi. Is that your point?

No, and I would think that would be obvious from the definition for racism given in the first article I quoted from. Which is clearly not describing someone merely believing in the existence of race(s). It even starts with saying:

Sadly, many view certain races as inferior.

Acknowledging that there are "certain races". As is done in the last article further towards the end where it says:

To emphasize that the races are fundamentally alike, Professor Bentley Glass, in his book Genes and the Man, writes:

Again, acknowledging that there are "races" of mankind. As is done in this quotation:

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.”

Perhaps you've been debating too much on the political forums, no need to be so defensive. There were no accusations or implications whatsoever of racism towards you in my comment. The concept of racism would only apply to you if you are someone who believes "that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." As per the definition given for racism at the start of my comment. And even then, there is no accusation, no smearing, no rudeness (there is no suggestion of any kind in my comment that this applies to you). Just the relevant facts about racism and races regarding those points described in that definition. People can decide for themselves whether that definition applies to them or not, they don't need my help for that. And neither have I offered to do that for anyone here, or done it for anyone here in the comment you were responding to.

I hope that settles whether or not I'm being rude or attempting to smear you for merely sharing some historical and scientific information about racism that perhaps you didn't want to hear, or causes you to want to discredit or argue against my comment (or character) for some other purpose, reason or motivation. The pot calling the kettle black being a favorite passtime on these forums after all.

Coming back to what you said:

I believe in the existence of race so therefore, I am a racist and a nazi. Is that your point?

Now since it seems so obvious to me that that was not my point, nor that anyone could honestly read that into my comment, the question I wonder is: Why?

Why is there a need to read something like that into my comment? Making me think back to what I just said about 'causing you to want to discredit or argue against my comment (or character)'. I guess sometimes* it's just hard not to make up supposed points that are ridiculous enough for the purpose of ridicule and smearing or painting someone as being entirely unreasonable and eager to call someone a Nazi (or trying to fit someone into that box for themselves, for easier dismissal, actually I think that's more likely and/or common in these scenarios than the smearing paintjob+ridicule which terms imply that it's more for others to see someone that way and put them into that box; it seems to happen a lot in debates between Democrats and Republicans when either dares to just mention Nazis regardless if any implications towards the other side are attached to it). *: For example when there is nothing in the comment to pound on (so I guess now you have more potential material to work on, twist the points or invent entirely new ones and 'do your thing' on; or express being offended by, allthough I do not recommend it because I see no positive benefits from it and I will continue to doubt whether you're actually offended or whether you just want to paint my comment as unreasonably offensive to discredit anything else I might say, such as the comment about Neanderthals in this thread. Either for yourself or for others as explained before, or to get that feeling of 'winning a debate' when a debate was never the intention of my comment or this comment for that matter).

Besides, I deem it common courtesy not to make up stuff about what someone else is supposedly saying (or making points about, especially in that fashion, as if it's no accident because it's so plain that it's just not there), or reading it into their commentary, for any of those potential purposes or motivations; can't think of a justifiable reason, purpose or motivation anyway if one considers that it's not very conducive for an open honest and rational conversation about anything. And the disdain that it demonstrates also underscores that and is not that pleasant to address first, to put it lightly (cause it's likely to lead to more pot calling the kettle black behaviour, a vicious circle, but without addressing that disdain, the door to an open honest and rational conversation remains closed and locked from your end).

Btw, because I mentioned the comment about Neanderthals in this comment, there is a relation between the comment you were responding to and my comment about Neanderthals that I bolded toward the end. A bit more about that (not Neanderthals per sé) is discussed in the video below towards the end (which precedes the video I shared earlier at the end of the comment you responded to, the most relevant stuff after 13 minutes or so):

a reply to: Seede

That may be the account accepted by Ezra but the regular Bible suggests that Cain and Abel were twins.

a reply to: whereislogic

OK. Let's stay friends.

a reply to: Seede

Darwin was a Christian neighbour. Einstein a Jew, etc.

Your view of faith is limited.

its easier for me. My pagan faith, is not a creationist one.

a reply to: toms54

That may be the account accepted by Ezra but the regular Bible suggests that Cain and Abel were twins.

Oral Torah Anthology is written by Me’Am Lo’ez [1689-1732] and tells us in Genesis 4:1,2 that –----
Quote
Adam was intimate with Eve, and she gave birth to two sons and three daughters. [Cain had one twin sister, and Abel had two. This is derived from the untranslated preposition eth Cain…Again she gave birth, to eth his brother (eth) Abel. There is a tradition that the word Eth always comes to add something, and in this case, each time the word occurs, it implies the birth of a twin sister.]
Unquote

So in this case you are free to voice your opinion as to either tradition in oral Torah or Ezra in his accepted accounts or the Genesis accounts of most English bibles. In most rabbinic studies Ezra is the most accepted because if Cain and Able were twins then Eve would have had to carry either four or five children in one conception and in her first pregnancy to satisfy the Ezra and Lo’ez accounts. The Genesis account is not clear as to the female twins or triplets but oral Torah is regarded as valid as written Torah in Orthodoxy.

The oral Torah does cite that “Cain had one twin sister and Abel had two” My understanding is that this implies that there were two conceptions of which Cain was one with one sister and Abel was another with a possibility [ through tradition] of two sisters. The Genesis account gives no indication of any sort of twins. Oral Torah gives no twins names such as does Ezra. I can only give my own opinion and that would be the Ezra account because it is the most complete along with the Genesis account which is not wrong but not as detailed as Ezra. Oral Torah give a true account with a tradition of assumption thrown in which I really do not accept. You have to read carefully that oral Torah tells us that the word "eth" is untranslated and is a traditional opinion meaning that Eth is not in the translated MSS of Genesis. That leads me back to Ezra.

a reply to: Seede

Hmm, I see.

This is why in my first post on this thread I said "I wish I knew Hebrew".


I have seen when discussing the first two chapter of Genesis (KJV), that chapter one told of the creation and the second was an overview of the life of Adam after he was created.


However, it reads like:

Chapter 1:
7 days of creation, man created on the 6th day. Male and female and told to "go forth, multiply and replenish the earth".
Chapter 2:
Tells of Adam and Eve and their experience in Eden.

To me it seems as if Eden was created AFTER God rested on the seventh day. Adam and Eve were set aside in Eden (eighth day?), while other "people" roamed the earth (6th day creations)......

a reply to: Seede

So are you saying that Ezra 4 is part of the Masoretic Text? Because that's the Ezra you quoted. I admit to not being familiar with these oral traditions. I don't study Talmud or any Kabbala and don't regard them as Christian Canon. That doesn't mean I don't think they reflect Jewish tradition or that I reject all other writings, just that I am unlikely to throw away something I've understood all of my life in favor of something I'm not familiar with. Is Ezra 4 the same as Esdras 2? If it is then I did read it some years ago but don't really remember it too well.

Just because an account seems more complete doesn't convince me of anything. It could be that it was written later than an authentic account and contains rationalizations. I may look into the Eth matter later when I have more time.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I like the 8th day idea myself.

a reply to: Quadrivium

This is why in my first post on this thread I said "I wish I knew Hebrew".

Even in reading writing and talking biblical Hebrew will not give all answers to their books. I do try to stay with oral and written Torah taught together as that is the proper way to understand Torah. But even then I get confused because the same Torah scholars will accept other literature to teach Torah such as 2 and 4 Ezra. Most all people will not use oral Torah along with written Torah but both were given to Moshe to be learned as one.

Our problem comes from the evils of men when they war and destroy ancient literature in hopes of erasing their enemy. A good example would be that of the Hebrew MSS that were used to translate the Hebrew Torah to Greek in 300 to 200 BC. Those MSS are gone forever and is a shame that they were destroyed.


That would solve many problems if we could simply refer to the autographs and then see how the authors actually wrote their books and letters. Even the Aleppo Masoretic MSS were destroyed that were used in the KJV of 1611 by Muslim hatred. This actually leaves us with only a small portion of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

a reply to: Seede

You probably could author an entire thread just about that.

NO! Neanderthals Are Not The Nephilim...
Thread Over!

a reply to: Pinocchio

Yeah several of us tried this... as you can see it does not get through to them.

a reply to: Noinden

It's just business as usual around here most days. I always enjoy the irony of someone who hasn't studied the topic outside of what their faith informs them on yet people like you and I are mocked as the fundamentalists despite merely following the evidence. Oh wait... I forgot. Nothing to see here, there's no evidence.

a reply to: Quadrivium

To me it seems as if Eden was created AFTER God rested on the seventh day. Adam and Eve were set aside in Eden (eighth day?), while other "people" roamed the earth (6th day creations)......

In the account offered by Ezra in Adam V'Chuah Ri'shon it is written --

Quote
On the third day, Elohiym planted the garden in the east of the earth, on the border of the world eastward, beyond which, towards the sun rising, one finds nothing but water, that encompasses the whole world, and reaches to the borders of heaven. And to the north of the garden there is a sea of water, clear and pure to the taste, unlike anything else; so that through the clearness thereof, one may look into the depths of the earth.
Unquote

This requires a lengthy study of the Genesis account and will try to condense it as much as possible.

In this account Ezra is referencing heaven as the space created that we refer to as our atmosphere or the Creator's firmament. When looking out to sea, one will see a vast expanse of water which eventually but seemingly blends into heaven. On this third light [era of creation] is when the Creator planted Gan Eden. Even though the artificial light [sun] was placed in the universe on the fourth light [day] this is not to be mistaken what Ezra is describing here as to the third day.

On this third day of Creation there was no direction because there was no sun placed to give us the artificial light. All creation had was the creative light of the Creator. There was no man to describe it to. Ezra is showing us that as we stand here in a finished creation, we may understand what it was in this third day of unfinished creation with no sun or heavenly host to give us direction.

On this third day of creation the waters which were left upon, or among, the earth were all gathered into one great body of pure uncontaminated water. This left the world as one great body of land and one great body of pure water before the expansion of the world by the flood of Noah. The sea of water was not salty because there was no rain to wash the earth of its salts and other minerals to contaminate the water. During this antediluvian period the world was engulfed in a canopy [greenhouse] of water which was above this first heaven called the firmament. At this point the land was watered by a mist from the earth. There were no rivers because there was no rain to have need for rivers.

This then is somewhat a picture of that time in the third era of creation. One other thing to be aware of is that in this era of creation when the Creator planted the garden may not be the time that the Gan Eden was finished. There is much discussion as to when the Gan Eden was finished but nothing clear in the Genesis understanding.
-------------------
Ezra is not in the Aleppo codex [Masoretic text] but is originally written by Ezra and found in the Ethiopian bible which is the oldest bible in the world as of today. It is accepted as accurate Hebrew literature.

a reply to: ElGoobero


I had similar thought and notions as I went through 9th-12 grades...

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?

I bet a dollar-to-a-donut... that the ancient creators of early religions, especially the middle east religions...
used the cousins of 'men' as their model or prototype/mythic persona which ultimately became the 'fallen Angels' in our collective myths-of-religion...


I also used the Neanderthal extinction as the basis for the Cain-&-Abel murder Saga


the ancient Oral Traditions was the means of passing info from around 12,000bce to near 5,000bce then the writing scribes codified the 'word-of-god' into holy writ from those old sagas



good opening of your mind exercise OP
there are lots of articles on ancient villages of Neanderthals spread all over the present day 'Levant' or 'holy lands', even after all the the sparsely spread out northern Europe Neanderthal tribal communities were extinct... in the middle east there are ruins of Neanderthal communities spanning 60,000 years ago to as recent as 30,000 years ago...& probably even more recent ruins/caves have been discovered younger than 30k bce

do a search... it is interesting stuff

a reply to: ooder57

You won't find accurate accounts of these creatures in moses writings, because moses was ignorant to what came hundreds of thousands of years before him.

You are more than likely correct if you had used complete instead of accurate. Moses could not have known the complete accounts of the civilizations preceding him as they were exterminated prior to his civilization which started with Adam. Adam was sheltered in Gan Eden as the gods [angelic creatures] ruled the earth. The Sumerian kings list cuneiform's must also have some authority in this matter.

www.cnn.com...

Neanderthals may not have sported the barrel-chested bodies and hunched posture we see in museums and textbooks, according to a new study.

The first 3D virtual reconstruction of a Neanderthal ribcage has revealed that they had straighter spines and a greater lung capacity than modern humans. The findings about the Neanderthal, also spelled Neandertal, were published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications.

"Neandertals are closely related to us with complex cultural adaptations much like those of modern humans, but their physical form is different from us in important ways," said Patricia Kramer, corresponding study author and professor in the University of Washington department of anthropology. "Understanding their adaptations allows us to understand our own evolutionary path better."

interesting

The completed puzzle revealed that Neanderthal ribs connected to the spine more inwardly, which forces the chest cavity out and causes the spine to tilt back. The result is a spinal column that lacks the lumbar curve of modern humans...The researchers called this difference "striking." This skeletal structure not only provided Neanderthals with more stability, but allowed for a larger diaphragm and more lung capacity.

don't know if this signifies much but does make the point that they were upright.

The Neanderthals were simply the interbred offspring of the Edomites once Rome fell. So yes much more recent than you were made to believe.

Job made an account of them in scriptures.

Job 30:1 - 30:8

30 But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock.

2 Yea, whereto might the strength of their hands profit me, in whom old age was perished?

3 For want and famine they were solitary; fleeing into the wilderness in former time desolate and waste.

4 Who cut up mallows by the bushes, and juniper roots for their meat.

5 They were driven forth from among men, (they cried after them as after a thief; )

6 To dwell in the cliffs of the valleys, in caves of the earth, and in the rocks.

7 Among the bushes they brayed; under the nettles they were gathered together.

8 They were children of fools, yea, children of base men: they were viler than the earth.

Everyone likes primary research.

a reply to: whereislogic



Right?