Could Neanderthals have been the Nephilim?

multiple news accounts lately discuss how humans have traces of Neanderthal DNA in our systems.

geneticists list Neanderthals as 'human' but not Homo Sapiens.
it is very, very rare for a genetic group to be genetically compatible with another group. Lions and Tigers can barely breed; horses and donkeys can breed but the offspring is sterile; dogs can breed with wolves and coyotes but not foxes.
so Neanderthals and Humans (Homo Sapiens) are different but very very similar.

what does the Bible teach about the Nephilim?
The 'Sons of God' took human form and had relations with the daughters of men. many theorize that these 'Sons of God' were angels that took human form (dna), possibly to help us settle on the Earth after being exiled from Eden.

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?

a reply to: ElGoobero

Do not seek answers to biological evolutionary processes from the bible...seek it from scientific sources that are authoritative on the subject.

There's some handy charts out there for those like us who struggle to understand all the big words. They're quite informative

a reply to: ElGoobero

If you say Nephilim, you're referring to fallen angels from Abrahamic religion. Going by the story in Genesis, they couldn't be, not even close. That's not just a literal perspective but includes anything reasonably in the ballpark.

They were simply a close branch of our family so to speak. The Denisovans are too but throughout Asia. Is that why they're the only people with slanted eyes on the planet? The world may never know.

Here's a fun thought: The first half neanderthal half humans must've been accepted by human society willingly and even liked if they kept procreating to add their genes to the record.

originally posted by: ooder57
a reply to: ElGoobero

Do not seek answers to biological evolutionary processes from the bible...seek it from scientific sources that are authoritative on the subject.

There's some handy charts out there for those like us who struggle to understand all the big words. They're quite informative

science books have to be rewritten every few years. the Bible stands unchanging.

fwiw, isn't it quite a 'coincidence' that the Bible mentions human / not humans, and science comes along with Neanderthals (and Denisovians) that may be described as human / not human?

a reply to: ElGoobero

I think the idea makes sense. The flood would have to correspond with the general extinction of the Neanderthals so its' date would need to be much earlier than we believe now.

Yes.
They were not fallen Alien ( Angelic) Beings, but their offspring

Perhaps the neanderthals were the original humans and the cro-magnons were the nephilim? Makes more sense to me considering cro-magnons had much larger brains than we do today.

Well, if we are going by the bible God wiped em all out so how it relates to us today I cannot figure.

originally posted by: r0xor
a reply to:

Here's a fun thought: The first half neanderthal half humans must've been accepted by human society willingly and even liked if they kept procreating to add their genes to the record.

Always a thought I had....

We hate everything new and different my blue friends tell me. So, if we as humans hate change so much, and we were barbarian at the time, how did those who were different ever survive....why not sacrificed on an alter to what ever diety they served to keep the world from the freaks?

That is what disproves evolution to me.

Thanks blue friends!😂😂😂

a reply to: ElGoobero

And that there is the problem.

Science is always proving itself wrong, and thus updates it's own understanding of the universe. (Although, this is usually adjustments more than it is completely rewriting what we know; amendments if you will).

The Bible stands unchanged, because it claims in and of itself to be perfect. Doesn't that one arrogant statement make you question it's credibility and validity? (Although, this is kind of untrue, given the thousands of variations of the bible over the last few thousand years).

I'm not bashing your personal spirituality, just your belief in that which has been proven fallible in the universe explanation arena.

As for the coincidence, it's not one. Human beings, us, used to compete for land and resources with Neanderthal and Denisovans hundreds of housands of years ago according to archaeological and biological interpretation. We modern humans defeated them so-to-speak, and thus their genus died off.

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.

It literally wasn't until the last few hundred years that we had the tools, the understanding and the intellectual drive to discover our ancient past.

So i guess, moses and all biblical authors can be forgiven for their ignorance.

originally posted by: ElGoobero
multiple news accounts lately discuss how humans have traces of Neanderthal DNA in our systems.

geneticists list Neanderthals as 'human' but not Homo Sapiens.
it is very, very rare for a genetic group to be genetically compatible with another group. Lions and Tigers can barely breed; horses and donkeys can breed but the offspring is sterile; dogs can breed with wolves and coyotes but not foxes.
so Neanderthals and Humans (Homo Sapiens) are different but very very similar.

what does the Bible teach about the Nephilim?
The 'Sons of God' took human form and had relations with the daughters of men. many theorize that these 'Sons of God' were angels that took human form (dna), possibly to help us settle on the Earth after being exiled from Eden.

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?

Assume Nephilim do exist or do not. What makes you think that we are different or separate etc in either case?

But everyone likes to play that game of hot and cold these days to make sure that our peers agree with us before we decide what we believe to be true. It cannot be simple...

A picture speaks a thousand words...

What evidence is there to say Neanderthals were not Homo Sapiens?
Are Pygmies Homo Sapiens?

There is a lot of speculation that Neanderthals are just a different race like the Tasmanian aboriginal, as human as me and you

a reply to: ElGoobero

Science rewrites its self based on the evidence that is strongest. Faith refuses to change. Which is more honenst? I say this as a religious (but not abrahamic) individual who works in the sciences.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The sequencing of genomes of neanderthals, when compared to Homo Sapiens are quite distinctly different species. There is no speculation about "different races" in sciene, race is as social construct.

my DNA scandanavian Scottish Spainish with no Neandathal but I look Neandathal so DNA testing is misleading

originally posted by: ooder57
a reply to: ElGoobero

Do not seek answers to biological evolutionary processes from the bible...seek it from scientific sources that are authoritative on the subject.

There's some handy charts out there for those like us who struggle to understand all the big words. They're quite informative

HMmmmmmm,
www.theguardian.com...

You see there are a vast number of argument's against your own religion but let's not get into that.

Evolution, a theory invented and derived from the work's of Charles Darwin an English gentlemen - bit balding in later life whom many love even to this day to depict as a humanzee, probably would have had his hair in one of those awful embarrassing comb over styles if he was around today.

He looked at how species can adapt to niche roles in the ecosystem and imagined that this very process of adaption over time could explain all the various form's of life we have upon the earth today were in his theory all life began as a single species long ago and then branched out to take advantage of the many favorable roles available to it, his test bed for his theory was the small area of the Galapagos Island's.

Life does adapt but evolution does NOT explain the plethora of form's of life we have today or even come close to explaining the three kingdom's - animal, plant and fungi and there is a very, exceedingly good argument that the theory of evolution break's many other scientific theory's and is literally like water flowing uphill but any reasonable person can accept that Some evolution - i.e. adaptation does take place and that this does give rise to new sub species and eventually species.

Neanderthal or Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis were a sub species of human's (El Goobero they were a branch of Homo Sapien so were actually homo sapien but not CROMAGNON which is the main ancestor of modern human's according to evolutionary anthropological theory),
en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Sapiens_neanderthal_comparison.jpg

But the case is not rock solid as to the theory of evolution though it is very well thought out, rather it is a jig saw of odd old bone's that don't quite match were an observer argues that since this bone look's a little like that one and is older than that one it must be an ancestor.
i.pinimg.com...

When in actuality what you really have is different species and sub species, the remain's of individuals whom are most likely not even relatives whose bone's have been found around the world and then arranged in a neat pattern as if to demonstrate a clean progression from one species to another.

Some of these have actually had to be thrown out with the advent of genetic analysis and many formerly believed to be human ancestors are now regarded as merely extinct apes.

Evolution remain's a theory, it is supported but not proven beyond all reasonable doubt by the evidence but it is accepted by the peer grouping that rules most of the scientific establishment - not by all but by the bulk of them and these guy's are the high priests of the science believers (I shall draw a distinction between science believers whom are modern religious grouping's that have science as there religion and actual scientists they are not the same thing).

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

The sequencing of genomes of neanderthals, when compared to Homo Sapiens are quite distinctly different species. There is no speculation about "different races" in sciene, race is as social construct.

I hope you are not offended I dont take your word on that
Distinctly? They interbred with humans, had offspring, breedable offspring
As opposed to what exactly? Non distinctly, non breedable
There was interbreeding, they were not apes or monkeys....

No speculation as to a different race, race is a social construct, are pygmies different, have different sequencing of genomes? They do have different genomes www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Do you not comprehend when reading, when I say race I mean race.
Neanderthal interbred, making them human, pygmies can interbreed and they are different but human, they are sapien sapien or are pygmies not sapien sapien?

Or maybe pygmies are sub human because they are not what you accept as Homo sapien sapien and have a different genome sequence?

So tell me Noindie, what is the ideal sequence of any archetype genome, who decides whats the archetype in this situation?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: ElGoobero

Science rewrites its self based on the evidence that is strongest. Faith refuses to change. Which is more honenst? I say this as a religious (but not abrahamic) individual who works in the sciences.

You say that faith doesnt change, I once had faith in evolution, i changed that to faith in God/ creation when I noted no scientific evidence for evolution
Faith does change

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

The sequencing of genomes of neanderthals, when compared to Homo Sapiens are quite distinctly different species. There is no speculation about "different races" in sciene, race is as social construct.

And race is not just a social construct
Call yourself a scientist?






I keep forgetting you are from New Zealand, I will try and remember that...

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: r0xor
a reply to:

Here's a fun thought: The first half neanderthal half humans must've been accepted by human society willingly and even liked if they kept procreating to add their genes to the record.

Always a thought I had....

We hate everything new and different my blue friends tell me. So, if we as humans hate change so much, and we were barbarian at the time, how did those who were different ever survive....why not sacrificed on an alter to what ever diety they served to keep the world from the freaks?

That is what disproves evolution to me.

Thanks blue friends!😂😂😂

It must've been the "women" only for breeding because we know how alot of guys are even if they wont admit it or deny it. It makes perfect sense infact. I'm not blue, I'm purple but you're welcome? I didn't know red and blue politics have infected talks with friends about banging neanderthals lol

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

The sequencing of genomes of neanderthals, when compared to Homo Sapiens are quite distinctly different species. There is no speculation about "different races" in sciene, race is as social construct.

And race is not just a social construct
Call yourself a scientist?

I keep forgetting you are from New Zealand, I will try and remember that...

You should really look into whos videos you post before pressing reply bro...