Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,320 members, 7,957,855 topics. Date: Tuesday, 24 September 2024 at 10:10 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? (4240 Views)
8 false Teachings by Churches And The Biblical Truths Concerning them. / Why There Can't Be Evidence For God / The Evidence For The Deity Of Christ. (2) (3) (4)
Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by KunleOshob(m): 9:37am On Dec 25, 2010 |
A previously unknown kind of human—the Denisovans—likely roamed Asia for thousands of years, probably interbreeding occasionally with humans like you and me, according to a new genetic study. Genesis 6:2-4: Could the giant Nephlites / sons of God be the same as the Denisovan man recently discovered by scientist? The denisovan man was also a giant specie. source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-new-human-species-dna-nature-science-evolution-fossil-finger/ |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 12:01pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
KunleOshob: No they couldn't. Other lines of evidence dispute this other than the Nephilim being mythical creatures. It is not clear whether this discovery was a giant. Just that it had large molars. The split from neanderthal ancestors occurred about 350,000 years ago which is far before the Noah incident. They seem to still have descendants despite the fact that Noah's flood was to have wiped them all out. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by KunleOshob(m): 12:07pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
thehomer: The highlighted above derives from the theory of evolution which is still an unproven myth. Science is just finally discovering what has been in the bible for eons that there were other species of humans that our ancestors could interbreed with. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 12:22pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
KunleOshob: The theory of evolution is not a myth. KunleOshob: Is this what you discovered from your bible? How many species of humans did God create? For how long have humans been on the earth? Nephilim were supposed to have been wiped out during Noah's flood so why do they still have descendants? |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by toneyb: 12:24pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
KunleOshob: Some scientist have made that claim very long time ago, some of them believe that humans have mated with the neanderthals long time ago. You clearly seem to be burying your head in the sand here because the study does not come any where close to what is written in the bible at all. It is not even clear if the discovery is a giant or not. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by noetic16(m): 4:40pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
thehomer: like? what is the evidence that suggests that Nephilims are mythical creatures other than ur innuendos?
and what do the large molars suggest? would a small creature inherently have large molars?
1. lets ignore the dating difference. . .remember that biblical narrative supports a young earth which contradicts well known scientific myths about dating. 2. your descendants argument is rather lame. is Noah an Asian? why then are there still Asians in existence today? the point is human genetic diversity still has a common denominator which can be traced to black Africa. hence the case for existing ancestors of any specie is not necessarily a strong one in making ur case. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by noetic16(m): 4:41pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
thehomer: really? |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Jenwitemi(m): 6:55pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
Of course it is a myth! That is why it has remained a theory! This homer sef. Your own case is as bad as the religionists. You now want to sell theories to us as established facts? thehomer: |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Jenwitemi(m): 6:59pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
Every mythology the world over confirm the previous existence of giants. Skeletons have been found of these races only to be hijacked by that sinister institute called the smithsonian institute. This one is not even news any longer. That there were giants who once populated the earth is already a slam dunk. KunleOshob: |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Jenwitemi(m): 7:09pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
The biblical narrative does not support a young earth, please. It is upon the interpretations of the texts, which are false, that these claims are based. The biblical creation narrative indicates a new beginning of a new cycle of life on earth after a global cataclysm. These cycles have happened many times in the past after similar cataclysms, after which life on the planet have always had to be rebooted, meaning the beginning of a new cycle. It does not mean that the planet is 6000 or so years old. It is just so embarrassing to hear supposedly intelligent people making these preposterous claims. noetic16: |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Nobody: 7:27pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
Jenwitemi:based on the above, are u given credence to the biblical creation account |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 8:23pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
noetic16: Nephilim are supposed to be children of angels and angels are mythical creatures this makes their offspring also mythical. noetic16: Large molars may also suggest that they mostly ate plant products. Besides, it is quite difficult to estimate a feature such as height from a molar alone. Unless of course enough of the skeleton had been found. Did you note that the comparison of general body size was to that of neanderthals? And neanderthals were shorter than modern humans. Did you read the article? noetic16: We cannot ignore the dating difference because it is another crucial point in demonstrating the myth of biblical characters. Scientific dating methods are not myths. Where there is a conflict between scientific knowledge and Biblical revelations, the revelations are wrong. noetic16: What are you saying here? If Noah's flood was true, then these "nephilim" should not have extant descendants. How did you trace the human genetic line to Africa? What time period do you wish to assign this early occurrence of humans in Africa? As an aside, do you really think that this fossil find is actually a confirmation of Nephilim on earth? |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 8:24pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
noetic16: Yes. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 8:30pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
Jenwitemi: A scientific theory has a specific purpose. Evolution being called a scientific theory does not mean it is a guess or hypothesis. Its meaning is almost directly opposite to what it means in common English. Jenwitemi: How is it that bad? Evolution is a theory and a fact just as much as gravity and plate tectonics are theories and fact. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 8:33pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
Jenwitemi: If giant hominids ever did exist that would be news. You have a grudge against the Smithsonian it seems. Jenwitemi: No it isn't. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by noetic16(m): 9:10pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
Jenwitemi: really? are we reading the same bible?
what interpretations? how many years is the genealogy from Adam to Christ? lets exclude all other assumptions . . . . .how old does ur bible suggest the earth is? |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by noetic16(m): 9:26pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
thehomer: please separate ur bias from known facts . . .do u have any reasonably plausible evidence to suggest that Nephilim are mythical creatures? I am interested in seeing ur evidence. Large molars may also suggest that they mostly ate plant products. Besides, it is quite difficult to estimate a feature such as height from a molar alone. Unless of course enough of the skeleton had been found. Did you note that the comparison of general body size was to that of neanderthals? And neanderthals were shorter than modern humans. you twist facts when they suit you? the article clearly stated that the molar tooth is BIGGER than that of any known neanderthals. . .did u miss that part of the article? the only plausible scientific explanation of those huge molars is that they would be owned by Nephilim. how can a small sized mammal have such a huge molar?. . . .is that logical. if it is, then its an exception and not a norm. the norm would be that giants would have such molars because of their size. We cannot ignore the dating difference because it is another crucial point in demonstrating the myth of biblical characters. Scientific dating methods are not myths. Where there is a conflict between scientific knowledge and Biblical revelations, the revelations are wrong. of course they are. where is your evidence that suggests that the earth is billions of years old? What are you saying here? If Noah's flood was true, then these "nephilim" should not have extant descendants. you did not see the bigger picture. I assumed you subscribed to the popular scientific notion that the origin of human life can be traced back to Africa. if that is the case what plausible explanation is there for the diversification of human specie into white, blacks, reds and asians? that should probably explain the Noah's case as well. last I checked the article did NOT mention any proven descendant of "Nephilim"
Nope. I am just in awe of how u gullibly dismiss new findings because of ur deep hatred for God. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 10:26pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
noetic16: What part of my reply did you not understand? I said angels (their fathers) are mythical creatures therefore, their offspring too are mythical creatures in the same way as Zeus being a mythical creature implies that Heracles too was a mythical being. noetic16: What fact did I twist? The plausible scientific explanation is Nephilim ? It seems you do not understand scientific principles. This is from the article.
It seems you also need to understand how to read articles in their context. noetic16: There are several lines of evidence for the age of the earth but that is not in question here. The fact of the matter is that it is demonstrated that the finds were more than 6,000 years old. noetic16: This is an attempted evasion. I asked you about the time period of this movement out of Africa or do you disagree with this migration out of Africa? noetic16: No. Noah's case was too recent to explain the diverse physical characteristics of humans from 4 pairs of individuals within 6,000 years or less. The article said nothing about nephilim at all but the OP did. Your responses seemed to indicate that you agreed with him. noetic16: Wow. What findings did I dismiss? You don't seem to realize that the OP claimed the find as evidence for nephilim I did not. Hatred for God? Here let me ask you do you hate Sauron? How about Quetzalcoatl? |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by aletheia(m): 10:50pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
thehomer:@^^:The Bible did not say that the Flood wiped out all Nephilim. The Flood only destroyed the Nephilim that were alive in the time of Noah. @Topic: There has always been scientific evidence. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Zodiac61(m): 11:13pm On Dec 25, 2010 |
aletheia:Unless the Nephilim were among the creatures that Noah packed unto his I thought that the purpose of the flood was to destroy all living things save those god decided to save through Noah. I tell you, this biblical logic defeats me all the time. As for The Theory of Evolution being a myth despite all the evidence in support, I guess if God (unproven, unprovable and, most likely, non-existent) says it is a myth, it must be a myth. The little minds of the religious never fail to amaze. No doubt the pseudo science of the heroes of creationism, Ken Ham, Behe and the rest of them would soon be peer reviewed by real scientists, and not pastors and people who speak directly to god. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Nobody: 12:13am On Dec 26, 2010 |
Unless the Nephilim were among the creatures that Noah packed unto hisCan't wait for the next season. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Jenwitemi(m): 12:19am On Dec 26, 2010 |
noetic16:Yes. The same bible, but different interpretations, obviously. noetic16:You must be joking. You calculated the age of planet earth via genealogies? Wow! Aren't you even embarrassed? |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by aletheia(m): 12:29am On Dec 26, 2010 |
Zodiac61:I can see you are a Doctor Who fan. Please read the Bible carefully. You will see that my statement is in line with the Biblical account. You didn't connect all the dots. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4) I believe your logical mind missed those four words. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Jenwitemi(m): 12:33am On Dec 26, 2010 |
thehomer:It would be news only to the uninformed. thehomer:Don't be silly. thehomer:It is. There are proofs like fossilized footprints and skeletal remains. Those cannot be refuted. thehomer:What drudgery, this is? You are worse than the religionists. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Jenwitemi(m): 12:42am On Dec 26, 2010 |
toba:The biblical creation account is in the realm of mythology and legend and there are so many of those all around the world. The biblical account is simply one of them.Besides, there are two creation accounts in the biblical account, so which one should one give credence to? I give credence to the cataclysmic event having happened. Archaeological findings have proven that. But, i do not give credence to the biblical folkloric tales that surround this cataclysm, though. The biblical Noah story i don't give credence to. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Jenwitemi(m): 12:54am On Dec 26, 2010 |
Moreover, who says that the only giants who ever walked this earth have to be these Nephilims? I believe that there were giants inhabiting this planet long long long before these nephilims even came along. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Nobody: 2:11am On Dec 26, 2010 |
It would be news only to the uninformed.I guess that includes the vast majority of Anthropologist then. A scientific theory has a specific purpose. Evolution being called a scientific theory does not mean it is a guess or hypothesis. Its meaning is almost directly opposite to what it means in common English.
It seems that every time there is a debate on nairaland about evolution/anthropology/paleontology, someone has to restate what is understood as a theory in scientific circles. Please,please, please read what is meant by theory in Science. Wikipedia would be a great start. I am not trying to offend you here, but it really does not mean what you think it does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory In fact it would not hurt to take look at what a law means in Scientific circles as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law The Theory of Relativity is not a myth. (GPS) The Theory of Quantum Electrodynamics is not a myth.(Computers) The Atomic Theory is not a myth. (Nuclear Reactors/Bombs) The Theory of Plate Tectonics not a myth.(Earth Quakes/Ocean Mineral Extraction ) The Germ Theory not a myth.(Medicine) The Theory of Evolution is not a myth(Medice/Biology). and countless others you make use of every day without even knowing are not mythology. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 8:09am On Dec 26, 2010 |
aletheia: Oh? So the nephilim came back after the flood? This means the flooding again demonstrates its ineffectiveness as a solution. But, do you agree that nephilim were the offspring of angels? aletheia: A single foot print is not enough. Even Bigfoot has numerous foot prints. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 8:19am On Dec 26, 2010 |
Jenwitemi: Silly about what? You've railed against the Smithsonian before while giving some flimsy reason. Jenwitemi: Just to be clear, we are talking about giant humans not just large organisms. Jenwitemi: Please see the second post by Idehn and follow the links that were placed. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by Zodiac61(m): 9:22am On Dec 26, 2010 |
aletheia:Like I said, the bible says it so it must be true. If only people like you consider all other religious myths in the same light. I have read the bible very carefully, far more times than is good for me. If any thing, the passage you place so much credence on just goes to show one of the many inconsistencies in the so called inerrant book. But I guess you have never noticed any inconsistencies. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by aletheia(m): 10:34am On Dec 26, 2010 |
^^There are other passages that talk of these giants elsewhere in the Bible. I hope you recall that Goliath wasn't the only giant mentioned in the Bible. And yes: I believe that the nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels. |
Re: Scientific Evidence For The Biblical Neplhim ? by thehomer: 1:07pm On Dec 26, 2010 |
aletheia: And there are giants available now. In fact, some of them actually suffer from an illness known as gigantism. aletheia: Then, I take it that you do not think angels are mythical creatures. So, can you describe an angel? What reasons do you have to believe that these angels are available? |
Illuminati Insignias In Tom And Jerry Cartoon. / Deep Knowledge Of Eartum, The Civilized Brother Of Yahweh / Apostle Babalola And His Wrong Choice Of A Wife: For Ministers (copied)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 104 |