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:
2 The sons of God saw the beautiful women and took any they wanted as their wives. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years.”
4 In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times.

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/

KunleOshob:

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/

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.

thehomer:

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.

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.

KunleOshob:

The highlighted above derives from the theory of evolution which is still an unproven myth.

The theory of evolution is not a myth.

KunleOshob:

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.

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?

KunleOshob:

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.

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.

thehomer:

No they couldn't.

Other lines of evidence dispute this other than the Nephilim being mythical creatures.

like? what is the evidence that suggests that Nephilims are mythical creatures other than ur innuendos?

It is not clear whether this discovery was a giant. Just that it had large molars.

and what do the large molars suggest? would a small creature inherently have 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.

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.

thehomer:

The theory of evolution is not a myth.

really?

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:

The theory of evolution is not a myth.

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:

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/

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:

remember that biblical narrative supports a young earth which contradicts well known scientific myths about dating.

Jenwitemi:

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.

based on the above, are u given credence to the biblical creation account

noetic16:

like? what is the evidence that suggests that Nephilims are mythical creatures other than your innuendos?

Nephilim are supposed to be children of angels and angels are mythical creatures this makes their offspring also mythical.

noetic16:

and what do the large molars suggest? would a small creature inherently have large molars?

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:

1. lets ignore the dating difference. . .remember that biblical narrative supports a young earth which contradicts well known scientific myths about dating.

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:

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 your case.

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?

noetic16:

really?

Yes.

Jenwitemi:

Of course it is a myth! That is why it has remained a theory!

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:

This homer sef. Your own case is as bad as the religionists. You now want to sell theories to us as established facts?

How is it that bad?
Evolution is a theory and a fact just as much as gravity and plate tectonics are theories and fact.

Jenwitemi:

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.

If giant hominids ever did exist that would be news. You have a grudge against the Smithsonian it seems.

Jenwitemi:

That there were giants who once populated the earth is already a slam dunk.

No it isn't.

Jenwitemi:

The biblical narrative does not support a young earth, please.

really? are we reading the same bible?

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.

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?

thehomer:

Nephilim are supposed to be children of angels and angels are mythical creatures this makes their offspring also mythical.

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.

Did you read the article?

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.
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?

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"

As an aside, do you really think that this fossil find is actually a confirmation of Nephilim on earth?

Nope. I am just in awe of how u gullibly dismiss new findings because of ur deep hatred for God.

noetic16:

please separate your bias from known facts . . .do u have any reasonably plausible evidence to suggest that Nephilim are mythical creatures? I am interested in seeing your evidence.

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:

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.

What fact did I twist? The plausible scientific explanation is Nephilim  ? It seems you do not understand scientific principles.

This is from the article.

New Humans Had Huge Teeth

Along with the finger bone, archaeologists from the Russian Academy of Sciences, who excavated the site, discovered a single tooth that belonged to a Denisovan adult.

The tooth, a molar, is bigger than any modern human tooth and is even bigger than the biggest Neanderthal tooth. This could suggest Denisovans were "comparable in size to Neanderthals, maybe a little bit bigger," said George Washington University's Richmond.

Richmond cautioned, however, that tooth size isn't always a good indicator of body size. A hominin "can have big teeth and not be a giant," he said.

It seems you also need to understand how to read articles in their context.

noetic16:

of course they are. where is your evidence that suggests that the earth is billions of years old?

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:

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?

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:

that should probably explain the Noah's case as well. last I checked the article did NOT mention any proven descendant of "Nephilim"

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:

Nope. I am just in awe of how u gullibly dismiss new findings because of your deep hatred for God.

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?

thehomer:

They seem to still have descendants despite the fact that Noah's flood was to have wiped them all out.

@^^: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.

aletheia:

@^^: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.

Unless the Nephilim were among the creatures that Noah packed unto his Tardis, sorry, I mean his ark, how can they still have descendants today?
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.

Unless the Nephilim were among the creatures that Noah packed unto his Tardis, sorry, I mean his ark, how can they still have descendants today?

Can't wait for the next season.

noetic16:

really? are we reading the same bible?

Yes. The same bible, but different interpretations, obviously.

noetic16:

what interpretations? how many years is the genealogy from Adam to Christ?
lets exclude all other assumptions . . . . .how old does your bible suggest the earth is?

You must be joking. You calculated the age of planet earth via genealogies? Wow! Aren't you even embarrassed?

Zodiac61:

Unless the Nephilim were among the creatures that Noah packed unto his Tardis, sorry, I mean his ark, how can they still have descendants today?

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.

thehomer:

If giant hominids ever did exist that would be news.

It would be news only to the uninformed.

thehomer:

You have a grudge against the Smithsonian it seems.

Don't be silly.

thehomer:

No it isn't.

It is. There are proofs like fossilized footprints and skeletal remains. Those cannot be refuted.

thehomer:

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.

What drudgery, this is? You are worse than the religionists.

toba:

based on the above, are u given credence to the biblical creation account

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.

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.

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.

What drudgery, this is? You are worse than the religionists.

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.

aletheia:

@^^: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.

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:

@Topic: There has always been scientific evidence.

A single foot print is not enough. Even Bigfoot has numerous foot prints.

Jenwitemi:

It would be news only to the uninformed.
Don't be silly.

Silly about what? You've railed against the Smithsonian before while giving some flimsy reason.

Jenwitemi:

It is. There are proofs like fossilized footprints and skeletal remains. Those cannot be refuted.

Just to be clear, we are talking about giant humans not just large organisms.

Jenwitemi:

What drudgery, this is? You are worse than the religionists.

Please see the second post by Idehn and follow the links that were placed.

aletheia:

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.

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.

^^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.

aletheia:

^^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 there are giants available now. In fact, some of them actually suffer from an illness known as gigantism.

aletheia:

And yes: I believe that the nephilim were the offspring of fallen angels.

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?