Nephilim and Gigantopithecus blackii

YES!!! :joy:

That speculation is not consistent with what she was saying. I doubt anyone thinks G. Blackii are nephilim, and that she was just playing with an idea that she does not think is likely.

Edit: I stand corrected. She apparently wonders if it is human too…I don’t think that’s defensible.

1 Like

Jesus’ words were ‘angels in heaven’. You cannot ignore that. Don’t take his words out of context. This was not a statement in any way referencing fallen angels who disobey.

Yes, I agree with you! Lol.

I don’t think you’ll find any scientist, YEC or otherwise, who would be willing to say that gigantopithecus was human. If I’m wrong, I’d be happy to look at a source.

Then that means this verse has nothing to do with whether the sons of God in Gen 6 were angels. I believe the more consistent interpretation is that they were angels. The text doesn’t support the idea that there was a ‘godly line’ or an ‘ungodly line’, or that such a description would be used of them. Even godly men are still men. Contrasting them with ‘daughters of men’ implies they were not sons of men (but rather, as the text says, sons of God).

1 Like

Did you watch the YouTube video I linked? It explains the evidence whether the mandibles show they were bipedal or not. Scientists did think they could be hominins decades ago. So I’ll see if I can find anything from that era.

But God says we will be co-rulers with Him. We will rule angels. There’s lots of evidence throughout the Bible of God having a special relationship with rulers. We receive his inheritance. We are sons.

I’m suggesting the contrast is just to show that Nephilim came from the women - how would you explain genetics practically without modern knowledge? You’d probably emphasize a hybrid. The point in my thread was that everyone thinks this text is talking about a hybrid. So why not think of it in genetic terms and how the text describes violence in the earth and polygamy as being gross sins?

@PDPrice oh and notice that the native American stories that I linked believe the giants were from the line of Cain! i.e. not Seth.

The key phrase there is ‘will be’. I take that literally, and I am definitely not ruling the world right now. But that gets into an eschatology debate.

I just don’t see anything in the text that matches up with this interpretation, and I think it’s basically way beyond the scope of possibility to suggest the gigant. was human.

I very much agree with @PDPrice here.

I should not have used the word “will be”

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba,[e] Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

As you know. ogres have a particular affinity for being told they are wrong, perhaps even stupid. @John_Harshman @tim Unlike trolls who only seek to provoke and annoy, ogres are a different species. An ogre’s fumbling attempts at intelligence lead others to assume she must be prey and they engage the ogre. They wish to tell the ogre her notions about science, themselves, and the Bible are fundamentally wrong. But this is the ogre’s trap because engagement is her goal. Once she has others in her trap of engagement, she attempts to smash any long-held ideas that may be false. The ogre lets others out of her trap once they concede smashing may be helpful to them. Ogres are rarely seen in the wild. They especially enjoy the company of other ogres and odd ducks. Their method of combining helpless stupidity and smart helpfulness may become so popular that “ogring” will enter the lexicon in a few years.

Well I share the ogre’s appetite for engagement :slight_smile: .

Do you share the ogre’s expressed appetite for engaging by purposely misunderstanding and misstating what others have said? The desire to sow chaos is positively Trumpian.

2 Likes

@PDPrice

First, it’s possible ancient orangutan and ancient human gigantopethicus teeth could be getting mixed up so the earlier article I gave out doesn’t have to be bad science for gigantopethicus to be human. They could just be working with the wrong tooth.

Confirmed Gigantopithecus remains have since been found in 16 different sites across southern China. The northernmost sites are Longgupo and Longgudong, just south of the Yangtze River, and southernmost on Hainan Island in the South China Sea. An isolated canine from Thẩm Khuyên Cave, Vietnam, and a fourth premolar from Pha Bong, Thailand, could possibly be assigned to Gigantopithecus , though these could also represent the extinct orangutan Pongo weidenreichi .[2] Two mandibular fragments each preserving the last 2 molars from Semono in Central Java, Indonesia, described in 2016 could represent Gigantopithecus .[6]

Wikipedia was where I found the sentence about some scientists thinking the teeth were possibly human. But there are no sources listed for the debate.

In 1952, von Koenigswald agreed that Gigantopithecus was a hominin, but believed it was an offshoot rather than a human ancestor.[10] Much debate followed whether Gigantopithecus was a hominin or not for the next 3 decades until several early African hominins were discovered, placing humanity’s origins in Africa instead of Asia.

Here is von Koenigswald’s paper.

“Gigantopithecus blacki von Koenigswald is known from four molars bought in Chinese drugstores in Hong Kong and Canton. These represent four individuals from at least two different localities. In addition four other teeth (two last lower premolars, one upper median incisor, and one upper canine) can tentatively be referred to the same species. The molars are the largest known of any higher primate. In pattern they come close to man, but in the degree of hypsodontism they bypass even modern man. Gigantopithecus might be regarded, with reservation, as a gigantic member of the human group (the tendency towards hypsodonty has not been observed in anthropoids), but as a certain degree of overspecialization is already observable in the molars, he cannot be regarded as ancestral to man. The same conclusion is reached on the basis of geological observations. The Ailuropoda-orang fauna of southern China, of which Gigantopithecus is a member, belongs to the (early) Middle Pleistocene. Within this fauna there already existed a hominid of ordinary size, Sinanthropus officinalis von Koenigswald, a form contemporary with Sinanthropus pekinensis Black of North China”–P. 323.

Ah, that’s the trap. The ogre does not misunderstand, nor does the ogre desire to sow chaos. The ogre desires to engage.

The ogre has become comfortable with chaos though being married to a person with high-functioning autism similar to, but also different than, Trump. An ogre likes puzzles. :joy:

I do not have a problem with it. Many times I like to take the approach first, of belief when dealing with these kinds of finds, then later, as more information comes in, I can either refine my beliefs and solidify them or discard them altogether. For this subject matter, I find no harm in taking an initial stance of belief.

1 Like

You know. Let me add something here.YECs have for several decades now taken aboard so much of the science jargon and scientific skepticism that I wonder sometimes if the YEC boat is not sinking. I guess what I am saying is that they used to be far less skeptical in their approach.

For instance, I took my family 20 years ago to see the human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints at Glen Rose Texas. No one can take away that experience from me, or tell me I did not see what I know I saw. it was plain as print. But now you can’t get YECs even close to the Glen Rose human print subject. It did not take YECs long to kowtow to so-called ‘science’ that explained it away.

1 Like

That’s not my thing.

That’s awesome. Obviously that’s how I’ve been approaching things too. It’s on the table until evidence rules it out if the initial clues have any merit.As I was investigating Bigfoot last night a lot of the myths seem to be related to large footprints in the area (are they fossilized? I don’t know) but then the legend lives on locally. But I think it’s in our DNA. Literally. :joy: If you told me that when I started investigating Genesis I’d be looking up Sasquatch and how teeth and cavities evolved I wouldn’t have believed you. :laughing: