Skip to comments.Ancient Humans Had Sex With A Mystery Species (Not Neanderthals Or Denisovans)
Posted on 12/05/2013 6:33:43 AM PST by blam
click here to read article
This book is the first book I have ever read which routinely cites Wikipedia and YouTube. Is this going to be a trend? It may tend to discredit his scholarship. His gratuitous (and often funny) criticisms of black people also tend to bring his serious thinking in to disrepute. For example in a discussion of prognathism he cites Mike Tyson biting a piece out of Evander Holyfield's ear. LOL.
Fuerle is a bit of a crank. The version of Out of Africa that he attacks is is also an extreme crank theory. Responsible scientists like Cavalli-Sforza don't actually believe that all modern attributes evolved in Africa. Fuerle attacks essentially a straw man.
Main stream anthropology currently believes that there was a migration out of Africa about one or two million years ago. This first migration is not controversial. The Out of Africa theory does not refer to this migration of Home Erectus but to a more recent second migration of Homo Sapiens that took place about 100,000 years ago. That there was some sort of migration of Africans or at least African genes is also not controversial because modern humans have gracile (tropical) bodies. Neanderthals had much more robust bodies. Almost everyone attributes the long legs and light skeletons that we have today to an infusion of genes from tropical Africa around 50,000 to 150,000 years ago.
However most main stream aanthropologists recognize that the tropical body of 100,000 years ago did not bring about a modern mind. Cavalli-Sforza refers to an another event of about 50,000 years ago in the Middle East when the true modern mind emerged. Cultural artifacts suddenly arose that were clearly different from any created before in either Europe or Africa. This is the mainstream viewpoint. Fuerle misrepresents current thinking. He creates a strawman that he can demolish.
Fuerle cites many studies and presents many theories. Most of the time he is correct but at least some of the time he is flat out wrong. His discussion of Toba and ice ages is very wrong. Even Al Gore has a better grip on paleoclimate than Fuerle.
Finally Fuerle is an anti-semite. To me this is evidence of a man who is consumed by political agendas not a man who is objective. He finishes his book with a number of virtually unreadable political chapters. Far from being sensible and well reasoned ideas that proceed logically from the material in the early chapters he virtually froths at the mouth.
Image: JOHN GURCHE PORTRAIT OF A PIONEER With a brain half the size of a modern one and a brow reminiscent of Homo habilis, this hominid is one of the most primitive members of our genus on record. Paleoartist John Gurche reconstructed this 1.75-million-year-old explorer from a nearly complete teenage H. erectus skull and associated mandible found in Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia. The background figures derive from two partial crania recovered at the site.
Image: EDWARD BELL AFRICAN EXODUS Hominids on the move: the Dmanisi finds establish that humans left Africa early--before 1.75 million years ago. Colonization of East Asia occurred by 1.1 million years ago, but hominids do not appear to have reached western Europe until far later. Perhaps carnivore competitors or inhospitable climate hindered early settling in that region.
They were created after their kind and they procreate after their kind. That's what makes a kind a kind--procreation is constrained within the kind. Your wild speculation is unfounded.
Besides, we have no clue what method might have been used to produce any potential hybrid offspring. For all we know, it may not have been physical reproduction at all.
You've been indulging in too much science fiction.
Angels in heaven don't marry...
You suggest that angels who are cast out of heaven can break, as it were , their vow of chastity and start procreating. First, all angels and Satan are still in heaven. They have not been cast out heaven yet. That doesn't happen until Revelation 12:9 which coincides with the start of the persecution (tribulation) of the saints. Consequently, any theories involving post-heaven angelic beings procreating with men are non starters, because they are still in heaven. Second, after they are cast out, they will endure for only a short while until they are bound in hell or cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20, Matthew 25:41).
The passage from Matthew 22:24-30 is specifically talking about "raising up seed" and states that angels do not raise up seed. Resurrected believers do not procreate because they will be like the angels of God when they (the resurrected believer) are in heaven. Fallen angels do not die like humans do and have an opportunity to be saved and resurrect. Fallen angels will spend eternity in the lake of fire which was made specifically for satan and his angels.(Matthew 25:41)
The Sons of God mated with the daughters of men and produced "mighty men of old, men of renown." It doesn't say they were giants. And if it had, it simply means they were very large men, not some new creature, for creation has ceased. God rested after day 6.
“They were created after their kind and they procreate after their kind. That’s what makes a kind a kind—procreation is constrained within the kind. Your wild speculation is unfounded.”
What wild speculation? The text says nothing about procreation being constrained, does it? Surely you can provide a citation for that, if it isn’t just your own “wild speculation”.
Also, while you are at it, see if you can find a verse mentioning these kinds and constraints in relation to men, or angels, since they are the ones seemingly involved in the potential union. Whatever animals or plants may be constrained to do doesn’t have a direct bearing on the question.
“You’ve been indulging in too much science fiction.”
If you automatically deem a non-physical, non-carnal act of reproduction “science fiction”, then I’m afraid you’ll have some issues with a major plot point in the New Testament.
“You suggest that angels who are cast out of heaven can break, as it were , their vow of chastity and start procreating.”
I suggest we don’t know whether or not, from the text, whether this is a prohibition intrinsic to their nature, or a command. If it’s intrinsic, then you could argue that there is no way they could. If it’s a commandment, then obviously disobedient angels might be able to disobey it.
“First, all angels and Satan are still in heaven. They have not been cast out heaven yet. That doesn’t happen until Revelation 12:9 which coincides with the start of the persecution (tribulation) of the saints.”
That’s one possible interpretation of things, but as it is a prophetic text, it can represent a future event, recount a past event, or even represent a long compound narrative stretching from the past to the future. There are all types of those prophecies in the Bible.
To me, it seems the final expulsion of Satan in that prophecy corresponds to the events of Revelation 9, with Satan as the star that falls from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit. If that is the case, it pinpoints his descent to Earth in the larger timeline of the tribulation, but it also reveals there are some demons or spirits who seem to have previously fallen from grace before Satan’s final rebellion. After all, they are already imprisoned in the bottomless pit when Satan arrives to free them.
Also, note that in Revelation 12:4, it says Satan drew down 1/3 of the stars, or angels from heaven, prior to the birth of Christ. The prophecy seems to describe two separate events, an initial rebellion, or fall of Satan and one third of the angels, and a subsequent war in heaven, at the end of which Satan and the angels are permanently banished to Earth. There are certainly plenty of other passages in the Bible supporting the fact that Satan and demons are free to walk the Earth at this time, and no solid indication that this wasn’t already the case in the time of Genesis.
“The passage from Matthew 22:24-30 is specifically talking about “raising up seed” and states that angels do not raise up seed.”
No, that is incorrect. The passage speaks of raising seed, because it was part of the Old Testament law that is being referenced by the Sadducees. It was the duty of brothers to marry such widows in order to give them children, and the Sadducees used that peculiar scenario, taken to the point of absurdity with seven brothers, to try and “stump” Jesus about the law and resurrection.
The key question is who the wife will “belong” to in heaven, since she had married all seven brothers, according to God’s law. Jesus cut the Gordian knot by revealing that, just like the angels in heaven, we will not marry. He never states that angels do not “raise seed”, or that they do “raise seed” for that matter.
“The Sons of God mated with the daughters of men and produced “mighty men of old, men of renown.” It doesn’t say they were giants.”
It calls them “nephilim” in the Hebrew. This is the same term used to describe the giant inhabitants of Canaan by the scouts in Numbers 13:33. It’s also used in that manner in quite a few apocryphal works, such as Enoch and Jubilees, which specifically tell of angels creating giants. The interpretation of nephilim as meaning giant, and the Sons of God being angels is the ancient, traditional interpretation of these verses, and not some innovation or personal speculation.
“And if it had, it simply means they were very large men, not some new creature, for creation has ceased. God rested after day 6.”
Well, yes, giants are very large men, but according to the Bible, at least when we read the descriptions of the post-flood giants, they are larger than any we see produced through normal human reproduction. As for it being a new creature or not, it seems a moot point, since they are in the Bible, described as existing, one way or another. You can’t wish them away by inventing rules precluding their existence.
I had two daughters with a mystery species femalion
Thanks no-to-illegals. :’)
Works for “ancient” as well, along with a few others, like “scientists”. :’)
No way anything bred with that.
Helen was better looking.
Very interesting and one of the tools of Satan is materialism. How many young unmarried men dream of marrying the latest popular beauty? How many older married men wish they hadn’t.
How about two great proverbs?:
I’m sure Laz would hit that....me too
It doesn't say that it doesn't. (Two can play this game.)
If you automatically deem a non-physical, non-carnal act of reproduction science fiction, then Im afraid youll have some issues with a major plot point in the New Testament.
John 1: 11, 12: He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God. This "plot point" as you call it, is being born of the Spirit, born again.
To me, it seems the final expulsion of Satan in that prophecy corresponds to the events of Revelation 9, with Satan as the star that falls from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit. If that is the case, it pinpoints his descent to Earth in the larger timeline of the tTo me, it seems the final expulsion of Satan in that prophecy corresponds to the events of Revelation 9, with Satan as the star that falls from heaven with the key to the bottomless pit. If that is the case, it pinpoints his descent to Earth in the larger timeline of the tribulation, but it also reveals there are some demons or spirits who seem to have previously fallen from grace before Satans final rebellion. After all, they are already imprisoned in the bottomless pit when Satan arrives to free them.ribulation, but it also reveals there are some demons or spirits who seem to have previously fallen from grace before Satans final rebellion. After all, they are already imprisoned in the bottomless pit when Satan arrives to free them.
The angel of the bottomless pit is NOT Satan. He is Apollyon (Abaddon) (see both Revelation 9:11 AND Revelation 20:1) He has the keys to the bottomless pits and he binds and cast Satan into the pit. Satan does not bind Satan (himself).
The creatures from the bottomless pit (Revelation 9) are doing God's will. They are his agents, not Satan's.
(I wrote) The passage from Matthew 22:24-30 is specifically talking about raising up seed and states that angels do not raise up seed. (You wrote) No, that is incorrect.
I quoted the precise language from Matthew 22. "Raise up" means both to plant and tend seed.
As for it being a new creature or not, it seems a moot point, since they are in the Bible, described as existing, one way or another. You cant wish them away by inventing rules precluding their existence.
Hardly moot. God rested from his creation on the seventh day. He has created no new kinds since the beginning. Kinds procreate within kinds.
A note on Bible interpretation
1. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, both old and new testaments. (2 Timothy 3:15)
2. The Bible does not contradict itself. If it does, then it is not God’s word. If one of several verses appears to say something different (at odds) with the other verses on a subject, then that one is not correctly understood. The text should not be changed to make it fit. Instead, one should harmonize all references by comparing scripture with scripture. (2 Corinthians 2:12,13)
Sons of God
John 1: 11, 12: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
[believers are sons of God, begotten of God]
Hebrews 1:5 “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?”
[God never called an angel his son; he does call those who are born again his sons]
Hebrews 1:14 “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”
[angels are ministering spirits sent forth on behalf of believing men heirs of salvation in Christ]
The Bible could not be clearer: angels are NOT the sons of God. They are spirits. Only believing men are sons of God.
Genesis 6:2, Job 2:1, Job 38:7 do not contradict. Specifically in Job 38:4 God is speaking to Job. If he is calling angels sons of God, then he is contradicting what he said in Hebrews 1:5 (spoken by Paul under the guidance of the Holy Spirit [God]). It is up to us to properly reconcile these verses, while not making God a liar. If we do not fully understand a verse (say Job 38:7), then the solution is not to rewrite it and make it contradict other verses, which is what the Septuagint, NIV, NLT do.
Job 38:7: 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
When can refer to time attendant before, during or after. The morning stars don’t have be angles, but could be lights in the firmament personified. And Adam and Eve, when they walked with God, and their believing offspring, even after the fall, all surely shouted for joy. (Job is post flood, probably a contemporary of Abraham, which puts his time frame approximately 2000 years after creation.)
I am a son of God. God is my Father and I am his son, an heir of salvation, because I have been given this power and authority by believing on his name (Jesus). Angels will never be his sons.
Good, then if the Bible doesn’t contradict itself...then the Sons of God of Job is the same as the Sons of God in Genesis 6 or “Bene Elohim”. That term is only used in Genesis 6 and 3 times in Job.
Remember the Bible doesn’t contradict itself!
(The Hebrew word for sons of God is Bene elohim. This term for angels occurs four times in the Old Testament in the Septuagint version (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures )
They were fallen angels, poking around where they shouldn’t have...”not having kept their first estate” as Jude says! God had them bound at some point but not before they did a lot of damage!
bene Elohim....means sons of God. But it doesn’t mean THE SON OF GOD, literally God in Flesh. The term bene Elohim refers to the special beings that perform the special tasks of God, who are so in tune with the will of God, they might as well be his sons. They are his angels!
“Genesis 6:2, Job 2:1, Job 38:7 do not contradict. Specifically in Job 38:4 God is speaking to Job. If he is calling angels sons of God, then he is contradicting what he said in Hebrews 1:5 (spoken by Paul under the guidance of the Holy Spirit [God]).”
Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 both clearly describe a congregation of angels meeting directly with God, with Satan among them. The term used to describe them is “bene Elohim”, the sons of God, just as it is used in Genesis, and later in Job. The only contradiction with Hebrews is an apparent one. The word bene, while it can mean sons, is used here in the non-literal sense:
“F. sons (as characterisation, i.e. sons of injustice [for un- righteous men] or sons of God [for angels]”
Just as when the Antichrist is called a “son of perdition”, you wouldn’t assume that there is a being called “perdition” that literally had a son, there is no reason to read this term literally either.
“When can refer to time attendant before, during or after. The morning stars dont have be angles, but could be lights in the firmament personified. And Adam and Eve, when they walked with God, and their believing offspring, even after the fall, all surely shouted for joy. (Job is post flood, probably a contemporary of Abraham, which puts his time frame approximately 2000 years after creation.)”
This interpretation ignores the context of the verse, both the earlier usages of of “sons of God” in Job 1 and Job 2, and also the immediately preceding verses, which place the time before the creation of man. Adam and Eve, or any man did not exist when God laid the foundation of the world, and therefore they could not be the “sons of God” in this verse. Morning star is also a term used to refer to angels symbolically in Isaiah 14:12. Stars are common symbols for angels, such as when the dragon draws down one third of the “stars” from heaven in Rev. 12:4.
Hmmmmm, I didn't know they brewed beer back then.......
According to Hebrews 1:4 God has never called any angel his son. That title is reserved for "heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14, John 1:12). I know that some want to make a collective/singular distinction, but it is artificial. If God calls a group his sons, then this applies individually as well. And he never called any angel his son, nor any group of angels his sons.
I don't use the dictionary to interpret scripture. Nor do I have to resort to Hebrew or Greek. The Bible itself gives the proper technique as I mentioned earlier: 1 Corinthians 2:9ff:
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth...Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:9-13)
This interpretation ignores the context of the verse, both the earlier usages of of sons of God in Job 1 and Job 2, and also the immediately preceding verses, which place the time before the creation of man.
At first I thought the timeframe was creation as well. But there is time shift introduced in verse 6:
(6) Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; (7) When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:6,7)
A search of the Bible reveals who this corner stone is:
Job 38:6* Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Isaiah 28:16* Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Ephesians 2:20* And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
1 Peter 2:6* Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Jesus Christ is the corner stone. And Jesus himself in John 8 told an unbelieving crowd:
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." Then the Jews said unto him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:26-58)
Jesus is speaking in the past tense, yet the laying of the corner stone is his incarnation, death, burial and resurrection (1 Peter 2:6 quoting Isaiah 28:16). And Abraham "saw" it and "rejoiced". The Bible also says that Jesus Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8) God in heaven is in a timeless domain. We on the other hand are constrained by time. The sons of God in heaven (Abraham et al.) can look upon the laying of the corner stone and rejoice. When Jesus says this has not yet completed his work. Yet, the Bible says he was slain from the foundation of the world. Have fun figuring this out. But we are assured by Jesus himself that Abraham, a son of God, rejoiced to see the laying of this corner stone.
We don't have to resort to creative twistings of the Hebrew "bene Elohim". We can see what it means in the many and consistent contexts and usages throughout the Bible, old and new testament. It means "sons of God", that is, "heirs of salvation", in any language. And that excludes the angels who are not heirs of salvation, a position in Christ reserved to all who believe on his name. (John 1:12)
For as many as received him to these he gave the power to become sons of God, even, to them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12,13)
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1)
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:1,2
The angels are NOT sons of God, believers are, because they are in Christ.
“It doesn’t say that it doesn’t. (Two can play this game.)”
There’s no game. If you make a claim, the onus is yours to provide a citation.
“Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of men, but of God. This “plot point” as you call it, is being born of the Spirit, born again.”
That wasn’t what I was referring to. I meant that the incarnation of Christ was a non-physical act of reproduction by a spiritual being. Thus, if you are too quick to rule out that kind of thing, you may throw the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.
“The angel of the bottomless pit is NOT Satan. He is Apollyon (Abaddon) (see both Revelation 9:11 AND Revelation 20:1)”
Beings can be referred to by more than one name, especially in the context of prophecy. The verses are clearly parallel, as both the dragon and Abaddon are cast down to Earth and then lead the war on the saints. However, the angel in verse 20 who binds Satan clearly is not Apollyon, because he is a servant of God, whereas Apollyon is fallen.
“The creatures from the bottomless pit (Revelation 9) are doing God’s will. They are his agents, not Satan’s.”
God places a restriction on them, but that doesn’t mean they are doing God’s will. Satan has restrictions placed on him by God. Is he doing God’s will?
“I quoted the precise language from Matthew 22. “Raise up” means both to plant and tend seed.”
Yes, and your quote says absolutely nothing about the angels raising up seed. The only words about raising up seed in those verses refer to living humans, not angels.
“Hardly moot. God rested from his creation on the seventh day. He has created no new kinds since the beginning. Kinds procreate within kinds.”
Well, according to you, but you refuse to provide a reference for that from the Bible, so we can dismiss it as speculation, no?
No, you've determined it means "angels" in spite of clear statements in the Bible that these are "saved men", "heirs of salvation", not angels who are ministering spirits.
The Septuagint is faulty in its translation. It is inconsistent and resorts to interpretation rather than faithfully and consistently translating the Bible into Greek. In Genesis 6:3 it translates "bene [Elohim]" as "uioi tou theou" (sons of God), but elsewhere in Job it translates "bene" as "angeloi", an intepretive gloss. "bene" means son, child, something that is "begotten".
See Hebrews 1 which clearly states that God has never called an angel (or angels) his son (or sons). That title is reserved to all those who are in Christ Jesus.
“I know that some want to make a collective/singular distinction, but it is artificial. If God calls a group his sons, then this applies individually as well.”
It’s not a collective/singular distinction, it’s a distinction in usage. “Bene Elohim” has been interpreted to mean angels for thousands of years, by the Hebrews, the early Christians, and most Biblical translators. It’s the traditional interpretation, and nothing radical at all to suggest that is the correct reading. As you don’t want to give credence to dictionaries or definitions of words when interpreting the Bible, I don’t think there is any use discussing the matter any more with you, since we can’t have a rational discourse in that case.
Genetic mutations were still extremely minimal. I extremely doubt that the strain of Cain would produce females significantly better looking than Seth’s as to cause his son’s to prefer Cain’s offspring. Nearly perfect human woman were likely all very beautiful, which was what caused the Angels of God to be tempted and ultimately choose to fall and mate with them.
I also believe that Satan and his fallen demonic angels, being imitators, and unable to come up with original ideas, at a later time copied the Angels of God and mated with humans, which created the ugly distorted giants that later populated the promised land area such as Goliath and his ilk.
Since then Satan, I believe, has tried to mate with humans, trying to have more normal looking offspring, thus the “alien abductions”, which usually involve people being genetically compromised. Who knows who today may have demonic genes. The anti Christ is likely to be a son of Satan himself, as he attempts to imitate Christ, the only begotten Son of God.
Haven’t read it yet, but this book looks extremely interesting on the subject of the past giants on the earth. The Nephilim Chronicles-Fallen Angels in The Ohio Valley by Fritz Zimmerman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.