ANSWERS: 24
  • It doesnt - Science does... Generally the bible deals with a much later time period and briefly mentions creation issues - it purpose was to explain God and His plans not the earths rich past...
  • Most Creationists ignore all fossils of hominids completely. They pretend that they are all completely modern humans, or completely modern apes, or that they are individuals with birth defects. Then they scream "where are the transitional fossils!" at scientists.
  • The Bible traces mankind back to his origins in Eden with the first man Adam. The Bible is where God explains His work. Science is how man tries to explain God’s work. There are books that say that “Neanderthal probably did not look very different from some people of today.” One encyclopedia now says that they were “completely human, fully erect.” What a change! Comparing the illustrations in various books will show the adjustments in the claimed appearance of Neanderthal man. And rather than his being an idiot, it is now admitted that Neanderthal man had a larger brain than most modern men! One reason why some scientists thought of Neanderthal as squat and bent is most interesting. An early skeleton found had bowed legs and a bent form. Of course, since they were looking for apelike creatures to fit their theory, how easy it was to make a mistake! Later, upon further examination, it was shown that the skeleton was deformed due to arthritis! Nor is that all. In their efforts to make their finds look like a link between ape and man, when Neanderthal’s foot bones were first reconstructed by evolutionists, “they were made to look like an ape’s,” says one book. But the same book admits that the feet actually “look and functioned very [much] like those of modern man.”
  • The bible doesn't attempt to. It was written when Neanderthals were unheard of. Neanderthals were a different species to the homo-erectus of the same time (which became us). The "neanderthal man was just a guy with arthritis" is a myth from decades ago. At one time the myth stated it was "rickets" rather than "arthritis". Since first discovering them, paleontologists have learned a lot about them. They were bigger and stronger than homo-erectus - with larger, more robust skeletons. They appeared well adapted for colder climates and used tools and buried their dead. They generally lived in groups of a dozen or so and did not interact much. This is mostly the reason homo-erectus took over when they moved into the colder climates of europe - homo-erectus had larger, more organised social groups and would have defeated the smaller groups of Neanderthals in confrontations, despite the size and strength differences. Go to www.talkorigins.org and search on 'Neanderthal' for information - much written by those currently in the field. The Adam and Eve story is best viewed as an allegory, describing mankinds development of intelligence to the point where we became "self-aware" - and discovered all the problems that come with that development.
  • It does not, that is not the purpose of the bible. You discover things and then see how they fit into God's revealed word!
  • The bible cannot it only gives speculation to the theory for human creation. Evolution is the tru truth to human existance. There is fact in evolution wheras there is only myth and unconfirmed statements to the bible.
  • The short answer is: it doesn't.
  • The Bible touches on many things. Like Dino's and Dragons(check out the book of Job). And the Bible does somewhat touch on Neanderthal man. In the Book Genesis it says that God created the heavens and the earth and all the animals and people and stuff like that. After all was done he wasn't happy .. he wanted someone that could choose to want to be around him (AKA worship him). So he created a man in his image. That doesn't mean that he created human in his physical form he created man in his mental form(AKA Freewill). Man had the ability for complex thought, to have ideas and theories. Humans and Neanderthal man then coexisted. Once Adam and Eve had sons the Bible states that they found their wives in the wilderness. Their wives were Neanderthal woman. Man did not Evolve from Neanderthal man. Neanderthal man was a different species that was created by God and Homo-erectus and Neanderthal have simply been interbreeding for the last 4k years. This is somewhat backed up by the Ibn Fadlan Journals. A Arab man that had an encounter with Neanderthal man and told of the way that they would eat the marrow and brains for their dead. These Journals where written 922 AD if I remember right. this would explain why we don't see any newer bones of Neanderthal man. Or maybe the inter breeding happened so long that science can no longer tell the difference between the two. I am not discounting evolution, evolution is a fact. things evolve around us everyday. But the theory of evolution Does have holes in it. The basics are that we evolved from and amino acid puddle. The shear magnitude of something like that happening is impossible. I would also like to point out to the nonbelievers that even the great Einstein himself stated that he believed in God.
  • actually, i believe in so many words, the Bible does mention dinosaurs (leviathon) more than once. What do these so-called brilliant scientist have to compare to when using carbon dating. The earth truely is only around 6 thousand years old, not millions and nothin to prove otherwise. I can't believe so many deny the fact of God's existance when all ya really gotta do is look around. You say "well, ya can't see him so prove he exists" i say "can you prove wind(air) exists?" ya can't see it but ya see it's effects. I could go on and on..........
  • Oh, GROAN! Don't start this crap again. Science can't explain who they were either, or why they went extinct. Just because the Bible doesn't mention them by name, does NOT mean they're not in there.
  • No, Neanderthal man died thousands of years before the Semetic peoples even existed.
  • The Neanderthal was once thought to be a man. But genetic DNA research indicates the chromosomes "do not" match those of humans. They "do" match those of of bipedal primates (apes). The use of crude tools by Neanderthals does not mean they were human. Many animals, including birds, fish, and mammals, use "tools." If Neanderthals created shelters, likewise, it does not imply that they were human. Many animals, (beavers, birds, bees, etc) also construct shelters. There is no evidence that the neanderthal practiced any form of worship or religion. Interestingly, that is the primary way the Bible separates man from animals.
  • The Bible can't even explain where it came from itself, how do you expect it to explain anythng about Neanderthal men?
  • The same way it explains everything else: it doesn't
  • bad question, How does christianity, catholics, etc. explain neanderthals, dinosaurs, etc.
  • Nephilim are beings who appear in the Hebrew Bible; specifically mentioned in the Book of Genesis and the Book of Numbers; they are also mentioned in other Biblical texts and in some non-canonical Jewish writings. The Hebrew word נְפִילִים (nephilim) may mean "those causing others to fall". Abraham ibn Ezra proposes that they were called this because men's hearts would fail at the sight of them. Some[who?] suggest that they were giants and when they fell, the ground shook, causing others to fall too.[citation needed] Jean Leclerc and Peter of Aquila among others suggest that it is derived from the warlike nature of the Nephilim, comparing the usage of Naphal in Job 1:15 "And the Sabeans fell upon them" where Naphal means "to take in battle". Alternatively, Shadal understands nephilim as deriving from the Hebrew word פלא Pele which means wondrous.[1] Another possibility is that the term is a generic term for "giants" in general,[2] which is consistent with the Septuagint and Vulgate translations of the word. Some expositors believe it may refer more to the ferocity and strength of the people who are referred to, rather than their physical height,[3][4] though in the Book of Numbers intentional stress on height is apparent, whether metaphorical or actual Origin and identity Genesis Chapter 6, verses 1 through 4 mentions Nephilim: "Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.[5] They are mentioned again in Numbers chapter 13, verses 32–33, in a description of the inhabitants of Hebron: "So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight. [6] There are five common views regarding the identity of the Nephilim. They were the hybrid offspring of fallen angels and human women. They were the offspring of descendants of Seth with those of Cain.Template:("De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini"; "Quod Deterius Potiori Insidiari Soleat," 10) Webster's 1913 Dictionary defines the word simply as "Giant." Thus, any especially tall, powerful, large, or mighty man would be described in ancient times as Nephilim. Nephilim may simply mean "giant," champion, or strong man. The term might not refer to any specific race or group of people but is a label similar to "hero," a legendary figure, or "great man." The Bible itself describes the Nephilim as "Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." In this view, the Bible tells us that Nephilim is a legendary or heroic figure, a mighty warrior, already renowned in legend by the time Moses wrote down Genesis. Using the Bible to define itself, Nephilim means a man of legend, one recounted in legendary tales. They are not historical figures and are ancient imagery with questionable meaning
  • how about we just use the information on these people. Edward Rubin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California states that recent genome testing of Neanderthals suggests human and Neanderthal DNA are some 99.5% to nearly 99.9% identical. that puts them as a cousin the same difference as africans vs japaneese or australians (aborigineese) vs europeans or native americans. my personal belief (personal belief) is that they are the grand children of the Nephelim (via large bone structures and cranium but the size height wise of a nomral these would have a normal title of Tieflings (this is a modern word that is known for a grandchild of a half demon half human) again this is my personal belief and I have not studied this very far beyond biblical knowledge of Nephelim, the Mahabharata, the sumerian sandskrit, science sources and a lot of extrapolation. +3 good question.
  • Bible does not mention neanderthal man and does not need too. Neanderthal "man" is not a man. It is an ape.
  • It does not...Man was created right from the start as we see him now...and even better... Back then, people were closer to perfection and lived much longer...right up to nearly a thousand years...e.g. Methuselah...Genesis ch. 5.
  • New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.” Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.” their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.
  • A better question might be...What was neanderthal man? Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus—Rama’s ape. Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.” What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth. ” Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.” However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.” Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—sneak into this manward-marching procession?” Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say. Is this really scientific? The scientific method is...Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
  • It doesn't. Neanderthal man was long gone before the ancients began telling the stories that became the Bible
  • The bible is a sucky science book and doesn't explain hardly anything relating to evolution, extinction, the development of the human species or anything else. It's NOT a good source.
  • The Bible is not a science book. Most Christians do not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact. One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good. Catholics can believe in the theories of the big bang or evolution or both or neither. On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis: The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html And here is the Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996 speaking of the Theory of Evolution: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm Here is an interesting article about Pope John Paul II's opinion in the matter: http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=4627 The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the big bang and evolution are the most logical scientific explanations. As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and responsible modern science can live in harmony. The Clergy Letter Project an open letter endorsing the Theory of Evolution signed by over 10,000 clergy from many different Christian denominations: http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm With love in Christ.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy