God’s judgment on divorce is clearly shown in the following Scripture:

“‘For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,’ Says the LORD of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously’” (Malachi 2:16).

God makes this statement for the following reasons: Divorce does not really solve a problem that the persons may have and that brought the marriage to this condition. When there are children, they are the innocent victims of divorce, such as is the case in war. The impact of divorce can carry on for decades in children’s lives and be devastating for them.

Divorce plays into the hand of Satan, since he would love to see Christian couples split up because the Christian marriage, which is a binding contract between a man and a woman before God, is a representation of the relationship between God and His Church.

Marriage is the manner in which potential sons and daughters of God can enter into the world and become members of the God Family which, together with and under Christ as the husband, will replace Satan and his demons–the current god and rulers of this world (compare 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 6:12).

It is evident that Christ’s relationship with the nations of ancient Israel and Judah was one, symbolically, of husband and wife and because of Israel’s and Judah’s unfaithfulness in committing spiritual adultery by worshipping idols and not being loyal to keeping God’s commandments, Christ as the God of the Old Testament “divorced” His wife—Israel and Judah. We read in Jeremiah 3:6-14:

“The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: ‘Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. And I said, after she had done all these things, “Return to Me.” But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,’ says the LORD.

“Then the LORD said to me, ‘Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: “Return, backsliding Israel,” says the LORD; “I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,” says the LORD; “I will not remain angry forever. Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the LORD your God, And have scattered your charms To alien deities under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,” says the LORD.  “Return, O backsliding children,” says the LORD; “for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion.”’”

They did not return to God and thus He divorced Israel and Judah. But as true Christians, we are today spiritual Israelites and Jews—regardless of our race or ethnic background. True Christians are today “betrothed” to Christ, when they became properly baptized. They are living today under the conditions of the New Covenant, which is also a marriage agreement. Their marriage with Christ will be consummated at Christ’s return (For a thorough explanation of these concepts, please read our free booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound”). And once Israel and Judah become converted, they will also enter into the conditions of the New Covenant.

Notice what it says in Revelation 21:9: “Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven last plagues came to me and talked with me, saying, ‘Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb’s wife.’”

The fact that Christ divorced Israel and Judah supports the biblical teaching that under certain circumstances, divorce is acceptable to God. The ideal is of course to work on the marriage relationship and not let it slide into a fragile and irreconcilable situation, either by neglect or outright sinful behavior, since the Christian marriage is intended for life, just as the marriage with Christ and the Church will last for all eternity.

Before continuing, we must clarify that we are addressing here marriages which have been “bound” or “joined together” by God. Not every marriage in this world is “bound” by God—in fact, most are not. This is not to say that married couples are not bound by the state and that they are guiltless if they break up their marriage for unbiblical reasons, because they promised to each other that they would be married for life (and broken promises constitute sin), but their marriage was not bound by God. For instance, God does not bind the marriage of two atheists who get married in front of a magistrate.

It is obvious that God binds a marriage between two converted Christians when they get married by a minister of the Church of God. But a marriage also becomes bound by God at the time when at least one spouse becomes converted. At that time, God accepts the Christian in the state in which he is (compare the principle in 1 Corinthians 7:20-24)—and if he is married, he is called by God as a married person—and he is not free before God to subsequently divorce his spouse, except for biblical reasons. (Compare our Q&A on Deuteronomy 24:1-4.)

We stated the following in our free booklet, “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families”: 

“God wants our marriages to succeed. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). A couple that faces difficulties and looks at divorce as an easy ‘solution’ to their problems may make a serious, and even fatal mistake. Divorce is seldom a positive solution. Biblically, divorce with the freedom to subsequently marry someone else is permitted only under very limited circumstances. God created the marriage unit and He intended that it should flourish and endure (Matthew 19:4–6). Two truly converted married Christians (as long as both remain alive and converted throughout their marriage to each other) must never divorce and subsequently marry somebody else! Their marriage, which has been bound by God, is for life (1 Corinthians 7:10–11; Romans 7:1–3; Luke 16:18).”

However, under what circumstances is divorce permitted?

In Matthew 5:31-32, Christ tells us:

“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.”

Christ is addressing here marriages which God has bound or joined together, as He clarifies in Matthew 19:6 “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

But Christ makes clear that even marriages which God has “bound” can end up in divorce, when for instance “sexual immorality” is involved. Sexual immorality [“porneia” in the Greek] includes adultery, incest, homosexuality and other types of deviant sexual behavior. 

But even then, the Bible is clear that once a person repents by ceasing from and changing his behavior which could lead to or justify a divorce, the other party is under a moral and spiritual obligation to forgive and move forward. Reconciliation is the pathway to take, rather than divorce.

If sins are repented of and maybe even confessed to a potential spouse before marriage, then these forgiven sins cannot be the basis for a later divorce. If fraud has been committed by one spouse at the time of the marriage (material facts were concealed from the spouse) and the other spouse finds out about it subsequently, then the innocent spouse could ask for an annulment. God, who knows everything, would not have bound that marriage at the time when the marriage vows were exchanged. But the request for annulment would have to be made right away upon discovery of the concealed facts. However, if the spouse decides to continue the marriage, then no more grounds for annulment exist, as then, God accepts the spouse’s decision and binds the marriage.

Problems in a marriage will arise, but they need to be coped with and managed. It is important to always bear in mind that Satan wants to destroy our marriages, and we should be aware of his devices and temptations.

If a “believing” spouse is married to an “unbeliever,” then Paul states the following in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16:

“But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”

If the unbelieving spouse is no longer pleased to dwell with the believing spouse and ends the marriage relationship, then the believing spouse is no longer bound by God, either. However, if the unbelieving spouse is willing to dwell with the believer, then no grounds for divorce exist.

On the other hand, an unbeliever may show by his conduct that he is no longer pleased to dwell with the believer, and that he has departed from the marriage relationship, even though both spouses might even live in the same house. For instance, when someone engages habitually in adulterous conduct, he has thereby manifested that he is an “unbeliever” who has denied the faith and has become worse than an “infidel”—he was never converted or has ceased to be converted (compare again Matthew 5:31-32 with 1 Corinthians 7:15).

But note again our comments in our free booklet, “The Keys to Happy Marriages and Families”: 

“What about a married couple where one mate is a true Christian, making every effort to apply God’s principles, and the other mate is not? Even in such a case, divorce and subsequent remarriage is not biblically permitted, unless the ‘unbelieving’ mate departs from the marriage, by not fulfilling his or her marriage duties, and the ‘unbeliever’ is no longer willing to live with the converted Christian mate (cp. 1 Corinthians 7:12–16). Such total departure from the marriage by the ‘unbeliever’ can be seen in serious continuous violations of his or her marriage duties and responsibilities, such as the sinful practice of ‘sexual immorality’ (Matthew 5:31–32; 19:9). But even then, counseling with one of God’s ministers is highly recommended, with the goal to restore, rather than to sever, the marriage.”

What does the Bible say about separation of a marriage relationship between two believing spouses?

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 states the following:

“… A wife is not to depart from her husband. But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.”

Separation is not a solution and must not be looked upon in this manner. It should be looked upon as a temporary measure with the intent to have the marriage repaired and functional. We read Paul’s admonition in the previous verses: “Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (1 Corinthians 7:5).

We have been called to be in the God Family. Our relationship with Christ is one of husband and wife.  We made a commitment at baptism to be faithful to the end of our lives or when Christ returns.  We made a commitment at marriage to remain faithful till the death of one of the spouses (1 Corinthians 7:39; compare again Romans 7:2-3).

We should be committed to making our marriages work, since we know that God hates divorce (and by extension separation which could lead to divorce), while Satan loves divorce and he wants our marriages to fail.

Lead Writers: Rene Messier and Norbert Link

The following reproduces the second part of a research paper which Norbert Link wrote in 1982 while studying as a married student at Ambassador College in Pasadena, California, setting forth proofs for the conclusion that the Neanderthal Man was in fact a modern human being (“Homo Sapiens”) and what needs to be understood regarding his alleged age.

It may be questionable, indeed, to make a certain distinction between animals and human beings in regard to several aspects. The fact that the Neanderthals used tools and weapons might not be considered as proof that he was human, because it is also known that apes [and monkeys] use sticks as weapons. But the scene would change fundamentally if it could be proved that the Neanderthals believed in religion, in life after death, in a supernatural being. No animal, lacking this certain non-physical element in its brain, which is called the “spirit in man,” is able to think about itself, its own future, life after its death. If we can prove that the Neanderthal believed in religion, then we can also prove that he was fully conscious and aware of his existence, that he had the “spirit in man,” and that he was a human being.

We know today that the Neanderthals were cannibals. They sometimes killed and ate one another. For example, in 1899 twenty Neanderthals were found at Krapina, [then called] Yugoslavia. Skulls had been smashed in and limbs had been split lengthwise, so that the marrow could be sucked out. Many scientists believe today that the Neanderthals were cannibals because of religious reasons. In some primitive societies today, natives believe that they can acquire strength and courage by eating the flesh of an enemy. In this connection, it is interesting to note that Neanderthals are believed to have eaten the brain of their strongest enemy, the cave bear. Other discoveries have shown that the Neanderthals widened the opening of the skull so that they could reach into it and scoop out the brains and eat them. This is exactly the same way in which modern cannibals perform.

In Italy, workmen found in a cave a single Neanderthal skull with a widened opening, surrounded by an oval ring of bones. It is also possible that the eating of Neanderthals were accompanied by a certain kind of bear ceremonies, described below. In 1965 bones of about twenty Neanderthals were found in a cave at Hortus, France. The human bones were mixed up with animal bones, as if the ancient inhabitants of the cave drew no distinction between eating human and animal flesh. Above Vaetis in the Tamina Valley,  there is a “dragon cave” in which large numbers of cave bear bones were found. The skulls and bones were laid in niches or stone chests. They were arranged in deliberate order and carefully covered with stone-slabs. Neanderthal men had decapitated the bears and then buried the whole heads. Sometimes thigh bones were thrust through the cavities in the skulls. Other finds have been made near Valden, Switzerland, and in Silesia. Some scientists assume that the Neanderthals performed solemn dances around the heads of the bears. Interestingly, such bear ceremonies and bear sacrifices occur to this day among certain tribes of Northeast Asia.  These are strong indications that Neanderthals were cannibals because of religious reasons. If so, they certainly were human beings.

But there is still another aspect which makes it quite impossible to believe that the Neanderthals were animals. Scientists agree that the Neanderthals have buried their own dead. Most scientists also agree that the burials were religiously motivated, for the “departed” were supplied with tools of stone and sometimes other goods. Some scientists think that these stone tools were meant to help the “soul” against the bears and other problems of the “afterlife.” For example, a skeleton of a sixteen year old Neanderthal youth was found in 1909. Typical artifacts had been laid aside the body, so that there was evidence of some form of ritual burial. One year before, in 1908, the Neanderthal skeleton near the village of La Chapelle-aux-Saints was found. It lay extended full length on its back, with the head pointing to the EAST (probably indicating some kind of sunrise worship). Beside it were artifacts and fragments of red ochre. Across the skull lay several limb bones of bison, one of which was still connected with some of the smaller bones of the foot and toes. From this it could be suggested that the flesh had been on the bones when they had been placed with the human body. Therefore, they were meant to provide the “soul” of the Neanderthal with food. The same custom is known about the old Egyptians.

These discoveries certainly show that the Neanderthal Man believed in some kind of life after death and, because there had to be someone who would grant him this future life, he also believed in a supernatural being or supernatural beings. Accordingly, Neanderthals were aware of themselves, lived on an incomparably higher level than animals and were, therefore, human beings.

Scholars of the Bible will ask: If the Neanderthal was human, how is itpossible that he was older than six thousand years, as science states, because God created man only about six-thousand years ago? This important question will be answered now.

It is true that scientists declare today that Neanderthals are 40,000 [or at least 30,000] years old. But it is also true that the only method which has been used in order to determine their age, was the carbon fourteen dating [the Radio-Carbon method]. Even the bristlecone pine tree-ring chronology, another method to determine the age of living or dead organisms, is based on the carbon fourteen dating. Therefore, we want to take a short look at this method in order to find out how it works and whether or not it is accurate.

The carbon fourteen dating is based on a simple process. Cosmic rays bombard the upper atmosphere with tremendous energy. These rays produce great numbers of fast-moving neutrons which collide with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere. The bulk of these atoms are chemically transmuted into carbon fourteen. This carbon fourteen combines with oxygen – as does ordinary carbon – to produce carbon dioxide which is diffused through the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide contains radioactive carbon fourteen – it makes up a tiny fraction of all the carbon dioxide available to plants for photosynthesis. When the plants use carbon dioxide during photosynthesis, they automatically absorb this carbon fourteen. Afterwards these plants are eaten by animals and humans and therefore, carbon fourteen is added to their bodies, too. At death, however, an organism no longer takes in carbon fourteen. Instead, the amount possessed by this organism at death begins to decay. 

According to some authorities, every 5,730 years, and according to others, every 5,745 plus/minus 50 years, one half of the carbon fourteen decays and changes into nitrogen fourteen. During the next 5,730 years (or 5,745 plus/minus 50 years), half of the remaining carbon fourteen will decay – only one-fourth of the original amount will be left – and this process continues, until all carbon fourteen is decayed. Accordingly, by measuring the amount of remaining carbon fourteen in a dead organism, which was alive once, scientists are believed to be able to estimate when that organism died.

When Dr. Libby developed this method in the late 1940’s, he conducted experiments to discover the present production rate of radiocarbon. He first calculated the present average production rate of free neutrons in the outeratmosphere, then the present production rate of carbon fourteen. After this, he determined the average rate of decay of carbon fourteen in modern living organisms. Finally, he calculated the total present amount of carbon in the world’s exchange reservoir. At this point, he made the following assumption: If the production of carbon fourteen had proceeded at a constant rate for many thousands of years, then the amount of carbon fourteen present on the surface of the earth would have reached a constant value, because a condition had been established in which the rate of formation of carbon fourteen was equal to the rate with which it disappeared. Of course, this assumption was never proved.

Now we will see whether this method is accurate, although the proof for the basic assumption is lacking. It is clear that the dating would not be correct  if there were any change in the production rate of carbon fourteen – for example, a change caused through universal catastrophes. As a matter of fact, at least two worldwide catastrophes have occurred. The first catastrophe happened when Satan rebelled against God (Isaiah 14:12-14); this gigantic battle destroyed the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:2) and with it, for example, the dinosaurs. The second universal catastrophe was the tremendous deluge in the days of Noah. It is quite obvious that a gigantic battle between spirit beings, which led to a demolition of the surface of many planets, could change the production rate of radiocarbon. But how could, on the other hand, the deluge alter this production rate?

Many scientists believe today that the earth was once surrounded by a shield of water vapor. The Bible, too, contains certain indications for this assumption. In Genesis 1:6-7, it is mentioned that God, when He renewed the “face of the earth” (Psalm 104:30), “divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.” And in reference to the deluge the Bible states that “all the fountains of the great deep” were “broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened’ (Genesis 7:11). This shield of water vapor prevented that many cosmic rays could bombard the upper atmosphere. The situation changed, however, when the shield disappeared at the time of the deluge. But this happened only about 4,000 years ago and this means that the enormous amount of radiocarbon necessary for the establishment of the equilibrium was not reached and that the specific amount of radioactivity of living matter is much less than the rate of production calculated from the neutron intensity.

But there is still another aspect which shows that the carbon fourteen dating is not accurate. The method postulates that every organism assimilates the same rate of carbon fourteen independent of the environment in which that organism lives or had lived. Professor Melvin A. Cook [1968 Nitro-Nobel Gold Medal winner] has shown, however, that this assumption is wrong. He expressly stated:

“Living mollusks are sometimes found deficient in Carbon 14 to such an extent as to appear to have been dead as long as 3,000 years. This is due to carbonate-ion exchange in salt water in contact with old calcite and dolomite deposits. These mollusks are in an environment of old carbonates, and during their life cycle, they assimilate those carbonates that have no radiocarbon in them, rather than to be in steady state with the atmosphere. The reverse (dates that are too low) will also happen by involving carbonate-ion exchange in freshwater lakes which become high in alkalinity and thus tend to absorb carbon dioxide from the air to form new calcites and dolomites.”

Therefore, the only method being used to determine the age of the Neanderthals, the carbon fourteen dating, cannot be proved as being accurate. Accordingly, there exists no proof at all that the Neanderthals are older than 6,000 years.

My conclusion is that the Neanderthal was no animal. It is true that he probably was no representative of a culturally high-standing race; more likely the opposite is true in that he was a degenerated descendant of humanity, as a certain unnamed German anatomist had suspected when he wrote that the Neanderthal “may have been one of these wild men, half-crazed, half-idiotic, cruel and strong, who are always more or less to be found living on the outskirts of barbarous tribes.” But whatever the Neanderthals were, one thing is certain: They were distinctly human.

Even though this paper was written in 1982, and even though new discoveries of the Neanderthal Man were made, the premise and the substance of the paper are still very relevant and accurate today: God created modern man about 6,000 years ago, and the Neanderthal was a modern man. Science is wrong to assume that modern man—including the Neanderthal–is older than 6,000 years. Man did not evolve. Rather, he was instantaneously created by God. The concept of “human evolution” has been scientifically disproved. For more information, please read our free booklet, “The Theory of Evolution-a Fairy Tale for Adults”? 

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

The following reproduces much of the first part of a research paper which Norbert Link wrote in 1982 while studying at Ambassador College in Pasadena, California. The relevance of the paper has not lost its impact, so we are bringing it to your attention at this point as a part of our ongoing series of articles on the creation of man and the pre-Adamic and post-Adamic world.

In 1856 the remains of a creature, later called “Homo Neanderthalensis”or the “Neanderthal Man,” were discovered in a cave in Western Germany. The remnants were carelessly dug up by two laborers so that many parts were lost. Only the skull and several parts of the skeleton were saved. Atonce a division arose in regard to the skull. Some scientists acknowledged it as modern and human and some thought it would belong to an unknown and primitive type of early man.

Even today, more than hundred years after this first discovery, the question still seems to be unanswered: Was the “Neanderthal” a human being as you and I or was he a primitive type of early man, not fully developed according to the evolution theory?

In order to answer this question, we have to recognize that scientific explanations in general may not be entirely correct. The Neanderthal is a good example which shows how interpretations of science can change.

The former belief of science was in many aspects different from what it is today. In the main two early discoveries of skeletons of the Neanderthal

Man led to the older scientific interpretations. The first find occurred – as mentioned above – in 1856. The surviving fragments were given to J.C.

Fuhlrott, founder of the Natural Science Society, who recognized a low skull with massive brows and bowed limbs, an ulna of the lower arm with an injury on it. He concluded that this skeleton was ‘antediluvian,’ that it was a fossil of a real man who had got washed into the cave by the Flood itself.

Professor Schaafhausen, however, anatomist at Bonn, who was asked to give his judgment next, stated that he was not sure at all that the skull was even ‘diluvial’; on the other hand, he felt that it must be older than such inhabitants of Europe as the Celts and the Germans. It is also interesting to note that Huxley, the great advocate of evolution, regarded the skeleton as one of modern man, as “Homo Sapiens.” Darwin kept silent. Only William King of Galway articulated his belief that the skeleton belonged to a primitive type of human and therefore named it “Homo Neanderthalensis.”

The next important discovery was made in 1908 in southern France. Three French priests had undertaken the excavation of a small cave near the village of La Chapelle-aux-Saints. Below the modern floor of the cave they found remains of a woolly rhinoceros, an extinct bison, a reindeer-and the skeleton of a Neanderthal-type man. The skeleton included the skull and most of the bones of the body. The remains of this skeleton were sent to the anatomist and paleontologist Marcellin Boule, director of the French Institute of Human Paleontology. He maintained that the body was that of an old man of the Neanderthal type and assigned its geological age to the Pleistocene period (120,000 – 10,000 B.C.). His memoir on this skeleton was published in 1908. In the main, he described it and with it the whole species of the Neanderthal Man as having massive brow ridges over the eyes and a puffing-out of the bone below the orbits, so that instead of a “canine fossa” there was a convexity. According to these examinations, the Neanderthal Man was viewed as a squat, stunted fellow about five feet one inch tall, or 155 cm. He was described as having a short, thick-set and coarsely built body and a shaggy covering of hair over most of the body.

However, since nearly thirty years [Note again: This article was written in 1982] we can find a changed scientific belief in the above-described appearance of the Neanderthals. This change started to take place in 1955, when William Strauss and A.J.E. Cave, professors of anatomy, re-examined the skeleton of La Chapelle-aux-Saints. They found that the forty-to fifty-year-old man was rotten with arthritis. The forward thrust of his head, noted by Professor Boule, was due to a wry neck, and the stunted stature and stooping posture were due to arthritic lesions in his vertebral column. Some scientists also realized that the great German pathologist Virchow had even stated in reference to the very first discovery of the Neanderthal Man in 1856 that this creature was a victim of disease and that he – Virchow – had upheld this conclusion for over thirty years.  At that time another important fact was brought back to mind, namely that the cranial capacity of that skull of La Chapelle-aux-Saints was very great, about 1,600 c.c., and that meant that the size of the Neanderthal’s brain was not less than that of modern man. Moreover, it was clearly asymmetric in the same way as that of modern man.

Since 1856, when the bones of the first Neanderthal Man were discovered, a very large number of remains of other creatures have been unearthed in caves of Europe, Asia and Africa. Among them are the Man of Spy, the Man of Krapina, the Man of Jersey, the La Guina Man, the Mousterian Man, the Peking Man, the Rhodesian Man and, of course, the Chapelle-aux-Saints Man. They all are classed together as the Neanderthal Man. Soon scientists realized that there was such variability in points of detail among the many known Neanderthal-type skulls that there was none that could be called “typical.” Therefore, many scientists believe today that the species had already divided up into a number of racial variants before the Neanderthal Man disappeared, comparable with the variants that can be seen in the races of living man today.  Some scientists go even further than that and state that the Neanderthal Man is no ancestor of the modern living man, but that he developed separately and independently of the modern man.

So, the scientific world today has no specific description of THE Neanderthal Man and it is not even sure that he was a forefather of modern man. However, most scientists profess that the Neanderthal was not a human being, although even this question is not kept without arguments. For example, Sir Arthur Keith, author of the book, “Antiquity of Man,” felt that the Neanderthal Man was certainly “not a dawn form of humanity.” And William Strauss and A.J.E. Cave wrote in their report about the fossil from La Chapelle-aux-Saints: “If he could be reincarnated and placed in a New York Subway – provided that he were bathed, shaved and dressed in modern clothing – it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other citizens.”

In recognition of this kind of confusion whether or not the Neanderthal man was a human being, we want to look very carefully at the archeological records discovered by scientists. Many scientists – and sometimes religious people as well – believe that the Neanderthals were no human beings. They feel that they are supported by some of the following discoveries.

The main argument for this belief refers to the primitive way in which Neanderthals lived. There is little doubt that they dwelled in caves which protected them from the cold during the cold seasons and that they hunted wild animals, either individually or collectively. When they had killed an animal, they used stones or stone tools to remove the skin and ate the meat raw or roasted over the fire, while they used the skin to cover their bodies and to sleep on. It is believed, too, that they ate carrion. But these facts do not prove by themselves that the Neanderthals were no human beings. Even today primitive tribes are known living in the same way the Neanderthals did-for example, the tribe of the Tasaday on the Philippine islands-and no scientist states that these people are not human.

Another argument why the Neanderthals are not considered as human beings is the assumption that their language capabilities were limited. Philip Lieberman and Edmund Crelin of Yale made a series of measurements of the skull of the fossil found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints. The measurements suggested that the Neanderthals lacked a modern pharynx and that they were unable to utter some vowel sounds or form some consonants. On the other hand, both scientists stated that Rhodesia Man, another creature of the Neanderthal race, had a slightly more modern pharynx. These controversial results do not prove that the Neanderthals were not human. First of all, do we know that the fossil from La Chapelle was representative for the whole race of the Neanderthals? As a matter of fact, this was not the case because the results were different in regard to the Rhodesia Man. Furthermore, these results prove that the Neanderthal Man could speak-and this is also true for the Chapelle-aux-Saints Man-although the vocabulary might have consisted of fewer consonants and vowel sounds. Therefore, limited language capabilities are also no proof for the assumption that Neanderthal Man was not human.

But there is still a third argument for this belief which is brought forth mainly by religiously-oriented people who state that the Bible mentions the Neanderthals as “nephilim” and distinguishes them herewith from the modern living man. In Genesis 6:4, the King James Version translates the Hebrew word “nephilim” with “giants” and reads: “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came into the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” It is considered that these “giants” were descendants from the ancient Neanderthal types, from “pre-Adamic races.”

According to this theory, the Neanderthals were creatures without the spirit in man, and that means without understanding; they were not fully conscious of their own self-existence as we are self-aware and conscious. In other words, without the spirit in man, the Neanderthals should have lived on the level with animals (1 Corinthians 2:11).

However, the following discoveries will prove that the Neanderthal lived beyond that level and, therefore, that he was a human being. 

This ends the first part of the research paper. We will reproduce the second part in the next Update, which will present proof as to why Neanderthal Man was indeed a modern human being or “homo sapiens,” and how this can be reconciled with science postulating that the Neanderthal Man was about 40,000 or at least 30,000 years old.

The interested reader is referred to two Q&A’s related to the subject. One Q&A addresses the question of the existence of “giants” in the past and perhaps today, and discusses the “nephilim” in Genesis 6:4. The second Q&A discusses the origin of the “nephilim” and answers the question whether angelic beings had intercourse with women and thereby produced giants.

At this point, we would also like to quote the following article from the Washington Post, dated June 19, 2014, which we cited in the Current

Events portion of our weekly Update #645, June 26, 2014:

“In a cave in northern Spain, a team of scientists has retrieved the remains of 28 prehistoric humans, members of an enigmatic species that could be described as a little bit Neanderthal. They had Neanderthal faces, with heavy brows and protruding noses. They had powerful mandibles and mouths that could open extremely wide, indicating that they used their teeth as gripping tools. But they didn’t have the large skulls or other robust skeletal features seen in the prototypical Neanderthals who, hundreds of millennia later, roamed Ice Age Europe. “The discovery does not dramatically change the general picture of human evolution, but it complicates it a bit, providing new evidence that there were many distinct, and largely isolated, human species existing simultaneously.

“[Scientists] think these proto-Neanderthals possessed the power of speech and lived in social groups. There are few human ancestors more intriguing than the Neanderthals, who could be described as the best example in the history of the planet of an intelligent species that has gone extinct. They had large craniums and larger brains than modern humans (although that doesn’t mean they were smarter). They existed as recently as about 30,000 years ago, when their kind disappears from the fossil record.

“How they died out, and why, and to what extent they may have interbred with anatomically modern humans is an ongoing source of debate and contentiousness among highly credentialed scientists. But as a species, the Neanderthal vanished. In their place came anatomically modern humans, who evolved in Africa and are the ancestors of everyone alive today.

“The Neanderthals, [one expert] said, ‘obviously were very intuitively smart. They were great toolmakers. They were ingenious. They were resourceful. They were living through difficult times.'”

How smart they were, and why they were indeed human beings, will be shown in the next installment.

(To Be Continued)

Lead Writer: Norbert Link