# The Nephilim



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

Over the last twenty years or so, I have been hearing the term, Nephilim. The first time I became aware of them was from a guy named Chuck Missler. He touched on the idea that the Nephlim were a cross between the fallen Angels and the women of earth, and then went on to explain that these half breeds could very well explain ancient heroes such as Heracles or monsters such as Medusa, and that God brought the floods to destroy these abominations. I thought that was all very interesting, but then I saw some Seventh Day Adventist guy come on the TV and say it was all hogwash and that they were all, "just people". And, of course there is that third group of individuals that are convinced that aliens, from space, are responsible for the creation of the Nephilim. After some recent reading on the subject, I'm going with the Seventh Day Adventists, but that does not make the subject any less interesting. 

Consider that around the Tigris Euphrates, there were living, a bunch of small bronzed skinned people, and that, to the north, and I mean way north, there are six and seven foot tall people waging war and, of course, raping the women, and creating offspring. Normally amoung if you get over run by people of the same race, those offspring can easily assimilate back into society, but if those children no longer look like them, they are shunned and kept apart from society. Some modern examples of this are the offspring of American and French soldiers in Vietnam, or the offspring of the Pigme people and the Dutch settlers. In both cases, these people are on there own. They aren't Vietnamese, Americans, Dutch or Pigme. 

When these people get ostracized, the results are not pretty. Over the years, they can really only mate and raise families with each other. This is all well and good, but over the generations, the people simply don't have a large enough gene pool to be successful, and real problems occur as a result. Insanity, violent tendencies, and even cannibalism can spring, not to mention horrible deformations, such as webbed toes and fingers. The truth of the matter is that, over the eons, this stuff happened all the time. Some of these ideas may border on racism, but Jews were survivors, not muliculturalists. LOL
What do you you all think?
Sean


----------



## Jenna (May 22, 2012)

You would be hard pressed to find anything of the Nephilim conclusive as they were truly and if when you do nobody will believe you


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

Jenna said:


> You would be hard pressed to find anything of the Nephilim conclusive as they were truly and if when you do nobody will believe you


True, but the simplest and most down to earth explanations are the most probable. 
Sean


----------



## Jenna (May 22, 2012)

Sean what causes you to get yourself interested in this please?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

Jenna said:


> Sean what causes you to get yourself interested in this please?


I discovered this author Tom Knox. I have read two of his books now. They are like a Dan Brown novel, but they are more about ancient history, and not the ins and outs of the Catholic church.
Sean


----------



## Jenna (May 22, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> I discovered this author Tom Knox. I have read two of his books now. They are like a Dan Brown novel, but they are more about ancient history, and not the ins and outs of the Catholic church.
> Sean


yes I am familiar and you have taken in the Book of Enoch on your travels then and wonder where to go looking for the Watchers.. you are just curious?? I am not the scholar I am just concerned why you are curious..  You mention catholicism and do you have a personal religious framework upon which to hang your researches can I ask?? I would say no more becasue I am talking to my ignorance  I send hopes for insight..  wishes xJx


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

Jenna said:


> yes I am familiar and you have taken in the Book of Enoch on your travels then and wonder where to go looking for the Watchers.. you are just curious?? I am not the scholar I am just concerned why you are curious..  You mention catholicism and do you have a personal religious framework upon which to hang your researches can I ask?? I would say no more becasue I am talking to my ignorance  I send hopes for insight..  wishes xJx


I have no reason to be interested really. I just find it interesting that everyone has their own take, and you can't turn the channel without the aliens from space angle being thrown at you. Chuck Missler started it for me, but he is a little nuts. I was glad to hear something more plausible.
Sean


----------



## Jenna (May 22, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> I have no reason to be interested really. I just find it interesting that everyone has their own take, and you can't turn the channel without the aliens from space angle being thrown at you. Chuck Missler started it for me, but he is a little nuts. I was glad to hear something more plausible.
> Sean


the references in any case are spurious at best and lead us to speculate and contrive our argument to fit our lacking evidence.. so if not aliens then you would not subscribe to fallen angels either I think?   xJx


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

Jenna said:


> the references in any case are spurious at best and lead us to speculate and contrive our argument to fit our lacking evidence.. so if not aliens then you would not subscribe to fallen angels either I think?   xJx


I just read Jesus didn't think so either. LOL But think about it, what are supernatural beings doing rutting around like rabbits?
Sean


----------



## Jenna (May 22, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> I just read Jesus didn't think so either. LOL But think about it, what are supernatural beings doing rutting around like rabbits?
> Sean


if this is the case then perhaps you yourself are progeny of the Anunnaki  been having any uh _strange _physical occurrences lately?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

Jenna said:


> if this is the case then perhaps you yourself are progeny of the Anunnaki  been having any uh _strange _physical occurrences lately?


There is a joke there, but I will refrain. LOL The history of England is interesting. The Vikings kept attacking the north, and after a few generations, the offspring were big enough and pissed off enough to finally stop the raids. This was a case of the offspring of war being a good thing... for England anyway.
Sean


----------



## Jenna (May 22, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> There is a joke there, but I will refrain. LOL The history of England is interesting. The Vikings kept attacking the north, and after a few generations, the offspring were big enough and pissed off enough to finally stop the raids. This was a case of the offspring of war being a good thing... for England anyway.
> Sean


yes.. and they became adept at fighting also and then for their trouble they were indoctrinated and then shanghai#d into the crusades to fight battles that were never theirs pffft.. 

aw I miss your joke and I am in need of a smile (i am smiling anyways guessing your joke for myself haha).. so back on topic uh 



 hahaha.. seriously bands like FotN in particular they are informed a great deal by and utilise the imagery pertaining to your thread subject.. not the best track to illustrate and but it is my fav  xJx


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> There is a joke there, but I will refrain. LOL The history of England is interesting. The Vikings kept attacking the north, and after a few generations, the offspring were big enough and pissed off enough to finally stop the raids. This was a case of the offspring of war being a good thing... for England anyway.
> Sean




I think you have your history a bit skewed. 'Vikings' didn't exist until the 18th century, no one at the time would have recognised themselves as 'Vikings'.

History of the North of England as refers to the Northmen.

http://www.englandsnortheast.co.uk/IrishNorse.html

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/150903/Danegeld


The Normans, the last people to conquer England were actually 'vikings', so, not such a good thing for England.

http://www.hyw.com/books/history/vikings_.htm


----------



## granfire (May 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think you have your history a bit skewed. 'Vikings' didn't exist until the 18th century, no one at the time would have recognised themselves as 'Vikings'.
> 
> History of the North of England as refers to the Northmen.
> 
> ...



So in a round about way the Northmen had to go via France to conquer.....


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

granfire said:


> So in a round about way the Northmen had to go via France to conquer.....



Well it means it wasn't the French lol!

The 'Vikings' never left England, they became kings and it wasn't till old William came across and bumped off King Harold Godwinson at Hastings that we had a different direction, still the Northmen though.
If you read up on Harold Godwinson, you'll see how the Northmen were still in England. http://www.battle-of-hastings-1066.org.uk/biography-king-harold-ii-godwinson.htm


----------



## mmartist (May 22, 2012)

The Viking descendants were concentrated in the northern part of England and there was a big rebellion against  William the Conqueror  and the Normans. The rebellion was savagely crushed even by the standards of the period. But even today the Human Genome Project determined the common ancestry between people in northern England and Scandinavia


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

mmartist said:


> The Viking descendants were concentrated in the northern part of England and there was a big rebellion against William the Conqueror and the Normans. The rebellion was savagely crushed even by the standards of the period. But even today the Human Genome Project determined the common ancestry between people in northern England and Scandinavia




Indeed, led by Hereward the Wake. Hereward is a Danish name, it's thought he was a Saxon with Danish ancestry.


----------



## granfire (May 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Well it means it wasn't the French lol!
> 
> The 'Vikings' never left England, they became kings and it wasn't till old William came across and bumped off King Harold Godwinson at Hastings that we had a different direction, still the Northmen though.
> If you read up on Harold Godwinson, you'll see how the Northmen were still in England. http://www.battle-of-hastings-1066.org.uk/biography-king-harold-ii-godwinson.htm



and they eventually all proginated happily together.... :lfao: 

and in the South the Germans....

one would think being an island in rough sees would keep the riff raff out...


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

granfire said:


> and they eventually all proginated happily together.... :lfao:
> 
> and in the South the Germans....
> 
> one would think being an island in rough sees would keep the riff raff out...



Well there's the Romans, the Saxons, the Angles, the Danes, the Norweigians, the Frisians, the Greeks , the Phoenicians (they all came for tin and other metals) etc etc etc..... we'll take the lot lol. the Celts are natives though...we think.

We do quite happily absorb people from other countries but we don't then kick them out, they just all become English. That's where he had the history wrong, we don't absorb them, interbreed then rise up and kick them out, it didn't happen like that. They get subsumed into our way of life and culture even the Normans did because then we went on to have several wars against the French!


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

mmartist said:


> The Viking descendants were concentrated in the northern part of England and there was a big rebellion against William the Conqueror and the Normans. The rebellion was savagely crushed even by the standards of the period. But even today the Human Genome Project determined the common ancestry between people in northern England and Scandinavia




they were also populous in the Northern Isles of Scotland where the Human Genome Project did take the DNA of the locals and found they match those of people in Scandanavia but that's not surprising really, Shetland belonged to Norway until the 15th century, there's talk of Shetland declaring independance in 2015, they can do it they are very very rich with the oil. Ireland in particular Dublin was known as a Viking settlement as well as the east of England, not just the north.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/vikings/colonists_01.shtml

the Normans http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/normans/after_01.shtml


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think you have your history a bit skewed. 'Vikings' didn't exist until the 18th century, no one at the time would have recognised themselves as 'Vikings'.
> 
> History of the North of England as refers to the Northmen.
> 
> ...


Skewed only, by the fact that Northmen weren't considered Vikings til later in History. Being of Norwegian descent, I'm comfortable with the term, Norge Men, myself.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Well there's the Romans, the Saxons, the Angles, the Danes, the Norweigians, the Frisians, the Greeks , the Phoenicians (they all came for tin and other metals) etc etc etc..... we'll take the lot lol. the Celts are natives though...we think.
> 
> We do quite happily absorb people from other countries but we don't then kick them out, they just all become English. That's where he had the history wrong, we don't absorb them, interbreed then rise up and kick them out, it didn't happen like that. They get subsumed into our way of life and culture even the Normans did because then we went on to have several wars against the French!


The fact is, Britain absorbed them, and the whole point of mentioning them is to say they looked enough like the native people, and a positive trait of being very tall; so, nobody was overly fearful of getting "Northmen" blood in their family. Had they been dark skinned, history would have played out a little differently. The Cogots of France were dark skinned and they had to ring a bell anytime they came to town, and they built their Churches with a special door. The Nazis took their differences a little more seriously, and as a result there are hardly any left.
Sean


----------



## oftheherd1 (May 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think you have your history a bit skewed. 'Vikings' didn't exist until the 18th century, no one at the time would have recognised themselves as 'Vikings'.
> 
> History of the North of England as refers to the Northmen.
> 
> ...



You must be wrong.  According to this http://www.ydalir.co.uk/gallery/2006/lindisfarne.htm the Vikings first invaded in 793.  In the USA we have Viking encampments going back to I think the 1300s.  And to cap it all off, the movie Viking quoted an English prayer book from I think the 1000s asking for protection from Viking raids.  They wouldn't lie would they?  ;-)


----------



## Sukerkin (May 22, 2012)

Hmm, muddy waters here .  "Viking" only came into wide use as a term for the Norse in about the nineteenth century I think?  I put a question mark there as I am not certain without more research.  

Any road up, it has come to be retrospectively used, even in quite serious historical studies, as the term for the various flavours of Scandinavian raiders.  The Norman's that conquered Britain in 1066 are also considered to be Norse (or Northmen) rather than the French that was the common misconception for quite a while.  Most people whose roots go back a fair way in this country have a percentage of Norse blood in them, thanks to the Normans and the various Viking raiders (who eventually became settlers).


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Hmm, muddy waters here . "Viking" only came into wide use as a term for the Norse in about the nineteenth century I think? I put a question mark there as I am not certain without more research.
> 
> Any road up, it has come to be retrospectively used, even in quite serious historical studies, as the term for the various flavours of Scandinavian raiders. The Norman's that conquered Britain in 1066 are also considered to be Norse (or Northmen) rather than the French that was the common misconception for quite a while. Most people whose roots go back a fair way in this country have a percentage of Norse blood in them, thanks to the Normans and the various Viking raiders (who eventually became settlers).




Thats what I was saying, they weren't called Vikings until the 18th century, they had various names before, Norsemen, Danes etc.

We did integrate the 'Viking' invaders but the descendants didn't kill the Vikings off as Touch of Death said in his post. they became part of English society.

I can't see why the population here would have worried about 'dark' people, _the native Celts were dark or red haired ( _still are_),_ the Romans were and there had been trading Mediterranean countries since 2000BCE so that is not a sound theory at all. We'd had black Africans in England since Roman times,  as soldiers, traders etc. They also intermarried btw so I don't think the 'fair' analogy is correct.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Thats what I was saying, they weren't called Vikings until the 18th century, they had various names before, Norsemen, Danes etc.
> 
> We did integrate the 'Viking' invaders but the descendants didn't kill the Vikings off as Touch of Death said in his post. they became part of English society.
> 
> I can't see why the population here would have worried about 'dark' people, _the native Celts were dark or red haired ( _still are_),_ the Romans were and there had been trading Mediterranean countries since 2000BCE so that is not a sound theory at all. We'd had black Africans in England since Roman times,  as soldiers, traders etc. They also intermarried btw so I don't think the 'fair' analogy is correct.


I didn't say they killed the Vikings off, I said they finally repelled the invaders. I'm sure marrying black Africans didn't really catch on as a trend in Britain... In fact I'm positive! LOL  So answer this, how would the Britains handled the Cogots better than the French? Is there some underlying racism in French culture that the Britains didn't share?
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> I didn't say they killed the Vikings off, I said they finally repelled the invaders. I'm sure marrying black Africans didn't really catch on as a trend in Britain... In fact I'm positive! LOL So answer this, how would the Britains handled the Cogots better than the French?* Is there some underlying racism in French culture that the Britains didn't share?
> 
> 
> *Sean



You are kidding right? I think you need to have a good read up on history text books rather than fiction. Black people been here since the Romans invaded at the very least.
http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/black_history.html

You have to remember the history of black people in the UK is *not *that of black people in the USA, in fact it's very different. There's a lot of recorded evidence that intermarriages happened, all through our history and still happens, it was never illegal here to intemarry with a different 'race'. Look up Tiger Bay Cardiff and Liverpool.

http://www.englandsnortheast.co.uk/KingdomofNorthumbria.html

"In the vicinity of Roman forts, native Britons intermarried with Roman soldiers enlisted from far flung corners of the Roman empire like *Iraq or North Africa*." 

France is known as the most rascist country in Europe, we never had a situation similiar to that of the C*a*gots, the nearest similiar situation is in India with the caste system. No, we don't share the French's penchant for showing their rascism in that way.


We didn't repel the Vikings invaders at all, the English married them, paid them off, made them royalty but never repelled them, the Norsemen came and conquered England with William. 

Vikings...


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I think you have your history a bit skewed. 'Vikings' didn't exist until the 18th century, no one at the time would have recognised themselves as 'Vikings'.
> 
> History of the North of England as refers to the Northmen.
> 
> ...


What the... really?  Wow.  That blows my mind.  I always thought that the William the Conqueror and the Normans were essentially French.


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

Steve said:


> What the... really? Wow. That blows my mind. I always thought that the William the Conqueror and the Normans were essentially French.



http://peter.mackenzie.org/history/hist207.htm


Normandy to this day doesn't regard itself as 'French', the Bretons in Brittany are Celts related to the Cornish, their languages are much the same, they can certainly understand each other and the Welsh.


----------



## Steve (May 22, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> http://peter.mackenzie.org/history/hist207.htm
> 
> 
> Normandy to this day doesn't regard itself as 'French', the Bretons in Brittany are Celts related to the Cornish, their languages are much the same, they can certainly understand each other and the Welsh.


I'll say this. You guys have an amazingly diverse and interesting history for such a relatively small plot of land floating off the coast of Europe.


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

Steve said:


> I'll say this. You guys have an amazingly diverse and interesting history for such a relatively small plot of land floating off the coast of Europe.



The history of the UK is fascinating and a subject I'm deeply interested in. Every village, town and city has a story to tell, sometimes even just a field has! 
This isn't bad. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interactive/timelines/british/index_embed.shtml 

People think we are being funny when we pick people up on whether they say UK or GB, England etc but it's the historical roots that run deep that make saying what you mean important. Black history here should be taken seriously as it's different from America's history and it's important to remember that. All history is important, better to learn it properly rather than pine over creatures from fiction or fancy or mistranslations of other peoples religious books...again!


----------



## Sukerkin (May 22, 2012)

A very important history as far as the rest of the Western world is concerned too.  It's an interesting thought experiment to imagine a world where British influence did not rise to the predominance it had.  Leaving aside almost everything else, it would be a different technological landscape that's for sure.

One thing that stands out for me in my countries history and it's taken a long time to come to light due to the later off-the-beaten-trackness of the sites but it turns out that when the Roman Empire imploded, the flame of learning, literacy and scholarship was kept alive here in Britain.  Kept alive for centuries too, until Christianity took too deep a hold of the ruling classes and education was something that only those at the top were allowed to have.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 22, 2012)

I didn`t read about the Vikings in fictional book, but thanks for your concern. Secondly, it is pretty easy to call the French a bunch of racists when you never had their problems.


----------



## Tez3 (May 22, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> I didn`t read about the Vikings in fictional book, but thanks for your concern. Secondly, it is pretty easy to call the French a bunch of racists when you never had their problems.




I take it you don't know much about France then? France itself is a relatively modern construction, like most of Europe it was a collection of different peoples and races, I'm not sure what you consider their problems then. I know the Provencal very well, I also know France and it's history very well, I  know of it's rascism, try being a minority in France living in what are basically ghettos, I know Lyon and quite a few people of Arab descent there. I also know it from a Jewish point of view. From a British point of view we have the descendents of the Hugeneots here, Protestants who fled France after persecution. 

Really you shouldn't assume you think you have any idea of what someone else knows either about their own country or a neighbouring one.


----------



## mmartist (May 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> I'll say this. You guys have an amazingly diverse and interesting history for such a relatively small plot of land floating off the coast of Europe.



If you dig deep enough and find the right sources you could say that for almost every corner of Europe  , well probably except the far north.


----------



## Tez3 (May 23, 2012)

mmartist said:


> If you dig deep enough and find the right sources you could say that for almost every corner of Europe  , well probably except the far north.



Makes for interesting study! of course just about every corner of Europe has been involved with the UK at some time or another. We owned parts of France at one time, have been at war with just about everyone, those we haven't fought we've fought with as allies. The far north we sent explorers (quite a fewactually) to, the far south too.


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Makes for interesting study! of course just about every corner of Europe has been involved with the UK at some time or another. We owned parts of France at one time, have been at war with just about everyone, those we haven't fought we've fought with as allies. The far north we sent explorers (quite a fewactually) to, the far south too.


Yeah, but you guys still like soccer.  Inexplicable, really.  I'm sure it's some deep rooted, European gestalt.


----------



## Tez3 (May 23, 2012)

Steve said:


> Yeah, but you guys still like soccer. Inexplicable, really. I'm sure it's some deep rooted, European gestalt.



Mate, we invented soccer, and rugby, tennis, snooker, cricket, rounders, netball, golf, badminton, squash, shin kicking and *baseball*!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...sport-was-invented-in-Surrey-not-America.html


----------



## Steve (May 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Mate, we invented soccer, and rugby, tennis, snooker, cricket, rounders, netball, golf, badminton, squash, shin kicking and *baseball*!
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...sport-was-invented-in-Surrey-not-America.html


LOL... shin kicking.  I'm good at that one!   We invented American Gladiators, volleyball and basketball.  And Magic the Gathering.  And Dungeons and Dragons!   Oh... nevermind.  You win.  But soccer is still half a sport for kids who have no hand/eye coordination but still want to get some exercise.


----------



## elder999 (May 23, 2012)

The very best, very greatest sport/game of any that could be bestowed on any country was bestowed on  the American continent before there was a United States, or even European colonies, and, in later years, refined to become _lacrosse_, called _baggataway_ by natives from Maine to the Mississipi-*God's Game*,



Nephilim? 

:lfao:


----------



## granfire (May 23, 2012)

:lfao:

wait up, I gotta get a refill and grab my chips!


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 23, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I take it you don't know much about France then? France itself is a relatively modern construction, like most of Europe it was a collection of different peoples and races, I'm not sure what you consider their problems then. I know the Provencal very well, I also know France and it's history very well, I know of it's rascism, try being a minority in France living in what are basically ghettos, I know Lyon and quite a few people of Arab descent there. I also know it from a Jewish point of view. From a British point of view we have the descendents of the Hugeneots here, Protestants who fled France after persecution.
> 
> Really you shouldn't assume you think you have any idea of what someone else knows either about their own country or a neighbouring one.


What I mean by problems, is that similar to Spain there were dark skinned Muslims conquering there land. The Children of these invaders were not slaughtered, but allowed to live in peace on there own, so long as they ring a bell if they came to town. This was never an issue in Britain. It is easy to say it would have gone better for them in Britain, and maybe it would have, but it didn't. As for talking about the English, and the Jews, I get to do that because the Old Testament is part of Christianity and there are three competeing theories on who the Nephilim were: Human, alien, or Angelic offspring. I am not buying the last two. You seem more upset over my over simplifications, but there is every bit as much blood on the hands of the Britains as anyone else; so, great they married a few Africans, but they didn't have thousands, and mind you this is thousands of years ago, not the Civil war era.
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (May 23, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> What I mean by problems, is that similar to Spain there were dark skinned Muslims conquering there land. The Children of these invaders were not slaughtered, but allowed to live in peace on there own, so long as they ring a bell if they came to town. This was never an issue in Britain. It is easy to say it would have gone better for them in Britain, and maybe it would have, but it didn't. As for talking about the English, and the Jews, I get to do that because the Old Testament is part of Christianity and there are three competeing theories on who the Nephilim were: Human, alien, or Angelic offspring. I am not buying the last two. You seem more upset over my over simplifications, but there is every bit as much blood on the hands of the Britains as anyone else; so, great they married a few Africans, but they didn't have thousands, and mind you this is thousands of years ago, not the Civil war era.
> Sean



they were allowed to live in peace as long as they rang a bell? Well lucky old them, guess they never got to have a chat with the Inquistitors, oh yes they were in France as well as Spain. You should also know that there is no solid evidence that the reason these people had to ring a bell was because they were the 'children' of Moors, there's various theories as to why they were victimised all as good as the next, there's no facts to support that only theories. One theory is that they are the descendants of lepers, this is one that may account for them having to ring a bell before entering a town which is something lepers had to do all over Europe.

Why do you call the British 'Britians'? It's British or Britons, if you are going to be factual, get the facts right. I'm not in the least upset just amused by your ideas which seem to come from fiction ie the idea of the English marrying Vikings because they looked the same, even today a tall blond Viking would stand out in a predominently dark/red haired people, blonds are fewer than you think, real blondes btw not collar and cuff ones.

How do you know we didn't have thousands of Africans here? In 1918 there were over 20000 black people living in the UK, remember we are a small country, that's a high proportion. You stated that the English didn't marry black people, I've shown you they did, they still do btw, we've never had laws against it. And when you say Civil War era do you mean ours or yours?

Your approach to history is to be fanciful with the facts to suit yourself, the Nephilim aren't anything to do with history, barely anything to do with theology really.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> they were allowed to live in peace as long as they rang a bell? Well lucky old them, guess they never got to have a chat with the Inquistitors, oh yes they were in France as well as Spain. You should also know that there is no solid evidence that the reason these people had to ring a bell was because they were the 'children' of Moors, there's various theories as to why they were victimised all as good as the next, there's no facts to support that only theories. One theory is that they are the descendants of lepers, this is one that may account for them having to ring a bell before entering a town which is something lepers had to do all over Europe.
> 
> Why do you call the British 'Britians'? It's British or Britons, if you are going to be factual, get the facts right. I'm not in the least upset just amused by your ideas which seem to come from fiction ie the idea of the English marrying Vikings because they looked the same, even today a tall blond Viking would stand out in a predominently dark/red haired people, blonds are fewer than you think, real blondes btw not collar and cuff ones.
> 
> ...


Show me evidence there there were races of Black people co-existing with the natives, and I will consider it, but until then... As for being the decsendence of Lepers, thats a good one, but now who is playing with fiction? The Nephilim are mentioned in other religions as well, but if you wanna go with what you have been told that is fine. I think you should read a little more on the subject, your self, if you think these people weren't acting according to their beliefs. LOL
Sean


----------



## Sukerkin (May 24, 2012)

Gently now, ladies and gentlemen - if we contrive to make a needlessly acrimonious argument out of something that should be an interesting discussion then I shall be very disappointed.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 24, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Gently now, ladies and gentlemen - if we contrive to make a needlessly acrimonious argument out of something that should be an interesting discussion then I shall be very disappointed.


I thought it could be. The Seventh Day Adventists believe they were people that really existed; so, I am fairly confident that they know their stuff. I will agree that aliens never existed, and that Angels didn't prey upon human females, but if every one agrees that someone called nephilim were a threat, then something happened in history, one way or another. Modern DNA evidence has shown that the Cogot were not lepers; and, I am sorry if I thought an out dated theory to be funny. 
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (May 24, 2012)

It's not *Cogot* btw, they are *Cagot*. I didn't say they were descended form lepers but that it is one of the theories of their origins. There is the theory they are the remains of the Moors supported by some historians but the truth is...no one actually knows! 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-last-untouchable-in-europe-878705.html

Perhaps what the angels actually did was pray on women? 


I can't understand why Touch of Death finds it hard to believe that black and white people can intermarry and live together. Why on earth couldn't they or perhaps he thinks they shouldn't? Intermarriage between black and white people as well as other races is common enough, so I'm surprised that he finds it unbelievable but there you go. Minorities in the UK haven't always been treated well, this included the poor treatment of the Celtic nations as well as other, but the fact is we have had black people here for a very long time, long before slavery.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/intro/intro.htm

But as I said, there you go, whatever, as the kids say.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> It's not *Cogot* btw, they are *Cagot*. I didn't say they were descended form lepers but that it is one of the theories of their origins. There is the theory they are the remains of the Moors supported by some historians but the truth is...no one actually knows!
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-last-untouchable-in-europe-878705.html
> 
> Perhaps what the angels actually did was pray on women?
> ...


Yes, you got me. I have an agenda. Fill in the blanks however you like.  This is rich so far. LOL
Sean


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps what the angels actually did was pray on women?


As an aside to the argument ongoing, this was a funny typo. I imagine women carrying praying angels on their backs.  It made me smile.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> As an aside to the argument ongoing, this was a funny typo. I imagine women carrying praying angels on their backs.  It made me smile.


I need to stop trying to talk from an android. I can barely keep in on the right page. Spelling is easier when I am sitting at a keyboard. LOL


----------



## Tez3 (May 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> As an aside to the argument ongoing, this was a funny typo. I imagine women carrying praying angels on their backs. It made me smile.



typo indeed, it was a joke! you know' he said prey, I said they perhaps prayed? Oh well a joke isn't funny when you have to explain it!

Touch of Death, erm...i don't think you are actually reading my posts...or Steves for that matter.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> typo indeed, it was a joke! you know' he said prey, I said they perhaps prayed? Oh well a joke isn't funny when you have to explain it!
> 
> Touch of Death, erm...i don't think you are actually reading my posts...or Steves for that matter.


To be blunt, I am talking about ancient history, and you want to talk about how wonderful and very different Britain is. Great. I'm sure it has seen plenty of visitors. The whole point of bring the place up is that it was an example of where something like what happened to the Cogots didn't happen. Nothing else is on topic.


----------



## Tez3 (May 24, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> To be blunt, I am talking about ancient history, and you want to talk about how wonderful and very different Britain is. Great. I'm sure it has seen plenty of visitors. The whole point of bring the place up is that it was an example of where something like what happened to the Cogots didn't happen. Nothing else is on topic.



CAGOTS for crying out loud.... the rest of that sentence is a real tongue twister! You are stating as a fact that what happened to the Cagots happened because they were descended from the Moors, this isn't a fact, it's a theory, the truth is no one knows why they went through what they did.  

I'm not said Britain is wonderful though many I'm sure think it is, it is different, of course it is, isn't each place in North America different? Isn't North America different from South America? You are flipping around with random statements that don't tally with history, I know my own country's and Europe's history but you seen inclined to believe fiction writers rather than the facts.  

You really aren't reading what I've written.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> CAGOTS for crying out loud.... the rest of that sentence is a real tongue twister! You are stating as a fact that what happened to the Cagots happened because they were descended from the Moors, this isn't a fact, it's a theory, the truth is no one knows why they went through what they did.
> 
> I'm not said Britain is wonderful though many I'm sure think it is, it is different, of course it is, isn't each place in North America different? Isn't North America different from South America? You are flipping around with random statements that don't tally with history, I know my own country's and Europe's history but you seen inclined to believe fiction writers rather than the facts.
> 
> You really aren't reading what I've written.


The fact that they were different had a lot to do with it. The fiction writer, while mentioning those people did not say where they came from either. Nor has he said they were nephilim, in fact he said something different all together. I was just using those people as an example, of people who were feared because they were different, and there is your reason right there. That is why they were kept away, simple as that.


----------



## Steve (May 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not said Britain is wonderful though many I'm sure think it is, it is different, of course it is, isn't each place in North America different?


Well, for what it's worth, there isn't much worth seeing in Mississippi.  Most of Texas is iffy, as well.


----------



## Tez3 (May 24, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> The fact that they were different had a lot to do with it. The fiction writer, while mentioning those people did not say where they came from either. Nor has he said they were nephilim, in fact he said something different all together. I was just using those people as an example, of people who were feared because they were different, and there is you reason right there. That is why they were kept away, simple as that.




Said who were nephilim? Vikings? Gagot, French, English, who? You're skipping around so much, there's no sense to your sentences.


As for being persecuted for being different? Boy, can I tell you some things about that or perhaps you don't think I know what it's like to be a persecuted minority?


----------



## Tez3 (May 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> Well, for what it's worth, there isn't much worth seeing in Mississippi. Most of Texas is iffy, as well.




Methinks you will upset some residents of those places now?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Said who were nephilim? Vikings? Gagot, French, English, who? You're skipping around so much, there's no sense to your sentences.
> 
> 
> As for being persecuted for being different? Boy, can I tell you some things about that or perhaps you don't think I know what it's like to be a persecuted minority?


That is the whole point. I am talking about persecuted minorities. Good we are on topic... finally. LOL Now before we get back into anglo-politics and practices. The author, in another book, said who and what the Kurds thought the Nephilim were, in passing, but you need to study what the Kurds think your self, God forbid I misspell something. LOL 
Sean


----------



## Tez3 (May 24, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> That is the whole point. I am talking about persecuted minorities. Good we are on topic... finally. LOL Now before we get back into anglo-politics and practices. The author, in another book, said who and what the Kurds thought the Nephilim were, in passing, but you need to study what the Kurds think your self, God forbid I misspell something. LOL
> Sean




If you want to be taken seriously when discussing history it helps to spell correctly, it's a matter of integrity. It shows you have either researched your subject or have a good knowledge, gets you taken seriously.


You weren't talking about persecuted minorities you were talking about angels shagging human women. Being a persecuted minority myself from who's literature this stuff has been abstracted from, I may have a better idea of the original than you.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 24, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> If you want to be taken seriously when discussing history it helps to spell correctly, it's a matter of integrity. It shows you have either researched your subject or have a good knowledge, gets you taken seriously.
> 
> 
> You weren't talking about persecuted minorities you were talking about angels shagging human women. Being a persecuted minority myself from who's literature this stuff has been abstracted from, I may have a better idea of the original than you.


Yep you rock!LOL But anyway, according to what I have read, beside this book. There is plenty on the subject from the surrounding religions; so, yes you may be more of an expert on your religion, but everyone had there own take, and they weren't looking to the Jews for their take on the subject; so, no it wasn't always your literature. This is why the Book of Enoch isn't official, it borrows from other religions, Or so I have seen in documentaries. Don't shoot the messenger. LOL


----------



## Tez3 (May 24, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Yep you rock!LOL But anyway, according to what I have read, beside this book. There is plenty on the subject from the surrounding religions; so, yes you may be more of an expert on your religion, but everyone had there own take, and they weren't looking to the Jews for their take on the subject; so, no it wasn't always your literature. This is why the Book of Enoch isn't official, it borrows from other religions, Or so I have seen in documentaries. Don't shoot the messenger. LOL



You know, trying to follow your thoughts on things is like trying to knit fog. It's gone midnight, I've worked a 12 hour day shift then been to martial arts for three hours, I'm knackered so am off to bed. Have fun.


----------

