Latest

Rhesus (RH) negative blood? You may belong to the Nephilim

If you have rhesus (RH) negative blood you may belong to the Nephilim – a parallel race to us humans.

Recent studies have shown that this rare blood group may indicate non-human traits in your makeup which set you apart from the conventional DNA of homo sapiens.

There is a lot of confusion about the origin of the word Nephilim and what it means. In Hebrew it literally means to fall. As in fallen angel. The Bible, the Talmud and the Koran (where they are referred to as Djinn) all speak of fallen angels.

In the Book of Genesis in the Bible it relates how the Nephilim produced children with humans. One was even depicted as killing Japheth, Noah’s son, and taking his place whereupon he fathered many children with Japheth’s unsuspecting wife which eventually populated much of Northern Europe.

Experts can’t agree about where the origin of this side order of humans may have originated, citing fallen angels (Nephilim) or aliens as possible sources, but they do agree on the characteristics which can include:

  • Higher than average IQ
  • More sensitive vision and other senses.
  • Lower body temperature
  • Higher blood pressure
  • Increased occurrence of psychic/intuitive abilities
  • Predominantly blue, green, or hazel eyes
  • Red or reddish hair
  • Increased sensitivity to heat and sunlight
  • Cannot be cloned
  • Extra vertebra

Once you have finished checking yourself over, if you are Rhesus Negative you are already very special as very few (15%) people fall within that category. It’s interesting to note that the coloring referred to in these characteristics are typical of Northern Europe – an echo of the Biblical story of Noah’s son being murdered by the Nephilim and the children produced populating Northern Europe perhaps?

But what does Rhesus Negative mean exactly? Of the human blood types, O is the most common. It is a universal blood type. Blood types are further broken down into two groups, negative and positive. This is called the RH factor. The RH factor is the Rhesus (rhesus as in monkey) blood factor.

If your blood tests positive for this, you have the factor in your blood. If you test negative, you do not have the factor in your blood.

The RH factor is a protein found in the human blood that is directly linked to the Rhesus Monkey.

When blood type is inherited from your parents, it is known that this factor element of the blood is the most consistent human or animal characteristic passed on to the off spring. There are VERY few aberrations. It rarely changes. Most people, about 85%, have RH-positive blood. That could support the idea that humans evolved or were derived from Primates. 15 % of humans have RH-negative blood.

If blood type is one of least mutable human characteristic, where did the RH negative come from? This question has puzzled scientists for years. There is some evidence that suggests the RH-negative blood group may have appeared about 35,000 years ago. And the appearance was regional and seemed to, originally, be connected with certain groups/tribes of people.

Northern Spain and Southern France is where you can find some of the highest concentration of the RH-negative factor in the Basque people. Another original group were the Eastern/Oriental Jews. In general, about 40 – 45% of Europeans have the RH-negative group. Only about 3% of African descendent and about 1% of Asian or Native American descendent has the RH-negative group. Due to the larger European numbers, it is a safe bet that was where it was introduced into the human genetic code. Could this also be where the Caucasian was introduced? Is the introduction of Caucasian related to the RH-blood factor.

This would lend credence that the RH-negative factor was introduced from an outside source. Could the source be from human like beings from another planet? Or maybe we are just as alien as they are, in that, we are a product of their manipulation and interference. Could they have come here and manipulated life forms already present on earth to create modern man?

Many ancient texts, including, the Bible, do support this theory. Many stories in the ancient texts, especially pre-Christian texts, do tell about a race that from the Heavens to the Earth Came. In the Bible,  man saw them as gods, living long lives and performing miracles. In the Book of Enoch, which never quite made it officially into the Bible as it was considered idolatrous and too concerned with the story of the angels, the Nephilim and fallen angels are referred to in detail.

The book was written by Enoch who was a very interesting and creative Biblical character. He was considered to be the same historical figure as Abraham in the Talmud. It is believed he was closely connected to Archangel Metatron, who, although he sounds more like a Power Ranger, is believed to be the highest of all the Archangels and the closest to God. Some believe he is the angel who greets you at the spiritual bridge between earth and heaven which technically makes him the Grim Reaper. In Greek mythology he is considered the equivalent of Hades who took spirits across the Styx to the Underworld.

Watch an extraordinary video about the Nephilim below and read more about your possible origins here.

This article was originally published in 2014 and is frequently updated

Simon Ludgate
About Simon Ludgate (56 Articles)
Author screenwriter director
  • TheDOTKU

    It’s so boring here. And ugly. I wish I woke into this world not dreading it.

  • Tony Lear

    Noah was born with white skin and blond hair with colored eyes according to the book of Enoch found in the dead sea scrolls. Enoch asked God about this and was told the child was completely human.
    Download the PDF “Book of Enoch” if you want to know how and why the Angels came, their names and crimes……………utterly fascinating read.

    • lyone

      nonsense. Enoch–nor any other biblical book– does not describe the physical characteristics of Noah.

      • benjamin

        it really does. enoch and methusaleh conversed concerning the strange look of noah as he looked not as his siblings so wisdom was sought as noahs father thought his wife unfaithful .

  • http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/337485161 David Howard

    Under secret Presidential Order, signed by President Jimmy Carter http://www.angelfire.com/ut/branton/THE_DULCE_BATTLE.htm

  • TonyaLee Miskell

    The rhesus test has nothing to do with the monkey… it was named after the chemist who pioneered the test… also Noah was recorded as having pale blue eyes and white blond hair as well as being very light skinned… see the Book of Enoch.. so if Noah was perfect in all his generations as the Bible tells us… then that totally blows you hypothesis…

    • SirTerrance Murphy

      -.” The Rhesus factor gets its name from experiments conducted in 1937 by scientists Karl Landsteiner and Alexander S. Weiner. Their experiments involved rabbits which, when injected with the Rhesus monkey’s red blood cells, produced an antigen that is present in the red blood cells of many humans.

    • Vapeman

      The Rhesus test is a Test that distinctly test the Genetic Makeup of an individual for Rhesus Monkey Genome Markers that are distinct with the Rhesus Monkey Genetics and found in around 85% of the Upright Walking Mostly Hairless Verbalizing beings on the surface of the earth. Thus one could Extrapolate 85% of the earth is covered by huMans (those that from the nephilim) , and 15% (Rh Negative) of the earth is covered by MANkind (those that are descendants of GOD’s Best Creation ever MAN).

    • Tamara

      Actually it has everything to do with the rhesus monkey, not quite sure where you are coming from saying it doesn’t as that is THE entire premise of the Rh factor.

    • urbanlover

      In 1939, Philip Levine and Rufus Stetson published in a first case report the clinical consequences of non-recognized Rh factor, hemolytic transfusion reaction and hemolytic disease of the newborn in its most severe form.[1] It was recognized that the serum of the reported woman agglutinated with red blood cells of about 80% of the people although the then known blood groups, in particular ABO were matched. No name was given to this agglutinin when described for the first time. In 1940, Karl Landsteiner and Alexander S. Wiener reported a serum that also reacted with about 85% of different human red blood cells.[2] This serum was produced by immunizing rabbits with red blood cells from Rhesus macaque. The antigen that induced this immunization was designated by them as Rh factor “to indicate that rhesus blood had been used for the production of the serum.”[3]

      Based on the serologic similarities Rh factor was later also used for antigens, and anti-Rh for antibodies, found in humans such as the previously described by Levine and Stetson. Although differences between these two sera were shown already in 1942 and clearly demonstrated in 1963, the already widely used term “Rh” was kept for the clinically described human antibodies which are different from the ones related to the Rhesus monkey. This real factor found in Rhesus macaque was classified in the Landsteiner-Wiener antigen system (antigen LW, antibody anti-LW) in honor of the discoverers.[4][5] It was recognized that the Rh factor was just one in a system of various antigens. Based on different models of genetic inheritance, two different terminologies were developed; both of them are still in use.

      The clinical significance of this highly immunizing D antigen (i.e. Rh factor) was soon realized. Some keystones were to recognize its importance for blood transfusion including reliable diagnostic tests, and hemolytic disease of the newborn including exchange transfusion and very importantly the prevention of it by screening and prophylaxis.

      The discovery of fetal cell-free DNA in maternal circulation by Holzgrieve et al. led to the noninvasive genotyping of fetal Rh genes in many countries.

      • Debbie Wareing

        So does that mean, the clinical serum or missing factor discovered by Philip Levine and Rufus Stetson, present in the human genome, is actually, nothing at all to do with the monkey after all?

        My understanding, if I’m correct, from your comments, is that the later serum reported and used by Karl Landsteiner and Alexander S. was the rhesus blood and was different (although similar) to the human antibodies.

        Basically, the monkey was used to produce a serum that had significant benefit for humans in the treatment of conditions resulting from a lack of this factor.

        Ha ha, very interesting, a topic that I didn’t really know much about, apart from +/- rhesus blood types and the agglutination when mixing the two types, particularly, in reference to a Rh – mother carrying a Rh+ baby.
        So the above comment by Sir Terrance Murphy, is not strictly correct?
        ‘Rhesus monkey’s red blood cells, produced an antigen that is present in the red blood cells of many humans.’
        Ha lol, if that is the case and (I have some faith that it is) because of the references to peer read scientific articles and the accuracy of the science. Then quite clearly, not only the author of the article, Simon Ludgate, but also, the likes of some on here! Ridiculing comments ( eg. Vapeman) should be well and truly silenced! Then there are others, who also disagreed politely with TonyaLee Miskell, when in actual fact she was absolutely right! Short and to the point put down! I like it!

        Although she did, like Simon Ludgate use a non biblical account, the book of Enoch, however, the comment about Noah being ‘perfect in all his generations’ is an accurate biblical account of Noah, who was in the ‘official’ bible considered by God to be the only blameless and righteous person walking at that time! God searched but there proved to be no other like him.

        Pft……. non human blood traits, directly linked to the rhesus monkey! Aliens! Descendents of Nephilim!

        Completely fabricated, he ought to go into ‘creative writing’

        I knew the article and probably the author was a no brainer on the grounds of using a non-biblical book, that ‘officially’ didn’t quite make it in to the bible to back up his argument, ‘an echo of the Biblical story of Noah’s son being murdered by the Nephilim and the children produced populating Northern Europe perhaps?’ As well as other inaccuracies…eg Jesus Christ is the archangel Michael and is the closest to God, as His beloved first creation!

        The man is a fool, I say! A fool! Total utter Rubbish the whole article!

        lol, seriously though, thank you very much for your insight, Urbanlover.

    • Debbie Wareing

      The book of Enoch is not part of the Holy Bible and therefore cannot be given the same standing!
      2Tim 3:16 ‘All scripture is inspired of God’ The mere fact that this book and many others do not appear in the Bible is because they don’t belong there!

      • floathouse

        The book of Enoch is ‘not part of the “Holy Bible” because the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD under the direct supervision of the Emperor Constintine 1, did NOT vote to include it in the “canonical Gospels of the New Testament”, but they DID vote on the Divinity of Jesus Christ. And THAT passed by ONE vote. The net effect is, that the Bible and its teachings is a direct result of the Roman Catholic church deciding by vote what would and would not be included in their religiious view of events that happened three hundred years earlier. Your book is NOT Holy Writ. It is a group of various documents voted on by Roman Catholic Bishops to obtain a consensus on tenants of the Holy Mother Church. Your quoting from a questionable document is typical of folks that don’t know very much about the actual history of the religion they are so bigoted about. You probably should spend about the next 50 years reading and assimilating every religious document ever written, including those from India, and then you might have just enough glimmer of what went on 2,000 years ago to offer up an opinion on it. You have no personal information to know what Jesus said, or did not say, what God wants or doesn’t want. You are relying entirely on what a group of Catholic Bishops voted on, and they have never been known to be objective. Little things, like Oh, say the Inquisition, the Cather wars, Slavery, decimation of cultures in the Americas to name but a few.

  • Max Mills

    Wow, a lot of blatant inaccuracies here. The word “Nephilim” is not used to describe fallen angels in the Bible. It is used to describe the children who are born of the union between “bene elohim” (some think this means angels, the Book of Enoch argues so) and humans. Nephilim are the kids, not the parents. And I do not even know where you are drawing the idea that one killed and replaced Japheth. You cannot just invent things and pretend they are true for the sake of supporting your bizarre conspiracy theory.

    Also, Hades didnt ferry anybody across the river styx. Charon did that.

    Your science stuff is all ridiculous too but these points feel like enough to sink your article so I dont feel a particular drive to keep going.

    • William C. Steffen

      Interesting, how you say; “You cannot just invent things and pretend they are true for the sake of supporting your bizarre conspiracy theory.” even though you discuss the Bible, fallen angels, children of angels and humans, etc….. (all things that were made up) as though they were / are real.

      • Max Mills

        My comment is discussing what is and is not true of characters in books. Whether those characters are real and whether I believe those characters are real (I do not think Charon is real) has no impact on the point I am making.

      • Vapeman

        You are clearly a human, no ability to contemplate, you are just rash emotionally driven hairless monkey that speaks.

        • Mike Kelley

          meat can sing too….

          • Ava Evita

            and dance

      • Debbie Wareing

        Also interesting that you make the arrogant assumption that the Bible is ‘all things that were made up’! What qualifies you to make such a statement and what evidence do you base it on? The comment only goes to prove that you do in fact invent things to support your theory! Show me real tangible evidence that all things in the bible are made up! From my knowledge and understanding the Bible holds up to be an accurate historical account of human history and fulfilment of prophecy no scientist/historian/theologian/philosopher to date has been able to provide any evidence to the contrary! Granted all things in the Bible may not seem believable to man and man may not always have the correct understanding of the scriptures, but that does not mean that they aren’t true or that they are made up! As the Bible quite clearly states in Jeramiah 10:23…..’that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step’

        • Mike Kelley

          good luck with that accurate account and fulfilling prophecy stuff….

        • Daniel Eggeman

          Lol. I hope this is meant as satire and buffoonery.

          • Debbie Wareing

            haha…lol…I can see why you said that and to be honest, in the first instance, it was his arrogance that got me on one! I do not like flippant remarks that have no substance! I remain contrite, although I suppose, maybe I was a touch frivolous!
            Not so much buffoonery however, I do actually hold the bible in high esteem. The bible has been translated, in whole or in part, into about 2,600 languages. It is by far the most widely translated and distributed book in history. Despite many corrupt religious leaders trying to withhold it, from the common man and all the unbelievers or non Christian efforts to destroy it! Not least the Roman government!

            The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete manuscript dating 1008/9 C.E. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain about 220 biblical manuscripts or fragments that have been dated more than a thousand years older than the Leningrad codex. Despite the manuscripts, in the scrolls, having some variation in wording the message itself, was the same as the Bible today. One scholar stated

            “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted. Another Bible scholar wrote

            “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning” He also said

            “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded, as beyond all doubt.”

            The Author and Originator of the Bible, I believe is also its Preserver.
            He is the One who caused this statement to be recorded: (Isa 40:8)
            “The word of our God endures forever”

            And so you see not total buffoonery!

          • Alec Gonzalez

            I am all for a person having faith, Man should have faith. However, the ignorant nonsense you spew here is a direct indictment of religion. NOTHING you posted is supported by fact. Science has regularly proven the bible inaccurate. The book itself is best read as allegory, and even then it is best to remember it was a socio-political tool when it was written. As for the dead sea scrolls, half of those contradict the other half and the bible as well. The distribution of a work, especially one that was carried by hostile conquerors who literally committed murder in order to ensure it’s predominance, is in no way a measure of it’s accuracy. In closing, all of your remarks are flippant and contain no real substance. Religion truly is the opium of the masses, it numbs the mind and destroys the person.

          • Debbie Wareing

            I am interested to know what and when you believe that science has proved the bible as inaccurate? I am also interested in why you consider what I posted as ignorant spew. I clearly referenced my sources.
            As for your comment about the Dead Sea scrolls…yes clearly there were spurious manuscripts that claimed to be biblical writings however, if one has actually read and studied the bible it is evident that certain manuscripts directly contradict the bible with idolatrous worship, magical divination

          • Maria

            Touché. Well said. fantastic, could not have conveyed it better, if I’d wrote this myself! The epitome of human reasoning. Without dumb prejudice.

        • Maria

          The Bible was an invention, a story told. You brainwashed fool. Ha ha. The only thing that is real is nature…

          • Debbie Wareing

            How arrogant!

          • Smawt

            The Bible isn’t “A” story. It’s “A” Biblical. “A” Library. A collection of spiritually motivated accounts, records, foreshadowings etc by MANY authors over a period of MANY years. Fool is one who speaks without knowledge professing to have some and doing not much more than entertaining, like one that falls down trying to walk with her shoes on the wrong feet… “Maria”

    • Eileen Negron

      All very interesting. Can you provide more insight? I would be interested to read about it. 🙂

      • stoppuppymills

        I love your photo.

    • Brandon Harrison

      I agree, the nephilim where the offspring of human women and “the sons of god” in genesis. Literally bene Elohim means sons of godly beings. In kabbalah there are 10 levels of being, from man to god. Men(more accurately, manlike beings) are called ashim, then above them are the kerubim( called the strong ones, most likely the same as the nephilim, described as giants in some esoteric texts, other directly contradict this though) above them are bene Elohim, then Elohim, then malakim(messengers) then seraphim(burning ones, serpents) then hashmallim(the shining/glowing ones) then erelim(brave ones) then ophanim(wheels) then hayot ha kodesh which are “the holy living ones” the only one above them is the godhead, which can’t technically be described as living as we know it.

      • The neg family

        It’s only bizarre to you because you just don’t care to elaborate and possibly jealous you can’t come up with other theories besides the ones already told.

        • charlieweird

          no its called a correction of errors .. as a student of Jewish mysticism.. I can assure you what he says is true… the author is the one fabricating shit out of whole cloth… pity you want to believe lies because it pleases you somehow… judging from your screen name, you probably think you’re special… because of this load of horsecrap.

        • Bill Nada

          Yeah! Make up your own BS!

      • Rado

        Modern Kabbalah interpretation is transgressed into spiritism and Buddha-based religions that accept reincarnation: they say that humans, in succesive reincarnations, reach a god-like state ( with prior 9 levels or degrees of spiritual embelishment trough every day living suffering) being transformed in angels, thus not being obliged to reincarnation. However, this science is false and is Fallen Angels deceit. Jesus and God (in Book of Enoch) clearly states that humans are ment to live once and eventually die, no matter what.

        So give me a break with this Kabbalah crap!! People who eat and shit on a regular basis cannot reach a God-like position.

        Ancient knowledge? Don’t worry: Days of end should be like days of Noah. In pre-flood times, people would have iPhones, flying devices, music stars like Rhianna, and even television, but they didn’t know how to read and write (because they lived too long to ever need to transpose knowledge). Even with that progress (which was bigger than our, due to Fallen Angels) they couldn’t avoid death (in order to gain eternal living) and God’s wrath!

        So what do you think? Is this Kabbalah futile for the mankind?

        With Consideration and respects,

        R. I.

    • Dharma

      I’m O neg and I interpreted him as saying i’m a hybrid that’s going to a dark place when i pass. Whaattt????? had a panic attack after…

    • chosen

      You Sounds like a monkey talkin to me

    • Domfincrag Gaming

      I was actually looking for a serious article and came across this nonsense. The ethnic group with the highest rate of rh neg blood are the basque of the Spanish-FrenshPyrenees,not so much the northern europeans.

  • Vapeman

    Um no, try the reverse you silly fool. RH Negative are the TRUE Children. We are Each Unique, and Each different, Each a True Descendant of the Creation of GOD. That is why we can not be “cloned” and have the innate abilities and intelligence we do.

  • Tamara

    Rh- did not appear here 35,000 years ago. It is simply the oldest bloodlines from the first inhabitants of Earth, that didn’t have their genetics mixed with that of the ape. The stories that Rh- people are “aliens” is astral based in origin and nothing but disinformation. Sure, in this day and age, all of us have genetics from multiple star systems however, when it comes to the BLOOD line, Rh- is the only remnants left of those not messed with by Enki and Enlil.

  • The Pork

    Well that would explain a lot! coming from a neg blood line, however the negs are in abundance in Europe, when I was a kid in the UK it was about 50/50!!!

  • Linda Stadstad

    This is bullshit. Those with rh neg blood are pure bloods. Which I believe are descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdeline.

    • Shells

      I’m Rh Neg

      • code4blue

        As am I, two markers one from each parent, active HH.

    • Debbie Wareing

      I assume from that statement you are rh neg! What makes you think that Christ would have had relations with Mary Magdeline or any other woman for that matter. That would be a total contradiction of His teachings! Do not fornicate!!

      • Matt Matt

        Where did Jesus say “no not fornicate”?

        • Debbie Wareing

          There are a number of scriptures in the new testament that indicates sexual immorality to be unclean, to abstain from, neither let us practice etc.

          Matthew 15:19 Jesus says that sexual immorality defiles a man.

          Acts 15:20 says ‘to abstain from sexual immorality.’

          1Corinthians 10:8 says ‘neither let us practice sexual immorality’.

          Galatians 5:19 says ‘now the works of the flesh are plainly seen and they are sexual immorality, unclean brazen conduct.’

          Ephesians 5:3 ‘Let sexual immorality and every sort of uncleanness or greediness not even be mentioned among you.’

          1Thessalonians 4:3 ‘For this is the will of God that you should be holy and abstain from sexual immorality.’

          The translation of ‘sexual immorality’ in these scriptures is from the Greek word ‘porneia’, which is a general term for all unlawful sexual intercourse. It includes adultery, prostitution, sexual relations between unmarried individuals, homosexuality and bestiality. This of course is unlawful in the eyes of God, man made laws of course vary from country to country and maybe some laws of man do not acknowledge them all, as unlawful.

          • Matt Matt

            I asked you to say when/where did Jesus say “do not fornicate”. Not only have you failed to give me any direct quotes/sources to support this claim but the other bible quotes you have given are vague, indirect and while open to interpretation there is no basis for assuming that fornication is prohibited. Are you just another religious person who jumps to baseless assumptions regarding bible text’s and tries to pass off their own, often baseless, interpretations as gospel? There is certainly no basis for your claims regarding Jesus’ teachings as he said nothing that could be linked to your claim. But even general bible quotes fail to support your claim

          • Debbie Wareing

            Firstly, I did not say that Jesus said ‘do not fornicate’ What I said was – ‘What makes you think that Christ would have had relations with Mary Magdeline or any other woman for that matter. That would be a total contradiction of His teachings! Do not fornicate!! (these are my words, they are not punctuated as speech or a quote). I was expressing the meaning of Jesus’ teachings.
            Secondly, how can you possibly say that: 1Thessalonians 4:3
            ‘For this is the will of God that you should be holy and abstain from sexual immorality.’
            is in any way vague or indirect? It’s pretty clear to me. Perhaps a different bible version with surrounding verses and context might help clear the fog.
            The apostle Paul’s letter to the new congregation of first century Christian’s in Thessalonica. As a new congregation the apostle Paul wrote to them because he knew the people had been exposed to errant teaching from those in opposition to the way of Jesus Christ. He was in fear that false teachers might have infiltrated their number and so his letter was to encourage and motivate them with regard to their firm hope of Jesus Christ’s ultimate return.
            (NIV) 1Th4:1-5
            ‘Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;’

            That conveys a very clear and direct meaning with regard to Jesus’ teachings and the will of God.

            Furthermore with regard to your comment and I quote
            ‘There is certainly no basis for your claims regarding Jesus’ teachings as he said nothing that could be linked to your claim’
            On the contrary!
            (NIV) Matthew 15:1-20 (for context and clarity) Jesus answers questions from the Pharisees and then he explains the meaning to his disciples.
            ‘1 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” 3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6 he is not to ‘honor his father ‘ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8 ” ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. 10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand.11 What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ “12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?” 13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.14 Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’ 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ ”

            As this is Jesus speaking directly, one must intelligently interpret the deed of sexual immorality or fornication (sexual relations outside of marriage) as unclean, in the eyes of Jesus and the will of his Father. Other translations also term sexual immorality as unholy and evil. In addition there are many scriptures that express a very high view of marriage and parallels it to the relationship between God and his faithful followers, such as Ep 5:25-33, Mt 19:4-6, 1Co 7:1-16, Col 3:18-19, He 13:4-7, Mr 10:6-9, and Mt 22 and many more. Not to mention the many scriptures that refers to those committing sexual immorality not entering the Kingdom of God.
            And incidentally, I do not belong to any religious order and neither do I practice any form or organised religion! I merely have an interest in the bible! And I would never try to pass off my views, as gospel!
            I therefore suggest that it is, in fact yourself, who jumps to baseless assumptions!

          • Matt Matt

            Ok you didn’t put actual quotations around “do not fornicate” but your sentence was pretty clear that you were claiming this to be Jesus’ teachings. As for your question as to why I call the “evidence” you gave as vague, 1) sexual immorality is not defined 2) Jesus’ teachings were no always consistent with the rest of the bible, so other bible quotes are not overly relevant (and failed to be as specific as you claim or assume anyway) 3) Sex with in a married couple (or the equivalent for those times, as marriage did not exist in the form it does today) was not prohibited by the bible or Jesus, quite the opposite in fact so Jesus procreating with Mary Magdalene would in no way contradict his teachings, or even the general teachings of the bible.
            Your dismissal of the idea that Jesus would procreate with a woman or take a woman as a partner have no basis outside of your clearly biased and very presumptuous assumptions. Neither Jesus or the bible outlawed such a thing. And your definition of sexual immorality is exactly that, YOUR DEFINITION. And even if your definition was accurate it does not include procreation, which is the one (and apparently only) form of sex the bible does condone.
            So not only have you given no basis for the claim that Jesus’ teachings prohibited fornication but in any case the procreative sex implied by him fathering a child is perfectly in keeping with the bible. I’m not saying he did father a child, I am just saying your rationale for claiming that he wouldn’t is baseless, senseless and in my opinion rooted purely in your own bias preconception

          • Debbie Wareing

            Perhaps you ought to check the dictionary on the meaning of fornication and sexual immorality! Maybe then you might a) realise that it is not actually MY DEFINITION and b) actually get a sense of the point I am making!
            I did not say sex was prohibited, I was referring to sexual immorality or fornication which is sex OUTSIDE of a marriage!
            I accept that the Old Testament had the Mosaic law when God was involved with his people. The law was to protect them, mainly, I sense from idolatry, but also, as you say the times were different then and monogamy was not standard and it was at that time permitted to takes more than one wife. However, that was a temporary provision, as God always intended it to be, one man, one wife, when he instigated the first marriage in the Garden of Eden. (Gen 2:23-24) Then the man said: “This is at last bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh. This one will be called Woman because from man she was taken. That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife.”
            Furthermore, Jesus ended the old Mosaic law (Ro 10:4) and gave the Christians in the New Testament, a new law, (Mr 12:30-31 “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this, ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

            Jesus was not prohibited from sex or fathering a child but it would have had to be in the holy sanctimony of a married union.
            He would not have condemn the Pharisees as hypocrites and then go against his own words and commit ‘evil thoughts’ of sexual immorality!

            To have had sexual relations with any female or fathered a child, he would have married first!
            Had Jesus taken a wife, then yes, fine, sex and the fathering of a child would have been perfectly acceptable in God’s eyes. However that was not the case Jesus made it clear that he was on Earth to do God’s Will and that the taking of a wife would be a distraction.

            Jesus gave up his perfect life and was without sin! To redeem mankind and pay a ransom sacrifice for the original sin of Adam, that the whole of mankind inherited.

            For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift of God gives everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord. (Ro 6:23) but Jesus was not born of Adam, rather he was born of Mary, in the line of David, an immaculate conception! Therefore, he did not inherit Adam’s sin. He was born perfect and sinless and neither did he sin during his life on Earth. That is why his sacrifice not only gained God’s approval and restored man’s standing with God, but also redeems mankind, that he might live forever.
            Through Jesus Christ our saviour, man now has an opportunity to seek God’s Kingdom and survive the end of this system!

            Thy Kingdom come!
            Thy Will, be done!

          • Matt Matt

            You do realise the dictionary was written after the bible? So its definition of sexual immorality is not overly relevant.
            But we seem to be making some progress as you now admit that Jesus could have fathered a child if he was married. So why are you so certain he did not marry?
            There is a relatively popular theory that Jesus took Mary Magdalene as his partner and wife. Your original comment stated that this would have been against his teachings of do not fornicate, which are now changing to simply saying he did not marry. But how can you be so certain he did not marry?
            My point is that your beliefs are full of baseless assumptions. No where does Jesus say people cannot have sex, even outside of wedlock, but even if he did, the claim that he may have fathered a child with Mary Magdalene, who he took as his wife, cannot be refuted in any definitive way. You may find it unbelievable based on your preconceived ideas of Jesus, but such assumptions have not basis and much of what you claim about Jesus, his life and his teachings is nothing but assumptions based on virtually nothing.
            This is my problem with religious people like yourself. You have no real evidence to support your belief yet you claim that such beliefs are facts, when they are not even well supported theories.
            You still have failed to provide any evidence for your ideas about Jesus’ teachings and now you are making other claims that also has no basis, claiming that Jesus would not or could not marry has no basis.

          • Debbie Wareing

            My original statement still stands!

            My belief’s are not assumptions, they are based on the Bible, which is the only source of Jesus’ ministry and teachings, with any detail or credibility! There are some secular manuscripts confirming that a man called Jesus, who claimed to be the son of God and performed some miraculous deeds, did in fact exist. There are also some writings that make reference to his death and resurrection, however, the secular accounts are very sparse and limited in detail.

            You do not accept the Bible as a source of evidence, you also state that I have made up the definition of sexual immorality, because the dictionary is also not an acceptable source of definitions.
            Yet, you assume to have some sort of knowledge of Jesus’ life, that differs from the majority of other believers such as theologians, religious groups and denominations, bible scholar’s and many other intellects, even scientists!

            So please tell…..what it is, that you base your ideas upon?

            As there is absolutely no evidence or proof, in any manuscripts, reports or writings of that time, in fact not even a shred or fragment has been found that says Jesus took a wife, married, had sexual relations or fathered a child…

            I assume that your comments about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, are based on something other than your own biased and baseless assumptions?

            Oh yes, sorry it’s because….
            ‘There is a relatively popular theory’

            Hmm…interesting….so your opinions are based on rumour, idle gossip and speculation!

            Whilst mine are based on The bible which has been translated, in whole or in part, into about 2,600 languages. It is by far the most widely translated and distributed book in history. Despite many corrupt religious leaders trying to withhold it, from the common man and all the unbelievers or non Christian efforts to destroy it! Not least the Roman government!

            The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete manuscript dating 1008/9 C.E. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain about 220 biblical manuscripts or fragments that have been dated more than a thousand years older than the Leningrad codex. Despite the manuscripts, in the scrolls, having some variation in wording the message itself, was the same as the Bible today. One scholar stated

            “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted. Another Bible scholar wrote

            “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning” He also said

            “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded, as beyond all doubt.”

            So even though you most likely don’t even believe the ‘Jesus and Mary Magdalene gossip,’…. your attempt at ridiculing me due to your prejudiced generalisation of… as you say

            ‘religious people like yourself’

            has not worked in the least and because of your obvious discriminatory attack, you have shown yourself to be, without substance and rather ‘fickle’

          • Matt Matt

            Unlike you I am not pretending to know whether or not Jesus was married. I was simply saying that your claims that he wasn’t and that such a thing would somehow contradicted his teachings were seemingly based on nothing but assumptions and presumptions about his teachings and the bible teachings that didn’t seem to even support your claim.
            I am not trying to ridicule you I was just asking if your claims had any basis. One way or another I got my answer.
            I haven’t made any claims about Jesus. I wasn’t saying he did father a child, I was just saying there was no known reason why he would not have. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you do not believe Jesus did father a child then that is fine, I have no belief either way on this as there is not sufficient evidence of either the claim that he did or the claim that he didn’t.

          • Debbie Wareing

            I am not pretending to know, I am merely pointing out that the teachings of Jesus Christ from the Bible’s account of his ministry, is that sex outside of marriage (sexual immorality and fornication) is considered…. ‘unholy, unclean, treacherous, vile, disgusting, dishonourable and yes “a sin.” Hence the term for unmarried couples living together, as ‘living in sin!’

            Jesus Christ had the same gift of ‘free will’ that all mankind received.

            I never said that it wasn’t possible for him to have sexual relations or father a child. I said it goes against his teachings and it would render his death and ransom sacrifice, as null and void!

            If he had! and a big IF… Jesus had committed fornication or fathered a child, outside of marriage, (outside being the operative word here), then his death would not have been as a ‘sinless and perfect’ human. The ransom was to pay back man’s sin and vindicate Almighty God against the original lie…

            “That no man possessing free will, would worship God until death, without being tempted into sin.” (Not an actual quote, but the generally accepted understanding, within most religious organisations).

            I am certain that if there was any shred of evidence, what so ever, of Jesus Christ having sinned or fallen short of the ransom sacrifice. Some glorifying, non believer would, without a doubt, ensure the whole world knew about it! It would be plastered over all the national and international news and media!
            It would be the collapse of religion, as the whole of Christendom bases their faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and God’s Kingdom. The whole message of the Bible from start to finish is about the forthcoming ‘seed’ that would be a ransom sacrifice that paid back man’s sin, so that we (mankind) might all be saved. It’s what every Christian prayer’s for, life under God’s rule.

            “Our Father, which art in heaven,
            Hallowed be thy Name.
            Thy Kingdom come.
            Thy will be done in earth,
            As it is in heaven.”

            And so you see, my point being that religion as we know it, would not exist if there were offspring of Mary Magdalene and Jesus running about. Unless of course, there was a wedding first!

          • Tony Donaldson

            Matt has watched the DiVinci Code one too many times.

          • Debbie Wareing

            Quite possible Tony, or maybe he enjoys gossip and tickle tackle, lol. Or maybe he just likes a good argument/debate! Somehow though, I think it’s more likely because of his lack of knowledge and understanding of the bible and his view that all ‘religious’ people base their belief on ‘faith’ alone. He does not appear to accept that some people have actually read the bible and carried out research on the validity of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry. Or that they have also carried out research on old testament accounts that refer to historical facts, such as the rise and fall of various world powers. Or, that they might have studied the accounts that claim to relay prophetic events apparently, well in advance of their actual fulfilment and researched the accuracy of the copying and translation of the manuscripts available and the age and dates they were written. It is quite staggering to read the prophecy in the book of Daniel that relays the events surrounding the fall of the Babylonian Empire by Cyrus the Great in 539 BC.
            It is through study and the acquiring of knowledge that some people base their belief and in time develop a faith. I personally do not attend any religious organisation or profess any particular denomination. I have however, come to a understanding and respect for the Bible and now believe that it truly is the Word of God, even though I do not follow or practice any type of worship.
            I do not think it is a good idea to generalise and assume that all ‘religious’ people have blind faith!
            Anyway, it was an interesting and lively discussion, lol, and I think Matt still thinks I am a religious nut, with made up, ‘baseless’ belief’s, haha. I am sure he has not changed his view in any way, shape or form and he still considers me to be completely bonkers!
            Thanks for your comment though, it did actually make me smile.

          • Tony Donaldson

            You’re welcome Debbie. I work on the oceans and have plenty of time to read in the off watch. I’ve read John Bunyan’s, The Pilgrim’s Progress. That was a great read with lots of wisdom. I’ve read just about everything I can find by C.S. Lewis as well. I have the Geneva Bible and a Cepher that I carry with me and study. The book of Enoch was one I wish had been added to the bible. You’ll find arguments among the best of Biblical scholars. The best thing is for me to know in my heart and believe with my soul that there is a God who made his appearance for a brief time here on earth to save men from themselves. We have to remember that we have his will to do and not our own. My way never works as good as his way. I’ll stick with his way.

          • Maria

            What a brainwashed fool! The bible was a work of FICTION, in it’s time, to control the masses I concede, ingenious and fabulous still, 2000 plus yrs later. We’re still dealing with the fallout??????

          • Debbie Wareing

            Really?? Quite a sweeping statement…based on what? If you have a point to make…back it up with some evidence…I’m afraid, just cos you say so doesn’t cut it! There are many educated people scientists, theologians, historians, secular writers of that time, that do not have such ignorant arrogance to blatantly call it fiction! It is quite clear that you are not familiar with backing up your statements with any evidence or even creditable references….it would appear to be…well I think this and so be it! Get educated!

          • stoppuppymills

            It is NOT the only source of Jesus’s teaching. It is what your church leaders would have you believe.

          • stoppuppymills

            “They” are closed minded. And are the real danger not the Nephilim who said “You can be as Gods”.

          • charlieweird

            Also studying Jewish custom from the time… and interpreting the NT through that lens, makes it pretty clear that Jesus probably did indeed wed Mary Magdalene .. the wedding at Cana for instance was probably JCs wedding.. the bridegroom is responsible for supplying the wine, and when taking a wife the son casts off the mother… Jesus at 30 would have reached the age of finishing your study and becoming Rabbi, a Rabbi would have been expected to marry…
            there are other indicators in the NT .. but seriously it was probably sanitized for a gentile audience? As most of the first Christians were.. but good observations on your part as well//

          • victorshengli
          • stoppuppymills

            So all the poor humans that worship your god that didn’t get married for whatever reason can’t enjoy the god given gift of sex. What of your catholic priest?

          • stoppuppymills

            Thats the christain religion for you.

          • stoppuppymills

            It ALWAYS goes back to sex, doesn’t it.

          • Smawt

            Surely Matt, you can find Google yourself. No one has to PROVE to you that the Bible references “Fornication” as a sin in numerous places — however here are some SPECIFICALLY using the word you’re desperate to see not printed and not VAGUE…

            1 Corinthians 6:18 King James Version (KJV)

            18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

            And 20+ MORE …

            https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Fornication/

          • lyone

            How do you know that Jesus defines “sexual immorality” in the same way that your pastor does?

          • stoppuppymills

            Why would your god give humans sexual feelings if you weren’t allowed to enjoy them?

      • stoppuppymills

        I never understood christains.

    • Lucia

      The RH- was already on earth before christ walked here, actually it seems that there are differences in RH- the O’s being the pure bloods and the others more or less pure blood mixed whit human in different degrees . After reading a lot of this RH – pseudo-science theories i incidentally stumbled upon a possibility of the shining ones (being non-annunaki by the way, also a fact mistakenly interpreted by self proclaimed internet experts) partly responsible for the eldest portion of RH negs and therefore the O- .Furthermore al this blood type shit isn’t changing your character or the world, the last thing we humans need now, is yet another feature to set us apart from our fellow man , we already did it with colour ,only brought us misery so stop this stupid stereotyping

      • stoppuppymills

        But we negs are different.

        • Lucia

          For the survival of humanity as a species it’s more important to look at what binds us than what seperates us.We are all special in our own ways be you greeneyed ,blond haired . dark skinned ,scandinavian or….it just doesn’t say anything of substance what’s in your heart that’s what really matters.

          • stoppuppymills

            Humanity IS the problem. Their Hearts are broken.

          • Lucia

            Humanity has been messed with seriously since their existence in every way possible by their leaders be they political or religious, by the financial institutions . They were kept in the dark about everything, were barely able to make a living, had no time to contemplate things or think them through and by the way, it most of the time was also very dangerous to do so. I come from a very old lineage, the whole nephilim thing linked to the RH negative is, to what i have dug up, totally bogus. The RH negs are related to the shining ones at least what i researched seemed to prove that and by the way the shining ones were not the Annunaki either . From your comments you seem to be a tad bit different and there is nothing wrong with that . Here on Earth different means being shunned but as i discovered some of those who are your most fanatic prosecuters, are very different too, only they are cowards and don’t dare to present themselve as such. So be your proud warrior and don’t give up so easily on humanity they might surprise you some day… they just might need a time out from all the negativity and so do you, i think you are greater than that.

    • stoppuppymills

      Who are Nephilim.

  • Frances Leader

    Look
    here. I am O Rhesus Negative & not impressed with all this hoo-ha
    about my blood group. I just figure it comes from a type of primate
    which has long since become extinct. There is absolutely no evidence for
    nephilim, angels, aliens or fairies having sex with any of my
    ancestors! The very idea of calling us different or special is
    dangerous. It can result in superiority (if you are silly enough to
    believe it) or prejudice (if others believe you THINK you are superior).
    Not good.

    • Rose

      Consider something potentially more dangerous—when others believe they’re superior to you but you don’t believe you’re superior to them. That could have serious consequences for you.

    • Debbie Wareing

      A very wise woman also

    • DragonflyUtopia

      Yes, the whole post screams WHITE SUPERIORITY. Because we all know that white people are the so special- the chosen ones, ugh!

      • stoppuppymills

        Thats what you think. You should be me. Everyone hates me. Now I know why. I AM NEPHILIM!

    • stoppuppymills

      It IS good. Think of ALL the advantages.

  • Mark Forrester

    Articles written by retards, for retards.

  • WAK Anamjem

    I HAVE GONE THROUGH HOLY TORAH AND HOLY BIBLE ONES BUT NOT IN DETAIL BUT IN HOLY KORAN YES MANY TIME. I AM NOT CONCERNED WITH NEPHILIM, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY IN VIEW OF FINAL HOLY BOOK OF KORAN SAID ABOUT THE JINNS’, ANGELS & ADAM..

    JINNS’ FIRST THROWN OUT OF HEAVEN BY ALMIGHTY GOD… LATER ADAM WAS THROWN OUT FROM HEAVEN… BUT ANGEL REMAIN IN HEAVENS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT IN THE CONFLICTS OF ADAM AND JINNS’! SO IT IS CLEAR ANGELS ARE NOT JINNS’..

    MORE ON LIKE HUMANS AND JINNS’ ARE PART OF THE RELIGIONS LIKE BELIEVERS OF HOLY BOOKS OF TORAH,PSALM,BIBLE AND KORAN CALLED ‘BELIEVERS’, OTHER IDOLATERS AND ATHEIST CALLED ‘DISBELIEVERS!’ SO YOU MAY FIND BOTH BELIEVERS AND DISBELIEVERS AMONG HUMANS AND JINNS’. AND HOLY GOD SAID: “ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT BOTH HUMANS AND JINNS’ ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR FAITH AND THEIR GOOD AND BAD DEEDS!”…. SO ANGELS ARE PURE AND UNACCOUNTABLE. THERE IS SPECIAL CHAPTER ON JINNS’ IN HOLY KORAN.

    ABOUT SON OF NOAH, SO KILLED WITH ALL OTHER DISBELIEVERS OF GOD AS WRITTEN IN CHAPTER NOAH IN HOLY KORAN. NO HUMAN SURVIVED IN THAT OCEAN DISASTERS ACCEPT THE BOAT OF NOAH!

    TO ALIENS I WROTE RECENTLY A FILM SCRIPT ” BLACK BRACELET” REGISTERED IN WGA AND SENT FOR READING TO AMAZON STUDIOS. I HAVE MENTIONED IN MY FILM SCRIPT HOW ALIEN WERE CREATED AND WHAT POWER THEY HAVE AND WHAT ILLUMINATI SEEKS FROM THEM?

    • CAPS-ARE-HARDER-TO-READ

      “TO ALIENS I WROTE RECENTLY A FILM SCRIPT ” BLACK BRACELET” REGISTERED IN
      WGA AND SENT FOR READING TO AMAZON STUDIOS. I HAVE MENTIONED IN MY FILM
      SCRIPT HOW ALIEN WERE CREATED AND WHAT POWER THEY HAVE AND WHAT
      ILLUMINATI SEEKS FROM THEM?”

      Did you forget to turn your CAPS lock off when you wrote the credits or something?

    • jpwp

      AHHHHHHH!! My Eyes have gone deaf with your shouting in caps!!!!!

  • Mazy

    Never hear so much pish in my life what a load of bullshit

  • Debbie Wareing

    I have no idea on the how, when, where or what for’s regarding the rhesus negative genotype. The fact is that the lack of this rhesus factor is part of the human genome.

    I have no problems with people wondering, suggesting debating or hypothesising on such issues. I also find it interesting when people think ‘outside of the box’ and develop ideas that may be controversial, different, unlikely, unpopular or even genius!
    What I do have a problem with is the quoting or the referencing of statements deemed to be from a credible source that is blatantly untrue or at least exceptionally misleading!

    You state (and I quote)..

    ‘In the Book of Genesis in the Bible it relates how the Nephilim produced children with humans. One was even depicted as killing Japheth, Noah’s son…’

    You also make further reference to the Bible (and again I quote)

    ‘the Biblical story of Noah’s son being murdered by the Nephilim and the children produced populating Northern Europe perhaps?’

    And then you have the audacity to suggest that the Bible support’s your theory (and I quote)

    ‘Many ancient texts, including, the Bible, do support this theory’
    The book of Enoch and other fragments of books found in the dead sea scrolls are not a part of the Holy Bible and therefore do not have the same standing or authority as the Bible! And they cannot be used as biblical references! As they are not from the Bible!
    The Holy Bible is the word of God!
    Although written by the hand of men the scriptures clearly acknowledge the author of the writings to be Almighty God.
    Ex 24:4, Da 7:1, 1Th 2:13, 2Tim 3:16, 2Pe 1:21, John 17:3
    Would an Almighty, Omnipotent God allow any books to be omitted from the Bible that claims to be His word?!
    Or for that matter would He allow any book to be included in the Bible as his word, if indeed it was not! I don’t think so!

  • Misty McMillen

    No wonder I’ve always felt different and always fly in my dreams. Can’t wait for my wings to sprout!

    -,- fun to read though, I’m gonna have to look up other stuff about how ‘special’ I am

    • charmane may

      I’m A+ but I fly in my dreams too. No biggie.

  • Alison Webster

    ROFLMHO…RHESUS NEG ANGEL PERSON using this for conversation starter always…………..

  • lyone

    His Hebrew needs work.

  • Suzanne Sutherland

    Sounds like the usual claptrap I read on the internet.

  • Mark Koltko-Rivera

    This is utter nonsense from a biblical point of view. This is another example of writers seeking the sheen of authenticity by wrapping their story in the cloak of biblical authority, which would be fine–except that there is not the tiniest thing in the Bible to support what they are saying.

    Example #1: There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the Bible to even hint that Japheth was murdered by Nephilim (or by anyone else, for that matter). The entire biblical narrative in which Japheth’s name is mentioned at all runs from Genesis 5:32 to Genesis 10:5 (not quite 6 pages)–there’s just not much to read–and there’s nothing about Japheth and the Nephilim at all.

    Example #2: There is absolutely nothing in the Talmud that somehow implies that Enoch is the same being as Abraham. In point of fact, this notion is directly contradicted by the Bible, which pointedly notes that Enoch was an ancestor of Abraham (Genesis chapter 5 entire, followed by Genesis 11:10-36).

    Beyond the matter that the Bible does not back the article up, there are other problems with the article. For example, it’s hardly credible to call the Rhesus Negative blood type “rare” if 15% of the human race has it–that’s one person in seven–or if 40% to 45% of Europeans have it (which is almost half of the European population).

    • Debbie Wareing

      Well said Mark

    • The neg family

      Well it’s all true honey. Trust me.

  • Yogini

    My mom has RH negative blood. She’s full blooded Mexican and has none of the characteristics listed above.

  • neyney

    I am rh negative. I can assure you that I’m of average intelligence, have no psychic abilities, don’t have good vision or high blood pressure. I am a redhead with blue eyes and do avoid sunlight because it burns my skin. Perhaps instead of attributing my ancestry to aliens instead I would concentrate on the Northern European angle. There is evidence that red hair has a link to Neanderthals. I think that is your link. Believe me if I’m supposed to be descended from the Nephilim I’ve been robbed.

    • The neg family

      No you have been. We all have been. It’s okay if you don’t believe it. I honestly could care less. maybe one day this stuff gets discussed or you can just thank the ones from afar who save our ass everyday. It’s a thankless job.

    • charlieweird

      I saw an awesome BBC report today discussing a new neanderthal find in a French site … apparently they found a cave where neanderthals had therein constructed stone circles from broken stalagmites.. with a fire circle inside of the centre of the stalagmite circle.. it was 150,000 years old.. making neanderthals the oldest known cave dwellers, and erasing much of what we thought we knew about them.. look it up if you are interested..

  • Alexandra1973

    Evolution is nonsense.

    At any rate, my mother is a brown-eyed brunette and so am I. She has Rh- and I have Rh+. My father-in-law has Rh-.

  • Fred Skinkis

    should we get rid of all the rh pos. blood people?
    would the world run smoother,,,,,,,maybe the NWO, will be the RHneg. and the slaves will be the RH POS.

  • Werewolf

    Interesting. I possess all of said traits. Though, I must admit I don’t know if I can be cloned.
    Let’s hope not for the sake of the world.

  • Jaymz Edwards

    Can you ask Sean Adl Tabatabai what happened to all the People’s Voice Money?

  • neyney

    I’m O negative am blind as a bat, of average intelligence and have no special psychic or intuitive abilities. I am red headed and blue eyed but I think RH neg and being a redhead with blue eyes has more to do with having Scottish ancestors than anything else. Believe me, other than being a universal blood donor there is nothing special about me.

  • Jimmy

    This was posted today, the day I decided to get curious about my blood type XD

  • Rebecca Frasier

    O type blood is NOT universal, O negative blood is the true UNIVERSAL blood type as it can give to ALL other blood types but can ONLY receive O negative blood in return. (In other words… O negative type cannot receive blood from O positive. Your statement is false.)

  • stoppuppymills

    The Nephilim ARE the saviors of the world. You are somewhat misinformed.

  • asylph

    The bible is man made and written by 40 odd people over time. What is on the market today is edited and so drastically altered, that it is now a mere shadow of original texts. Man made, man-managed religions saw to that so it is absurd to argue over it, let alone believe it is accurate. My personal family is documented, person to person, family to family, back to 500AD. We have all those characteristics and more and as such, we are very private in that regard even though we maintain public positions. It’s a bloody awful struggle at times; we cannot eat mainstream food so all has to be natural; require rx sunglasses, cannot take mainstream medication, some were born with extra vertebra that require surgery (my extra is not full – only partially formed), some of us (not me) have extra ribs as well…it goes on and on…we have to make so many adjustments that it gets a bit much at times. It’s bad enough for some people to have a few of the characteristics, well try all of them – it’s a nightmare. When I read all of the conjecture that is here and on various websites I just shake my head. There is such a lot of research and things for you all to discover and yet here you are arguing over some old book. It was just one book which has become so inaccurate it’s laughable! It’s not the end all to be all. Well, I’ve spoken publicly and I will probably pay for it, but really people…climb out of the box you’ve all shoved yourselves into.

  • http://boringskeptic.tumblr.com/ Cory Albrecht

    How do you know they cannot be cloned when human cloning hasn’t even been tried yet? Also, you do realize that chimps and gorillas both have their own equivalents ro rh- and rh+ as well a A/B/AB/O blood types, indicating our shared ancestry with them?

    The nephilim were mythological, not real.

  • Jen

    Check out Michael Tellinger’s video of a giant footprint in South Africa, looks like there were giants…

  • http://boringskeptic.tumblr.com/ Cory Albrecht

    It is not “homosapien” genus. “Homo” is our genus name, “sapiens” is our species name. As for the facts, we have genetics comparing us and chimps, morphological studies, plus several hundred primate fossils covering the last 50 million years. Guess what? The “nephilim” aren’t mentioned in any of that.

    • Barnabas-Francis MacPhail

      Homo sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo. Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens,

  • http://boringskeptic.tumblr.com/ Cory Albrecht

    And why is your judgement about the history of human evolution better than that of 200 years of palaeontology? Not everybody’s opinion on a subject is equally valid.

    • Catherine H.

      Your absolutely correct, not everyones opinion on a subject is equally valid, except to the opinionated. Are you implying that because people have been dabbling at or applying the science of paleontology for approximately 200 years that it cannot/will not yield more artifacts for “our better” understanding?
      As to my opinion/judgment about 200 yrs of paleontology well, like it or not, it is my belief that the best is yet to come especially considering the technological breakthroughs yet to come.
      An opinion is what you have when you don’t have any or all the facts (I believe we haven’t). When you have all the facts, you don’t need an opinion.
      Any fool can know. The point is to understand. – Albert Einstein

      • BigBillyBoBobLawyer

        Right on! I personally believe that The Flinstones was more historically accurate than people think.

  • marko

    I’m ab negative ** male, aries- I don’t have extra vertebrae but I was born with extra tendent’s ..I dnt have green or blue eyes they are brown– my hair is blk with red tints in it- physic abilities – I have dejavu..or sometime tell something bad gona happen..

  • sgsteve88

    I thought RH neg’s have lower blood pressure not higher blood pressure?

  • Melissa Parnell

    Rh gene has also been found in nematodes (worm-like creatures) and sea sponges so… do what you will with that info. See what other crazy conspiracy theories we can generate.

  • Rado

    Interesting article.

    However, the Nephilim and all Fallen Angels offsprings and racial lineage was extinguished at the flood. Beside the Rh antibody system, inside the human blood, resides many other similar immunological systems that have no clinical significance, and are less known to general public.