Brother Parrish

Here is an excellent article on THE SONS OF GOD and the Nephilim...
well thought-out and well presented... :thumb

The Sons of God and the Daughters of Men
(Genesis 6:1-8)
By: Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

"I therefore understand the Nephilim to be a race of super-humans who are the product of this angelic invasion of the earth.
This view not only conforms to the biblical use of the expression ?sons of God,? it also best fits the context of the passage. The effects of the fall were seen in the godly offspring of Cain (chapter 4). While Cain and his descendants were ?in Satan?s pocket,? Satan knew from God?s words in Genesis 3:15 that through the seed of the woman God was going to bring forth a Messiah who would destroy him. We do not know that the entire line of Seth was God-fearing. In fact we would assume otherwise. Noah and his immediate family alone seem to be righteous at the time of the flood..."
http://www.bible.org/author.php?author_id=9

Jerry80871852, here is an interesting article on the "Sons of God," also draws a distinction between the Nephilim and Giborem...
I thought it was funny this Jewish fellow actually believes the same way I do about Matthew 22:30... imagine that!

Sons Of God...Sethites Or Fallen Angels?
"The following article is only a portion of a Biblical study on Demonology: The Doctrine of Fallen Angels- Dr. A.G. Fruchtenbaum. Dr. Fruchtenbaum is a Messianic Jewish believer and founder of http://www.ariel.org in San Antonio Texas. He comes from a family line of Levite Priest (father and grandfather) and has knowledge of scripture that is just uncanny, nonetheless having become a believer in Christ at a young age, his father threw him out of the house for converting from Judaism to Christianity at the age of 17 or 18..."
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum ... =23&t=1327

Dearest Bro Jerry,
When doing research, have you never LOOKED AT archaelogical evidence, any unbelievers' writings or other references BESIDES the Bible? Are you serious?

And might I add, all I have proposed from the start is gathering information on my study with regard to the Nephilim, some of us are actually in agreement here, I think we can see who is "debating." It wasn't ME who stated what another member thought about this was SCIENCE FICTION, now was it? I suggest that everyone keep an open mind---and seriously, if anyone doesn't have anything to add about the GIANTS in ancient history - the Nephilim, consider buzzing off, I promise you won't hurt my feelings and I'm sure we can regroup with joy on another topic later. :thumb

Parrish' date=' If I was the pastor of your church or one of the parents of the kids you teach, you wouldn't be teaching my kids' Sunday school class, using vulgar language like that.[/quote']

Don't worry---I reserve that kind of language for sanctimonious brethren who think they know everything about the Bible. :Green
I tried being nice with you gents, we can get back to that if you want, choice is yours... but you'll have to start by admitting you could be wrong about the Sons of God. See I actually admitted I could be wrong earlier, but the fact is, I have a real problem with intolerant Bible experts who get dogmatic about gray areas. NOW, HOW ABOUT STICKING TO THE TOPIC AND LEAVING ME OUT OF IT. :cool

All those of you who actually consider a "rat's rear end" to be offensive language please grow up. :cool
Although I can appreciate the sanctimonious rebuttal, I am sure some of you have far worse on your living room TV every day.

Here is a Wiki reference page to the Book of Enoch...
Certainly not an inspired Biblical reference, but interesting reading with regard to the topic:

The first section of the book depicts the interaction of the fallen angels with mankind; S

I'm going to try just one more time, trying to point you to Holy Scriptures where the answers lie to your questions which have already been answered.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Where and when did this take place at? "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" When God laid the foundation of the world.

Who was with God at that time? "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" The morning star and the sons of God. Check out and find who the morning star & the sons of God and you will have your answer. By the way, at that time God had not created Adam, so it could not have been men, humans, present with Him. Hint, sons of God are angels.

EXCELLENT POST Jerry80871852, I agree 100%, you obviously have no problem seeing the same way I do, and neither one of needed a microscope and a blow torch, imagine that! :amen:

Then he also mentions that the sons of God shouted for joy - His created ones' date=' not inanimate objects, not animals and not human either but still beings that had the power to choose to love and worship Him or to rebel as did Lucifer and much like man did later. Yes, His angels shouted for joy at the wonder they beheld as they had the privilege of watching all this take place....[/quote']

Exactly---I agree, the sons of God were angels, you are hitting the nail on the head! :thumb

Brother Parrish' date=' regardless of your position, quoting references to a corrupted Bible manuscript (Septuagint) and an apostate Jew's (Philo) interpretation certainly does not help your argument.[/quote']
LOL, yes, well don't forget---the Apostle Paul quoted heathen poets more than once!
Jerry, make no mistake, I'm not arguing at all---I already stated that as politely as I could, and at this point I honestly don't give a rat's rear end whether you agree with my views or not. Maybe you are just hear to argue, or maybe the people who don't believe what the Bible is PLAINLY teaching them should go start their own thread called, "why we are right about the Sons of God and everyone else is wrong." I promise you, I won't post a word on it! :cool

Check this out, physical evidence of the giant Nephilim? :cool
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm

Yes thank you John81,
I agree, GIANTS in ancient history - the Nephilim it's a great study and I am enjoying it tremendously!
I was sharing some of this with my teenagers and they were fascinated, all of them had heard about giants of old.
You have to look at all sides of the debate, and have an open mind sometimes to see what the Bible is trying to teach us.
I invite everyone to go back and look at my original links in post no.1, they are a very good read! :thumb

Heartstrings... For cryin' out loud, man!
Calm down and listen up, you might learn something son!
I already told you, the SONS OF GOD are always angels in the OT.
Who do you think they were in Job 38:6-7, MORMONS? Mankind had not been created!
Well, that's what you are implying, that's what Mormons teach, you can read about that here:
http://epologetics.org/sonsofgod.php

Your dogmatic approach is only showing your lack of understanding, and you sound more and more like God's men you were mocking earlier. At some point I hope you will see that your view is not the only one around...

"The sons of God ('bene elohim' and variants) are divine members of God's heavenly host...The title 'sons/children of God' is familiar from Ugaritic mythology, in which the gods collectively are the 'children of El'...The sons/children of God are also found in Phoenician and Ammonite inscriptions, referring to the pantheon of sub-ordinate deities, indicating that the term was widespread in the West Semitic religions." - Oxford Companion to the Bible

"A meeting of the angels in heaven. They are the sons of God, ch. 38:7. They came to give an account of their negotiations on earth and to receive new instructions. Satan was one of them originally; but how hast thou fallen, O Lucifer!" - Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible

"Sons of God - The angels called the sons of God, because they had their whole being from him, and because they were made partakers of his Divine and glorious image. Shouted - Rejoiced in and blessed God for his works, whereby he intimates, that they neither did advise or any way assist him, nor dislike or censure any of his works, as Job had presumed to do." John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?
http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html

"?Sons of God? is clearly used of angels in Job 38:7. The Septuagint (LXX) here translates ?sons of God? as ?angels of God.? This need not mean that evil angels, or demons, actually cohabited with women. Nevertheless, evil angels on earth could have used the bodies of ungodly men, by demonic possession, to achieve their evil purpose of producing an evil generation of people" (Gen. 6:12)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... hilim9.asp

"The Jewish Fathers, when interpreting this expression from Genesis 6:2, invariably interpreted it as "angels." No less an authority than W.F. Allbright tells us that:

"The Israelites who heard this section (Genesis 6.2) recited unquestionably thought of intercourse between angels and women." (8)

Philo of Alexandria, a deeply religious man, wrote a brief but beautiful treatise on this subject, called "Concerning The Giants." Basing his exposition on the Greek version of the Bible, he renders it as "Angels of God." Says Bamberger, "Had he found the phrase 'sons of God' in his text, he most certainly would have been inspired to comment on it." (9)

Philo certainly took the Genesis passage as historical, explaining that just as the word "soul" applies both to good and evil beings, so does the word "angel." The bad angels, who followed Lucifer, at a later point in time failed to resist the lure of physical desire, and succumbed to it. He goes on to say that the story of the giants is not a myth, but it is there to teach us that some men are earth-born, while others are heaven- born, and the highest are God-born. (10)

The Early Church Fathers believed the same way. Men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose...all adopted this interpretation. In the words of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, the angels fell "into impure love of virgins, and were subjugated by the flesh...Of those lovers of virgins therefore, were begotten those who are called giants." (11) And again, "...the angels transgressed, and were captivated by love of women and begat children." (12)

Nowhere before the 5th century A.D. do we find any interpretation for "sons of God" other than that of angels. We cannot deny the Jewish Fathers knowledge of their own terminology! They invariably translated "sons of God" as "angels." The testimony of Josephus, that colorful cosmopolitan and historian, is also of paramount importance. In his monumental volume, "Antiquities of the Jews," he reveals his acquaintance with the tradition of the fallen angels consorting with women of Earth. He not only knew of the tradition but tells us how the children of such union possessed super human strength, and were known for their extreme wickedness. "For the tradition is that these men did what resembled the acts of those men the Grecians called giants." Josephus goes on to add that Noah remonstrated with these offspring of the angels for their villainy. (13)

Perhaps the most conclusive argument for interpreting the expression as "angels" is the simplest one of all. If the writer of Genesis wanted to refer to the "sons of Seth" he would have just said so. If God had intended that meaning, then the verse would undoubtedly read, "the sons of Seth saw the daughters of Cain that they were fair..." But the Bible meant something far more sinister--the sexual union between angels from Hell and evil women from Earth. Because of the gravity of such a union, and its dire consequences for the human race, God moved to destroy the race before it could destroy itself--except for one family which had not been contaminated."
http://www.mt.net/~watcher/enoch5.html

Thanks for your comments Bro. Jerry80871852, and thanks to everyone else!

Yes, I am not really here to argue, and I am not being dogmatic about any of this... just saying I have spent some time studying this and simply sharing my findings, as I said before, others may be right and I could be wrong, CAN I MAKE THAT ANY MORE PLAIN? But at the same time my friends---I think it is possible there may be more to these giants the Nephilim, entire books have been written on the subject, and I do find it very interesting! :thumb

Isn't it great that after being saved for 27 years and teaching adult Sunday School for over 10 years that one can still find the Bible so interesting? I love the Bible, and I do find it very interesting that the Hebrew word for Nephilim is "FALLEN ONES," and they were known as the Rephaim (Hebrew for 'PHANTOMS').

I also want to mention that I am well aware of the passage in Matthew 22, particularly the last two words in that passage, "IN HEAVEN". If we look at this without changing the KJV text, it is at least possible that the angels who left their first estate (Jude) GAVE UP HEAVEN in order to have relations with human women, and corrupt the DNA of man. They could not take wives in HEAVEN, but they looked upon the daughters of MEN and made a decision. Were the Nephilim stupid? Or were they attempting to corrupt all flesh with violence and destroy God's creation? I sure don't know.

"In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her." But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God. "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels IN HEAVEN." Matthew 22:23-30

It is interesting that in Genesis 3, God talks about putting enmity between "thy seed and her seed," and in the context, this appears to be referring to the SEED of the fallen angel, Lucifer!

"And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy SEED and her SEED; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Gen 3:14-15

Here a few more opinions on the Nephilim...

http://www.bibledefenders.com/id17.html
http://bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm
http://raptureready.com/faq/faq333.html

Correct you are, the Nephilim took wives down here on earth!
And notice in that same passage how it carefully denotes first MEN, then the SONS OF GOD... :thumb

We don't need giants to account for the moving and using of large stones. Check out the tonnage of the stones used in Solomon's temple and those used in the pyramids - we know ordinary MEN built these. We may not know 3-4000 years later HOW they built them' date=' but we know they did.[/quote']
Actually there are some structures which are still puzzling. Did you read this?
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5b3.htm

LOL, the world laughs at us even if we interpret the word of God properly, so your point is moot.
I do not let the WORLD determine my beliefs. As for the height of Goliath, depends on which CUBIT you are using, standard or forearm cubit, see here:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/cubit.htm



Dogmatic, I love it. You sound like the preachers you mock. But it makes you seem rude and there is no need for that here.
How was Mary impregnated? By a SPIRIT? Yes, she was.

Does it say married? My Bible says, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." It is implied they procreated, but I do not see marriage.

LOL, the battle of men and the strange Nephilim which left their first estate, is perhaps more obvious if you have an open mind... is this not a forum for discussion, or merely dogmatic views on grey areas?

"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 5-7



Maybe, maybe more than simply big men. The Bible says, "they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." This sates they were men who were above others, in both size and ability. Could explain things like 900 ton cut stones on top of mountains. Maybe the gigantic offspring of women and demonic spirits, I sure don't know.
Funny thing, angels ALL APPEAR AS MEN in the Bible, and they still do today!
If you had an stranger next to you in the car he could be an angel and you wouldn't know it.
"And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the MEN which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Gen 19:5

By the way, if you married an axe murdering wife, does that mean you found favor with God? Some men have done that you know. Let's not be so condescending.



See my notes above on the CUBITS.

More condescending behavior.
You may not realize it, but to some the idea of a God in heaven is SCIENCE FICTION.
I'm not one of them.
Look, it's my thread, science fiction or not, I'm not being dogmatic here and I think it's okay to explore some of these things, and if you get offended or anything, kindly buzz off and stop telling me how to think. You are sold on the idea that the ?sons of God? were descendants of Seth, we get it, and I can respect that. Aside from the fact that the "sons of God" is used exclusively of angels in the Old Testament, there IS ROOM for more than one opinion here, as clearly shown by open minded Christian authors who present not only YOUR view but also this:

"?Sons of God? is clearly used of angels in Job 38:7. The Septuagint (LXX) here translates ?sons of God? as ?angels of God.? This need not mean that evil angels, or demons, actually cohabited with women. Nevertheless, evil angels on earth could have used the bodies of ungodly men, by demonic possession, to achieve their evil purpose of producing an evil generation of people (Gen. 6:12).7
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... hilim9.asp

Exactly, post-Flood Nephilim! ...that is what several authors have written, including I think the one that I posted above:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=42637

This might be an interesting book...

Biblical-giants book soars up charts
'The Nephilim' explains ancient pyramids, future events

Yes, they had been corrupted, and I think it's at least possible that the land of the Canaanites was infested with Nephilim and their ilk!
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/giants.html
http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app25.html

The Bible says the earth was destroyed by a flood....
Now I'm going to give you the reason...
I KNOW the reason without a shadow of a doubt...
Are you ready for this???
Here goes...
>
>
>
>
>
>

because the "wickedness of MAN was great"

Sarcastic, but cute.
Yes, I think it is possible the Nephilim corrupted everything and it's possible they were extremely violent!
"The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." Gen 6:11
"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." Gen 6:13

Many cultures around the world have at least some primitive record of these giants, did you take a look at the links I provided in post no. 1? I'm not talking about flying saucers here, I'm just saying I think it's very possible that these giants were a much bigger part of the antediluvian earth than many people realize! You don't want to believe it fine, but try and have an open mind. Some believe the Nephilim have left their handiwork all around the world in ancient ruins...

The fact is, there are cut stone pieces on mountains in Bolivia that weigh over 900 TONS, located at an elevation of over 12,000 feet. There is a giant wharf in Puma Punka with one cut stone at 440 TONS. Cutting and moving material this size and weight would be questionable even with today's technology, you can read about that here:
http://www.sacredsites.com/americas/bol ... anaco.html

The ruins of Baalbek in Lebanon contains the amazing 1000 TON Stone of the South, which weighs approximately as much as three Boeing 747 aircraft, along with the Trilithon---giant granite stones beautifully fitted together at a height of 20 feet above present ground level. These cut stones are fitted so tightly that you cannot fit a knife or even a needle between them, and it would be a serious challenge for even today's engineers to move something like that even a short distance, you can read about the Trilithon of Baalbek here:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5b3.htm

Again, I am not a stupid person, all I am suggesting is there are some things in the ancient world (like the Nephilim) which we have only begun to understand and may never really know about until the Lord shows us later. My study continues...

"...The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." Numbers 13:32-33

Wow, I guess you all might be correct, but it strikes me that those are mostly very naturalistic views.
I think the giants of the Bible were not merely tall tribes or victims of hormone issues, but a GLOBAL RACE of violent creatures unlike anything seen today, and they hold a key to understanding the fall of man, and also the reason for the destruction of the entire population of the planet. The word NEPHILIM means FALLEN ONES, and Israel was instructed to kill them all for a reason! They don't strike me as basketball players. That should stir the pot, lol... :thumb

I have been doing a study on giants in ancient history, sometimes referred to as the Nephilim of the Bible (Numbers 13:32-33, Genesis 6:1-4), Sons of Anak, The Anakim, "Mound builders," Rephaim, The Adena, Ronnongwetowanca, or the Watchers. I am finding a lot of obscure references to old bones from all over the world---in Europe, Asia and North and South America, some of these refer to skeletons 10, 15, 25 feet and even bigger.

Of course some of these are going to be mere hoaxes (like the photoshopped giant human skeleton found in Saudi Arabia) and/or legends, but it is interesting that so many cultures have made mention of these giant men, the Nephilim, in ancient times, living all over the world.

One of the common traits seem to be "double rows of teeth" in some of the skulls, but I cannot seem to find any physical existing examples of those. Many of these references are from the 1800's or early 1900's, and several are from what is now the Ohio River Valley and New York. Anyone who has more information on the Nephilim, please let me know, here are a few links I have at least partially explored...


http://bibleprobe.com/nephilim.htm

http://www.nwcreation.net/nephilim.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/830123/posts

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 94629FD7CF

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0a.htm

http://www.stevequayle.com/Giants/charts/charts.html

http://www.geocities.com/age_of_giants/ ... lders.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/nephilim.html

http://paranormal.about.com/od/mysterio ... 060605.htm

http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/giants.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... ton_2.html

That's not a horn.
It's a tooth.

Ahhh, but a unique design, unlike any other on Earth:


"The mammal's tusk has baffled scientists because it defies known principles and properties of teeth. It is slightly longer than half the animal's length and typically protrudes through the left side of a male's upper jaw plate and lip.

(For comparison, consider a six-foot-tall [two-meter-tall] person with a three-foot-tall [meter-long] incisor jutting straight up into the air.)

Furthermore, unlike the curved teeth of elephants and warthogs, the narwhal tooth is nature's only straight tusk. It consistently spirals on a left-handed, single axis. Scientists speculate the spiral may minimize tusk fractures, and prior research suggests it may aid the tusk's relatively straight growth during development.

Adding to the tusk's uniqueness is its odd gender distribution. The teeth are common in males but not females. Female tusks, when they do appear, tend to be shorter and cleaner with more tightly wound spiral patterns.

Inside Out

The latest findings, researchers say, only add to the narwhal's singularity.

Generally, mammalian teeth are softer on the inside and tougher on the outside to resist wear and abrasion.

But when Naomi Eidelman, an infrared microscopy expert at the Paffenbarger Research Center at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland, used a special technique to map cross-sections of a tusk cell by cell, she reported something dramatically different.

While the tusk contains some materials similar to other mammalian teeth?dentin, pulp, and cementum?it is constructed "inside out," said Frederick Eichmiller, who directs the research center.

A highly mineralized layer surrounds the pulp on the inside, like a steel rod. The outside of the tooth, which resembles enamel at the tip, is actually less mineral and more protein.

Cementum is usually the layer that bonds the tooth to the bone in other mammalian teeth. But in this case, the cementum is "just sticking out into the ocean," Eichmiller said. "This tooth was different from what we've seen before," he said. "Ever."

Scientists theorize the reverse architecture endows the tusk with flexibility, possibly helping it to absorb shock and resist extreme water pressures during deep dives.

The tusk does not appear able to lay down another form of dentin to heal cracks, and perhaps it does not need to, Nweeia says. The researcher adds that the tusk's unusual qualities could have profound implications for modern dentistry and biomaterials science.

"Everything about this tusk is built not to break," he said. "To find a material that is flexible and strong?that is kind of the grail for restorative materials. This guy's got it."

Sensing the Environment

The new findings also provide significant clues to tusk function, a puzzle that has generated conflicting theories, from displaying aggression to breaking ice.

Using scanning electron microscopy, researchers uncovered evidence of dentinal tubules, basic structures that exist in almost all teeth, including humans. The tubules are remnants of a cell process in which millions of tiny nerve connections tunnel their way from the central nerve of a tooth to its outer surface.

Tubules in human mouths are sensitive to cold and are normally covered by enamel. We experience discomfort and pain only when they are inadvertently exposed, through cavities, for example.

Narwhal tubules, however, penetrate the outermost layer of the tooth, directly exposing sensory connections to the Arctic environment. The result is that the tusk?despite its inanimate appearance?actually serves as a kind of membrane with an extremely sensitive surface, researchers say.

Tubules are known to allow for specific sensory functions in mammals, such as gauging air temperature and barometric pressure. But it remains to be seen what they are used for by the narwhal, whose tubules contain a solution similar to blood plasma, Nweeia says.

Sensing salinity is one possible answer; Nweeia and his colleagues have developed customized equipment to test this theory that measures narwhal brain activity when saline solution is introduced to the tusk.

Narwhal migration is tied to ice formation, which affects saline concentrations, and narwhals may be able to detect subtle changes in the environment from miles away, Nweeia said.

Human teeth have evolved so that "we go out of our way not to have cold things against a tubule," he said. "Why does an Arctic whale, who is in frigid waters and incredible pressures all of his life, go out of his way to have open tubules?"

"If you are going to develop something like this, from an evolutionary standpoint it has to be about survival. There are a lot better ways to get a female than growing one of these," he added.

Solving the Puzzle

Future field expeditions are expected to focus on anatomical studies and sensory research.

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, are conducting CT and MRI scans on two narwhal heads, one male and one female. And a dissection team, led by James Mead of the Smithsonian Institution, will convene in January.

Still unanswered, researchers say, are fundamental questions about how and why the tusk evolved.

"There's a difference, but why is there a difference?" Eichmiller said. "That's the part that is the most intriguing."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... oth_2.html

Here's a possibility---it didn't EVOLVE at all!

"One suggestion is that the unicorn is based on an extinct animal sometimes called the "Giant Unicorn" but known to scientists as Elasmotherium, a huge Eurasian rhinoceros native to the steppes, south of the range of the woolly rhinoceros of Ice Age Europe. Elasmotherium looked little like a horse, but it had a large single horn in its forehead. It seems to have become extinct about the same time as the rest of the glacial age megafauna..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn

"However, according to the Nordisk familjebok (the Nordisk Familybook) and science writer Willy Ley the animal may have survived long enough to be remembered in the legends of the Evenk people of Russia as a huge black bull with a single horn in the forehead.
There is also testimony by the medieval traveller Ahmad ibn Fadlan, who is usually considered a reliable source, which suggests that Elasmotherium may have survived into historical times:
"There is nearby a wide steppe, and there dwells, it is told, an animal smaller than a camel, but taller than a bull. Its head is the head of a ram, and its tail is a bull?s tail. Its body is that of a mule and its hooves are like those of a bull. In the middle of its head it has a horn, thick and rouisnd, and as the horn goes higher, it narrows (to an end), until it is like a spearhead. Some of these horns grow to three or five ells, depending on the size of the animal. It thrives on the leaves of penof trees, which are excellent greenery. Whenever it sees a rider, it approaches and if the rider has a fast horse, the horse tries to escape by running fast, and if the beast overtakes them, it picks the rider out of the saddle with its horn, and tosses him in the air, and meets him with the point of the horn, and continues doing so until the rider dies. But it will not harm or hurt the horse in any way or manner.
"The locals seek it in the steppe and in the forest until they can kill it. It is done so: they climb the tall trees between which the animal passes. It requires several bowmen with poisoned arrows; and when the beast is in between them, they shoot and wound it unto its death. And indeed I have seen three big bowls shaped like Yemen seashells, that the king has, and he told me that they are made out of that animal?s horn."
Even if Elasmotherium is not the creature described by Ahmad ibn Fadlan, ordinary rhinoceroses may have some relation to the unicorn..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasmotherium

Yeah, I mean whoever heard of a mammal with one big horn coming out of its head?

So' date=' the overwhelming majority of commentators (evolutionists?, historians? who knows?) think that people as recently as 200 years ago were simpletons, according to John. Not 'ignorant', but 'simpletons' and 'dumbells'. But do most people really think that?[/quote']
Talk about becoming extinct...
Actually, I think that many people living TODAY are 'simpletons' and 'dumbells.'
Take the average modern man off the electric grid, remove his TV and cell phone, and put him in a survival situation for a few weeks and he will likely have trouble just staying alive! In many ways, our ancestors were a lot smarter!