Sunday, August 14, 2011

Cryptids in the Bible Series: Bigfoot and the Bible

Faith: (1) Belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): Firm belief in something for which there is no proof (3): Something that is believed with extremely strong conviction; especially a system of religious beliefs.

Faith can be the greatest thing in the world. Faith gives hope to those in terrible situations. Faith provides us with the strength to get out of bed each and every morning, even when things are not going well for us. Faith strengthens our resolve in difficult circumstances and comforts us in the knowledge that no matter how badly someone has screwed up they are not beyond redemption. Faith can be powerful and wonderful.

Faith: (1) Allegiance to duty, a person, or an idea (2): Believing something or someone without question.

Faith can also be twisted into something negative and frightening. Blind allegiance to a person or an idea can make one close-minded, obtuse, and blind to facts that might point to an answer or fact that the individual is uncomfortable with for some reason. Often, blind faith leads to denial even in the face of unrelenting fact. Sometimes the reason is as simple as someone not wanting to admit they have been wrong, maybe for decades, about something. Sometimes the individual has some sort of stake in the status quo and not only wants to deny newly discovered facts but to suppress them. It is my opinion that this is part of the reason the possibility of the sasquatch actually existing is ridiculed, scoffed at, and just plain ignored by so many. For some reason, many find the possibility that we might share our planet with another bipedal hominid to be a direct assault on their faith in God. If such a creature existed then it might render their faith meaningless.

Some have not merely dismissed the possibility of the sasquatch. Instead, they have taken a different tact and looked to scripture in an effort to unearth some possible mention of the creature in the Bible. If beings matching the description of bigfoot are mentioned in the Bible, that would mean the creatures were just another animal created by God. If that were true, then the implications of evolution, Darwinism, and missing links would need not be considered at all. Those who have sought bigfoot in the Bible have presented some interesting theories based on scripture. The more commonly discussed are presented below.



One of the more popular theories is that sasquatches are the descendants of Cain. The basis for this theory emerges from the fact that Cain was cursed by God to be a restless wanderer on the earth as punishment for slaying his brother, Abel. Cain was marked by God so that any who saw him would not kill him and end his torment (Genesis 3: 10-16). One interpretation of all this is that Cain could not die and wanders all over the earth to this day. The "mark," I've heard others say, is that he was covered in hair and naked. This, obviously, matches the description of the sasquatch. If you continue with the Genesis account, however, it says Cain went on to live in the land of Nod, east of Eden, and fathered Enoch, for whom he built a great city (Genesis 3: 17). The account goes on to name multiple descendants. I've seen nothing in the description of the descendants to lead me to believe that they were hair-covered beings. Obviously, sasquatches do not build cities. Neither do I believe that every sasquatch witness has actually had a Cain sighting. The fact that Cain went on to be a builder of cities, was the father of many, apparently, normal (non hair-covered) descendents, and that the theory is dependent on Cain being the one and only sasquatch on the entire earth makes this one a stretch to say the least, in my opinion.



Another popular biblical theory is that the sasquatch species is a remnant population of the legendary Nephilim (giants) of the Old Testament. Genesis 6: 4 reads:

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward- when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children with them. They were the heroes of old, men of reknown."

Many have interpreted the verse to mean that the Nephilim were not human, at least not what we would consider human, and they were breeding with the "daughters of men." Whatever the case, the Bible seems to be clearly differentiating between the Nephilim, whatever they were, and the daughters of men (humans). The fact that the two different races could mate and have viable offspring certainly supports the idea that the Nephilim were primates of some sort. It is further posited by many that these offspring would have been very large and, to some degree, giants in their own right. Could the sasquatch be a descendant of these offspring? Some think so. Again, there is precious little to go on when it comes to what the Nephilim looked like. Obviously, they were very large and must have been at least “man-like” in order to breed with human women. While nothing close to the classic description of a sasquatch is attributed to the Nephilim, with the exception of their abnormal size, there does seem to have been something very different about them that made the “fraternization” between them and human females displeasing to God. Certainly, the thought of this kind of mixing between humans and other primates is an anathema to us now. Was this always the case? There has long been an underlying suspicion that sasquatches are more than open to mating with human females. Many of the Native American tribes relate tales to this day of sasquatches who, in the past, would abduct females that wandered too far away from the protection of the tribe. Albert Ostman himself speculated that the reason he was snatched from his remote campsite in British Columbia back in 1924 was that the big male who toted him off considered him a possible mate for the adolescent female within his family group. Such theories are, of course, mere speculation but it is interesting that the idea and/or fear of such couplings hangs on to this very day.



Another biblical character that is often mentioned when it comes to this topic is Esau. Certainly, Esau’s physical attributes are described in far more detail than whatever mark God afflicted Cain with or what exactly the Nephilim might have looked like. Many lean toward the idea that sasquatches are the descendants of Esau, son of Isaac and Rebekah. Genesis 25: 24-25 tells of the birth of Esau and his brother Jacob:

"When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau."

Esau is thought to have meant hairy. Esau was also called Edom, which meant red.

Genesis 25: 27-28 continues:

"The boys grew up and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the tents."

The well-known story continues with Jacob tricking Esau out of his birthright and stealing Isaac's blessing for his first-born son by pretending to be Esau. Jacob tricks his father by covering himself with the hairy hide of a goat so that when his father laid hands on him he would believe it was Esau he was touching. The fact that this deception worked gives testament to how hairy Esau must have been. The reddish hue of Esau’s hair-covered body is reminiscent of the brownish-red coloration often attributed to sasquatches today. The fact that Esau is described as a skillful hunter that preferred living in the wild and the taste of wild game to camp life and less exotic fare lends more credence to this theory.

There are problems with the idea that the sasquatches seen today are the descendants of Esau, however. As is documented in the Bible, Esau used language, rode horses, wore clothing, and commanded men. To think that his descendants would have somehow devolved into beings that, by all accounts, are much more primitive is unlikely in my mind.

There are other, less popular, biblical theories floating around out there that involve beings that some believe might have been sasquatches or, at least, their ancestors. It is said that the Israelites, after making their exodus from Egypt, were pestered by rock-throwing primitives resembling apes during their desert wanderings. Rock throwing continues to be a big part of described sasquatch behavior today. Another account, now excluded from most biblical texts, is the story of a Nephilim (giant) named Og who bartered his way onto the ark of Noah in order to escape the flood that destroyed all of humanity by promising to become a servant of the family. Needless to say, this giant reneged on his promise once the waters receded from the earth and he was able to set his large feet on dry land. How he might have propagated, being the sole survivor of his race, never seems to be discussed by those who favor the theory.

I don't really put much stock in these various theories. I do think the sasquatch is more than just another animal. They are more intelligent, stealthier, more cunning, and more wary than any other animal of which I'm aware. My goal, and that of the TBRC, is to figure out what they are and where they came from (lineage). Hopefully, one day soon, we will do just that. Until then, speculation on whether or not they are the descendents of people mentioned in the Bible, surviving Gigantopithecus blackii, or a remnant population of Neanderthals will go on unabated.

I don’t really understand why people of faith are often threatened by the possible existence of this species. In my mind, the sasquatch is just another one of God's wonders. Whether the Bible does or does not mention them doesn’t matter to me a bit. Many, actually most, creatures are omitted from scripture. The Bible really isn’t the story of the animal kingdom, after all, so this should hardly be surprising. Neither does the idea that the sasquatch is closely related to we humans disturb me. The DNA of a chimpanzee is 96% identical to that of humans. Maybe a sasquatch is genetically 98-99% identical to we humans. No big deal to me. These thoughts don’t shake my faith at all.

I believe in God. I believe the sasquatch is a real living creature. I don’t think the two beliefs have to be mutually exclusive.

22 comments:

  1. I have seen some men who were pretty hairy but far short of Sasquatch. It may be the racial memory - preserved in ancient story and passed down - of the encounters of Neanderthal and Modern Man (which be the story of Cain and Abel).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hey, Mike. Great post. I think this one may be my new favorite on the site. I had no idea you had such an extensive knowledge of the Bible. Unfortunately, that is a trate that is increasingly uncommon.....

    If I may make a few points, I believe the Nephilim were/are they hybrid offspring of fallen angels and humans. If you note what the Scripture says, "Sons of God" in the sense it was used in Genesis is generally recognized by scholars to be angelic beings. Even more interesting, I've heard very prominent Bible scholars theorize (and to be be honest, it makes sense to me) that these Nephilim were actually the real life beings that the Greeks based their gods upon. That in fact, that's why the Bible refers to them as the "men of renown" and the "heroes of old". But I digress...If either one of those things are true, then they certainly wouldn't be sasquatches, great bidpedal apes.

    I don't know why anybody would have their faith threatened by a large "undocumented" species of ape. It's a monkey, folks. Get over it. The Bible doesn't mention panda bears, mako sharks, or the Texas Two Step either, and we know those things are real.
    -Justin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Justin,
      What makes you so sure that these beings are "apes"..."monkeys"?????
      Seems to me no one knows yet...unless you have an inside on the DNA results...lol...but I doubt that. In the human mind that tries to justify everything, it would be so much easier to shoot an animal then another human...at least for most people.

      Delete
    2. It could be that Evil Angels mated w/ Apes creating Bigfoot,

      Delete
  3. Interesting post. I believe in Bigfoot and the Bible and don't see any contradiction. To quote a saying, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. This goes for the seemingly paltry (to some) scientific evidence for Bigfoot, or the apparent lack of mention in scripture (your due diligence notwithstanding).

    I actually hold to what's called the plenary inspiration of scripture (you can Google that), but I'll be the first to say that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are full of a lot of mystery. I don't really think the creation account is meant to communicate the scientific "how" of creation, but rather the "what/who" and move us towards the ultimate "why".

    Although I lean away from theistic creationism (although I do hold to an old earth), I can't say that God didn't ordain intermediate species to prepare the way for His crowning achievement, or that we may share some surprising similarities with a very close, but quite elusive, hominid cousin. I, for one, would consider it a gift of God to observe a Bigfoot as an adult (I had an encounter as a youngster, but that was 45+ years ago).

    BTW, I'm right down the road from you in the greater Austin area (Cedar Park, near Round Rock).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmmm i believe Bigfoot is Nephilim and that Goliath and King Og were as well. A persons world view determines what he can see and can't. i would think you would want to study all sides of this even the "religious". Seems silly that you can believe in a giant hairy ape that has hidden away in the woods all these years, and not in a God who loves you. Barry

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't have to wonder if Bigfoot exist because I saw a large male Bigfoot in the remote mountains of Del Norte County,CA in 1979. You only have to see one once to know that they do exist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nephilim were the result of angles having relations with women. Nephilim were giants and evil with the goal of polluting God's creation and compromising all DNA that makes up God's perfect creation. Nephilim had sexual intercourse with some level of primate....we now have Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti....a mammal that exists in the here and now and also the supernatural.

    MikeinMontana

    ReplyDelete
  7. Here is my question. If Bigfoot is an aspect of the Nephilim of the Torah, and if the Nephilim run the planet as certain conspiracy and paranormal claims would have, then why is Bigfoot hanging out in the forest instead of eating steak at a fancy restaurant in upscale DC? That is not intended as a hostile question. I acknowledge that certain bloodlines (royal and super-rich) run the planet. My point is that if Bigfoot were part of that reality, then why would they be elusive in the forest as opposed to partying at the Hamptons?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great info.Here are some more websites with similar thoughts. I started the one website about Bigfoot and Nephilim , at the story with Gilgamesh, just because it is known to be one of the earliest writings. HOWEVER, soon an update will be posted, because we believe, of course, that the ORIGINAL Bigfoot creature was God-created at the beginning, and then though some remained "pure", others inter-breeded with various other creatures, including the Nephilim giants.
    Lots of interesting therories...
    www.bigfoottheory.wordpress.com...www.achristianperspectiveonbigfoot.wordpress.com...
    www.bigfootbook.net

    God Bless!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great info.Here are some more websites with similar thoughts. I started the one website about Bigfoot and Nephilim , at the story with Gilgamesh, just because it is known to be one of the earliest writings. HOWEVER, soon an update will be posted, because we believe, of course, that the ORIGINAL Bigfoot creature was God-created at the beginning, and then though some remained "pure", others inter-breeded with various other creatures, including the Nephilim giants.
    Lots of interesting therories...
    www.bigfoottheory.wordpress.com...www.achristianperspectiveonbigfoot.wordpress.com...
    www.bigfootbook.net

    God Bless!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I never bought the idea of giant "people," in the Bible. Nor do I believe in Jonah living in the belly of a whale or giant fish for three days. However, when I Googled "bigfoot and the bible" today, I found some very interesting things. As a believer in bigfoot (and a Christian),I find all this fascinating. And I'd say, I can certainly buy into the notion that these giants mentioned in the OT were bigfoot. (The mention of giants in the OT seems almost a matter of fact statement, as if they were as much as part of the land as trees, rocks and streams). Could inter-breeding have happened? My first thought goes to the inter-breeding of a donkey and a horse (which results in a mule). When I look at the notion of a bigfoot and human inter-breeding purely in pragmatic terms, I think, "Why not?" Could there be some pure bigfoot out there? And some that are the result of inter-breeding? If you think about it, a "city slicker" may look at a mule and easily think it's a horse. Perhaps this is why descriptions of bigfoot tend to have some basic variances when it comes to size, head-shape, hair, etc. Now do I think it is a "doomed" creature, "cursed" by God? No. (For the same reason I don't believe a mule is cursed). That said, I can see God, back in the day, saying "Hey...you humans should NOT be breeding with bigfoot. I made him different from you."

    This entire Bible & Bigfoot notion just reinforces my search and belief in the historical elements of the Bible. Did Noah's Ark carry every creature? I don't think so. Did Christ rise from the dead? I am certain. The Bible is full of parables and truths. I'm glad to say we may have figured out what those "giants" were. (And if others think we're nuts, well, too bad). B

    BTW, this spring, I met an outdoor guide who says he saw Sasquatch in upper Canada last summer. He said it was a frightening experience but that he saw a giant creature unlike any he had ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It sounds ridiculous, but I truly think that the story of Esau was referencing Neanderthals. The story of Rebekah giving birth to a red hairy man first and then Jacob second is, in my opinion, a metaphorical reference to Neanderthals and humans. Neanderthals were first and have been proven to have had red hair, and humans lived alongside them. I am Catholic, but I believe that a lot of the Old Testament is metaphorical and such.

    ReplyDelete
  12. i think that bigfoot is a decendant of lemech who received the curse of cain 7 time seventy he made a pack with satan as cain did and became master maham, and acording to the book of jasher he killed cain and he was a decendent of cain. think about that. god deals lemech decendents.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mike, I like your post. we are similar in notions. lets just see what happens..

    ReplyDelete
  14. our biggest problem these days are the monkey suits. you will never get them to stop foolin around to get a better look at the real thing. my belief is Esau, to me he's the only one who fits because he was born covered in red hair. why couldn't the mark of Cain being turned black, that would fit too. we're getting close to finding out another way so we cant be messin around, gotta get er done.......

    ReplyDelete
  15. one thing you must remember, bigfoot is human and therefore has intelligence and can be makin all kinds of fools out of all who go out there looking for him. no bones? they bury their dead like we do...etc

    ReplyDelete
  16. What is beginning to bother me is the idea that bigfoots are our big brothers out in the forest--hail-bigfoot-well-met. I am a novelist, and I have listened to a lot of internet radio and podcasts as part of my research for one particular book. The broadcasts that feature accounts of encounters with bigfoot overwhelmingly indicate that these creatures may well be man-eating. (Some call them cannibalistic. But for a bigfoot to be cannibalistic, wouldn't that mean the creatures eat their own kind.?) The BFRO approach, that if we gift bigfoots with doughnuts and bacon, they will warm up to us and show themselves--an approach I once believed in, is at the very least naive, and at the very worst, dangerous to humans. Some Indian tribes have encountered these creatures for thousands of years, and many tribes have developed a lore and tradition about bigfoots: leave them alone, and they will leave you alone. Yet the broadcast accounts I have I've mentioned above seem to indicate that, even if you let them alone, they may begin to hunt you. Frequent references to bigfoots herding humans in particular directions, to specific places, is both frightening and, I think, should be considered by people who go into the forests. One last word, the most alarming of all, is the broadcast statement of one man who has documented the understanding of bigfoot by a particular Indian tribe. The man, on a radio show, tells of a little boy who disappeared during a game of hid and go seek, within the visual sight of his father. Later, he, the broadcaster, says that witnesses saw that, at the time of the disappearance, they saw a large creature running with something on it's shoulder. And last, frankly, I think the production crew and Ranae are in great danger, depending on the wisdom of the leader to keep them safe. You know whom I am talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Many in the Indian nations view Bigfoot as a spirit being,able to cross over into our dimension at will. Also the nature of the Paranormal Bigfoot has been demonstrated by witnesses who have seen only half a creature or one that vanishes upon discovery! This can be applied to other Crypto creatures. Have you noticed too, that since a 10,000,000 million dollar bounty has been put on Bigfoot's head for proof of his existence, many more alleged photos have popped up! If cryptid creatures are paranormal in nature, none will be caught, Bigfoot included.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Only GOD knows if they`'re real

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've experienced sasquatch on many occasions.
    It's real, it's supernatural.

    Start there, if you want to be accurate.

    It is not an animal of this earth.
    It posseses abilities such as disappearing, and can travel 25 feet in less than a second.
    These are facts I know.

    Anyone saying different is a liar. Period.
    Anyone calling you crazy for knowing this, is ignorant, or a misinformation agent.
    I've seen it happen. I've filmed it happen.
    Believe it or not, up to you.

    What I don't know is its intent.
    I do know it freaks me out, if that helps.
    I don't get a warm fuzzy feeling about it.
    So if that it's intent. Job well done.

    And bye the bye. Darwin was a masonary satan worshiper hired to mislead. He has a vested interest in his flawed theory.
    He even said himself it has serious gaps, that if unfilled, render his theory useless.

    So far? Useless.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I have seen just a glimpse of this creature as well as hearing it slosh upstream in the middle of the night , turning over large rocks .we were tent camping back in the early 1970's up at pfeiffer big sur state park ( california ) I didn't give the subject much thought at all back then , but while fishing the river that runs through the park ,I had rocks thrown towards me as well.It wasn't until recently that I stumbled upon some encounters reported by a forest park ranger who was stationed there during those years ,as well as some hikers , and a wild boar Hunter. I also remember hearing some very powerful tree knocks late in the afternoon , and some loud and close bird calls while during the pre dawn hours......very interesting ....whatever it is ....most likely ape......but a very unusual creature.....mainly nocturnal , and elusive.......but, it is definitely out there , and very adapted to its preferred habitat...

    ReplyDelete