Questions for Theistic Evolutionists

[abelcainsbrother]

Take Jude
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lq-H9e77MM

[Philip]

While I don't believe angels and human women got frisky, I would point out that angels can take on whatever physical deception.

[RickD]

While I don't believe angels and human women got frisky, I would point out that angels can take on whatever physical deception.

Sure. It's one thing that angels can look like humans. It's quite another to say they can somehow develop a male human reproductive system.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:

So the sons of seth are who the writers of Job and Deuteronomy and Psalms are referring too?
I don't think so and the only issue people have with the Sons of God being divine beings in Genesis 6 is the supernatural element, which no bible believer should have issues with.

I'd have to reread the verses in Job, Deuteronomy, and Psalms. I'm not familiar with them off the top of my head.

If I recall correctly, Jac put up an argument against the fallen angels belief, on the basis that it's not natural for angels to have sex.

Nowhere in scripture is there anything that says angels have the power to create.

And my main argument against, was that fallen angels aren't called sons of God anywhere in scripture. At least not anywhere that I'm aware of.

I agree that besides people being called sons of God, angels are too. But not fallen angels.

The only argument against divine beings mating with humans is Jesus' comment on angels not marrying in heaven.
Which has NO baring on what they can or can't do on Earth.
The writers at the time of those that wrote the OT, commented on the OT and the 1st generations of Christians, believed that divine beings were the Sons of God, that some did transgress.

It should be noted that the verse in Jude and Peter are almost per verbatim the same in 1Enoch.

There's at least one other argument. That angels are spiritual beings. Not physical. No sexual organs. No sperm. No nookie nookie.

In heaven, yes, not on Earth.
They are physical ( Jacob wrestled with one remember).
The transgressions of the angels as mentioned by Peter and Jude reference use of languages and terms that imply, rather explicitly, for their intended audience, that angels committed carnal sins.

[Philip]

Despite whatever entity or Entity it was Jacob wrestled with, if angels can appear to have hands and feet... well, just saying... But who knows what these really were. And God is a spirit and HE took on human form, ate and drank, etc.

[PaulSacramento]

Despite whatever entity or Entity it was Jacob wrestled with, if angels can appear to have hands and feet... well, just saying... But who knows what these really were. And God is a spirit and HE took on human form, ate and drank, etc.

I think it is important to remember that pretty much up until Augustine, the view that the Sons of God were angels was what was believed.
See here:
http://www.moreunseenrealm.com/?page_id=26

[PaulSacramento]

We also need to get more comfortable with the understanding that there IS a supernatural realm and that there is a supernatural battle between Us and divine beings that do not like us very much.

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:

In heaven, yes, not on Earth.
They are physical ( Jacob wrestled with one remember).
The transgressions of the angels as mentioned by Peter and Jude reference use of languages and terms that imply, rather explicitly, for their intended audience, that angels committed carnal sins.

First, scripture says Jacob wrestled with God, not an angel. Second, there's no explicit bible verses that say angels had sex with women and impregnated them. Only eisegesis can lead one to that conclusion.


There's nothing in scripture, nor nature that even implies, much less explicitly states that angels can create life. Even if we grant for the sake of argument, that angels have a penis, which again, isn't stated anywhere in scripture, only God has the power to create life.

It's good for science fiction movies, but not based in reality nor scripture.

[crochet1949]

God Is spirit and Jesus Christ His Son and the Holy Spirit are the Godhead. God took on human form as in Jesus was born as the result of the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary. So, yes, God took on the form of a human. He did that for a specific purpose -- Jesus Christ /God's Son / would point us to God , His Father, and then resurrect and ascend Back to heaven to be at the right hand of the Father. A very unique situation.


In the situation of Sodom and Gomorah -- the two men who walked into town -- they were angels and looked just like ordinary men. All we really know is what Scripture tells us. There is the realm of angelic beings who are a little higher than the realm of us people. And mostly invisible unless they want to be seen.

The fallen angels -- do we really know What they are capable of doing? And, yes, God is the only Creator of..... in that life didn't exist through alternative development. But could those fallen angels / men Have presented themselves as normal men and taken the women for wives, apparently, yes. Cause children were produced.

[Kurieuo]

You're wrong Rick, I'm living proof that angels have sex with women (well woman) and impregnate them.

[RickD]

You're wrong Rick, I'm living proof that angels have sex with women (well woman) and impregnate them.

Actually,

You're living proof that we evolved from monkeys.

[DBowling]

Something to think about...

It just came to mind now, so I haven't actually studied the possibility. But after reading the links by Heiser in this post, could sons of God be the descendants of Adam? And the sons of man, be the descendants of the other humans that came from the line that existed outside of Adam's line?

This is a position that I have been seriously considering for a couple of years now. Even though Heiser does not hold the position that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are a reference to the lineage of Adam, the following Heiser quote from his Genesis 1-3 blog is consistent with this position.

Adam is therefore the son of God (cp. Luke 3:38) — just like Israel will be called the son of God (Exod 4:23) — just like the king of Israel is called the the son of God (Psalm 2:7) — just like Jesus, the messianic king/servant, is the son of God, so that those who believe in him can be called the sons/children of God (John 1:12; Rom 8:14, 19; Gal 3:26; 1 John 3:1-3). It isn’t until God’s covenant with Abraham, a later descendant of Adam and Eve, that readers are told that it would be through Abraham, a descendant of Adam (Luke 3:34-38), that the humans outside the elect lineage (which began with Adam) would be redeemed through the descendant(s) of Abraham (and so, the descendants of Adam).

From this quote we see that in Scripture, God's chosen/elect people were referred to as sons/children of God all the way back to Adam.

Another interesting data point is that the longevity of the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" is reduced to 120 years (Genesis 6:3) from the 900 years we see in Genesis 5 for the descendants of Adam in Genesis 5. This is consistent with the premise that the "sons of God" were the long lived descendants of Adam, while the "daughters of men" were the non-Adamic 'normal lived' indigenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia.

The theme of God's people intermarrying with and being corrupted by the sinful indigenous population of 'the land' and the judgement that followed (Genesis 6-9) is also consistent with the pattern we see later in Scripture when God's covenant people (Israel) enter the land of Canaan.

My .02...

[RickD]

Something to think about...

It just came to mind now, so I haven't actually studied the possibility. But after reading the links by Heiser in this post, could sons of God be the descendants of Adam? And the sons of man, be the descendants of the other humans that came from the line that existed outside of Adam's line?

This is a position that I have been seriously considering for a couple of years now. Even though Heiser does not hold the position that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 are a reference to the lineage of Adam, the following Heiser quote from his Genesis 1-3 blog is consistent with this position.

Adam is therefore the son of God (cp. Luke 3:38) — just like Israel will be called the son of God (Exod 4:23) — just like the king of Israel is called the the son of God (Psalm 2:7) — just like Jesus, the messianic king/servant, is the son of God, so that those who believe in him can be called the sons/children of God (John 1:12; Rom 8:14, 19; Gal 3:26; 1 John 3:1-3). It isn’t until God’s covenant with Abraham, a later descendant of Adam and Eve, that readers are told that it would be through Abraham, a descendant of Adam (Luke 3:34-38), that the humans outside the elect lineage (which began with Adam) would be redeemed through the descendant(s) of Abraham (and so, the descendants of Adam).

From this quote we see that in Scripture, God's chosen/elect people were referred to as sons/children of God all the way back to Adam.

Another interesting data point is that the longevity of the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" is reduced to 120 years (Genesis 6:3) from the 900 years we see in Genesis 5 for the descendants of Adam in Genesis 5. This is consistent with the premise that the "sons of God" were the long lived descendants of Adam, while the "daughters of men" were the non-Adamic 'normal lived' indigenous inhabitants of Mesopotamia.

The theme of God's people intermarrying with and being corrupted by the sinful indigenous population of 'the land' and the judgement that followed (Genesis 6-9) is also consistent with the pattern we see later in Scripture when God's covenant people (Israel) enter the land of Canaan.

My .02...

And if I remember correctly, you're thinking that all these people were created as humans, not evolved from something else?

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:

In heaven, yes, not on Earth.
They are physical ( Jacob wrestled with one remember).
The transgressions of the angels as mentioned by Peter and Jude reference use of languages and terms that imply, rather explicitly, for their intended audience, that angels committed carnal sins.

First, scripture says Jacob wrestled with God, not an angel. Second, there's no explicit bible verses that say angels had sex with women and impregnated them. Only eisegesis can lead one to that conclusion.


There's nothing in scripture, nor nature that even implies, much less explicitly states that angels can create life. Even if we grant for the sake of argument, that angels have a penis, which again, isn't stated anywhere in scripture, only God has the power to create life.

It's good for science fiction movies, but not based in reality nor scripture.

He wrestled with the Angel of God, but even if it was God, then you have a material form, not a spiritual one.
You have to address the statements of Jude and Peter as to what the transgressions of the angels were and considering that they seem to be quote 1Enoch and 1Enoch speaks of angels leaving heaven and taking on material bodies and procreating with women and that the 1st century and 2nd century Christian authors believed that as well, well...

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:

In heaven, yes, not on Earth.
They are physical ( Jacob wrestled with one remember).
The transgressions of the angels as mentioned by Peter and Jude reference use of languages and terms that imply, rather explicitly, for their intended audience, that angels committed carnal sins.

First, scripture says Jacob wrestled with God, not an angel. Second, there's no explicit bible verses that say angels had sex with women and impregnated them. Only eisegesis can lead one to that conclusion.


There's nothing in scripture, nor nature that even implies, much less explicitly states that angels can create life. Even if we grant for the sake of argument, that angels have a penis, which again, isn't stated anywhere in scripture, only God has the power to create life.

It's good for science fiction movies, but not based in reality nor scripture.

He wrestled with the Angel of God, but even if it was God, then you have a material form, not a spiritual one.
You have to address the statements of Jude and Peter as to what the transgressions of the angels were and considering that they seem to be quote 1Enoch and 1Enoch speaks of angels leaving heaven and taking on material bodies and procreating with women and that the 1st century and 2nd century Christian authors believed that as well, well...

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...