Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

DBowling wrote:

RickD wrote: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?

Yes... I associate the first appearance of physically modern humans In Africa around 200,000 years ago with the Genesis 1:26-27 account of God creating mankind in his image.
I associate the appearance of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 with the Neolithic Mesopotamian culture that Scripture describes in Genesis 2-4, and that is consistent with the 6,000 BC timeframe that both Scripture and Mesopotamian history point to.

Now of course the outstanding question is... How did God create mankind in Genesis 1:26-27?
Scripture just doesn't answer that question.

In Christ

Rick,
Seems like you have an issue with the supernatural dude...

DBowling wrote:

RickD wrote:

DBowling wrote:

RickD wrote: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?

Yes... I associate the first appearance of physically modern humans In Africa around 200,000 years ago with the Genesis 1:26-27 account of God creating mankind in his image.
I associate the appearance of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 with the Neolithic Mesopotamian culture that Scripture describes in Genesis 2-4, and that is consistent with the 6,000 BC timeframe that both Scripture and Mesopotamian history point to.

Now of course the outstanding question is... How did God create mankind in Genesis 1:26-27?
Scripture just doesn't answer that question.

In Christ

I have not really read yet what Heiser says.But I like that interpretation and it is similar to the way I interpret it.

PaulSacramento wrote:Rick,
Seems like you have an issue with the supernatural dude...

The supernatural dude? No. Never heard of him.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Rick,
Seems like you have an issue with the supernatural dude...

The supernatural dude? No. Never heard of him.

Berry funny mon

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Rick,
Seems like you have an issue with the supernatural dude...

The supernatural dude? No. Never heard of him.

Berry funny mon

I have no problem with the supernatural. Otherwise, I wouldn't believe Christ is who he claims to be, now would I?

I have a problem giving something a supernatural cause, when a natural answer simply fits better.

As a Theistic Evolutionist, I know you can appreciate that.

The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

And again,

What gives you the idea that angels can procreate with humans? Could you outline that theology for me?

Angels are angels. Humans are humans. Pigs are pigs. Cats are cats. All different. And that's ASSUMING angels even have the God Given ability to have sex and have sperm that can match a human female egg. Like I said, it's not anywhere in the bible. It's stuff of science fiction.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

And again,

What gives you the idea that angels can procreate with humans? Could you outline that theology for me?

Angels are angels. Humans are humans. Pigs are pigs. Cats are cats. All different. And that's ASSUMING angels even have the God Given ability to have sex and have sperm that can match a human female egg. Like I said, it's not anywhere in the bible. It's stuff of science fiction.

And it is the stuff of atheists rolling their eyes.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

And again,

What gives you the idea that angels can procreate with humans? Could you outline that theology for me?

Angels are angels. Humans are humans. Pigs are pigs. Cats are cats. All different. And that's ASSUMING angels even have the God Given ability to have sex and have sperm that can match a human female egg. Like I said, it's not anywhere in the bible. It's stuff of science fiction.

And it is the stuff of atheists rolling their eyes.

As PaulS would say*,

You're only an atheist until a fallen angel takes you for his bride, and you have 11 foot tall children. THEN YOU BELIEVE!!!


*Hypothetically

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

And again,

What gives you the idea that angels can procreate with humans? Could you outline that theology for me?

Angels are angels. Humans are humans. Pigs are pigs. Cats are cats. All different. And that's ASSUMING angels even have the God Given ability to have sex and have sperm that can match a human female egg. Like I said, it's not anywhere in the bible. It's stuff of science fiction.

And it is the stuff of atheists rolling their eyes.

That's because they don't believe in God.If they believed in God they could believe in angels too,but they don't,so they won't.If you saw an angel though,you would'nt know it,you would think it was a human.You have probably entertained angels unawares.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

And again,

What gives you the idea that angels can procreate with humans? Could you outline that theology for me?

Angels are angels. Humans are humans. Pigs are pigs. Cats are cats. All different. And that's ASSUMING angels even have the God Given ability to have sex and have sperm that can match a human female egg. Like I said, it's not anywhere in the bible. It's stuff of science fiction.

And it is the stuff of atheists rolling their eyes.

That's because they don't believe in God.If they believed in God they could believe in angels too,but they don't,so they won't.If you saw an angel though,you would'nt know it,you would think it was a human.You have probably entertained angels unawares.

That explains why you get the same reaction from believer and atheist alike?

Audie wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue is that the natural answer is being used NOt because it fits better with the Biblical account BUT because it SEEMS to address possible theological issues that, honestly, are not there ( divine beings having sex with human women).

And again,

What gives you the idea that angels can procreate with humans? Could you outline that theology for me?

Angels are angels. Humans are humans. Pigs are pigs. Cats are cats. All different. And that's ASSUMING angels even have the God Given ability to have sex and have sperm that can match a human female egg. Like I said, it's not anywhere in the bible. It's stuff of science fiction.

And it is the stuff of atheists rolling their eyes.

That's because they don't believe in God.If they believed in God they could believe in angels too,but they don't,so they won't.If you saw an angel though,you would'nt know it,you would think it was a human.You have probably entertained angels unawares.

That explains why you get the same reaction from believer and atheist alike?

Changing the subject.

Time for a reality check? This thread is entitled "Questions for Theistic Evolutionists"; it is part of the "God and Science" forum, on a website called "Evidence for God from Science", and has become a wholly unscientific, even untheological squabble between literalist devotees of one particular translation of the non-English texts on which it is based.

Here are two questions which I think a Theistic Evolutionist, such as myself, might validly be asked:

1) Where does the story in Genesis 6 come from? and
2) What is its relevance in the bible?

It goes without saying that Theistic Evolutionists do not think that the authors of the early books of the bible were scientists, and that their intention was not to give a scientific account of the early history of the universe or mankind, of which they knew nothing. Nor do we think that the original scribes went into some kind of trance, only to wake up hours later to discover that God had held their pens while they wrote the Torah. The divine inspiration attributed to the bible is derived from what it says, not how it came to be written.

A formal account of the beliefs of a people could not be written until the invention of writing, and probably was not written until there was some compulsion to make an objective record, against which oral tradition could be checked if necessary. This may have occurred at the time of the Babylonian captivity, when some authority or other, either left in Israel or exiled in Babylon, felt it important. By that time there must have been numerous oral traditions, not necessarily compatible, all being used to teach the people who they were and how to live. Rather than choose one, a whole variety were gathered together, all of value of one kind or another, but not necessarily from the same source, nor necessarily literally compatible. Wikipedia says that the chief of these were the Jahwist, the Elohist source, the priestly and the Deuteronomist, but there may be others. Quite possibly a variety of other stories was also considered, but rejected as inappropriate. Most of early Genesis seems ultimately derivable from much older Sumerian or other Mesopotamian mythology.

So what was it all for? Why incorporate all this disparate mythology into the bible? There are several possible reasons: firstly, because it was all 'true' in the sense that it correctly illustrated some aspects of God's relationship to man, and secondly, as a means of collecting different, and possibly divergent, traditions under a single canopy, thus preventing schismatic tendencies. The story of the Nephilim seems most likely to be one of these.