Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 10:05 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 3:21 pm

neo-x wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 2:14 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 1:37 pm

neo-x wrote: ↑Fri May 04, 2018 12:09 pm

Yes I am saying that Angels and humans are impossible to breed, however it seems that author of Genesis 6 may have believed it or simply wrote it down as it was orally narrated to him by his source(s).

Do you have any support from the actual text of Genesis that the author of Genesis believed that "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to angels?
Does the author of Genesis ever refer to angels as "sons of God" when they appear later in the text of Genesis?
You are making an assertion here with zero support from the actual text of Genesis.

I actually agree with your premise that it is physically impossible for humans and angels to procreate.
But I do have to take issue with your assertion that the author of Genesis thought that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 were angels when there is zero evidence in the text of Genesis to support that assertion.

No. it's both literal and contextual. In any case, it is more likely to me that he did mean angels. That is what makes the most sense to the story. Otherwise why end up with such a dramatic cataclysmic event.

By the way I do think there is a counter argument to be made here on your emphasis on precedent from scriptures. I would propose that the older texts can be referenced to set precedent on the new but it's a one way street. You can't use newer texts to set meaning to the older texts. I do think that Job sets precedent on the term to be used for angels. It is an older text, older than Genesis itself.

But to be honest with you I really don't find the precedent argument strong anyway, because there are not enough texts from the similar time period to ascertain what the term meant conclusively as it later sometimes did which you defer to. I don't think your argument applies here. The text is quite ancient and quite unlike any in the bible. Again, I find it more probable that the Author meant angels rather than people. That makes the most sense of the chain of events that followed. Adamites marrying sethites would be eventual anyway since how else the human population would grow? It is a natural process, Bound to happen. But what wasn't bound to happen, at least in the story is angels marrying humans and begetting giants. Ask your self why would this be an issue if only humans were procreating with humans? Why would they breed giants and something that God was moved to kill all life.

It only makes sense if it was something else. That is what triggers a life wiping flood that is apocalyptic.

Atleast that is what I think.

With a local flood, the population of the entire earth wasn't wiped out. The line of Adam had gotten so corrupt, that every thought was evil. Of the line of Adam, the line that God set apart to be a witness and a special people, from which the messiah would eventually be born, became completely evil. So, God wiped out all of Adam's descendants, except Noah and his family.

I don't see why that isn't dramatic enough in and of itself, without having to believe in Magic angel/human giants, or crazy Frankenstein DNA manipulation theories.

All mankind is inherently evil and completely fallen. That has always been the case. Nothing has changed. Virtue is not a quality that God needs from a line of people from which the messiah would come. Because he would be God's seed, he would be taking nothing from a human parent. Are you saying that everyone in Jesus line was a saint who never did anything evil?
Of course not. And that is why I find it a weak argument.

The idea that the line was destroyed to cleanse it from evil never achieved its goal. Evil remained captive on everyone until Christ came.

These are my reasons why I don't agree with your argument.

What I mean by special people, is set apart to point to the need for Christ, and also to be the line through which Christ got his human nature. Not because they were better, or had less of a sin nature than anyone else.

And again, looking at the text, it doesn't say that the purpose of the flood was to cleanse evil from the line of Adam.

Do you realize how difficult it is for me to have a conversation with someone about different interpretations of scripture, when this person doesn't even hold to inerrancy? What does it even matter what the text says to you, if you don't even believe your own interpretation?

Rick# The text matters the most to me. And that is why I respect it. The problem is resolving it against evidence. I don't know how to do it, not yet.

You can do it, good for you. I find the explanation traditionally given lacking merit. So I can't do it. I hope i find a way to resolve it. I sincerely do.

neo-x wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 6:15 am Rick# The text matters the most to me. And that is why I respect it. The problem is resolving it against evidence. I don't know how to do it, not yet.

You can do it, good for you. I find the explanation traditionally given lacking merit. So I can't do it. I hope i find a way to resolve it. I sincerely do.

I meant my question in all seriousness. I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm seriously asking what does it matter what the text says, if your interpretation of the text isn't even believable to yourself?

Why would you even make an argument for your interpretation, if you don't even believe it?

I just don't understand.

RickD wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 6:22 am

neo-x wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 6:15 am Rick# The text matters the most to me. And that is why I respect it. The problem is resolving it against evidence. I don't know how to do it, not yet.

You can do it, good for you. I find the explanation traditionally given lacking merit. So I can't do it. I hope i find a way to resolve it. I sincerely do.

I meant my question in all seriousness. I wasn't trying to insult you. I'm seriously asking what does it matter what the text says, if your interpretation of the text isn't even believable to yourself?

Why would you even make an argument for your interpretation, if you don't even believe it?

I just don't understand.

Because I think the text has a purpose and meaning. I believe in discussion, and critical thinking. It never hurts to discuss. I think we can discuss it without holding to only one interpretation. I do not have an axe to grind here. I gave you my points and position so at least we can see where we come from even if we disagree.

neo-x wrote: ↑Sat May 05, 2018 6:15 am Rick# The text matters the most to me. And that is why I respect it. The problem is resolving it against evidence. I don't know how to do it, not yet.

You can do it, good for you. I find the explanation traditionally given lacking merit. So I can't do it. I hope i find a way to resolve it. I sincerely do.

For what it's worth...

I think it is important to differentiate between what Scripture actually says and what tradition says about what Scripture says.
All Scripture is Divinely inspired (2 Tim 3:16-17).
Tradition is important in helping us understand what thousands of years of those who came before us understood about Scripture, and there is lots of value and truth in Tradition. But Tradition is not infallible.

So we all (myself included) need to do the best we can to place the traditions that we embrace in subjection to Scripture, instead of placing Scripture subject to Tradition.

I believe the situations you are struggling to resolve are not really issues of Scripture vs Evidence but actually involve issues of Tradition vs Evidence.

I believe God is the source of Divine Revelation (ie Divinely Inspired Scripture)
I believe God is the source of General Revelation (ie God is the Creator of the World around us).

Therefore if I encounter apparent problems reconciling Divine Revelation and General Revelation, the real issue is not with either Divine or General Revelation. The real issue involves interpretations and traditions that skew how I understand Divine and General Revelation.

So if tradition tells me that angels procreated with humans, and yet both Scripture and General Revelation indicate otherwise, then in that case I jettison tradition for what Divine and General Revelation both say.
Likewise if tradition tells me that there was a planet wide flood at the time of Noah, and yet both Scripture and General Revelation tell me otherwise, then again I am compelled to jettison tradition for what Divine and General Revelation both say.

All that to say this, when I have encountered problems reconciling what I thought the Scriptural text said with other evidence, my first step is to dig into the Divinely inspired text and do my best to understand what Scripture actually says instead of leaning on what a particular Tradition says about Scripture.

Have I figured everything out?
No, and I won't this side of eternity.

But I have been able to resolve enough apparent conflicts to be confident that when everything comes to light, Divine and General Revelation will never come into conflict when both are properly understood.

My .02...

Neo: By the way Phil. The story of the flood is one of my favorites in the Bible. However I would also contend that its not what leads us to the messiah particularly. The idea of payment of sin is already established earlier. And it doesn't make salvation possible for all, but only 8 people.

Incredible that you make such a statement. Jesus was a man, as well as God. And God connects Him to Adam and through Noah. No Noah, no Christ as a human descendant of Adam. And no Jesus to die as a sinless man / God, no salvation. And Jesus' death and resurrection most clearly made salvation possible (but not certain) for ALL people.

It seems to me that Neo likes to interpret all of the Genesis texts as literalisms - makes some of them much easier to dismiss scientifically. Case in point, a global flood doesn't seem possible, scientifically. But is that what is meant? There's plenty of evidences to suggest it's a regional flood. And what of Psalm 104?

Psalm 104 describes the creation sequence and the boundaries of the waters that originally “stood over the mountains,” subsequently being assigned “to the place that You appointed for them.” And thus, these waters, upon the creation of the earth, were given A) boundaries “they may not pass” - B) “so they might NEVER again cover the earth.” Is this true or not - because it's referencing the creation process and LONG before the flood? It says that the waters have boundaries they can't pass, and that they can "NEVER" cover the earth "again" (post creation).

Psalm 104: “5 He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. 6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. 8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. 9 You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.

This would seem to rule out a global flood covering all of the mountains and entire earth.

Just wanted to say hi! I got really sick and that's why I haven't been on. I'm way back on page 4. I'll read from there. Might not respond today, it's too hard to think straight right now (had the chills for hours last night).

Mallz wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 8:06 am Just wanted to say hi! I got really sick and that's why I haven't been on. I'm way back on page 4. I'll read from there. Might not respond today, it's too hard to think straight right now (had the chills for hours last night).

Doesn't sound like any fun at all.
Hope you start feeling better soon!

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 6:41 pm But angels and humans are very different creatures.
Humans are physical beings
Angels are spirit beings
Humans are already fallen and have a sin nature that naturally gives them sinful desires
Angels do not have a sin nature (but they do have a will that has the potential to rebel against God)
The weakness I see in your argument is your assertion that it is possible for an angelic spirit being to have unnatural physical desires towards a human without already being in a fallen state.
Not meaning to get gross here, but that is kind of like a human being sexually attracted to an animal.
The unnatural wicked desire itself is a sign of a serious moral problem.

It's called bestiality if you're curious. Angels acquire a sin nature (just like humans). The only thing your accomplishing here, is arguing that angels can't fall. Which we all know they can, did, and still can. This is no argument at all. For I can say that satan couldn't have fallen because pride issues aren't in angels.
Yes, humans and angels are different. Angels can take on a human form is one of many ways in which we are different.

You are probably thinking of Job 2:1
Some use Job 2:1 to assert that a fallen Satan is referred to as a "son of God"
Except that Job 2:1 doesn't actually say that at all.

How is satan not referred to as a son of God when he is included in the group?

Mallz:
In one he destroyed the world with the flood. He didn't in other places.

I'll defer to an article by our host site
The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

I don't believe in a local flood nor does this article address the issue I presented.

Luke 3:38
Adam is explicitly referred to as a "son of God"

This is a NT passage. I'd like an OT one.

I'm struggling a bit with the concept of dismissing Divinely inspired Scripture because it is in the NT.
I think it is significant that Divinely inspired Scripture does explicitly refer to a pre-Flood person as a "son of God"... even if it is in the New Testament
But here's a passage from the Old Testament for you:
God's chosen people of Israel are referred to as sons of the Lord your God in Deut 14:1-2.
So Deut 14:1-2 and Luke 3:38 both refer to God's covenant people in the Old Testament as children of God.
And broken record time... Scripture never refers to fallen angels anywhere in Scripture as "sons/children of God", in either the Old Testament or in the New Testament.

You aren't paying attention to the problems I'm bringing up. As I said before, I'm not dismissing NT revelation. You don't seem to realize the NT was written in Greek while the OT was Aramaic/Hebrew? (OK you most likely do) The words used are different. The worldview of the people of NT was different than OT. The concept of angels/demons wasn't anything close to the same. And the term sons of God is used to describe more that one group of beings. Thank you for the Deut vs. That is helpful to see.


---------------------------------------------------

RickD wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 3:50 pm If I understand Mallz' point, he's conceding that 'sons of God' cannot refer to fallen angels. What he's saying, is that in Genesis 6, 'sons of God' is referring to "good" angels before they fell.
So, let's look at the text in question:

Genesis 6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were [a]beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

So if I understand what Mallz is saying, he's saying that the angels who hadn't fallen yet, saw that the human women were beautiful, and took them as wives.

And Mallz, please correct me if I'm not accurate in what I think you're saying. This makes no sense to me, given what the text actually says. Good angels who have not fallen, desire unnatural relations with women, does not make any sense.

I am still undecided that 'ben elohim' never refers to fallen angels. I really don't know if it matters to the topic? Job would have to be addressed. And then there's the fact that fallen angels are referred to as 'elohim'. I don't know if it really matters to the questions?

But you are right, I see the reference in Genesis as referring to angels before they fall (please pay attention to this part DB, which is why I feel like you're rarely addressing me). I truly don't understand your confusion. satan, before he was fallen, desired unnatural relations with his peers, god and all of existence. Anyone who falls, has unnatural desires. You don't fall until you actualize your potential to fall. I don't see how this confuses you?

And for the context of Genesis. This reading is the only one that makes sense to the text. Men 'adam', were already introduced in the text. A new group is introduced, sons of elohim. Elohim refers to angels as well as demons. And It doesn't even need to refer to demons, here. I see it as referring to angels who became demons and the reason why was something worth mentioning. And I still don't see how this is confounding.

-------------------------

Angels having a human body:
Don't know why there is confusion. Fallen angels took on a human body and all that entailed. Adam didn't need DNA. And Jesus only received human DNA from His mother (which would not produce anything by itself). Jesus is Human and Divine. The bodies angels took that are recorded, have them digesting (you need a digestive tract, need DNA for the the insane amounts of building blocks alone for a functioning tract), and instead of listing the other examples we can all agree they were corporeal.

To say the angels took on a human body, but didn't have it's functioning, is baffling. Why wouldn't they have a full human body? Working digestive tract, limbs, muscles, vision, etc. Why is having sperm so hard to accept? That makes no sense to me. A human body would have everything a human body would, including it's abilities. Jesus had sperm yet He is part of the Godhead. He also didn't have a human fathers DNA. Adam didn't have any DNA (unless you're a theistic evolutionist). To assume angels as humans don't function as a human body would, I see to be adding to the text. I don't see scripture anywhere saying otherwise.

To summarize (more to address neo's point): There's no issue with spiritual beings having no DNA. When they assumed a human body, that human body had the DNA as simply as it had it's corporeal self (and DNA that probably resembled adams the most). It's not like if a corporeal angel lifted his skirt, there would just be an empty spot. It doesn't run into the problem of a 'kind' only breeding after a 'kind' (which is why I believe in macro and not micro evolution <- I know that annoys you haha).

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 12:10 pm

Mallz wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 8:06 am Just wanted to say hi! I got really sick and that's why I haven't been on. I'm way back on page 4. I'll read from there. Might not respond today, it's too hard to think straight right now (had the chills for hours last night).

Doesn't sound like any fun at all.
Hope you start feeling better soon!

Thanks, me too! I'm moving this week, too. So it's horrible timing

Mallz wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 12:45 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 6:41 pm But angels and humans are very different creatures.
Humans are physical beings
Angels are spirit beings
Humans are already fallen and have a sin nature that naturally gives them sinful desires
Angels do not have a sin nature (but they do have a will that has the potential to rebel against God)
The weakness I see in your argument is your assertion that it is possible for an angelic spirit being to have unnatural physical desires towards a human without already being in a fallen state.
Not meaning to get gross here, but that is kind of like a human being sexually attracted to an animal.
The unnatural wicked desire itself is a sign of a serious moral problem.

It's called bestiality if you're curious. Angels acquire a sin nature (just like humans). The only thing your accomplishing here, is arguing that angels can't fall. Which we all know they can, did, and still can. This is no argument at all. For I can say that satan couldn't have fallen because pride issues aren't in angels.

You are misstating what I said...
1. Unfallen angels do not naturally have a sin nature.
Do you agree with that?
2. Angels do have a will that has the potential to rebel against God.
Do you agree with that?

To accuse me of arguing that angels can't fall is the infamous "straw man". I have repeatedly stated my belief that angels have rebelled against God and those angels who have rebelled against God are in a fallen state.

The point I was making was
1. All humans have a sin nature and already exist in a fallen state.
2. All angels do not naturally have a sin nature.
- Unfallen angels in service to God do not have a sin nature.
- Angels who have rebelled against God are in a fallen state do have a sin nature.

Therefore if an angel has unnatural and sinful desires, then that by definition means that the angel in question already exists in a fallen state.

You are probably thinking of Job 2:1
Some use Job 2:1 to assert that a fallen Satan is referred to as a "son of God"
Except that Job 2:1 doesn't actually say that at all.

How is satan not referred to as a son of God when he is included in the group?

Here is the text of Job 2:1
"Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the Lord."

The text tells us two things
1. the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord.
2. Satan also came to present himself before the Lord.

So according to the text...
the sons of God came
and
Satan also came

The text does not tell us that Satan was one of the sons of God.
The text does tell us that in addition to the sons of God, Satan also presented himself before God.

But you are right, I see the reference in Genesis as referring to angels before they fall (please pay attention to this part DB, which is why I feel like you're rarely addressing me). I truly don't understand your confusion. satan, before he was fallen, desired unnatural relations with his peers, god and all of existence. Anyone who falls, has unnatural desires. You don't fall until you actualize your potential to fall. I don't see how this confuses you?

Oh... I'm not confused at all...
I'm just rejecting the premise that unfallen angels can have unnatural and sinful desires towards humans.

One more time...
Unnatural and sinful desires are a function of a being that is already in a fallen state (whether those beings are human or angels).
We humans have sinful desires because all humans are fallen and all humans have a sin nature.

All angels are not fallen, therefore unnatural and sinful desires are only present in angels that are already in a fallen state.

Now Scripture does tell us that it is possible for unfallen beings to rebel against God. Examples are Adam, Lucifer, and the angels who followed Lucifer.
This is the point I was making above... an independent will is all that is required for an unfallen being to potentially rebel against God.
But once that being (human or angel) rebels against God, then by definition that being exists in a fallen state.

And for the context of Genesis. This reading is the only one that makes sense to the text. Men 'adam', were already introduced in the text. A new group is introduced, sons of elohim.

I disagree...
I believe the "sons of God" (ie God's covenant people) were introduced in the previous chapter (Genesis 5). And this premise is supported Scripturally by Luke 3 which specifically refers to Adam as a "son of God".
So you have two groups of people in in Genesis 6. The sons of God (God's covenant people from Genesis 5) and the daughters of men (the wicked indigenous population of the land/erets).

Are you stating that Angels are Sinless? have no potential to Sin ?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 8:58 am Are you stating that Angels are Sinless? have no potential to Sin ?

That's what I'm seeing.
I think DB and I's main communication issues boil down to what we both think about the nature of sin itself, and in regards to creatures (w/e that creature is).

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 8:58 am Are you stating that Angels are Sinless? have no potential to Sin ?

Isn't it obvious from what DBowling is saying?

Angels are sinless until they sin/fall. And the very fact that they do sin/fall, doesn't that imply that they do have the potential to sin?

If I can speak for DBowling, I think he's saying that sinning goes against the angels' nature. They don't have a sin nature. Contrast that with humans who have a sin nature.

Maybe he could elaborate.