Evidence for God from Science

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:40 am The whole 'sons of God' referring to angels and not demons doesn't hold its logic unless someone can explain the use of 'sons of God' termed to humans who were not 'sons of God' or fell.

DB, Rick, can you explain that? Because your 'crux' in the angel hybrid theory is no crux at all. And would be the same crux for the adamite/sethite theory.

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:49 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:14 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:09 am Yes, the OT does occasionally refer to angels as 'sons of God".
But what kind of angels does the OT refer to as "sons of God"?

This is where the Scriptural principle of allegiance comes into play for those who are "children/sons of God". The OT does refer to angels who are serving the one true God as "sons of God".
However, Scripture never refers to fallen angels as sons of God.

This is the fatal flaw of the human/angel hybrid theory.
By definition, any angel who would consider procreating with humans (and there is no Scriptural support for the premise that human/angel procreation is even possible) would be a fallen angel in rebellion against God.
Therefore, the Scriptural understanding of what it means to be a "child of God" by definition excludes any fallen angels.

Any yet, the angel that resists Gabriel in Daniel IS referred to as a "prince", just like Michael is referred to as a "(chief) prince".
We know that the prince of Persia referred to can't be a human figure because no human figure can hold back a divine messenger of God, nor would it be consistent with the text:

However, Daniel nowhere refers to the Prince of Persia as a "son/child of God".

So, Daniel 15 does nothing to contradict the principle of allegiance inherent in Scripture's use of the term "son/child of God".

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 5:18 am

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:40 am The whole 'sons of God' referring to angels and not demons doesn't hold its logic unless someone can explain the use of 'sons of God' termed to humans who were not 'sons of God' or fell.

DB, Rick, can you explain that? Because your 'crux' in the angel hybrid theory is no crux at all. And would be the same crux for the adamite/sethite theory.

I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain.

Are you asking me to show from scripture, that sons of God can refer to humans who fell/sinned?

If that's what you're asking, then I'd say that all humans sin, save one, and don't lose status as sons of God due to sin. Whereas angels have no means of redemption. Once they fall/sin, they can't be redeemed.

If that's not what you're asking, I apologize, and ask you to explain more.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 6:14 am

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 5:18 am

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:40 am The whole 'sons of God' referring to angels and not demons doesn't hold its logic unless someone can explain the use of 'sons of God' termed to humans who were not 'sons of God' or fell.

DB, Rick, can you explain that? Because your 'crux' in the angel hybrid theory is no crux at all. And would be the same crux for the adamite/sethite theory.

I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain.

Are you asking me to show from scripture, that sons of God can refer to humans who fell/sinned?

If that's what you're asking, then I'd say that all humans sin, save one, and don't lose status as sons of God due to sin. Whereas angels have no means of redemption. Once they fall/sin, they can't be redeemed.

If that's not what you're asking, I apologize, and ask you to explain more.

While I agree that angels don't have any means of redemption it should be noted that view is an OPINION, I don't recall any passage that states that fallen angels are without redemption...
I could be wrong..

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 6:11 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:49 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 8:14 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 7:09 am Yes, the OT does occasionally refer to angels as 'sons of God".
But what kind of angels does the OT refer to as "sons of God"?

This is where the Scriptural principle of allegiance comes into play for those who are "children/sons of God". The OT does refer to angels who are serving the one true God as "sons of God".
However, Scripture never refers to fallen angels as sons of God.

This is the fatal flaw of the human/angel hybrid theory.
By definition, any angel who would consider procreating with humans (and there is no Scriptural support for the premise that human/angel procreation is even possible) would be a fallen angel in rebellion against God.
Therefore, the Scriptural understanding of what it means to be a "child of God" by definition excludes any fallen angels.

Any yet, the angel that resists Gabriel in Daniel IS referred to as a "prince", just like Michael is referred to as a "(chief) prince".
We know that the prince of Persia referred to can't be a human figure because no human figure can hold back a divine messenger of God, nor would it be consistent with the text:

However, Daniel nowhere refers to the Prince of Persia as a "son/child of God".

So, Daniel 15 does nothing to contradict the principle of allegiance inherent in Scripture's use of the term "son/child of God".

He doesn't refer to Michael as "son of God" either, what is your point?

My point was that a divine being that was going against God's plan was referred to with the same "title" (Prince) as one that was doing God's will.

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:59 am

Mallz wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:43 pm DB, I don't see much difference between the Sethite and Adamite view. Isn't it saying the same thing?

I think the Adamite view has a more solid Scriptural basis.
Adam (not Seth) was the first person to have relationship with God.
Adam (not Seth) was the first person in God's line of covenant people.
Adam (not Seth) is explicitly referred to as a "son of God" in Scripture.

So for the purpose of this conversation I think it is important to acknowledge that the line of God's Covenant people (ie "children of God") begins with Adam, not Seth (See Luke 3)

And I'll have to dig into it all again. Believing the human/angel theory I was seeing sons of God to be a term to reflect what was brought forth from God, not necessarily one of allegiance. I know that distinction was made in the NT, but was it evident with spiritual creatures in the OT?

The Old Testament uses the term sons/children of God in two ways.
1. The most frequent use is to refer to God's Covenant people, (Which is how I believe the term is being used in both Gen 6:2 and Luke 3:38.)
2. The OT also occasionally refers to angelic beings who are in service to God as sons/children of God.

Most importantly, the OT and NT never use the term sons/children of God to refer to fallen angels or a fallen Satan which is an important premise for the angel/human hybrid theory.
As I've noted elsewhere, the angel/human hybrid theory is a function of Intertestamental tradition which came into being thousands of years after the time of Noah and Enoch and therefore is not even close to contemporary with the historical events of Genesis 6.

Assuming sons of God refers to the line of Adam.. Would it then be assumed those sons of God fell? How were they sons of God to begin with?

The Scriptural story of God's covenant people intermarrying with an ungodly indigenous population and being corrupted by that ungodly indigenous population is not unique to Genesis 6. This pattern that we see in Genesis 6 is repeated multiple times throughout the OT, when God's Covenant people intermarry with the ungodly inhabitants of "the Land", become corrupted, and then are punished by God. God then continues his line of Covenant People (ie children of God) through a faithful remnant. In the case of Genesis 6-9, the faithful remnant who carries on the line of God's Covenant People is Noah and his family.

B. W. wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 7:09 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:59 am

Mallz wrote: ↑Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:43 pm DB, I don't see much difference between the Sethite and Adamite view. Isn't it saying the same thing?

I think the Adamite view has a more solid Scriptural basis.
Adam (not Seth) was the first person to have relationship with God.
Adam (not Seth) was the first person in God's line of covenant people.
Adam (not Seth) is explicitly referred to as a "son of God" in Scripture.

So for the purpose of this conversation I think it is important to acknowledge that the line of God's Covenant people (ie "children of God") begins with Adam, not Seth (See Luke 3)

And I'll have to dig into it all again. Believing the human/angel theory I was seeing sons of God to be a term to reflect what was brought forth from God, not necessarily one of allegiance. I know that distinction was made in the NT, but was it evident with spiritual creatures in the OT?

The Old Testament uses the term sons/children of God in two ways.
1. The most frequent use is to refer to God's Covenant people, (Which is how I believe the term is being used in both Gen 6:2 and Luke 3:38.)
2. The OT also occasionally refers to angelic beings who are in service to God as sons/children of God.

Most importantly, the OT and NT never use the term sons/children of God to refer to fallen angels or a fallen Satan which is an important premise for the angel/human hybrid theory.
As I've noted elsewhere, the angel/human hybrid theory is a function of Intertestamental tradition which came into being thousands of years after the time of Noah and Enoch and therefore is not even close to contemporary with the historical events of Genesis 6.

Assuming sons of God refers to the line of Adam.. Would it then be assumed those sons of God fell? How were they sons of God to begin with?

The Scriptural story of God's covenant people intermarrying with an ungodly indigenous population and being corrupted by that ungodly indigenous population is not unique to Genesis 6. This pattern that we see in Genesis 6 is repeated multiple times throughout the OT, when God's Covenant people intermarry with the ungodly inhabitants of "the Land", become corrupted, and then are punished by God. God then continues his line of Covenant People (ie children of God) through a faithful remnant. In the case of Genesis 6-9, the faithful remnant who carries on the line of God's Covenant People is Noah and his family.

Been following this thread and seeing how it develops....

Let's follow the logic DBowling presents and ask one hard question:

King Solomon sinned with foreign women by permitting their pagan religious practices to corrupt Israel...

Question: God changes not so why didn't he destroy the entire world again for the same infraction that caused it in Genesis chapter six - isn't this the same argument of the Sethite/human leader view?

Yet, the story of Ruth and Rahab shows what about marrying non-Jewish women again if it caused the destruction of the world why did God allow these women into God's camp?

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 6:48 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 6:14 am

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 5:18 am

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:40 am The whole 'sons of God' referring to angels and not demons doesn't hold its logic unless someone can explain the use of 'sons of God' termed to humans who were not 'sons of God' or fell.

DB, Rick, can you explain that? Because your 'crux' in the angel hybrid theory is no crux at all. And would be the same crux for the adamite/sethite theory.

I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain.

Are you asking me to show from scripture, that sons of God can refer to humans who fell/sinned?

If that's what you're asking, then I'd say that all humans sin, save one, and don't lose status as sons of God due to sin. Whereas angels have no means of redemption. Once they fall/sin, they can't be redeemed.

If that's not what you're asking, I apologize, and ask you to explain more.

While I agree that angels don't have any means of redemption it should be noted that view is an OPINION, I don't recall any passage that states that fallen angels are without redemption...
I could be wrong..

Here's two:

Jude 1:6 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.

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 8:25 am The more I look at this topic, and reread the scripture that's being posted, the more I'm leaning towards the view that DBowling has been arguing for. I'm finding that it fits the best into the narrative of the text, and I haven't come across any real issues with the view, so far.

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 5:18 am ...Are you asking me to show from scripture, that sons of God can refer to humans who fell/sinned?

If that's what you're asking, then I'd say that all humans sin, save one, and don't lose status as sons of God due to sin. Whereas angels have no means of redemption. Once they fall/sin, they can't be redeemed.

RickD wrote: ↑Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:50 am

Mallz wrote:
RickD, The distinction I would make would be between fallen spirits vs non-fallen spirits. What view do you lean towards?

Yes, that's the distinction that's relevant to this topic. I just want to be clear about your meaning of "fallen spirits". I believe spirits is another term for angels. I don't see any difference. Spiritual beings are angels, fallen or non-fallen. In other words, I can't make a case, biblically or otherwise, that suggests there are some other spirits besides angels. And furthermore, I don't think I've ever used the term "spirits" to refer to anything except fallen angels.

I think the clarification is important in this topic because some that believe nephilim are angel/human hybrids, also believe the souls or spirits of dead nephilim are still wandering the earth, and those are called demons. And again, I believe demons is another name for fallen angels.

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 9:17 am More pointing out that with the adamite view, 'sons of God', refer to humans that either fell, or were already fallen (if following your logic with salvation, only Noah was a Son of God while nephalim were being produced in the world.) And inquiring about that.

Which brings us back to Adam.
Who was the first person to have relationship with God?
Adam
Who was the first person to enter into covenant relationship with God?
Adam
Who was the first person to become a "son/child of God"?
Adam