Evidence for God from Science

Angels are not perfect and if there nature is sinless then they would be perfect.
If they have the potential to sin ( free will) then they all have the potential to fall.
I am getting the sense that fallen angels are sons of God UNTIL sin is found in them, and then they are no longer sons of God and that is fine BUT that is implied in the story of Lucifiers fall from grace.

That said, one can argue that the writer on Genesis, in chapter 5, was describing just that, the fall and as such, he could have very easily still called them Sons of God within the literary context.

In short: The Sons of God ( angels) were found to have sin in their hearts because of their lust for human women, they fell and after their fall, they took those women as their own.
They were no longer Sons of God IN TITLE, BUT were still divine beings of some sort.

Yes, Neo likes to, wrongly, in my opinion, to assert literalisms because they conflict with his scientificism. But the text can obviously be true (which I definitely believe) - but not in the way he interprets it. And so instead of thinking to himself, well, MAYBE the text is true, and maybe it's not meant to be taken in a literal way - especially as many exceptionally well-qualified Bible scholars assert - but Neo, nonetheless dismisses the text entirely as impossible to be true. And does so because it conflicts with his greater faith in his scientificism that he thinks is unquestionably definitive. But if he is wrong about the purpose or intent of the text, then HIS science-based (version and) dismissal of it will produce great error. Let's not forget, this is a fundamental, foundational aspect of Scripture. God's Word starts out with outright fiction or pure myth? What does that say about God who connected it via His many prophets and apostles?

Philip wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 7:53 am Yes, Neo likes to, wrongly, in my opinion, to assert literalisms because they conflict with his scientificism. But the text can obviously be true (which I definitely believe) - but not in the way he interprets it. And so instead of thinking to himself, well, MAYBE the text is true, and maybe it's not meant to be taken in a literal way - especially as many exceptionally well-qualified Bible scholars assert - but Neo, nonetheless dismisses the text entirely as impossible to be true. And does so because it conflicts with his greater faith in his scientificism that he thinks is unquestionably definitive. But if he is wrong about the purpose or intent of the text, then HIS science-based (version and) dismissal of it will produce great error. Let's not forget, this is a fundamental, foundational aspect of Scripture. God's Word starts out with outright fiction or pure myth? What does that say about God who connected it via His many prophets and apostles?

You are free to dissect my faith in as many technical ways as you like. I do like it when you poison the well and talk about me rather than with me.

However my interest here is that would you reply to my post to you on the previous page. It's important to the dialogue. And is very relevant to me as it would help me understand why you cherry pick parts to be literalisms? Almost a similar thing you accuse me of doing albeit with being literal unlike you.


Thanks.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 6:55 am Angels are not perfect and if there nature is sinless then they would be perfect.
If they have the potential to sin ( free will) then they all have the potential to fall.
I am getting the sense that fallen angels are sons of God UNTIL sin is found in them, and then they are no longer sons of God and that is fine BUT that is implied in the story of Lucifiers fall from grace.

Agreed

That said, one can argue that the writer on Genesis, in chapter 5, was describing just that, the fall and as such, he could have very easily still called them Sons of God within the literary context.

Here's the problem I have with the premise that Genesis 6 describes the fall of angels.

I tried to touch on this earlier...
Scripture does describe the original sin of two unfallen beings, Adam and Lucifer.
In both cases the first sin was to place their own will above the will of God ("I will be as God").
Which makes sense because all sin proceeds from a choice to place our will above God's will.

Scripture also describes one unfallen person who did not fall, Jesus Christ. In the case of Jesus he continually submitted his will to the will of the Father "not my will, but yours be done" (see also Phil 2:6-9).

So my premise (which I believe Scripture supports) is that the particular sin that caused Adam and Lucifer to go from an unfallen state to a fallen state was the choice to place their wills above God's will.

After that choice was made then Adam and Lucifer were in a fallen state and became subject to the unnatural and sinful desires of a fallen "sin nature" ("their eyes were open", "they came to know good and evil").

So I believe the story of Adam and Lucifer demonstrate that angels would not have a "sin nature" and the associated unnatural and sinful desires until after they had already fallen by making the choice to place their own wills above the will of God.

Neo: You are free to dissect my faith in as many technical ways as you like. I do like it when you poison the well and talk about me rather than with me.

No, Neo, I talk about what YOU have said you disbelieve in Scripture and what you do believe. I call that cherrypicking. And then, with issues like the days of creation, you assert them to be speaking of literal days - that this is supposedly quite clear, and so dismiss the text as being impossible and untrue because of you don't think they can be true in ANY way - except perhaps in some allegorical or symbolic way. But you dismiss them categorically as being true. But moreover, for ANYONE who states that many parts of the Bible - especially foundational or doctrinally impacting ones are not true - to believe any of it, they necessarily cherrypick what they think to be true, and what is not. And so THAT makes the person HIS determinate of God's truths - which is very different than believing it to be true while simultaneously having questions about the text or finding unexplainable mysteries in it. I find your approach very dangerous, and particularly because what it says about how it forces you to view God's attributes and characteristics stated across Scripture. The God described across Scripture cannot be the God whose word is entangled with many inaccuracies, untruths and made-up myths.

Fwiw, I have never found my approach dangerous. Perhaps difficult but not dangerous. How can the following of evidence dangerous? At best it makes you understand fully the inquiries you have. I do not pretend I have all the answers. Who among us have all?

I can't pretend something doesn't exist purely because it challenges my beliefs. At worst I am wrong at best I am honest in my inquiry. That is enough for me.

As for your rhetoric on the other thread about how worthless the bible is to me, is indeed a straw man. In fact I have never seen it as worthless despite me having problems with it. you misrepresent me.

Ask yourself if it is truly meaningless to me why do I bother being a Christian at all? The obvious answer is I don't find it worthless, on the contrary, even though I find some problems in it, I still understand the message it conveys and deeply respect and care for it. E.g.I may not agree how sin came in the world but I still think sin came. Or death likewise.

It should at least tell you that even in my position there are ways to Understand scriptures. And maybe it's different than yours which you don't seem to be able to accept. And that is fine by me.

With that being said, I really found your post quite presumptuous if nothing else, on the other thread. But I think you are much more interested in labeling me than understanding my point of view. And that's ok. We are allowed that.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Thanks

Neo wrote: What is the "literalisms" that Philp keeps referring to?

Rick: Not sure. But if I had to guess, that he means you interpret Genesis literally and concretely, like some YECs.

Precisely. He first insists the only way to read the text is with a literal understanding, and then asserts since it's not true in a literal sense, then it can't be true at all. BTW, believing something is "literally true" is different than believing it is "true in a literal sense." I believe the text is literally true, per what it is meant to convey, but not that it's true, as in that the "days of Creation are meant to be read as 24-hour ones." So, it's easy to assert a particular meaning, potentially get the intent and/or the meaning wrong, and then just outright dismiss the text as being false.

And it's been Neo's assertion that the Bible has many things that can't be true in it, while picking and choosing which parts he thinks is which, despite what the consistent assertion of Scripture tells us about how GOD views it, and of His character and attributes, that deny those things. And I say that's a very dangerous view - per what it would say about God, about us being able to trust His word, how HE views the importance of His word, of how Jesus, the prophets, the apostles did - and so I see Neo's view is in conflict with those. I think he also has a problem with various miraculous aspects of the Bible. And then he tried to compare my inerrancy defense with what Muslims assert about Allah and the Quran - just unreal!

It's just very obvious that God can't be the God Scripture prolifically describes, and there be a Bible riddled with false stuff. And so, it's either a grand blend of fact, fiction, myth and unreliable passages - or not. If it is, then Scripture is untrustworthy. And then THAT says a lot about how God views His word and it's importance.

BTW, I'm not attacking NEO, I'm attacking what I see as a very dangerous view for ANY Christian to have about Scripture.

Some others should chime in, as I know I'm not the only one that sees this danger.

You keep avoiding the question Phil, you are only interested in discussing me but you won't return the courtesy of replying. Fine.

For a fact, I don't insist on literal reading of the scriptures, only where reading it as anything other doesn't hold merit.

And I didn't try; I am comparing your argument as it is precisely the same as Muslims when it comes to God and his book. It's the same argument and the same fervor.

Neo: You keep avoiding the question Phil, you are only interested in discussing me but you won't return the courtesy of replying. Fine.

Be precise, I thought I answered your question. I certainly laid out where I think your beliefs are dangerous. I don't avoid!

Guys please stop arguing. Save the anger for Calvinists and Seventh Day Adventists.


#lightenupBav

I got the internet back! But don't have the time to respond
Good responses, I'll enjoy going over them and getting back to all of you. Thanks for keeping the convo going while I'm out!
I'm curious, Neo do you think my reasoning is logical for flawed with the DNA hypothesis? I'm curious on your thoughts over what I wrote.

*Edit: RickD, what is your avatar?! It makes me think of the old woman in princess bride lol

Mallz,

It's a picture of me, right after leaving the hairdresser.

Here is point to consider...

How come in the entire OT - the phrase sons of Jacob, Abraham, or sons of men, Korah, or sons of this person or that person is used and not translated as sons of God?

The evidence is overwhelming from the OT alone that the sons of God used in Gen chapter Six do not refer to human beings at all. However the phrase does indeed refer to angelic beings in Job as Malz mentioned earlier.

The problem is that only in the NT is where one can become adopted sons/daughters of God by the New Birth of John chapter three. At that point, the Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence inside his people, Before the NT, the Spirit of God only empowered a person and lifted off after a task was completed.

The evidence is overwhelming scriptural support for this...

Point is, we apply a NT meaning into the OT concerning sons of God when the writers of the OT did not, if they did, then why were they not consistent in this when referring to God's people all the time?

-
-
-

Usually when someone says something like this:

The evidence is overwhelming scriptural support for this...

Without actually showing the overwhelming evidence, then it's probably not overwhelming.


I think you meant to say underwhelming scriptural evidence, and overwhelming non-biblical evidence.

Sure, the evidence is so obvious and overwhelming that this thread has great disagreement and 163 replies - many of them with lots of complex detail. IF the text was meant to be very clear - it WOULD be. And if that were the case, it's highly dubious there would be so much disagreement. And one thing I think IS obvious, it's certainly not clear that these were angels taking human brides. At best, it's speculative, MIGHT fit the text. But backed up as overwhelming evidence for Sons of God being angels? Not so much. We shouldn't assume it's referencing supernatural beings if it's not made totally obvious. And reading all of the posts asserting this to be the case has come nowhere near convincing me. It's because of the tenuous connectivity that people are using to make their case.