Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not disagreeing with you Rick.
There is no scriptural basis to get DNA manipulation from any passage.
I was simply pointing out WHY you can't, because even if it happened ( not saying it did), the writers wouldn't be able to understand it as such.

How do we know whether or not they would understand?

Apparently the morons who wrote the gospels, knew enough to convey Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, without confusing that with God having sex with Mary.

And yet, what words did they use?

Not sure why you are harping on this to be honest since I already agreed with you that the view is not based on what scripture says.

It just seemed like you were trying to defend what he was saying. All I'm trying to do is stick to what scripture says, and not take some wild, science-fiction story about giant demon people and try to read that back into scripture.

My points in this thread are:

1) there's nothing in scripture that says "sons of God" can be another name for fallen angels.

2) there's no way that we can get "demon DNA manipulation" from scripture.

So, it stands to reason by simple logic, that sons of God, in Genesis 6, is referring to humans.

If the term "sons of God" refers to humans then could you explain how that could prevent the birth of Jesus based on Genesis 3:15? Because it would be humans producing humans.Also you atleast have to acknowledge that if "sons of God" does indeed refer to fallen angels then the DNA of God's creation was manipulated because of fallen angels having sex with human women producing Nephilim which were hybrid giant off-spring because that is what it would do if fallen angels had sex with human women producing Nephilim giants.I know you don't think "sons of God" refers to fallen angels despite Job 1:6 and Jude 6-7 but it would be DNA manipulation of God's creation if hybrid giants were produced.You may not accept it but you have to acknowledge that it would be and it does'nt have anything to do with whether or not the people in them days knew about DNA manipulation or not.We know about DNA manipulation today and can realize that this is what happened if fallen angels did produce hybrid giants with human women.

Whether or not you think the term "sons of God" refers to humans instead of fallen angels or not does not mean we who do believe the term "sons of God" refers to fallen angels are not going by scripture because if we just take Job 1:6,Genesis 6:4,Jude 6-7 and blend them together we have scripture reasons as the reason we believe it.And this is not even getting into the book of Enoch that clarifies this even further and was found with the dead sea scrolls.This is just from the bible.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not disagreeing with you Rick.
There is no scriptural basis to get DNA manipulation from any passage.
I was simply pointing out WHY you can't, because even if it happened ( not saying it did), the writers wouldn't be able to understand it as such.

How do we know whether or not they would understand?

Apparently the morons who wrote the gospels, knew enough to convey Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, without confusing that with God having sex with Mary.

And yet, what words did they use?

Not sure why you are harping on this to be honest since I already agreed with you that the view is not based on what scripture says.

It just seemed like you were trying to defend what he was saying. All I'm trying to do is stick to what scripture says, and not take some wild, science-fiction story about giant demon people and try to read that back into scripture.

My points in this thread are:

1) there's nothing in scripture that says "sons of God" can be another name for fallen angels.

2) there's no way that we can get "demon DNA manipulation" from scripture.

So, it stands to reason by simple logic, that sons of God, in Genesis 6, is referring to humans.

If the term "sons of God" refers to humans then could you explain how that could prevent the birth of Jesus based on Genesis 3:15? Because it would be humans producing humans.Also you atleast have to acknowledge that if "sons of God" does indeed refer to fallen angels then the DNA of God's creation was manipulated because of fallen angels having sex with human women producing Nephilim which were hybrid giant off-spring because that is what it would do if fallen angels had sex with human women producing Nephilim giants.I know you don't think "sons of God" refers to fallen angels despite Job 1:6 and Jude 6-7 but it would be DNA manipulation of God's creation if hybrid giants were produced.You may not accept it but you have to acknowledge that it would be and it does'nt have anything to do with whether or not the people in them days knew about DNA manipulation or not.We know about DNA manipulation today and can realize that this is what happened if fallen angels did produce hybrid giants with human women.

Whether or not you think the term "sons of God" refers to humans instead of fallen angels or not does not mean we who do believe the term "sons of God" refers to fallen angels are not going by scripture because if we just take Job 1:6,Genesis 6:4,Jude 6-7 and blend them together we have scripture reasons as the reason we believe it.And this is not even getting into the book of Enoch that clarifies this even further and was found with the dead sea scrolls.This is just from the bible.

And with that same "logic", this is how ACB comes to believe the Gap Theory is found in the Bible.

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote: How do we know whether or not they would understand?

Apparently the morons who wrote the gospels, knew enough to convey Christ being conceived by the Holy Spirit, without confusing that with God having sex with Mary.

And yet, what words did they use?

Not sure why you are harping on this to be honest since I already agreed with you that the view is not based on what scripture says.

It just seemed like you were trying to defend what he was saying. All I'm trying to do is stick to what scripture says, and not take some wild, science-fiction story about giant demon people and try to read that back into scripture.

My points in this thread are:

1) there's nothing in scripture that says "sons of God" can be another name for fallen angels.

2) there's no way that we can get "demon DNA manipulation" from scripture.

So, it stands to reason by simple logic, that sons of God, in Genesis 6, is referring to humans.

If the term "sons of God" refers to humans then could you explain how that could prevent the birth of Jesus based on Genesis 3:15? Because it would be humans producing humans.Also you atleast have to acknowledge that if "sons of God" does indeed refer to fallen angels then the DNA of God's creation was manipulated because of fallen angels having sex with human women producing Nephilim which were hybrid giant off-spring because that is what it would do if fallen angels had sex with human women producing Nephilim giants.I know you don't think "sons of God" refers to fallen angels despite Job 1:6 and Jude 6-7 but it would be DNA manipulation of God's creation if hybrid giants were produced.You may not accept it but you have to acknowledge that it would be and it does'nt have anything to do with whether or not the people in them days knew about DNA manipulation or not.We know about DNA manipulation today and can realize that this is what happened if fallen angels did produce hybrid giants with human women.

Whether or not you think the term "sons of God" refers to humans instead of fallen angels or not does not mean we who do believe the term "sons of God" refers to fallen angels are not going by scripture because if we just take Job 1:6,Genesis 6:4,Jude 6-7 and blend them together we have scripture reasons as the reason we believe it.And this is not even getting into the book of Enoch that clarifies this even further and was found with the dead sea scrolls.This is just from the bible.

And with that same "logic", this is how ACB comes to believe the Gap Theory is found in the Bible.

No more ridiculous than the day-age theory.

Stu wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

And yet, what words did they use?

Not sure why you are harping on this to be honest since I already agreed with you that the view is not based on what scripture says.

It just seemed like you were trying to defend what he was saying. All I'm trying to do is stick to what scripture says, and not take some wild, science-fiction story about giant demon people and try to read that back into scripture.

My points in this thread are:

1) there's nothing in scripture that says "sons of God" can be another name for fallen angels.

2) there's no way that we can get "demon DNA manipulation" from scripture.

So, it stands to reason by simple logic, that sons of God, in Genesis 6, is referring to humans.

If the term "sons of God" refers to humans then could you explain how that could prevent the birth of Jesus based on Genesis 3:15? Because it would be humans producing humans.Also you atleast have to acknowledge that if "sons of God" does indeed refer to fallen angels then the DNA of God's creation was manipulated because of fallen angels having sex with human women producing Nephilim which were hybrid giant off-spring because that is what it would do if fallen angels had sex with human women producing Nephilim giants.I know you don't think "sons of God" refers to fallen angels despite Job 1:6 and Jude 6-7 but it would be DNA manipulation of God's creation if hybrid giants were produced.You may not accept it but you have to acknowledge that it would be and it does'nt have anything to do with whether or not the people in them days knew about DNA manipulation or not.We know about DNA manipulation today and can realize that this is what happened if fallen angels did produce hybrid giants with human women.

Whether or not you think the term "sons of God" refers to humans instead of fallen angels or not does not mean we who do believe the term "sons of God" refers to fallen angels are not going by scripture because if we just take Job 1:6,Genesis 6:4,Jude 6-7 and blend them together we have scripture reasons as the reason we believe it.And this is not even getting into the book of Enoch that clarifies this even further and was found with the dead sea scrolls.This is just from the bible.

And with that same "logic", this is how ACB comes to believe the Gap Theory is found in the Bible.

No more ridiculous than the day-age theory.

Aren't you witty today. Someone must've had his Ensure and prune juice this morning.

RickD wrote:

Stu wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote: It just seemed like you were trying to defend what he was saying. All I'm trying to do is stick to what scripture says, and not take some wild, science-fiction story about giant demon people and try to read that back into scripture.

My points in this thread are:

1) there's nothing in scripture that says "sons of God" can be another name for fallen angels.

2) there's no way that we can get "demon DNA manipulation" from scripture.

So, it stands to reason by simple logic, that sons of God, in Genesis 6, is referring to humans.

If the term "sons of God" refers to humans then could you explain how that could prevent the birth of Jesus based on Genesis 3:15? Because it would be humans producing humans.Also you atleast have to acknowledge that if "sons of God" does indeed refer to fallen angels then the DNA of God's creation was manipulated because of fallen angels having sex with human women producing Nephilim which were hybrid giant off-spring because that is what it would do if fallen angels had sex with human women producing Nephilim giants.I know you don't think "sons of God" refers to fallen angels despite Job 1:6 and Jude 6-7 but it would be DNA manipulation of God's creation if hybrid giants were produced.You may not accept it but you have to acknowledge that it would be and it does'nt have anything to do with whether or not the people in them days knew about DNA manipulation or not.We know about DNA manipulation today and can realize that this is what happened if fallen angels did produce hybrid giants with human women.

Whether or not you think the term "sons of God" refers to humans instead of fallen angels or not does not mean we who do believe the term "sons of God" refers to fallen angels are not going by scripture because if we just take Job 1:6,Genesis 6:4,Jude 6-7 and blend them together we have scripture reasons as the reason we believe it.And this is not even getting into the book of Enoch that clarifies this even further and was found with the dead sea scrolls.This is just from the bible.

And with that same "logic", this is how ACB comes to believe the Gap Theory is found in the Bible.

No more ridiculous than the day-age theory.

Aren't you witty today. Someone must've had his Ensure and prune juice this morning.

Just saying don't be so quick to point fingers at others.

All I've seen in this thread is speculation and trying to line up uncertainties found in Scripture. WHATEVER went down, as God dispersed the nations, whatever evil factions were upon the earth prior to the flood, particularly as the remnant humanity (Noah and his family) survived the flood - what good and where does accurately figuring out what can't be know for certain get us - as WHATEVER went down, we're not here in this age, with the present circumstances. So accurately understanding this mystery per the Sons of God, Nephilim, all of that - doesn't sound particularly important to US, now. As if it were - that our correct understandings of it are critical to what we need to know today - I don't see it. It's another one of those issues that gets relentlessly debated to no particular advantage. All I know is, God knew what He was doing. Evil was apparently so terribly and rampant that He destroyed the earth except for seven people. And then He dispersed humanity and separated their languages - as before, all spoke the same one.

Beyond all of this, what does getting correct what happened before Noah gain us?

Good job everyone, this thread is very long.

Philip it was 8 people.

Philip it was 8 people.

Sure, kid - whatever floated on the boat.

Philip wrote: Beyond all of this, what does getting correct what happened before Noah gain us?

"...as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be..."

It has HUGE eschatological implications.

SoCalExile wrote:

Philip wrote: Beyond all of this, what does getting correct what happened before Noah gain us?

"...as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be..."

It has HUGE eschatological implications.

Well, it certainly might have huge implications as to how it has actually played out. But the problem we have is there is immense uncertainty as to what we can actually KNOW about it. As the conjecture, speculations and diverse views here reveal. And our uncertainty means that it doesn't presently change us or how we might respond any differently. There can be no doubt that there is no unanimous consensus amongst Christian scholars as to the true meanings of these things. So, to me, it's a bit like the endless Last Days debates - it's interesting, but we currently can only speculate upon the specifics.

It just seemed like you were trying to defend what he was saying. All I'm trying to do is stick to what scripture says, and not take some wild, science-fiction story about giant demon people and try to read that back into scripture.

My points in this thread are:

1) there's nothing in scripture that says "sons of God" can be another name for fallen angels.

2) there's no way that we can get "demon DNA manipulation" from scripture.

So, it stands to reason by simple logic, that sons of God, in Genesis 6, is referring to humans.

To take your points:

1) there's nothing in scripture that says "sons of God" can be another name for fallen angels.

No, not fallen angles, but divine beings, yes. ( Job for example, Daniel another).

2) there's no way that we can get "demon DNA manipulation" from scripture.

In those terms, no.

So, it stands to reason by simple logic, that sons of God, in Genesis 6, is referring to humans.

I would say that it sands to reason that Sons of God in Genesis ( taking Genesis ALONE) is unclear.
Taking the rest of scripture it CAN mean either a line of Humans distinctive from the rest OR divine beings.

My whole point is that the reason we have had more than one understanding of this passage IS BECAUSE it is not clear and it is FAR from settled which interpretation is correct.

A discussion between Michael Heiser and Frank Viola:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/michaelheiser/

Paul,

For the sake of this discussion, we can categorize angels, or divine beings as you call them, into two categories.

1) Angels that have not sinned.
2) Fallen angels. Or angels that have sinned.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to agree that "sons of God" does not refer to fallen angels(divine beings that have sinned), anywhere in scripture.

And, we all agree that "sons of God" can refer to Good angels, in scripture, as well as certain humans that God has called for a purpose.

Here's my logic. Show me where I'm wrong.

1)Scripturally, We can rule out Fallen angels, because there's no argument that scripture ever refers to fallen angels as "sons of God".

2) Even though "sons of God" can refer to good angels in scripture, we can rule them out as the sons of God spoken of in Genesis 6, because if these good angels took women as wives(however you want to define wives), then they are no longer good angels, because by the act of taking women, they sinned.

3) "Sons of God" in Genesis 6, must then refer to humans.

RickD wrote:Paul,

For the sake of this discussion, we can categorize angels, or divine beings as you call them, into two categories.

1) Angels that have not sinned.
2) Fallen angels. Or angels that have sinned.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to agree that "sons of God" does not refer to fallen angels(divine beings that have sinned), anywhere in scripture.

And, we all agree that "sons of God" can refer to Good angels, in scripture, as well as certain humans that God has called for a purpose.

Here's my logic. Show me where I'm wrong.

1)Scripturally, We can rule out Fallen angels, because there's no argument that scripture ever refers to fallen angels as "sons of God".

2) Even though "sons of God" can refer to good angels in scripture, we can rule them out as the sons of God spoken of in Genesis 6, because if these good angels took women as wives(however you want to define wives), then they are no longer good angels, because by the act of taking women, they sinned.

3) "Sons of God" in Genesis 6, must then refer to humans.

Sons of God does NOT explicitly refer to fallen angels.
the Sons of God in Job, for example, were simply present for a "meeting" of sorts.
There is no explicit designation "fallen angel" anywhere in the bible ( which doesn't mean there aren't any of course).
Angel is a term that means messenger, in 2nd temple Judaism and Christianity, it got used as a general term for all divine beings ( other than God).
I don't think that Sons of God only refers to good "angels" since Pslam 82 seems to state that they will be tried for doing bad things.
There is no statement that divine beings are all good, but there are many showing that some are bad and have rebelled.
So, Sons of God seems to be a designation for divine beings without making a statement on wither they are good or bad since we seem to have evidence that they can be both.