Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

DBowling wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

The word of God does not provide this instruction to angels.

Does not God instruct His Angels ??

The "this instruction" I was referring to above was the following from Psalm 82.
"Vindicate the weak and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked."

Do you agree with me that Scripture (the word of God) never gives this specific instruction to angels?
Do you agree with me that Scripture (the word of God) does give this specific instruction to human rulers?

Is not Christ God ??

Jesus Christ is most definitely God

IF the nations were given over to the sons of God and these were divine beings, would Jesus not have given them these orders?

Deut 32:8 NASB says
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the sons of Israel.

As I noted earlier in this thread
I don't believe that Deut 32 claims that the nations were given over to the sons of Israel... or sons of God for that matter.

I think the text is telling us that the number of the nations in Gen 10-11 corresponds to the number of the "sons of Israel" in Exodus 1:5.

There was no Israel at the time of the division, there were no sons of Israel.

Where in the OT is it stated that Israelis will rule other nations?

How do we address the passages about Israel worshiping Gods NOT alloted to them ?
Deuteronomy 4:19
Deuteronomy 29:26

PaulSacramento wrote:Yes, I would agree with that.
I would agree that the divine beings /angels that sinned and were imprisoned ( Jude and Peter) would be considered "fallen".
That the divine beings to be judged for their "maladministration" of the nations, would be "fallen".
That The Devil would be a "fallen" angel.
None of that means that the term sons of god means "fallen angels", no more than morningstar refers solely to Satan ( since Christ is called morningstar, since other divine beings are called morningstars).

We seem to be talking about two different things here.
I see sons of God as divine beings ( under the right context), regardless of their state ( fallen or not).

I say, that scripture, when referring to "sons of God" as angels/ divine beings, NEVER refers to the ones who have fallen. And I have yet to see anyone show me otherwise, from scripture.

PaulSacramento wrote:

I say, that scripture, when referring to "sons of God" as angels/ divine beings, NEVER refers to the ones who have fallen. And I have yet to see anyone show me otherwise, from scripture.

Fair enough.
Not sure why it would matter, I mean, there is no explicit mention of fallen angels anywhere in the bible.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I say, that scripture, when referring to "sons of God" as angels/ divine beings, NEVER refers to the ones who have fallen. And I have yet to see anyone show me otherwise, from scripture.

Fair enough.
Not sure why it would matter, I mean, there is no explicit mention of fallen angels anywhere in the bible.

Dude,

Jude 1:6


Paul,

I'm supposed to be the one here that people don't take seriously.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I say, that scripture, when referring to "sons of God" as angels/ divine beings, NEVER refers to the ones who have fallen. And I have yet to see anyone show me otherwise, from scripture.

Fair enough.
Not sure why it would matter, I mean, there is no explicit mention of fallen angels anywhere in the bible.

Dude,

Jude 1:6


Paul,

I'm supposed to be the one here that people don't take seriously.

Where does Jude call them "fallen angels"?

Of course he implies they are and the context makes it obvious that he is speaking of what we call "fallen angels",but he doesn't use those words and that is my point.

Fallen angels are implied in various verses through out the OT and NT BUT there is no explicit term used for them.

On a side note: I wonder who these angels were and what did they do....

PaulSacramento wrote: Still, I have to say, I loved this discussion with you ( much like the one about the authorship of the GOJ we had) and you have given me some food for thought my bother.

B. W. wrote: Neither does the Sethite view prove that the Nephilim were humans mixing with another race of human beings who bore the mark of Cain which makes Cain's line technically another race that God caused.

Yes, God caused the Mark of Cain and for the later derived 3rd century AD Sethite view to be true then God caused problem. Ponder that...

Angelic view is that Fallen angels, watchers, somehow messed with Human, Plant, and Animal DNA and corrupted the entire earth due to Genetic Modification just as evidence points out in the Books of Jasher, Enoch, Philo's History, and Josephus, etc all mention as well as the traditional view held way before the 3rd Century AD.

Suggest people kindly get off the must-have-sexual-intercourse to make a race of supermen from a corrupted line of humans who bore the mark of Cain Gen 4:15 (which makes God clearly guilty and responsible for making the race of Nephilim). Try thinking for a change and try thinking outside the box for a change. Folks need to get over the human obsession with sex as the only way to make females pregnant. Our own human science has disproven that idea.

What of the science of the fallen angels - should not that be factor in?

Is Satan more or less cunning/intelligent than Human beings - what does the bible say about that?
-
-
-

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I say, that scripture, when referring to "sons of God" as angels/ divine beings, NEVER refers to the ones who have fallen. And I have yet to see anyone show me otherwise, from scripture.

Fair enough.
Not sure why it would matter, I mean, there is no explicit mention of fallen angels anywhere in the bible.

Dude,

Jude 1:6


Paul,

I'm supposed to be the one here that people don't take seriously.

Where does Jude call them "fallen angels"?

Of course he implies they are and the context makes it obvious that he is speaking of what we call "fallen angels",but he doesn't use those words and that is my point.

Fallen angels are implied in various verses through out the OT and NT BUT there is no explicit term used for them.

On a side note: I wonder who these angels were and what did they do....

Pulpit Commentary

Job 38:7

When the morning stars sang together. The stars generally, or the actual stars visible on the morn of creation, are probably meant. They, as it were, sang a song of loud acclaim on witnessing the new marvel. Their priority to the earth is implied, since they witness its birth. Their song is, of course, that silent song of sympathy, whereof Shakespeare speaks when he says, "Each in its motion like an angel sings" (’Merchant of Venice,’ act 5. sc. 1). And all the sons of God shouted for joy. "The sons of God" here must necessarily be the angels (see Job 1:6; Job 2:1), since there were no men as yet in existence. They too joined in the chorus of sympathy and admiration, perhaps lifting up their voices (Rev 5:11, Rev 5:12), perhaps their hearts only, praising the Creator, who had done such marvellous things.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges - Commentary

Jude 1:6

And the angels which kept not their first estate] The two last words answer to a Greek term which may either mean “beginning,” i.e. their original constitution, the meaning adopted in the English version, or “sovereignty.” The latter sense may mean either that they rejected the sovereignty of God, or that they abandoned the position of power and dignity which He had assigned them. Looking to the fact that the term is used in the New Testament, as by Jewish writers, as describing a class of angels (the “principalities” of Eph 1:21; Eph 3:10; Eph 6:12; Col 1:16; Col 2:15), the latter explanation is probably the true one. On the nature of the sin referred to, see notes on 2Pe 2:4.

but left their own habitation] As this is named as the sin, not as the punishment, it seems to imply a descent from the region of heaven to that of earth, like that implied in the language of Gen 6:2.

he hath reserved in everlasting chains …] The words, like those of 2Pe 2:4, seem to indicate a distinction between the angels who were thus punished, and the “demons” or “unclean spirits” with Satan at their head, who exercise a permitted power as the tempters, accusers, and destroyers of mankind, the “world-rulers of this darkness” of Eph 6:12, who even “in heavenly places” carry on their warfare against the souls of men. It is possible that St Jude recognised such a distinction.

His language, like that of St Peter, follows the traditions of the Book of Enoch, which speaks of fallen angels as kept in their prison-house till the day of judgment (xxii. 4), and those which are represented by the Midrasch Ruth in the Book of Zohar, “After that the sons of God had begotten sons, God took them and brought them to the mount of darkness and bound them in chains of darkness which reach to the middle of the great abyss.”

A fuller form of the Rabbinic legend relates that the angels Asa and Asael charged God with folly in having created man who so soon provoked Him, and that He answered that if they had been on earth they would have sinned as man had done. “And thereupon He allowed them to descend to earth, and they sinned with the daughters of men. And when they would have returned to Heaven they could not, for they were banished from their former habitation and brought into the dark mountains of the earth” (Nischmath Chaim in Nork’s Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen).

The resemblance between this tradition and that of the Zoroastrian legend of the fall of Ahriman and his angels, and again of the punishment of the Titans by Zeus in the mythology of Hesiod (Theogon. 729), shews the wide-spread currency of the belief referred to. How far this allusive reference to a tradition which the writers accepted stamps it with a Divine authority as an article of faith is a question the answer to which depends on external considerations as to the nature of the inspiration by which the writers who so referred were guided. The office of the interpreter is limited to stating what, as far as can be gathered, was actually in the thoughts of the writer.

RickD wrote:B. W.,

I'm trying to find the book of Enoch in my bible, and I can't seem to find it. Could you tell me where it is?