Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 9:57 am Let me put in my .02 here
Since the time of Adam, every human (with the exception of Jesus) has sinned and thus is fallen.

However, God has made it possible for fallen humanity to become "children of God" when they put their faith in him and enter into relationship with him.

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

And Luke 3 tracks the genealogy of God's covenant people (ie children of God) beginning with Adam (the first "son of God" - Luke 3:38) and finding it's ultimate climax in Jesus Christ, the One and Only Son of God.

Well, Jesus isn't the only Son of God, yet He is the only begotten..
I know you are posting the history of Gods people in the OT. I don't have a problem with most of what you say, but disagree with your conclusions and equation of 'sons of god' to be referring to those people in this circumstance.

At the time of the Flood, Noah and his family were the faithful remnant of God's Covenant people "in the land" (which is different from saying that he was the only remnant of God's Covenant people in the land). Since Noah was righteous and found grace in the eyes of God, God allowed Noah and his family to survive the punishment that he brought on all the people "in the land" and continue God's line of Covenant people (ie children of God).

If Noah is a son of God (and possibly his family being children of God but it seems they were saved through Noah), then there is no other son of God in Noahs time and yet nephilim were being produced. Do you see the problem? It contradicts saying son of God is exclusive to the adamite line. Because sons of God create nephilim.

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 10:27 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 9:57 am Let me put in my .02 here
Since the time of Adam, every human (with the exception of Jesus) has sinned and thus is fallen.

However, God has made it possible for fallen humanity to become "children of God" when they put their faith in him and enter into relationship with him.

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

And Luke 3 tracks the genealogy of God's covenant people (ie children of God) beginning with Adam (the first "son of God" - Luke 3:38) and finding it's ultimate climax in Jesus Christ, the One and Only Son of God.

Well, Jesus isn't the only Son of God, yet He is the only begotten..

Actually Jesus is the One and Only Son (capital 'S') of God... ie... he is the only human who is by very nature God... but that is for a different thread

I know you are posting the history of Gods people in the OT. I don't have a problem with most of what you say, but disagree with your conclusions and equation of 'sons of god' to be referring to those people in this circumstance.

And that's fine...

My point is there is no Scriptural support for the premise that fallen angels are ever referred to as "sons/children of God".
On the other hand there is abundant Scriptural support for the premise that God's Covenant people are referred to as "sons/children of God"... all through both the OT and NT.

At the time of the Flood, Noah and his family were the faithful remnant of God's Covenant people "in the land" (which is different from saying that he was the only remnant of God's Covenant people in the land). Since Noah was righteous and found grace in the eyes of God, God allowed Noah and his family to survive the punishment that he brought on all the people "in the land" and continue God's line of Covenant people (ie children of God).

If Noah is a son of God (and possibly his family being children of God but it seems they were saved through Noah), then there is no other son of God in Noahs time and yet nephilim were being produced. Do you see the problem? It contradicts saying son of God is exclusive to the adamite line. Because sons of God create nephilim.

I don't think you are quite following what I am saying...

Adam's family line represented God's covenant people similar to how Jacob's family line represented God's covenant people later in the OT.
The purpose of God's covenant people is to bring God's truth to all people.
God's covenant people can obey God and they can disobey God (ie... Sampson and Solomon mentioned above), but when God's covenant people disobey God then their wicked behavior will be punished by God because they are misusing the truth that God has given them.

God's desire is for his covenant people to be salt and light in a wicked world to free sinful people from darkness and sin and bring them to truth and relationship with the one true God.
That is why it is such a big deal when God's covenant people (who God has entrusted with his truth) are corrupted by a sinful world instead of being salt and light in a sinful world.

God's goal for his covenant people (in both the OT and NT) is to bring his light to all people.

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 10:57 am
Actually Jesus is the One and Only Son (capital 'S') of God... ie... he is the only human who is by very nature God... but that is for a different thread

My point is that son of God refers to more than one category. You've now split the category into: you are a son of God (allegiance to God) vs Jesus is the son of God (Begotten God). And I would argue it's much more than an 'allegiance to God' or picking sides.

...
My point is there is no Scriptural support for the premise that fallen angels are ever referred to as "sons/children of God".
On the other hand there is abundant Scriptural support for the premise that God's Covenant people are referred to as "sons/children of God"... all through both the OT and NT.

Don't have the ability to search anything right now. Would like to show you later although others have been touching on this here.
*Edit: There wasn't really a differentiation in term to refer to demons and angels. It was el, elohim, etc(?). It was typically by context or other describing words.

...
Adam's family line represented God's covenant people similar to how Jacob's family line represented God's covenant later in the OT.
The purpose of God's covenant people is to bring God's truth to all people.
God's covenant people can obey God and they can disobey God (ie... Sampson and Solomon mentioned above), but when God's covenant people disobey God then their wicked behavior will be punished by God because they are misusing the truth that God has given them.

God's desire is for his covenant people to be salt and light in a wicked world to free sinful people from darkness and sin and bring them to truth and relationship with the one true God.
That is why it is such a big deal when God's covenant people (who God has entrusted with his truth) are corrupted by a sinful world instead of being salt and light in a sinful world.

God's goal for his covenant people (in both the OT and NT) is to bring his light to all people.

I agree with what you say (beyond some nuances)! And I have no idea what this has to do with the subject

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 11:05 am My point is that son of God refers to more than one category. You've now split the category into: you are a son of God (allegiance to God) vs Jesus is the son of God (Begotten God). And I would argue it's much more than an 'allegiance to God' or picking sides.

My whole point is... what does Scripture say about what it means to be a "son/child of God"?

Scripture refers to Jesus uniquely as the Son who is by very nature God.
Scripture refers to God's covenant people as "sons/children of God".
Scripture occasionally refers to Angels in service to God as "sons/children of God".

In John 8 Jesus contrasts being a child of God with being a child of the Devil.

So Scripture does a good job describing what it means to be a "son/child of God".

...
Adam's family line represented God's covenant people similar to how Jacob's family line represented God's covenant later in the OT.
The purpose of God's covenant people is to bring God's truth to all people.
God's covenant people can obey God and they can disobey God (ie... Sampson and Solomon mentioned above), but when God's covenant people disobey God then their wicked behavior will be punished by God because they are misusing the truth that God has given them.

God's desire is for his covenant people to be salt and light in a wicked world to free sinful people from darkness and sin and bring them to truth and relationship with the one true God.
That is why it is such a big deal when God's covenant people (who God has entrusted with his truth) are corrupted by a sinful world instead of being salt and light in a sinful world.

God's goal for his covenant people (in both the OT and NT) is to bring his light to all people.

I agree with what you say (beyond some nuances)! And I have no idea what this has to do with the subject

Oh... I think this has everything to do with the topic!
1. Is it somehow contradictory for God's covenant people (ie children of God) to disobey God and be punished for their disobedience?
No... Scripture is full of examples of God's covenant people disobeying God, and one of those examples is Genesis 6.
2. Why is is so displeasing to God when his covenant people (ie children of God) are corrupted by ungodly people?
Because the purpose of God's covenant people (ie children of God), in Genesis 6 and today, is to bring God's truth to the world.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 10:21 am

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

You mean human right?

I mean, the beings we call angels existed before humans, correct?
They were in relationship with God before us, were children before us, right ?

Correct... I was referring to the God's covenant people definition of "sons/children of God" (ie Luke 3:38)

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 11:36 am My whole point is... what does Scripture say about what it means to be a "son/child of God"?...

I'm interested in what the OT has to say about what it means. I know the revelation through the NT. I'm not discounting it. I'm saying the verses and concepts you are using don't really equate where you think it does.

Oh... I think this has everything to do with the topic!
1. Is it somehow contradictory for God's covenant people (ie children of God) to disobey God and be punished for their disobedience?
No... Scripture is full of examples of God's covenant people disobeying God, and one of those examples is Genesis 6.
2. Why is is so displeasing to God when his covenant people (ie children of God) are corrupted by ungodly people?
Because the purpose of God's covenant people (ie children of God), in Genesis 6 and today, is to bring God's truth to the world.

1: Think of the generation in the wilderness that didn't enter the promised land. I'm not arguing people of God didn't fall in Noah's time. I am saying there is more going on. And do you have an answer to B.W.'s question? It applies here tremendously!
2: This topic doesn't apply. I'm not arguing against the role of the OT covenant peoples. They were used to cause genocide to the nephilim and anyone with them post flood.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 9:12 am

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.

That can lead us to the opinion that we both share, yes, BUT those aren't statements that angles can NOT be redeemed.

The verse from Jude seems to say that their fate is sealed, doesn't it?

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 11:54 am 1: Think of the generation in the wilderness that didn't enter the promised land. I'm not arguing people of God didn't fall in Noah's time. I am saying there is more going on. And do you have an answer to B.W.'s question? It applies here tremendously!

Here was my response to BW

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

I believe God is consistent throughout the OT in his response when his covenant people intermarry with and are corrupted by an ungodly indigenous population. God punishes the people involved in the sinful activity.
That is true in Genesis 6 where the people "in the land" where the sinful behavior took place were punished for their wicked behavior.
When God's covenant people entered the promised land, and intermarried with and were corrupted by the ungodly indigenous population, they were punished (see Sampson as a specific example)
Solomon's family and the kingdom of Israel as a whole were punished for Solomon intermarrying with and being corrupted by ungodly people.
Israel being taken into captivity by the Assyrians is another example of God punishing his covenant people for intermarrying with and being corrupted by ungodly people.

So the behavior of God in Genesis 6-9 is consistent with how he responds to similar behavior by his covenant people throughout the Old Testament.

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?

The issue is not marrying non-Jewish women. The issue is intermarrying with and being corrupted by ungodly people.
In the case of both Rahab and Ruth, they put their faith in the God of Israel and became part of God's covenant people (ie Children of God).

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:04 pm So the behavior of God in Genesis 6-9 is consistent with how he responds to similar behavior by his covenant people throughout the Old Testament.

It's not consistent with how He dealt with humanity pre-flood. Why didn't He deal with them the same way? I didn't really see an answer to his question.

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 9:26 am

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.

I forgot to respond to this, my bad. I think angels and demons are too limiting of terms to describe spiritual beings. And the concept of angel and demon formed a little before NT times. I know what your getting at and appreciate making a distinction. People that hold a view similar to mine say demons are the top 'demons' and shades are the demons people think about. And shades are the nephilim. While I do see fallen spirits mixing with women and creating spirits with a physical body, and am open to the idea that disembodied spirits and 'common demons' are shades. I'm not dogmatic about it. Nor do I really care for much of a classification of hierarchy even though one exists. 1/3 of the angels fell with satan, they aren't shades. (rambling).

Never heard the term spirit apply just to fallen angels. Just find that interesting. I don't really know what you mean by 'there are[n't] some other spirits besides angels'. Did I read that right?

I have no idea where the term "shades" comes from. I'd venture a guess, and say it comes from an extra biblical source. Am I correct?

And to clarify, I'm not saying that the term "spirit(s) only applies to fallen angels. I'm just saying that I've never called Good angels "spirits".

The Nephilim being angel/human hybrids, is not based on scripture. It's based on extra biblical myths.

I challenge you, as I have others here, to show me from scripture where fallen angels, or any evil spirit, are referred to as sons of God.

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:06 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:04 pm So the behavior of God in Genesis 6-9 is consistent with how he responds to similar behavior by his covenant people throughout the Old Testament.

It's not consistent with how He dealt with humanity pre-flood. Why didn't He deal with them the same way? I didn't really see an answer to his question.

Mallz makes a point that others have asked:
Why was there such a difference in what God did to those people in Genesis 6 compared to how He deals with, arguably, others that did as bad or worse?
What was so atrocious that God wiped them off the face of the land?

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:10 pm I have no idea where the term "shades" comes from. I'd venture a guess, and say it comes from an extra biblical source. Am I correct?

I forget, I'd have to re-look it up

And to clarify, I'm not saying that the term "spirit(s) only applies to fallen angels. I'm just saying that I've never called Good angels "spirits".

Gotcha

The Nephilim being angel/human hybrids, is not based on scripture. It's based on extra biblical myths.

I challenge you, as I have others here, to show me from scripture where fallen angels, or any evil spirit, are referred to as sons of God.

So, should I stop responding until I have time to delve? Maybe tomorrow or the next day? I've been able to respond, but not re-find the evidences in scripture that my opinions are based off of. I want to, but won't be able to for a bit?

I'm enjoying the reasoning going on here. And I think we can get pretty far with it especially since ppl are adding in scripture. I think there's a lot to be gained in this convo in reason alone even with me giving you that sons of God never referred to anything other than angels. So, what would you like me to do? (I did make this thread for me in reasoning this out for myself. And I've yet to feel like anyone's tried reasoning with me in my shoes to this point.. :-p)

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:12 pm

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:06 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:04 pm So the behavior of God in Genesis 6-9 is consistent with how he responds to similar behavior by his covenant people throughout the Old Testament.

It's not consistent with how He dealt with humanity pre-flood. Why didn't He deal with them the same way? I didn't really see an answer to his question.

Mallz makes a point that others have asked:
Why was there such a difference in what God did to those people in Genesis 6 compared to how He deals with, arguably, others that did as bad or worse?
What was so atrocious that God wiped them off the face of the land?

Look at what the text says is the cause for the flood:

Genesis 6New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The Corruption of Mankind
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. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, [c]because he also is flesh; [d]nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved [e]in His heart.

Verse 5 says that every intent of the thoughts of man was only continually evil. Save Noah and his family, every intent was only continually evil.

Mallz wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:17 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:10 pm I have no idea where the term "shades" comes from. I'd venture a guess, and say it comes from an extra biblical source. Am I correct?

I forget, I'd have to re-look it up

And to clarify, I'm not saying that the term "spirit(s) only applies to fallen angels. I'm just saying that I've never called Good angels "spirits".

Gotcha

The Nephilim being angel/human hybrids, is not based on scripture. It's based on extra biblical myths.

I challenge you, as I have others here, to show me from scripture where fallen angels, or any evil spirit, are referred to as sons of God.

So, should I stop responding until I have time to delve? Maybe tomorrow or the next day? I've been able to respond, but not re-find the evidences in scripture that my opinions are based off of. I want to, but won't be able to for a bit?

I'm enjoying the reasoning going on here. And I think we can get pretty far with it especially since ppl are adding in scripture. I think there's a lot to be gained in this convo in reason alone even with me giving you that sons of God never referred to anything other than angels. So, what would you like me to do? (I did make this thread for me in reasoning this out for myself. And I've yet to feel like anyone's tried reasoning with me in my shoes to this point.. :-p)

I think if you do some searching for scripture that refers to fallen angels as sons of God, it'll help you see what DBowling and I are saying.

And did you say that sons of God, in scripture, never refers to people?

RickD wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 12:27 pm I think if you do some searching for scripture that refers to fallen angels as sons of God, it'll help you see what DBowling and I are saying.

And did you say that sons of God, in scripture, never refers to people?

No, no, no. Sons of God refers to people. I also put forward it refers to spiritual beings.
I truly know what you and DB are saying. I know that view in and out. What I need is for you two to get into my view and take me by the hand and either lead me out of it, or I'll lead you into mine, or we'll find a new revelation together. Try to understand my view, if you want to convince me it's wrong. My questions remained unanswered. Simple questions about the adamite view if I were to believe it. And I'm totally fine with believing it! I just need to be reasoned into it, if it's true! I don't need the adamite view repeated again. Or the history of the OT people. We all know that (I'm assuming). If the adamite view is correct, please answer what I see to be logical contradictions in it being true?