Evidence for God from Science

Parable:

Husband and wife bore three sons, triplets. They taught their sons well and treated each decently. After the sons grew into manhood then one of the sons fell away from his decent family ways into a life of murderous crime.

Question: The son who fell from the decent family's ways into a life of vicious murderous crime, is he still a son to his parents?

++++

Later, the fallen son was caught and put on trial. His brothers were called to stand before the court, and also the fallen son was their to face charges for his crimes. Was the fallen son still a brother to his own siblings?

It does not matter if an 'also' is used or not, the fallen son, was he still part of the family or not due to error of his ways and crimes?

If your own child fell away into murderous crime, would your child no longer be your child?

If you and also your fallen child were called to stand before the judge when did your child cease being releated to the one who gave them birth?

Philip wrote:Not only a dumb way, but an unScriptural way, to make a point! Not to mention, people have personal motivations for wanting to embrace whatever scenario that Scripture doesn't clearly say. That's exactly how most Bible-related cults work - reading into the text whatever their desired theology requires.

Really Phill?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:Parable:

Husband and wife bore three sons, triplets. They taught their sons well and treated each decently. After the sons grew into manhood then one of the sons fell away from his decent family ways into a life of murderous crime.

Question: The son who fell from the decent family's ways into a life of vicious murderous crime, is he still a son to his parents?

Can you Scripturally defend the premise that Scripture ever refers to the Philistines and other worshippers of pagan 'gods' as "sons of God"?
Can you Scripturally defend the premise that Scripture ever refers to those who reject Jesus as "sons of God"?

Jesus addresses this issue of sonship in his discussion with the Jewish religious leaders in John 8:37-47.
...and he addresses the familial relationship (or lack thereof) between God and Satan as well

37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.”

39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father.”

Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

B. W. wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:There is no scripture any where that tells us "sons of God" does not refer to fallen angels.

We can play this game too.

So we can't really know either way since the bible does not say "sons of God" does or does not refer to fallen angels therefore nobody can say either way.We cannot claim we are right either way based on scripture.

Is that what ya'll are really wanting?

A check mate situation just because you ignore what is implied by scripture.

Do you see what this causes when you ignore what scripture implies? It is sad some people cannot read english and cannot pick up on when something is being implied. It is amazing to me how people can deny what scripture reveals to us.

ACB, you are correct.

This is where there is a need go back to the historical documents I referenced as well as the ancient Jewish commentaries written before 70 AD in order to do a proper and correct study of the Genesis 6 text. For some reason,some people will not accept this, unless written by St. Augustine that blindly supports the Sethite view.

No where does the bible say that sons of God cannot imply the fallen angels especially when speaking of there crimes committed as the sons of God - that is in the bible clearly.

Next, any created being God directly made can be considered sons of God, all angelic beings (and fallen ones) were directly created by God, Adam was classed also as a son of God being directly created by God - but Adam's offspring cannot be so classed in any ways because of human procreation. We are sons and daughters of Adam - not God.

The only time when we can be classed as such, is by the New Birth when we are adopted into God's household as his child. Before that time, all Humanity according to scripture (book of Romans for example) makes it plain that we all were considered enemies of God, alienated from the life of God, unless God directly intervened like he did in Enoch, Noah's and Abraham's life by their faith in God. All of Seth's line was not saved in the ark and classed as sinners. This alone disproves a pure line of Seth theory.

The larger issue is this: Giants - Titans - people cannot except this. However, some people like Robert Pershing Wadlow
was tallest man in medical history who measured on 27 June 1940, was found to be 8 ft 11.1 in tall. There are photos of even taller people than this.

Despite the evidence, some folks think Nephilim were mixed with angels DNA. This too is not correct as there is not traceable angel DNA ever found, even in the tallest of people.

What this means is that fallen angels manipulated Human DNA and made a new race of Human made in their likeness - character traits. The evidence for this is before our eyes today. WE have scientist desiring to make new humans free of all defects, a perfect race, they are mixing different species together altering species and plant through gene spicing.

Jesus said - as it was in the days of Noah - so shall it be in one of his days...

This genetic stuff is a big giant warning sign that some folks for reasons of pride alone simple want to ignoer. As for me, I will do what Jesus mentioned and pray that my wife and I are counted worthy to escape all these things that will befall man and stand before the Lord.

Readers can decide for themselves what they want to do. Hide , mock , make fun of, agree, whatever.
-
-
-

I hate to say it but the problem is people believe man over what God's word says and it has been going on for a long time.I think that instead of digging into God's word and studying it out they choose to keep things simple and justify it by implying we cannot really understand God's word by studying it.

I mean there are just too many interpretations to consider and so lets just keep things simple when the fact is that if we truly want to understand God's word we must choose to study it,to dig out the truth of it and nobody can do it for us.But instead of studying it out they just rely on what some man says and go with it.It is easy and all of the work seems to be done for us.

It also comes from people choosing to believe things by blind faith and you'll hear people say the bible says it and I just believe it when they barely even know what it says and reveals to us.By choosing to keep things simple and by refusing to challenge our own beliefs and interpretations it cuts off new Revelations from God's word and blinds us to the vast amount of knowledge in God's word if we would just take the time to investigate it out and study it with a true desire to let God be true but every man a liar.

This is not a salvation issue but this is about truly seeking to understand God's word and the vast amount of knowledge it reveals to us if we would take the time to study it.Until we choose to put God first instead of some man's interpretation we will have problems with people who just go with a simplified,watered dowb,blind faith view of God's word,but atleast they are saved,right?

I could go on and keep repeating why this view is true according to God's word but enough already has been said and pointed out and that is all we can do.

But just for the sake of your argument I will reveal this that you may not have thought about or realized concerning this topic but we already know that Satan can produce certian kinds of life and in order to do this he must know about DNA because he can copy some of what God created.As we all know Satan is a copycat and he copies everything God does and prevents it in a perverted way.And he also has done this with life also.

You can study about the kinds of life Satan is able to produce by reading about the Egyptian magicians who worked for Pharoah when Moses confronted him to let God's people go.We can clearly see the kinds of life Satan is able to produce and life that he cannot produce by copying what God already did and so we know that Satan understands the DNA of life.It seems that Satan is able to copy cold blooded reptilian type life but has problems with warm blooded creatures like lice.

Philip wrote:
Not only a dumb way, but an unScriptural way, to make a point! Not to mention, people have personal motivations for wanting to embrace whatever scenario that Scripture doesn't clearly say. That's exactly how most Bible-related cults work - reading into the text whatever their desired theology requires.

B.W: Really Phill?

B.W., my problem with this isn't that it's not a possibility, rather it's the doubling down and insistence that this is absolutely a certainty. YES, the text might fit a certain thing - but that doesn't mean that just because it might fit, that it is true. Again, this is the technique behind a lot of false beliefs (I know, B.W., you are not trying to push false beliefs). Because what I've seen now are pages and pages of speculation insisted to be definitive. As for what it changes for us - either way - doesn't really change our present situation, as we've arrived at it, no matter how things went down "in the days of Noah." What can be known about this, from the text, is entirely speculative. Why do you think there is so much disagreement over it amongst Christian bible scholars who hold to the text being "God given?" It's unclear enough that there is a lot of disagreement. Again, I well realize - and would not be surprised - if some fallen angels scenario were actually true - there's all sorts of incredible things possible with supernatural beings, however limited per the constraints and parameters God has placed upon them. And I'm really wondering why those arguing so vigorously for a fallen angels scenario think that meaning is so important? What if you are wrong - would that change our present, as we are ALREADY here? HOWEVER things and man came to be before and after the flood, the way things are now don't change because we perfectly understand some difficult references in Scripture. WHATEVER happened, happened. Do I understand it with clarity - absolutely not. It's similar to why I'm not particularly worked up over the age of the universe stuff - as it is what it is, and is a result of processes and time lengths I cannot prove, although I can lean in a certain direction on it. But it's not the central question, is it? Same deal with the events prior to the flood - we know evil was rampant, and that God punished it. We know He will also deal with it in a final way, in the end. To me, that's the important part.


-

Re: Satan being a Son of God.

Satan is,in the OT, a "job title" Ha Satan is the correct term, which means "the adversary" or "the opponent" or " the prosecutor" even.
The title is given to anyone, even God, when they are doing an "adversarial job/task".


If The Satan was not a Son of God one would wonder why he would be permitted to join them in God's presence.
By the way God speaks to him, he doesn't seem to be to disturbed that he is there, just curious as to what he has been up to on Earth.

PaulSacramento wrote:Re: Satan being a Son of God.

Satan is,in the OT, a "job title" Ha Satan is the correct term, which means "the adversary" or "the opponent" or " the prosecutor" even.
The title is given to anyone, even God, when they are doing an "adversarial job/task".


If The Satan was not a Son of God one would wonder why he would be permitted to join them in God's presence.
By the way God speaks to him, he doesn't seem to be to disturbed that he is there, just curious as to what he has been up to on Earth.

We don't need to wonder why he's there. The text tells us. And it doesn't say Satan is a son of God, FYI.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Re: Satan being a Son of God.

Satan is,in the OT, a "job title" Ha Satan is the correct term, which means "the adversary" or "the opponent" or " the prosecutor" even.
The title is given to anyone, even God, when they are doing an "adversarial job/task".


If The Satan was not a Son of God one would wonder why he would be permitted to join them in God's presence.
By the way God speaks to him, he doesn't seem to be to disturbed that he is there, just curious as to what he has been up to on Earth.

We don't need to wonder why he's there. The text tells us. And it doesn't say Satan is a son of God, FYI.

No, it doesn't say it but one can argue that it is implied since the term "also" is "gam" and can mean "moreover" or "even" or "indeed".
It isn't being used to "set aside" or "separate" The Satan from the Sons of God.

Sort of:
"The squad presented itself and also the sergeant was there".
This doesn't mean the sarg. isn't part of the squad, it is simply "highlighting" a character.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Re: Satan being a Son of God.

Satan is,in the OT, a "job title" Ha Satan is the correct term, which means "the adversary" or "the opponent" or " the prosecutor" even.
The title is given to anyone, even God, when they are doing an "adversarial job/task".


If The Satan was not a Son of God one would wonder why he would be permitted to join them in God's presence.
By the way God speaks to him, he doesn't seem to be to disturbed that he is there, just curious as to what he has been up to on Earth.

We don't need to wonder why he's there. The text tells us. And it doesn't say Satan is a son of God, FYI.

No, it doesn't say it but one can argue that it is implied since the term "also" is "gam" and can mean "moreover" or "even" or "indeed".
It isn't being used to "set aside" or "separate" The Satan from the Sons of God.

Sort of:
"The squad presented itself and also the sergeant was there".
This doesn't mean the sarg. isn't part of the squad, it is simply "highlighting" a character.

Did you get that definition of also from the Eisegesis dictionary?

All normal dictionaries define also as "in addition".
It's amazing what lengths people will go to, to redefine words to fit their interpretations.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Re: Satan being a Son of God.

Satan is,in the OT, a "job title" Ha Satan is the correct term, which means "the adversary" or "the opponent" or " the prosecutor" even.
The title is given to anyone, even God, when they are doing an "adversarial job/task".


If The Satan was not a Son of God one would wonder why he would be permitted to join them in God's presence.
By the way God speaks to him, he doesn't seem to be to disturbed that he is there, just curious as to what he has been up to on Earth.

We don't need to wonder why he's there. The text tells us. And it doesn't say Satan is a son of God, FYI.

No, it doesn't say it but one can argue that it is implied since the term "also" is "gam" and can mean "moreover" or "even" or "indeed".
It isn't being used to "set aside" or "separate" The Satan from the Sons of God.

Sort of:
"The squad presented itself and also the sergeant was there".
This doesn't mean the sarg. isn't part of the squad, it is simply "highlighting" a character.

Did you get that definition of also from the Eisegesis dictionary?

All normal dictionaries define also as "in addition".
It's amazing what lengths people will go to, to redefine words to fit their interpretations.

Dude, I just agreed with you that Job doesn't state that the Satan is a son of god.
But it can be implied ( and has been by many, including the oldest traditions we have).
Honestly, I don't see what YOUR problem with this is because if you ask almost any hebrew scholar they will tell you the same thing.

And, by the way, your "in addition" does NOT separate The Satan from the group but adds him into it, so...

Honestly I am a little confused why you are so militant with this...

In short, while Job does NOT state that The Satan is a Son of God, it MAY be implied by his presence with them since the title ( the adversary) doesn't automatically negate this possibility ( since even God can be "the satan" if he is being an adversary).

RickD wrote:
It's amazing what lengths people will go to, to redefine words to fit their interpretations.

paulS wrote:
...since even God can be "the satan" if he is being an adversary).

You're seriously calling God, "the satan"?

I rest my case...

Seriously Rick?

Sheesh:

Hebrew Bible
The original Hebrew term satan is a noun from a verb meaning primarily "to obstruct, oppose", as it is found in Numbers 22:22, 1 Samuel 29:4, Psalms 109:6.[6] Ha-Satan is traditionally translated as "the accuser" or "the adversary". The definite article ha- (English: "the") is used to show that this is a title bestowed on a being, versus the name of a being. Thus, this being would be referred to as "the satan".[7]

Thirteen occurrences
Ha-Satan with the definite article occurs 13 times in the Masoretic Text, in two books of the Hebrew Bible: Job ch. 1–2 (10×)[8] and Zechariah 3:1–2 (3×).[9]

Satan without the definite article is used in 10 instances, of which two are translated diabolos in the Septuagint and "Satan" in the King James Version (KJV):

1 Chronicles 21:1, "Satan stood up against Israel" (KJV) or "And there standeth up an adversary against Israel" (Young's Literal Translation)[10]
Psalm 109:6b "and let Satan stand at his right hand" (KJV)[11] or "let an accuser stand at his right hand." (ESV, etc.)
The other eight instances of satan without the definite article are traditionally translated (in Greek, Latin and English) as "an adversary", etc., and taken to be humans or obedient angels:

Numbers 22:22,32 "and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him."
32 "behold, I went out to withstand thee,"
1 Samuel 29:4 The Philistines say: "lest he [David] be an adversary against us"
2 Samuel 19:22 David says: "[you sons of Zeruaiah] should this day be adversaries (plural) unto me?"
1 Kings 5:4 Solomon writes to Hiram: "there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent."
1 Kings 11:14 "And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite"[12]
1 Kings 11:23 "And God stirred him up an adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah"
25 "And he [Rezon] was an adversary to Israel all the days of Solomon"

Or here:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/satan/

Satan [N] [E] [H]
The Hebrew word satan [f'f] means "an adversary, one who resists." It is translated as "Satan" eighteen times in the Old Testament, fourteen of those occurrences being in Job 1-2, the others in 1 Chronicles 21:1 and Zechariah 3:1-2. There is some dispute as to whether it should be taken as a proper name or a title. In Job and Zechariah the definite article precedes the noun (lit., "the satan" or "the accuser"). Thus some argue it should be a title, while in 1 Chronicles (no article) it should be a proper name. The word is used also of various persons in the Old Testament as "adversaries, " including David ( 1 Sam 29:4 ), Rezon of Damascus ( 1 Kings 11:23 1 Kings 11:25 ), and the angel of the Lord ( Numbers 22:22 Numbers 22:32 ).

And where in those quotes does it back your assertion that you made:

...since even God can be "the satan" if he is being an adversary).

God can be the satan?

I guess it goes along with the rest Of the logic from the hybrid/DNA theory, that the Bible doesn't say that God isn't the satan, so I guess He can be?

And you don't see an issue with this?


*edited for clarity

If God is the adversary of something, like Pharaoh, he would be the "Ha Satan" to Pharaoh.
Does that help you to understand the use of the term?
That is why:

The word is used also of various persons in the Old Testament as "adversaries, " including David ( 1 Sam 29:4 ), Rezon of Damascus ( 1 Kings 11:23 1 Kings 11:25 ), and the angel of the Lord ( Numbers 22:22 Numbers 22:32 ).

PaulSacramento wrote:If God is the adversary of something, like Pharaoh, he would be the "Ha Satan" to Pharaoh.
Does that help you to understand the use of the term?
That is why:

The word is used also of various persons in the Old Testament as "adversaries, " including David ( 1 Sam 29:4 ), Rezon of Damascus ( 1 Kings 11:23 1 Kings 11:25 ), and the angel of the Lord ( Numbers 22:22 Numbers 22:32 ).

Where is the term used of God?