Evidence for God from Science

PaulS wrote:
I don't think it is a question of God making angels capable of reproducing with humans but a case of HOW HUMAN are angels when they assume human form.
We don't know for sure, one way or another.

That is THE question that needs to be answered.
People can have sex with animals, but that doesn't mean they can reproduce with them. I'm not arguing that Fallen angels can have sex with humans, but even if they could, what makes you think they can reproduce? Nothing in scripture says it's possible. Nothing in nature says it's possible. It seems more logical that if fallen angels could reproduce with humans, God would have to give Fallen angels that ability. But why would He?

And, as I stated before, nowhere in scripture do Fallen angels take on human form. Only good angels are shown in scripture, taking on human form, and specifically for God's purpose. Fallen angels, or demons, possess, or inhabit people. At least that's what scripture shows.

My issue with that is this:

The verses are:

5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[c] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.

I know these passages have some issues and that there isn't unanimous view on what they mean, but a possible view is:

Angels did not stay in their proper place ( both in location AND position of hierarchy).
They sinned like Sodom and Gomorrah which indulged in sexual immortality and pursued unnatural desire and in like manner, defile flesh, reject authority and blaspheme the "glorious ones" ( other angels?)

I know some scholars like to put a "pause" or a "separation" between verses 6 and 7 BUT the grammer doesn't call for that.

It seems that Jude is associating what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah with the sin of the angels that abandoned their station.

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
I don't think it is a question of God making angels capable of reproducing with humans but a case of HOW HUMAN are angels when they assume human form.
We don't know for sure, one way or another.

That is THE question that needs to be answered.
People can have sex with animals, but that doesn't mean they can reproduce with them. I'm not arguing that Fallen angels can have sex with humans, but even if they could, what makes you think they can reproduce? Nothing in scripture says it's possible. Nothing in nature says it's possible. It seems more logical that if fallen angels could reproduce with humans, God would have to give Fallen angels that ability. But why would He?

And, as I stated before, nowhere in scripture do Fallen angels take on human form. Only good angels are shown in scripture, taking on human form, and specifically for God's purpose. Fallen angels, or demons, possess, or inhabit people. At least that's what scripture shows.

And that is a very valid issue with the interpretation.
There really isn't any explicit statement in the bible that divine beings in human form can actually procreate.
Scripture doesn't say it is possible or impossible, it doesn't comment on it at all.
So if we can't say they can we can't say they can't, we simply can say that scripture is silent on the matter.

I don't think anywhere in scripture it states that fallen angels lose their abilities at all, whatever those abilities may be.
So we really can't say what they can't or can do once they lose their status.
Being a fallen angel doesn't mean they have lost their genetic code somehow, that they stop being what they are, OTHER than, if some passages for sons of God do refer to angels, losing their immortality (perhaps, eventually?).

PaulSacramento wrote:My issue with that is this:

The verses are:

5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[c] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

8 Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones.

I know these passages have some issues and that there isn't unanimous view on what they mean, but a possible view is:

Angels did not stay in their proper place ( both in location AND position of hierarchy).
They sinned like Sodom and Gomorrah which indulged in sexual immortality and pursued unnatural desire and in like manner, defile flesh, reject authority and blaspheme the "glorious ones" ( other angels?)

I know some scholars like to put a "pause" or a "separation" between verses 6 and 7 BUT the grammer doesn't call for that.

It seems that Jude is associating what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah with the sin of the angels that abandoned their station.

Jude is associating the sin of the angels with the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, but he is also associating the sin of the angels with:
verse 4 - those who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
verse 5 - Israelites who did not believe after the Lord delivered them out of Egypt
verse11
- those who have gone the way of Cain
- those who rushed headlong into the error of Baalam
- those who perished in the rebellion of Korah

There are a number of sins that Jude provides examples of in Jude, and there is nothing in Jude 1 that says that the sin of the angels in Jude 1:6 had anything to do with sexual relations.
All Jude says about the specific sin of the angels is that they left their proper abode... that's it... nothing more, nothing less.

The common thread that ties together all these examples of sins that Jude lists is that they result in condemnation and punishment.

Jude is saying that
These folks in verse 4 who deny Jesus Christ are going to face condemnation:
Just like...
- those Israelites who did not believe after being saved from Egypt were punished
Just like...
- those angels who left their proper abode were punished
Just like...
- those in Sodom and Gomorrah who indulged in gross immorality were punished
Just like...
- Cain was punished
- and those who followed the error of Baalam were punished
- and those who participated in the rebellion of Koran were punished.

The short version is...
Those who rebel against God and engage in a life of sin will be condemned/punished.

The issue with that is this:

6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The sexual morality and pursuit of unnatural desire was Likewise/ Same as the Angels.

Same argue that it means that the surrounding cities indulged like Sodom and Gomorrah BUT that is not necessarily the case since Jude is STILL talking about the the Angels that rebelled, what they did and what happened to them ( and others).

:beat

PaulSacramento wrote:The issue with that is this:

6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The sexual morality and pursuit of unnatural desire was Likewise/ Same as the Angels.

That's not what the text says...
The text says that the specific sin of the angels was abandoning their abode
The text says that the specific sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved unnatural desire.

The text says that the angels were punished for their wickedness
and likewise Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for their wickedness.
Just like the other examples that Jude lists.
The common thread throughout Jude 1 is punishment for wickedness.

There is nothing in Jude 1 to indicate that the sin that was specific to the angels involved anything other than abandoning their abode (Jude 1:6).
That's all that you can get from the actual text of Jude.

Sorry DB, that text is ambiguous enough to be read BOTH ways depending on how one reads it.
I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong, I am stating that the possibility for interpretation is there and that is why some have interpreted that way.

Paul: Sorry DB, that text is ambiguous enough to be read BOTH ways depending on how one reads it.

And so THAT tells us that there is a level of uncertainty that means, currently, we can't know for certain, either way. And so NO one should ever assert a certainty over ANY Scriptural mystery so vague. And when one has to cobble together other questionably connected portions of Scripture, or other books that are not considered Scripture, to support something this vague, that can be dangerous. It's also unnecessary and doesn't change anything, as events and ramifications have long been passed down to us. With this issue, getting it wrong may not be a big deal. But if we treat other uncertain meanings/passages of Scripture with that method, and declare it definitive - it could be a very dangerous thing, depending upon the subject/issue in question.

[quote][/quote]Paul: I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong, I am stating that the possibility for interpretation is there and that is why some have interpreted that way.

Doing Bible interpretation by "possibility" - as long as we admit that such interpretations are purely speculative, while also fascinating - that's understandable, even fun. I mean, mysteries in Scripture are great - and there are many of them. But let's not assert truth where it can't be known - or where perhaps it wasn't meant for us to have clarity over. Do we really think God doesn't want us to have some unknown mysteries?

Philip,
There are things that are explicitly sated in the bible that we can be sure of what they mean and what the author wanted us to understand he meant ( reasonably sure of course) such as Jesus being God ( John 1), Jesus being our salvation ( take your pick of verses) and so forth and those things MUST be the core of doctrine.
Then we things that we MAY know what the writers was talking about and we may know this by the context of the verses, what the writer wrote somewhere else, if other writers voice similar views, etc and these things MAY be part of doctrine.
Then we have those parts that can be interpreted in various was AND HAVE BEEN over the centuries ( like our discussion here, the literal interpretation of Genesis, etc).
These things are great for discussion and debate BUT MUST not be things that divide the body of Christ since we do NOT know for certain what the writer(s) meant when they wrote it ( though we can speculate).

I think what we are doing is great and how we are doing it, for the most part, good also because we are exchanging views and opinions and learning from each other.
I found DB view of the Sons of God being decedents of Adam and Eve and the daughters of Man being those other humans around, a very fascinating view and one that I didn't think of ( even though I agree that there were other humans around that were not decedents from Adam and Eve). These are good things that we are discussing.
As long as we don't let our emotions and our zeal to protective what WE think is correct doctrine, get the better of us.

PaulS wrote:
As long as we don't let our emotions and our zeal to protective what WE think is correct doctrine, get the better of us.

That's the thing that gets me. B.W. is so sure of his DNA manipulation doctrine, even though it's based on extra biblical arguments. Doctrine should be based on what's in scripture.

With me on this issue, I don't hold to any doctrine(Sethite, Rulers, etc.). I just think the text, taken in context leads to the conclusion that sons of God in Genesis 6, have to be humans.

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
As long as we don't let our emotions and our zeal to protective what WE think is correct doctrine, get the better of us.

That's the thing that gets me. B.W. is so sure of his DNA manipulation doctrine, even though it's based on extra biblical arguments. Doctrine should be based on what's in scripture.

With me on this issue, I don't hold to any doctrine(Sethite, Rulers, etc.). I just think the text, taken in context leads to the conclusion that sons of God in Genesis 6, have to be humans.

Ok, so here is the thing ( and not addressing the DNA manipulation cause that is BW's baby):
The view that the Sons of God were divine beings has been around since the second temple.
They were the closest to the actual text.
They ( not all of course), believed that the Sons of God were divine beings that mated with human women and brought forth giants, beings of above average height.
The bible used in the time of Jesus and by Jesus and His Apostles, translates the word as giants ( the Septuagint).
So, what needs to be asked is WHY did they think the Sons of God were divine beings? why did they think their off spring were giants?
To say that the context of Genesis 6 HAVE to be humans is, well, bias at best because the text does NOT say they were humans, the text actually contrasts them with the daughters of man and if they were simply humans, how / why were their off springs viewed as giants?

My point is that it isn't as simple as you are making it out to be, nor is it as clear.

Paul, I agree the discussion is good, but I also share Rick's concern about getting dogmatic over such an issue, or declaring as definitive truth contentions dependent upon sources outside of Scripture that we simply can't know the truth of. So, some go too far as to what we can state as fact. One thing the mysteries teach us is there is much about the ancient past that we can only marvel at and ponder, that all of our modern tools of analysis cannot penetrate beyond a certain point. As for some mysteries found in Scripture - we must realize the lack of clarity is deliberate, as God well knew that HOW these things would be written down would, far later, be unclear to those reading about them. And so while He could have inspired sufficient detail to be recorded, He did not. And for some such issues, perhaps God wants us to wrestle with meanings to the point we realize what CAN be clearly understood is far more important. We want to Tivo Scripture, but as impossible, some try creative understandings - which is fine, as long as they admit them to be speculative.

I agree Philip.
It is my view, based on what I have learned and researched that, the Sons of God in Genesis 6 were divine beings, the same Sons of God in Job and Psalm and the same princes in Daniel.
I may be wrong of course and I am basing this on what is stated implicitly in the bible and what is explicitly stated in the bible AND also sources outside the bible, so my view is speculation BUT I do NOT view it as NOT being biblical and I resent anyone implying as such since I hold the bible in very, VERY high regard.

My issue is that, in these gray areas that we have, people are willing to, actually it seems they prefer to, go with a naturalist explanation because they seem to have issues with the supernatural aspect of the other argument.
Note I say SEEM to.
And I don't understand that because the bible IS virtually all about the "supernatural".

Paul, you have misunderstood - you've been clear you've speculated. It's no different than things Heiser has written about - feeling out what the Scriptural texts can reasonably support, and what other credible sources, or credible aspects of secondary sources might lend credibility to the speculation. Everyone here for years knows you take Scripture as being inspired by God.