Evidence for God from Science

Philip, I'm so glad you think that belief in Evolution is not a barrier to being a Christian. I'm slightly surprised that you don't think Adam and Eve were the first humans - I thought that was axiomatic. But I would like to get this straight; I would hate to misunderstand you.

After the six day creation of the earth, the plants, the sea animals, the land animals, the birds, and humans made in the image and likeness of God, God fashioned a new, different person, and placed him in a fertile garden completely empty of animals. Then God fashioned a whole new lot of animals and birds, separate from all the animals and birds he had already made. Then he made the man fall asleep and made a woman from one of his ribs.

Is that correct?

I am sorry that you do not understand the "argument from authority" logical fallacy. You might like to look it up. Still, having chastised me for quoting the opinion of the Pope, you then appeal to "some very knowledgeable theologians" to support your ideas. Am I allowed to be "pooh poohing your appeal to authority" as you pooh poohed mine? Fair's fair I reckon, and my theologian is bigger than your theologian. Actually, of course, I did not appeal to the Pope's authority, even though he has some, being a representative of so many Christians. I merely pointed him out. My understanding of the origin of the earth and life does not depend on the views of any theologians, but on the evidence of science. Evolution is science, not theology. As it happens, your 'very knowledgable theologian' was at pains to point out, several times, that he does not actually believe in the literal reconciliation of Genesis 1 and 2, but was carrying out an academic philological exercise to see if it could be done. Evolution on the one hand, and the special creation of talking snakes on the other, is not only scientifically indefensible, but, to my view, theologically unsound as well.

It would be clearer if that last sentence went: "Simultaneous belief in both Evolution on the one hand, and the special creation of talking snakes on the other, is not only scientifically indefensible, but, to my view, theologically unsound as well."

I agree with Dr.Heiser on Genesis 1-3, much like I do with his view on the "sons of God" and the reason for the flood.

PaulSacramento wrote:I agree with Dr.Heiser on Genesis 1-3, much like I do with his view on the "sons of God" and the reason for the flood.

He doesn't believe that angels impregnated women, does he?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I agree with Dr.Heiser on Genesis 1-3, much like I do with his view on the "sons of God" and the reason for the flood.

He doesn't believe that angels impregnated women, does he?

He believes what the bible states and it isn't as simple as "angels impregnated women".
The sons of God were not descendants of Seth or anything like that, there is no biblical precedent in genesis for taking the Sons of God to mean anything OTHER than divine beings.
To read it otherwise is to read denominational bias into the bible.

So when the creed mentions "I believe in [...] his only son, Our Lord," it's not true? Or not literally true? Or true provided you interpret the word 'only son' to mean 'only human son'? Jist askin...

hughfarey wrote:So when the creed mentions "I believe in [...] his only son, Our Lord," it's not true? Or not literally true? Or true provided you interpret the word 'only son' to mean 'only human son'? Jist askin...

We have to take the bible for what it says.
There is no evidence that the Sons of God were anything other than divine beings.
Now, you don't think that Christ is the son of God in the sense that God gave birth to Him do you?
I mean, Adam is called Son of God, you don't think that makes Adam Jesus bother, do you?
Creeds are what they are and they must be interpreted by what the bible says, NOT the OTHER way around.

PaulSacramento wrote:Creeds are what they are and they must be interpreted by what the bible says, NOT the OTHER way around.

Which one?

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Creeds are what they are and they must be interpreted by what the bible says, NOT the OTHER way around.

Which one?

I don't think I have a pole long enough to touch that one !

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Creeds are what they are and they must be interpreted by what the bible says, NOT the OTHER way around.

Which one?

We heretical Protestants can't help it if we're missing a few books. When we come back to Mother Church, all will be made complete.

PaulSacramento wrote:We have to take the bible for what it says.

Suppose we do. Several times it uses the word 'son'. I know what 'son' means. A son is a man born of a woman. All other meanings are metaphorical, which, I understand, you do not accept of the bible. If the angels were the sons of God, are you not having to interpret the word 'son' to mean something else? If Adam was the son of God, who was his mother?

Something to think about...

It just came to mind now, so I haven't actually studied the possibility. But after reading the links by Heiser in this post, could sons of God be the descendants of Adam? And the sons of man, be the descendants of the other humans that came from the line that existed outside of Adam's line?

RickD wrote:Something to think about...

It just came to mind now, so I haven't actually studied the possibility. But after reading the links by Heiser in this post, could sons of God be the descendants of Adam? And the sons of man, be the descendants of the other humans that came from the line that existed outside of Adam's line?

The consistency in the OT is that sons of God refers to divine beings, like in Job, Deuteronomy, Psalms, etc.
To read it any other way is to introduce doctrine that is not there.
To read it any other way disregards what Peter and Jude say about the angels that sinned.
Sure there are passages that call us sons of God ( by "adoption" ) or a son of God by being favorable to God ( David), BUT we are talking about the very clear view that the sons of God were divine beings, the Elohim, that lived in the abode of God.

The OT does NOT address the descendants of Adam as being different than the rest of humanity in their nature.
The only "other beings" that are addressed are the Nephilim and their descendants.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:Something to think about...

It just came to mind now, so I haven't actually studied the possibility. But after reading the links by Heiser in this post, could sons of God be the descendants of Adam? And the sons of man, be the descendants of the other humans that came from the line that existed outside of Adam's line?

The consistency in the OT is that sons of God refers to divine beings, like in Job, Deuteronomy, Psalms, etc.
To read it any other way is to introduce doctrine that is not there.
To read it any other way disregards what Peter and Jude say about the angels that sinned.
Sure there are passages that call us sons of God ( by "adoption" ) or a son of God by being favorable to God ( David), BUT we are talking about the very clear view that the sons of God were divine beings, the Elohim, that lived in the abode of God.

The OT does NOT address the descendants of Adam as being different than the rest of humanity in their nature.
The only "other beings" that are addressed are the Nephilim and their descendants.

We had a discussion about this before. And i seem to remember that it definitely wasn't "very clear" that sons of God were fallen angels. Where from scripture, can you make a case that fallen angels are called sons of God. Iirc, it was more clear that sons of God was referring to the line of Seth. And sons of men was cain's line.

Edit---

I think this may be the discussion from before.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:Something to think about...

It just came to mind now, so I haven't actually studied the possibility. But after reading the links by Heiser in this post, could sons of God be the descendants of Adam? And the sons of man, be the descendants of the other humans that came from the line that existed outside of Adam's line?

The consistency in the OT is that sons of God refers to divine beings, like in Job, Deuteronomy, Psalms, etc.
To read it any other way is to introduce doctrine that is not there.
To read it any other way disregards what Peter and Jude say about the angels that sinned.
Sure there are passages that call us sons of God ( by "adoption" ) or a son of God by being favorable to God ( David), BUT we are talking about the very clear view that the sons of God were divine beings, the Elohim, that lived in the abode of God.

The OT does NOT address the descendants of Adam as being different than the rest of humanity in their nature.
The only "other beings" that are addressed are the Nephilim and their descendants.

We had a discussion about this before. And i seem to remember that it definitely wasn't "very clear" that sons of God were fallen angels. Where from scripture, can you make a case that fallen angels are called sons of God. Iirc, it was more clear that sons of God was referring to the line of Seth. And sons of men was cain's line.

Edit---

I think this may be the discussion from before.

So the sons of seth are who the writers of Job and Deuteronomy and Psalms are referring too?
I don't think so and the only issue people have with the Sons of God being divine beings in Genesis 6 is the supernatural element, which no bible believer should have issues with.

You guys should read Dr.Heisers book "The Unseen Realm" or his writings on the divine council.

Or even here:
http://www.letusreason.org/Doct11.htm