Evidence for God from Science

What are angels? How many wings do they have? What do they do, look like, etc?

This quiz about angels was put together as a fun way to promote Dr. Michael Heiser's book, "Angels." It's a lot of fun and challenges your knowledge of what you may THINK you know about angels, and will compare your answers to what the Bible reveals about them: https://blog.lexhampress.com/wp_quiz/an ... l-or-myth/

The questions are under the pictures on each page - it's only 12 questions - how hard can it be? LOL

He went off on his false belief that angels reproduced.

Rick: He went off on his false belief that angels reproduced.

Maybe.

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:32 pm

Rick: He went off on his false belief that angels reproduced.

Maybe.

Maybe he went off on the belief? Or, maybe the belief is false?

There are a variety of views on this issue, noted here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don ... rt_723.cfm And here: https://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html

Heiser explains his view here: https://blog.logos.com/2017/11/who-or-w ... -nephilim/

Who knows - Heiser could be wrong or right on this one - it doesn't matter to me, on a non-doctrinal / non-salvational issue that many Christian scholars disagree upon - and have for centuries.

Rick: He went off on his false belief that angels reproduced.

No one can say for certain that is a false belief - as it may well be correct. Even the footnotes in the ESV Study Bible (widely acknowledged by evangelical scholars as an excellent translation) say that interpretation that asserts these sons of God to be fallen angels is one possibly legitimate view. It notes, in Hebrew, the term Nepilim means "fallen ones."

Even Hugh Ross, in his book, "Navigating Genesis," acknowledges this interpretation may be accurate (https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... -the-flood).

It is interesting, the juxtapositioning and phrasing in Genesis 6:4, "the sons of God" with "the daughters of man." Why would it need to be specific to note that the daughters were human in context with the odd "sons of God?"

Many try to refute the fallen angels assertion to be wrong based upon Matthew 22:30 - where Jesus says angels do not marry. However, that cannot be used to refute it as Jesus was referring only to angels in Heaven.

I think I’ve been pretty clear on all the threads where we’ve discussed this.

Here’s one:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=42444&hilit=Nephilim

Man, I had forgotten about that crazy Nephalim thread. It's interesting, because this was just before Neo and BW lost it, couldn't stay. I still lean toward the Sons of God does NOT refer to fallen angels, but too many respected scholars - Heiser being one of them - accept that interpretation, to simply say it's OBVIOUS heresy. But one CAN confidently say it's unproven speculation.

I will say something that concerns me about Heiser, brilliant though he is - and that is, once one accepts a certain key narrative as being true, it becomes a danger that, they sometimes begin to view whatever data as re-enforcing that viewpoint. This is Heiser's own criticism of various endtimes theories, that people begin cherrypicking and interpreting Scripture, but notes that if they get a key or missing variable wrong, their entire system falls apart - so he's succeptible to it as well.

As much as I disagree with Heiser’s belief on this issue, I don’t know if I’d go so far as calling it heresy.