Angels and Theistic Evolution

[AV1611VET]

So I suppose we have to chose between your interpretation of Genesis 6, an obscure passage with a wide range of interpretations, and what Jesus tells us about angels.

That works both ways, Assyrian. What's your "wide range of interpretation" of Genesis 6?

 

[edrogati]

That wasn't your request, though.According to Genesis 6, did angels reproduce, or didn't they?

Goalpost moving won't get you any further than duplicity, but I will respond. Spiritual beings produced offspring with physical beings in Genesis 6. They did not reproduce. There is a difference. There are some animals of different species that can produce offspring together. That offspring is a reproduction of neither species, but rather a combination. My parents producing me is reproduction of a human by two humans. A horse and a donkey can have a mule as offspring, but a mule is neither a horse nor a donkey and can't reproduce another mule, a horse or a donkey. Thanks for the semantics lesson, but it's not working.

 

[AV1611VET]

Spiritual beings produced offspring with physical beings in Genesis 6. They did not reproduce.

Sounds good to me --- no argument there.

Good reply ---

 

[Tiberius]

So, if angels are the result of interbreeding between the sons of god and physical beings, then the sons of god can't be angels (as they aren't half physical being).

Can you reply to my previous post please AV?

 

[Assyrian]

That works both ways, Assyrian. What's your "wide range of interpretation" of Genesis 6?

The traditional Evangelical interpretation which you will find in commentaries like the Geneva Study Bible, Matthew Henry, Wesley's Notes or JBF, is that it refers to intermarriage between between the godly sons of Seth and the irreligious daughters of Cain.

the sons of God saw the daughters of men-By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption.

Another approach reads the 'sons of God' are angelic beings, which raises the obvious question of how angels could have sex with human women and have children. How are two completely different lifeforms even interfertile? Clearly there is one interpretation that says "they just are". It is an interpretation that contradicts what Jesus tells us about angels and what we know about biology.

Another interpretation take the sons of God as rebellious angels but sees them using a human host, a demon possessed man, to have sex with human women. The angelic involvement is spiritual, the biology is totally human.

Then we have the metaphorical meaning. We find throughout the bible the ungodly referred to as sons of the devil, or children of Belial. It does not mean literally. The Pharisees Jesus said were of their father the devil, had normal human mothers and fathers. But since we are talking about Genesis here, don't forget the ancient promise that God would put emnity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. When the Pharisees acted as children of the devil hating Jesus, they were fulfilling this ancient prophecy. But it is their characters not their biology that are children of a fallen angel.

So if this metaphor of children of a fallen angel is found in Genesis 3, isn't it possible when we read of children of fallen angels in Genesis 6 it is the same metaphor? In fact the passage in Genesis 6 echoes the language of the creation account with God saying I will destroy Adam whom I have created from the face of the earth Gen 6:7.

 

[edrogati]

The traditional Evangelical interpretation which you will find in commentaries like the Geneva Study Bible, Matthew Henry, Wesley's Notes or JBF, is that it refers to intermarriage between between the godly sons of Seth and the irreligious daughters of Cain.


Another approach reads the 'sons of God' are angelic beings, which raises the obvious question of how angels could have sex with human women and have children. How are two completely different lifeforms even interfertile? Clearly there is one interpretation that says "they just are". It is an interpretation that contradicts what Jesus tells us about angels and what we know about biology.

Another interpretation take the sons of God as rebellious angels but sees them using a human host, a demon possessed man, to have sex with human women. The angelic involvement is spiritual, the biology is totally human.

Then we have the metaphorical meaning. We find throughout the bible the ungodly referred to as sons of the devil, or children of Belial. It does not mean literally. The Pharisees Jesus said were of their father the devil, had normal human mothers and fathers. But since we are talking about Genesis here, don't forget the ancient promise that God would put emnity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. When the Pharisees acted as children of the devil hating Jesus, they were fulfilling this ancient prophecy. But it is their characters not their biology that are children of a fallen angel.

So if this metaphor of children of a fallen angel is found in Genesis 3, isn't it possible when we read of children of fallen angels in Genesis 6 it is the same metaphor? In fact the passage in Genesis 6 echoes the language of the creation account with God saying I will destroy Adam whom I have created from the face of the earth Gen 6:7.

I admittedly had never heard of the Seth and Cain interpretation, but it makes my head hurt a lot less than this discussion we've been having. I don't know if AV will let it stand though.

 

[AV1611VET]

The traditional Evangelical interpretation which you will find in commentaries like the Geneva Study Bible, Matthew Henry, Wesley's Notes or JBF, is that it refers to intermarriage between between the godly sons of Seth and the irreligious daughters of Cain.

QV please.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, if angels are the result of interbreeding between the sons of god and physical beings...

They aren't --- the Nephilim are the results of the interbreeding.

Can you reply to my previous post please AV?

Soitenly ---

I am saying that angels, if theistic evolution is true, did not come into being the same way humans came into being.

Angels came into being creatio ex nihilo, whereas humans came into being creatio ex materia.

And if angels reproduce, how do they do it? Are there baby angels? And how do you respond to the mentioned quote that angels don't marry? or is premarital sex okay for angels?

By taking possession of ungodly men, angels could have produced this race of Nephilim.

 

[Nathan Poe]

They aren't --- the Nephilim are the results of the interbreeding.

Marking yet another in a long series of instances where God simply drops the ball.

Soitenly ---Angels came into being creatio ex nihilo, whereas humans came into being creatio ex materia.

So, by your own definitions, human creation was not a miracle, but merely a magic trick.

(Your definitions, by the way, are considered creatio ad hoc)

By taking possession of ungodly men, angels could have produced this race of Nephilim.

Why unGodly men? Did God drop the ball yet again?

 

[Assyrian]

QV please.

Argument by weblink is a pretty lame response AV.

Besides the page supports my statement that there is a wide range of interpretations of the passage.

 

[AV1611VET]

Argument by weblink is a pretty lame response AV.

I couldn't agree with you more, Assyrian --- I loathe it, myself; and links to Youtube are especially out of the question (barring [very few] exceptions, of course).

Besides the page supports my statement that there is a wide range of interpretations of the passage.

Within that wide range of interpretations, you can find what I subscribe to as well. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, eh?

 

[Assyrian]

I admittedly had never heard of the Seth and Cain interpretation, but it makes my head hurt a lot less than this discussion we've been having. I don't know if AV will let it stand though.

Sympathy on the headache scripture interpretation can be a bit like that at times. I am not wild about the interpretation myself, but it does pick up on a major theme running through the bible, the danger of intermarriage between the people of God and the surrounding pagan cultures. We find it in the story of Esau and the quest to find a godly wives for Isaac and Jacob, in the problems Israel ran into mixing with the Moabites. It is a major theme in Nehemiah too.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sympathy on the headache scripture interpretation can be a bit like that at times. I am not wild about the interpretation myself, but it does pick up on a major theme running through the bible, the danger of intermarriage between the people of God and the surrounding pagan cultures. We find it in the story of Esau and the quest to find a godly wives for Isaac and Jacob, in the problems Israel ran into mixing with the Moabites. It is a major theme in Nehemiah too.

So you're against a Christian marrying a non-Christian?

 

[Danyc]

So you're saying --- hypothetically --- that not all life in the universe evolved --- is that correct?

Not correct.


AV, it's so obviously clear what you're trying to do. You want us to say that not all life in the universe evolved and then make some sort of point against evolution. Why do you even try?

For one thing: Yes, all life that has ever been or ever will be has gone through or will go through evolution, unless we somehow create an organism that never has mutations in its genes.

No, angels do not evolve. Angels are not in this universe. They are in Heaven, the "spirit world", if you will.

So, you're question: No, that is not correct. Angels do not live "in this universe".





What was your point again?

 

[Tiberius]

They aren't --- the Nephilim are the results of the interbreeding.

Wait...

The sons of God (which you consider to be angels, it seems) interbred with humans, but that didn't creat angels, it created nephilim.

Soitenly ---Angels came into being creatio ex nihilo, whereas humans came into being creatio ex materia.

I'm scared now. Are you actually *gasp* agreeing with me?

By taking possession of ungodly men, angels could have produced this race of Nephilim.

Doesn't tell me anything about angels though.

Anyway, you seem to be contradicting yourself. How are new angels created? Through God creating them from nothing, or through some sort of angel sex?

 

[gaara4158]

So you're against a Christian marrying a non-Christian?

I'm pretty sure your god is too.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're against a Christian marrying a non-Christian?

I'm pretty sure your god is too.

Just checking ---

 

[juvenissun]

Then we have the metaphorical meaning. We find throughout the bible the ungodly referred to as sons of the devil, or children of Belial. It does not mean literally. The Pharisees Jesus said were of their father the devil, had normal human mothers and fathers. But since we are talking about Genesis here, don't forget the ancient promise that God would put emnity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. When the Pharisees acted as children of the devil hating Jesus, they were fulfilling this ancient prophecy. But it is their characters not their biology that are children of a fallen angel.

So if this metaphor of children of a fallen angel is found in Genesis 3, isn't it possible when we read of children of fallen angels in Genesis 6 it is the same metaphor? In fact the passage in Genesis 6 echoes the language of the creation account with God saying I will destroy Adam whom I have created from the face of the earth Gen 6:7.

You started with one metaphoric interpretation, then it brought out many many consequential metaphors. So, one way to argue back is to hit the very first one.

Son of devil, son of God, are they really metaphoric descriptions? I don't think so. The person so called has, in fact, two natures. That is real and is not a metaphor at all. Just like we say we have a physical body and a spirit. So we have a "spiritual life". Is that also a metaphor? Of course not.

Another illustration of a literally true Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

You started with one metaphoric interpretation, then it brought out many many consequential metaphors. So, one way to argue back is to hit the very first one.

Son of devil, son of God, are they really metaphoric descriptions? I don't think so. The person so called has, in fact, two natures. That is real and is not a metaphor at all. Just like we say we have a physical body and a spirit. So we have a "spiritual life". Is that also a metaphor? Of course not.

Another illustration of a literally true Bible.

And James and John?

And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

 

[Danyc]

You started with one metaphoric interpretation, then it brought out many many consequential metaphors. So, one way to argue back is to hit the very first one.

Son of devil, son of God, are they really metaphoric descriptions? I don't think so. The person so called has, in fact, two natures. That is real and is not a metaphor at all. Just like we say we have a physical body and a spirit. So we have a "spiritual life". Is that also a metaphor? Of course not.

Another illustration of a literally true Bible.

Fact remains, however, that Son of devil is a metaphor; Nobody is actually the son of the devil. Son of God can be literal, of course, if you think of God as the Father, thus everyone is his son.


Another illustration of a sometimes literally true yet sometimes metaphorical especially in the case of Genesis Bible.