Evolution of Angels

The bible presents angels as very human like. In Hebrews 13:2 we read the following:

Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.

It appears that some angels can appear to be very human looking. So human looking that they can be mistaken as people whom you don’t know.

Humans, like angels are created beings according to the bible. I believe that us humans were made on day six and the angels made sometime prior to that. (JOB 38:7)

Hebrews 2:7 teaches us that God made man a little less “sophisticated” than the angels.

You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor

It’s quite obvious that using the Theistic Evolutionist line of thinking, that is if God used evolution as a tool to “create” man it should also true for the angels. When one considers the similarities between the two, so similar they can be mistaken as people. It appears that man was ancestral to the angels. In Gods theistic creation God stopped man just a little short of the “species” angel.

This line of thinking seems logical to the Theistic Evolutionist due to the similarities between man and his assumed primate ancestors. In other words, man came from apes and angels came from man. Each one through “theistic evolution” made a little lower than the other. That is man a little lower than the angels and apes a little lower than man.

Of course there are those who will argue that angels did not evolve from man but instead were a seperate creation of God. If you're a Theistic Evolutionist who believes in biblical angels then you have to ask the question;

if God made angels as seperate beings with out an evolutionary linage, then why not man?

If man and angels look similar, yet were seperate beings, then why not man an apes?

Angels look like humans at times because they can change their appearance.

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

It’s quite obvious that using the Theistic Evolutionist line of thinking, that is if God used evolution as a tool to “create” man it should also true for the angels.

Talk about false premises! Theistic evolution leaves choice open to God.

It appears that man was ancestral to the angels. In Gods theistic creation God stopped man just a little short of the “species” angel.

In the Sciencism thread Nephilimiyr posted a verse showing that the "ben Elohim" were with God at the beginning. That predates humans quite a bit.

This line of thinking seems logical to the Theistic Evolutionist due to the similarities between man and his assumed primate ancestors. In other words, man came from apes and angels came from man.

ArkGuy, theistic evolutionists never claimed angels evolved. you are the one making that claim. Not fair to put words in other people's mouths. I believe that false under false witness.

Each one through “theistic evolution” made a little lower than the other. That is man a little lower than the angels and apes a little lower than man.

Actually, this is creationist thinking. God is God, God made angels a little lower than God, then God made man a little lower than the angels.

Of course there are those who will argue that angels did not evolve from man but instead were a seperate creation of God. If you're a Theistic Evolutionist who believes in biblical angels then you have to ask the question;

if God made angels as seperate beings with out an evolutionary linage, then why not man?

1. Because God wanted to do it that way.

2. However, where in the Bible does it say God created angels? NOWHERE. Angels existed from the beginning with God. No creation. So the whole basis of your argument is a puff of smoke.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

If Man evolved physically, and the creation was some type of "soul infusion" or uplift (which is one TE theory), then this is because Man was part of God's Earthly creation and followed the natural processes created for that Earthly creation.

Angels, on the other hand, were not created for Earth or as part of the Earthly creation. We have no idea when and where angels were created, but their resemblance to humans when they appeared to humans is entirely irrelevant.

Hmmmm, so it sounds like the evos believe that the angels didn't evolve but were created beings...but man wasn't.

it's amazing how they have the ability to believe in a pick and choose fashion.

take the resurrection for example. Its a scientifically impossible happening....but they believe it happened.

Then they deny the six day creation performed by their Lord and savior Jesus Christ...claiming it was scientifically impossible.

Sounds like this Theo-evo sect is filtering their bible through mans often inaccurate interpretations of science and not the Word of God.

Job 38:6-7, Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof?
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?


ArkGuy, you go with the evidence. The evidence picks and chooses for you.

For instance, look at the above. This scripture says "angels" were there at the beginning of creation. Therefore they could not have evolved.

Now, there are theological problems in having an immortal group of beings besides God, but not scientific ones.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

Originally Posted by Ark Guy

take the resurrection for example. Its a scientifically impossible happening....but they believe it happened.

That's because the resurrection for science is data. Data trumps theores every time. The theory is that people dead 6 days don't resurrect. But the resurrection would falsify that theory. So ... no problem.

Let's take this out of religion for a moment. Not that you are going to listen, but it might help others.

You have a theory that says: "objects not supported against gravity will fall". You have tested this against rocks, sticks, people, animals, etc thousands and millions of times. It always holds. Now you release a helium balloon. What happes? It rises. Do we say this is scientifically impossible? Absolutely NOT! Instead we modify the theory to say "objects not supported against gravity will fall unless they displace more air than they weigh"

Your scientifically impossible is a theory that says "people dead 3 days don't resurrect." TEs have noted that Jesus' resurrection is against that theory and modify it "people dead 3 days don't resurrect unless God resurrects them."

Then they deny the six day creation performed by their Lord and savior Jesus Christ...claiming it was scientifically impossible.

No, it's possible. It's just that it didn't happen. The data in God's Creation show that God didn't create this way.

Sounds like this Theo-evo sect is filtering their bible through mans often inaccurate interpretations of science and not the Word of God.

TEs are listening to God instead of forming a false idol of a man-made interpretation of the Bible. We are letting God tell us how He created instead of telling God how He created.

I admire the chutzpah of creationists in thinking they can tell God what He did. But I don't envy them trying to explain to God how they think they can boss God around.

__________________
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault." Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, 1890

You know, I am not sure where you come up with this stuff, but I understand it is much easier to attack the opponent you create that the one that is really there.

Those who believe that the resurrection happened do not believe that it was impossible for God to create anything in six days, scientifically or otherwise. Only that the evidence shows very clearly that he did not.

What is odd is that you insist that it even required God to take six full 24 days and then recouperate on the seventh. You still have never answered that one.

Really, we have shown over and over that it is the YEC's, who pretend to be literal constructionists, who pick and choose their literalisms and plain readings to fit their preconceived ideas of what the Bible says.

It's funny how lucaspa quotes verses from Job about the creation of Angels as a matter of fact...then denies the other verses that claim Adam was the first man made from the dust the Eve from his side in favor of evolution.

Vance...the undisputed scientific evidence shows that dead guys don't come back to life on day 3