Angels and Theistic Evolution

[Danyc]

The question in my OP is: "Where did the angels come from?" Do you have an answer?

I already gave you an answer to this question 3 times.

They came from God.

God created angels, spiritual beings, one way, and the evidence in God's creation says he created humans, biological beings, another way.

 

[AV1611VET]

I already gave you an answer to this question 3 times.

They came from God.

Where, Dan, where did angels come from --- not Who did they come from.

In my opinion, they came from nowhere --- i.e. ex nihilo.

God created angels, spiritual beings, one way, and the evidence in God's creation says he created humans, biological beings, another way.

So you go by spiritual Documentation to support the angels, and man-made mundane documentation to support humans --- is this correct?

And, no, the evidence in God's creation doesn't say He created humans another way.

If you think that's so, please show me from Genesis One --- the chapter where God detailed what He did, and how He did it.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

And, no, the evidence in God's creation doesn't say He created humans another way.

If you think that's so, please show me from Genesis One, where God detailed what He did.

I'm basing my opinion on the work of God. the product of his hand and no one else's.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

This whole discussion is pointless. as supernatural beings, angels are not invesigable by science. they have no relevence to evolution as they arent subject to it... unless they reproduce.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm basing my opinion on the work of God. the product of his hand and no one else's.

And it just happens to agree with the McGraw-Hill Bible --- is that correct?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I'm basing my opinion on the work of God. the product of his hand and no one else's.

And it just happens to agree with the McGraw-Hill Bible --- is that correct?

At least McGraw-Hill textbooks have an accurate discription of nature, unlike a book that includes four legged insects, still standing suns, and plants that can live without the light and heat of the sun for a full day.

 

[AV1611VET]

This whole discussion is pointless. as supernatural beings, angels are not invesigable by science. they have no relevence to evolution as they arent subject to it... unless they reproduce.

And I'm tired of hearing that this stuff cannot be investigated.

If it can't then don't tell me God didn't do it contrary to His Documentation --- okay?

If you want to even get my attention, then build a machine that can do this ---

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

 

[AV1611VET]

At least McGraw-Hill textbooks have an accurate discription of nature, unlike one that includes four legged insects, still standing suns, and plants that can live without the light and heat of the sun for a full day.

Trying to shift the focus now?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

And I'm tired of hearing that this stuff cannot be investigated.

If it can't then don't tell me God didn't do it contrary to His Documentation --- okay?

If you want to even get my attention, then build a machine that can do this ---
Originally Posted by 2 Kings 6:17

And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
​

i dunno about a machine but there are plenty of substances that can do that quite effectively.

 

[AV1611VET]

i dunno about a machine but there are plenty of substances that can do that quite effectively.

Have a good day ---

 

[consol]

You've got to hand it to AV, he can get people to write drivel for page after page,
well done AV, you drive us all crazy but you are at least consistent.

 

[Danyc]

Where, Dan, where did angels come from --- not Who did they come from.

They came from nowhere, apparently. As we have no evidence to dictate otherwise (they are not of the physical world, thus are not able to be seen by science) we must simply believe them to have come from nothing. There is no problem with this, because I'm guessing that

In my opinion, they came from nowhere --- i.e. ex nihilo.So you go by spiritual Documentation to support the angels, and man-made mundane documentation to support humans --- is this correct?

No, that is not correct. I go by spiritual documentation to support the angels, and I go by physical documentation by God to support humans. In other words, his work around us, his creation, nature.

And, no, the evidence in God's creation doesn't say He created humans another way.

Cytochrome C, Human Chromosome 2, fossil record, vestigial features...All from God's Creation.

If you think that's so, please show me from Genesis One --- the chapter where God detailed what He did, and how He did it.

Genesis One: the chapter where God detailed what he did and how he did it to a world of people who were much less intelligent than ourselves.

You know that the first chapter of the Bible is open to interpretation, AV.

 

[Danyc]

i dunno about a machine but there are plenty of substances that can do that quite effectively.

Hahah, nice one

 

[Assyrian]

Where, Dan, where did angels come from --- not Who did they come from.

In my opinion, they came from nowhere --- i.e. ex nihilo.So you go by spiritual Documentation to support the angels, and man-made mundane documentation to support humans --- is this correct?

Do you have any evidence from God's creation or scripture to support your opinion the angels were created ex nihilo? The bible tells us God created all things, including angels, but I don't know that it says he created them ex nihilo.

And, no, the evidence in God's creation doesn't say He created humans another way.

If you think that's so, please show me from Genesis One --- the chapter where God detailed what He did, and how He did it.

You mean the chapter that tells us that God using the earth, commanding the earth to produce living creatures, is the same as God making them himself?

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures
25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.

It sounds to me like the chapter is saying that divinely ordained natural processes are part of God's work of creation. Quite TE that.

You have to expand you search a bit further, into chapter 2, to see God making man from mud. However Job claimed God made him from clay too Job 10:9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? And Isaiah tells us we are all made of clay the work of God's hand Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. It sounds like the bible is not always being literal when it talks of God as a potter making people from clay. Isaiah was born by natural biological processes, his dad's name was Amoz. There is no contradiction in the bible between being told God made people out of clay, and God actually using the biological processes he him created.

Of course if you do look at chapter 2, you find yourself dealing with an account of creation that gives a completely different order of creation to chapter 1, man created when there were no plants, animals and birds created after man and woman created after that. It doesn't sound like Genesis 1&2 are meant as a literal description of how God created or even an account of the chronological order God created them in.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you have any evidence from God's creation or scripture to support your opinion the angels were created ex nihilo? The bible tells us God created all things, including angels, but I don't know that it says he created them ex nihilo.

You mean the chapter that tells us that God using the earth, commanding the earth to produce living creatures, is the same as God making them himself?

Gen 1:24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures
25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.

It sounds to me like the chapter is saying that divinely ordained natural processes are part of God's work of creation. Quite TE that.

You have to expand you search a bit further, into chapter 2, to see God making man from mud. However Job claimed God made him from clay too Job 10:9 Remember that you have made me like clay; and will you return me to the dust? And Isaiah tells us we are all made of clay the work of God's hand Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand. It sounds like the bible is not always being literal when it talks of God as a potter making people from clay. Isaiah was born by natural biological processes, his dad's name was Amoz. There is no contradiction in the bible between being told God made people out of clay, and God actually using the biological processes he him created.

A BIG !!! difference is that angel does not reproduce but human does. So, God creates each and all angels by the same process, but God only creates one (two) human. [hey, do not smuggle the idea of evolution into this. The "natural" process of human reproduction is NOT evolution]. So, the creation of angel and human are two entirely different processes. There are good reasons for human being originated from clays. But there is no need for angel to be made from any substance of anywhere. Clayey human needs His breath to get the spirit, but just once. There is no need for Him to puff every angel He created.

A side point: I don't think God creates all animals by making bunch of clay models. He might create them via the same process as He creates angel. Then it leaves a critical question: why bother with the special human creation process? As I said, the reason is really wonderful. It implies that SETI will never find intelligent life anywhere in this universe.

 

[Danyc]

As I said, the reason is really wonderful. It implies that SETI will never find intelligent life anywhere in this universe.

If natural processes can cause life to appear on earth, then there is every chance in the universe that there is life elsewhere out there, considering how many chance it is going to have to form, on how many planets are currently in existence/have been in existence. Possibly there is another community of developed creatures elsewhere in the universe like us. The idea is not farfetched, though it is unlikely. I believe single celled organisms to be much more likely.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

[hey, do not smuggle the idea of evolution into this. The "natural" process of human reproduction is NOT evolution]

as long as that reproduction process is imperfect (and it is) and resources are limited (and they always will be) evolution occurs.

 

[Cabal]

AV, care to respond to my post a few pages back?

You can't equate creation of the angels with creation of mankind. Mankind's creation was described in a lot more detail in Genesis. Angels don't get the same treatment. Also, there has yet not been any physical evidence for angels. Nephilim, ok that's a possible example illustrated in the Bible (although that is in the same chapter as the flood, and that's hardly left evidence either...), but has anyone found a skeleton?

Now, that's all well and good, but given that on top of that we have tons of physical evidence suggesting we DIDN'T literally form from dirt and God-breath 6000 years ago. You really can't equate the two types of creation. Now, if there were a angelic creation story similar to Genesis and there was physical evidence that didn't back it up, then you'd maybe be going somewhere with this.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, care to respond to my post a few pages back?

I hope this is it. Usually when I don't respond, it's because I've covered the subject many times before, or I suspect subterfuge. Also, a scientist asking me technical questions when they know I'm technically challenged doesn't set well with me, and I may ignore them, depending on how I feel. You get what you pay for when you ask me questions.

You can't equate creation of the angels with creation of mankind.

Yes, that's true. The angels were created ex nihilo, and man was formed from the dust of the earth --- there's a difference.

Mankind's creation was described in a lot more detail in Genesis.

Correct.

Angels don't get the same treatment.

Correct.

Also, there has yet not been any physical evidence for angels.

Outside of the Bible, I'll agree on this. Unless an angel somewhere carved his initials on a tree.

Nephilim, ok that's a possible example illustrated in the Bible (although that is in the same chapter as the flood, and that's hardly left evidence either...),

Some say Goliath and his brothers were Nephilim --- I don't know. Some talk about the Chinese having 10-foot bodyguards --- again, I don't know.

but has anyone found a skeleton?

The Royal Guards of the Chinese palaces were supposed to have been 10-feet tall --- I don't know.

Now, that's all well and good, but given that on top of that we have tons of physical evidence suggesting we DIDN'T literally form from dirt and God-breath 6000 years ago.

Let me quote the late Dr. Henry M. Morris here, in his footnote to Genesis 2:7 ---

dust of the ground. Man's body was formed out of the "elements of the earth," the same materials (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc.) from which both plants and the bodies of the animals had been formed (Genesis 1:12,24). This unity of physical composition is a fact of modern science long anticipated by Scripture.

You really can't equate the two types of creation.

No question there.

Now, if there were a angelic creation story similar to Genesis and there was physical evidence that didn't back it up, then you'd maybe be going somewhere with this.

I have a feeling you made a Freudan Slip here. "Physical evidence that didn't back it up." I wholeheartedly agree. That's the mindset of atheism today --- as long as there's evidence to the contrary, everything's okay.

 

[Danyc]

Wait a minute, I thought Genesis was literal?

Now we've got "the dust of the earth" meaning something other than "the dust of the earth"?