Angels and Theistic Evolution

[AV1611VET]

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"?

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,

It is just what it is --- dust of the ground.

 

[Danyc]

It is just what it is --- dust of the ground.

Why are you quoting Morris if he believes that "dust" doesn't actual mean literal dust?

Or are you simply giving an example? It seemed as if you agreed with him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are you quoting Morris if he believes that "dust" doesn't actual mean literal dust?

Or are you simply giving an example? It seemed as if you agreed with him.

Now I'm beginning to suspect subterfuge --- but I'll bite:

God took the dust of the ground, made the necessary adjustments to it (e.g. filtered out the silicates), and made man.

Let me point out though --- I wasn't there.

 

[Patashu]

Why does God need any intermediate steps?

 

[Cabal]

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.

Well, good to know your MO! Thanks for answering this one. I apologise if my tone was inappropriate in the last couple of posts.

Some talk about the Chinese having 10-foot bodyguards --- again, I don't know.The Royal Guards of the Chinese palaces were supposed to have been 10-feet tall --- I don't know.

Wasn't able to find anything out about them - the only other documented finds of giants were hoaxes afaik. Of course, even if we did find one we'd still have to rule out gigantism etc first, and proving angelic descent would be tricky...

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

Ok, sorry, I wasn't trying to get into a debate about goddidit there - it was a throwaway remark that should have been phrased better....

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.

...as could have the following remark. I was only speaking hypothetically. With human creation, we have some people espousing a literal view of Genesis 1, such as yourself; there are others who don't share this viewpoint, TEs. For right or wrong, we believe what we believe. That aside, the situation is: there's a Biblical account, which TEs believe doesn't fully account for what we observe scientifically if taken literally.

Now, as a hypothetical situation, say the bible in the book of Genesis, chapter OVER 9000, verse 42, gave a timescale of creation of angels as (if taken literally) twelve days with two days off for resting. Now say the scientists of today were finding Nephilim skeletons that indicated they evolved over millions of years, then I imagine the TEs would be questioning the literal interpretation of the angelic creation passages in the Bible as well.

Sorry, this is getting slightly contrived - all I'm trying to say is, TEs aren't just being difficult with Genesis 1 and/or 2 for the sake of it. If the Biblical account of creation and development of angels was the same as humans (which you agree it's not) and even if we had evidence of angelic evolution we were still saying "goddidit" for angels and "we evolved from a common ancestor" for humans, then yes, TEs would be inconsistent. But by contrast as both the Bible and science are comparatively mute on angels, then for a TE, it's generally down to whatever he/she believes. From the POV of this TE: God did it - case closed (but as with all cases it may be reopened upon discovery of fresh evidence ).

 

[Danyc]

Now I'm beginning to suspect subterfuge --- but I'll bite:

God took the dust of the ground, made the necessary adjustments to it (e.g. filtered out the silicates), and made man.

Let me point out though --- I wasn't there.

There was no intention of 'subterfuge'; I'm simply trying to understand what the heck you're talking about.

So what is "dust"? Obviously it's not the dust that collects around my house. So it should be either fine sands or silt. Basically, dirt. Dirt, sands and fine ground do not contain what Morris speaks of, however. Or is "dust" simply a synonym for the basic requirements for life? There's that same question, which bears asking again, if Genesis it literal.

Or I could remind you that God 'filtering out the silicates' is an ad hoc answer.

Either way.

 

[Assyrian]

A BIG !!! difference is that angel does not reproduce but human does.

I agree. As was pointed out early in the thread, post 3, Jesus told us angels don't reproduce so the issue of evolution is irrelevant. I don't really see the point in the OP, but there you go.

So, God creates each and all angels by the same process

We don't actually know that either. The bible does not say how God angels and given that there are different types mentioned, cherubim, seraphim angels, archangels, powers, principalities, we have no reason to think he made them all the same way. For all we know sentimental view could be right and the souls of dead babies are given wings to become little cherubim. I don't think that for a second, I am just saying we have no idea how God made angels.

but God only creates one (two) human.

If you read Genesis literally and believe Adam and Eve refer to the only humans God made. The text does not say that though and Cain seemed to be afraid of other people killing him. Gen 4:14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." Was Cain referring to his mom and dad as 'whoever find me'? Brothers and sister who weren't even born yet? No the text never says Adam and Eve were the only humans and reads as though Cain assumed there were others. But lets not go down that blind alley.

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

There is no smuggling. You either have the claim that God's act of creation excludes natural processes, or God can and does use natural processes to create. The bible does use the word create, bara, to refer to God forming people and nations that came about through normal biological interaction of mother and father.
Isaiah 43:1 But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.
Isaiah 43:15 I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King."
Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon for its purpose. I have also created the ravager to destroy.

If the bible tells us God's acts of creation include working through the normal biological processes I don't see how you can distinguish between natural process God can work though and ones you think he can't.

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.

Actually apart from the 'breath of life' part Genesis 2 describes God creating animals the same way he made man
Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Gen 2:19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens. The difference is the spirit we have been given (whatever spirit is), and being formed in the image of God, though I think the love of a mother hen gathering its chicks under it wings (Matt 23:37) shows something of God's image too. As for the bible excluding the possibility of non human intelligent life, isn't that what angels are?

No I am not going down the road of saying angels are really aliens from other planets, just that if God created an array of intelligent life human and non human, biological life and 'not as we know it', then I don't see any reason in scripture to exclude the possibility of intelligent life on other planets. I'm not particularly expecting them to find it, but the search is fun.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree. As was pointed out early in the thread, post 3, Jesus told us angels don't reproduce so the issue of evolution is irrelevant.

Please show me where Jesus said angels don't reproduce.

 

[edrogati]

Please show me where Jesus said angels don't reproduce.

Please show me where Jesus said that angels *do* reproduce. Please show me anywhere in the Bible where it indicates positively that they do. This argument of a positive result because it never says it didn't happen doesn't fly.

 

[Assyrian]

Please show me where Jesus said angels don't reproduce.

I am sure you know the passage AV
Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please show me where Jesus said that angels *do* reproduce. Please show me anywhere in the Bible where it indicates positively that they do. This argument of a positive result because it never says it didn't happen doesn't fly.

Genesis 6.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am sure you know the passage AV
Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

That's what I thought.

 

[Tiberius]

If Theistic Evolution is correct, where did the angels come from?

On the condition that theistic evolution is correct (which I do not agree with, but I will entertain the idea for this hypothetical), I would say that any form of evolution applies to biological life, such as that found on earth (or any other alien life if such life exists).

Angels, as is my understanding, are not biological beings, and they do not grow as biological beings. They are spiritual beings, and do not come from Earth or any other planet. They come from heaven. I see no reason why evolution should apply to them at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

On the condition that theistic evolution is correct (which I do not agree with, but I will entertain the idea for this hypothetical), I would say that any form of evolution applies to biological life, such as that found on earth (or any other alien life if such life exists).

Angels, as is my understanding, are not biological beings, and they do not grow as biological beings. They are spiritual beings, and do not come from Earth or any other planet. They come from heaven. I see no reason why evolution should apply to them at all.

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

 

[edrogati]

Genesis 6.

Genesis 6 says nothing about angels having intercourse with other angels and having angelic offspring. Sorry.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis 6 says nothing about angels having intercourse with other angels and having angelic offspring. Sorry.

That wasn't your request, though.

Please show me anywhere in the Bible where it indicates positively that they do.

According to Genesis 6, did angels reproduce, or didn't they?

 

[edrogati]

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

Angels are not physical life, that is, biological life. They are spiritual beings which Genesis indicate existed before the creation of the universe. Your attempt to get people to say that living beings did not all evolve is pretty duplicitous.

 

[Tiberius]

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

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

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?

And if you take Gen 6 to refer to angels because it mentions the sons of God, then I have a question...

How do you get baby angels if all you have to produce them are males? Or does Gen 6 mention the daughters of God as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your attempt to get people to say that living beings did not all evolve is pretty duplicitous.

Flattery will get you nowhere ---

 

[Assyrian]

Please show me where Jesus said that angels *do* reproduce. Please show me anywhere in the Bible where it indicates positively that they do. This argument of a positive result because it never says it didn't happen doesn't fly.

Genesis 6.

I am sure you know the passage AV
Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

That's what I thought.

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.

Do you think the Pharisees were Nephilim? John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. Or Elymas? Acts 13:10.