Angels and Theistic Evolution

[AV1611VET]

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.

That's quite a trick, if the sons of God are those representative of the godly line of Seth, how they would have been present before the earth came into existence.

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

 

[Danyc]

That's quite a trick, if the sons of God are those representative of the godly line of Seth, how they would have been present before the earth came into existence.

Technically every male being that has ever lived is a Son of God; seeing as they were created by God and he is called the Father.

 

[AV1611VET]

Technically every male being that has ever lived is a Son of God; seeing as they were created by God and he is called the Father.

Um ... no.

 

[mpok1519]

youre not a child of God?

You'e not one of God's children, AV?

This is a new development.....I assumed AV thought we were all children from the same God.....unless, God didn't make alll of us.....

AV again, your logic confounds and confuses me.

 

[Danyc]

Um ... no.

Um ... yes.

God created everything. The fact that he created everything is what makes him the Father. Otherwise he would just be some random supernatural entity.

God is the creator, the created is the son.

Technically, every male being is a Son of God, as they were created by the Father. Ergo, they are the sons.

 

[Cabal]

Um ... yes.

God created everything. The fact that he created everything is what makes him the Father. Otherwise he would just be some random supernatural entity.

God is the creator, the created is the son.

Technically, every male being is a Son of God, as they were created by the Father. Ergo, they are the sons.

In the genealogies of Jesus, Adam is called the Son of God. So, by extension....

Also, AV, please respond to my previous post. I promise there's no subterfuge in there.

 

[juvenissun]

And James and John?

Originally Posted by Mark 3:17
And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

Well, you can always see things the other way around.

Instead of saying the "sons" are metaphor, you may start to wonder what is the real nature of the "thunder".

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you can always see things the other way around.

Instead of saying the "sons" are metaphor, you may start to wonder what is the real nature of the "thunder".

Assyrian has played that sons-of-god-vs-sons-of-devil card before.

We are made the children of God by adoption, something the devil cannot do.

Thus one is literal, and the other figurative. Knowing the difference is what constitutes Biblical maturity.

He's baiting me, like most others here do, to say that a certain passage of Scripture is metaphorical, then I'm gonna get a cheap shot about how I don't interpret the whole Bible literally.

 

[Assyrian]

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).

I have to agree with you there, I ignore most of the YouTube links and the one ones I click on don't work half the time. That said Mallon had a really cute hippo video over on OT recently.

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?

Yeah I recognised it. But if you have a half dozen different interpetations, they can't all be right. There are at most one or two babies in the bath and a lot of pooey water I would not use to make a cup of tea. So why hang on to the only one interpetation that runs you straight into problems with what Jesus himself teaches us about angels, especially when the doctrine you are hanging onto comes from such a hard to interpet passsage and has no support in any other passage in scripture?

 

[Assyrian]

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.

Don't mistake something being a metaphor for it not being real. The bible uses metaphor to describe things which are very real but beyond our normal experience. Even the word spirit or spiritual is a metaphor it comes from the words for breath or wind in Greek hebrew and even in the roots of our English. Will the wedding feast of the lamb be real? Of course, but the church will not literally become a woman getting married to a sheep.

I have no problem with your interpretation though, but look where it takes you. The children of the bene elohim are not their biological children but spiritual chilren. The children themselves were born by normal biology, the effect of the sons of God was real too, but spiritual. It leaves us with no suggestion angels themselves reproduce biolgically and they did not reproduce biologically with the daughters of men.

 

[Danyc]

He's baiting me, like most others here do, to say that a certain passage of Scripture is metaphorical, then I'm gonna get a cheap shot about how I don't interpret the whole Bible literally.

You can't really complain about someone baiting you in a thread you started to bait those who support evilution.

How is what Assyrian is doing any different from what you are doing in this OP (actually in most of the arguments you try to make)? You are trying to make us say that not all life evolved, then make a cheap shot at evolution.

Unlike the above argument, Assyrian's actually has merit. Whether or not it's a "cheap shot", it is obvious that God uses metaphors. As such, Genesis could possibly be metaphorical. And to say the Bible is literal is no argument against this, as we see right here that it is indeed not always literal.

 

[mpok1519]

the real nature of thunder?

uh.....sound waves.

 

[juvenissun]

the real nature of thunder?

uh.....sound waves.

Wrong. That is one of the effect.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't mistake something being a metaphor for it not being real. The bible uses metaphor to describe things which are very real but beyond our normal experience. Even the word spirit or spiritual is a metaphor it comes from the words for breath or wind in Greek hebrew and even in the roots of our English. Will the wedding feast of the lamb be real? Of course, but the church will not literally become a woman getting married to a sheep.

I have no problem with your interpretation though, but look where it takes you. The children of the bene elohim are not their biological children but spiritual chilren. The children themselves were born by normal biology, the effect of the sons of God was real too, but spiritual. It leaves us with no suggestion angels themselves reproduce biolgically and they did not reproduce biologically with the daughters of men.

Yes, I know. You are good in language and literature. And you should know that human vocabulary is way short to describe anything related to God. We have to borrow words for limited situations. That is where all the problems lie.

 

[Danyc]

Wrong. That is one of the effect.

Wrong. Thunder is the effect.

Thunder is the sound made by lightning when the air rapidly expands surrounding and within a bolt of lightning; this expansion creates a shock wave, and it is this shock wave you hear.

Thunder is nothing more than sound waves.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Wrong. Thunder is the effect.

Thunder is the sound made by lightning when the air rapidly expands surrounding and within a bolt of lightning; this expansion creates a shock wave, and it is this shock wave you hear.

Thunder is nothing more than sound waves.

Specifically, it's the sonic boom caused by that rapid expansion.

 

[Danyc]

Specifically, it's the sonic boom caused by that rapid expansion.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, I know. You are good in language and literature. And you should know that human vocabulary is way short to describe anything related to God. We have to borrow words for limited situations. That is where all the problems lie.

And yet people still mistakenly believe the Bible to be "the word of God," despite the obvious limited nature of human speech.

 

[juvenissun]

And yet people still mistakenly believe the Bible to be "the word of God," despite the obvious limited nature of human speech.

Well, you have to study the Book first, before you can make such an ignorant comment.

 

[juvenissun]

Wrong. Thunder is the effect.

Thunder is the sound made by lightning when the air rapidly expands surrounding and within a bolt of lightning; this expansion creates a shock wave, and it is this shock wave you hear.

Thunder is nothing more than sound waves.

Hey, not bad. You are right this time.

But, this effect is related to the cause. So the name: son of thunder is not only the son of sound wave, but son of "lightening".