Evolution of Angels

[Ark Guy]

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?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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

 

[lucaspa]

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.

 

[Vance]

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

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.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

 

[Vance]

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.

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

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.

 

[Ark Guy]

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

 

[Ark Guy]

vance:
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

I already replied to this topic. In my reply I presented a discussion on the meaning of rest...perhaps you missed it?

 

[pudmuddle]

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.

Uh, lucaspa,
Usually your aguments make a little more sense than this. If angels had no beginning, that makes them, what? Individual little gods? God had to create them. God is the only one who has existed forever.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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

Science does not deal with divine intervention.

 

[lucaspa]

Uh, lucaspa,
Usually your aguments make a little more sense than this. If angels had no beginning, that makes them, what? Individual little gods? God had to create them. God is the only one who has existed forever.

Ah, but that is the problem with angels, isn't it? One of the theological problems with angels is exactly the one you are proposing here. The verse in Job indicates the the "ben Elohim" were present at creation. Genesis 3:25 has God using the "be like us and live forever." Who's the "us"? Is God using the royal "we"? He doesn't anywhere else. So, we have no beginning for angels. Here, you are letting theory dictate data. I suppose you are one of those who use theory to dictate data and say the resurrection is impossible?

If you go to the Sciencism thread and look at my dicussion with Neph, you will see my theological problems and hypotheses regarding "angels". It looks to me like one tradition within Israel did have the 'ben Elohim" existing forever and being what you imply: individual little divine beings. Which is why the book of Enoch was tossed out of the canon and rejected as being genuine.

 

[lucaspa]

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

Hmm. Ignored my arguments about that, didn't you? What's the matter? They show that this is wrong?

They do show this is wrong. What the data show is that the theory that dead guys don't come back to life on day 3 is supported. However, the resurrection is data that the theory is wrong! Data trumps theory.

Of course, you wouldn't understand this, because for you theory -- a 6 day creation -- is supposed to trump data. But this is the problem that this attitude gets you into. Now you also have to deny the resurrection.

Now, the resurrection is critical for Christianity. A 6 day creation is not. An understanding of science lets you keep Christianity. Your misunderstanding of science leads to the inevitable falsification of Christianity.

With "friends" like you, Christianity doesn't need any enemies.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

Ark Guy, you just don't get the hypothetico-deductive method, do you?

You started off this thread with "The bible presents angels as very human like. In Hebrews 13:2 we read the following:"


So, you are using the Bible as data to formulate hypotheses concerning angels. According to your hypothesis, angels exist.

Also, you use the Bible as data for this hypothesis:
"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)"


So, since you stated the Bible was data on this point, then I can test your hypotheses against "data": the Bible.

When we look at Job 38:7 and thru the rest of the Bible, we see that angels are not created. They exist at the beginning of creation, just like God. So, your hypothesis that angels are created is refuted by data (the Bible) that you acknowledge as valid.

So, for the purposes of testing your hypothesis, I use data that you accept as data. Do you understand?

Now, look where you said "humans were made on day six". That is from Genesis 1:26 and 27. But that contradicts "Adam was the first man made from the dust the Eve from his side". In Genesis 1:26 humans -- plural and both men and women together -- are made from God speaking and not from dust. Nor are women made from a rib.

That's one reason I don't take those verses literally.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

How does Job 38:7 say that angels "exist at the beginning of creation, just like God."

I completly disagree.

Angels are refered to as "stars" in Gen.

In Gen 1:14
You see that that God creates the day and night and creates lights for signs and seasons and days and years... stars, literal stars.

However, in verse 16, It says that God made the stars also... I thought the stars were already made??

These "stars" are angels
Hmm could be a mix up context, right?
Check Isaiah 14:12
Here satan is refered to as a star... Coincedence? Maybe...
But wait.. theres another verse
Rev 1:20
As for the mystery of the seven stars... ... The seven stars are angels of the seven churches.

Here we see stars to be even interpereted to be angels.

God made angels on the 4th day.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

How does Job 38:7 say that angels "exist at the beginning of creation, just like God."

I completly disagree.

Angels are refered to as "stars" in Gen.

In Gen 1:14
You see that that God creates the day and night and creates lights for signs and seasons and days and years... stars, literal stars.

However, in verse 16, It says that God made the stars also... I thought the stars were already made??

These "stars" are angels
Hmm could be a mix up context, right?
Check Isaiah 14:12
Here satan is refered to as a star... Coincedence? Maybe...
But wait.. theres another verse
Rev 1:20
As for the mystery of the seven stars... ... The seven stars are angels of the seven churches.

Here we see stars to be even interpereted to be angels.

God made angels on the 4th day.

Context, grasshopper. God has just made sun and moon, lights in the sky (corresponds with making light on the first day). Then He makes the stars. Pretty clear we're talking about the little points of light in the sky if you ask me. Sure angels can be referred to as stars sometimes, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Additionally, if this refers to God making angels, when did He make the literal stars?

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

Thanks for reading my whole post... i told you.

"In Gen 1:14
You see that that God creates the day and night and creates lights for signs and seasons and days and years... stars, literal stars."

There ya go.

 

[Vance]

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

Are you really not getting it?

Science tells me that a man can not be raised from the dead without divine intervention. I believe this statement to be true. The evidence I experience (the eyewitness accounts in the Scripture, my personal relationship with the risen saviour) tells me very clearly that there *was* such a divine intervention, and so I believe that there was a resurrection. Nothing in science disproves God's miraculous works.

Science tells me that the universe can not be created in six days without divine intervention. I believe this statement to be true. If the evidence from Scripture and God's Creation told me clearly (or even not so clearly) that the Universe was created in six days, I would believe that there was such a divine intervention. Nothing in science would disprove the miraculous.

BUT, the evidence of God's Creation tells me very clearly that it was NOT created in six days, and the evidence of the Scripture is equivocal on the point, at best. This has nothing to do with a disbelief in the miraculous, or a preference for scientific evidence over Scriptural evidence.

As for the "day of rest", all I remember is some later references discussing keeping the seventh day holy, etc, which does not explain why God would literally have to rest. The fact that we are told that *because* God rested on the seventh day, and made it holy and set it aside, does not explain *why* God would have to rest. If you want to read that as symbolic, and not actually meaning that God required rest, then fine, I agree. But you are NOT taking the plain, literal meaning then.

Now, if you provided another explanation, I must have missed it and I apologize and would request that you post a summary of it again here.