Evolution of Angels

[lucaspa]

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??
.

It's a repeat. Look at Genesis 1:6-7 "Then God said, "Let there be a firmament to separate the waters" and it was done. So God made a firmament "

In Genesis 1:11-12 we have the same repeat: Let the earth bring forth ... and it was done. So the earth brought forth"

All thru Genesis 1 we are getting repeats of what has just been created. (BTW, this is a sure sign you are dealing with a song.) So Genesis 1:14-16 fits right in with that. Stars are stars. In Job and elsewhere the beings are "ben Elohim". That isn't what is stated in the Hebrew in Genesis 1:16.

It's an imaginative interpretation, but it doesn't work.

Besides, Job 38:7 says the "ben Elohim" was with God from the beginning of creation, while your interpretation would put them in Day 4.

The first time we get "ben Elohim" is Genesis 6 where they just are there. No mention of creation. It's like they have always been there.

 

[lucaspa]

In Genesis the word we translate as "star" is kowkab in the transliteration.

There are 5 Hebrew words translated as "angel(s"
1. Elohiym
2. malak
3. malak (Aramaic)
4. 'abbiyr
5. shin'an

The one in Job is elohiym. Sorry, but not the same words at all in Hebrew. You can get confused in the English translation, but not the original Hebrew.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

If ya say so.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

lol I am still not seeing how you say that "Job 38:7 says the "ben Elohim" was with God from the beginning of creation"

Mine says foundations... KJV and NASB

I don't even see angels mentioned at all in these scriptures, mind helping me prove your point here, cause you are really leaving me in the dark.

 

[wblastyn]

lol I am still not seeing how you say that "Job 38:7 says the "ben Elohim" was with God from the beginning of creation"

Mine says foundations... KJV and NASB

I don't even see angels mentioned at all in these scriptures, mind helping me prove your point here, cause you are really leaving me in the dark.

Well at the beginning of building something you usually start with the foundations.

 

[pudmuddle]

Angels being present at creation does not mean they were not created beings.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Angels being present at creation does not mean they were not created beings.

I agree. Besides, even if the author of Job thought they were eternally present beings doesn't mean that they were. And that about the "divine we" - we don't know the sources Moses used. His source for that passage might have used the "divine we". I don't care what the ancient Jewish tradition is. I believe in a progression of revelation - the older the texts/traditions, the less likely to be accurate on all counts.

I believe that God created angels as spiritual beings and as such had no need to have them evolve into any other state. Although I wouldn't doubt it if eventually we found out that "spiritual" reality is simply another dimension of our physical reality, and that God is simply holding our hand through our foggy understanding as it is.

 

[lucaspa]

lol I am still not seeing how you say that "Job 38:7 says the "ben Elohim" was with God from the beginning of creation"

Mine says foundations... KJV and NASB

I don't even see angels mentioned at all in these scriptures, mind helping me prove your point here, cause you are really leaving me in the dark.

Here is the NIV translation:
"Job 38
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels [1] shouted for joy?


Footnotes

1. 38:7 Hebrew the sons of God " http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Job+38%3A7&version=NIV

The KJV and NASB use the literal translation of "ben Elohim"

Now, to put this in a bit of context, let's take Job 38:4-8
"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
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?
Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb? "

See? verse 7 is a clause modifying what happened at the beginning of creation -- "when I laid the foundations of the earth". The "ben Elohim" were singing then. So, they must have been in existence then.

Now, part of the discussion is whether "ben Elohim" is angel. Ark Guy says so. So, I am testing his claims and the implications thereof.

A separate issue is arguing the existence of angels.

Remember the claims! Always remember the claims! It is the claims that are being tested, so if you lose track of the claims, then you end up discussing a different claim.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally Posted By: pudmuddle

Angels being present at creation does not mean they were not created beings.

I agree. Besides, even if the author of Job thought they were eternally present beings doesn't mean that they were. And that about the "divine we" - we don't know the sources Moses used. His source for that passage might have used the "divine we". I don't care what the ancient Jewish tradition is. I believe in a progression of revelation - the older the texts/traditions, the less likely to be accurate on all counts.

Both of you are taking the Bible as fallible. Pudmuddle, because it doesn't tell us everything it should. Didaskomenos, because you think the authors were fallible.

However, remember Ark Guy's claims!!

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)

Job 38:7 is not data that angels were created. Quite the opposite. They are present at the beginning of creation.

Nowhere in the Bible do we get a clear statement that angels are created beings.

Both of you are saying they are because, if they are not, then there are theological problems.

Well, you know what? Angels are either created or not irrelevant if that causes us theological problems! Too bad for us if it causes the problems. Change the theology.

I believe that God created angels as spiritual beings and as such had no need to have them evolve into any other state.

Which is the other fallacy of Ark Guy's arguments. Simply because humans evolved does not mean angels have to have evolved. Or, just because angels were specially created does not mean that humans were specially created. Both are non-sequitors -- does not follow.

I agree with you, Didaskomenos, that the text may be inaccuate about angels -- both whether they exist and when they appear. But that is another, and separate, discussion. In this thread I was dealing with the claims in the OP.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Nowhere in the Bible do we get a clear statement that angels are created beings.

Both of you are saying they are because, if they are not, then there are theological problems.

Well, you know what? Angels are either created or not irrelevant if that causes us theological problems! Too bad for us if it causes the problems. Change the theology.

The unmistakable view of the biblical writers is that God is the creator of everything there is. For instance,

John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.”

Colossians 1:16 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.”

Based on Scriptural passages, no theology needs reforming to maintain that God created angels.

I understand we're probably on the same page about our beliefs concerning this stuff, but I just don't think that particular line of counter-reasoning works here.

 

[nephilimiyr]

This topic is pretty much right up my alley!

Ark Guy, could you please interpret these verses for me?

Jeremiah 4:23-28, I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fiece anger.
For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
For this shall the earth mourn and the heavens above be made black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither shall I turn back from it.

This might be a bombshell I'm leaveing at your doorstep here.
For, in describing the devastation of Judah and Jerusalem, I see Jeremiah likening it to a preadamite destruction. This is how I interpret the meaning of this passage, what say you?

 

[water_ripple]

Plants and humans are not related. They have no ancestrial history, yet they exist on the same planet. Perhaps this could lead to a parallel that both coming "out of the dust" may be different spieces but still created by God?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Plants and humans are not related.

Except they are. They are both eukaryotic organisms, Their common ancestor would probably have been an organism not unlike the modern Euglena, which is motile like an animal but photosynthesises.

 

[lucaspa]

The unmistakable view of the biblical writers is that God is the creator of everything there is. For instance,

John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.”

Colossians 1:16 “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.”

Based on Scriptural passages, no theology needs reforming to maintain that God created angels.

I understand we're probably on the same page about our beliefs concerning this stuff, but I just don't think that particular line of counter-reasoning works here.

The theology would need reforming if angels were not created. You are still doing what I claimed: denying that angels were not created because of the theological problems it creates. If angels are not created, then there is a modification of monotheism because you have a whole group of immortal beings that God did not create.

It was the theological problems that caused the Book of Enoch to be removed from the canon. Get rid of inconvenient data! Talk to Nephilimyr about passages in the Book of Enoch that have angels as non-created beings. Or see the thread "Sciencism"

However, you are at least trying to find passages about what was created that are broad enough that they might cover angels. It is an admission that the text does not have a specific passage about angels being created.
That is the theory/theology stated by John and Paul. However, the passages in the OT indicate another theology in ancient Israel that have angels coexisting with God at the beginning. Which theory is an accurate reflection of reality?

Now, the John passage is ambiguous in that "not anything made that was made". That could be an escape clause for angels. This just says that everything that was made, was made by God. But if angels weren't made, then they are outside this statement.

Collosians is also somewhat vague in the dependent clause. Notice that it is not referring to any natural entities, but political entities made by humans.

Neither specifically mentions angels.

It looks to me like there was a religious tradition in ancient Israel that did have immortal beings separate from God but not made by God. One reason may be that they couldn't imagine a King not having subjects. So, since God was King long before He created the heavens and the earth, they gave him subjects.

My personal opinion is that angels are not a necessary part of Christianity. They go against strict monotheism and make trouble for it. However, you also have the accounts of encounters with "messengers" from God. The visitors to Lot, the being that came to Mary, the being with Daniel, etc. Who or what are they? I don't know. Insufficient data. Could they be God in different guises? Possibly. Any hypothesis about them as independent entities leads to contradictions with other parts of theology. For instance, if "ben Elohim" are really angels, then in Genesis 5 we have the problem of them lusting after and mating with human women.

 

[water_ripple]

Except they are. They are both eukaryotic organisms, Their common ancestor would probably have been an organism not unlike the modern Euglena, which is motile like an animal but photosynthesises.

Have any proof for this? Any links?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Have any proof for this? Any links?

Proof? Science doesn't do proof.

Evidence? Lots.

I don't have figures for humans directly, but that's OK, because our cytochrome c is virtually identical to that of the horse or dog. But look at the table here of cytochrome c differences: http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/descent/denton.jpg

Now, if the sunflower and I share a common ancestor, and that common ancestor itself derived from a common ancestor with current bacteria, then the following holds:

Human cyctochrom C should differ from a bacterium's the same amount as a sunflower's does: Horse 64, Sunflower 67 - check.

Since the common ancestor of plants and animals is more recent than the common ancestor between plants/animals and bacteria, the cytochrome c of horses and sunflowers should be more similar than either of them is to the bacterium (i.e. less than 65): 41 - check.

(Incidently, you can continue to use just this sort of analysis further up, where it continues to bear out evolutionary predictions).

Other evidence of common ancestry would include the identical genetic code (it is not identical to that in many bacteria, which are a more distantly related group), the presence of the same organelles in our cells, the identical meiosis and mitosis divisions of the cells and the identical biochemistry. Actually, plants are the clever ones here because they have features we don't - cellulose cell walls, and the plant "killer app" - photosynthesis. But I digress.

 

[water_ripple]

Proof? Science doesn't do proof.

Evidence? Lots.

I don't have figures for humans directly, but that's OK, because our cytochrome c is virtually identical to that of the horse or dog. But look at the table here of cytochrome c differences: http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/descent/denton.jpg

Now, if the sunflower and I share a common ancestor, and that common ancestor itself derived from a common ancestor with current bacteria, then the following holds:

Human cyctochrom C should differ from a bacterium's the same amount as a sunflower's does: Horse 64, Sunflower 67 - check.

Since the common ancestor of plants and animals is more recent than the common ancestor between plants/animals and bacteria, the cytochrome c of horses and sunflowers should be more similar than either of them is to the bacterium (i.e. less than 65): 41 - check.

(Incidently, you can continue to use just this sort of analysis further up, where it continues to bear out evolutionary predictions).

Other evidence of common ancestry would include the identical genetic code (it is not identical to that in many bacteria, which are a more distantly related group), the presence of the same organelles in our cells, the identical meiosis and mitosis divisions of the cells and the identical biochemistry. Actually, plants are the clever ones here because they have features we don't - cellulose cell walls, and the plant "killer app" - photosynthesis. But I digress.

Well presented. Thank-you =).

Seeing as though the only thing we have to compare here are the things of this earth; this presents a plausable situation.

All things of this earth are in some way connected. Humans even have minerals in their bodies that are connected to the earth. (Am I correct?)
This facsinates me. I see it as a way of God showing us that everything on the earth are somehow connected. Even the plants who are "beneath" us are connected to us. We are somewhat made of the same stuff even though we are a different species.

Seeing the view that man is just a level "beneath" the angels, and given the evidence that even though things of the earth are different species they are still connected...could it be possible that angels may be different from humans but still connected in the sense that we are the level just "beneath" them?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Well presented. Thank-you =).

Seeing as though the only thing we have to compare here are the things of this earth; this presents a plausable situation.

All things of this earth are in some way connected. Humans even have minerals in their bodies that are connected to the earth. (Am I correct?)

Completely. There is no element in our bodies that is not present in inorganic matter.

This facsinates me. I see it as a way of God showing us that everything on the earth are somehow connected. Even the plants who are "beneath" us are connected to us. We are somewhat made of the same stuff even though we are a different species.

That's a perfectly reasonable theological gloss. Perhaps it's one reason God used evolution to create species.

Seeing the view that man is just a level "beneath" the angels, and given the evidence that even though things of the earth are different species they are still connected...could it be possible that angels may be different from humans but still connected in the sense that we are the level just "beneath" them?

Inasmuch as we share some element of our spiritual nature? It's possible, but I don't think so. It seems to me that an angel is a spiritual being that may be capable of some kind of material manifestation, whereas we are a physical being whose complexity gives rise to a spiritual nature.

 

[lucaspa]

Water_ripple,

If you read Denton you will find that he has an erroneous interpretation of the data. Karl's is right, because Karl views all organisms as what they are: contemporary evolutionary cousins. Denton makes the mistake of viewing modern bacteria as our ancestors. Yes, modern bacteria and humans share a common ancestor that was a bacteria, but modern bacteria are not that bacteria. They too have a 3 billion year evolutionary history from that ancient bacteria.

I just wanted to point that out in case you see the different viewpoint, so it won't confuse you.

 

[Ark Guy]

This topic is pretty much right up my alley!

Ark Guy, could you please interpret these verses for me?

Jeremiah 4:23-28, I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fiece anger.
For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
For this shall the earth mourn and the heavens above be made black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither shall I turn back from it.

This might be a bombshell I'm leaveing at your doorstep here.
For, in describing the devastation of Judah and Jerusalem, I see Jeremiah likening it to a preadamite destruction. This is how I interpret the meaning of this passage, what say you?

Jer 4:23.....many scholars feel thart Jeremiah was appalled by the extent of the coming judgement. So devastating will it be that it is compared to the original state of the world...formless and void.