If you think that the sons of God in Gen 6:2 were angels and wish to wager on it,

[tonychanyt]

I am taking wagers here. This OP is NOT about whether the sons of God in Gen 6:2 were angels. I'm assuming you think they were. This post focuses on wagering on what you believe. If you wish to discuss Gen 6:2, see The SONS of God came in to the daughters of man.

Let proposition P1 = The sons of God in Gen 6:2 were angels having sexual intercourse with human females.

P2 = The sons of God in Gen 6:2 were not angelic beings.

Between 0 and 10, how much weight do you put on each of the above propositions? The stronger your belief in a proposition, the higher the weight. Your weighting scheme will determine the betting odds.

This is not a lotto or gambling bet. It is a wager to mathematically and scientifically measure the strength of your belief. Put money where your mouth is. If you are interested in mathematically finding out the strength of your belief, then tell me those two weights. See Subjective (Bayesian) Probability.

You can say that the earth is flat, it does not mean much until you are willing to bet on it.

 

[Postvieww]

I am taking wagers here. This OP is NOT about whether the sons of God in Gen 6:2 were angels. I'm assuming you think they were. This post focuses on wagering on what you believe.

Let proposition P1 = The sons of God in Gen 6:2 were angels having sexual intercourse with human females.

P2 = The sons of God in Gen 6:2 were not angelic beings.

Between 0 and 10, how much weight do you put on each of the above propositions? The stronger your belief in a proposition, the higher the weight. Your weighting scheme will determine the betting odds.

What is the purpose of a wager?

 

[tonychanyt]

What is the purpose of a wager?

Good question.

This is not a lotto or gambling bet. It is a wager to mathematically and scientifically measure the strength of your belief. Put money where your mouth is. If you are interested in mathematically finding out the strength of your belief, then tell me those two weights. See Subjective (Bayesian) Probability.

 

[Postvieww]

Good question.

This is not a lotto or gambling bet. It is a wager to mathematically and scientifically measure the strength of your belief. Put money where your mouth is. If you are interested in mathematically finding out the strength of your belief, then tell me those two weights. See Subjective (Bayesian) Probability.

I don't base any of my beliefs on mathematical probabilities. Only on comparing scripture with scripture.


2 Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[tonychanyt]

I don't base any of my beliefs on mathematical probabilities. Only on comparing scripture with scripture.

Can you quote my words where I have asserted that I based my beliefs on probabilities?

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

Not to wager, or gamble at all, but I would go 10 on P1.

 

[tonychanyt]

Not to wager, or gamble at all, but I would go 10 on P1.

This is not a lotto or gambling bet. It is a wager to mathematically and scientifically measure the strength of your belief. Put money where your mouth is. If you are interested in mathematically finding out the strength of your belief, then tell me those two weights. See Subjective (Bayesian) Probability.

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

This is not a lotto or gambling bet. It is a wager to mathematically and scientifically measure the strength of your belief. Put money where your mouth is. If you are interested in mathematically finding out the strength of your belief, then tell me those two weights. See Subjective (Bayesian) Probability.

I've already presented the evidence for on the other thread. Psalm 82 was a good one I had not even considered until recently. Also, every ancient indigenous culture knows of the Watchers in one form or another coming down: even among Native Americans, and they drew this stuff on their cave walls.
I might also be a bit biased since I've had direct interaction with such beings...NOT the mating part!

 

[Postvieww]

Can you quote my words where I have asserted that I based my beliefs on probabilities?

I didn’t say anything about your beliefs. You said to put my money where my mouth is on my beliefs. I have done that with scripture. Can you do the same.

 

[tonychanyt]

I've already presented the evidence for on the other thread.

Please read the OP of this thread. I prefer to interact with people who are able to stick to the point of the OP.

 

[tonychanyt]

Can you do the same.

Please read the OP of this thread and stick to the point of this OP. I prefer to interact with people who are able to.

 

[Postvieww]

Please read the OP of this thread and stick to the point of this OP. I prefer to interact with people who are able to.

Ok lets play. 10 on P1 0 on P2

 

[AlexB23]

I am taking wagers here. This OP is NOT about whether the sons of God in Gen 6:2 were angels. I'm assuming you think they were. This post focuses on wagering on what you believe. If you wish to discuss Gen 6:2, see The SONS of God came in to the daughters of man.

Let proposition P1 = The sons of God in Gen 6:2 were angels having sexual intercourse with human females.

P2 = The sons of God in Gen 6:2 were not angelic beings.

Between 0 and 10, how much weight do you put on each of the above propositions? The stronger your belief in a proposition, the higher the weight. Your weighting scheme will determine the betting odds.

This is not a lotto or gambling bet. It is a wager to mathematically and scientifically measure the strength of your belief. Put money where your mouth is. If you are interested in mathematically finding out the strength of your belief, then tell me those two weights. See Subjective (Bayesian) Probability.

You can say that the earth is flat, it does not mean much until you are willing to bet on it.

I understand the concept of assigning weights to beliefs based on their strength, but this is a theological question with multiple interpretations. The Bible does not explicitly state whether the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 were angels or not, and various religious traditions have different interpretations.


Personally, I find the interpretation that the "sons of God" were angels to be compelling, based on certain biblical and historical contextual evidence. Some Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Athenagoras, and Clement of Alexandria held this position. However, I also acknowledge that there is room for legitimate disagreement among scholars and theologians.

With that said, based on a quick glance of the internet, I would assign a weight of 8 to proposition P1* (the sons of God were angels). This is because I strongly believe in this interpretation based on certain biblical and historical evidence, but I also recognize that there are valid alternative interpretations.

As for proposition P2 (the sons of God were not angelic beings), I would assign a weight of 2, as there is limited evidence to support this in the Bible.

Again, it's essential to remember that these weights reflect my personal beliefs based on my research and study. Other scholars and theologians may hold different views with valid reasoning, and that's perfectly okay.

Regarding your invitation to put money where my mouth is, I would prefer not to engage in monetary wagers as this is a matter of faith and interpretation rather than an objective mathematical or scientific question.

*Disclaimer: Critics of Proposition P1 point out that angels lack physical bodies capable of engaging in sexual acts, making the prospect unlikely according to traditional teachings about angels. They argue that the Bible portrays angels as spiritual entities without biological functions.

 

[tonychanyt]

As for proposition P2 (the sons of God were not angelic beings), I would assign a weight of 2, as there is limited evidence to support this in the Bible.

With that said, based on a quick glance of the internet, I would assign a weight of 8 to proposition P1

These are reasonable odds. I would not bet against you

 

[AlexB23]

These are reasonable odds. I would not bet against you

Thank you, brother. You bet the answer* is 42? In all seriousness, how would you weigh the propositions in your OP?

*Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy book reference.

 

[Paul4JC]

p1= 10

 

[tonychanyt]

how would you weigh the propositions in your OP?

I allow for a wide margin of error on this one. There is substantial uncertainty.

P1: 4.5 ± 4
P2: 5.5 ± 4

 

[AlexB23]

I allow for a wide margin of error on this one. There is substantial uncertainty.

P1: 4.5 ± 4
P2: 5.5 ± 4

So, you think more in the middle, slightly towards the fact that these people in Genesis 6:2 were probably not angels?

 

[Kokavkrystallos]

*Disclaimer: Critics of Proposition P1 point out that angels lack physical bodies capable of engaging in sexual acts, making the prospect unlikely according to traditional teachings about angels. They argue that the Bible portrays angels as spiritual entities without biological functions.

To address the disclaimer, we would have to look at Genesis 19: (Pay attention to bold italics)

vs 1 - And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground

vs 3 - And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

vs 10 - But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

vs 11 - And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

vs 13 - For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.

vs 16 - And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the Lord being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.

Here we have obvious angels, (who are also called men in scripture once it's been revealed they are angels), they performed a number of PHYSICAL ACTS, such as eating, pulling Lot, shutting the door, and grabbing Lot and his family to bring them out. These are no spirits: they have physically manifest.
But we also see their obvious power in that they not only strike the men of Sodom with blindness, but they also confess they will destroy Sodom.

 

[tonychanyt]

So, you think more in the middle, slightly towards the fact that these people in Genesis 6:2 were probably not angels?

Right.