Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Of Angels?


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#21 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 28 June 2007 - 04:56 PM

Might i suggest that some people need more than just "scripture" on which to base their faith? How can you tell that such scripture is accurate in the first place?

Lord F

View Post



Prophecy my evo friend, prophecy.

#22 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 28 June 2007 - 04:59 PM

Was the original word YOM?

I believe the use of the word day here is like saying "in the DAY of Henry Ford, the automobile revolution started".

View Post


Spot on!

#23 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 28 June 2007 - 05:05 PM

Which is completely difffernt from the way day is used in the opening verses of Genesis....Especially when you consider the words evening and morning are used...which pretty much sums it up as we we typically calla day.

#24 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 29 June 2007 - 07:33 AM

They aren't physical as this passage describes, but are able to take that form.
"Man was created in the image of God" certainly didn't mean in a physical sense.

View Post


That passage does not discount angels' physical quality, nor confirm it. It does place them in a different "plane of existence" (lacking of a better term). If our being able to see something with the "naked eye" is required for it to exist then there are many things which end their "physical existence" today; air, gravity, heat are some biggies. And of course the unseen molecular and smaller.

If evolution is the answer to our existence, it must be the standard for all. Then the god of theistic evolution, is no god. Only a currently superior form of life holding temporary control over us, and therefore a liar.

The God of the Bible is no liar.

Larry

#25 Zedekiah Dacorath

Zedekiah Dacorath

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Age: 17
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Colorado

Posted 29 June 2007 - 08:28 AM

That passage does not discount angels' physical quality, nor confirm it. It does place them in a different "plane of existence" (lacking of a better term). If our being able to see something with the "naked eye" is required for it to exist then there are many things which end their "physical existence" today; air, gravity, heat are some biggies. And of course the unseen molecular and smaller.

Angels aren't physical beings.

If evolution is the answer to our existence, it must be the standard for all.

View Post

You see no difference between the supernatural and the natural? If 'A' evolved, then 'B' evolved. There's no substance to that.

Then the god of theistic evolution, is no god. Only a currently superior form of life holding temporary control over us, and therefore a liar.

View Post

I'd like you to explain that one again and fill in the blanks, it was a major leap. Unless you're trying to claim, if 'A' evolved, 'B' evolved. 'B' being God, see above.

The God of the Bible is no liar.

View Post

You're right. That's a good reason to accept reality.

#26 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 29 June 2007 - 09:27 AM

I'd like you to explain that one again and fill in the blanks, it was a major leap.  Unless you're trying to claim, if 'A' evolved, 'B' evolved.  'B' being God, see above.


I think I can explain that.
He is saying that if Man evolved, then the story of creation is a Lie.
If man evolved, then the lineage from Adam to Jesus is a Lie.
If man evolved, then Men were not created in image of God, and that is a Lie
If man evolved, Adam never ate from the "apple" and the knowledge of good and evil is a lie.

There are other parts of the bible that are lies if God did not create us as he stated. However one is enough to prove God a Liar.

#27 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 29 June 2007 - 01:42 PM

Angels aren't physical beings.



Have you proof of their non-physical nature?  There are several accounts in the Bible of them having physical qualities.

You see no difference between the supernatural and the natural?

God created all.  When He created He set in motion laws by which our universe operates.  The common use of the term "supernatural" implies events beyond nature.  God created nature and all the laws regulating our existence.  Nothing is beyond His creation so nothing is "supernatural", even if it beyond our understanding.  Magnetism was once a "supernatural" force.  It is now a fact.  Everything will be some day.

If 'A' evolved, then 'B' evolved. There's no substance to that.
I'd like you to explain that one again and fill in the blanks, it was a major leap. Unless you're trying to claim, if 'A' evolved, 'B' evolved. 'B' being God, see above.

If evolution is how we came to exist.  It must be how all came to exist.  If true, then God is nothing more than a highly evolved being guiding our path. 

You're right. That's a good reason to accept reality.

View Post


I do accept reality, as the Bible lays it out. When do you believe the Bible becomes inaccurate?

Larry

#28 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 30 June 2007 - 07:27 AM

Theres only 4 possible answers.

1) God created them a physical form. No evolution
2) God created them a physical form. Evolution
3) God created them a spirtual form.
4) God created them both a physical and spirtual form.

What evidence exists to support these?

#29 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 30 June 2007 - 07:33 AM

I believe #4 is supported by the bible...as they can exist in both forms.

#30 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 30 June 2007 - 07:41 AM

I believe #4 is supported by the bible...as they can exist in both forms.

View Post


So what if it is supported by the bible? How do you know its true. You say "prophecy", but what do you mean?

#31 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 30 June 2007 - 09:00 AM

So what if it is supported by the bible? How do you know its true. You say "prophecy", but what do you mean?

View Post



The bible is a book that has been found to be historically accurate and prophetically accurate.

For instance there have been cities, kings ect. mentioned in scripture that were once thought to have not existed only to be discovered.

Prophecy such as the telling of the reformation of Israel came true...not to mention the over 300 peices of prophecy concerning the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ which were also fullfilled.

Even you (evo-minded people) were predicted. Check it out.

2PE 3:5    But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

2PE 3:6    By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.


...now tell me, hasn't the evo-minded people deliberately forgotten what actually happened?

#32 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 30 June 2007 - 09:34 AM

The bible is a book that has been found to be historically accurate and prophetically accurate.

For instance there have been cities, kings ect. mentioned in scripture that were once thought to have not existed only to be discovered.

Prophecy such as the telling of the reformation of Israel came true...not to mention the over 300 peices of prophecy concerning the birth, life and death of  Jesus Christ which were also fullfilled.

Even you (evo-minded people) were predicted. Check it out.
...now tell me, hasn't the evo-minded people deliberately forgotten what actually happened?

View Post



The bible is historically accurate (to a certain extent) because it was written when the "discovered" cities existed and "legendary" kings lived. It would be no different if our buildings or monarchies were written about today and evidence of them discovered in the future. All that does is provide a actual setting and time for the events. You cant use historically accurate details as a reason to believe other parts of the bible. For instance, theres no historical evidence of a global flood, yet its arguably one of the most important events in the bible!

How much of the prophecies are interpretive? How many have irrefutable historical support? Why have the prophecies stopped?

But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.

      By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.


We didnt forget, all evidence suggests it never happened.

#33 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 30 June 2007 - 10:09 AM

The bible is historically accurate (to a certain extent)



No historical record of the Bible, excluding the miraculous (being unfalsifiable), has been dis proved.  Not to a certain extent, 100%.  That is pretty accurate.

because it was written when the "discovered" cities existed and "legendary" kings lived. It would be no different if our buildings or monarchies were written about today and evidence of them discovered in the future. All that does is provide a actual setting and time for the events. You cant use historically accurate details as a reason to believe other parts of the bible.

But the accuracy is unique among religious texts.  The norm is to mold historical events to fit the claim of the text.  This is not true of the Bible.  The history is exact. 

For instance, theres no historical evidence of a global flood, yet its arguably one of the most important events in the bible!

There is greater evidence of a global flood than any tenet of TOE.  If there was a global flood of months in duration, even the highest mountains would have remains of ocean dwelling creatures.  They do.  If there was a global flood there would be large areas where great amounts of runnoff (as the water receded) formed huge rivers and maybe even deep canyons; Yantzee (think I spelled that wrong), Colorado, Amazon, Nile.  If there was a global flood, there would be vast amounts of land, sea, and air dwelling creatures found in the numerous layers of sediment deposited by the tremendous, world wide currents, which would quickly cover these creatures in cement-like sediment and preserve them as "fossils". 

Are you aware that fossils cannot be creaeted over long periods of time and must be formed quickly?


How much of the prophecies are interpretive? How many have irrefutable historical support? Why have the prophecies stopped?
We didnt forget, all evidence suggests it never happened.

View Post


The prophecies are not interpretive, in fact they are astonishingly accurate. There were over 300 foretelling of Christ, including the exact method of His death and the actions of individuals around Him that day. Just one; Prophecy claimed that Jesus would die by crucification. The prophecy was made decades earlier (maybe more than 100 years, I don't recall but can find it for you). Crucification was not a form of execution known in that land. In fact it was brought to the region by Rome which was not yet a country when the prophecy was made. No interpretation or altering of the original text was needed for the exacting fulfillment.

Prophecy has not stopped. There was a long gap of about 400 years. Israel's rebirth as a nation was prophesied to the year and there has been more, and more is yet to come.

Larry

#34 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 30 June 2007 - 11:43 AM

Has it occured to you that by claiming to be the son of god - the messiah of prophecy, jesus allowed himself to be targeted? I mean the Romans put a crown of thorns on his head and they crucified him. Funnily enough, the propecies said that would happen to the messiah. Were the Romans taking the Piss out of him? Were they setting an example to the other jews? The Prophecy itself served as Jesus's demise.

#35 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 30 June 2007 - 03:31 PM

Has it occured to you that most of the miracles were out of Jesus' hands?

But in a way you're right...Jesus is the author of the miracles mentioned in the old and new testament and allowed himself to be a target....for you!

#36 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 30 June 2007 - 03:38 PM

lordfaunswater posted:

For instance, theres no historical evidence of a global flood, yet its arguably one of the most important events in the bible!


What?????

You gotta be kidding me...or are you really that naive?

Here's a few interesting facts:
Chalk Strata containing marine fossils has been found extending from Northern Ireland, through England, to France, southern Germany, northern India, Malaysia and ending up in Australia. This strata extends around three quarters of the world!
Plus we must not forget “Evidence for a world wide flood can be seen when one looks at the rather large area of the St. Peters Sandstone in the United States and the 750,000 Square mile thousands of feet thick and 3 mile high Tibetan plateau.”
Other evidences pointing to the Flood is the presence of the widespread conglomerates which cover as much as a million square miles with an almost uniformly thick layer of sediment.
It's quite obvious something more than a local flood or old sea deposited these formations.

#37 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 01 July 2007 - 06:14 AM

Heres another intresting fact, the chalk strata you talk of is made from Coccolithophorids, small autotropic organisms that are indeed marine. Despite the size and thickness of the chalk, we dont find trees or lions or humans in it, just organisms that lived in the sea. Theres no whales in it either, just species that lived in warm clear tropical waters, like sponges and corals. Thats why when we look at it its made from the shells of photosynthesising organisms and compressed corals. It would have to be one selective and gentle flood (yet conversley also the biggest and most destructive ever!) to only lay down such organisms. The Chalk isnt a nice smooth layer as we would expect with a flood, for there are unconformities and three distinctive periods of deposition, each with its own key fossil species. A flood can layer fossils discriminately? Or is because humans could swim? What about marine reptiles, why dont we find them in recent sediment?

The reason that the chalk apparently spreads over a wide area is because the world was dramatically different in the cretaceous period, as was the climate - it was warmer and the tropical stretches were larger, they even covered the poles. Also, the layers you refer to stretch over europe. Not the 3/4 of the globe.
There are other chalk deposits which have no relation to these.

Posted Image



Furthermore, there is sediment forming right now which is exactly the same, and it doesnt form from a cataclysmic deluge. Funnily enough it also forms in high-light, clear tropical waters. The sea formed the chalk, not a flood.
The St Peters sandstone has charactersitics entirely inconsistent with flood geology. It has mature minerals, well grounded, well sorted and Fine grains. We dont see any pebbles or variation in grain size which would suggest rapid and dramatic deposition, and could potentially reveal evidence of flowing water. Its cement is consistent and uniform, not haphazard and messy. We dont see many CRFM's apart from Quartz, because only quartz is strong enough to resist the constant reworking that the grains have undergone. They are small, and round so they must have been weathered and eroded for a long, long time. We dont see a huge mix of sediment from all over the place of all different sizes. We dont see any fossils of people or mammals or dinosaurs or fences or boats or anything at all that wouldnt be expected. Simply because "its thick" or "theres lots of it" doesnt mean it formed in a flood, and if you think THAT is evidence for the bible, youre sadly mistaken.


Lord F

#38 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 01 July 2007 - 06:23 AM

Has it occured to you that most of the miracles were out of Jesus' hands? 

But in a way you're right...Jesus  is the author of  the miracles mentioned in the old  and new testament and  allowed himself to be a target....for you!

View Post



Well thats the thing, if Jesus or other people said he was the son of god and the messiah, would the Romans resist the opportunity to sacrifice him according to the prophecy, and by doing so perform the ultimate act of humiliation and supression to the jews? What could be more humiliating then seeing their leader being nailed to a cross? Not much i reckon. If there was no prophecy about a messiah, why would the elders be so outraged at a man who claimed to be it? Having a prophecy about a messiah does somewhat motivate the need to have one. Other people died on a cross too.

#39 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 01 July 2007 - 06:32 AM

Well thats the thing, if Jesus or other people said he was the son of god and the messiah, would the Romans resist the opportunity to sacrifice him according to the prophecy, and by doing so perform the ultimate act of humiliation and supression to the jews? What could be more humiliating then seeing their leader being nailed to a cross? Not much i reckon. If there was no prophecy about a messiah, why would the elders be so outraged at a man who claimed to be it? Having a prophecy about a messiah does somewhat motivate the need to have one. Other people died on a cross too.

View Post



And I suppose the Romans read Isaiah 53 and said to each other...lets do that to him.

And I suppose the UN got together and read scripture and said...lets re-form Israel

And I suppose the historians got to gether and said...lets recreate history so it matches the statue in Daniel.
The list goes on and on.

#40 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 01 July 2007 - 07:41 AM

Well thats the thing, if Jesus or other people said he was the son of god and the messiah, would the Romans resist the opportunity to sacrifice him according to the prophecy, and by doing so perform the ultimate act of humiliation and supression to the jews? What could be more humiliating then seeing their leader being nailed to a cross? Not much i reckon. If there was no prophecy about a messiah, why would the elders be so outraged at a man who claimed to be it? Having a prophecy about a messiah does somewhat motivate the need to have one. Other people died on a cross too.

View Post

lordfaunswater,
I'm just going to chime in and point out the obvious, you are arguing without facts concerning events that took place with the religious leadership first before Jesus was taken to the Romans.

The religious leadership as well as Israelites who were under the authority of that leadership, recognized who Jesus was because he was demonstrating "signs" of the "son of David".
Mathew 12:22-23

22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"


The citizens themselves recognized that the miracles of Jesus were signs, signs that could only be known through Prophecy of the scriptures, they recognized the signs as the signs of David.

Then, even the Pharasees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin, who again recognized the signs performed by Christ, which they could have only knowledge of from the scriptures in order to recognize the Messiah.

John 11:45-51

45Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
"What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many miraculous signs. 48If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation."

49Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53So from that day on they plotted to take his life.

I don't want to get too far off topic here, I just want to nip the Prophecy discussion in the bud so to speak. I doubt very much that you have done enough study in this area to argue for or against and as such you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

The Messiah had to be delivered to the Romans so that He could die by the hands of Gentiles in order to bridge the gap between Jew and Gentile so that Christ's sacrtifice would be for all people and as Christ Himself said to the Samaritan woman (a Gentile) that Salvation is from the Jews...

John 4:22

22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.


This act of betrayal by the Jews who then turned Him over to the Gentiles is the bridge that forms the body of the true Church of Christ, making everyone "one in Christ".

Ephesians 2:11-16

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.


The whole prophetic discussion is way beyond the scope of this discussion and even as a non-believer it has to be correctly studied first before you can argue against what or how the prophecy works from a biblical perspective.

Getting back on track with two other items that I saw touched on, first is classification of where a person stands with respect to accepting the Bible as the word of God they can be placed into the following categories:

I won't list them all but I see typically two types, the first is Neo-Orthodox which are those who do not take the Bible literally, believe that it contains the word of God but as a whole is not the word of God.

Then there is the Orthodox view where the Bible is supreme and is taken literally word for word and is considered to be the infallable word of God. (This is my position).

The argument of Creation versus Eviolution can be equated to exactly the same argument for Global Warming, two highly educated science communities arguing from a different angle, the only difference being the YEC view does not recognize the Uniformatarian view.

Personally I believe that even the so called Theo-Evolutionist is a Uniformatarian in that they believe that the world has always been the same, which unfortunately places this believer into prophetic passages literally as "unbelievers".

Getting out of the Creation vs Evolution debate, the scientific community is also arguing tectonics and the Acreation of the Earth theory is by far the most acceptable theory, logically, to plate tectonics. Aagain two non-religious scientific communities at complete odds over Geological Theories.

For me the Acreation Theory is the ultimate theory which not only has evidence on earth but irrefutable evidence on plaents and moons in our solar system, and ultimately provides the most logical approach to plate tectonics.

Finally, getting back on track for the Angels, I'm not 100% certain if the Angels were all created at the same time but as Adam and Eve they did have to pass a test of Holiness, this test of Holiness is done with regard to obedience which both Satan and Adam and Eve failed.

It's been a while since I studied Angels so Im not sure if they were all created at the same time or in sequences.

CJ




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users