Evidence for God from Science

I got the internet back! But don't have the time to respond :( Good responses, I'll enjoy going over them and getting back to all of you. Thanks for keeping the convo going while I'm out! :ebiggrin: I'm curious, Neo do you think my reasoning is logical for flawed with the DNA hypothesis? I'm curious...

1. Unfallen angels do not naturally have a sin nature. Do you agree with that? No. Unfallen anything (angels and humans) naturally have the potential to sin. Once that potential is actualized, you have a fallen being. 2. Angels do have a will that has the potential to rebel against God. Do you agre...

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑

Tue May 08, 2018 8:58 am

Are you stating that Angels are Sinless? have no potential to Sin ?

That's what I'm seeing.
I think DB and I's main communication issues boil down to what we both think about the nature of sin itself, and in regards to creatures (w/e that creature is).

Just wanted to say hi! I got really sick and that's why I haven't been on. I'm way back on page 4. I'll read from there. Might not respond today, it's too hard to think straight right now (had the chills for hours last night). :wave: Doesn't sound like any fun at all. :( Hope you start feeling bett...

But angels and humans are very different creatures. Humans are physical beings Angels are spirit beings Humans are already fallen and have a sin nature that naturally gives them sinful desires Angels do not have a sin nature (but they do have a will that has the potential to rebel against God) The ...

Just wanted to say hi! I got really sick and that's why I haven't been on. I'm way back on page 4. I'll read from there. Might not respond today, it's too hard to think straight right now (had the chills for hours last night).

Right on ^_^
Yeah, that's what I mean by Christian. I think it's time we took the name back! Doesn't have the same meaning as it did two millennia ago

The angels were not yet fallen when they saw that the "daughters of men" were beautiful. But they fell when they actually married the "daughters of men". Am I understanding that correctly? Here's the problem I see with trying to parse the text that way. I think we would both agree that physical sex...

Well... if it helps, I'm thoroughly familiar with the human/angel hybrid theory as well. For me it comes down to the singular issue that I have been beating like a dead horse here (and elsewhere). How does Scripture use the phrase "sons/children of God"? The two competing premises are... 1. "sons/c...

That's already been discussed in the other thread. Without going into it again, I'll just say that if you just keep with what the text actually says, it's quite a leap to say that. Reread the text in Jude 1:6. It takes quite a leap from the text to assume that angels leaving their first estate, mea...

So, you admit that sons of God can refer to spiritual beings? The sons of God described in Genesis 6, in order and context (not how it was just re-pieced together earlier), is referring to sons of God (angels) that fell by that action and are referred to in Jude. I see this as a much more plausible ...

Ok. I could find this real fast. Explain sons of God in this: Job 38: 4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you [a]have understanding, 5 Who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? 6 “On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerst...

I think if you do some searching for scripture that refers to fallen angels as sons of God, it'll help you see what DBowling and I are saying. And did you say that sons of God, in scripture, never refers to people? No, no, no. Sons of God refers to people. I also put forward it refers to spiritual ...

I have no idea where the term "shades" comes from. I'd venture a guess, and say it comes from an extra biblical source. Am I correct? I forget, I'd have to re-look it up And to clarify, I'm not saying that the term "spirit(s) only applies to fallen angels. I'm just saying that I've never called Goo...

So the behavior of God in Genesis 6-9 is consistent with how he responds to similar behavior by his covenant people throughout the Old Testament. It's not consistent with how He dealt with humanity pre-flood. Why didn't He deal with them the same way? I didn't really see an answer to his question.