Creation of Angels.

[YEC]

I have a question for some of the Theo-Evos out there.

Did God create angels or did they evolve?

[YEC]

harvey1,
I looked up Arche, (strongs 746) and it doesn't seem to begin to indicate the meaning inwhich you have assigned to it. You seem to start out on the right track when you mentioned a collection of powers, or I might add, rule.

Here is what Strongs has to say about the word and it's usage.

From arcomai - archomai 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):--beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

[harvey1]

I looked up Arche, (strongs 746) and it doesn't seem to begin to indicate the meaning inwhich you have assigned to it. You seem to start out on the right track when you mentioned a collection of powers, or I might add, rule.Here is what Strongs has to say about the word and it's usage.

From arcomai - archomai 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):--beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

As I mentioned, the meaning I assign it has to do with its historical usage among the Greeks as well as a causal order to the world. In any case, I believe Paul was referring to the historical usage of the term.

[YEC]

harvey1,
You seem to be presenting arche as a substitude word for angel.

Arche does not = angel.

I think a better way of looking at it is like this...."principality" is more of an office or position an angle holds, you know, his job.

So the question remains...did angels evolve?

[harvey1]

You seem to be presenting arche as a substitude word for angel. Arche does not = angel. I think a better way of looking at it is like this...."principality" is more of an office or position an angle holds, you know, his job.

Arche, as I said, is the source or cause or principle involved in an action. Christ, "the [arche] of the creation of God" (Rev. 3:14) , is also "the head of all [arche] and power" (Col. 2:10). Christ sends forth his 'angels' or 'messengers' (Rev. 22:16). Principles (arche) of God are somehow transformed into actions, and the way this happens in the world is through a 'messenger' or causal agent. In other words, a causal agent (angel) is an approximation of God's actions in the world.

So, your question boils down to "does God's actions evolve?". The answer, as I mentioned, is that approximations to his will are derived as approximations and therefore his actions (i.e., the actions of his causal agents) are also derived approximations. This is a type of evolution, but it does not happen in time. It is solely situational based. So, for example, Daniel is recorded as praying to God for his action:

"Then he said to me, "Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia." (Daniel 10:12-14).

Daniel was experiencing a vision in symbolic terms. As Calvin, Clarke, d'Envieu, and Shea have acknowledged, the prince of the kingdom of Persia is probably referring to either Cyrus, king of Persia, or his son Cambyses and their opposition to reconstructing the Jewish temple. So, it would appear that 'angelic' beings take the form of political people living at the time. However, it is also clear that Daniel 10 is referring to some causal agents that are behind these political affairs and required the archangel Michael's intervention.

The Gospels also affirms this interpretation:

"From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!" But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." (Matt. 16:21-23)

So, you see, a messenger or angel, is the causal agent behind the event that takes place.

So the question remains...did angels evolve?

Evolve is a number of step by step transformations, so in that sense they did. However, it is not a biological evolution.

[YEC]

You seem to be presenting arche as a substitude word for angel. Arche does not = angel. I think a better way of looking at it is like this...."principality" is more of an office or position an angle holds, you know, his job.

Arche, as I said, is the source or cause or principle involved in an action. Christ, "the [arche] of the creation of God" (Rev. 3:14) , is also "the head of all [arche] and power" (Col. 2:10). Christ sends forth his 'angels' or 'messengers' (Rev. 22:16). Principles (arche) of God are somehow transformed into actions, and the way this happens in the world is through a 'messenger' or causal agent. In other words, a causal agent (angel) is an approximation of God's actions in the world.

So, your question boils down to "does God's actions evolve?".

That is the farthest thing from the question. Your scenario would be like the President having his will done using an Envoy...then claiming that what the Envoy which is the Presidents actions.... "evolves"

An angel is a "being" that carries out Gods actions.

The answer, as I mentioned, is that approximations to his will are derived as approximations and therefore his actions (i.e., the actions of his causal agents) are also derived approximations. This is a type of evolution, but it does not happen in time. It is solely situational based. So, for example,

Did you ever hear the saying....Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger? The question once again for you is did the messenger evolve..NOT, the message.

Daniel is recorded as praying to God for his action:
"Then he said to me, "Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia." (Daniel 10:12-14).

Daniel was experiencing a vision in symbolic terms. As Calvin, Clarke, d'Envieu, and Shea have acknowledged, the prince of the kingdom of Persia is probably referring to either Cyrus, king of Persia, or his son Cambyses and their opposition to reconstructing the Jewish temple. So, it would appear that 'angelic' beings take the form of political people living at the time. However, it is also clear that Daniel 10 is referring to some causal agents that are behind these political affairs and required the archangel Michael's intervention.

The Prince of Persia is a demon whose principality is Persia.
God sent his messenger the angel Gabriel to deliver the message to the human Daniel but the demonic Prince of Persia held up Gabriel until another angel Michael rendered asistance to Gabriel who then delivered the message to the human Daniel.

The Gospels also affirms this interpretation:

"From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!" But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." (Matt. 16:21-23)

What??? In this instance Jesus rebuked Peter for aligning himself with Satans plan to deter Jesus from fullfilling his mission....It has nothing to do with Daniel.

So, you see, a messenger or angel, is the causal agent behind the event that takes place.

I'm not saying that an angel can't cause an event to happen...but...then again I too can cause an event to happen.

So the question remains...did angels evolve?

Evolve is a number of step by step transformations, so in that sense they did. However, it is not a biological evolution.

Once again, now that you understand that angels are real live living beings, and we're not talking about the message evolving...

Did the angels evolve from a more primative species or were they created in their angelic form?

[harvey1]

You seem to be presenting arche as a substitude word for angel. Arche does not = angel. I think a better way of looking at it is like this...."principality" is more of an office or position an angle holds, you know, his job.

Arche, as I said, is the source or cause or principle involved in an action. Christ, "the [arche] of the creation of God" (Rev. 3:14) , is also "the head of all [arche] and power" (Col. 2:10). Christ sends forth his 'angels' or 'messengers' (Rev. 22:16). Principles (arche) of God are somehow transformed into actions, and the way this happens in the world is through a 'messenger' or causal agent. In other words, a causal agent (angel) is an approximation of God's actions in the world. So, your question boils down to "does God's actions evolve?".

That is the farthest thing from the question. Your scenario would be like the President having his will done using an Envoy...then claiming that what the Envoy which is the Presidents actions.... "evolves"

No, it would be like the President appointing a Secretary of State, who appoints a Deputy Secretary, who appoints an Executive Secretariat, who appoints a Secretariat Staff supervisor, and so on. If the 'appointments' were logically derivable, then the Secretariat Staff supervisor 'evolved' from the President's will to bring on a certain person as Secretary of State. But, it is not biological evolution, it is similar to how math functions are derived from math theorems, which are derived from 'higher' theorems, which are derived from math axioms.

The answer, as I mentioned, is that approximations to his will are derived as approximations and therefore his actions (i.e., the actions of his causal agents) are also derived approximations. This is a type of evolution, but it does not happen in time. It is solely situational based.

Did you ever hear the saying....Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger? The question once again for you is did the messenger evolve..NOT, the message.

No, the messenger did not experience biological evolution. The 'messenger' is a consequence of a chain, which is very similar to evolution.

Daniel is recorded as praying to God for his action:"Then he said to me, "Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia." (Daniel 10:12-14). Daniel was experiencing a vision in symbolic terms. As Calvin, Clarke, d'Envieu, and Shea have acknowledged, the prince of the kingdom of Persia is probably referring to either Cyrus, king of Persia, or his son Cambyses and their opposition to reconstructing the Jewish temple. So, it would appear that 'angelic' beings take the form of political people living at the time. However, it is also clear that Daniel 10 is referring to some causal agents that are behind these political affairs and required the archangel Michael's intervention.

The Prince of Persia is a demon whose principality is Persia. God sent his messenger the angel Gabriel to deliver the message to the human Daniel but the demonic Prince of Persia held up Gabriel until another angel Michael rendered asistance to Gabriel who then delivered the message to the human Daniel.

Again, William H. Shea ("Wrestling with the Prince of Persia: A Study on Daniel 10," Andrews University Seminar Studies 21; (1983)) has a pretty good interpretation of Daniel 10 which fits with the facts. The "kings of Persia" is interpreted to mean Cambyses - the Babylonian head of state (and son of Cyrus), as well as Cyprus, the kind of Persia. The 21 days mentioned in Daniel 10 is also well documented. It appears that Cambyses was enthroned as king of Babylon on New Year's in 535 B.C, and on the 4th day entered a temple to presumably officially become king of Babylon. Twenty-one days later matches to the day when Daniel was visited by the angel. Here is a quote by Shea:

[quote="William Shea, "Wrestling with the Prince of Persia"]"What we find when these dates are compared is that the period of Daniel's mouring (during which also the angels wrestled with the prince of Persia) - twenty-one days - is the exact equivalent of the length of time between the date in Nisan on which Cambyses entered the temple during the New Year's festival, the 4th, and the date in Nisan on which the events of Daniel 10 are described as occurring, the 24th. If the 24th of Nisan was the twenty-first day of Daniel's mourning, then by working backwards we find that the first day of Daniel's mourning was the 4th of Nisan, the same day on which Cambyses entered the temple during the New Year's festival." (ibid, 245-46)[/quote]

So, there is good reason to believe that the event was a literal event between humans.

The Gospels also affirms this interpretation: "From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!" But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." (Matt. 16:21-23)

What??? In this instance Jesus rebuked Peter for aligning himself with Satans plan to deter Jesus from fullfilling his mission....It has nothing to do with Daniel.

The same biblical example applies here. A person (in this case, Simon Peter) is identified with an angelic being, in this case Satan. Your mistake is that you are not reading the words that were spoken. Jesus is rebuking Satan, he is not rebuking Peter. Satan exemplified himself, in this instance, in the person of Simon Peter. This is why Paul said that the Christian doesn't just wrestle with flesh and blood, but rather Christians wrestle with the arche.

So, you see, a messenger or angel, is the causal agent behind the event that takes place.

Evolve is a number of step by step transformations, so in that sense they did. However, it is not a biological evolution.

Once again, now that you understand that angels are real live living beings, and we're not talking about the message evolving... Did the angels evolve from a more primative species or were they created in their angelic form?

As Daniel and Jesus' words clearly indicate, angels are exemplifications of what is happening behind the scenes in terms of final causes, or principles. Principles are derived based on situations that call for them. Evolution is applicable only in the sense that a number of transformations took place to bring about their existence.

[YEC]

So harvey1,
When are you going to answer the question?

Did the angels evolve from more primitive species or did God create them?

[harvey1]

When are you going to answer the question? Did the angels evolve from more primitive species or did God create them?

I don't you understand my answer. So, let's just move on. I gave a sufficient reply with biblical support.

[harvey1]

When are you going to answer the question? Did the angels evolve from more primitive species or did God create them?

I don't *think* you understand my answer. So, let's just move on. I gave a sufficient reply with biblical support.

[YEC]

I understand exactly your answer.

I asked if angels evolved from a lower form of species and your answer was that angels "do" ....evolved.....You never addressed the actual angel.