Creation of Angels.

[YEC]

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

Did God create angels or did they evolve?

[perfessor]

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

Did God create angels or did they evolve?

Did God create unicorns, or did they evolve?
Did God create griffins, or did they evolve?
Did God create centaurs, or did they evolve?

The question only has relevance for creatures that are known to exist.

[juliod]

Did God create angels or did they evolve?

Actually, angels would be one of those things that if they were real would be hard to explain by evolution. Not because of their supposed supernatural powers, but because they are mammals with 6 limbs.

It's not that there is anything inherently impossible about a mammalian hexapod, it's just that there aren't any. A species of angels would definitively not fit in with the evolutionary scheme.

So, YEC, let us know when you have a mating pair available for study. I think you are finally on the verge of proving creationism.

[Edited to add: Oops, sorry, I didn't originally notice that this question was directed to theists. I think my answer is a good one, tho.]


DanZ

[Corvus]

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

Did God create angels or did they evolve?

Hello, my dear "creto". I may not be a "theo-evo" but, what is are the ramifications of this question? I am assuming there's a catch, otherwise there probably wouldn't be a question.

I would guess that they are created. They are servants of God and have no reason to adapt to their environment, especially as they have no physical bodies.

[harvey1]

I have a question for some of the Theo-Evos out there. Did God create angels or did they evolve?

If you want to look for the origin of angels, I think Paul provides a pretty good hint:

Rom 8:38:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Eph 3:10

To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Eph 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Col 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:

Col 2:15
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.


It's clear from Paul that the fight of a Christian is more basic than fighting against the powers that be in this world, it is a fight against powers that exist in a higher realm to human thought. The key word in describing these angels (or fallen angels, in this case), is the word translated principalities, which is the Greek word 'Arche'.

The most interesting definition of 'Arche' is "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause". This seems to me to the true nature of an angel. They derive their existence from the God of truth, and as such, they are 'principles' of truth.

It seems that some of the principles of truth were 'cast down' to earth. That is, the universe has these principles active in our universe that represent greed, hate, envy, spite, etc. The general principle that all of these principles work on is the principle of natural selection. As such, this 'Arche' angel is an instrument of God's creative nature in the world, but it is an undesirable principle that exists.

Did God create or evolve these principles? My take on it is that they are 'evolved' in that they are derivatives of truth (which is a kind of evolution). But, they are not evolved in time. They simply 'exist' as a derivative of Truth.

[YEC]

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

Did God create angels or did they evolve?

Did God create unicorns, or did they evolve?
Did God create griffins, or did they evolve?
Did God create centaurs, or did they evolve?

The question only has relevance for creatures that are known to exist.

Perfosser,
That question was primarily for the Theo-Evos minded indviduals and not the Agnostic minded individuals like yourself.

As far as bible believers are concerned...angels exist... and whether you believe in them or not has norelavance pertaining to the original question.

[YEC]

Hello, my dear "creto". I may not be a "theo-evo" but, what is are the ramifications of this question? I am assuming there's a catch, otherwise there probably wouldn't be a question.

I would guess that they are created. They are servants of God and have no reason to adapt to their environment, especially as they have no physical bodies.

According to the bible angels can have a physical body.
In Gen.19 the angels that met Lot sat down with Lot and had a meal.

...Did the angels "evolve" the ability to transcend to a spiritual form?

[perfessor]

Perfosser,
That question was primarily for the Theo-Evos minded indviduals and not the Agnostic minded individuals like yourself.

As far as bible believers are concerned...angels exist... and whether you believe in them or not has norelavance pertaining to the original question.

Point taken - I'll stay out of this thread. But I must also point out:

I have a question for some of the Theo-Evos out there. Did God create angels or did they evolve?

You should have addressed your question to "Bible-believing Christians" instead of "Theo-Evos." These could well be two different groups - I don't think Theos necessarily believe in angels either.

[YEC]

harvey1,
I was disapointed. I was so lookng forward to some verses on the formation of angels...instead you gave a sermon on principles and tried to tie them in with the angels.

Perhaps you ought to explain principles a bit better. Your leap from angels to principles seem to have more gaps in it then the fossil redcord.

If I read you correctly an angel according to you is nothing more than a concept? a characteristic? a standard? a fundemental?

Perhaps your next step would be to claim that an angel (principle) is a principle element of chemestry that composes a substance...which is the basic building blocks for abiogenesis....from which brought about life from which everything evolved from?????

[harvey1]

I was disapointed. I was so lookng forward to some verses on the formation of angels...instead you gave a sermon on principles and tried to tie them in with the angels. Perhaps you ought to explain principles a bit better. Your leap from angels to principles seem to have more gaps in it then the fossil redcord.

Sure. I believe Paul used 'arche' because he knew the philosophical history with arche. It was believed by Xenophanes (540-537 B.C.) that 'arche' was a collection of powers under a monotheistic God which possessed 'nous' (mind). He wrote this of the arche:

"it stays always in the same place, not moving, nor is it fitting for it to pass to different places at different times; rather, exempt from toil, it shakes all things with the thought of its mind (nous)."

He attributed this mind of arche to divinity. This did not distract from his monotheism. Well, even if Paul did not mean to take advantage of the Greek tradition of this word, there is ample evidence in the New Testament to suggest that 'arche' is a principle.

"And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all [arche] and power" (Col. 2:10)

"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the [arche] of the creation of God" (Rev. 3:14)

"And the angels which kept not their [arche] estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." (Jude 1:6)

It seems to me, that principles that cause events here on earth are the arche that Paul had identified in his epistles.

If I read you correctly an angel according to you is nothing more than a concept? a characteristic? a standard? a fundemental? Perhaps your next step would be to claim that an angel (principle) is a principle element of chemestry that composes a substance...which is the basic building blocks for abiogenesis....from which brought about life from which everything evolved from?????

No, the arche are not physical, however they influence the world as causal agents. I think your concepts of the arche are, of course, influenced by the personification of their existence. The same is the case for 'wisdom'. It was personified even in the Old Testament:

"Wisdom calls aloud outside; She raises her voice in the open squares. She cries out in the chief concourses. At the openings of the gates in the city She speaks her words:" (Prov. 1:20-21)

"If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures" (Prov. 2:4)

"For her proceeds are better than the profits of silver, And her gain than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies, And all the things you may desire cannot compare with her. Length of days is in her right hand, In her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, And all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, And happy are all who retain her. " (Prov. 3:14-18 )

Etc, etc...

So, principles are personified in the Bible, and, afterall, it isn't like there is no truth to the personification. What is consciousness? Consciousness is being aware of yourself and your surroundings, and in order for a principle to set itself for or against the situation in question, it must have some form of consciousness. There's a slightly interesting book called "The Conscious Universe" (by Menas Kafatos, 1990) which states the following:

"If consciousness, as we have defined it, is embedded in the universe, and if the evolution of consciousness progressively discloses in physics the totality of the universal principle of order implicit in all activities in nature, then the single significant whole whose existence is inferred, but not finally disclosed, in the conscious content of physical theory can be 'assumed' to be ontologically grounded in the life of nature".

This is the arche, I believe, that this author is referring to in a round about way (the author is actually referring to the principle of complementary developed by Bohr - but nonetheless, the concept is the same). The arche, I believe, is subservient to God, however 'independent' in that they can approximate certain aspects of God's will, not necessarily all of his will.