Could life be older than Earth itself?

[Miguel Cervantes]

Could God not be just a more intelligent being than us, and not some supreme being who lives in the sky? The verse I quota said that we were created in their image. So is God a flesh and bone creature? How are we created in his image, yet we are merely mortal, and he is all mighty? How do you explain what the bible call the Nephilim? Genesis 6-4

So God, was a being capable of reproduction, and his offspring mated with "daughters of men" and created hybrid creatures known as the Nephilim, who were mighty and men of renown. Or was this also a reference to the trinity, and a part of that trinity came to earth to get a little action with the women of the earth?

If the timing is right, maybe you'll get to ask him yourself.

 

[swampstalker24]

If the timing is right, maybe you'll get to ask him yourself.

There you go again, adding intelligent content to this conversation.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Could God not be just a more intelligent being than us, and not some supreme being who lives in the sky?

The best reply I can give to that is no, and here's why. If he is just some ultra intelligent being that lives in the sky then he exists inside of creation and this does nothing but kick the can down the road, because the question with regards to origin then becomes "Well who made God?
If God exists outside of creation, is eternal and is the author of creation, which is exactly as the Bible describes him, then that dilemma is solved.

The verse I quoted said that we were created in their image. So is God a flesh and bone creature? How are we created in his image, yet we are merely mortal, and he is all mighty?

God is not flesh and bone. He is not human. He is a spirit, but a being just the same. Proof of being or personality is defined as knowing, feeling and willing or acting. He certainly meets those three criteria. When we die we will no longer be flesh and bone but OUR spirit will continue and we will still be able to know, feel and act.

How do you explain what the bible call the Nephilim? Genesis 6-4

This is one of those things we simply don't know. There are a lot of interpretations out there, but nobody actually knows, and I'm not ashamed to say I have no idea.

So God, was a being capable of reproduction, and his offspring mated with "daughters of men" and created hybrid creatures known as the Nephilim, who were mighty and men of renown. Or was this also a reference to the trinity, and a part of that trinity came to earth to get a little action with the women of the earth?

I don't think that is an accurate interpretation in that most if not all interpretations attribute 'sons of God' as either fallen angels or sons of Seth. Irregardless it can be safely assumed that whatever the interpretation, it has no bearing on any fundamental Biblical doctrine. Just my two cents

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Of course the biblical position is that witches do indeed exist, otherwise why instruct that they are not to be permitted to live? It's progress that most Christians have seen fit to abandon at least some of the more onerous nonsense in the bible. Too bad some of them in Africa still haven't got the memo. I do fault them individually for following as Christians scriptures which tell them to do an evil deed and which you as a more enlightened Christian have found a way to ignore. But I also fault the scripture itself for it can be judged on its own merits. I reject any claim of moral superiority made by those whose supposedly infallible guide book calls for the murder of children, no matter how disobedient they may be.

Yes you can cherry pick some good common sense commands like don't steal, don't kill, don't lie (except of course when God commands otherwise). If a Christian steals or lies, I don't take it as evidence that the bible was wrong in it's commandment not to do those things. I'll readily acknowledge the good parts. The problem is, to genuinely be a moral individual and a christian you have to pick the pepper from the dung. Over the centuries Christians have become expert at that all the while proclaiming the entire pile to be dung free.

You know I am truly sorry for whatever reason there is that you have such a bitterness toward Christianity. Truth be told there has been much wrong done in the name of Christ either from ignorance or intention. Christian means Christ-like and too many times we as Christians fail to note that the primary attribute of Christ is humility and instead of becoming Christ-like we instead seek to become God-like and look down on others. Again, I'm sorry and forgive me, but I can't be a party to a conversation in which your sole purpose is to denigrate the only person who has ever thought enough of me that he died for me. It would be akin to taking part in a conversation in which you were trashing a fellow Marine who jumped on a grenade to save my life. I just can't be a part of it.

 

[swampstalker24]

The best reply I can give to that is no, and here's why. If he is just some ultra intelligent being that lives in the sky then he exists inside of creation and this does nothing but kick the can down the road, because the question with regards to origin then becomes "Well who made God?
If God exists outside of creation, is eternal and is the author of creation, which is exactly as the Bible describes him, then that dilemma is solved.



God is not flesh and bone. He is not human. He is a spirit, but a being just the same. Proof of being or personality is defined as knowing, feeling and willing or acting. He certainly meets those three criteria. When we die we will no longer be flesh and bone but OUR spirit will continue and we will still be able to know, feel and act.



This is one of those things we simply don't know. There are a lot of interpretations out there, but nobody actually knows, and I'm not ashamed to say I have no idea.



I don't think that is an accurate interpretation in that most if not all interpretations attribute 'sons of God' as either fallen angels or sons of Seth. Irregardless it can be safely assumed that whatever the interpretation, it has no bearing on any fundamental Biblical doctrine. Just my two cents

Well, I think the "then who made God" question persist in both scenarios mentioned above.


And if God says were were made like him, in his image, in what way are we like him?

Why would the bible say "sons of god" if it really meant fallen angels, or sons of seth? If that were the case, when the bible refers to jesus as the son of God, could it be interpreted as really meaning he was a fallen angel, or also the son of seth? When people start interpreting parts of the bible one way, and other parts another, are they not just making interpretations to suit their own personal beliefs? Can one hold strict, literal interpretations of one part of the bible, but simple write off other parts as hyperbole or symbolical?

 

[atlashunter]

Sorry you think it denigrating to point out the fact that Christians follow some parts of the bible and not others. It is what it is. If anything they should be congratulated for it. Shows their sense of morality is better developed than the book they claim to get their morality from.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Well, I think the "then who made God" question persist in both scenarios mentioned above.

And if God says were were made like him, in his image, in what way are we like him?

We are thinking, feeling, acting beings with spirits

Why would the bible say "sons for god" if it really meant fallen angels, or sons seth. If that were the case, when the bible refers to jesus as the son of God, could it be interpreted as really meaning he was a fallen angel, or also the son of seth? When people start interpreting parts of the bible one way, and other parts another, are they not just making interpretations to suit their own personal beliefs? Can one hold strict, literal interpretations of one part of the bible, but simple write off other parts as hyperbole or symbolical?

Again I don't know. You can find someone out there to give you a better reason I'm sure.
As far as bible interpretation there are generally accepted rules that are followed. It's not whimsical as in accepting one part and denying another.

 

[TripleXBullies]

God is not flesh and bone. He is not human. He is a spirit, but a being just the same. Proof of being or personality is defined as knowing, feeling and willing or acting. He certainly meets those three criteria. When we die we will no longer be flesh and bone but OUR spirit will continue and we will still be able to know, feel and act.

We have a spirit... Why don't I remember my before life spirit? Or was my "spirit" started by my mother and father on conception? Or after I was born?

 

[SemperFiDawg]

There are Bible verses that suggests that we were indeed spirits before we were born. That being said I wouldn't think anyone would say the Bible is dogmatic or even emphatic on this. If it is true and its certainly not implausible, I have no idea why we can't remember it.

 

[TripleXBullies]

I agree that if I have some immortal spirit that needs god to be saved that it's not implausible (actually 100% implied) that I had a before life... If I can't remember it but the bible says I'll know all about my afterlife, I venture to say that neither are true.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I agree that if I have some immortal spirit that needs god to be saved that it's not implausible (actually 100% implied) that I had a before life... If I can't remember it but the bible says I'll know all about my afterlife, I venture to say that neither are true.

Listen, I can't go to the store and remember what my wife wanted me to get while I am there. That doesn't mean she doesn't exist, so I have a hard time accepting your supposition that something didn't happen and isn't true just because I can't remember it. Do you really think that's a sound argument.

 

[TripleXBullies]

It adds to the argument for me.