atheilicious

Nicely thought

(well technically that happened about 9 months prior to that... )

Chris Weimer

I wonder why I didn't see this earlier. There's also some debate on whether or not P46 would have included the Pastorals. 1. There's room afterwards, but not enough room, however, 2. if another page or so would have been sewn on, there would have been enough room. Well, if there could have been enough room, but they didn't bother, what does that tell you about the status of the Pastorals written in 200?

Magus55

The Bible doesn't say the exact point at which angels were created, but it implies that it was some time around the creation of the universe, but before the Earth. The Bible does say the angels witnessed the creation of the Earth.

As to their purpose, most are messengers. There are ranks of angels though and they serve different purposes. Angels are also warriors for God. Remember that theologically, there is a battle between good and evil with us in the middle.

As to Toto's remark about God's omnipresence. The Father isn't physical, so if you think omnipresent means physically everywhere, you are wrong right from the start.

Naphtali Jones

Angels, both the good and the bad kind, are usually associated with the stars (Isaiah 14:12, Job 38:7). The word "planets" comes from the greek word meaning "wanderers" because people believed they were stars (angels) who "did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation" (Jude 6). The book of Enoch tells how these wayward stars were to be punished.

Toto

Physical or not, the "Father" is not everywhere if he needs messengers.

As for angels being created before the creation of the earth, I assume you rely on Job 38:7, which actually mentions the "sons of God," which the NIV translates as angels, but might mean other lesser gods.

Loomis

I’m no expert, but I think it reads “benêy 'elohim.� A better translation might be “sons of the gods.� This should come as no surprise because the Canaanite/ Ugartitic pantheon had four tiers.

1) El (the most high god) and Asherah.

2) Their 70 children – who were also gods. (Psalm 82 says the elohim are the sons of the most high.)

3) Messengers.

4) Humans.

It looks to me like the guys who translated the bible screwed up. It looks to me like they’ve combined tier #2 and tier #3, and are calling both groups “angels.�

Case it point: The guy who translated Psalm 8:5 wants us to believe that the elohim are the angels (tier #2), but the author of Job 38:7 is telling us that the angels are the sons of the elohim (tier #3).

Am I making any sense?

John A. Broussard

It makes sense to me, But I have no credentials permitting me to delve into the variant elements of early Hebrew.

However, if you are correct, it fits in with a notion I've had. It seems that polytheism (or animism) is the belief of the vast majority of mankind. Here and there, when there was enough surplus to allow for a breed of "intellectuals" to emerge, the flaws in polytheism seem to become apparent to these thinkers. The move then is toward monotheism.

Ah--but what happens in practice? The hoi polloi continue to have their St. Christopher medals, their voodoo gods, and their god become human just like you and me. Somehow the need for angels, for "sons of god", even for demons as an explanatory force for what happens to people is just too strong to be suppressed by an all-powerful, all-knowing god concept.

Furthermore, that god just seems too remote. Intermediaries become vital. Then the intellectuals come along and say, "No, no." And the cycle starts over again.

Just a rambling thought. It's your fault for bringing it to mind.

Thanks, though.

Loomis

It looks to me like the guys who translated the OT (for example, the guys who inserted the word “angel� where “messenger� was appropriate) were idiots who didn’t understand their own religion, and who didn’t bother to learn.

If you accept that the word “angel� can mean messenger, elohim, or son of an elohim, and if you want to pursue this, then you are going to want break your questions down into smaller questions.

For example:

Who were the messengers?

Who were the elohim?

Who were the sons of the elohim?

In other words, I think you are going to reach a point where you set aside the word “angel� and start looking under the hood – at the primordial ingredients.

Do you know what I mean?

If so, look at Psalm 82:6. In this scene El (the Host High god) is talking to the elohim (called “angels� by the guy who translated Psalm 8:5).

The word translated as said is 'amar (Strong's 0559). Here it is in Genesis 1:3

The idea of creating things by decree comes from the Egyptian gods Amen and Ptah. I think that the author of Psalm 82:6 wanted us to believe that El was the creator of the elohim.

Are we getting anywhere?

John A. Broussard

Unfortunately, yes. I thought angels was a simple concept, simply described in the scriptures.

Obviously I was wrong, though it doesn't destroy my original assumption that polytheism was buried in the monotheistic past of the Israelites.

Thanks for all the suggestions. They will take some digesting.