1

On which day were the angels created ?
Because it's evident that in Gen 2:1, 'all the host' is an allusion to sentient beings who by then are in their respective places, and which host Gen 2:4 affirm as being rational creatures in the word 'generations'.

In Job 38:6-7;

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

Verse 8 Helps to qualify the time these events.

It says that these morning stars and the sons of God rejoiced in 'witnessing' the laying of the 'foundations of the earth' and its 'cornerstone'. So it makes them 'witnesses' of the time, atleast, between Gen 1:6 and 1:7 before that creation of the earth. Morning stars are higher up rulers,

Ref: Isaiah 14:12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

3

Neither of Genesis’ two Creation stories (Gen.1:1-2:3 and Gen.2:4-24) describes or even alludes to the creation of angels.

In the first story, the only named creations of heaven were its lights on the fourth day (1:14-19), clearly meaning the ‘starry hosts’ of the sky. Some interpreters of 1:26 – “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ...” – see possible reference to angels, though careful exegesis argues against that view. The text offers no hint that “all the hosts” of heaven and earth (2:1) included angels, the ‘host’ (tsaba') in this case likely referring figuratively to everything that had been created and rightly ordered during the previous six days just described.

The second creation story is an account (towlĕdah) “of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,” though the only named creations are a man, a garden, “every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air,” and a woman. Again, there is no mention of angels, though some confuse the sphinx-like cherubim of Gen.3:24 with supernatural angels proper.

Though the creation of angels is not described in Genesis – nor in any other canonical Bible book – Judaic angelology developed considerably in the late Second Temple period. The book of 2 Enoch (ch.22-37) describes God’s retelling of the creation story and his making of angels on the second day.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thanks for the effort. Angels aren't expressly referred to in the creation account, however, they are alluded to in Gen 1:3-8 as the 'light' seperated from the 'darkness,' and also as the 'waters' above the firmament--an element again not expressly written about, but only implied in Gen 1:9. So yes, if 'Enoch' says they were created in the second day, I agree. – Witness Aug 8 '16 at 22:08
-2

In scriptures, there are many places where water means water and often these are cases that are straightforward at first glance.

But there are numerous places where the word is clearly symbolic and admitting no other logical approach, in such cases often pointing to; beings, trouble, nations, spirits, etc, Eg Isaiah 8:7, meaning the king of Assyria and his host. Some of these instances give the figure and then explain it in closing.

But others like Isaiah 43:2 become more cryptic.

Isaiah 43:2

When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.

Waters here don't mean wading through raging rivers, rather it means that when 'you are captives of other nations, your host cultures will not swallow you up'. So they would always be a distinct people before Him, unlike many nations that didn't survive the decimation of cultures by the Assyrians' policy to shuffle about conquered nations like a deck of cards.

Numbers 24:7 depicts nations generally by waters; to signify righteous offspring-the seed, the work of Messiah- the king higher than Agag, whose seed will be from among many peoples(waters).

Numbers 24:7 He shall pour the water out of his 'two' buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.

This is the case of the 'waters' in Genesis, a figure for sentient 'creatures'.

The 'darkness on the face', a 'deep', 'formless and void', and above all, 'waters', all of these are a combination of aspects referring to rational creatures in Evil.
The same 'formeless and void' in Isaiah 34:11.
Here God reproves the nations for their evil doings. Further, ' formeless and void' also pops up in Jeremiah 4:23, which verse also talks about wickedness with verse 22 clarifying what's is going on.

That light that in Gen 1:3, was a remedy, as it were, for the darkness on the face of that deep, the deep is an abode of creatures and the creatures themselves. Just as the world is the abode of men and the people themselves.
Ref Psa 135:6, Eze 31:4 etc.

Light is contextual. It's a figure for orderliness or righteousness, or guidance in it. Light is also the being that gives that light. Isaiah 9:2, etc
Whereas darkness refers to wickedness or disordliness, or the chaos that it causes.

In the phrase 'And God said' denotes deeds that are not given in the account. Gen 1:2 means that God went to work to so as to cause 'light' to be. It does mean a verbal incantation. That light is the orderliness that sorted out the 'darkness', unacceptable deeds on the face of the deep.
It's because the deep is the 'source' of all these 'waters,' for lack of better construction, Ref; Eze 31:4 etc.. . By Gen 1:7, a part of these waters that are denoted as 'the face of the deep' were transformed, because of the light in Gen 1:3, and that resultant entity transformed by the 'light', itself became 'light,' or was so labelled.

Like wise, what was still in darkness was labelled darkness! But these two resultant entities still interracted, which was an undesirable situation according to what followed that God did.

So these entities and their activities are both the 'light' and the 'darkness' respectively!

Angels aren't expressly referred to in the creation account, however, they are alluded to in
Gen 1:3-8 as the 'light' seperated from the 'darkness,' and also as the 'waters' above the firmament--an element again not expressly written about, but only implied in Gen 1:9

The 'seperation of the waters from the waters' is because of both their contrary natures, one of light and the other of darkness.

So one nature of the waters was 'light' and the other 'darkness.' God is creating from a 'live' entity! That's why His spirit brooded(according to bias) upon these 'waters.'

The seperation alludes to introduction of a 'spiritual' mechanism in the natures of these two entities denoted as the 'firmament' that would make the two entities unable to 'associate because they now differ in nature.

Its not about creation of literal volumes of air that make the visible sky, even thought He did that too but it's not knowledge for man.

It's for this firmament that men aren't able to see angels but angels associate with men, upon permission granted.
These are the waters 'ABOVE' that firmament, 'above' denoting they're not affected by it, in contrast to 'BELOW' that messiah alludes to in John 8:23. And out of whom come the leaders denoted as 'lights' who give 'light' on earth in
Gen 1:14, a pattern of the 'great light in Isaiah 9:2, given to the gentiles in Isaiah 49:6.

| improve this answer | |
  • Can you provide critical scholarship supporting an allegorical reading as the authors’ intended meaning of these texts? The stories are surely mythopoetic, but I see no evidence of symbolism at the level you suggest, nor any reason to think the biblical writers meant 'light' and 'water' to refer to angels specfically. You seem to be reading Genesis through Enochic eyes. This is a slippery slope ... hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/41/… – Schuh Aug 9 '16 at 0:45
  • @Schuh, For your information, until I read about Enoch's position from your answer, I hadn't heard of anyone to have seen creation of angels as I explained it in my answer. It's fair enough on your part to demand more 'critical' scholarly proof, but before I go any further, what do you mean by the 'authors' ? Who do you regard as the author/s in other words? Because to me, the 'states of mind' differ in the one that 'writes' Scriptures as its content is given from God, from the one who simply chronicals a piece of history passed down from generations – Witness Aug 9 '16 at 8:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.