Jim wrote: I'd like to add Gen 6:2 to the evidence table. ... "the sons of
God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for
themselves, whomever they chose." ... We already know that Adam was
considered "the son of God" from Luke 3:38. ... So, in Gen 6:2 the sons of
God would be Adam and his descendants.
Adam and Eve and their descendants were considered to be "sons of God"
because they were in a covenant relationship with him. But how does this fact
prove that those who were spoken of in Gen. 1:26,27 as being created "in
God's image" were Adam and Eve and not the preadamic human race? I have
argued this subject matter before with Dick. And though I agree with 99% of
what he has to say in his fine book, "The Origins Solution," I take issue
with him on this point.
Most Bible readers believe that being "created in the image of God" simply
means that people are like God in many ways. Most Christians believe all
human beings have eternal spirits. We also have many of God's abilities and
His attributes. Such as the ability to express love, kindness and compassion.
We expect and demand that people be treated fairly, and when they are not we
desire to see justice done. Yet we often are willing to show mercy to the one
who has done wrong, especially when they express remorse and show repentance
for their hurtful behavior. We are highly intelligent and highly creative. I
could go on, but I'm sure you are aware of how most Bible readers have long
understood the words in Gen 1:27, that man was created "in God's image."
Dick's position maintains that the author of Genesis described in some detail
virtually everything that God had made prior to His creation of mankind, but
after doing so failed to make any mention of God's creation of the human
race, prior to His creation of Adam and Eve. I find it very hard to believe
that the author of Genesis would have made absolutely no mention of God's
creation of preadamic man. And I am not the only one who does. Critics of
our belief that the Bible does not present Adam as being "the first man" in
an absolute chronological sense have often asked me, "So then, if that's the
case, why does Genesis not tell us of God's creation of men before Adam?"
When they do I tellthem to read Genesis 1:26,27.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 13:51:52 EDT