Mike writes
>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?
Well, Mike, I'm not a book writer. And I don't know Hebrew. But,
I went back and looked at Genesis 1-2. It's only about the 50th or
60th time that I've read it (NASB).
I imagine a large part of the difficulty is that we humans would
prefer think that we are the center of everything. Perhaps that
contributed to the problem in Galileo's time. We want to think
that the Bible is directly about us. Not Hebrews first, then us.
The Genesis 1 description of Man and his authority flows into Gen 2.
To me, they seem very related (same type of language).
>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.
There's an awful lot that Gen 1 leaves out. I focus on how incredible
it is that the Author got the sequence of events right. People may
say I'm biased. But I calculated the odds as something like one in
5 quintillion. Yes, yes, I know - YMMV :).
Jim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 17 2002 - 18:25:39 EDT