On Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:56:30 GMT, David J. Tyler wrote:
DT>Steve Jones wrote on Thu, 27 Jun 96 in response to my comment
>that "Their creativity is a hallmark of being made in God's
>image".
>SJ: "Agreed. This is no doubt the theological intent of the
>writer. But my point was that any relationship between "first
>musical instruments", eg. a paleolithic pipe, etc., and Genesis
>4:21 is tenuous.... There is no doubt much *theological* meaning,
>but probably limited *anthropological* meaning, in Genesis 4:21".
DT>There does appear to be an issue here for debate. I am trying
>to avoid the idea that the "Bible is a textbook of science" yet
>at the same time wanting to do justice to the record of history
>which appears (to me) to be prominent.
We share the same comittment.
DT>Steve, you are allowing me to draw theological conclusions (ie
>that when humans are creative, we are imaging God), but you do not
>seem to be allowing me to draw the conclusion that wherever we find
>hominids being creative (in this case, designing, constructing and
>playing a musical instrument) we can infer that they were made in
>God's image. I can't yet see why the latter is not an acceptable
>conclusion for a Christian scholar. At this stage, I've
>intentionally avoided reference to the Two-Adam model, as my point
>applies even if the TAM is correct.
Both Pearce and I of course affirm that Genesis 1 man is made in the
image of God and that man and woman the end of Genesis 1 is the
link with Adam and Eve of Genesis 2.
"...The final act of creation was to bring man into the world. 'And
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'...Man was
created then, within the context of age-days. This applies to both
Old and New Stone Ages, but it was at the very end of the sixth
age-day that Adam of Eden, the New Stone Age farmer, came upon the
scene. It is with regard to this New Stone Age ancestor that the
second tablet or toledoth takes up the story in Gen. 2:4. It does
so with the brief recapitulation of relevant points typical of a
Sumerian toledoth tablet which links it as a sequel to the preceding
tablet.9 Although the sixth age-day in the preceding tablet (Genesis
I) was a comprehensive statement of mankind's creation, the scene had
been occupied mainly by Old Stone Age man for the greater length of
time. So it is left to the second tablet to speak specifically of
the New Stone Age to be about the salvation of his descendants. "
(Pearce E.K.V., "Who Was Adam?", Paternoster: Exeter, 1969, pp92-93)
That is, Genesis 1's sixth "age-day" (I prefer the term God-day: Ps
90:4; 2Pet 3:8), spans"Old Stone Age man" to the apperance of "New
Stone Age" man. The diference between Pearce and I is that I am
prepared to say that the genus Homo (eg. H. habilis, H. erectus, H.
neanderthalis) had an emerging image of God. The analogy is with a
sculptor making an image of himself from a block of stone. As the
figure emerges from the stone it is increasingly his image but only
at the end does he declare it to be his image and likeness.
DT>In your earlier post, you said:
>SJ: "From a two-"Adam" model perspective, I would have no problem
>with the development of musical instruments in the genus Homo
>(ie. Genesis 1 "man") which were then taken over and perfected
>by the descendants of Genesis 2 "Adam" (just like other arts and
>technology)."
DT>My comment then is - why then do you suggest that there is
>"probably limited *anthropological* meaning, in Genesis 4:21"?
>If both Genesis 1 "man" and Genesis 2 "man" are made in God's
>image, there should be no problem making the inference that
>Genesis 4 has anthropological significance. Surely it can be
>used as an input to the debate about the status of Neanderthal
>Man? (Aside to Paul Durham - yes, I agree with your post re the
>quality of the information on the Neanderthal flute).
By "limited anthropological meaning, in Genesis 4:21" I mean
"anthropological" in the sense that you say: "I am trying to avoid
the idea that the "Bible is a textbook of science", ie.
"anthropological" as science, not "anthropological" in the sense that
theology uses it. The *theological* intent may be to show that the
descendants of Cain were still in the divine image rather than to
affirm a scientific "anthropological" fact that a descendant of Cain
was the the maker of the very first "paleolithic pipe". For example,
Calvin derives the following theological meaning from the text:
"20. Jabal; he was the father of such as dwell in tents. Moses now
relates that, with the evils which proceeded from the family of Cain,
some good had been blended. For the invention of arts, and of other
things which serve to the common use and convenience of life, is a
gift of God by no means to be despised, and a faculty worthy of
commendation. It is truly wonderful, that this race, which had most
deeply fallen from integrity, should have excelled the rest of the
posterity of Adam in rare endowments. 1 I, however, understand Moses
to have spoken expressly concerning these arts, as having been
invented in the family of Cain, for the purpose of showing that he
was not so accursed by the Lord but that he would still scatter some
excellent gifts among his posterity; for it is probable, that the
genius of others was in the meantime not inactive; but that there
were, among the sons of Adam, industrious and skilful men, who
exercised their diligence in the invention and cultivation of arts.
Moses, however, expressly celebrated the remaining benediction of God
on that race, which otherwise would have been deemed void and barren
of all good. Let us then know, that the sons of Cain, though
deprived of the Spirit of regeneration, were yet endued with gifts of
no despicable kind; just as the experience of all ages teaches us how
widely the rays of divine light have shone on unbelieving nations,
for the benefit of the present life; and we see, at the present time,
that the excellent gifts of the Spirit are diffused through the whole
human race. Moreover, the liberal arts and sciences have descended
to us from the heathen. We are, indeed, compelled to acknowledge
that we have received astronomy, and the other parts of philosophy,
medicine, and the order of civil government, from them. Nor is it to
be doubted, that God has thus liberally enriched them with excellent
favours that their impiety might have the less excuse. But, while we
admire the riches of his favour which he has bestowed on them, let us
still value far more highly that grace of regeneration with which he
peculiarly sanctifies his elect unto himself" (Calvin J., "A
Commentary on Genesis", Banner of Truth: London, 1965 pp217-218)
DT>There does appear to be an issue here for debate.
The real "issue" is how strictly you regard Genesis 1-11 as literal
history. I agree with the approach of Kidner who regards the Genesis
and scientific pictures like as a painting and a photograph. Both try
to describing the same things but in the former there is an
interpretation to bring out an important aspect of the reality
described:
"In the main, two outlines of man's infancy confront the modern
Christian. The book of Genesis portrays, in a few strokes of the
pen, a creature fashioned from earthly matter, God- breathed and God-
like, whose spiritual history runs from innocence to disobedience and
on into a moral decline which the beginnings of civilization can do
nothing to arrest. The second picture, that of palaeontology, a
mosaic of many fragments, depicts a species fashioned over perhaps a
million years or more into the present human form, showing the
outward characteristics of modern man upwards of twenty thousand
years ago, not only in his bodily structure but in his practice of
making tools, using fire, burying his dead, and, not least, creating
works of art comparable with those of any period. Even at this
remote time the apparent forerunners of our chief racial groups seem
to be distinguishable, 1 and the species had already spread widely
over the world, displacing another type of hominid, 'Neanderthal
Man', whose own relics, rough as they are, indicate that tools, fire
and burial had been in use for long ages before this. On the other
hand, the first known signs of pastoral and agricultural life and,
later, of metal working (e.g. by hammering copper or meteoric iron;
cf. on 4:19- 24) are much more recent, appearing in the Near East,
on present evidence, somewhere between the eighth and fifth millennia
BC at earliest. How the two pictures, biblical and scientific, are
related to each other is not immediately clear, and one should allow
for the provisional nature both of scientific estimates (without
making this a refuge from all unwelcome ideas) and of traditional
interpretations of Scripture. One must also recognize the different
aims and styles of the two approaches: one probing the observable
world, the other revealing chiefly the unobservable, the relation of
God and man. The style of reporting will be drily factual for the
former, but the latter may need the whole range of literary genres to
do it justice, and it is therefore important not to prejudge the
method and intention of these chapters." (Kidner D., "Genesis: An
Introduction and Commentary" Tyndale Press: London, 1967, p26)
[continued]
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones |
| Perth, West Australia v (My opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------