Jack Syme wrote:
> One thought I had about Genesis 2 is that it is just a description of the
> beginning of agricultural society.
>
> Look at all of the agricultural themes that run through Genesis 2:
> 2:5 no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth,...no plant of the
> field had yet sprung up; the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and
> there was no man to work the ground...
In Mesopotamia.
> 2:7 And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground..
> 2:8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden...
> 2:9 And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground
> 2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work
> it and take care of it.
> 2:20 So the man gave names to all the livestock,
>
> Is the sixth day of Genesis 1 the description of hominid evolution?
Or the creation of Adam long after biological man had fully evolved and even
had established civilizations. Some like to see Genesis 1 as the creation
of biological man, and Genesis 2 as the creation of covenant man - the
beginning of men marked for redemption. There is enough ambiguity that you
can make a point either way about Genesis 1. And that has been argued on
this forum.
However, I don't see Nephilim ("giants" in Gen. 6:4), Philistines, or
Amalekites in the image of God as we tend to apply it today. These were
human beings born to destruction and not worthy of redemption, thus not "in
God's image" in my opinion. In other words, these are good examples of men
who don't qualify for redemption from the get go, whereas the Assyrians at
Nineveh were worthy (descendants of Asher in Gen. 10:11), inasmuch as God
sent Jonah to preach to them.
If we construe being in the image as simply being a representative of God,
without all the bells and whistles we like to attach, then Adam was God's
representative on earth and as such was in God's image. In the NT, Christ
is in the image, being God's representative to mankind.
This is why I can't see biological man as being "in the image." Who would
we represent God to? The animals?
The image of Baal was a representation of Baal. We are told to make no
graven images. We aren't to make representations of God to stand in the
place of God.
Today, representatives of Christ are in the reflective image of God. Those
who are outside the Christian camp represent only themselves.
Dick Fischer - Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
Received on Wed Nov 17 09:55:50 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 17 2004 - 09:55:51 EST