Re: Dick Fisher's "historical basis" remains no less doubtful

"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."

Then to be consistent you must conclude that Aborigines
and North American natives are not created in the image of
God as well because there is no way they can be Adamites.
 

I find that conclusion unacceptable.

If I am missing something here then please help me to
understand more clearly.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:52:48 -0500
  "Dick Fischer" <dickfischer@earthlink.net> wrote:
>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 10:43:36 2004