A couple of good books, perhaps. Navigating Genesis and A Matter of Days by Hugh Ross are good places to start; the latest version of Who Was Adam shows how the model is evolving.
2 Likes
I would argue that homo sapiens sapiens are where Imago Dei Humans begin, and not necessarily all homo sapiens. Assuming image isnāt just anatomical modernity, but also corresponds to mind.
I was waiting to see if you would jump on this one.
And weāve discussed the dynamics before. Do you have anything to add?
The two aspects I feel we have covered is the question of who married
Cain, and the issue of Godās image being āall or nothingā.
Genesis 9 has God explaining the death penalty for murder, because all
of Noahās descendants bear the image of God. While there are no
explicit references to this fact, one of the reasons to hold Genesis 1
as referring to a population of pre-Adam humans (created by God
through Evolution) is that it provides the credible answer that Cain
married into that line, and that all of Adamās offspring married into
that population to avoid incest issues and to avoid inbreeding amongst
themselves.
Genesis 9 also doesnāt provide for partial loss of Godās image ā¦ in
the same way that I doubt anyone would consider Original Sin could be
diluted by marrying out of the sub-species sapiens sapiens.
So, on what grounds would you refute either of these two points?
1 Like
Iām not sure that was an issue as it was not addressed until generations later with the Israelites and the laws they were given. There were no laws given at this early point involving potential incest.
Eve was made from Adam, making her essentially his genetic twin, and they had children together.
It seems to me the beginning of Genesis 6 states this pretty directly. That Godās āspiritā will not ācontendā with humans forever as itās talking about the intermingling of Adamās line with āmortalā humans.
The decrease in ages through subsequent generations illustrates how this mixing of lines dilutes the traits of Adamās line through future generations. Based on the statement in Genesis 6 and the interest in protecting the āholy seedā in regards to the Israelites I would say that Godās āspiritā/āimageā can and does dilute through further interaction.
Much of the laws given to the Israelites, and much of Romans 5, has to do with keeping the Israelite bloodline apart from other āGentileā groups to avoid further mixing with those lines.
@Jeremy_Chamberlain
-
The genetic makeup of Eve is pure speculation. God might have made
her as an near-identical twin of Adam, just by doubling up Adamās āXā
chromosome. Or she might have made her into the perfect ācomplimentā
to his genetics. Genetic Bottleneck studies, desperate to show as
much diversity as possible, rarely assume Eveās genetics are virtually
the same as Adam; they almost always assume maximum differences. -
Interpreting the reference to Godās spirit as not contending with
humans forever as a veiled reference to ābearing Godās imageā is quite
the leap, aye? How do you go from Godās spirit ā¦ and make mental
assumptions about Humanās bearing Godās Image. You arenāt trying to
suggest that Godās image is a āreflection in the mirrorā are you? And
that when God doesnāt ācontendā with humans any longer, the image in
the mirror vanishes? -
You bring up Blood Linesā¦ but if genetics is the basis of the
image of God, then loss of faith or anything else psychological
wouldnāt affect ābearing Godās imageā. And if it is actually
something involving the mind or psyche, then itās just as likely to be
an āAlways Onā feature. You think it can be diluted, or affected by
choices, but you may have noticed that the human brain doesnāt work
like that. If you inherit two recessive genes, you donāt get 20% of a
Brain, or 50% of a brain. Brains come in packs of ONE. -
So why would longevity matter at all to ābearing the image of Godā?
-
If being Hebrew was so important, how exactly does this importance
leap to the gentiles in the New Testament period, if not by marriage,
or longevity or whatever?
1 Like
Itās not āimago Deiā within humanity that God ends up contending with, but the marred version of it, in Adam and Eveās new, fully accountable āknowledge of good and evil,ā illegitimately acquired through disobedience. God dealt with it directly by removing them from the garden, cutting off access to the vital nutrients of the tree of life. The unfair, aggressive survival advantages fallen humanity had over the simpler form of āimago Deiā humanity, by virtue of possessing a more highly developed neocortex and neuronal networks, accounts for all the increase in violence God so hated, and why Adamās geneaological descendants were the last ones left standing.
Their lifespans were shorter, among other things, because of the brutal intercultural environment theyād created --we killed off all the more simple-minded and more peaceful human ārivalsā --not to mention the shift in lifestyle from a more active hunter-gathering style to a more sedentary grain-dominated diet and lifestyle in settled cities.
Itās all of a piece.
God, in His grace, acted to at least slow down this travesty with a large regional flood, giving humans not yet interbred with Adamās line around the world a longer time to adjustā¦ but, the full assimilation was inevitable.
Someone has said that itās firmly ensconsed in human nature --if we all woke up tomorrow the same color --say, purple --weād all find some other baseless reason by which to be prejudiced about each other again by noon.
@swamidass , @AJRoberts , @kkeathley , @deuteroKJ , or others --comments?
Well, itās an interesting story, but I wonder what reference or support you offer for speculating āThe unfair, aggressive survival advantages fallen humanity had over the simpler form of āimago Deiā humanityāā¦ that anything other than a singular form of āimago Deiā has ever existed. Are you now going to try to create or pustulate a gradation of imago Dei? On what basis? And for what purpose?
1 Like
True. But God making Eve from Adamās rib, and not from the soil as He did Adam, would suggest Eve is basically a clone of Adam.
Yes. In fact, Gen1 humans are said to have been created in Godās image, so it wouldnāt make sense that mixing with this line would dilute Godās image, but it does say āGodās spiritā would not ācontendā. This to me means āGodās spiritā was something given to Adam when God breathed life into him.
Through belief. After Jesusā death/resurrection, Gentile believers are then included in the āsons of Godā club (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 1 John 3:1).
āāJews and Gentiles together, on equal footing, united in and marked off by not by observing circumcision and dietary restrictions, but by their common faith that Jesus is Godās final answer to how all the world will be reconciledāand that is why you have to get along and love each other. All of you, Jew and Gentile together, are the new āpeople of Godāā (see Romans 13-15).ā - https://peteenns.com/paul-adam-and-salvation-maybe-augustine-really-did-screw-everything-up-and-we-should-just-move-on/
Human history is the support, isnāt it? There are clearly two lines of humans. One line that lives much like humans have lived on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years, in simple tribal communities. While the other line developed civilizations, became technologically advanced, and proved to be much more aggressive than the other line.
The entirety of human history is the same story over and over again where one group conquers and displaces the other, forcing the original inhabitants from the land.
The story Genesis describes explains this difference. And human history shows that this second line began right where and when Genesis says it did.
I know of zero semantic rules that would let you make such a statement!
You are talking about humans having an imageā¦ and now you are using a text about Godās reaction to humans as some kind of mathematical proof.
Itās not clear to me from human history that there are two lines of humans. Perhaps you could give examples and supporting documentation? There may be two ultimate outcomes for human destiny but that does not suggest there are two lines of humans. What do you mean by line? Is that a biological or theological designation?
1 Like
Genesis 1:26 starts out with an āadamahā (pl. ā not a named individual) that has not yet been created āin the image of God, male and female made He them.ā
By verse 27, this has been accomplished by God, with no information given on how long it took.
Later, on āyom six,ā when God pronounces everything "very good " we are free to surmise that the fall, at least, hasnāt happened yet, even though thereās already a widespread āimago Deiā humanity around (who are morally simple, by comparison with the later, evil-knowing Adam and Eve), who apparently have heard Godās speech of commissioning and blessing, and are reasonably capable, morally and intellectually, but not yet evil, and not yet accountable for any particular sins, since God has not issued any āthou shalt not.ā
It is not out of bounds to read the story of the named individuals, Adam and Eve, as taking place AFTER the beginning of āyomā seven, in a completely subsequent chapter, as recently as, say, 15-13kya, before the end of the Younger Dryas period which leads to sea level changes that inundate the garden area permanently.
This is a result of a sequential reading of the first two chapters, rather the recapitulatory one, which tries to locate the Adam and Eve story on the sixth āyom,ā although the fall CANNOT have taken place prior to the conclusion of that āyom.ā
If the whole Genesis 2:5 and forward narrative occurs well after the beginning of āyomā seven, we are left with a scenario that, I M O, much more closely matches the available evidence.
There are the āimago Deiā humans, who have not yet been interbred with Adamās lineage, and those who already, even at this very early stage, are beginning to murder and take vengeance, from Adamās lineage, who possess the āknowledge of good and evilā and are thus acoountable for their misdeeds.
Comments, @AJRoberts , @swamidass , @KenKeathley , @deuteroKJ , and any one else focused on understanding the narrative flow of Genesis?
So in your model, more or less knowledge equates to more or less of the image of God?.. Iām still thinking that is not supported by the text and Iām still not certain if whether this is now a biological, theological, or sociological distinction in human lines and or the image of God in humans that you are proposing. And you still havenāt offered an explanation as to what purpose a gradation of the image of God in different humans signifies or implies.
I just want to be clear that @Jeremy_Christian is welcome here, but he holds a minority view that no one else here is comfortable with at the moment.
[@Jeremy_Christian, it would be good if you noted that in the future. We all try to help people understand the full range of views here, and there by float everyoneās boat. That is something that would be valuable before pressing your preferred view.]
1 Like
Being the season, the Thanksgiving story is a perfect example of the two lines I mean.
Earth was fully populated by humans by 20,000 years ago, long before farming or the stories of Genesis. And all of those humans, the world over, they all behaved the same way. Held the same type of beliefs. No matter the conditions they existed in or the struggles they faced. The same stone tool, made over and over again, across the planet. Not various tools. One tool. The same one. All of humanity. For 200,000 years.
Then about 4000 BC one community of humans began inventing dozens of different tools. Began measuring time. Began writing. Built cities. Created laws and a monarchical government. Became the worldās first astronomers and mathematicians. All in the span of a couple of centuries. And what began then in 4000BC in that one place spread like wildfire across the planet, still burning when the Europeans first showed up on the shores of the Americas.
The conditions were not unique to them. Thereās no clear catalyst that made these humans so different than all the rest of the species living all across the Earth.
But by the time the thanksgiving story happened, it was as if aliens had come to shore. They were wildly different. They were aggressive, conquering all the world and the seas. Subjugating the original inhabitants of any land they claimed for themselves.
This is so wildly different than pre-civiliazation human behavior that it would seem the actions of a totally different species. But theyāre not. Theyāre genetically, biologically the same. But psychologically theyāre very different.
Honestly, I have a simplistic view where the image of God is concerned in Genesis. I think that simply means that pre-Adam humans looked like Adam and his kin. Same ālikenessā. There are others here that have views about the āimage of Godā that seem to me to be wild theological speculations not really grounded in much of anything I can find.
My statement about homo sapiens sapiens being the ābeginningā of humanity in Godās image is a continuation of that view. Whatās significant about humans compared to the rest of life on this Earth is the distinction between those created in āGodās imageā and those who arenāt. So, if weāre going to choose a starting point that canāt ever really be known with any certainty, thatās the starting point I choose. The point where our line of species first began to diverge from the animal kingdom in a significant way, unlike any other species in Godās creation. Then or since.
In cases like this ā¦
2 Corinthians 4:4 - In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
I think of it more akin to being Godās image in that Jesus behaves exactly consistent with God. Heās an āimageā of God in that way.
Gobekli Tepe, 11,500 years ago built by Hunter gatherers pre-agriculture.
2 Likes
Thanks for asking, @AJRoberts .
No; I 'm not just speaking about āmore knowledgeable,ā but about those who, in Adam, now possessed the morally accountable awareness and active guilt of the āknowledge of good and evil,ā having opposed a direct commandment of God in disobedience (āthou shalt not eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evilā) in order to illegitimately gain it.
Humanity prior to this, Romans 5 says, was not exactly āsinless,ā but āwhere there is no law, sin is not imputedā --these were the ones who, in Romans 5, had not (yet) sinned in the likeness of Adam.
I see a change, not only in status, but in moral reasoning capacity and accountability in Adam and Eve and in their lineage --not to mention in their mood, rapidly souring interpersonal relations, etc. having abrogated the āimage of Godā within them.
It is a spiritual death towards God that begins to greatly work against Godās good intentions for them in the first place, that will indeed necessitate the atoning sacrifice offered in Jesus.
Judgement, tempered with mercy, will now have to deal with the worsening situation.
1 Like
Good point, Patrick. But Gobekli Tepe is an anomaly that has the scientific community baffled for a reason. Because itās such a break from the norm. This signifies how different this behavior is.
Personally I equate Gobekli Tepe to interactions only really alluded to vaguely and briefly in Genesis when it depicts God showing the Gen1 humans āseed-bearing plantsā. If I remember correctly it was determined genetically that this site is the origin of emmer wheat domestication.
But I of course canāt know if that connection to Genesis is legitimate for sure. Just my take.
Guy, it seems to me, and I may be wrong about my impression, but are you suggesting that pre-Adamite humans (still adamah) are also 1) Homo sapiens sapiens and 2) in the image of God and 3) less violent toward each other and creation than fallen Adam and his descendants who are also in the image of God but now marred and in broken covenant? Not trying to confuse the situation, but these seem to be points youāve raised and I want to make sure Iām understanding you correctly. I wonder on what basis you or Jeremy C. might make the claims that pre-fall humans (outside of Adamās lineage or the garden) are in any way less violent? That seems sheer speculation, but Iām willing to be corrected on my assessment thus far. The explanation you offer here is specific to Adam and seems reasonable theologically from the biblical text, but it doesnāt address the questions Iāve just raised. So any further clarity there would be helpful.
Before farming ā¦
āit is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fightingā¦ All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace.ā - Archaeologist WJ Perry
āFor the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began, there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all.ā - Anthropologist Richard Gabriel
Farming age ā¦
āthe prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolutionā¦despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic.ā -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian
"There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gather era. Graves donāt contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns arenāt situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls.- Steve Taylor, The Fall
Though this view isnāt without opposition ā¦