Russell Maatman wrote:
>God created human beings in his image.
God created 'adam in His image. That could be "man," but more likely is Adam,
the person.
>Adam and Eve were the parents of all human beings.
Probably not. More likely the parents of the Semites. Luke didn't trace the
ancestry of Christ back to Homo erectus.
>When they sinned, they broke but did not destroy that image.
If Adam was God's representative, I believe he remained His representative,
only not as effectual as he could have been had he refrained from sin. He
became a flawed messenger.
>Christ's salvation consists of restoring that image.
Christ is in God's image. He is God's representative to man. We are "in the
image of God" when we conform to the image of Christ. (In my humble opinion.)
>This understanding of the origin and nature of the human
>race enables one to understand the "problem" biblical passages which some
>say indicate the existence of "human" beings which were either pre-Adamites
>or contemporary with Adam.
I don't see a "problem"? Psalm. 8:4 says, "What is man ('ish), that thou art
mindful of him? and the son of man (bene 'adam), that thou visitest him?" God
may be "mindful" of all his human creatures, but he actually visits those who
He holds in a special relationship - in this case, the "sons of Adam." Today,
God is still mindful of all mankind. For those who are in Christ, however,
God
holds in a special relationship.
>For Point (10), some "problem passages" are the following: Gen. 4:13-17:
>Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you
>are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I
>will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill
>me." But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will
>suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so
>that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord's
>presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain lay with his
>wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then
>building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.
And the Sumerian king list carries kingship from Kish to "E-Anna(k)" after the
flood. This is a section of Sumerian "Uruk," called "Erech" by the Accadians,
also named in Genesis 10:10.
In tems of being "in the image," the Accadians probably would not be, even
though they spoke a Semetic language and were likely descendants of Adam. The
image of God rested with Noah after the flood, and was part of the Abrahamic
covenant which passed to the Israelites and finally to Christ. The Sumerians
would not be "in the image" by any measure as they spoke an unrelated language
and likely came from somewhere other than from Adam.
>Perhaps Cain knew of these candidates and so was worried. There
>is no evidence he "married" one of them. Is there an objection to the idea
>that in fact he married his sister?
The sister/wife argument overlooks a scriptural limitation - God forbids it in
no uncertain terms. (See Lev. 18:6, 9-14.) Such an incestuous union is an
abomination that defiles not only the participants, but the very land (Lev.
18:24-30).
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 09 2000 - 22:38:23 EST