>Bill
>
>On Thu, 1 Jun 1995 09:51:01 -0500 you wrote:
>
>SJ>There is nothing special about man, except he is in the image of
>>God. I believe that God carried out similar "forming from the dust of
>>the ground" (Gen 2:7) for all the major groups.
>
>BH>It seems to me that being made in the image of God makes _all_ the
>>difference. Physically man bears considerable resemblance to other
>>creatures -- either by design which directs an evolutionary process
>>overseen by God, or by more direct design -- but what makes _all_ the
>>difference is that God gave man His Spirit when He made man (Gen 2:7: Then
>>the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his
>>nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being)
>
>It says nothing about God's "Spirit". It simply says that God gave man
>the "breath of life", which all animals have (Gn 6:17; 7:15,22).
Ah, but that's the point(part of it anyway): The breath of life is
mentioned immediately when man is created. It is an integral part of
creating man. It is only menitoned incidentally later on. I don't have my
Strong's here, but I believe the same Hebrew word is used in both cases
(N'shamah pr something like that) and it can mean either physical breath or
spirit. In the case of making man it seems to be intimately connected with
his creation in Gen 2:7, where later on in Gen 6 and 7 it probably only
means that air-breathing animals came to the ark or were wiped out by the
flood. Further support for this interpretation comes from the New
Testament in Jn 20:22: And when He had said this, He breathed on them and
said "Receive the Holy Spirit."
>
>BH>True, the
>>other animals were formed from the dust of the ground. But the second part
>>of the above verse, "and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and
>>man became a living being" applies to _man_, not the animals.
>
>The Bible actually says that *all* animals have God's "breath of
>life", not only man.
Debatable.
>
>BH>I believe it's quite significant that the Hebrew word used for
>>breath here can also mean spirit.
>
>I am not sure that this is true.
Look it up in Strong's
>But the real point is that in
>Genesis both animals and man are depicted as having this same
>"breath". The difference between man and animals is, according to
>Genesis, solely that man in in the "image of God" (Gen 1:28; 5:1;
>9:6).
But that's a very fundamental difference. There is a spiritual dimension
to man that is lacking in animals.
>
...but the distinction between God acting directly as a first
>cause and indirectly through a secondary cause should be recognised
>and preserved.
Agreed
>Creation should not be confused with Providence.
And the best way to avoid confusing creation with providence is not to be
too dead certain about arbitrary identifications of which is which. God is
totally in control of both.
>
>BH>This is an aspect of YEC thinking that gives scientists
>>considerable discomfort.
>
>This is IMHO revealing. Why are "sceintists" who are Chrsitians
>uncomfortable with God stepping in "to bring about something beyeond
>the capabilities of nature"? Isn't this precisely because they are
>too much committed to naturalism? It is one thing for a Christian to
>use methodological naturalism as a tool in one's work, and another to
>be uncomfortable with theism in one's personal life.
Hmm, this thread is getting too disconnected. I don't remember what I was
reacting to, and it's been snipped. However, you seems to be assuming views
I personally don't espouse. I have no problem whatever with God stepping
in and performing miracles. The miracles in the New Testament are reported
by reliable eyewitnesses, and I've certainly seen my own share of
miraculous healings and conversions in my life as a Christian. I accept
them. When a spiritual occurrence -- such as a conversion -- is involved,
the "beyond the capabilities of nature" phrase above is justified. But
when some physical thing happens miraculously, I would have to ask whether
God has stepped in and done something nature can't do, or whether He has
simply utilized capablities of nature that He hasn't allowed us to
discover, or that we haven't discovered yet. In a sense this argument is
like an argument over how Solomon built the temple. If you read about it
in Chronicles, some of the wording makes it sound as though he did it all
himself. But Solomon was king and is unlikely to have done the manual
labor -- or even all of the design -- himself. He had secondary causes --
commanders, designers,...,laborers working for him.
>
>BH>YEC's give the impression that they believe
>>in an autonomous nature that does its own thing except for what
>>happens at discrete instances when God steps in to bring about
>>something beyeond the capabilities of nature. Personally, I don't
>>believe that _any_ of nature would function were it not for God's
>>continuous oversight.
>
>I am not a YEC, but I am not sure that is not a stereotype of YEC.
>Even if YEC do overemphasise the transcendence of God in creation,
>that might be a reaction to what they see as too much an emphasis
>on the other side?
>
Possibly. I hope that's the case. And BTW, I _have_ noted that you are a
Progressive Creationist. Statements about YEC's are not aimed at you.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)