On Mon, 12 Jun 1995 15:12:35 -0500 you wrote:
>Steve Jones writes
SJ>My point was that the model of making man from the dust and the
>breath of God (Gn 2:7) could have applied to all new basic types, for
>all life is from the earth (Gn 1:11, 24) and all animal life
>(including man) has God's breath of life (Gn 1:30, Gn 2:7; 6:17;
>7:15,22). There is no Biblical warrant for believing that man's
>creation is something different.
BH>I believe context is significant. The opening chapters of Genesis
>explicltly metnion breathing the breath of life into man when man was
>created. No such mention is made with animals. Not until much later, in
>the flood account, is it even mentioned that animals have the breath of
>life. I think that's significant.
Sorry. But in Gen 1:30 (ie. before 2:7) it says:
Gn 1:30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the
air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has
the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
was so."
BH>I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
OK.
SJ>What is different about man's creation is that he alone was
>made in the image of God (Gn 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6).
>
BH>Agreed, but I believe that having the spirit of God is a
>significant part of being made in the image of God.
Agreed. But this was a later development. My point was that *in
Genesis* man and the animals are both: a) from the earth; and b) from
God's breath of life. The only difference *in Genesis* is that man
uniquely is in the image of God.
Thanks for the discussion.
God bless.
Stephen