And
God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said,
Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the
face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a
tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast
of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that
creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every
green herb for meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he
had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the
morning were the sixth day.
(Gen
1:26-31)
Day
6 of creation climaxed with the creation of man. Genesis 1 gives us
an overview of the creation of Adam but Genesis 2 gives additional
details. In this post I will be referring to both chapters. I
already know this is going to be a long post so I apologize in
advance.
Genesis
1:26, “And God said, Let us
make man in our
image, after our
likeness:”
The
use of plural pronouns in this verse has been the point of much
debate. Some have proposed this is an example of the plural of
majesty. Per Wiki,
some monarchs believed their authority was divinely given so “us”
meant “God and I.” In another sense, the plural could be a
monarch speaking with the voice of his subjects such as when Queen
Victoria famously said, “We are not amused.” But neither
would apply here.
Certainly
God was not consulting with the animals so they would not be included
in the “us.” The Bible never says exactly when the angels were
created but we might assume it was during the creation week. In that
case, “us” might include the angels.
Of
course, given what we know from the rest of Scripture, the “us”
very likely means the three Persons of the Trinity. The angels had
no part in the creation but we know that John 1 acknowledges Jesus as
the Creator. So God's conversation here may be the Father in
dialogue with the Son and the Spirit.
It's
interesting to note the change in the pace of the action. In every
other instance, God spoke and the created thing appeared. In this
case, God pauses and deliberates before He acts.
Genesis
1:27-28, So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he
them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
There
are a couple of significant points we can discern from this passage.
First, we are different than the animals in that we alone are created
in the image of God. One of the first tasks given to Adam at his
creation was to name the animals of the garden. Among those beasts,
Adam would find none like him. When God created Eve, Adam saw
immediately that she was like him and remarked, “This is now
bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).
According to evolution, we are simply another evolved animal – one
possessing higher intelligence. The Bible tells us that we aren't
animals.
The
second point we can see is that God created the earth to be of
service to us. The plants were meant to be our food and we had
dominion over every living thing in the sea, in the air, and on the
earth. We should be good stewards of what has given us but the
biblical description of the relationship between us and nature seems
in stark contrast to the attitudes of radical environmentalists.
They would have us believe there is something noble in unspoiled
nature and it's our duty to serve the earth.
GENESIS
CHAPTER 2 – A
Second Creation Account?
Many
critics have argued that Genesis 1 and 2 have contradictory creation
accounts. I'm surprised this criticism has endured because even a
cursory reading seems to dispel that notion. I suspect it has been
successful through the use of quote mining where a critic will
compare select verses from chapters 1 and 2 and the reader never
bothers to read the context.
The
chronology of the seven days of the creation week ends at Genesis
2:4. Beginning in verse 5 through the rest of chapter 2, the Bible
expounds on the creation of Adam on day 6. Roughly, the events are as
follows:
- God creates Adam from the dust of the earth (v. 7)
- God creates the Garden of Eden, which includes the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (v. 8-9)
- God puts Adam in the Garden (v. 8, 15)
- God creates animals in the Garden and brings them to Adam to be named (v. 19-20)
- God creates Eve (v. 22)
Since
chapter 2 has some animals created after Adam while chapter 1 has
animals created before Adam, critics tout this as a contradiction
between the accounts. We can see in the text, though, that the
animals created in v. 19 are not the same animals that were created
on previous days.
Still
another criticism of the creation account is the straw claim that
Adam had to name all the animals in the world. Since there are
millions of species, naming them all would take more than a single
day. However, a clear reading of the text shows that the task was
limited only to cattle, birds, and “the beasts of the field.”
Genesis
1:31, And God saw every thing that he had
made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning
were the sixth day.
At
the end of the 6th day, God surveyed His entire creation.
At the end of each creative act before now, God proclaimed the thing
He had created as good. Now, He says everything He had made
was very good. It was a world without sin. It was a world
without death. The perfect creation He intended before time began
had now been accomplished... in six days!
3 comments:
You seem to be arguing that Genesis 2 describes a separate creation of birds and beasts, especially for the Garden of Eden, after the general creation on the fifth and sixth days for the rest of the Earth. This reading never occurred to me (or many other people -- the usual explanation from inerrantists is that the description of the creation of these animals should be rendered in the past perfect -- "God had [already] made," rather than the simple past "God made"). Also, in light of numerous hominid fossils whose placement (as "fully-formed humans" or "fully-formed apes") creationists disagree about (e.g. the skulls KNM-ER1470 or D4500), it raises the question of whether Adam may have found some organisms more like him if he had looked and named species outside the garden.
Also, you don't really address the controversy over what "image of God" means. If we assume that Genesis 1 is consistent with the gospel of John (which affirms that God is spirit, and not a biological organism limited to a particular location), this can't be a biological or morphological image (as it seems to be in, e.g. Mesopotamian or Norse creation myths). In that case, being made in the image of God (spiritually or mentally or morally or whatever) would not necessarily contradict sharing the physical or morphological image of other primates.
The idea that humans are animals is not an innovation of evolutionary theory; Aristotle in the fourth century BC, and Aquinas in the thirteenth AD, agreed that humans are "rational animals." Carolus Linnaeus was a creationist, but freely placed humans among the animals (and indeed more similar to other primates than to other mammals, and other mammals than to other classes of animals). From a taxonomical standpoint, being "in the image of God" would be an "apomorphy," a trait distinguishing one species from other similar species, not grounds for discharging us from the animal kingdom altogether.
I do not, by the way, think I am contradicting the Bible on this last point, since Genesis 2 has humans and nonhuman beasts created in the same way (out of the dust of the Earth) and does not actually assert that humans are not themselves members of the animal kingdom.
Question: are humans, in your view, vertebrates?
Steven J,
You said, “'You seem to be arguing that Genesis 2 describes a separate creation of birds and beasts, especially for the Garden of Eden, after the general creation on the fifth and sixth days for the rest of the Earth. This reading never occurred to me.”
I concede the belief in a special creation of animals in the Garden is somewhat novel but hopefully you know me well enough to know that I try to write original thoughts on this blog and not continuously regurgitate things being said a million other places on the net. Anyway, I believe my understanding is not only a possible understanding of the text but even the likely meaning.
I know for certain that events described in Genesis 2 are an elaboration on the creation of man on day 6. It is not a second creation account as many critics claim. The text is clear that the Garden was made after the man. The trees God made grow in v. 9 had to be different than the trees created on day 4; what else would make this a new garden? Why then is it any stretch to believe the animals mentioned later were also created for the Garden?
I don't know enough Hebrew to conjugate the verb “formed.” The NASB (my preferred translation) has “formed.” The NIV (a popular but more liberal translation) has “had formed.” It would be unusual for a verb to have the identical form in the aorist and pluperfect so one of these translations is more accurate than the other. It is my opinion of the NIV that it tends to interpret as it translates which I suspect they have done here. The bottom line, though, is that I could live with either translation. Perhaps the animals are the same animals created prior to man. Either way, the mention of the creation of animals in chapter 2 does not contradict the creation account described in chapter 1.
You said, “Also, in light of numerous hominid fossils whose placement (as "fully-formed humans" or "fully-formed apes") creationists disagree about (e.g. the skulls KNM-ER1470 or D4500), it raises the question of whether Adam may have found some organisms more like him if he had looked and named species outside the garden.”
As you suggest in a moment, the difference between man and beast is more than morphology. The 1470 skull has been labeled as both human and non-human by various creationists. An ambiguous skull is not enough to know exactly how the living critter looked. You also need the flesh, eyes, lips, hair, etc. If Adam had seen this creature alive, he might have immediately identified it as an ape (assuming it was an ape).
Continued...
You said, “Also, you don't really address the controversy over what "image of God" means. If we assume that Genesis 1 is consistent with the gospel of John (which affirms that God is spirit, and not a biological organism limited to a particular location), this can't be a biological or morphological image (as it seems to be in, e.g. Mesopotamian or Norse creation myths). In that case, being made in the image of God (spiritually or mentally or morally or whatever) would not necessarily contradict sharing the physical or morphological image of other primates.”
First, I remind you my name for this series is, “Some Comments on the Creation Week.” It's not intended to be a treaty on the subject and the phrase, “image of God” is a complicated issue. God created Adam in a physical form that pleased Him. This is also the form that Jesus assumed at His incarnation so we are in His image in that sense. However, I believe the image of God also includes additional dimensions. We have a sophisticated language – unlike any other creature. Speech is one thing that defines humans. We also emote more than any other creature. And, of course, we have a spirit just as God is spirit.
God could have created the universe as a beautiful landscape to admire. Instead, He chose to create man with similar attributes that He possessed so that we could have a unique relationship with Him.
You said, “From a taxonomical standpoint, being "in the image of God" would be an "apomorphy," a trait distinguishing one species from other similar species, not grounds for discharging us from the animal kingdom altogether. ¶I do not, by the way, think I am contradicting the Bible on this last point, since Genesis 2 has humans and nonhuman beasts created in the same way (out of the dust of the Earth) and does not actually assert that humans are not themselves members of the animal kingdom. ¶Question: are humans, in your view, vertebrates?”
Humans are most certainly vertebrates. I also agree that we could be categorized as animals, mammals, or even apes. I really have no problem with the taxonomical categorization of humans according to physical morphology. What I object to is the evolutionary assumption that we are like the animals because we are related to them. Here's a quote I have used on my blog before:
“Bring the whole family out to the Oakland Zoo from 10:00am - 3:00pm for Earth Day 2009 Festivities! This year, the theme is "We're All Connected." All of the world is connected in a beautiful web of life, including you!”
I object to the idea that the only difference between a monkey and a man is in the degree of intelligence.
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment