Is Genesis real history? (new Common Questions page)

This is something I am uncertain of too. I am not sure the Bible says that. Sin is missing the mark. How can you miss something you were never aiming at, or not even in th game? I guess if you are not hitting the bullseye, you are hitting it, whether you were trying or not. But it doesn’t seem to be charged against you till you try

Rom 5:13 “To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.”

I know humans are born with the propensity to sin, and will the first time we reject God. But I’m not sure if newborns are sinners or mentally challenged are charged against, they don’t know what they are doing.

I agree, it my thoughts on sin and IB are both kind of intertwined, as it seems to be for you too. Which can make sense why also for you, it is hard to understand my thoughts.

It wouldn’t be the effort saving you (even if you could live a perfect life) it would still be God saving you, as the only reason you were able to live a perfect life would have been from God, through you.

We fail, and will fail if it was works based. I am saying it is God-based salvation, it was always faith based. God is the one allowing us to live an image bearing life.

The purpose is to bear God’s image, by allowing God to live through you. If you don’t allow God to live through you, you fail. So again, it isn’t works based. It is decision based, like all faith, you have to decide to believe or not, allow God to be your ruler or not. Even the traditional view if salvation is decision based. The decision to allow Him to bear His image through you.

I am saying you/we fail, but I am not saying we fail because our works aren’t good enough. I am saying we fail, because we reject God. Only total submission to God’s will (which Jesus demonstrated us up to and including the point of death) will allow you to not fail. Only total submission to Gid’s will, will allow you to bear His image.

Why would God mention making people righteous if it couldn’t actually be true until after death? My righteousness (or lack there of) won’t get me to heaven. His death doesn’t make me righteous, it makes me justified. I will get to heaven because He is righteous, and He has allowed His righteousness as my justification for getting there. But once there, will be given new righteous, image bearing bodies.

Yes made in His image, made to bear His image. It doesn’t say will bear it. Again, did the Pharisees bear image?

Jesus was His image, so of course He beared it. I never said He was created.

1 Like

Sorry I’m late to the party, but Phil nailed it 25 posts ago. I’ll just take a little more than two sentences to repeat what he said. I think @still_learning is on the right track with the image of God, but considering people Image Bearers (IB) and non-Image Bearers (non-IB) is not biblical, in my opinion. I’ve linked an excellent short article on the imago Dei by our own J.R. Middleton, whose thinking on Genesis and the image of God is very much in line with John Walton, N.T. Wright, etc.

J. Richard Middleton, “Image of God,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Theology

“The syntax of Genesis 1:26 connects the imago Dei with human rule over animals and the earth; Genesis 1:27 specifies that the image applies to both male and female. Genesis 5:1 and 9:6 indicate that humans are still in the image of God after sin; Genesis 9:6 uses the imago Dei as prohibitive grounds against murder.”

As Middleton says, Gen. 5.1 and 9.6 are enough to establish that the Bible has no category for non-image-bearing human beings. That is the root of @beaglelady’s objection, as well as a serious problem for any scenario that wants to place a literal man named “Adam” at a recent date.

Strictly speaking, all were created “in” the image, not “to bear” the image. You are right that Gen. 1:26 is a statement of purpose, and God’s intended purpose for mankind was to represent him on earth, which is an action, not a status.

Is a cracked vase still a vase? Yes. It cannot perform its intended function, but it has not ceased to be a vase and become something else. In the same way, because of sin, mankind cannot perform its intended function as God’s image, meaning that we cannot perfectly represent him in his goodness, mercy, justice, etc., “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3.23). Despite the fact that we are imperfect image bearers, “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom. 11.29). Just as the Lord did not withdraw his blessing to “be fruitful and multiply” when “the man” and “the woman” fell into sin, he did not withdraw his gifts or his call for us to represent him upon Earth when we fell into sin. Thus, the gifts that enabled mankind to serve as God’s image remain with us, and the call to represent God upon Earth remains in effect, but our own sinfulness prevents us from achieving that end.

What to do? The first problem, obviously, is sin. Christ has dealt with that, but does being forgiven make one an image bearer, in your sense? Jesus has forgiven my sins, and I am united to him by the Holy Spirit who dwells within me, but does that mean I am now perfectly reflecting God’s goodness, mercy, justice, etc? Does my behavior constantly and perfectly reflect Christ, the image of the invisible God? You don’t even need to meet me to know that isn’t true. So, what is going on?

In a nutshell, your missing piece is “sanctification.” Consider the metaphor of the “new birth,” how Jesus constantly referred to his followers as “children,” and the fact that we are called to “become mature.” In this life, even after we are “born again,” we still do not function perfectly as the image of God. That will not occur until the consummation. “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Rom 8.29). We do not yet conform to the image of the Son of God. That is a journey we are still making, and we must make it together, as Paul indicated in Ephesians 4:

"11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. 14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ.

1 Like

Sorry to double up, but I wanted to mention that this understanding of the imago Dei also clears up a lot of confusion regarding the “status” of those with severe mental disabilities. Just like everyone else, they, too, were created in the image of God, even though their disabilities prevent them from properly functioning as his image (reflecting his goodness, mercy, justice, etc.). But in that, we are all in the same boat. None of us, from the genius to the most profoundly disabled, function as we should. We are all sinners saved by grace, from the greatest to the least, and according to Jesus, the least will be first in the kingdom. God is just.

In a previous post, when I you to name some people who bear the image of God,
You replied,
“Jesus, that’s it.”

So no humans bear the image of God except for Jesus. But being made in the image of God is the root of our human rights and dignity.

btw, are you LDS or have you been a part of the LDS? Your teaching about the image of God sounds like their particular theology.

@Jay313 thanks for responding, I do plan on reading that, reflecting on it, and replying, though I don’t have the time that requires right now. I skimmed through it, and wanted to respond real quick to something that stood out.

It seems you don’t quite grasp or I am not explaining well enough.

But just as a cracked (non water holding) vase is still a vase, a (cracked) non image bearing human is still a human. You seem to be able to separate the vase being a vessel, and being a vessel to hold water. But you don’t seem to be able to separate a human, being a potential image bearer, and a human actually bearing His image. They are not intertwined in my thoughts. That is why not bearing His image doesn’t make one sub-human. Bearing the image is not what makes us human. Biological features makes us human. What makes humans special, is that we have the potential to bear His image, no animal can do that. And when we allow Him to live in us, we do bear His image at that moment.

Maybe I shouldn’t have said Jesus is the only IB, rather the only perfect, full time IB.

But being an IB is not something that just is, because you are human. You either represent God or you aren’t you either are bearing His image, or you aren’t. When we are sinning, I think it is clear we aren’t bearing His image…but we are still human when we are sinning. When we are loving, it’s clear we are bearing His image…and we are still humans.

You are right, I shouldn’t have said that. See above for a better wording to that.

This tells me you are not even close to understanding what I am saying. I will admit I don know much about LDS, but something about Joseph Smith and some revealed knowledge and more of a cult-like exclusivity that has much to do with works. How that if we follow ingredients, that makes us an image bearer. I am saying the exact opposite. How it doesn’t matter of your actions, the only way to bear His image, is to have His image coming out of you. So if you are doing anything that bears His image, it is from Him, not your own efforts.

I can’t image what you read that resembles anything close to that. Though I have never been one to conform to the social constructs of ‘religion’ nor be forced to do what it teaches. I follow Jesus, which by definition makes me a Christian. Jesus gave us 2 greatest commandments, and said apart from Him, we can do nothing.

Maybe I am on the ‘slippery slope’ that YECs warn of when you go from believing in a literal, traditional, material Genesis, to a literal, function, less traditional Genesis interpretation. As I began as a YEC, exclusive, eternal conscious torment, substitutionary Jesus. And now I am an EC, inclusivist, suffering is a reality, not a punishment, Christus Victor mindsets.

Much of my transition started from folks like yourself helping push the evolution narrative. So I guess I should say, be careful what you wish for? Don’t try to open people’s eyes if you don’t want their eyes opened, if you just want them to be a clone of your mind and only believe what you believe.

Though I do not regret my transition. Now I see God much clearer than I used to. I find His kindness and patience coming out of me more. His acceptance of me allows more humility and love towards others that I never had before. A greater understanding of the scriptures. I used to be a Bible thumper, thinking it was my burden to save others from eternal hell, to ‘push them out of the way of impending doom’. I found my actions and thoughts to be bitterness, anger, and fear, trying to live right (for the sake of being good) and failing miserably. I feel I was greatly legalistic and traditional, and now my eyes are opened. My mind is being renewed by the power of the Spirit in me.

But I don’t have all the answers, I’m still learning as I go. This is just my current thoughts.

No one mentioned subhumans. I am not able to separate human beings according to who is or is not bearing the image of God because the Scriptures do not justify that separation. It’s not the fact that you aren’t explaining yourself well enough; it’s the fact that Gen. 5.1 and 9.6 both contradict your idea that some people are non-image-bearers. There is no such category in the Bible. It does not exist.

The Bible does not recognize a category of Image Bearers, either. This is something you have created and defined and read back into the Scripture. But, if there were such a category, it would be useless. You are bearing God’s image when you do his will, but you are not bearing God’s image when you are sinning. So the same person can be an Image Bearer one moment, a non-Image Bearer the next, and this see-saw existence could take place multiple times within the same day. And when a person without the Spirit acts in accordance with God’s will, what should we say of them? A non-Image Bearer briefly was an Image Bearer? A cracked vessel somehow held water, even if only for a few minutes?

No one is trying to define who is human or who is not. It’s really very simple. Humanity was created for a purpose. Sin prevented us from fulfilling that purpose. Christ restores that purpose, that vocation, and for the remainder of our lives, we are like novices and apprentices learning our trade, imitating the Master. We will never be perfectly Christlike until the Resurrection. Consider 1 Cor. 15:48-49

48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

According to Paul, “bearing the image of the heavenly man” occurs at the resurrection of the body, so it’s not something we should associate with this life, except as a goal to be sought. The idea that sometimes we are bearing the image of God and sometimes not is just as foreign to Paul as to Genesis.

1 Like

This reminds me of the NYC subway system. Usually it’s okay, but every once in a while a self-styled preacher will actually enter your car and start preaching at you.

@Jay313 Ok, I had some time to look over your posts. I think I am slightly siding away from my initial thoughts, but I still need some help. But I will play devil’s advocate for responding to IB posts from an IB/non-IB mindset, with a “^^^^^^^^^^^^^^” separating devil’s advocate to my new line of thinking.

This logic doesn’t work. If one was to see Gen 1:26 as saying poential IB, then the grounds against murder can also be against all potential IBs. I am not saying I am right, but from my mindset, Gen 9:6 changes nothing.

I wasn’t speaking of a verse that said this literal wording. I was more just looking at the definition of a word. If the definition isn’t met, than it can’t be. If your were to make a leaking vase as a water holding vessel, but it didn’t hold water, it can be known that it isn’t actually a water holding vessel, without explicit verses that say “this is not a water holding vessel”.

But perhaps I am looking at the definition wrong?

I could agree with that. But it is coming from my understanding of a definition of something. Doesn’t all understanding of scripture read back into based of what we defined?

I might not be defining something correctly, but interpreting something different than others isn’t an uncommon thing.

You might not have, but others here certainly have. I am not saying you are wrong, I was just saying that your analogy is flawed as a cracked vase is still a vase, just as a ‘cracked’ human would still be a human.

This would be one of the main issues I run into that I have thought about, and don’t have a good answer for.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I agree with that.

Would you agree that representatives of God is a better analogy/definition of IBs. Like an ambassador, is a representative of an American. Whatever they say and do, it is assumed they would only act or say what the President would say, and it is as if it directly came from them? Though they might do a great job, or a terrible job, as soon as they get that job and receive that title of a representative of America, they are one. Or like a soldier off duty in uniform, represents the military. Whenever they have that uniform on, they represent the military, and hopefully they represent it well, and when/if they don’t it looks bad on the military, even though the military probably doesn’t condone that sort of behavior, the uniform makes people assume the military condones it.

So humans are representatives of God. We are supposed to represent Him perfectly, but we don’t. But because we ‘wear’ the ‘human uniform’, we are declared representatives, or made in His image.

The problem with this is what of those who don’t know they are in uniform or an ambassador, they don’t know their ability or purpose to represent, can they? I guess an American, in Europe acting like a jerk is representing America whether they want to or acknowledge that responsibility or not?

So Gen1:6 God is decreeing humans as His ambassador/representative. It just so happens must all of us do a terrible job at that, and Jesus happened to do a perfect job at that.

That is a much less inclusive standpoint. Instead of saying some are IB’s and some are not, we can say all all representatives. Some do better than others at different times, but non are perfect but Jesus. And only perfect representatives get to eat dinner with the One who you represent, and those invited and have accepted the invitation of the one perfect representative can a;so sup with Him.

But my main issue with this line of thought is how I can’t reconcile it with evolution. Did God snap his fingers where Adam and Eve were made or given the law or made aware of their representative status, and all humans were now in His image. But years before Adam, those humans were not representatives?

Adam clearly had something special/unique. Sure we don’t know in the Neanderthal-human continuum where we became human, but it has to be at some point pretty far from Adam right? What about those humans? Were they representatives of God? Were they made in His image? Gen1:26 does say mankind, not mankind after Adam.

@Jay313 thanks for not dismissing me and helping me work things out here. Does this representative mindset seem to be more ‘biblically sound’?

That is an interesting take on it, that in His image was only referring to the rule over animals, like He has rule over everything.

I can agree fully with you there.

Didn’t your mother ever teach you, if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all? Your constant subtle insults don’t help anyone (other than to make yourself feel better?) I just hope if/when you do/did encounter said person on the subway, you don’t speak about them with this much arrogance and contempt.

But, again, neither text says anything about potential. That is an imported idea. Gen. 9.6 outlaws murder because “in the image of God has God made mankind.” It does not say, “in the potential image of God.” Likewise, Gen. 1.26 states God’s intention to create mankind as his image, not his “potential image.” Remember Romans 11.29 – “God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” God did not change his mind, and his purposes cannot be thwarted, whether by human sinfulness or Satanic evil. God gifted humanity with everything necessary to fulfill his intended purpose of “imaging” him, but we chose evil instead of good. Nevertheless, God’s call to represent him still remains in force, and it still applies to all of humanity. For God so loved the world …

Yes, in a way. But, if our goal is to be faithful to the text, both the concepts and the definitions should be faithful to the text, as well. When the concept itself is foreign to the ideas in the Bible, the subsequent interpretation might be useful or attractive, but it will not be biblical.

It’s a better analogy, and it is biblical: Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His plea through us. We plead with you on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God!" (2 Cor. 5:20). But remember that this, too, is just an analogy, and so has its limits, just like the analogy of the vase. An analogy is helpful for thinking about one aspect of something (maybe more, if it’s a good analogy), but it doesn’t necessarily give a complete picture. For example, think of the multitude of analogies for salvation. There are so many that they can be classified into categories: deliverance metaphors (redemption, salvation), kingdom metaphors, renewal metaphors (regeneration, new creation), family metaphors (adoption, heirs, reconciliation), cultic metaphors (holiness, sanctification), legal metaphors (forgiveness, justification). No single metaphor or analogy is capable of capturing all that God has done for us in Christ. When we fixate on one metaphor to the exclusion of all others, such as focusing solely on the legal metaphor of “justification,” we fail to appreciate the full magnitude of this “so great a salvation.”

Mom’s advice is timeless. Thanks for the reminder.

2 Likes

Huh? I meant that the subway preachers say outlandish things. Nobody usually answers them.

Exactly… you are dismissing me, and referring to what I say as outlandish. If only you would extend the same courtesy and ignore me too, as opposed to the subtle insults.

It is one thing to ignore a subway rant, arguably polite (mom’s advice). It is another to nitpick it on the subway, and say, we should all ignore these outlandish rants, and proffer for others to dismiss them as you have.

Surely you see a difference in the way you respond and @Jay313 or @Mervin_Bitikofer or @jpm (who all disagree with me) respond.

They disagree, but are interested in understanding where i am coming from and trying to offer ways to help ‘fix’ it. Where it seems like when I say something you don’t agree with, you dismiss it and have no care to help, only berate me for holding these ideas.

Baloney. My responses haven’t been so different. I am simply opposed to thinking of any human as not an image bearer. I’ve just been pointing that out. And you are the one who said you go off the rails at times. I never said that.

Certainly when online, bluntness and forthrightness can be misinterpreted. I think we can all be reminded that whatever our pet idea is, it isn’t part of our worth or value, and probably is neither original or correct, but also must be aware that despite ourselves, we do take things personally and keep that in mind in our communications.

2 Likes

I should add that the idea that some humans don’t bear the image of God is hardly unique on BioLogos. In other words, the idea might be outlandish to me only. A related idea is that there are separate “lines” of humans, even from separate creation events.

No, it is outlandish to most, from what I can tell

@beaglelady

Right. That is why it is so crucial to @Swamidass and his “Genealogical Adam Scenarios” that he can show the Biblical warrant for image bearing being equally shared by both “Evolved Humanity” and “special creation Adam/Eve”!

And by God-ordained genealogical processes, both Image Bearing kindred groups are fully united by the time of the birth of Jesus! In fact, this may be why the birth of Jesus was so long delayed after the Jewish return from Exile and the time of the rebuilding of the Temple.

Many Christians have simply surmised that the delay (some 500 years!) was just one of the many mysteries of God’s plan, necessary for God’s full fruit to appear. But one of these mysteries can now be surmised that a little more time was necessary for all of Adam/Eve’s offspring to fully co-opt all of evolved humanity’s many branches. By almost all of the most restrained assumptions for human migration (and certainly by means of any hand of providence extended by God), 6000 years is more than enough for Adam/Eve to be one of the Universal Common Ancestors of all humans alive at the time of Jesus

Or: If one holds to a Regional Flood
… or even some 3000 to 3500 years since Noah’s family survived a regional flood, and became the only “bottleneck” between the rest of a proposed non-Adamic humanity (if one rejects a global flood) and Adam’s headship installed equally over all of humanity that came from evolved hominid stock instead of Special Creation!

1 Like

Alternatively …

1 Like

I have no issues with this language … looks good.

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.