Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Adam's or God's likeness? | Gen 5:3 | theperfectrose1 | 160227 | ||
I am confused about why this is the same wording "in his own likeness" as used in Genesis 5:1. Why wasn't Cain or Abel considered to be made in his likeness. Is this verse referring to Adam's likeness or God's? Any ideas? | ||||||
2 | Adam's or God's likeness? | Gen 5:3 | Aliennow | 160230 | ||
Abraham was made in the image of God and it follows down through the generations to Seth. Cain and Abel were also made in the image of God - we all are. | ||||||
3 | Adam's or God's likeness? | Gen 5:3 | Searcher56 | 160266 | ||
Adam was made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27) ... not Abraham ... nor Seth (who was in the image of Adam (Gen 5:1) nor Cain and Abel nor us. | ||||||
4 | Adam's or God's likeness? | Gen 5:3 | Wild Olive Shoot | 160295 | ||
If sin can be passed from generation to generation, or rather our sinful nature, then why couldn’t the “image of God” be passed from generation to generation? If our sinful nature can be traced and accredit to Adam and Eve, why don’t we trace our likeness to God or being made in His image the same. God made male and female in His image knowing good and well they would fall, but yet it still pleasured Him to do so. Simply because Adam and Eve fell doesn’t actually change the fact that they were still made in God’s image. The fact that we were created in the image of God, as a reflection, seems evident today and still yet to come. Couldn’t the references to God’s likeness and Adam’s likeness in Gen. 5 simply indicate that Adam was created sinless (by God) but the generations to follow would not be in a sinless state due to the fall? If we are not made in God’s image, then who’s? Man’s? If the latter, do you really believe we are still able to give glory to God or would even want to for that matter. C. S. Lewis wrote that God was the source from which all of our reasoning power comes. I agree with him, and if that is true, we have to be able to reflect some of God’s characteristics, which would seem to indicate, we are in His likeness, yes even today. WOS |
||||||
5 | Adam's or God's likeness? | Gen 5:3 | DocTrinsograce | 160298 | ||
Dear Brother WOS, Good to see you again, lately, on the forum! Regarding "sin [nature] ... [being] passed from generation to generation..." This is called "imputation" (see Isa 61:10; Jer 23:6; Rom 3:22; 5:12-19; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 1:18-19). "A Transfer of benefit or harm from one individual to another. In theology imputation may be used negatively to refer to the transfer of the sin and guilt of Adam to the rest of humankind. Positively, imputation refers to the righteousness of Christ being transfered to those who believe on Him for salvation." -- Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms I think when we talk about imputation and the imago Dei ("image of God") , we are sort of talking apples and oranges. The imago Dei existed in man before the fall. After the fall, it was marred and distorted. You might think of the imago Dei as genetic, while imputation is forensic. I do tend to agree, though, with your suggestion that "the references to God’s likeness and Adam’s likeness in Gen. 5 simply indicate that Adam was created sinless (by God) but the generations to follow would not be in a sinless state due to the fall." I think I suggested somewhere that the repetition of the phrase "in his image" was one of contrast. Does that help, or does it only confuse things? In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | Adam's or God's likeness? | Gen 5:3 | Wild Olive Shoot | 160301 | ||
Brother Doc, Hah! You should know by now that I stay confused. By the way, glad to be back. Business had me traveling for a while. I sure missed you folks. Anyway… I don’t disagree that my references are as if comparing apples and oranges. Though they are two completely different subjects in their entirety, they are derived from the same source aren’t they? My implication was that that God created man in His own image. In that image, man was given freewill; God permitted disobedience, which in essence was the catalyst in the fall. Man freely chose to disobey. We still have that “characteristic” today which was originally placed into man by God. We still have other godly “characteristics” that are indicative of our Creator and being formed in His image. Therefore, my thoughts are that even today, in our sinfulness, in our morally corrupt nature, we still have the ability to choose to honor God and obey, which we had from the beginning, and to what I think the Word is referencing, in part, when it tells us we were made in God’s image, that we have certain abilities bestowed upon us that are derived from God and only God. My thinking, and I’m not real sure now, is that our parents were made in God’s image. The fall shouldn’t negate that fact since it was “post-creation”, for lack of better terminology. Since we multiply and reproduce in kind, don’t we all reflect that same image? I don’t necessarily think of it as whether or not Adam had the “ability” to pass this image to his children. It was God that started the process and continues it from generation to generation. You did point to the repetition of “in his likeness” as being contrasting. But I didn’t necessarily get from it that the contrast was in the context that we no longer remain in the likeness of God. Unless I take that statement in conjunction with “Adam could not pass on the image of God, who are all conceived in sin.” Adam was not able but does God perform this work? Where my apples and oranges comparison is applicable: just as we have no control over imputed sin, we have no control over God’s image remaining part of what constitutes us as being human, which by the way, I think is what, in part, keeps us separate from every other everything of God’s creation. I agree with your statement: “The imago Dei existed in man before the fall. After the fall, it was marred and distorted.” It may be marred and distorted, but it is still there. Is it not? I guess the point I was trying to convey to searcher56 should have been just that. WOS PS: I think I just confused myself! |
||||||