Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty (subtle, skilled in deceit) than any living creature of the field which the LORD God had made. And the serpent (Satan) said to the woman, "Can it really be that God has said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" [Rev 12:9-11] |
Subject: Distiction in "will" not "rationality" |
Bible Note: Dear Lionstrong, I believe I understand your logic. To be certain of that, let me restate it: A. Man is uniquely made in God's image. B. Man reasons. C. God reasons. D. Animals do not reason. Therefore, the Imago Dei is found in the ability to reason. (Please correct me if I have misrepresented your syllogism.) For your conclusion to be correct, each of the posits A through D must be true. We agree that posit A is supported by Scripture (Gen 1:26, 27; 9:6; 1 Cor 11:7; Jam 3:9). We agree that posit B and C are supported by Scripture (cf many occurrences of tokaykah in the OT and zeteo in the NT); indeed, if they weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion! :-) As Scriptural evidence of posit D you offer 2 Peter 2:12. However, that verse is not making a statement about the instinctive nature of all animals. The word "unreasoning" is a participle. Consequently, it speaking of a specific kinds of animals. (This is metaphorical language used to drive home the point that the people being described are not thinking about the implications of what they are saying.) Indeed, the same word is used explicitly of some men (cf Psa 92:6; Jer 10:21; etc.). Peter -- and Jude who says something very similar -- are not making a statement about animals at all. I've looked at all the generic terms -- animal, beast, etc. -- and I do not find any passage that might be of use to establish posit D. If we can find a passage that is sufficiently explicit, then your logic would be easier to accept. On the other hand, we would then need to demonstrate that there were no other characteristics unique to God and man that were not shared by the animals -- otherwise, we'd be guilty of making a hasty generalization. Again, if I've misrepresented your reasoning in any way, please correct me. As believers we are more interested in arriving at the truth, than in being proven right. In Him, Doc PS Do you mind if we pick up this argument at post 154332? Some of our fellow forum participants have complained about the length of this thread. |