Conference yukon::christian_v7

Yo Lorenzo.

Is this topic different than 37.  If so, maybe you can get us started on
what you'd like to discuss.

Mark

    
    Perhaps because all men are not Christian.  In any event, Man as
    a type is referred to no less than fifteen times in Genesis Ch 2.
    Someone obviously thought than Man and those qualities which define
    him to be of significant importance.  Let's think about it.
    
    Mike
    

>Man as a type is referred to no less than fifteen times in Genesis Ch 2.

Gen 2 talks about the man (singular) referring to Adam, except for verse
23, in which case it does refer to an individual male but also in the
sense of any male (Mankind).

Maleness and femaleness are distinctions caused by God.  But Mankind
is comprised of both sexes as verses 22 and 23 indicates:

  And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman,
  and brought her unto the man.

  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones; and flesh of my flesh;
  she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Man was made from the dust of the earth; so also was mankind.  Woman
was brought forth fromthe made who was made of dust.  So, men are
made of the same material as women who are made of the same material 
as men.  In Genesis 1:27, it says:

  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
  male and female created he them.

This shows after what fashion men (and women) were created.

    
    As I recall, only the man got the breath of life from God.  Not the
    plants, animals, or the woman.  Does that undermine some of the
    equality or sameness of the two sexes?
    
    Mike
    

>    As I recall, only the man got the breath of life from God.  Not the
>    plants, animals, or the woman.  Does that undermine some of the
>    equality or sameness of the two sexes?

 In Genesis 1:27, it says:

  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
  male and female created he them.

You're making an assumption, Mike, and limiting your scope of study.
The very next verse that contains the breath of life is found in 
Genesis 6:17a:

And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to 
destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; 

In Genesis 7:15 it shows that the breathoif life is in the animals, too:

And they went unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is
the breath of life.

Genesis 7:22, also.

There's a whole bunch of verses to study on the word breath.  I suggest
an investment in a concordance for study purposes.  Or did you mean to imply 
that only men had the breath of life because of Genesis 2:7?  This is too great
an assumption when you consider just a few other verses.

    
    Mark,
    The passages you quote (6:17,7:15,7:22) merely refers to living,
    air breathing creatures.  By the way, if I was cooped up in an ark
    with a few thousand animals for six months, I'd consider fresh air
    a breath of life too!
     
    Mike
    

    Mike,
    
    Can you give your definition of what "breath of life" means, I'm not
    sure I understand.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    
    P.S.
    It was nice talking to you.

    
    Hi Nancy,
    I interpret those passages which use the term "breath of life" to
    mean air-breathing living things.  Why can't an ancient text such
    as this just mean living creatures.  I don't think the great flood
    bothered the fish population much and I don't think the Bible intended 
    to include the underwater kingdom in it's flood story.
    But I do impart much signifance to the fact that a man is mentioned
    15 times in Ch 2 and that he received CPR from the Big Guy.
    
    I don't like being irreverent but I also do not consider this rocket
    science.  I don't require concordances or interpretations to under-
    stand what is written in the O. T.
    
    Mike
    
    P.S.
    It was a genuine pleasure hearing from you.
    

I understood the base note to ask the question: being that humankind was
formed out of the dust of the earth (as were plants and animals), what
makes mankind think or act as if he is so much better than the rest of
creation? ....and further; do others think that man has some special status 
because he was endowed with an extra "something" directly from the Creator. 

I think it's a perfectly good question particularly in the context of
today's current events, which depict man's inhumanity towards his fellow
man as a ubiquitous global travesty of the Creator's directive to have
dominion (or care) of the earth and everything in it.

My intention was merely to point out that Genesis in chapter 2 retells the
creation story, emphasizes man and his unique relationship to the Creator,
and acknowledges the special needs and responsibilities this extraordinary
being will be heir to.  The inclusion of this chapter among the fifty is
most noteworty to me, and I thought it might be worth examining.
 
Mike

    !I don't like being irreverent but I also do not consider this rocket
    !science.  I don't require concordances or interpretations to under-
    !stand what is written in the O. T.
    
    When there is a difference of opinion, or a question as to what
    something means, which you asked, then concordances and interpretations
    can be helpful to understand what is written.  If you asked your
    questions as a set up to express what you see as plain and evident
    meanings, that's another matter.
    
    Mark

!because he was endowed with an extra "something" directly from the Creator. 
!
!I think it's a perfectly good question particularly in the context of
!today's current events, which depict man's inhumanity towards his fellow
!man as a ubiquitous global travesty of the Creator's directive to have
!dominion (or care) of the earth and everything in it.
!
!My intention was merely to point out that Genesis in chapter 2 retells the
!creation story, emphasizes man and his unique relationship to the Creator,
!and acknowledges the special needs and responsibilities this extraordinary
!being will be heir to.  
    
    Firstly, the "breath of life" in verse 2:7 is no different than the
    breath of life in the animals in the ark.  The "breath of life" has no
    special significance in regards to station among the animals on, in or
    under the earth.  It simply means that God made them living, breathing
    creatures.  No rocket science here.
    
    Secondly, man's dominion is given to him by God prior to Chapter 2, in
    Genesis 1:28ff NIV "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth
    and subdue it.  Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air
    and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
    
    Thirdly, the references to "man" in Genesis 2 refer to Adam
    specifically, with the possible exception of verse 23 which still
    refers to Adam specifically, and all mankind generally.  The rocket
    science *only* comes in with this occurrence of the word "man" because
    it is used both specifically and figuratively.
    
The inclusion of this chapter among the fifty is
!most noteworty to me, and I thought it might be worth examining.
    
    Cut to the chase, Mike.  Are you suggesting Chapter 2 was inserted 
    to assert man's dominion, where it possibly is not suggested before?
    If so, lay your cards on the table so we can have a reasonable
    discussion about the subject, please.
    
    Mark
    
    P.S.  You are correct that we have special responsibilities, as is
    commanded in Genesis 1:28.  People have failed in these
    responsibilities because of the sins of selfishness.

My - I guess I was 'way off beam on this one!  I thought .0 was saying that
as we are all fallen, sinful flesh, how can any person think he (generic
;-) is any better than any other. 

Somewhat like 1 Corinthians 4:7 : 
 "For who makes you different from anyone else?  What do you have that you 
  did not receive?  And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you 
  did not?"

 - ie, we are not the creators of any virtue, skill or value within us - 
   He is.  So we have no right to be 'proud' of any personal quality over 
   others who are not similarly endowed.

Jeremiah 9:23-24:
 "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his
  strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let hm who boasts, 
  boast about this: that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD, 
  Who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on the earth, for in 
  these I delight decares the LORD"

also quoted in 2 Corinthians 10:17  "Let him who boasts, boast in the LORD..."

But if we're onto the difference between man, and the rest of creation, I 
read Genesis 2:7 to be God breathing the eternal soul into mankind. 

 "... And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the earth, ground, 
  and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became 
  a living soul."

I'd have to do some homework to recall the exact word significance here, 
but the 'living soul' that man became distinguished him from all creation, 
by giving him an eternalality, and awareness of, and desire for 
relationship with - God,His Creator.

Just as he was also set apart, as being the only creature 'made in God's
image'.  Reflected in Ecclesiastes 3:11 "He has made everything beautiful
in its time.  He has also set eternity in the hearts of men...." 

With respect to the 'dominion' of man, this is largely misrepresented,
especially in these days, as domination.  However, the task has
implications of responsibility to God for our care of what He has entrusted
to our hands. 

						God bless
							   'rew

p.s. rocket science, in this context?  

      Hi,
    
        Hi ya Andy.  Well, I'm not sure about the sinful flesh application
        only because at the time spoken of in the creation verse, the
        flesh was not sinful.  I have heard it said that the reference
        to dirt might aid us in realizing how 'low' we really are apart
        from the grace of Christ.  I mean if we're only dust...but, if
        the mind allows Christ to reside in us.
    
        I feel as Mark does about the breath of life.  It is God who
        imparts it; He is the Life-Giver, He sustains all life.  I don't
        want to rathole this, but just to offer another view that our
        'intrinsic eternality' does not seem referred to here and of course
        (as you know) I do not believe we have intrinsic eternalness.  "He
        who has the Son has life."
    
        I think our distinction from other living creatures lies in our
        capacity to appreciate and comprehend the love of God.  I believe
        that animals have a capacity as well, but it is orders of magni-
        tude less - so much so that we perhaps appear 'divine' to them!
        But, I'm sure some can discern God's love.  Its just that their 
        ability to know its depths is way way way less than is ours.
    
        Thus it follows that we can (by comprehending what are the
        dimensions of God's agape, i.e. the height and width, and depth)
        be motivated to "follow the Lamb WHEREVER He goes."  Even if He
        goes all the way to the cross.
    
                                                        Tony
                  

Hi Tony,

I wasn't meaning to imply that our source substance was in any way 
imperfect, just because it was the dust of the earth...  I guess we have to 
have a different stance on eternality.  Too swamped to go into that one 
again !!!! ;-)

						Andrew

    re: .14
    
      Me too!!
    
                                          :-)
    
                                          Tony