Genesis 1: 26 Commentary

I would like not to comment much on the evolution era and the findings coming up here and there, my self, i do not believe in that era. I find it to be a waste of time if there be someone still chassing the wind, in the end you will come empty handed. The Creator is there and He, did make man in His own likeness. Man was made in God’s own image and his duty was to rule over every creation upon the earth that God Had created. ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that has life’, God gave instruction to the waters to produce the creatures, after their kind and one of them is the ‘chimp’. These creatures were created after God’s instruction to the waters and the earth. ‘Let us make man in our image’, this part was much more important to God there by there is an involvement of a second part or more here. God has called on to someone here, or others not mentioned by names here. Then they would contribute in the end result to say ’sure, we look like this’. This time God was going to use the art of His hand to produce the desired result. He made an image that had no life in it and He took His own breath, breathed into the image’s nostrils the breath of life and the image had life. The air we breath in the same enviroment with the chimp might seem to be the same but the forces behind every breath differs. The force behind the breath of man is Godly. He is the driving force of every human being’s breath. This evolution era was just brought up by the devil (satan), that is to keep man buisy whilst he(satan) goes on to steal man’s dominion over the earth. Satan was jealous from before, he himself wanted to have dominion over the heavens and the earth. He was already in war with God, he only wanted to go against God’s ideas and His rules, hence he tricked man into breaking one of the garden rules. The evolution thing is being used by satan to show God that there are still some down here on earth who do not believe in His (God) creation. Jesus assured us of the resurrection of man, missed the text were chimps were involved. Be warned the creator is there.

By Andrew Ngirandi (wrote 32 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 3/22/2012 21:02 pm

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..

PART 1- POST 32
PART 2- POST 33
PART 3- POST 34
PART 4- POST 35

i had to read and discuss these in my “evolutionary biology class.” like i said; your evolutionary ideas are now being proved false. everything has to be re-evaluated.

so i am sorry if this bothers you charles; i told you and robert; i would post these .

and by the way; I THINK FOR MYSELF.

and it seems you can’t make up your mind.

so which is it; post my findings and lessons i have learned; or write like i have been; which is posting my thoughts, my studies, and my beliefs.

seems you always have something for me.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 19:26 pm

Angel, you need to start thinking for yourself. Just posting long articles from demented unbelievers is not going to help you one bit. The more one-sided you get in your reading selection the less likely it is for you to see the truth.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 13:43 pm

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..

PART 1- POST 32
PART 2- POST 33
PART 3- POST 34
PART 4- POST 35

ENJOY… READING… I DID…

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:28 am

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..PART 4:

HUMAN-CHIMP SIMILARITIES: COMMON ANCESTRY OR FLAWED RESEARCH?
JEFFREY TOMKINS, Ph.D. *

In 2003, the human genome was heralded as a near-complete DNA sequence, except for the repetitive regions that could not be resolved due to the limitations of the prevailing DNA sequencing technologies. The chimpanzee genome was subsequently finished in 2005 with the hope that its completion would provide clear-cut DNA similarity evidence for an ape-human common ancestry. This similarity is frequently cited as proof of man’s evolutionary origins, but a more objective explanation tells a different story, one that is more complex than evolutionary scientists seem willing to admit.

Genomics and the DNA Revolution

One of the main problems with a comparative evolutionary analysis between human and chimp DNA is that some of the most critical DNA sequence is often omitted from the scope of the analysis. Another problem is that only similar DNA sequences are selected for analysis. As a result, estimates of similarity become biased towards the high side. An inflated level of overall DNA sequence similarity between humans and chimps is then reported to the general public, which obviously supports the case for human evolution. Since most people are not equipped to investigate the details of DNA analysis, the data remains unchallenged.

The supposed fact that human DNA is 98 to 99 percent similar to chimpanzee DNA is actually misleading.

The availability of the chimp genome sequence in 2005 has provided a more realistic comparison. It should be noted that the chimp genome was sequenced to a much less stringent level than the human genome, and when completed it initially consisted of a large set of small un-oriented and random fragments. To assemble these DNA fragments into contiguous sections that represented large regions of chromosomes, the human genome was used as a guide or framework to anchor and orient the chimp sequence. Thus, the evolutionary assumption of a supposed ape to human transition was used to assemble the otherwise random chimp genome.

At this point in time, a completely unbiased whole genome comparison between chimp and human has not been done and certainly should be. Despite this fact, several studies have been performed where targeted regions of the genomes were compared and overall similarity estimates as low as 86 percent were obtained. Once again, keep in mind that these regions were hand-picked because they already showed similarity at some level. The fact remains that there are large blocks of sequence anomalies between chimp and human that are not directly comparable and would actually give a similarity of 0 percent in some regions. In addition, the loss and addition of large DNA sequence blocks are present in humans and gorillas, but not in chimps and vice versa. This is difficult to explain in evolutionary terms since the gorilla is lower on the primate tree than the chimp and supposedly more distant to humans. How could these large blocks of DNA–from an evolutionary perspective–appear first in gorillas, disappear in chimps, and then reappear in humans?

Analyzing the Source of Similarity

So how exactly did scientists come up with the highly-touted 98 to 99 percent similarity estimates?

First, they used only human and chimp DNA sequence fragments that already exhibited a high level of similarity. Sections that didn’t line up were tossed out of the mix. Next, they only used the protein coding portions of genes for their comparison. Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in “non-coding regions,” which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes. When these regions of the gene are included in a similarity estimate between human and chimp, the values can drop markedly and will vary widely according to the types of genes being compared.

A gene is typically represented as a portion of a chromosome. As indicated, there is considerably more non-coding sequence ahead of the gene, within it (”introns”), and behind it. The 98 to 99 percent sequence similarity estimates are often derived from the small pieces of coding sequence (”exons”). Other non-coding sequences, including the introns and sequences flanking the gene region, are often omitted in a “gene for gene” comparative analysis. The critical importance of the non-coding sequences in the function of the genome was not well understood until recently, but this does not excuse the bias of the “98 to 99 percent similarity” claim.

Another important factor concerns the potential for variants of the same protein to have different functions that can perform different tasks in different tissues. There is now no doubt that gene or protein sequence similarities, in and of themselves, are not as significant as other functional and regulatory information in the cell. Unfortunately, evolutionary assumptions drove a biased approach of simple sequence comparisons, providing few answers as to why humans and chimps are obviously so different.

Interestingly, current research is confirming that most of what makes humans biologically unique when compared to chimps and other animals is how genes are controlled and regulated in the genome. Several studies within the past few years are demonstrating clear differences in individual gene and gene network expression patterns between humans and chimps in regard to a wide number of traits. Of course, the largest differences are observed in regard to brain function, dexterity, speech, and other traits with strong cognitive components. To make the genetic landscape even more complicated, a number of recent studies are also confirming that close to 93 percent of the genome is transcriptionally active (functional). Not so long ago, scientists thought that only 3 to 5 percent of the genome that contained the protein coding regions was functional; the rest was considered “junk DNA.”

Conclusion

So what is an appropriate response to the assertion that a 99 percent similarity exists between human and chimp DNA, and thus proves common ancestry?

One can simply say that the whole genomes have never really been compared, only hand-selected regions already known to be similar have been examined, and the data is heavily biased. In fact, due to limitations in DNA sequencing technology, researchers do not even have the complete genomic sequence for human or chimp at present. In the sequence that they do have, much more analysis needs to be done.

Here are a number of key points that counter the evolutionary claims of close human-chimp similarity:

(1.) The chimp genome is 10 to 12 percent larger than the human genome and is not in a near-finished state like the human genome; it is considered a rough draft.

(2.) When large regions of the two genomes are compared, critical sequence dissimilarities become evident.

(3.) Extremely large blocks of dissimilarity exist on a number of key chromosomes, including marked structural differences between the entire male (Y) chromosomes.

(4.) Distinct differences in gene function and regulation are now known to be a more significant factor in determining differences in traits between organisms than the gene sequence alone. Research in this area has clearly demonstrated that this is the case with humans and apes, where marked dissimilarities in expression patterns are evident.

It is clear that the only way to obtain extreme DNA-based similarity between man and chimpanzee is to use comparative analyses that are heavily skewed by an evolutionary bias where one picks and chooses what data or what part of the genome to use. At present, the DNA sequence differences between these genomes clearly indicate a much lower level than 98 to 99 percent. In fact, one evolutionary study suggests it may be as low as 86 percent or less. In addition, the complex functional aspects of genes and their regulatory networks differ markedly between humans and chimps and play a more important role than DNA sequence by itself.

The DNA data, both structural and functional, clearly supports the concept of humans and chimps created as distinct separate kinds. Not only are humans and chimps genetically distinct, but only man has the innate capacity and obligation to worship his Creator.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:23 am

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..PART 3:

EVOLUTION’S BEST ARGUMENT HAS BECOME ITS WORST NIGHTMARE:
BRIAN THOMAS, M.S. *

How Functional Transposons Refute “Junk DNA” and Human Evolution

Broad-scale evolution holds that a single-cell organism can eventually develop into a human through natural processes. Unique genetic features called transposons have been introduced as knock-down evidence that this progression actually occurred in humans, but a closer look at new data shows that they strongly argue against evolution.

Genome Expansion through Transposon Activity

Transposons include several classes of DNA that appear to have been copied, spliced, and reinserted into the genome. Sometimes referred to as jumping genes, these are found in all plants and animals. While some transposons are inactive, many are functional. They have an affinity for transposition into certain areas of the genome.

Scientists have observed transposons copying and splicing rapidly, which contradicts evolution’s traditional scenario of slow and gradual change. Rapid transposon activity appears to be controlled by specific cellular programs and thus is not a product of mutation plus selection, nor is it part of evolution as it has been described.

In a short time–corresponding to fewer than a dozen or so generations–transposons can add more DNA to a population, inflating the total volume of DNA without adding new genes. Some species appear to have large volumes of DNA that were assembled this way. About 44 percent of human DNA consists of repetitive elements, much of which came from transposons.

These vast sequences are repeated blocks of identical DNA. Many evolutionists believed them to be random sequences, conveniently useful for evolutionary processes to tinker with and develop into new genetic features. However, they are now known to be quite useful. Therefore, if evolution were to mutate them randomly, rather than leading to genetic improvements, it could actually kill the host.

Transposons in Chimps–Leftovers from the Evolutionary Past?

Intriguingly, chimpanzees and humans share some almost identical transposons that are found on similar-looking chromosomes. How did they get there? Evolutionists have insisted that “ancient retroviruses slipped bits of their DNA into the primate genome millions of years ago.” Though often asserted as fact, it is only speculation that today’s transposons came from yesterday’s viruses.

Some transposons supposedly entered chimps and humans by a viral infection when both were part of one ancestral species. Later, humans and chimpanzees “diverged” from that primate ancestor. Thus, the same transposon sequence in both species is used as evidence that humans and chimps came from a common ancestor. And if humans transmutated from some earlier primate, then big-picture evolution is true. This has been one of evolution’s best arguments.

Transposons are also thought to have provided “junk DNA” for ages of mutations to have organized into new features, forming today’s diverse living forms. But science has shown that these long, repeated transposon sequences are useful on their own and even necessary. The arguments that transposons demonstrate common ancestry between chimps and humans, and that they provide scrap material for evolutionary progression, only have merit if transposons are largely useless.

Some scientists, open to the possibility that transposons were purposefully created and therefore functional, predicted at least a decade ago that important functions for transposons would be discovered. When nobody knew if these repetitive sequences had a useful genetic role, evolutionary biologists assumed that they did not, since they don’t code for proteins. However, new genomic technologies have revealed more about what transposons actually do.

Transposons with Functions

The last decade has provided a growing list of examples of transposon functions, including the 2006 discovery of one that regulates a nerve cell development gene common to all mammals and even the “living fossil” coelacanth. Transposons that regulate the expression rates of plant gene products have also been found.

Transposons in a single-cell ciliate were determined in 2009 to be critical to the tiny organism’s development. The study’s authors wrote, “These transposons might not merely be parasitic invaders that reduce host fitness or have little phenotypic effect but instead mutualists directly contributing a useful function for the organism, such as genomic DNA processing.” They found that these transposons “spur an almost acrobatic rearrangement of the entire genome that is necessary for the organism to grow.” So, if transposons have functions in these organisms, could they also play important roles in chimps or humans?

Publishing in Nature Genetics, an international team of researchers led by geneticist Geoff Faulkner found that in mammal tissue between 6 and 30 percent of RNA transcripts come from retrotransposons, not genes. Retrotransposons are a class of transposon.

RNA transcripts begin as single-strand copies of small sections of a DNA sequence. Some transcripts specify the information to make a protein, but most RNA transcripts help regulate the speed and amounts of important cellular processes and products. Also, information inside transposons provides alternate places for the transcription machinery to latch onto and begin transcribing the DNA. With transcription beginning at these various start sites and proceeding forward and backward on both strands of DNA, the necessary varieties of RNA are generated.

Faulkner stated in a University of Queensland press release, “Our results showed that retrotransposons that can no longer move around the genome may still be expressed in a broad range of cells, and thereby regulate the expression of nearby genes.” Transposon-derived transcripts are very important for cells.

Parasitic DNA sequences from some ancient virus should yield useless junk, not important information-carrying material. The idea that transposons came from viral infections but somehow later learned uses within their new hosts has been baptized into evolution with the name “exaptation.” But this conclusion is speculative, unobserved, and irrational. Without proper gene regulation provided by transposons that are already intact and fully integrated into the genome, the organism may die.

By analogy, copies of a computer virus on a hard drive do not improve software or performance, but rather harm it. Useful software comes only by planning and effort. Science has shown that transposons are useful biological software. But this means that they did not come from viruses, despite contradictory popular press. Instead, they appear to have come from a pre-designed system of integrated genetic elements that mobilize under strict regulation, and which in turn regulate other systems.

The Entire Genome Is Information-Rich

The reason why both chimpanzees and men have such similar-looking transposons in similar chromosomes could be because the sequences were programmed to serve similar biological functions. Or, they could have followed similar biologically significant patterns when they were being copied and inserted, for reasons that are no longer discernible.

Since transposons did not come from ancient viruses, but are instead essential parts of genomes, they can no longer be used to support the belief that chimpanzees and humans evolved from a common ancestor. And this means that one of evolution’s best arguments has failed, just like the debunked parade of prior “best” arguments.

The demotion of transposons as an evolutionary “proof” is reminiscent of the old, discredited “vestigial organ” argument. One hundred-eighty organs in the human body had been cited as useless leftovers from an evolutionary past, but each has been found to have an important function, including the appendix and tonsils. Now that these vast expanses of genetic material are known to be information-rich, the concept of “junk DNA” has to be junked. And with no spare genetic material for it to mutate, what mechanism is left that broad-scale evolution could have used to produce the variety of life observed today?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how evolution could tinker with transposons without disrupting their precise coordination, which is vital to life forms. But it is easier now to see that the original people–like the first chimpanzees, plants, and even single-cell life forms –were expertly fashioned, through and through, by a brilliant Engineer.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:14 am

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..PART 2:

DNA STUDY CONTRADICTS HUMAN/CHIMP COMMON ANCESTRY
BRIAN THOMAS, M.S.

Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very dissimilar. The vast majority of each species’ DNA sequence is not genes, but instead regulated gene expression. A new report unmistakably confirmed that the regulatory DNA of humans is totally different from that of chimps, revealing no hint of common ancestry.

Biologist John F. McDonald, of the Georgia Institute of Technology’s School of Biology, and his team wrote that chimp and human genes are more than “98.5% identical,” a commonly quoted statistic. Yet humans don’t look or act 98.5 percent identical to chimps. Thus, something other than genes must be involved, and this has been overlooked in evolutionists’ efforts to establish chimp-human ancestry. In 2005, molecular biologist and creation scientist Dan Criswell wrote:

However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction [less than four percent] of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology [similarity] frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded “indels,” which are areas with zero sequence homology.

“Indels” refer to insertions (in-) and deletions (-del) of genetic material, but they are simply DNA sequence differences.

Publishing in the open access journal Mobile DNA, the research team led by McDonald tested the hypothesis that the “substantial INDEL variation that exists between humans and chimpanzees may contribute significantly to the regulatory differences between the species.” McDonald said in a Georgia Tech press release:

Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves.

The team’s analysis of indels confirmed exactly what Bible-believing biologists have been saying for years. The indels and other variously named non-gene DNA are not “junk DNA,” and they are critical to the formation of each living creature. Biblical geneticist Jeff Tomkins wrote in 2009:

Most of the DNA sequence across the chromosomal region encompassing a gene is not used for protein coding, but rather for gene regulation, like the instructions in a recipe that specify what to do with the raw ingredients. The genetic information that is functional and regulatory is stored in “non-coding regions [including indels],” which are essential for the proper functioning of all cells, ensuring that the right genes are turned on or off at the right time in concert with other genes.

The argument that chimp-human DNA similarity is evidence of common ancestry is possible only by ignoring the 98 percent of DNA that is different! It is like arguing that an aspirin pill is identical to a cyanide pill because they are the same shape and color. When do the differences enter the conversation?

Regulatory DNA—not just genes—is essential for each kind of organism, is almost entirely useful, and is different in humans than it is in chimps. How could billions of DNA differences have evolved in just four million years? It’s impossible. Humans and chimpanzees were distinctly and uniquely created after all.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:10 am

MAN IS NOT FROM CHIMP; SCIENTISTS RE-WRITING CREATION THEORY…..TO BAD GOD ALREADY TOLD US…..PART 1:

PUBLISHED BY GEORGIA TECH UNIVERSITY:
PHD. JOHN MCDONALD AND HIS TEAM

For years, scientists believed the vast phenotypic differences between humans and chimpanzees would be easily explained – the two species must have significantly different genetic makeups. However, when their genomes were later sequenced, researchers were surprised to learn that the DNA sequences of human and chimpanzee genes are nearly identical. What then is responsible for the many morphological and behavioral differences between the two species? Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have now determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for major differences between the two species.

The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology John McDonald has verified that while the DNA sequence of genes between humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, there are large genomic “gaps” in areas adjacent to genes that can affect the extent to which genes are “turned on” and “turned off.” The research shows that these genomic “gaps” between the two species are predominantly due to the insertion or deletion (INDEL) of viral-like sequences called retrotransposons that are known to comprise about half of the genomes of both species. The findings are reported in the most recent issue of the online, open-access journal Mobile DNA.

“These genetic gaps have primarily been caused by the activity of retroviral-like transposable element sequences,” said McDonald. “Transposable elements were once considered ‘junk DNA’ with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees.”

McDonald’s research team, comprised of graduate students Nalini Polavarapu, Gaurav Arora and Vinay Mittal, examined the genomic gaps in both species and determined that they are significantly correlated with differences in gene expression reported previously by researchers at the Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

“Our findings are generally consistent with the notion that the morphological and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees are predominately due to differences in the regulation of genes rather than to differences in the sequence of the genes themselves,” said McDonald.

The current analysis of the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees was motivated by the group’s previously published findings (2009) that the higher propensity for cancer in humans vs. chimpanzees may have been a by-product of selection for increased brain size in humans.

Although humans and chimpanzees have accumulated significant differences in a number of phenotypic traits since diverging from a common ancestor about six million years ago, their genomes are more than 98.5% identical at protein-coding loci. This modest degree of nucleotide divergence is not sufficient to explain the extensive phenotypic differences between the two species. It has been hypothesized that the genetic basis of the phenotypic differences lies at the level of gene regulation and is associated with the extensive insertion and deletion (INDEL) variation between the two species. To test the hypothesis that large INDELs (80 to 12,000 bp) may have contributed significantly to differences in gene regulation between the two species, we categorized human-chimpanzee INDEL variation mapping in or around genes and determined whether this variation is significantly correlated with previously determined differences in gene expression.

Extensive, large INDEL variation exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes. This variation is primarily attributable to retrotransposon insertions within the human lineage. There is a significant correlation between differences in gene expression and large human-chimpanzee INDEL variation mapping in genes or in proximity to them.

The results presented herein are consistent with the hypothesis that large INDELs, particularly those associated with retrotransposons, have played a significant role in human-chimpanzee regulatory evolution.

By angel (wrote 400 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 12/4/2011 07:08 am

Post 30 is meaningless quibble

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2011 12:10 pm

Sorry you got no power over me!Many of your teachers had deceived you for mammon sake!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2011 11:49 am

I told you not to look!

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2011 03:40 am

Charles; LOL! You are the man that created God in your own image!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2011 03:30 am

I am not as diplomatic as Mark Twain, so I am going to put it in a more straightforward way. But first let me suggest to Tiuche not to read it because he is already quite upset and I don’t want to be responsible for a heart attack. Here goes (close your eyes, Tiuche):

Genesis 1:26 and 1:27 have a little mistake in them. God didn’t create man in his image. It was man who created god in man’s image.

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2011 03:11 am

ON MARK TWAIN:

Mark Twain(1835-1910) was an unbeliever of the Holy Scriptures Compiled-the Holy Bible, he said:

The Bible has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood drenched history; and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity and upward of a thousand lies.

Do we not wonder why someone like Charles- who does not believe in the Bible would try commenting in a site for it; sometimes he acts like he is for it; but oftentimes he sows bad seeds that are meant to kill the good seeds.

Why waste your time on a commenting on a book you do not believe in? Or is it just that you hate it and really is the enemy of the Word of God that is why spend all your dying days to go against it? What a stupid & vain pursuit of a darkened & desperate heart of an enemy.

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2011 02:22 am

“God created man in his own image and man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.” - Mark Twain

By Charles (wrote 1421 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2011 01:44 am

Marek Zielinski: It is good to hear from you again.

I have heard in the church I used to attend that man has ‘dominion’ over the earth, as it says in this passage.

Humans must ‘trample under foot’ everything on earth. Environmentalists are portrayed as evil by the preacher and global warming is a fraud.

Animal rights activists are also portrayed as evil. ‘They worship the created rather than the creator’.

What does your church teach?

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/4/2011 20:01 pm

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

It is like said:
And Man said, Let us make god in our image, after our likeness:

By Marek Zielinski (wrote 15 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/3/2011 22:49 pm

James R.

Paul was a Jew…and the scriptures he read was the Old Testament Scriptures…when he spoke about Jewish fables and fairy tales…he was not talking about the old testament scriptures…for he told timothy that from a child he knew the scriptures (2 Timothy 3:15)which makes one wise to salvation.

I suspect you might be either a bastard(no insult or pun intended), an amorite, a palestinian or a hittite; if i am right, please donot BE DISCOURAGE AND THINK THAT THE GOD OF THE BIBLE HATES YOU because you are from any of those circumstances or races! He loves you…Jesus died for you too….i want you to take note that Uriah, who joined Israel- the loyal soldier of King David was a Hittite, Ruth was a Moabite…there are many more examples….so don’t fell hated by the God you perceive in the old Testament…all he asked of you that you walk humbly, to love mercy before Him…surrender James R. to the love of God…

For salvation comes from the Jews (John 4:22). And Jesus was a Jew who died for you! Therefore their is neither Jew, nor /Greek, nor Hittites, or bastards…for God accepts you…only humble yourself and believe that Jesus paid for your sins…salvation is by grace not race or works…believe…then He will begin a good work in you! Do not go against His Word for this is the foundation whch the builders rejected….His Word is a Sure foundation for your soul!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/11/2011 18:31 pm

TIUCHE:God is not a Greek hermaphrodite (a male figure with breasts), as mistakenly depicted by the Jews. God is a spirit. No man has seen God. Cf. post 17. Not even Jacob, who supposedly wrestled with God. That is a Jewish fairytale.

TIUCHE: It is good that you balance out my thoughts. I do value your insight on these matters.

On the writings in Genesis, Paul said it best ” These things may be taken figuratively..” Gal 4:24.

Pay no heed to “endless genealogies” and “Jewish fairytales” Cf. 1 Tim 1:4.

Christians have a “better covenant” than the Jews because it is real. The Jewish covenant is false. Cf. Heb 7:22.

Most Christians don’t even believe the “Jewish creation myth”. There are too many inconsistencies in it. These are re-made Mediterranean stories.

Only Pharasitical fundamentalists take this stuff literally. Jesus condemned the pharisees.

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/11/2011 17:45 pm

James R. -WHAT DID JESUS SAY ABOUT THE WRITING OF MOSES?

Jesus in whom you said you believe said: FOR HAD YOU BELIEVE MOSES, YOU WOULD HAVE BELIEVE ME; FOR HE WROTE OF ME. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE NOT HIS WRITINGS, HOW SHALL YOU BELIEVE MY WORDS? John 5:47.

And I did not say that the earth is 6000 years old! You donot comprehend very well what I wrote.

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/9/2011 11:13 am

TIUCHE: You believe the stories in Genesis to be literal? I don’t want to hurt your feelings but we need to put our feelings aside and seek the truth.

A literal interpretation was, indeed, certainly the case amongst 18th century believers. Today a minority of fundamentalists still cling to the idea that Genesis is the true history of the world. Lets take a look at some examples that discredit this idea:

CHARIOTS DID NOT EXIST IN THIS TIME FRAME

Chariots are mentioned in Jacobs time. Cf. Gen. 50:9. Which is not possible, because chariots were introduced in the Hyskos Empire or the 18th dynasty. Cf. Wickipedia.

Curiously, the Hyskos are not mentioned in Genesis. You would think such an important empire that brought this innovation would be mentioned in the ‘history of the world’ according to the Jews.

WHEN WAS GENESIS WRITTEN?

Bible scholars date the final editing of Genesis at the 1st century bc.

“The many anachronisms in the text point to a date in the 1st millennium BC, and current proposals place it in the 5th century when the post-Exilic Jewish community was trying to adapt itself to life under the Persian empire.” Cf. Wicipedia on Genesis.

The Deuteronomical school did editing in the second century B.C. This was done to try to ensure harmony amongst the differing scrolls, that we call books today. Cf. The Dramatization of Salvific History in the Deuteronomic Schools (Brill, Leiden 1969).

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: These first five books of the Bible are known also as the “Pentateuch”, and tradition ascribes these books to have been written by Moses. This is highly unlikely, since these books tell of the death of Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5)!

Scholars, according to encyclopedias, have overwhelming evidence that Genesis was compiled from several different sources. They also feel that Exodus and Leviticus were written by members of the priesthood in the 5th or 6th century b.c. AT THE EARLIEST.

MANY CHRISTIANS SEE GENESIS AS A MYTH
Many prominent Christian leaders see Genesis as a myth.

Dr. James Dobson does not believe in creation. He believes the first eleven chapters of Genesis to be poetry and not factual history. He promotes the book “It Just Couldn’t Happen”.

Scott W. Gustafoson, as well, in his book ‘Biblical Amnesia’ says Genesis is a myth. It was written upon the Jewish return from the Babylonian Exile.

Those are just a few.

6000 year old Earth?
Many Christians realize the Earth is very old. Not 6000 years old as the ‘endless genealogies’ suggest. This is looked upon, by many Christians as the ‘Jewish history of world, not the ‘literal passages’ as fundamental churches suggest.

MANY INTERPRETATIONS TO THIS BELIEF SYSTEM
The bible is open to many interpretations. Even educated Christians themselves do not claim that the Bible was written by God, or divinely transmitted to man.

They say that the Bible was written by men, but inspired by God. This is why the Bible is considered (by biblical scholars and Christians theologians) to be so open to interpretation. But it must be pointed out that just because something is “inspired” does not mean that it is the Absolute Truth. For example, a man may be inspired by his paramour to write a poem about her, but that does not mean that his words are true, nor does it mean that his lover even approves of what he has composed.

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/8/2011 21:42 pm

THE BOOK OF GENESIS WAS WRITTEN THOUSAND OF YEARS EVEN BEFORE GREECE EVEN EXISTED.

THE Greece civilization started more or less from 750 B.c. to 146 B.c.; while the Book of Genesis was written more or less 1490 B.C. to 1400 B.c. by Moses later on continued by Joshua and sealed by the chosen priesthood of God-w/in His chosen nation…. those in charge to keep and deliver the MESSAGE…the book of Genesis was written before the Greek civilization….

James R.
I just wonder why you love to discredit the old testament…if indeed the Old Testament Books are from God…you will be classified as an opponent of God…I said “If” it is the WORD OF GOD! Are you sure it is not the Word of God or it does not contain His Word?

Have the God you claim to be your God gave you a special revelation so that you will not believe on His Written Word and Accounts of His dealings with his Chosen People and to the world?

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/8/2011 10:41 am

HERMAPHRODITES AND THE HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE:

Mankind was both male and female. Men with BREASTS! As it says in the next verse ‘ male and female created he them’ as in the image of YHWH. This shows the Hellenistic Greek influence on the old testament!

The Greeks loved the Hermaphroditic gods. Many legends of these. It is no surprise that the Hebrew people were influenced by these in their captivity in Babylon. Upon their return from Babylon they tried to differentiate between the Hellenistic gods as they wrote Genesis in the 3rd century b.c.. They put their own spin on what God looks like.

NO MAN HAS SEEN GOD
In reality, no man has seen or has ever seen God. God is a spirit, after all. Cf. John 4:24. The new testament clarifies this.

Jn. 1:18 “No man hath seen God at any time;”

1 Tim 6:16″…dwelling in light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see:”

John 4:24 “God is a spirit”

By James Richter (wrote 536 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/7/2011 21:03 pm

ADAM CREATED MORE OR LESS ABOUT 4159 B.C.

More or less 6ooo years ago…Adam the first man was created by God…God made him after the God’s image…not after the animal kind or monkey kind…he was made after the God kind!

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/7/2011 16:27 pm

I am not so familiar with the feminist religion…what I know is that their concept & beliefs had filtered through the minds of ancient women as well but only recently during the availability of mass communication did they group and began forming their idiology..beginning with women liberation movement… glad you ask questions before jumping in into any movement…or religion…

A case in the bible happened during the time of Esther..where Vashti, the beautiful Queen of a king tried her hand on such an endeavor…but failed…Remember God said that the woman should be under her husband because of what she did
(Genesis 3:16).Another case happened when the first wife of David having been pampered since she was a princess, the daughter of King Saul, despise her husband in her eyes..w/c only lead to sorrow for both of them…

I just want you to take note of these three words: MONOGAMY, FEMINISM AND HOMOSEXUALITY…just remember them as interconnected…put in mind that God and the Bible promotes a patriarchal system and not a matriarchal system…
Now the matriarchal system has been promoted since the industrial revolution…making a lot of women to become spinsters…and living in loneliness and emptiness w/o a partner in life…living like the women in the tv series sex in the city…the bib big lie had caused a lot of sorrows, pain and broken relationships..for w/o the proper biblical system…it will result in system failure for societies estranged from the Word of God…

Whether God the Father had a wife I will keep my peace…from my long study of the Scriptures I still do not know…one thing I know however…the Mother of God…had long been promoted coinciding with the matriarchal society being promoted…the Mother of God in the roman Christian Religion…the worship of the mother in the Babylonian Mystery Religion….

Hoping that you pattern your beliefs and acts on the Holy women of old such as Sarah, Rebekkah, Esther, Leah, Rachel…learn how they treated their husband and children…i donot say that they are perfect…but you will be contributing to the betterment of our society and the world if you pattern your life after them…

By TIUCHE (wrote 3262 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/23/2011 10:41 am

There is a feminist religion, with due respect to them, i’d rather not to tell their name. My question is, based on the interpretation shared to me of one of the members, here it is, why they used to state the “God the Mother”? according to them, it is because of Genesis 1:26, it was the God the Mother whom with the God the Father when He invited to create man like their image. What is their basis on it? what is the true interpretation of Genesis 1:26. Thank you, hope you enlighten my mind regarding on this.

By joy puno (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 5/23/2011 06:46 am

In Genesis 1:26 And G O D (Hebrew Elohim-plural noun) said…God here is in the plural…They were a family…
In the beginning was the Word (was this Jesus?), and the Word (This was Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God (John 1:1)…and the Word (This was Jesus) was made flesh…and we behold His glory..
Jesus when He answered His adversaries told them “BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM!”
So when God said let US(more than one) make man in our (plural)..it is just a consonance with the truth that God(family- plural) is One…as Jesus again questioned those around Him saying, Is it not written in your law, I said, you are gods (plural) -John 10:34…
St Paul said “though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth… but to us there is but one God …and One Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:5-6)…

By TIUCHE (wrote 51 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/16/2011 12:28 pm

We meaning Trinity God and it Belongs to Holy God , Son God, father GOd

By Anil Sinku (wrote 2 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 4/16/2011 07:16 am

I always took these verses to mean that man has dominion over all animals but shouldn’t use them improperly, like for sexual relations.

By G.W. Bush (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/5/2010 14:19 pm

To whom it may concern:

Regarding Genesis 1:26 “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.”
I believe that God was not speaking with Jesus the Son. There are two other groups of people who believe two different views concerning this passage.
1. God was speaking to himself as one would speak to oneself while working on something.
For example, if I had a couple of options of paint for a room that I was planning to paint – I would probably ask myself, “Let’s see, what color should we paint this wall?”
Just because I said what color should we paint this wall…does not prove that there is someone else present with me. I’m simply using terms to speak to my conscience to come up with a conclusion of the kind of paint color I’m about to use for the room.
In the same manner some believe that God was speaking to himself just like you and I would.
2. God was speaking to the angels. This view is the one I hold on to.
The book of Job tells us, “then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: “…Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? …while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” Job 38:1-7 (NIV).
In Genesis 18:2 Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo three men stood by him. These were the same men of whom two of them went to visit Lot to save him and his family from the disaster that was about to come upon Sodom and Gomorrah. They were angels, but they had the form of men which is why the men from the city wanted to sexually abuse of them (Genesis 19).
Hebrews 13:2 says, “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. (NIV) In other words, people were entertaining angels without even knowing it because they looked like normal human beings.
With these few scriptures mentioned above I have concluded that angels probably look like us in the sense of shape or form.

On the other hand, if God was truly speaking to Jesus, the Son – then how do you explain the fact that the Son wasn’t even born until thousands of years later in a town called Bethlehem at the time that king Herod ruled - through a virgin named Mary?

Mathew 2:1-23 & Luke 2:1-20 therefore disproves the belief that God was speaking to the Son in the beginning of Creation because the Son was not born yet.

By Cisco (wrote 1 Bible Commentary - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 1/7/2010 23:29 pm

What a piece of work is a man:
“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.” Gen 1:26-27

The fact that God refers to Himself as Us indicates both His majesty and His tri-unity. The literal definition of ‘Elohiym (gods) also supports this (see my commentary on Gen 1:1).
I think that the image means that man is a trinity in a manner similar to God being a Trinity. The Trinity of the Godhead is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The trinity of man is soul, body, and spirit. The soul can also be divided into a trinity of mind, will, and emotions (“If I only had a brain, a heart, the nerve”). Contrast the trinity of man to the duality of animals. The beasts only have a body and soul. Which is one reason why if you don’t believe in God, then you think that human life is on par with chicken life. Without a spirit, we would be on par. It’s a sad commentary on a society that treats their pets like children, but treats their children like pets.
It helps me to think of the image issue in terms of consequences. If I sin, then what are the possible results? The wages of sin is death. This could be a physical death; something that harms the body. Another side effect is mental scarring which corresponds to the soul. Imagine a health class for young adults. The teacher tells them to avoid certain behavior because it is possible to catch a transmitted disease and thus harm the body. The teacher might even go as far as to warn the students about future regret or mental abuse. But how many teachers would tell a student to avoid an act because it is a sin against God? That is where the spiritual consequences come into play. Even if a morning after pill were available to cure all physical and mental ills, there would remain sin.

Having dominion over the earth speaks to our stewardship. Just because human life is above par compared to animals does not mean we are to be inhumane. We also need to treat the environment better and avoid pollutants. Off on a tangent: I don’t agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. The earth has cycles and now it’s in a warming trend. Also, volcanoes spewing out their smoke do more than humans. Never the less, someone will reap the consequences of poor stewardship.

By Terik Q (wrote 65 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 2/20/2009 21:43 pm

1)The creation account begins with Time,Space & Matter in Gen.1:1.In verse 26,we find the climax of God’s creation-creation of man.
2)God created everything by Himself without the assistance of anybody.Read Isaiah 44:24.”All things were made by him;and without him was not anything made that was made.”John 1:3.
3)Man was created in the image of God.Gen.1:26,27;9:7;1 Cor.11:7;James 3:9.In olden days,the Emperor wished that his statues be erected in different parts of his Empire to symbolize his power & authority in the region.Man was placed on the earth as God’s representative to demonstrate His reign in this world.
4)Man was made in the likeness God.Gen.1:26.Adam was made in the likeness of God.Gen.5;1.Adam begat a son in his own likeness,after his image and called his name Seth.Gen.5:3.”..put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”Eph.4:24.We can assume that Adam was created in righteousness & true holiness.The descendants of Adam have inherited the sinful nature because of the fall of Adam & his wife.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 11/3/2008 00:08 am

Let us make man . Although the tense here used is the future, all must acknowledge that this is the language of one apparently deliberating. Hitherto God has been introduced simply as commanding; now, when he approaches the most excellent of all his works, he enters into consultation. God certainly might here command by his bare word what he wished to be done: but he chose to give this tribute to the excellency of man, that he would, in a manner, enter into consultation concerning his creation. This is the highest honor with which he has dignified us; to a due regard for which, Moses, by this mode of speaking would excite our minds. For God is not now first beginning to consider what form he will give to man, and with what endowments it would be fitting to adorn him, nor is he pausing as over a work of difficulty: but, just as we have before observed, that the creation of the world was distributed over six days, for our sake, to the end that our minds might the more easily be retained in the meditation of God’s works: so now, for the purpose of commending to our attention the dignity of our nature, he, in taking counsel concerning the creation of man, testifies that he is about to undertake something great and wonderful. Truly there are many things in this corrupted nature which may induce contempt; but if you rightly weigh all circumstances, man is, among other creatures a certain preeminent specimen of Divine wisdom, justice, and goodness, so that he is deservedly called by the ancients mikri>kosmov, "a world in miniature." But since the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself. The Jews make themselves altogether ridiculous, in pretending that God held communication with the earth or with angels. The earth, forsooth, was a most excellent adviser! And to ascribe the least portion of a work so exquisite to angels, is a sacrilege to be held in abhorrence. Where, indeed, will they find that we were created after the image of the earth, or of angels? Does not Moses directly exclude all creatures in express terms, when he declares that Adam was created after the image of God? Others who deem themselves more acute, but are doubly infatuated, say that God spoke of himself in the plural number, according to the custom of princes. As if, in truth, that barbarous style of speaking, which has grown into use within a few past centuries, had, even then, prevailed in the world. But it is well that their canine wickedness has been joined with a stupidity so great, that they betray their folly to children. Christians, therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead. God summons no foreign counsellor; hence we infer that he finds within himself something distinct; as, in truth, his eternal wisdom and power reside within him.

In our image, etc . Interpreters do not agree concerning the meaning of these words. The greater part, and nearly all, conceive that the word image is to be distinguished from likeness. And the common distinction is, that image exists in the substance, likeness in the accidents of anything. They who would define the subject briefly, say that in the image are contained those endowments which God has conferred on human nature at large, while they expound likeness to mean gratuitous gifts. But Augustine, beyond all others, speculates with excessive refinement, for the purpose of fabricating a Trinity in man. For in laying hold of the three faculties of the soul enumerated by Aristotle, the intellect, the memory, and the will, he afterwards out of one Trinity derives many. If any reader, having leisure, wishes to enjoy such speculations, let him read the tenth and fourteenth books on the Trinity, also the eleventh book of the "City of God." I acknowledge, indeed, that there is something in man which refers to the Fathers and the Son, and the Spirit: and I have no difficulty in admitting the above distinction of the faculties of the soul: although the simpler division into two parts, which is more used in Scripture, is better adapted to the sound doctrine of piety; but a definition of the image of God ought to rest on a firmer basis than such subtleties. As for myself, before I define the image of God, I would deny that it differs from his likeness. For when Moses afterwards repeats the same things he passes over the likeness, and contents himself with mentioning the image. Should any one take the exception, that he was merely studying brevity; I answer, that where he twice uses the word image, he makes no mention of the likeness. We also know that it was customary with the Hebrews to repeat the same thing in different words. besides, the phrase itself shows that the second term was added for the sake of explanation, ‘Let us make,’ he says, ‘man in our image, according to our likeness,’ that is, that he may be like God, or may represent the image of God. Lastly, in the fifth chapter, without making any mention of image, he puts likeness in its place, (Genesis 5:1.) Although we have set aside all difference between the two words we have not yet ascertained what this image or likeness is. The Anthropomorphites were too gross in seeking this resemblance in the human body; let that reverie therefore remain entombed. Others proceed with a little more subtlety, who, though they do not imagine God to be corporeal, yet maintain that the image of God is in the body of man, because his admirable workmanship there shines brightly; but this opinion, as we shall see, is by no means consonant with Scripture. The exposition of Chrysostom is not more correct, who refers to the dominion which was given to man in order that he might, in a certain sense, act as God’s vicegerent in the government of the world. This truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God. Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.) That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure synecdochee; for though this is the chief part, it is not the whole of God’s image. Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good. Thus the chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart, where it was eminent: yet was there no part of him in which some scintillations of it did not shine forth. For there was an attempering in the several parts of the soul, which corresponded with their various offices. In the mind perfect intelligence flourished and reigned, uprightness attended as its companion, and all the senses were prepared and moulded for due obedience to reason; and in the body there was a suitable correspondence with this internal order. But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. For besides the deformity which everywhere appears unsightly, this evil also is added, that no part is free from the infection of sin.

In our image, after our likeness . I do not scrupulously insist upon the particles b, (beth,) and k, (caph. ) I know not whether there is anything solid in the opinion of some who hold that this is said, because the image of God was only shadowed forth in man till he should arrive at his perfection. The thing indeed is true; but I do not think that anything of the kind entered the mind of Moses. It is also truly said that Christ is the only image of the Fathers but yet the words of Moses do not bear the interpretation that "in the image" means "in Christ." It may also be added, that even man, though in a different respects is called the image of God. In which thing some of the Fathers are deceived who thought that they could defeat the Asians with this weapon that Christ alone is God’s, image. This further difficulty is also to be encountered, namely, why Paul should deny the woman to be the image of God, when Moses honors both, indiscriminately, with this title. The solution is short; Paul there alludes only to the domestic relation. He therefore restricts the image of God to government, in which the man has superiority over the wife and certainly he meant nothing more than that man is superior in the degree of honor. But here the question is respecting that glory of God which peculiarly shines forth in human nature, where the mind, the will, and all the senses, represent the Divine order.

And let them have dominion . Here he commemorates that part of dignity with which he decreed to honor man, namely, that he should have authority over all living creatures. He appointed man, it is true, lord of the world; but he expressly subjects the animals to him, because they having an inclination or instinct of their own, seem to be less under authority from without. The use of the plural number intimates that this authority was not given to Adam only, but to all his posterity as well as to him. And hence we infer what was the end for which all things were created; namely, that none of the conveniences and necessaries of life might be wanting to men. In the very order of the creation the paternal solicitude of God for man is conspicuous, because he furnished the world with all things needful, and even with an immense profusion of wealth, before he formed man. Thus man was rich before he was born. But if God had such care for us before we existed, he will by no means leave us destitute of food and of other necessaries of life, now that we are placed in the world. Yet, that he often keeps his hand as if closed is to be imputed to our sins.

By John Calvin (wrote 19 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/22/2008 21:09 pm

1)Sex was created before the entrance of sin into the world.After everything has been made,God saw that it was very good.Gen.1:31.
2)Man was made a little lower than the angels.Ps.8;5.Man was made a little lower than God Himself.
3)Man was made to be intellectual,moral & spiritual.His conscience speaks to him.He has the capacity to think & to make decision.He has the ability to know what is right & what is wrong.He can commune with God.
4)Man was given dominion & rule over all things & creatures.He was given the privilege to rule as God’s representative on this earth.He was given authority.He was given wonderful privileges of honor & glory.
5)David sings with amazement about this lofted position of honor & lordship of man in Psalm 8.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/10/2008 00:09 am

1)The creation account of Genesis 1 formed the basis for Psalm 8.Special attention was given in that Psalm to verses 26 to 28 of Gen.1.We can find beautiful poetic comments in that Psalm of David.
2)The climax of creation was on the sixth day.(Please note that on the 3rd day God made the land,grass,herbs &trees.Gen.1:12)There is connection between those two days of creation.
3)On the sixth day first God made the beasts,cattle & the creeping things.
Gen.1:25.Then He created man -male & female.
4)It is significant to note that the Hebrew word ‘bara’ (create=to fashion anew)is used only in Gen1:1,21&27.In verse 27, it is used thrice.Verse 27 is a poetry of 12 words in 3 lines in the Hebrew Bible.
5)Please refer commentaries for verse 27&28 & for Psalm 8:3-6.

By Alex (wrote 499 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 10/9/2008 23:57 pm

1) A complete understanding of how God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one is incomprehensible to humans in our physical plane. That would be like having a two dimensional picture understand how we can exist in three dimensions. However, an analogy that provides some insight (though is far from perfect) is the way steam and ice are both water, though they have different forms and properties. In a similar manner, God and Jesus are essentially the same, but have different properties.
2) I presume you mean to compare Gen 1:26 and Gen 2:7, given that 1:2 makes no mention of any step of actual creation. Some people would have you believe that Gen 2:7 is simply stating what happened in 1:26 in greater detail. I personally believe these were two separate acts, as 1:26 uses a Hebrew word that means “to create” whereas 2:7 uses words that specifically relate to forming out of an existing material, especially in terms of a potter forming an object out of clay.
During the other creation steps, God spoke and the creation step occured immediately, there was no time taken in the creation. In Gen 2:7, God clearly takes some time in His creation of Adam.
Finally, in Gen 1:26 God clearly creates male and female at the same time, whereas in Genesis 2, there is clearly some time (greater than a day) between when Adam was formed and Eve was formed.
I know these three points in and of themselves are not irrefutable evidence, but these are three significant points that at least suggest a review of the traditional creation should be in order.
3) I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that Man was first created as all spirit. When this verse says “let Us make man in Our image,” it’s not referring to creating a spirit-entity. Nothing else that was created in chapter one was of spirit-matter; interpreting this verse as man being spirit-matter is inconsistent with proper analysis procedures, and is inconsistent with other parts of Scripture. This verse is simply stating that physically and spiritually, man was fashioned after the likeness of God.

By David (wrote 22 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/9/2007 05:58 am

Dear Sir.

Right now I’m asking the Holy Spirit to guide me to questions in concerns;
1)How are God and Jesus One?
2)Explain Gen. 1:2 and Gen. and Gen.2:7
3)”Question” according to Gen.1:2, “man was first created as all spirit; it seem to me that Man was then formed in Gen.2:7 and if that’s so, “is this the same spirit in Gen.1:1 and the same spirit that resurrected Jesus?
4)Was there any time when God and Jesus not as one while Jesus walk on earth? Also, ‘when Jesus said, “when you see me, “you also see the Father.

By andrew delk (wrote 4 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 9/9/2007 00:48 am

I don’t think this is difficult at all. John 1 states, “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” In chapter 17 verse 5, John quotes Jesus as saying “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was,” indicating that Jesus was with the Father at Creation.

Put simply, the “us” used here refers to God the Father and Jesus the Son, as well as the Holy Spirit, the presence of whom is indicated in verse 2 of this chapter, “and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” this is the first indication of the triune nature of God.

By David (wrote 22 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 7/5/2007 03:17 am

Let us, indicates multiple beings. Would this mean that God is part of a society? Is it the royal, we?
Our immage, mentally, or phisically or both?
Literalists will have a hard time with this line.

Regards
DL

By Greatest I am (wrote 2 Bible Commentaries - permalink to this Commentary)
Posted on: 6/2/2007 18:42 pm