A New Approach To The Image of God--and Satan's ongoing counter

[EarlyActs]

I have recently exchanged with a few scientists who are evangelicals here, but who may not realize they are 'neo-orthodox.' That means that they don't accept some of early Genesis as historical, but only for its theology, as though these things can be split.

In this post, I would like to revisit their questions on a new topic within early Genesis: the image of God. This is most often used as a general statement of human dignity.

There are two things in the early text, however, that pull us another direction. 1st, that the term 'tohu wa-bohu' means that a destructive event has taken place, for ex., as found in Jer. 4 and the destruction of Jerusalem. Details are scant. This does not settle well with the above readers and there is some denial that the expression can mean this, only that it means it was unfinished.

2nd, when God makes mankind, he is made in the image of God. This expression also may go in an unexpected direction--to be a representative of God. Images were used around middle east kingdoms to define boundaries. The earth was God's. This needed to be marked.

Now when we combine 1 with 2, we see that something was destroyed that was unacceptable to God, and there needed to be representation of God as the owner in this place that was subjected to ruination.

This, then, would be the "theology" of early Genesis on these two points. I'm a bit puzzled how we cannot have historic material when these items are the meaning of the passage.

This might seem palid until we go to the 10 Commands. In the 10 Commands, we have the repetition that God created the earth, etc., in 6 days and the 7th was meant to rest and worship Him. But that is not the only theme brought forward: man is not to make images of God. We should see the sharp contrast: man is an image of God (the lord of the world), but is tempted to make images of God, which are lies; they are false. This began verbally with Satan misrepresenting God, ie, creating an image of him.

To me, these hints show a conflict before the creation event (that made the biosphere inhabitable for mankind), about which we have very few details, but are solid links of history to meaning in early Genesis.

By way of continuity of the whole Bible, we should remind ourselves that Jesus was made (as far as humanity needed a demonstration) Lord and Christ in the resurrection. The world is His, says Ps 2 and 110. (The apostles did not start their Acts 4 prayer in Ps 2; they started in a psalm that asserted God made it all and was owner.) Anyone not accepting this is on notice, through the resurrection, that the Son will dash them to pieces on the last day.

The scholarly NET has this note for Acts 4:

• Acts 4:24 tn Or “Lord of all.”sn The use of the title Master of all (δεσπότης, despotēs) emphasizes that there is a sovereign God who is directing what is taking place.

But directing all affairs is not the pulse of early Acts; it is that he is owner; the earth is his property, in the sense going all the way back to the creation.

This may indirectly answer the question of why some Nephilim appear after the cataclysm. What God needed to do in the cataclysm was destroy the illusion that someone else was owner; it is not that God dislikes the earth. He restored that he is Master by getting rid of the bulk of the Nephilim. In the SW US, in about 1800, a last group (to my knowledge) of giants was defeated because of their barbarity by the Payute tribe. As in Ps 104, the cataclysm is something of a clue as to what happened in the creation itself; certain lines overlap or blur the two.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I have recently exchanged with a few scientists who are evangelicals here, but who may not realize they are 'neo-orthodox.' That means that they don't accept some of early Genesis as historical, but only for its theology, as though these things can be split.

The question isn't about what can or cannot be split. The question is what does Genesis 1 mean in its original context.

In this post, I would like to revisit their questions on a new topic within early Genesis: the image of God. This is most often used as a general statement of human dignity.

And this statement would be incorrect - I think we both agree here (but I could be wrong).

There are two things in the early text, however, that pull us another direction. 1st, that the term 'tohu wa-bohu' means that a destructive event has taken place, for ex., as found in Jer. 4 and the destruction of Jerusalem. Details are scant. This does not settle well with the above readers and there is some denial that the expression can mean this, only that it means it was unfinished.

As I mentioned elsewhere, your understanding of the phrase tohu wa-bohu is flawed. The word 'tohu' appears 20 times in Scripture, but the word 'bohu' occurs only 3 times, and in each case appears in combination with 'tohu' (Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23). A semantic look at each place where 'tohu' is found shows the word to mean non-productive (in human terms), desolate, desert, wasteland, etc. Obviously it could be used to describe the land after a conflict or defeat has taken place, but there is no requirement for it to be confined to a conflict or a defeat. The grammar of Genesis 1:1-3 does not support such a reading and there is simply nothing in Scripture that indicates that a destruction had taken place before Genesis 1:2. It is just not there. If I am wrong, show me.

2nd, when God makes mankind, he is made in the image of God. This expression also may go in an unexpected direction--to be a representative of God. Images were used around middle east kingdoms to define boundaries. The earth was God's. This needed to be marked.

You are correct that image of God is a reference to being God's representatives. It is a statement about vocation. We are to reflect God into the world and reflect the praises of Creation back to God.
I am not so sure about your idea of markers though.

Now when we combine 1 with 2, we see that something was destroyed that was unacceptable to God, and there needed to be representation of God as the owner in this place that was subjected to ruination.

No, we don't see that something was destroyed. This is your assumption and has no biblical support.

This, then, would be the "theology" of early Genesis on these two points. I'm a bit puzzled how we cannot have historic material when these items are the meaning of the passage.

No, this is not the "theology".

This might seem palid until we go to the 10 Commands. In the 10 Commands, we have the repetition that God created the earth, etc., in 6 days and the 7th was meant to rest and worship Him.

The ancient Hebrews understood the references, much better than modern Christians do.

But that is not the only theme brought forward: man is not to make images of God. We should see the sharp contrast: man is an image of God (the lord of the world), but is tempted to make images of God, which are lies; they are false. This began verbally with Satan misrepresenting God, ie, creating an image of him.

Yes, we are the image-bearer, therefore we are not to make images.

To me, these hints show a conflict before the creation event (that made the biosphere inhabitable for mankind), about which we have very few details, but are solid links of history to meaning in early Genesis.

There are not "very few details", there are zero details of a conflict before Creation week, because there is nothing in the Bible to support such a view. Is this what you mean by "history"?

By way of continuity of the whole Bible, we should remind ourselves that Jesus was made (as far as humanity needed a demonstration) Lord and Christ in the resurrection. The world is His, says Ps 2 and 110. (The apostles did not start their Acts 4 prayer in Ps 2; they started in a psalm that asserted God made it all and was owner.) Anyone not accepting this is on notice, through the resurrection, that the Son will dash them to pieces on the last day.

The scholarly NET has this note for Acts 4:

• Acts 4:24 tn Or “Lord of all.”sn The use of the title Master of all (δεσπότης, despotēs) emphasizes that there is a sovereign God who is directing what is taking place.

But directing all affairs is not the pulse of early Acts; it is that he is owner; the earth is his property, in the sense going all the way back to the creation.

Through His life, crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus is proclaimed King over all the nations - the Kingdom of God has arrived. That is the Gospel message after all.

This may indirectly answer the question of why some Nephilim appear after the cataclysm. What God needed to do in the cataclysm was destroy the illusion that someone else was owner; it is not that God dislikes the earth. He restored that he is Master by getting rid of the bulk of the Nephilim. In the SW US, in about 1800, a last group (to my knowledge) of giants was defeated because of their barbarity by the Payute tribe. As in Ps 104, the cataclysm is something of a clue as to what happened in the creation itself; certain lines overlap or blur the two.

Let's not get into a discussion here about the Nephilim.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Let me make it very clear where I stand:

If you read Genesis 1 and see only material creation in 7 days, then you have missed the whole point of the passage.

Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise. It is a theological polemic against the ancient near eastern creation stories generally, and the Egyptians creation stories in particular. It is designed to demonstrate the superiority of Yahweh over the Egyptian gods. The similarities of Genesis 1 with the ancient near eastern, and especially the Egyptian stories are so striking that it is hard to dismiss this. But it is the differences between them that the genius of the passage shines.

Some, like Walton, have suggested that Genesis 1 is God setting up His cosmic temple, and I do believe this view also has much merit.

If you want to engage with me in this discussion, I am happy to do so. But you will need to present some evidence and stick to one issue at a time.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Your 'cataclysm' took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, when there was "no man" created yet.

Because of the angels sin of rebellion (which was never acted upon but was 'found in their heart') God cast the angels that sinned down to 'hell' and God Himself destroyed the planet. In Genesis 1:2 he begins the re-creation or restoration of the planet in preparation of His crowning achievement: Man.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God and so the image of God was not natural Adam, but the Lord from heaven: Christ.
There is no better image of a Father than a Son.

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col. 1:14–15.

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,
Heb. 1:3.

"Let us make man in our own image" was God looking forward to the new man who will be created anew in Christ. Old things have passed away. Behold, all things are become new (2 Cor. 5:17.)

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Eph. 4:24.

 

[Mr GLee]

Your 'cataclysm' took place between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, when there was "no man" created yet.

Because of the angels sin of rebellion (which was never acted upon but was 'found in their heart') God cast the angels that sinned down to 'hell' and God Himself destroyed the planet. In Genesis 1:2 he begins the re-creation or restoration of the planet in preparation of His crowning achievement: Man.

Plants came first mankind day 6 .

No such thing as angels a creation not seen. Angel fake word needed to create a legion of spirit guide other than the Spirit of Christ .

Like the Catholic called patron saints it was passed down from Jews like Rachel when she hid the idol images needed to put a face on the legion of gods in the likeness of dying mankind or King Saul . . the people's choice .In whom God has cut off all communication and Saul sought after the legion of spirit gods in the liknes of dying mankind .

God who works in us to both will and do his good pleasure. He needs no outside help (peanut gallery) Acts 17 :

The Greek word Angelos interpretered is "messengers" not "angel a fake word" How beautiful are the feet of the apostles shod with the godsel .

1 Samuel 28: 6-7 And when Saul enquired of the Lord, the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.
Then said Saul unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her, and enquire of her. And his servants said to him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him up, whom I shall name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits, and the wizards, out of the land: wherefore then layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die? And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing.Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel.And when the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice: and the woman spake to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? for thou art Saul. And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods (legion) ascending out of the earth.

Genesis 31:19 And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father's.

Again God the Potter who has no need satisfies all . . he not served by the dying hand s of mankind or some make believe creation One mediator our Holy Father.

In that way God can send a Ass as a messenger apostle used to represent unbelievers.

Acts 17: 23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

 

[CrowCross]

EarlyActs Sereni-tea jeremiah1five​

Many try to place a "cataclysm" or a destruction of the earth between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I've seen many christians over the years try to use science to demonstrate this...as an explanation for the dinosaur fossils found in the geological column of earth and other so-called old earth "evidence".
They tend to try and tell us the first earth died when Satan fell onto the earth destroying it or God had enough of Satans world and then He destroyed the pre-Adamic world.

One has to ask the question....when did Lucifer fall? Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or after or before Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?

Ezekiel 28 gives us a big hint in what is described as the "Lament for the King of Tyre" as to when Satan fell. Is the verse about the actual King of Tyre, Satan or both? I say the King of Tyre is a "kind" of or representation, comparison to aid in describing part of what happened to Satan and who he was.
We can know the verse isn't completely about a human being because the character is described as a Cherub....14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,...The King of Tyre wasn't an angel.
Just prior to that we see yet another hint....Here we see Satan as presented in this fashion....
‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.13 You were in Eden, the garden of God.......Satan was presented in an unfallen state...and now the important part....in the Garden of Eden.....which came after Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In other words Satan fell sometime after day six. The concept of the post-creation fall can be supported further in Genesis when we read....
"31And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
If Satan fell prior to the Six day creation then all that God made wasn't good let alone very good.

There's much more to be said, but I'll stop here for now.

 

[CrowCross]

This may indirectly answer the question of why some Nephilim appear after the cataclysm. What God needed to do in the cataclysm was destroy the illusion that someone else was owner; it is not that God dislikes the earth. He restored that he is Master by getting rid of the bulk of the Nephilim. In the SW US, in about 1800, a last group (to my knowledge) of giants was defeated because of their barbarity by the Payute tribe. As in Ps 104, the cataclysm is something of a clue as to what happened in the creation itself; certain lines overlap or blur the two

It does appear that there was Nephilim on earth prior to and after the flood.....and perhaps the bloodline is still present on the earth.
The truth of the bible speaks about them.
Personally I believe that after the flood the fallen angels once again married the daughters of men or Hams wife had "giant" blood (DNA) contained in her genetics.....Some how they returned after the flood.

Over the years many large "bones" and artifacts have been found and hidden away,
There has also been structures found on multiple continents that are very similiar in design and containing similiar depictions built on Noah's flood sediment. I believe they were constructed by those under the influence of the Nephilim after the spreading of people at the Tower of Babel.

Psalms 104 could be a description of how God removed the water from the earth after the flood....creating the mountains and valleys we see today. God could ave used the same or similiar process when he separated the dry land from the oceans on the third day.

 

[Mr GLee]

EarlyActs Sereni-tea jeremiah1five​

Many try to place a "cataclysm" or a destruction of the earth between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. I've seen many christians over the years try to use science to demonstrate this...as an explanation for the dinosaur fossils found in the geological column of earth and other so-called old earth "evidence".
They tend to try and tell us the first earth died when Satan fell onto the earth destroying it or God had enough of Satans world and then He destroyed the pre-Adamic world.

One has to ask the question....when did Lucifer fall? Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or after or before Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?

Ezekiel 28 gives us a big hint in what is described as the "Lament for the King of Tyre" as to when Satan fell. Is the verse about the actual King of Tyre, Satan or both? I say the King of Tyre is a "kind" of or representation, comparison to aid in describing part of what happened to Satan and who he was.
We can know the verse isn't completely about a human being because the character is described as a Cherub....14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,...The King of Tyre wasn't an angel.
Just prior to that we see yet another hint....Here we see Satan as presented in this fashion....
‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.13 You were in Eden, the garden of God.......Satan was presented in an unfallen state...and now the important part....in the Garden of Eden.....which came after Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. In other words Satan fell sometime after day six. The concept of the post-creation fall can be supported further in Genesis when we read....
"31And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."
If Satan fell prior to the Six day creation then all that God made wasn't good let alone very good.

There's much more to be said, but I'll stop here for now.

Amen, Christ did all of the work creating in six days. He entered the rest we have in him on the 7th. 7 the end

Simply Satan the father of lies adding oral tradition of dying mankind as sign to wonder after adding to Christ's living word that is sealed up with 7 seals till the end of time. No laws missing by which we could know God more intimately or adequately.

The wiles as the voice of the devil still adding his lying signs for unconverted mankind to wonder after. . never coming to new born again faith the salvation of their soul

 

[EarlyActs]

The question isn't about what can or cannot be split. The question is what does Genesis 1 mean in its original context.


And this statement would be incorrect - I think we both agree here (but I could be wrong).


As I mentioned elsewhere, your understanding of the phrase tohu wa-bohu is flawed. The word 'tohu' appears 20 times in Scripture, but the word 'bohu' occurs only 3 times, and in each case appears in combination with 'tohu' (Genesis 1:2, Isaiah 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23). A semantic look at each place where 'tohu' is found shows the word to mean non-productive (in human terms), desolate, desert, wasteland, etc. Obviously it could be used to describe the land after a conflict or defeat has taken place, but there is no requirement for it to be confined to a conflict or a defeat. The grammar of Genesis 1:1-3 does not support such a reading and there is simply nothing in Scripture that indicates that a destruction had taken place before Genesis 1:2. It is just not there. If I am wrong, show me.


You are correct that image of God is a reference to being God's representatives. It is a statement about vocation. We are to reflect God into the world and reflect the praises of Creation back to God.
I am not so sure about your idea of markers though.


No, we don't see that something was destroyed. This is your assumption and has no biblical support.


No, this is not the "theology".


The ancient Hebrews understood the references, much better than modern Christians do.


Yes, we are the image-bearer, therefore we are not to make images.


There are not "very few details", there are zero details of a conflict before Creation week, because there is nothing in the Bible to support such a view. Is this what you mean by "history"?


Through His life, crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus is proclaimed King over all the nations - the Kingdom of God has arrived. That is the Gospel message after all.


Let's not get into a discussion here about the Nephilim.

As the first line of your next post shows, you are in denial of the split, which is the express intention of the theologians circa 1900 about the text, based on destructive German text criticism. These are the guys, for ex., who intentionally avoided the semitic layer of archeology once they discovered it under Goshen, Egypt, and said that no semitic people had ever been there in the Goshen period. This in turn fed the 'historically false, but spiritually (mythical) true' view of that period.

You can say what you want but you can't evade that the neo-orthodoxy is an actual phase in theology from the 1900s. That would also be avoiding history, and that would be a very curious thing to do, a two-fer.

 

[EarlyActs]

Let me make it very clear where I stand:

If you read Genesis 1 and see only material creation in 7 days, then you have missed the whole point of the passage.

Genesis 1 is not a scientific treatise. It is a theological polemic against the ancient near eastern creation stories generally, and the Egyptians creation stories in particular. It is designed to demonstrate the superiority of Yahweh over the Egyptian gods. The similarities of Genesis 1 with the ancient near eastern, and especially the Egyptian stories are so striking that it is hard to dismiss this. But it is the differences between them that the genius of the passage shines.

Some, like Walton, have suggested that Genesis 1 is God setting up His cosmic temple, and I do believe this view also has much merit.

If you want to engage with me in this discussion, I am happy to do so. But you will need to present some evidence and stick to one issue at a time.

One topic per post, please. It is disorienting to me to see 10 at a time.

You are kind of a marvel of misunderstanding. The item about the destruction of a previous condition is specifically there because the author was addressing the deity beliefs of several cultures (Egyptian, Persian, Hindi, possibly NW ANE, too). This is in Waltke CREATION AND CHAOS and in Wakeman, GOD'S BATTLE WITH THE SEA-MONSTER. You keep using the words 'dealing with the theology of those cultures' but you don't know what that might apply to. Those cultures had the battle motifs. In fact, it is quite widespread, that a deity slaughtered an evil creature, and the material of that creature became the substance of what we live upon.

Considering when he wrote, the expression in Jer 2 and 4 about the encroachment of the ocean go back to the cataclysm, but we need not stop there. Many passages blur the difference between the cataclysm and creation; that is my point. The events are more similar than they are disparate.

 

[EarlyActs]

For an analysis of neo-orthodoxy, see Schaeffer THE GOD WHO IS THERE etc. Or Brinsmead, PRESENT TRUTH (archived online) "The Old Testament and Philosophy" etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

re representation
Genesis is not as environmentalist as the current generation thinks. To start with, the harsh verbs of subdue and dominate, had to do with mopping up the mess that was dealt with majorly--the tohu wa-bohu. If people understood that, they might no be so embarrassed to find dominate in the text, or think that it is actually a hostile attitude.

"The earth is the Lord's" meant that he was to be represented everywhere. This is important for establishing continuity with Abraham's clan, so that it does not become tribal in the usual sense. It was already a mission endeavor. The line 'I will bless/curse...those who bless/curse you...' is entirely Christian but not race-nation based. That is a modern mistake, a modern eschatology foopah, which isn't even aware that the line is not used in the NT. But the rest of the Abraham narrative, according to the NT, is meant to expand this mission endeavor. The navigators certainly got lost many times!

When Col 1 when Christ is the image of the invisible God, it means the resurrection event is a declaration in itself of God's ownership; cp. Rom 1 and early Acts. That event represents God--that this world is his, that the Son must be honored (Ps 2, 110), that a day of judgement is forthcoming (Acts 17), that this is proven by the resurrection, etc. So we could say Christ fulfilled the task of representing God to the world that goes all the way back.

 

[Sereni-tea]

One topic per post, please. It is disorienting to me to see 10 at a time.

You are kind of a marvel of misunderstanding. The item about the destruction of a previous condition is specifically there because the author was addressing the deity beliefs of several cultures (Egyptian, Persian, Hindi, possibly NW ANE, too). This is in Waltke CREATION AND CHAOS and in Wakeman, GOD'S BATTLE WITH THE SEA-MONSTER. You keep using the words 'dealing with the theology of those cultures' but you don't know what that might apply to. Those cultures had the battle motifs. In fact, it is quite widespread, that a deity slaughtered an evil creature, and the material of that creature became the substance of what we live upon.

Considering when he wrote, the expression in Jer 2 and 4 about the encroachment of the ocean go back to the cataclysm, but we need not stop there. Many passages blur the difference between the cataclysm and creation; that is my point. The events are more similar than they are disparate.

Yes, exactly - the other ancient near eastern cultures had battle motifs. That is exactly what Genesis is countering. In Genesis there is no battle. There is just the all powerful Creator God who commands and orders. He did not need to battle anyone and there are no other gods besides Him. The watery chaos, the sea monsters, sun, moon and star are all subject to Him. He commands and they obey. This is the difference between Genesis 1 and the other ancient near eastern stories. This is the difference between Yahweh and the 'gods' of the ancient near east.

But don't confuse the Flood of Genesis 6 with some pre-Genesis 1 battle. The Flood is a re-creation event. The language used there is a return to the Genesis 1:1 state with the barrier between the 'waters above' and the 'waters below' being removed. The language used - which reflects Genesis 1 - points to the cosmic significance of the event.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, exactly - the other ancient near eastern cultures had battle motifs. That is exactly what Genesis is countering. In Genesis there is no battle. There is just the all powerful Creator God who commands and orders. He did not need to battle anyone and there are no other gods besides Him. The watery chaos, the sea monsters, sun, moon and star are all subject to Him. He commands and they obey. This is the difference between Genesis 1 and the other ancient near eastern stories. This is the difference between Yahweh and the 'gods' of the ancient near east.

But don't confuse the Flood of Genesis 6 with some pre-Genesis 1 battle. The Flood is a re-creation event. The language used there is a return to the Genesis 1:1 state with the barrier between the 'waters above' and the 'waters below' being removed. The language used - which reflects Genesis 1 - points to the cosmic significance of the event.

But "representative" (image of God) and 'God's battle with the sea monster' tell us otherwise--that there was a battle. "Rule over" and "subdue" are also part of this. "Myths are the disintegrated telling of what actually happened." --Lewis, "The Myth That Became Fact" GOD IN THE DOCK.

I hope you will check out Strauss & Eliot's influence on theology as summarized here:

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/noahs-ark-found.1237/page-4#post-60714

Post #76

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, exactly - the other ancient near eastern cultures had battle motifs. That is exactly what Genesis is countering. In Genesis there is no battle. There is just the all powerful Creator God who commands and orders. He did not need to battle anyone and there are no other gods besides Him. The watery chaos, the sea monsters, sun, moon and star are all subject to Him. He commands and they obey. This is the difference between Genesis 1 and the other ancient near eastern stories. This is the difference between Yahweh and the 'gods' of the ancient near east.

But don't confuse the Flood of Genesis 6 with some pre-Genesis 1 battle. The Flood is a re-creation event. The language used there is a return to the Genesis 1:1 state with the barrier between the 'waters above' and the 'waters below' being removed. The language used - which reflects Genesis 1 - points to the cosmic significance of the event.

There can also be a literalism here that is misleading. Satan and angels may be worshipped (notice even John appeared to in the Rev), but God will still say 'there are no other gods besides me.' He means it in the imperative sense, not the indicative.

 

[Sereni-tea]

There can also be a literalism here that is misleading. Satan and angels may be worshipped (notice even John appeared to in the Rev), but God will still say 'there are no other gods besides me.' He means it in the imperative sense, not the indicative.

Absolutely. But that's not what's happening in Genesis 1.

 

[CrowCross]

There can also be a literalism here that is misleading. Satan and angels may be worshipped (notice even John appeared to in the Rev), but God will still say 'there are no other gods besides me.' He means it in the imperative sense, not the indicative.

It seems as if God is saying I'm the only God...none before me and none after me...The only true God as all others are false idols.

 

[Sereni-tea]

But "representative" (image of God) and 'God's battle with the sea monster' tell us otherwise--that there was a battle. "Rule over" and "subdue" are also part of this. "Myths are the disintegrated telling of what actually happened." --Lewis, "The Myth That Became Fact" GOD IN THE DOCK.

I hope you will check out Strauss & Eliot's influence on theology as summarized here:

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/noahs-ark-found.1237/page-4#post-60714

Post #76

If there is a battle in Genesis 1 show me from the text. The "sea monsters" are part of God's creation. He has control over them. He speaks and they obey. Look at what Jesus did in the boat on the Sea of Galilee, where we see the wind and waves are obedient to Him. God doesn't need to battle anyone.

 

[EarlyActs]

If there is a battle in Genesis 1 show me from the text. The "sea monsters" are part of God's creation. He has control over them. He speaks and they obey. Look at what Jesus did in the boat on the Sea of Galilee, where we see the wind and waves are obedient to Him. God doesn't need to battle anyone.

In the Psalms it may be a figure of speech, but it still has the effect of chaos. God defeats it. Thus God is victorious over it. As Peterson says, Genesis tells us that the imprint of the divine is to take things that are chaos and make them workable or habitable.

To repeat some of the related features in the text:
representing (an image of God) is in the text and is about establishing territory. From whom we are not told, but it used that way in the ANE.
Subdue and rule over are in the text and used because of the previous condition in a 'mopping up' sense. The same thing happens when the Nephilim are dealt with as the OT moves on.

In the cataclysm, there will be the demonic figures and their affect on mankind. They are defeated. This is why we read Ps 104 and it is difficult to tell whether he is referring to the creation or the cataclysm; they have important similarities.

 

[CrowCross]

If there is a battle in Genesis 1 show me from the text. The "sea monsters" are part of God's creation. He has control over them. He speaks and they obey. Look at what Jesus did in the boat on the Sea of Galilee, where we see the wind and waves are obedient to Him. God doesn't need to battle anyone.

Where is the sea monster battle in Gen 1?