₦airaland Forum

There's a popular belief that everyone God created is the image of God. This belief proceeds from ancients times when people could barely read. Even in cultures where God is not central in their belief, people still believe that humans are the same and share the same purpose.

Are these really the case? Are we all the same and do we all have the same purpose?

However, we take a deep dive into scripture to interpret these topics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDfyMyKu3_4?si=HhgAxlhZ1PVMd3tB

Everyone is not created or at least see themselves created in the image of God to rule and subdue and multiply and be blessed.

Some are created from mud to ignorantly slave naked in the Garden of Eden.

Are you saying that the man created from mud was not given the opportunity to be image of God? Wouldn't that make God partial?

budaatum:
Everyone is not created or at least see themselves created in the image of God to rule and subdue and multiply and be blessed.

Some are created from mud to ignorantly slave naked in the Garden of Eden.

oridavid:
Are you saying that the man created from mud was not given the opportunity to be image of God? Wouldn't that make God partial?

I'm saying the Image was created on day six and was given a different duty and pay to the mud who was created after the God had rested on day seven. And the reason most can't see this is they are afraid to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil least they die even though the text is clear on that issue that their eyes opened and they went on to live very long lifes and populate the entire earth.

Ref:
https://www.nairaland.com/6795272/reeves-pass

https://www.nairaland.com/7351620/story-adam-eve-makes-sense#117003826

Are you saying God already rested before he created Adam?

budaatum:
I'm saying the Image was created on day six and was given a different duty and pay to the mud who was created after the God had rested on day seven. And the reason most can't see this is they are afraid to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil least they die even though the text is clear on that issue that their eyes opened and they went on to live very long lifes and populate the entire earth.

Ref:
https://www.nairaland.com/6795272/reeves-pass

https://www.nairaland.com/7351620/story-adam-eve-makes-sense#117003826

oridavid:
Are you saying God already rested before he created Adam?

Is that not what is written in your own Bible?

And not only that. Their job descriptions are different, and their pay is different, and that's apart from the Image of God was not and should not have been created from mud.

There are reasons the following verse of Cecil Frances Alexander 1848 hymn is not sung anymore.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
GOD made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate

http://worcesterchapel.org/sermons/dives-and-lazarus-the-chaplain/

That's not what the Bible actually say but you're welcome to say so. I won't laugh at you. This is why I want you to state so for sure if that's what you truly believe.

budaatum:
Is that not what is written in your own Bible?

And not only that. Their job descriptions are different, and their pay is different, and that's apart from the Image of God was not and should not have been created from mud.

There are reasons the following verse of Cecil Frances Alexander 1848 hymn is not sung anymore.

oridavid:
That's not what the Bible actually say but you're welcome to say so. I won't laugh at you. This is why I want you to state so for sure if that's what you truly believe.

The Bible does not "say" anything. You have to read it and see what is written in it. And in order to see what is written in it, it helps if Christ has opened your eyes to see the jobs given to the image differs to that given to the mud, and the pay for the image was more than that of the mud.

The saddest thing is the different ways in which believing one is an image or mud programmes the mind. Those who brought you the book definitely did not tell themselves they were mud when they got on ships to rule and subdue the earth and multiply, and there's very little argument whether they were blessed or not, and if you whom the subdued and ruled were blessed or not.

The good thing though was those who brought you the book were themselves convinced they were mud too, until they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and found knowledge does not kill. And they freed themselves from the gods of Rome who enslaved them just as we will someday overcome our fear of death and eat fruits of knowledge and free ourselves from the ìgnorance that enslaves us. Amen.

So, is it Christ who opened your eyes to see that God had rested before he created Adam from mud?

budaatum:
The Bible does not "say" anything. You have to read it and see what is written in it. And in order to see what is written in it, it helps if Christ has opened your eyes to see the jobs given to the image differs to that given to the mud, and the pay for the image was more than that of the mud.

The saddest thing is the different ways in which believing one is an image or mud programmes the mind. Those who brought you the book definitely did not tell themselves they were mud when they got on ships to rule and subdue the earth and multiply, and there's very little argument whether they were blessed or not, and if you whom the subdued and ruled were blessed or not.

The good thing though was those who brought you the book were themselves convinced they were mud too, until they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and found knowledge does not kill. And they freed themselves from the gods of Rome who enslaved them just as we will someday overcome our fear of death and eat fruits of knowledge and free ourselves from the ìgnorance that enslaves us. Amen.

oridavid:
There's a popular belief that everyone God created is the image of God. This belief proceeds from ancients times when people could barely read. Even in cultures where God is not central in their belief, people still believe that humans are the same and share the same purpose.

Are these really the case? Are we all the same and do we all have the same purpose?

However, we take a deep dive into scripture to interpret these topics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDfyMyKu3_4?si=HhgAxlhZ1PVMd3tB

Are All Humans The Image Of God?

The short answer is NO!


All humans are descendant of Adam and thus are created in the IMAGE of the Fallen ADAM!

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

oridavid:
So, is it Christ who opened your eyes to see that God had rested before he created Adam from mud?

Call it Christ. Jesus not only fed people fruits of knowledge, he also promised you the fruit of life.

Fact is, my eyes are open and I can read and see that the duty given to the image differs to that given to the mud, and their pays differ too. And I understand the implications of believing one is created in God's image on day six or from mud after day seven, and I know which I'd rather be.

Those who brought you the book do not believe they were created from mud. They eat fruits of knowledge for breakfast lunch and supper and rule and subdue and multiply and are blessed, while some don't eat fruits of knowledge and wail and languish and die.

This is accurate

TenQ:
Are All Humans The Image Of God?

The short answer is NO!


All humans are descendant of Adam and thus are created in the IMAGE of the Fallen ADAM!

Genesis 5:3
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

So you think the man created from mud was created after the seven days?

budaatum:
Call it Christ. Jesus not only fed people fruits of knowledge, he also promised you the fruit of life.

Fact is, my eyes are open and I can read and see that the duty given to the image differs to that given to the mud, and their pays differ too. And I understand the implications of believing one is created in God's image on day six or from mud after day seven, and I know which I'd rather be.

Those who brought you the book do not believe they were created from mud. They eat fruits of knowledge for breakfast lunch and supper and rule and subdue and multiply and are blessed, while some don't eat fruits of knowledge and wail and languish and die.

oridavid:
So you think the man created from mud was created after the seven days?

Read it yourself and tell me otherwise.

https://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/2.htm

I have read it, I didn't find anything of such in there. This is why I'm asking you know why you're saying what you're saying.

budaatum:
Read it yourself and tell me otherwise.

https://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/2.htm

oridavid:
I have read it, I didn't find anything of such in there. This is why I'm asking you know why you're saying what you're saying..

We can show you but we can unfortunately not make you see that Adam was created after God had rested, and was given a job that was less than the images and paid less for it.

Those with eyes see, while the blind see not.

This is a bad argument. Any argument that lacks falsifiability is a terrible one.

budaatum:
We can show you but we can unfortunately not make you see that Adam was created after God had rested, and was given a job that was less than the images and paid less for it.

Those with eyes see, while the blind see not.

oridavid:
This is a bad argument. Any argument that lacks falsifiability is a terrible one.

Are you denying the image had a different job description and pay to the mud?

That's another discussion.

I'm just saying your argument for how you saw that the man created by mud was created after God rested is a bad argument that has no falsifiability. You claim you saw it in the Bible and anyone who doesn't see it is blind....that's a silly argument. It's just like me saying I see people living inside the sun and whoever doesn't see it is blind. Wouldn't you call me a charlatan?

budaatum:
Are you denying the image had a different job description and pay to the mud?

oridavid:
That's another discussion.

I'm just saying your argument for how you saw that the man created by mud was created after God rested is a bad argument that has no falsifiability. You claim you saw it in the Bible and anyone who doesn't see it is blind....that's a silly argument. It's just like me saying I see people living inside the sun and whoever doesn't see it is blind. Wouldn't you call me a charlatan?

I would call you a charlatan if there's no evidence of people living in the sun.

So tell. Is there any evidence the duties and pay of the image differs to that of the mud or not?

And if those two things differ, were they the same creation?

So you won't still show me how you got to know that Adam was created after God had rested?

budaatum:
I would call you a charlatan if there's no evidence of people living in the sun.

So tell. Is there any evidence the duties and pay of the image differs to that of the mud or not?

And if those two things differ, were they the same creation?

oridavid:
So you won't still show me how you got to know that Adam was created after God had rested?

I have shown you, oridavid, you just don't see it. But that's not unusual. Many don't.

If this were not religion and just an English comprehension test where you had not been told what to believe, and were then asked if Adam was created on day 6, you'd likely say no he wasn't. But because most are told what to believe before they get to read the text themselves, it's hard for them to see beyond what is believed, I've found.

But you keep looking. It's possible to see if you try. And its implications are huge too.

oridavid, I asked you 2 simple questions but you conveniently ignored them. And I've found that is what people who cover their eyes so they don't see do.

Would you like another go?

So tell. Is there any evidence the duties and pay of the image differs to that of the mud or not?

And if those two things differ, were they the same creation?

If I say I have shown you people living in the sun, you just don't see it, does that make my claim true?

budaatum:
I have shown you, oridavid, you just don't see it. But that's not unusual. Many don't.

If this were not religion and just an English comprehension test where you had not been told what to believe, and were then asked if Adam was created on day 6, you'd likely say no he wasn't. But because most are told what to believe before they get to read the text themselves, it's hard for them to see beyond what is believed, I've found.

But you keep looking. It's possible to see if you try. And its implications are huge too.

The duties for the man made in the image of God and the one made from mud was the same - which is, to obey God (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

The man made from mud didn't serve this duty, while the man made in the image of God served that purpose.

The man made in the image of God was Christ while the man made with mud was the first Adam. Both were Adam. The first Adam was of the mud, the last Adam was made through spiritual means [1 Corinthians 15:45]

budaatum:
oridavid, I

asked you 2 simple questions but you conveniently ignored them. And I've found that is what people who cover their eyes so they don't see do.

Would you like another go?

So tell. Is there any evidence the duties and pay of the image differs to that of the mud or not?

And if those two things differ, were they the same creation?

oridavid:
The duties for the man made in the image of God and the one made from mud was the same - which is, to obey God (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

Really? Or are you just trying to confuse yourself.

The instructions given to the Image is very clearly stated in Genesis 1 and that to the mud is in Genesis 2, and they very clearly differ, but if you choose to see them as the same, so be it for you.

oridavid:
If I say I have shown you people living in the sun, you just don't see it, does that make my claim true?

Yes it does make your claim true

"Shown" is the past participle of the verb "to show," meaning something has been displayed, revealed, or made visible.

If you have shown me people living in the sun and I don't see them, then I must be refusing to see what you showed me or I must be blind and incapable of seeing what you showed me. Because, for you to show me people living in the sun, people must be living in the sun, or you wouldn't be able to show me people living in the sun.

Now, let's look at what I showed you.

Is it not obvious to you that “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground”, is not the same as, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it"?

And if “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food” as pay for a job, and later say "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", would you not say I cut your pay?

The duty was the same. It was to obey God's word.

budaatum:
Really? Or are you just trying to confuse yourself.

The instructions given to the Image is very clearly stated in Genesis 1 and that to the mud is in Genesis 2, and they very clearly differ, but if you choose to see them as the same, so be it for you.

OK check the sun tomorrow by 12pm I'll be dancing on it. If you don't see me then you're blind.

budaatum:
Yes it does make your claim true

"Shown" is the past participle of the verb "to show," meaning something has been displayed, revealed, or made visible.

If you have shown me people living in the sun and I don't see them, then I must be refusing to see what you showed me or I must be blind and incapable of seeing what you showed me. Because, for you to show me people living in the sun, people must be living in the sun, or you wouldn't be able to show me people living in the sun.

Now, let's look at what I showed you.

Is it not obvious to you that “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground”, is not the same as, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it"?

And if “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food” as pay for a job, and later say "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", would you not say I cut your pay?

oridavid:
OK check the sun tomorrow by 12pm I'll be dancing on it. If you don't see me then you're blind.

That is not how this works, and it is rather silly to think it does. Your above is like as if I am asking you to believe what I tell you when the truth is that I am asking you simple questions, which you are avoiding, and is like you covering your eyes so you don't see.

While I may indeed be blind if I do not see you dancing on the sun tomorrow, I can at least ask you to show me how you left the earth today and arrived on the sun which is about 150million miles away at 12pm tomorrow. After all, it's not like I don't know how almost impossible it would be for you to travel that far in such a short time.

Now back to the discussion. Is it not obvious from the evidence that is before you in your own Bible that the job and pay given to the image is different to that given to the mud?

It's a simple question, and you should ask yourself why you refuse to answer it.

No, it's not obvious. You're seeing that because that's what you want the bible to say. You want to feel like you're better than some people. You want to feel like you've achieved what they can't and that's why you create this distinction in the Bible so you can say you're this while others are that.

But in actual sense these difference don't exist in the Bible. Yes, they're different Adam as the Bible explicitly mentions (1 Corinthians 15:45) but the task given to them was the same. The reward is simply different because one performed the task while the other refused the task. Just as Jesus explained with a parable (Mathew 21:28-31)

If the first Adam had performed the task, there wouldn't have been any need for the second Adam to be created. Just as if the first son had performed the task in the parable mentioned above, there wouldn't have been any need to send the second son.

I think your confusion comes because you see one Adam in Genesis 1 and the other in Genesis 2, so you assumed that the Adam created in Genesis 1 was the first one and further assumed that God had rested before he created the Adam in Genesis 2.

Whereas, the first Adam was the one we see in Genesis 2 and God didn't rest until he created the second Adam which we see in Genesis 1. God would simply have finished his creation in the Adam created from mud if he had performed the task, and we wouldn't have seen another Adam. His refusal gave rise to the creation of another Adam who would perform the task and received the reward reserved for performance. If we too perform the task, we would receive the same reward.

If you go around talking about tree of knowledge of good and evil, talking like it gives some kind of awareness safe sensual, people will see that you understand very little. Because the Second Adam who received the reward did not eat from that tree. He didn't have the sensual awareness that corrupts all.

I hope this helps you, and I'm sorry if I may have spoken harshly, this was why I didn't to engage you initially. I didn't want to offend you but I figured I wasn't helping the discussion if I just kept messing around with you. Thank you for your engagement. God bless you.

budaatum:
That is not how this works, and it is rather silly to think it does. Your above is like as if I am asking you to believe what I tell you when the truth is that I am asking you simple questions, which you are avoiding, and is like you covering your eyes so you don't see.

While I may indeed be blind if I do not see you dancing on the sun tomorrow, I can at least ask you to show me how you left the earth today and arrived on the sun which is about 150million miles away at 12pm tomorrow. After all, it's not like I don't know how almost impossible it would be for you to travel that far in such a short time.

Now back to the discussion. Is it not obvious from the evidence that is before you in your own Bible that the job and pay given to the image is different to that given to the mud?

It's a simple question, and you should ask yourself why you refuse to answer it.

And I guess you see what you want to see, and when you don't see what you want, you create what you want to see, like your Adam in Genesis 1, though the Image was not named.

oridavid:
No, it's not obvious. You're seeing that because that's what you want the bible to say. You want to feel like you're better than some people. You want to feel like you've achieved what they can't and that's why you create this distinction in the Bible so you can say you're this while others are that.

But in actual sense these difference don't exist in the Bible. Yes, they're different Adam as the Bible explicitly mentions (1 Corinthians 15:45) but the task given to them was the same. The reward is simply different because one performed the task while the other refused the task. Just as Jesus explained with a parable (Mathew 21:28-31)

If the first Adam had performed the task, there wouldn't have been any need for the second Adam to be created. Just as if the first son had performed the task in the parable mentioned above, there wouldn't have been any need to send the second son.

I think your confusion comes because you see one Adam in Genesis 1 and the other in Genesis 2, so you assumed that the Adam created in Genesis 1 was the first one and further assumed that God had rested before he created the Adam in Genesis 2.

Whereas, the first Adam was the one we see in Genesis 2 and God didn't rest until he created the second Adam which we see in Genesis 1. God would simply have finished his creation in the Adam created from mud if he had performed the task, and we wouldn't have seen another Adam. His refusal gave rise to the creation of another Adam who would perform the task and received the reward reserved for performance. If we too perform the task, we would receive the same reward.

If you go around talking about tree of knowledge of good and evil, talking like it gives some kind of awareness safe sensual, people will see that you understand very little. Because the Second Adam who received the reward did not eat from that tree. He didn't have the sensual awareness that corrupts all.

I hope this helps you, and I'm sorry if I may have spoken harshly, this was why I didn't to engage you initially. I didn't want to offend you but I figured I wasn't helping the discussion if I just kept messing around with you. Thank you for your engagement. God bless you.

You can not offend me. I know your supposed harshness is to cover your eyes so you don't see.

Anyway, I'm done here. Peace.