Wrote this down in notebook

[ProScribe]

"Human Beings, Wild Creatures, and the Animal Kingdom."​

This would be concerning wild creatures, human beings, and the animal kingdom. In a simple and easy to understand fashion one would reference the book of Genesis 1.20 -30. Thus, the creatures in Genesis were "created" or "brought about" in the newly divided terrain [earthterrain - ground was divided from water] When terrain creatures and sea creatures were "created" or "brought forth" . . . Thus, reading Genesis the animals were "made" or "created" of divine dust, hewn together along with organs neccessary to their functions of sight, sense, or movement. That being said, the author of Genesis uses the word "kind" or "each according to their kind" . . In some ways this explains the diversity or diversification of the animal species as it is said in Genesis. And also it does say (27) 'God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.' This is the simple review of most YEC,OEC beliefs. Other sorts;~Theistic Evolution and Darwinist thought ~will be discussed later on in the extended commmentary. Were animals (wild creatures) first made by God knit together as bone,muscle,garment of skin, and sinew? (The outer skin & garments of wild creatures) -(skeletal & Carcass & Beast)- (ie) Rhinoceros or Elephant. In so far, that being said of Genesis ~ We would distinguish man (men and women) from the rest of the Animal Kingdom? Animalis Kingdominus? . . ​

 

[Look Up]

Hi ProScribe,

I'm not sure what you are saying. As the Gen 1 creation account progresses, it focuses increasingly on man and the garden where man meets God. The domestic/wild animal distinction is of course from man's perspective (as also the mention of fruit-bearing trees), especially as seen in later developments in the Books of Moses, of which the creation account forms a partial introduction. The livestock v. creeping animal and beasts distinction may foreshadow clean v. unclean, or fit-for-sacrifice v. not-fit-for-sacrifice distinctions of later Mosaic or Noah-ic accounts.

Man is special and unique in the creation account particularly in that he alone of all creatures is made in the image of God ... and only created at the rhetorically-honorary last place after all preparatory creation work was completed for man. And man alone is given dominion as God's steward over the whole creation.

The man's creation account also receives the most verbal space, so that in the account of animal creation, details like the creation of bone, sinews, organs, and the like are not included. The creation account is man-centric and garden-centric, the latter again being the place where the man relates to God and the harbinger or type of both the Promised Land and the Tabernacle.

Granted, man shares with the animals the divine pronunciation to be fruitful and multiply (each according to its kind), and this arises as a temporary problem for later human generations in the Babel account. But otherwise, the Genesis creation account may not have been intended to address the issues you raise, or its details may be sketchy in relation to such issues because of the intent and focus of the narrative as it stands.

Does any of this trigger thoughts to clarify your previous observations or questions?

 

[ProScribe]

Not actually, its how I've come to understand the Genesis creation account thus far.

 

[ProScribe]

<bump>

 

[pgp_protector]

Is Yes, Yes I Agree, or Yes I Disagree ?
Is No, No I Agree or No I Disagree ?
Is Not sure, Not Sure I Agree, or Not Sure I Disagree ?
You're Polling Questions aren't really valid.