>>Early men were unaccountable to God and thus not in the image.
>Then why did Homo erectus make a statue of a naked lady whcih was quite
>similar to statues of naked ladies used as idols in the late paleolithic and
>early farming communities?
I believe there is a problem in how we have learned to understand the term
"in the image." If it can be equated with " human representative" and not
"godlike," and Adam was the first man on earth to be so designated, then it
follows that any precursors were not representatives and thus not in the
A rough consensus has developed on what it means to be in the image of God.
But that consensus was based upon what I believe is an erroneous reading of
Genesis - that Adam was the progenitor of the human race. Adam's placement
in the flow of humanity, instead of at the apex, calls for a re-examination
of some of our views on what it means to be in the image and how original
sin impacts the human race, even to those not in the line of Adamic ancestry.
If one presumes that Adam was at the apex of humanity, which I admit has
been the traditional understanding, and Adam ushers in "the image" to all
his progeny, then, of course, Homo erectus would be in the image of God.
But what I would like to know is whose line would they come under; Ham,
Shem or Japheth?
THE ORIGINS SOLUTION