The Image of God in the Garden of Eden

McDowell additionally considers the express picture and resemblance language in Gen 1:26– 27. Drawing from scriptural and extrabiblical writings, she shows that ?elem and d?mût characterize the celestial human relationship, as a matter of first importance, as far as connection. To be made in the picture and similarity of Elohim was to be, allegorically, God’s imperial children and girls. While these regal characteristics are unequivocal in Gen 1, McDowell powerfully contends that connection is the essential representation Gen 1 uses to characterize humankind and its relationship to God.

Further, she talks about basic issues, taking note of the issues characteristic in the conventional perspectives on the dating and initiation of Gen 1– 3, and the connection between the two creation accounts. Through a watchful investigation of the tã’ledã’t in Genesis, she exhibits that Gen 2:4 fills in as both a pivot and a “telescope”: the making of humankind in Gen 2:5– 3:24 ought to be comprehended as a nitty gritty record of the occasions of Day 6 in Gen 1.

At the point when Gen 1– 3 are perused together, as the last redactor planned, these writings rethink the awesome human relationship utilizing three huge and philosophically loaded classifications: connection, majesty, and clique. Along these lines, they give an essential focal point through which to see the connection among God and mankind as exhibited in whatever remains of the Bible.

The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5-3:24 in Light of the mīs pî, pīt pî, and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt (Siphrut).