The notion that we can define the image by these specific terms
and these specific phrases doesn't work.
Because if we're going to do that, then we've either got full or partial
image of God related to animals,
which nobody wants to argue, and really you can't because of Genesis 1:26.
Dr. Heiser, we've come to an understanding that we shouldn't associate
the image of God with his qualities.
But what about the image of God being our souls, our spirits in the human being?
Yeah, this is a little bit more, I think, difficult to discern.
Although on one level, when we go through a few passages,
you'll think it's transparent, but we still have to think about it in a specific way.
Generally, we have words in the Old Testament, in Hebrew, nepesh,
which is usually translated soul.
Okay, nepesh = soul, it means a lot of other things, but that's pretty common.
Ruach is spirit. And we have the niš·maṯ, the breath of ḥay·yîm,
the niš·maṯ ḥay·yîm, the breath of life.
You get these phrases that describe humans.
Okay, we have Genesis 1:21, as an example, Genesis 2:7.
And so the supposition is, these are somehow distinct.
The problem is, is that that language is actually used elsewhere of non-human life.
Okay, if we go to, for instance, Job 10:12, Psalm 31:5,
you get the specific scriptural instances where animals are said to have a...
or humans are said to have a ruach.
But if you go over to Ecclesiastes 3:21, so do animals, Ecclesiastes 12:7.
Again, the ruach of the animals does this or that, or is characterized by this or that.
So you get this language that you would think is isolated to humans,
but it's actually not.
I mean, there are verses that actually use ruach of both humans and animals.
Going back to the nepesh, if you go to Genesis 1:21, let's just start there.
There's some interesting passages here that are directly pertinent.
We have, «So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves
with which the waters swarm according to their kinds», and so on and so forth.
So the phrase living creature, if you actually drill down on that, is nepesh.
And then you have ḥaya or ḥay·yîm, ḥay·yîm is the plural.
So you have nepesh there used of non-human life.
It possesses nepesh.
So it's not unique to humans.
Let's go to Genesis 7:22.
Genesis 7:22 is another one of these
that is kind of interesting in this regard, where you get similar language that is used
of humanity, but here we have, you know, we're talking about everything.
So «everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.»
Because we know it's not just humans,
it's more than humans because the prior verse says this:
«All flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures
that swarm on the earth, and all humankind.
Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.»
Well, «in whose nostrils was the breath of life,» that's the niš·maṯ ḥaya,
which is the same phrase as you find in Genesis 2:7,
where God breathes the breath of life into Adam.
Okay, some of these other things, you know, they have the same thing is the point.
What these phrases really mean, nepesh, niš·maṯ ḥaya, the spirit in a human or an animal,
it really refers to the kind of like the animate life force.
Okay, plants aren't described this way.
But you know, animal life forms are just generally in the Hebrew Bible.
So that's why the notion that we can define the image by these specific terms
and these specific phrases, again, doesn't work.
Because if we're going to do that, then we've either got full or partial
image of God related to animals,
which nobody, to my knowledge, wants to argue, and really, you can't
because of Genesis 1:26, «let us create humankind in our image.»
So it really breaks down again.
So we don't have a distinct quality.
Okay, we don't have, again, we're ruined in the qualitative view
by the incremental problem.
And now we can't even rely on, you know, these sort of inner life terms,
because they're also used of the animal kingdom.
Remember, the three things that we need are: humans have it exclusively,
it's what makes them unique, male and female, it's equal.
And again, it's not incremental.
And so all of these things that you'll find typically discussed in theology books
really don't work very well, which I would say is a problem.