0101 Our current Lebenswelt (B) contrasts with the first singularity, because it follows the event. Our current Lebenswelt (B) is characterized by speech-alone talk. Speech-alone talk allows explicit abstraction, along with implicit abstraction. Explicit abstraction involves symbolic labels (spoken words) and the mental manipulation of such labels (symbolic operations). Implicit abstraction does not require spoken words and is very difficult to explain using spoken words.
0102 The Lebenswelt that we evolved in (C) contradicts our current Lebenswelt (D). The Lebenswelt that we evolved in(C) is characterized by hand-talk and hand-speech talk. Hand talk relies on sign-processing, which is the fundament for implicit abstraction. Implicit abstraction has nothing to do with labels and symbolic operations. Rather, implicit abstraction engages sign-processes, starting with sensation, opening to perception and (eventually) initiating judgment. Implicit abstraction allows us to understand actualities2 by intuitively recognizing the appropriate normal context3 and potential1. This is what we evolved to do.
The Lebenswelt that we evolved in (C) complements the first singularity (A), in so far as scientists, in our current Lebenswelt (B), who cannot imagine the first singularity (A), also cannot imagine the ultimate human niche as the potential of triadic relations (C).
0103 Human evolution (D) contrasts with the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (C), speaks against the first singularity (A), and compliments our current Lebenswelt (B).
Human evolution (D) is a scientific construct. The Lebenswelt that we evolved in (C) is the world of signification of our distant ancestors. Scientists do not want the construct of human evolution (D) to have a discontinuity (A). Why? They rely of the principle of uniformitarianism in order to understand the prehistoric past. If there is a twist (A) in human evolution (D), then this principle does not apply. Scientists are thrown in the same basket as the rest of us (B), wondering whether the labels that we use to perform symbolic operations are as good as we presume they are.
0104 Of course, Loke takes us into the next Greimas square.
Figure 22
Here is where Loke’s theoretical construction begins.
0105 Here is the first applied Greimas square appearing in this examination of Loke’s book (point 0011).
Figure 23
0106 The title, “Image Bearer of God”, is the focal term (A). God makes him in His image. Male and female He creates them. Does this sequence reflect some chauvinistic attitude of the ancient Near East? Is this an artifact of translation? Right after the Creation Story, God directly fashions Adam from the earth and Eve from Adam’s side. Theologians may debate, but the debate somehow does not recognize that the Genesis Creation Story is distinct from the Primeval History. In the creation story, the humans are images of God. In the stories of Adam and Eve, two people are fashioned in order to hold the title, “Created in the Image of God”.
Loke cites John Stott’s 1984 book, Understanding the Bible, and proposes a way to appreciate how there is no incompatibility between evolution and the Bible. If Adam is the first human, then he is simply the first person to be labeled, “created in the image of God”. Stott calls Adam, Homo divinus. I call him, “Earth man”, in acknowledgement of his humble beginnings. Loke calls him, “Image Bearer of God”.
In the end, we are talking about a label. This label may be placed on any individual in the Homo genus. Plus, this label may be applied to other humans along various lines of descent, including those outside of biological generation.
0107 Other titles have been given to humans (B). Aristotle calls us, “political animals”. Porphyryr calls us, “rational animals”. Saint Paul calls us, “inheritors of Adam’s sin”. Rene Descartes calls us, “thinking things”. Biologists name us, Homo sapiens. John Deely calls us, “semiotic animals”.
0108 None of these appellations are as grand as the title, “Image Bearer of God” (C), awarded to Adam and Eve. This title (C) stands against all other titles (B).
0109 Here I consider that Adam, as the first bearer of the title (C), stands in the same position as the world of original justice (formulated for Adam before the Fall, by medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas) (C) as well as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (C), 1.8Myr to .78Myr (C) and the uplands of De Nile (C).
0110 Humans, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, practice hand-speech talk, which embodies the semiotic qualities of hand talk. Language evolves in the milieu of hand talk, long before our species appears. Speech is added to hand talk at the dawn of our own species, Homo sapiens.
0111 Hand talk manifests the semiotic qualities of icons (images) and indexes (indicators). This facilitates sign-processing because referents (which are things that can be pictured or pointed to) are natural sign-objects. I call the cognitive processing that proceeds through sensations (content) to perceptions (situation) to judgment (perspective), “implicit abstraction”. Today, this cognitive cascade is intuitively obvious and is difficult to put into spoken words.
0112 How does this apply to Loke’s concept that Adam is the first to receive the label, “Image Bearer of God”?
There are no gestural words in hand talk for “image” or “God”. Certainly, there is a term for “bearing”, as in “carrying”. But, there is no hand talk word for “bearing”, as in “holding a title”.
0113 The task is easy for speech-alone talk, since speech-alone talk is purely symbolic. One can attach a label to anything.
Similar labels apply to humans in our current Lebenswelt, as evidenced by the philosophical debates on how to describe humans (B).
0114 What does this imply?
The endowment of the appellation onto Adam (C) occurs in a world that practices speech-alone talk (hence, the explicit abstractions can be uttered). However, this world is not aware that speech-alone talk is any different than hand-speech talk (C). Why? No civilized person practices hand-speech talk. So, how would anyone know?
It is as if Adam stands at the bottom of the falls, looking up, and not realizing that he has tumbled from a world that no longer exists. Or, it is like Adam, standing at the top of the falls, does not recognize that one more step…
0115 God warns Adam. Do not eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
0116 The divine comedy is brought to pure what-if-ness when theologians, after the revelation of Christ, try to come to terms with how God labels Adam and Eve. They do so by committing the error embodied in the spoken words. They think that there must be truth in labeling. They attempt to figure out the meaning, presence and message behind the term, “image of God”, as it applies to Adam and Eve… um… before the tumble over the watery edge.
Early theologians characterize the Biblical “image of God” as one who exercises rational powers, moral sensitivity, fellowship with God, a sense of beauty and, of course, language… that is… speech-alone talk, which characterizes our current Lebenswelt.
0117 Adam names the animals. Surely, that seems like the way that hand-speech talk works. The gesture-word images or indicates its referent.
Note that Adam does not name that tree in the middle of the Garden. The name of that tree is full of explicit abstractions,such as “knowledge”, “good” and “evil”. These terms cannot be conveyed using manual-brachial gestures. But, they can be uttered by a talking snake.
0118 Thus, the hypothesis of the first singularity assists me in showing that adam as humanity (D), contrasts with Adam, the one who is created to fit the title (C), contradicts the title of “the Image Bearer of God” (A) because Adam (and really, most humanity, even today) innately thinks in terms of implicit abstractions rather than labels, and complements “human” as defined by philosophers in our current Lebenswelt (B), because speech-alone talk allows reflection and analysis not available to hand-speech talk.
0119 The stories of Adam and Eve, plus the naming of Adam as “an Image Bearer of God”, are tightly knotted word-games.
0020 Adam and Eve are commanded to obey only one rule. Do not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What can we say about the name of the fruit, rather than the name of the tree. Can the fruit be called either “intelligent” or “stupid”?
Surely, Adam and Eve would not eat a fruit called “stupidity incarnate”, because they are intelligent.
But, what about a fruit called, “intelligence incarnate”?
Surely, they would eat such an admirable morsel, if only to discover their stupidity.
0121 Once in prison, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945 AD) discovers a label for all the incredibly well-educated and academically certified people who bought into the charisma of the National Socialists of Germany. He calls them, “Dummheit”, too stupid for words.
The so-called “Fuhrer” has a way with words. So do his propaganda-saturated followers, with advanced degrees in symbolic enumerations, deification studies and medical codification. They are sophisticated and up to date. They know how to label people, not as image-bearers of God, but more like… bodies with tattoos. Everyone can recognize the explicit abstraction. Here are the tattoo-bearers of a God that does not recognize the Fuhrer’s authority.
0122 That is the crux. It is all about spoken words. Speech-alone words do not picture or point to their referents, like the gesture-words of hand-talk and hand-speech talk. Speech-alone talk attaches labels to all sorts of parts and wholes. These labels promote explicit abstractions, which may seem logical, yet be totally in error. Yes, spoken labels can create cognitive structures that are completely internally consistent, hence logical, hence intelligent, yet unfathomably stupid. Thus, explicit abstraction (B), the stuff of intelligence and stupidity, stands in contrast to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (A).
0123 Here is a picture of the next Greimas square.
Figure 24
0124 God labels the tree of knowledge of good and evil using speech-alone talk (A).
In contrast, speech-alone talk allows explicit abstractions (B), yielding either stupidity or intelligence.
Next, the implicit abstractions characteristic of hand-speech talk (C) contradicts the explicit abstractions potentiated by purely symbolic terms (B) and complements the idea that an adequate name for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is “intelligence” and “stupidity”.
Um… how come there are two names attached to the same fruit?
0125 Consider Adam’s implicit abstraction in the Genesis story. He implicitly abstracts a message. When put into spoken words, this message does not sound precisely intelligent. Adam says (more or less) “The woman that you made for me, she gave me the fruit and I ate.”
If I were God, I would have replied, “I gave you the title of Image Bearer of God, and you behave this stupidly?”
0126 The set-up for the drama of the Fall (D) lies in the fruit. The explicit idea that Adam and Eve will die when they eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (B) supports the implicit abstraction that the fruit is poisonous (C). The fruit (D) sets Adam and Eve up for the drama of the Fall, because it is not poisonous. Rather, the fruit (D) speaks against the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (A) in the same way that a fruit (D) causes one to ignore the tree(A), along with that ridiculous commandment.
In short, the fruit (D) is not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (A).
Rather, the fruit (D) is “intelligence incarnate”.
0127 The author does not grasp the potential of his own hypothesis, that God labels Adam and Eve as “Image Bearers of God” and the label stands at the start of all humankind in our current Lebenswelt.
Indeed, he immediately stumbles into the fool’s errand that says, “Labels are really important.”
0128 Well, I admit the point. Realistic labels are important if I want to get anything technical accomplished, including floccinaucinihilipilification. But, spoken words do not reliably generate realistic labels.
Consider the testimony of the World Economic Forum-promoted author, Noah Harari, who claims that humans are able to succeed more than other animals because humans are able to invent fictional beings, like “images” and “God”, to get others to buy into a deception and thereby bind them to cooperate on complex tasks.
Or, consider the testimony of the serpent in the garden, who says (more or less), “Everything I say is technically correct, and is designed to deceive you into believing that this fruit is intelligence incarnate, because I am convinced that you are that stupid.”
0129 To make a long story short, the hypothesis of the first singularity highlights the word-play that dwells within the stories of Adam and Eve as well as our everyday civilized lives. The hypothesis places the stories of Adam and Eve at the start one of the world’s first civilizations, and conveys the message that our current Lebenswelt is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
Loke’s hypothesis of God naming Adam and Eve, “Image-Bearers of God”, complements the hypothesis of the first singularity because it attaches labels onto these fairy-tale figures, so that Adam and Eve can be the founders of all humans who receive this label, by way of all sorts of non-genetic mechanisms, such as being born into a civilization practicing speech-alone talk.
The doctrine of Traducianism explains the passage of original sin… or is it original guilt?… from Adam to all subsequent humanity. It assumes that Adam and Eve are literally the father and mother of all humanity. So, the mechanism of transfer may be called, “genetic”.
The theological implications of the scientific hypothesis of the first singularity offers an alternative mechanism. Original sin, the condition of the loss of original justice, passes to anyone who is born in a civilized world, practicing speech-alone talk. The mechanism of transfer is not “genetic”. It is “unavoidable”, because every civilization practices speech-alone talk from its inception.
0125 Indeed, the hypothesis of the first singularity accounts for the impression that Adam and Eve are the first humans,because they are fairy tale figures associated to the foundation of the first culture to practice speech-alone talk, the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia, round about 0 U0′.
Yes, I am back to uh-oh prime.
0131 The Uruk archaeological period starts 1800 U0′, after seven Plutonic years.
The Sumerian Dynastic, officially labeled “civilization”, starts around 2800 U0′, after four more Plutonic years.
0132 For southern Mesopotamia, only 11 Plutonic years pass when going from zero to full civilization. By the time that the Sumerian Dynastic starts, speech-alone talk extends from the eastern coast of China to the western edge of the Mediterranean to the northern steppes of Russia.
How do I know this?
Speech-alone talk is the third technology of the intellect (the first is hand-talk and the second is hand-speech talk) adopted by the Homo genus. Speech-alone talk has radically different semiotic qualities than hand and hand-speech talk. These novel semiotic qualities promote unconstrained social complexity, including civilization.
See chapter five of An Archaeology of the Fall.
0133 Speech-alone talk spreads from the Ubaid to surrounding hand-speech talking cultures. Exposure to speech-alone talk initiates a cultural process where the hand-component of hand-speech is valued less and less until the people practice speech-alone talk. No doubt, the shamans of old warn of the dangers. But, who are they to impede progress towards increasing wealth and power?
0134 The stories of Adam and Eve bear witness. All the non-Biblical written origin stories of the ancient Near East also bear witness. Humans are recent creations. None of the storytellers can imagine a world full of humans before the beginning described in their origin stories. No one can discern the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.
In the first chapter of Genesis, humans are created in the image of God. In the Adam and Eve stories, they are endowed with the title, “Image Bearer of God”. Well, the title is not explicitly bestowed. Rather, the couple mechanically fashioned, by God, each in a different style, which comes pretty close to an explicit declaration. And, what do they do? They tarnish the image. They devalue the brand.
0135 If the doctrine of Traducianism no longer applies, due to coincidence of the stories of Adam and Eve and the first singularity, what use is it?
It is an excellent example of how we, in our current Lebenswelt, use explicit abstraction in order to construct internally consistent cognitive structures. One could call these structures, langue.
0136 I will use Loke’s discussion of Traducianism in section 5.7 to construct a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms. The three-level interscope is developed in A Primer on Sensible and Social Constructionand A Primer on the Category-based Nested Form, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.
0137 Here is a picture of the general structure of a category-based nested form.
Figure 25
0138 First, if Adam and Eve are the first humans who are labeled, “Image Bearers of God”, then they ought to be the original pair.
Genetic research into human chromosomes detail two DNA-bearing structures specific to male and female. These are the Y chromosome, for males, and mitochondrial DNA, for females. As it turns out, both structures trace back to specific individuals (one male and one female) living hundreds of thousands of years ago. These independent discoveries are described in popularizing articles, with titles such as “The Y-chromosomal Adam” and “The Mitochondrial Eve”.
0139 So, Adam and Eve, the Y-chromosome originator and the mitochondrial-DNA originator, donate the foundational sperm and egg for all humanity. Sperm and egg2 are real elements. They correspond to actuality2 in a category-based nested form.
According to biology, sperm and egg meet in the uterus. The uterus3 corresponds to the normal context3. The potential1concerns conception1.
0140 Here is a picture of the resulting category-based nested form.
Figure 26
0141 Hmmm. I suppose that a bold and disconcerting portrayal of human biology is built into the Traducian doctrine. Yep, that is the situation alright. Adam goes with the sperm. Eve goes with the egg.
0142 Now, I wonder, “What does this have to do with Loke’s hypothesis that God labels Adam and Eve as Image Bearers of God?“
0143 Well, the Traducian doctrine puts this rather clinical situation into perspective. Theologians start by positing Aristotle’s substance dualism. Another term for this dualism is “hylomorphism”. Hylo is Greek for “matter”. Morphe is Greek for “form”. Aristotle’s hylomorphism is an example of Peirce’s category of secondness. Secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. For nomenclature, I put the contiguity in brackets, as in the following figure.
Figure 27
I hope that this looks familiar.
0144 The category of secondness is the realm of actuality.
Next, theologians propose that soul and body correspond to matter and form. The problem is that there are two configurations. In one, the body is like material matter and the immaterial soul is like form. In the other, the soul is like spiritual matter and the body is like material form. In the first, the body gives substance to the soul. In the second, the soul animates the body.
Figure 28
0145 Traducian doctrine puts the biological situation of the human into perspective using the second dyad. The normal context follows the imagery of God breathing into Adam. God brings His fashioned artifact to life. This one living creature bears the stamp of God, “made by God”. In a certain sense, the Father breathes meaning, presence and message into what He has fashioned from the earth. Plus, do not forget that title. Adam is an Image Bearer of God.
Here is a picture of the resulting nested form.
Figure 29
0146 This perspective coheres with the story of the creation of Adam. Replace “soul” with “the breath of God”. Replace “body” with an artifact fashioned from earth.
Indeed, the stories of Adam and Eve present the listener with the actuality2 of God’s breath [animates] Adam, fashioned from the earth. Christian theologians have placed this dyad2c into a perspective-level normal context3c and potential1c in order to understand.
0147 So far, I have two levels to the Traducian doctrine.
Figure 30
0148 Both of these levels are explicit abstractions, drawing from the foundational stories of Adam and Eve.
The stories of Adam and Eve ask us to recognize a possibility.
These two levels of explicit abstraction arise from that possibility.
These two levels of abstraction tell us that Adam and Eve stand at the beginning of our current Lebenswelt.
0149 Except for the Creation Story, all other written origin stories of the ancient Near East concur with the stories of Adam and Eve. All testify that humans are a recent creation. Prior to 2023, no scientific hypothesis accounts for this testimony, except for the hypothesis of the first singularity.
Premodern Christian theologians know that Adam and Eve occupy the content level. The question is how. Saint Augustine proposes the normal context of Original Sin3a. Adam and Eve, in disobeying God’s command, are thrown onto their own devices. Their reason is dulled. They are tarnished Image Bearers of God. And, that tarnish is experienced as disorienting waves of desire1a.
Cupid is the Roman god of desire. He is perpetually adolescent. He is the love-child of Venus, the goddess of love, and Mars, the god of war. Saint Augustine puts a label on our almost irresistible waves of desire1a. He calls them, con (with) cupi (Cupid) scence (being). Concupiscence1a is “being with Cupid”. Cupid relishes having a good time.
0150 Original Sin3a is the normal context. Concupiscence is the potential1a.
The question is, “How to label the actuality?”
Heaving bodies [substantiate] soulful emissions?
0151 I suppose modern society is no longer polite society. No one really wants to discuss, much less apply an appropriate label, to the content-level actuality2a virtually underlying the situation-level actuality of sperm [and] egg2b.
Fortunately, the fairy tales of Adam and Eve provide a suitable label. After Eve is introduced to Adam as his helper (think of the irony of that), Adam is overjoyed. The storyteller then provides a commentary, explaining why a man and a woman get married. The two become one flesh.
Figure 31
0152 Each of the terms in the content-level nested form is an explicit abstraction.
Yet, the result is a intuitively satisfying category-based nested form that says, “Even in marriage, concupiscence operates. Even though the waters of baptism remove the stain of Original Sin, the potential for disorienting waves of desireremains. Be on guard. We can fall into temptation at any moment.”
0153 Original Sin3a is the consequence of the Fall of Adam and Eve. Original Sin3a is a normal context for our current Lebenswelt. If we are all subject to Original Sin because we are directly descended from Adam and Eve, then Traducianism explains how.
0154 Ironically, Augustine’s position, that we are all direct descendants of Adam and Eve, is a scientific (as well as theological) proposition.
Modern genetics proves Augustine’s proposition to be incorrect.
Yet, there is a certain honesty to the Traducian doctrine.
The doctrine offers a certain intellectual satisfaction.
And, this satisfaction tells us something about the character of our current Lebenswelt.
0155 Loke defends Traducianism, not because it is technically correct, but because it is beautiful. It is internally coherent. It is intellectually satisfying. It offers a way to appreciate how Original Sin is propagated by our own desires (to propagate). Who says that Saint Augustine doesn’t have a sense of humor?
Here is a picture of the content, situation and perspective levels of the doctrine.
Figure 32
0156 Genetics demonstrates that there is no originating pair.
Traducianism is dead.
Yet, Original Sin3a still contextualizes the potential of concupiscence1a.
Long live Traducianism.
0157 The hypothesis of the first singularity provides a scientific pathway that may replace the interscope of Traducianism. Traducianism aims to explain how Adam’s Original Sin… or is it Original Guilt?.. is transferred from Adam and Eve to all humanity. But, that is not all. Clearly, the situation level of the Traducian doctrine contains pure biology. The perspective and content levels allow us to understand human biology.
0158 Modern science establishes that a single breeding pair cannot be the genetic origin of all humans. Hence, the grasping at straws in Loke’s formulation of Adam and Eve as the originators of contemporary Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA.
0159 Loke searches for an alternative and finds, in God’s assignment of the title, “Image Bearers of God”, to Adam and Eve, the potential for a non-genetic mechanism for the transfer of Original Sin.
At the same time, since the stories of Adam and Eve convey such a strong impression that they constitute the first humans, Loke is drawn back to the mechanism proposed so long ago by Saint Augustine. We are literally the descendants of Adam and Eve and the mechanism starts with concupiscience1a residing in the content-level potential of the Traducian interscope.
0160 With the aid of the category-based nested form, we may now appreciate the Traducian doctrine as an exemplar of explicit abstraction in our current Lebenswelt. This doctrine presents a complete interscope. Complete interscopes are intellectually satisfying.
In Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2017) Why Only Us?, Razie Mah proposes that langue (the mental system of differences that is arbitrarily related to parole, speech-alone talk) can be depicted as a three-level interscope, a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms.
In Razie Mah’s Blog, for April 2023, the posts titled, Looking at Gad Saad’s Book (2020) “The Parasitic Mind”, portray a complete interscope for the modern academic fad of “wokeness”.
0161 Here is how understanding works, as far as the category-based nested form is concerned.
Consider an actuality2. Understanding comes when the inquirer finds a normal context3 and potential1 for that actuality. A filled-in category-based nested form conveys understanding.
The same statements apply to the three-level interscope.
When all the elements of a three-level interscope are filled in, then the inquirer understands the situation-level category-based nested form.
Whether the understanding is correct or honest, that is another matter.
0162 What contributes this feeling of understanding in a completed three-level interscope?
Understanding conveys a feeling of satisfaction.
For example, when confronted with an uncontextualized actuality, one does not know its normal context or potential. That does not convey any feeling of satisfaction.
In contrast, an actuality2a in a content-level nested form is not scary. It is content. The normal context3a is what is happening. The potential is for ‘something’ to happen1a. Knowing the normal context3a and potential1a at least conveys a feeling of understanding.
If understanding comes from placing an actuality2 into a nested form, then how much more intellectually satisfying is situatingb contenta in the light of a perspectivec?
0163 The Traducian doctrine is beautiful to behold.
When I look down each column in the interscope for the Traducian doctrine, I see a virtual nested form.
0164 For example, here is a picture of the virtual nested form in the realm of actuality.
Figure 33
Two of these actualities belong to the two configurations of body and soul.
Figure 34
Their arrangement offers a theological lesson.
The perspective-level actuality2c associates to grace. Soul [informs] body.
The content-level actuality2b associates to nature, where body [substantiates] soul. Look at the content-level actuality2aand make the comparison. The doctrine of Traducianism offers a lesson that coheres to the meaning of marriage.
0165 Here is the virtual nested form in the realm of normal contexts.
Figure 35
Do I see an intimation of the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus?
The funny thing is Mary, Mother of God, is not simply a uterus.
Mary is the mediatrix3b, dwelling between the normal context3 of the Holy Spirit3c and the potential1 of Original Sin1a. She is baptized even before Christ institutes the sacrament of baptism. Her womb is the site of God’s revelation.
Replace the normal context of uterus3b with the name of Mary, Mother of God, and one may appreciate why the Catholic Church proclaims that Mary is born without the stain of Original Sin. How else could she have the courage of her convictions? How else could she bear her unbearable responsibility?
0166 Here is the virtual nested form in the realm of possibility.
Figure 36
0167 This nested form captures the essence of the Augustinian notion of the corruption of humanity following Adam’s transgression. Theological debate ranges from theatrical claims of total depravity to scholarly assessments concerning the loss of original justice. We are conceived in sin. How does that impair our ability to wear the badge, “Image Bearer of God”?
0168 When rendered as a filled-in three-level interscope, the doctrine of Traducianism is beautiful to behold. The virtual nested forms come alive, each in its own way, in the intellectual ferment that Christianity enjoys. Jesus came so that we may have life, abundant life. That includes intellectual life.
0169 Even though the theological implications of the coincidence between the stories of Adam and Eve and the Ubaid archaeological period of southern Mesopotamia may seem far removed from Loke’s proposal that Adam and Eve are the first ancestors to receive the label, “image of God”, the distance is not so great.
0170 First, the Lebenswelt that we evolved in associates to the creation of humans in the image of God (in the first chapter of Genesis).
Second, our current Lebenswelt associates with Adam and Eve receiving the spoken honorific, “Image Bearers of God”, and then promptly disobeying the only commandment that God gives them.
0171 Section 5.8.2 discusses an awkward difficulty that arises with Adam getting awarded the appellation, “Image Bearer of God”, that presumably passes to his sons, Cain and Abel. Okay… let me correct that… to their (at the time) only remaining son, Cain.
Cain runs away, finds a wife, then moves off to start a city. Loke wonders whether Cain’s wife is merely an animal that happens to be an anatomically modern human. Or, is she created as an image of God, yet is not aware that God could give someone the spoken honorific, “Image Bearer of God”?
0172 Razie Mah’s masterwork, An Archaeology of the Fall (available at smashwords and other e-book venues), treats the awkward issue as follows.
After Cain murders Abel, he complains to God that others (the ones without the rapidly devaluing honorific, “Image Bearer of God”) will kill him. So, God puts a mark on Cain. That mark happens to be the body paint of high-ranking warrior in the village harboring Cain’s wife-to-be.
Of course, when Cain walks into the village wearing such marks, everyone freaks out. The shaman tries to put an end to Cain, but ends up accidently killing the number one warrior in the village. Then, the shaman falls face down before Cain and Cain impetuously kills him.
In order to celebrate, Cain’s future bride (along with her team mates) take the body of the dead warrior and cook up a batch of delicious porridge. She is proud of herself and is disappointed when Cain (after realizing that the meat in the porridge comes from the dead warrior) decides to not finish off his bowl.
0173 Yes, communication in speech-alone talk can be treacherous.
Tell someone, “Get that body out of here and bring me something to eat.”, and see what gets served.
