Gen 3 final

genesis 3 new translation

crafty—see references

animals of the field Gen 2

fruit of the tree in the middle—Gen 2 gets the logic wrong—error with God’s word

surely you wont die —Gen 2 God said surely you will die

Because knowing God in that day you will —look p knowing God here

Septuagint with Logos Morphology Chapter 3

5 ᾔδει γὰρ ὁ θεὸς ὅτι ἐν ἧ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, διανοιχθήσονται ὑμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί, καὶ ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοὶ γινώσκοντες καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν

For knowing God that in that day that you eat from it your eyes will be opened and you will exist (eimi—be ) as gods knowing good and evil. the desire to be godlike

made Relationship and God’s Image

While much Old Testament scholarship has been gravitating toward understanding creation in God’s image in terms of rulership, many theologians have inclined toward a different view—that being in God’s image is about relationship.151 Accordingly, a common contemporary way to categorize approaches to creation in God’s image is to identify two particularly popular approaches, one of which is the relational approach.152 In fact, some consider this approach to be the most popular overall.153 Although its greatest popularity has been recent, its Protestant roots are in evidence during the Reformation, its Catholic roots reach through earlier figures back at least to Augustine, and its Orthodox roots are traceable to the Cappadocian Fathers.154

“Relationship” is a complex term, since it can involve different sorts of associations between different sorts of entities. In the context of humanity in God’s image, the relationship most immediately in view is that between people and God. The seminal biblical text in Genesis 1:27 that introduces this relationship connects humanity with God by referring to humanity as created in God’s image. Many have seen the God-human relationship as the heart of what it means for people to be in God’s image.155 Others see relationships among people as part of being in God’s image also. Either they see such relationships present in the biblical texts referring to God’s image (e.g., Gen. 1:27; 9:6; James 3:9), or they consider the relationships among the persons of the Trinity as analogous to what people “image” about God in relationships with other people.156

Karl Barth is often credited with bringing particular visibility to the relational understanding of creation in God’s image in the last hundred years.157 He sees humanity as God’s “counterpart … a Thou that can be addressed by God but also as an I responsible to God.”158 From Genesis 1:27 he also understands humanity’s creation as male and female to affirm “man as a genuine counterpart to his fellows.”159 For him, not only are relationships among humans analogous to relationships among God’s persons, but humanity’s relationship with God is also analogous to relationship within the being of God.160 Barth developed his view of being in God’s image in dialogue with Emil Brunner, whose most influential contribution to the debate was the distinction between “formal” and “material” aspects of God’s image.161 Being in the formal image is the relationship of responsibility toward God in which everyone exists, regardless of their attitude toward God. Being in the material image is the relationship of faith, obedience, and love in which those who are “in Christ” can live.162

Understanding being in God’s image in terms of relationship means many different things to different people. Some see humanity’s relationship with the nonhuman creation to be important, alongside of relationships with God and people.163 Others agree, but stress the centrality of relationship ... the image of God—already