Genesis 2:7 Explains Why Functional Information Exists In Biology

[Ps82]

JudgeRightly ...

Hello friend Nice to hear from you: Na Na NUH Na Na
Just kidding.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

• I'm trying to introduce the concept that an invisible spiritual living God could create a living image to represent HIMSELF within our world.

The reason why you are having trouble introducing this concept is because it doesn't work. It isn't really possible to build a framework based on "Image" for understanding the plurality of God that is actually consistent with what the Bible teaches, because sometimes He is called the invisible God. Yet when men sometimes see angels in the Bible, they fall down and worship them and then then angel has to tell them, "Don't worship me, I am not God".

Also, "image" does not always even mean the same thing throughout the Bible. When Romans 10 talks about us being conformed to Jesus's image, it isn't saying we need to try to look more like Him or wear a disguise that looks like His image. It is talking about something more than just a visual image. So when God is called "Elohim" from the very beginning of the Bible, it isn't because God had different hats he could put on, to change his visual appearance. It is because Jesus, the Alpha and Omega, is Elohim. A part of that of eternal plurality from the beginning. Which is why when the NT was written, they quoted scriptures from the OT that call God Elohim and applied them to Jesus.

• 
  
• If HE could do such a thing for Adam #1, then we know HE could do the same for HIMSELF. And his image/his presence

Image and presence are not interchangeable terms. You are only adding one confusion on top of another.

If we were to replace every occurrence of image with "presence" in the Bible, it would only further show that the concept you have been trying introduce is incoherent.

You would have a much better understanding of God if you simply believed what the Bible says.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Yes, God gives of his spiritual nature and of life in measures. God created mankind male female. I believe that this was their first measure of life. God did not loose any part of himself to do so ... because... all things consist of God and are in God. He is merely able to allocate it to created things/beings existing within him.

Mmmm, no. Ultimately it was God's self-sacrifice that saved us.

Yes, and our Lord Jesus was the WORD of God, who was with God and was God as stated by the writer of John 1:1-2

Yeah but you just said God cannot lose any part of Himself. But, Jesus sacrificed his life. How can one do that without losing a part of oneself?

Again, your idea that Jesus was just a doppelganger, or a created image God wore like a disguise, doesn't work.

Hebrews 11:3 KJV also helps: Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the WORD of God (spirit)Gen 1 - Gen. 2), so (that) things which are seen (in a more heavenly realm) were not made of things which do (now) appear.
IOW, the current cursed elements (of now)were not used to form the heavenly realm. Then the curse came (in Gen. 2-3) under which we are subjected till now. IOW, Every element that existed before the curse was perfect.

I am not trying to pick on you. But Hebrews does not support your made up creation account of Jesus Christ.

The Bible is not just about God's relationship with man. It is also about God's relationship with the Son. Your ideology (if you would call it that) is dismissive of that relationship.

But that relationship is one of the greatest things about Jesus. Because the most important thing that He wanted to show us was that, not only does He love us, but He also loves the Father. And His obedience to the Father is the evidence of that. And each one of us that turns to Him will be a living testimony of these things, forever. That is so cool.

Hebrews 5-11:

So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him:

“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.”
6 As He also says in another place:

“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek”;
7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear, 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. 9 And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,” 11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Just to see what would happen, I entered the following question into this new Copilot A.I. chat prompt that's on Windows 11 now;

Q: Is there a debate going on between VladtheDestroyer and Ps82 on the webpage I am currently viewing?


A: Yes — there is definitely an active debate between VladtheDestroyer and Ps82 on the page you’re viewing. It’s not just a casual exchange; it’s a sustained, multi‑post theological dispute that becomes increasingly pointed as it progresses.

What’s happening between them​

The thread begins with Vlad’s original post about Genesis 2:7 and functional information in biology. Ps82 responds supportively at first, expanding the theological interpretation. But very quickly, the two diverge sharply:

Clear signs of debate​

• Vlad challenges Ps82’s interpretations of God’s “image,” accusing him of adding words to Scripture and overemphasizing visual manifestation — e.g., Vlad says Ps82 “added ‘God the Spirit with his presence’ to Paul’s words” .
• Ps82 defends his interpretive method, insisting Scripture “interprets itself” and that his additions are explanatory, not distortions — e.g., Ps82 says “Because I understood scripture reveals itself” .
• Vlad directly rejects Ps82’s theology, especially the idea that Jesus is a created image — “Jesus isn’t a created image. He is the one who created all things.” .
• Ps82 continues elaborating his multi‑stage metaphysics, which Vlad repeatedly calls incorrect or irrational — “No, Ps82! This is still wrong!” .
• A third participant (“Right Divider”) even enters to call Ps82’s views “heresy” and question why he’s on a Christian forum — “This is a Christian forum and you're not a Christian… spouting heresy.” . ....

...

COOL! So I asked it a second question:

Q: Which debater contradicts themselves the most?

A: Short answer: Ps82 contradicts himself far more than VladtheDestroyer, and the contradictions are clear, repeated, and structural — not just differences of interpretation.
Below is a precise, section‑anchored breakdown using the content from the page.

Concise takeaway​

Ps82 is the one who contradicts himself the most, because his theological system repeatedly asserts mutually incompatible claims — often within the same post — especially about:

• whether God can “lose” anything
• whether Jesus is a created image
• whether the “image” is God or not
• whether Adam saw God or not
• whether Scripture should be interpreted literally or figuratively
• whether he adds words to Scripture or not

Vlad’s position is consistent: he argues that Jesus is uncreated, that “image” is not a created being, and that Ps82’s additions to Scripture are illegitimate.

Most significant contradictions by Ps82 (with citations)​

1. “God cannot lose any part of Himself” vs. “Jesus sacrificed His life”​

Ps82 explicitly says:

• “God did not loose any part of himself… all things consist of God”
• But later affirms Jesus’ death as God’s sacrifice: “our Lord Jesus… was God… to provide Salvation”

Vlad immediately points out the contradiction:

• “Yeah but you just said God cannot lose any part of Himself. But Jesus sacrificed his life.”

This is a direct logical conflict: If Jesus is God and Jesus died, then God did lose something — contradicting Ps82’s earlier claim.

2. “I do not add words to Scripture” vs. adding words to Scripture​

Ps82 claims:

• “I do base my thoughts on what I see in King James Version of scripture.”
• “scripture interprets itself”

But he literally inserts new words into Colossians 1:17:

• “he (God the Spirit with his presence) is before all things…” (Ps82’s added phrase)

Vlad calls this out:

• “You literally just added ‘God the Spirit with his presence’ to Paul’s words… Why did you do that?”
• “How can scripture be the foundation… if your beliefs depend on the words you add?”

This is a contradiction between Ps82’s stated method and his actual practice.

3. “Jesus is not a created image” vs. describing Jesus as a created image​

Ps82 insists:

• “I did not say our Savior was a created image.”

But repeatedly describes Jesus as appearing in a created image:

• “The IMAGE WAS CREATED… for our Lord Jesus.”
• “Jesus was not the image but was God appearing with IT.” (IT = created image)
• “the created image… was the firstborn of every creature.” (and Jesus appears in it)

This is a contradiction: If Jesus appears in a created image that is “firstborn of every creature,” then Jesus is functionally tied to a created entity — contradicting his claim that Jesus is not created.
Vlad points this out:

• “Jesus isn’t a created image. He is the one who created all things.”

4. “Adam saw God” vs. “Adam did not see God”​

Ps82 claims:

• “Adam saw the form of The LORD God… they heard footsteps… they hid.”

But earlier he says:

• “Before the addition of a living body mankind was a spiritual life only.” (no visual form)

Vlad counters with Scripture:

• “There is no record at all in Genesis of Adam ever seeing God.”

Ps82’s claim contradicts both the text and his own earlier metaphysics.

5. Literal vs. figurative interpretation​

Ps82 says:

• “I take things literally.”

But immediately:

• “I also see things spiritually and figuratively.”

And throughout the thread he switches between literal and figurative without a consistent rule, creating internal contradictions in his method.

Does Vlad contradict himself?​

Vlad’s statements are consistent:

• Jesus is uncreated
• “Image” is not a created being
• God did not create a visual doppelgänger
• Scripture should not be altered
• Adam heard God’s voice, not saw Him

I found no internal contradictions in Vlad’s posts. He challenges Ps82 but does not contradict his own earlier claims.

Final judgment​

Ps82 contradicts himself the most — repeatedly, structurally, and in ways that undermine his own theological framework. Vlad’s position is internally consistent and his criticisms of Ps82’s contradictions are accurate and text‑supported.


*******************

I guess I would agree with about 90% of the above evaluation. I think my point about Adam not seeing God was a bit of an overstatement. Looking back, I think a better point would have been to say that; if Adam did in fact see God, then this was something God didn't think it was important enough to bother mentioning in the Bible.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

@Ps82 Here are a couple of graphics which illustrate intertextuality in the Bible. I thought they might help you see how one, seemingly slight change in the meaning of just a single verse, can result in one basically having to re-write the entire Bible to make that change or error fit with what the scriptures say. A detailed explanation of this different charts can be found here: https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/visualization

 

[Ps82]

The reason why you are having trouble introducing this concept is because it doesn't work. It isn't really possible to build a framework based on "Image" for understanding the plurality of God that is actually consistent with what the Bible teaches, because sometimes He is called the invisible God. Yet when men sometimes see angels in the Bible, they fall down and worship them and then then angel has to tell them, "Don't worship me, I am not God".

I'm not basing my concept on the fact that The spiritual God is a plurality because of creating an image. In fact I've tried to say that there is ONE God who created ONE image and used it multiple time for different sorts of work. I'm basing the plurality of God due to statement about his spiritual nature. What hit home to me was that HE IS LIFE! If that is what his eternal spiritual nature if infinite and eternal that means everything within his essence is living! His WORD was and is alive. His mighty powers are eternally alive. His love is infinite and alive ... etc. Scripture also states that He is the giver of life unto those He choses creatures he desires to create. According to Colossians all things are in him. He is in all things and of Him things consist. Then I learned from the book of John that He gave all things to his only begotten son all things of Himself/Spirit etc. with out measure, I understood that creature like you and me were given things from the spirit in measure. These are the thing I consider when I'm talking about the plurality of God's nature. Really the image does not impact what I understand about God's invisible nature. The IMAGE is a different topic and only has to do with how an invisible pluralistic God could use his one representative visible IMAGE to work unto humanity within our realm of existence... and it seems unto the angels as well.

Also, "image" does not always even mean the same thing throughout the Bible. When Romans 10 talks about us being conformed to Jesus's image, it isn't saying we need to try to look more like Him or wear a disguise that looks like His image.

I so agree, but I also don't think God chose to lie to us. The only God had only ONE image and chose to use IT to represent himself multiple times to clearly demonstrate that He was still the ONE God whether he appeared with an angelic glorious presence as in the OT or appeared as the ONE God in flesh in the NT. The use of the ONE image speaks of his ONENESS not of his plurality. There not three God's just because the Bible speaks of the Father Son and the Holy Spirit. People have used the term trinity because they came to know God in at least three manners. Father, Song and Holy Spirit. When God used the term OUR it was showing that he was ONE having a pluralist nature... but saying he had ONE image also spoke of how he was using his ONE image to tell them when he appeared he was still the one and only God. I believe Adam did look like the Father God's presence and that the second Adam, the Christ Jesus, looked like the Father. I believe God knew exactly what he said. I'm sorry if I haven't been explaining things clearly. It is hard to explain super-natural things when we have such limited ability to get past our thinking in limiting natural worldly concepts. I believe Jesus looked like the Father in the appearance due to God only having and using only ONE image. Adam 1 was only formed after the likeness of God ... not equal to God ... but when Jesus came HE looked like the Father's presence but his fleshly presence was associated to God's Spirit in ways without measure, which made him equal to God even when manifested in mortal flesh. That mortal body of his made it possible for God to rid mankind of the curse upon the ground and give mankind a new body with an eternal life. Released from the curse. Thank you my LORD God and Savior. Amen

It is talking about something more than just a visual image.

Amen

o when God is called "Elohim" from the very beginning of the Bible, it isn't because God had different hats

Amen. He is always the ONE God. ... But Jesus did say this, I think in the book of John)," Here to fore The Father worked and now I work." One was angelic in essence and the other in mortal flesh. That smacks a bit of at least putting on two suits of different fabric.

he could put on, to change his visual appearance.

His appearance did not change ... only the fabric.

It is because Jesus, the Alpha and Omega, is Elohim. A part of that of eternal plurality from the beginning.

Amen!

Which is why when the NT was written, they quoted scriptures from the OT that call God Elohim and applied them to Jesus.

Yet HIS CREATED IMAGE allowed him to accomplish different purposes at different times. All part his original plans from the beginning.

A very useful created tool.

Image and presence are not interchangeable terms.

I know. Both appear and can be seen.

You are only adding one confusion on top of another.

Hey, God's ways are complicated to us ... but with God everything is possible.

If we were to replace every occurrence of image with "presence" in the Bible, it would only further show that the concept you have been trying introduce is incoherent.

You have misunderstood my attempts by your statement of what you think I'm trying to say. Sorry.

You would have a much better understanding of God if you simply believed what the Bible says.

Well, I do understand. I hope this post has helped in some way of our perceiving the same concept. I need to give some time to my two grand children who are with us this weekend. I hope we will continue this conversation.

 

[Ps82]

@Ps82 Here are a couple of graphics which illustrate intertextuality in the Bible. I thought they might help you see how one, seemingly slight change in the meaning of just a single verse, can result in one basically having to re-write the entire Bible to make that change or error fit with what the scriptures say. A detailed explanation of this different charts can be found here: https://www.openbible.info/labs/cross-references/visualization

But I have always, so far, found supporting scripture which supports what I believe. In fact, I would just be studying along and read a scripture that would lead me to other scripture and when I read them together they helped me learn and opened my eyes. Give me an example where I have not clearly describe why the two or more go together to reveal truths with truths. I'll try to go more in depth. You and I do agree on a lot of things. To me it seems you just don't see my points of our ONE God having a plurality of nature/character/essence while he was able to manifest his ONE created image multiple times to do work within the realms which he also created.

The ONE image is not God ... God is the ONE spirit.
God didn't create things from nothing as some people like to say. In fact, In Him all things exist and of Him all things consist. Nothing is outside of God for there is no outside. There is no pockets of something called 'nothing' ;so all things consist of his essence given in measure. Even when the saints are saved and one day manifested as a saint with a glorified body, they still won't be equal to God the way Jesus was. We will be after his likeness but not equal because God is able to given in measures.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Really the image does not impact what I understand about God's invisible nature. The IMAGE is a different topic and only has to do with how an invisible pluralistic God could use his one representative visible IMAGE to work unto humanity within our realm of existence... and it seems unto the angels as well.

So you say, but Ps82, you have used the word "Image" 70+ times so far and you have been consistently contradicting yourself, adding words to scripture, changing the meaning of what was written and adding extra steps to the creation which are not there.

In my very first response to you, I told you that God is a triune God and that you were focusing too much on "Image". It's as if I tossed you a rope, so you could climb yourself out of a pit and instead you took the rope and hung yourself with it!

I don't know how else to describe the interaction between us thus far.

I'm sorry if I haven't been explaining things clearly.

Do you think the reason for that might have something to do with the intertextuality of the Bible, mentioned in my prior post?

@Ps82 , I can explain the trinity to you, if you like.

Would you like me to do that?