Ancient kings left their statues or stelae (which would have included a relief of the king) in areas they had conquered. The presence of the statue would symbolize the sovereignty of that king over his new territory. In Gn. 1.26 when God makes the humans in his image, he is making the humans his vice-regents on the earth, which is his temple. In the ancient world, the image, then, is a physical manifestation of divine (or real) essence that bears on the function of that which it represents. It gives the image-bearer the capacity to reflect the attributes of the one represented, and to act on his behalf. (Note also the New Testament ideas of Jesus being the image of the invisible God [Col. 1.15]. He is a representative of God's sovereignty, not a mirror image of his physical appearance. As such he bears the essence of God, reflects his attributes, and acts on his behalf. In the context of Genesis 1, people act on God's behalf by "rule the earth and subdue it." That's how they are in his image.

If we pop down to Gen. 5, we immediately notice some distinctions (difference) being drawn, particularly between God as "creator" (5.1-2), and man as "procreator" (v. 3). So we know right off the bat that despite the similarities of what is being talked about, there are also well-defined differences. God’s image cannot be reduced to simple procreation, but the act of human procreation is somehow part of what it means to be in the image and likeness of God.

We learn that the image of God in humanity was neither lost nor damaged in the events of Genesis 3. They still bear God's blessing (be fruitful and multiply), the same functionality (rule the earth and subdue it), and the same role (to be God's priests and priestesses, caring for sacred space—the earth). This term, the way it is used, has nothing to do with physical appearance, but with status, role, and function.

"In the likeness of God"? I really can't see how there's any debate on the matter. Genesis 5 clearly uses the same decription of "man" being made in God's likeness as then Adam's children are in Adam's likeness. So, what gives here? Anyone reading this would clearly have to know that we are made (like/the same as/similar/in the image of) to be a replica of God.

When I hear people say "Well, that just means we have the same attributes." or some similar excuse - why is that not the case for Adam's children?

Genesis 5: 1 This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. " 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

I believe the bible wants us to know that we look exactly like God - 2 arms, 2 legs, head, torso, mouth, etc. etc. There really is no room for the interpretation I'm now to believe.