So God, who exists in eternity, pops out (how long he was in eternity is anyone's guess) to create a Universe, apparently to house a world, the Earth, upon which he makes a mud model, the first man. The man was made in Gods image apparently. So can we take it that God has eyes, ears, a nose? A mouth? Does this suggest God eats food..well it must. And when we think about the human body and its parts one finds question like what did he eat..for example...the perplexing question arises when we think about reproductive organs ...why would God have productive organs...I think the story of creation has it backwards...it sure seems that man created God in his image...else explain the body part issue.. Alex
Not necessarily. That's just how people read the text. "In our image" (Gen. 1.26), and "In his own image" (Gen 1.27), are the same word, tselem (צֶלֶם)↱; while it is generally translated as you suggest, the word can also mean "idol" (2 Kings, 2 Chronicles), and its use in Psalm 39.6 ("in a vain shew") is obscure, but not impossible to follow. That is, the text says, צֶלֶם; everything else is on us. When we get to the part about hemorrhoids and the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel), well, okay, the meaning of the word is clear, but there remains the mystery of why making images of emerods (טְחוֹרִיםעֹפֶל) might compel the God of Israel to lighten His hand against the Philistines. The story says what it says, and means what we decide it means.
Thank you for giving my thread a serious response, a well considered response. You of course address the area where misconception should be, but rarely, tracked ....that of translation. Various edits need not be considered but perhaps contribute. Do we deal with the original or the evolved version or rather whatever interpretation. I was reading a thread here forcing consideration of the plethora of Jesus interpretations, from a non god philosopher to God himself and hence your last sentence says it all. Nevertheless I do hope that perhaps someone, who enjoys a rigid literal interpretation of an incorrect translation varnished however they do, appears and injects their enlightened view. Subscription to the New Testament seems to extend a licence for a wider interpretation of the Old Testament ... Indeed most if not all wave it to declare it releases any need to accept the Laws first given..I think it may be interesting how my question may then be addressed ...so I suppose I should confess that I am about some mischief for entertainment. Alex
I don't really get the concern, Alex. Are theism skeptics still arguing against the literal interpretation of the Bible? Even the Pope doesn't subscribe to that. I think this horse is well and truly beaten to death.
This is not a dead horse it's just resting. I have not left the house for some time ..cabin crazy is all. Alex
You sure about that? I mean, the Pope doesn't take all aspects of the Bible literally. He has adapted on quite a few archaic stances in the Bible. Surely skeptics have more fruitful ground to till.
It seems that at times, "cabin fever" has had the effect of turning normal people into homicidal maniacs. ....................................... and It is written that GOD created Man in GOD's own image..... then Man, wholly incapable of comprehending GOD, created gods in man's own image. ok now we have polytheism-----(all men are not alike---all gods are not alike) and then shifting gears, we smoosh all of those gods into one god and keep the man's own image stuff ............................ at least we ain't sacrificing children to Abraham's god(from Ur?). ................................. prometheus anyone ........................................................................................................ meanwhile My beloved spouse' church has gone on-line maybe even GOD cannot hold back the coronavirus ---shades of king Canute?
Biblically speaking, Jesus was Divine so that is what is meant. (God being a triune God) Father, Son and Holy Spirit were before the beginning, from a Bible/Christian perspective.
If you read throughout the OT and the NT, Jesus always was...this is why the OT is a foreshadowing of Jesus coming. He wasn’t created, like other humans. He has always been one with God, according to the Bible. Have you read the Bible in its entirety? The Gospel of John discusses this often. John 1:1 - the “Word” is referring to Jesus. When the “Word” became flesh and so on...but the “Word” was in the beginning. (referencing back to Genesis)
It’s widely held by many Christians. The Word became flesh - that’s what it means. The Trinity teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead, which is the basis of Christianity. Christians typically believe that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but one being.
No, that's the mainstream Christian interpretation. In the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God. Then the Word took on human flesh. The mainstream Christian interpretation of "in the image of God" is in the form of God's mind, as the Bible never attributes to God a form, aside from the incarnation of Jesus.
Thanks to all for the excellent contributions to this thread. I have actually learnt a great deal which is always a wonderful thing. Alex
Humans die, sons etc. Jesus is eternal, no beginning, the end. The Alpha and the Omega. EDIT: Jesus chose to come as a mortal human.
And a long white beard. Don't forget the beard, or nobody will recognize him. Why d'you suppose the Israelites were forbidden to trim theirs? Don't be silly! God's mouth is for telling people what not to do and how many lambs and oxen to burn and how many blasphemers to stone on high holy days. Well, once we dispose of the eating question, I suppose he had to improvise a couple of other bits on the human model. It was 'a burner' just for that one time he needed to make a son. Gee ... ya think...? So why's he got his hooves nailed to the stable floor? (Actually, the Sumerian creation story was a lot more entertaining.)
I can take it only a little as it worries me when I run into their accounts of things flying about. Folk dismiss the notion of ancients flying about, which I like to do, as silly...but then I think of the structure of a lie, it usually contains some truth, a framework upon which the lie was built or some casual reference that was a fact...in any event with that in mind I wonder and what frightens me is how the heck did these folk imagine such things...I mean agricultural society produces scribes with such a wild imagination..to think they had such an imagination blows me away... The way they appeared with the model we use today of everything ...it spins me out how similar things were ... Alex
