In God's image

[MajGenl.Meade]

So you really think mankind changed for the better, going from the child killing dog to the family pet? I don't see much evidence of that. I think people are pretty much the same as they have always been--some good, some not.. And FWIW, killing the first born male of each Egyptian family does not show that sort of deliberation; at least anymore than Herod did in the killing of all male children under two. Yet one is a miracle of liberation, the other is one of the most dastardly acts in history, even though both involve slaying children.

First sentence - I said no such thing. The issue is this: is your reaction to a killer dog today different from your reaction to a cute puppy today due to you "changing your mind" about dogs? Of course not. Two different occasions; two different situations; two different responses. Why are you having such pretend difficulty understanding that hmmmm?

Second and third sentence. Yes, so what?

Remainder: so what?

Did God "change his mind" about killing first born sons or was that just a one-off required by the situation and not necessary (say) yesterday? (Regardless of whether or not either event actually happened).

The issue here is "changing of mind" - not how your or I feel about such-and-such a story. You made a statement and I would like you to back it up and address it. Please. Thank you.

[BoSoxGal]

After working in the criminal justice system for a couple of decades and being observant of human nature for 5 decades and having read the Bible, I’d say god is made in man’s image and vice versa.

Hence my atheism.

[MajGenl.Meade]

After working in the criminal justice system for a couple of decades and being observant of human nature for 5 decades and having read the Bible, I’d say god is made in man’s image and vice versa.

Hence my atheism.

OK

[Econoline]

[Joe Guy]

Any discussion about God's existence makes my head spin. I remember concluding long ago that our earth is something very similar to an ant farm that an entity much larger and more knowing than us gave to its child to play with. We are only a collection of things that spend time creating tunnels and moving sand from place place while we dodge the water and breathe the air as we move around in our nest.

[Bicycle Bill]

-"BB"-

[rubato]

The whole idea of god's image has always been a little mysterious to me.

Does it mean physical image? Height, weight, ability dunk from the foul line? Seems a little implausible and limited. God is God he can dunk from half-court! or even the opposite foul line or last week.

Does it mean intelligence? Faraday, Lavoisier, Newton are extra ordinary but not comparable to the average person or even the mean. So if they are "in god's image" then the rest of us, even the smart ones, are just worms, nothing.

Does it mean moral reasoning? Now this is really distressing. The majority of humanity would, and has, fallen immediately in line with the worst torturers, despots, vicious tyrant in all history. Nearly all (and maybe all) of the worst most animalistic barbarians served with the support of their populations.

Is it the capacity (even when it is not realised) for love and sacrifice on behalf of another? Truly a godly trait. But then it means that only a small fraction are really made in gods image and it is very unlikely that you are one of them. I don't think that qualifies as much as I am an idealist and romantic and wish it did. At most it means that more than 1% and much less than 10% are "in god's image". Denmark saved 90% of their Jews from the holocaust and Bulgaria saved 100% yet most of the rest of occupied Europe eagerly supported the Shoa even when the Nazis didn't suggest it. I have tried but failed to find some generalization here that might give hope to future holocausts. The rest humanity are spawn of satan, evil beyond redemption..

I have never heard a definition that made a shred of logical sense. If there are other dimensions of being which can account for this I would like to hear them.


yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

I have never heard a definition that made a shred of logical sense. If there are other dimensions of being which can account for this I would like to hear them.

FWIW there are some other variations, most of which rely on the notion that an image is not identical to the original - it is a reflection. Too, it refers to God's image (or idea) of the perfect creature both free and choosing action. Thus:

It refers to the ability to reason - to self-determine - to love - to be responsible - to be morally aware - and so on.

Having an ability is not the same thing as actuating that ability. This creature turns out not to be so perfect after all - casting a very undesirable image, even the best of us.

Genesis 5:3 states that Adam created/begat/whatever a son called Seth "in his own image". Not in the image of God. It is reasonable that both Cain and Abel (and any other progeny of Eve/Adam/Lilith - if you want to drag Frasier into it) were likewise in the image of man rather than of God. Empirical evidence, cited by you, support a certain lack amongst us.

Adam and Eve earned their loss of privileges by using their rational, free, loving, self-determining, morally aware abilities to choose wrongly.

True or otherwise, it's rational given the premise that God created man in his own image and the other information contained in the same place from whence came that premise. Naturally, men basking in their own image are free to discard the first premise and thus render the rest irrelevant.

PS I do not join in chortling about us being made in the "image of God". It seems not to be sound theology. I think

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'd always assumed that that particular concept - men (!) made in God's image - was a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc back formation by men who wanted God to conform to our image of ourselves. Ooh look, I'm just like the Big Guy!

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'd always assumed that that particular concept - men (!) made in God's image - was a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc back formation by men who wanted God to conform to our image of ourselves. Ooh look, I'm just like the Big Guy!

Glad you no longer assume that, recognizing that the book which declares "And God created Adam in his image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" is the same book that asserts we are very much NOT "just like the Big Guy". As does the rest of the set of such books.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'd always assumed that that particular concept - men (!) made in God's image - was a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc back formation by men who wanted God to conform to our image of ourselves. Ooh look, I'm just like the Big Guy!

Glad you no longer assume that, recognizing that the book which declares "And God created Adam in his image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" is the same book that asserts we are very much NOT "just like the Big Guy". As does the rest of the set of such books.

You're misunderstanding me, Meade. "The book which declares . . . . " was written by men (almost certainly - I don't think Jewish women had a lot of say in that sort of thing all those years ago) unless you believe that it is the literal word of God. In any case what we now know as the Bible was translated by chaps mostly hundreds of years ago. So I am suggesting (and I don't expect you to agree with me) that it helped those chaps in their quest for acceptance to have it believed that God was just like them - long beard, flowing robes and all - only, as Orwell put it, more equal than others.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'd always assumed that that particular concept - men (!) made in God's image - was a sort of post hoc ergo propter hoc back formation by men who wanted God to conform to our image of ourselves. Ooh look, I'm just like the Big Guy!

Glad you no longer assume that, recognizing that the book which declares "And God created Adam in his image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" is the same book that asserts we are very much NOT "just like the Big Guy". As does the rest of the set of such books.

You're misunderstanding me, Meade. "The book which declares . . . . " was written by men (almost certainly - I don't think Jewish women had a lot of say in that sort of thing all those years ago) unless you believe that it is the literal word of God. In any case what we now know as the Bible was translated by chaps mostly hundreds of years ago. So I am suggesting (and I don't expect you to agree with me) that it helped those chaps in their quest for acceptance to have it believed that God was just like them - long beard, flowing robes and all - only, as Orwell put it, more equal than others.

Unsound, sir. Unsound. You have misread my argument.

It is palpably false to conclude that the people who wrote "in His image" did so to declare themselves to be "just like the big guy" (or Him to be like them). The proof of its falsity is that the same people devote their further writings to argue that they are NOT "like the big guy" which renders your assumption er . . . wrong

Can you cite anywhere in the Bible where your squirrel describes God as "long beard, flowing robes and all" - whatever that means? God is described as fire, as a blinding light, as pure love, as spirit, - none of them the outfits, hair choices or characteristics of the people who wrote the scriptures. Thus, further invalidation of your assumption. [I considered giving you accidental points for "wings" since God is described with such and the people too are exhorted to rise as with the wings of eagles, but as both are metaphorical it was rejected]

The other squirrel about translation . . . Is there something wrong with translating ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into more modern languages? People have been doing that since the 2nd and 3rd centuries to get a Greek version of the Hebrew and 4th century for Latin. Thanks to the Roman church, we had to wait a bit for the first German and English ones - 15th century - but I'm grateful for the latter at least. Do you propose to provide us with a more accurate translation in English, working from the Hebrew and Greek?

I suppose if they had remained in the original languages we wouldn't have this exchange at all. Lot for which to blame those translators!

[Big RR]

. Do you propose to provide us with a more accurate translation in English, working from the Hebrew and Greek?

Isn't that exactly that has happened with a number of English translations which are asserted to be more "accurate" and based on the older Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts"? For example, some versions describe god as exclusively male, others genderless, others use a variety of other covention (it has recently become common in some translations to characterize the Holy Spirit as female (based presumably on the Greek use of the feminine noun "sofia" (sp?)to describe the spirit). Similar differences exist among the arious English versions (and I imagine among the various versions in other languages).

Personally, I prefer the King James Version translation (because of its almost poetic prose), but I do know many biblical scholars have criticized it and many protestant denominations have embraced other translations (RSV, VRSV, New World, ...) .

[MajGenl.Meade]

Isn't that exactly what has happened with a number of English translations which are asserted to be more "accurate" and based on the older Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts"?

Why, yes it is, Big RR! I'm not sure exkA is up to having a bash

Many modern English translations are unfortunate for many different reasons. "Good News" is execrable - translates identical phrases differently depending on the dew-point or the temperature of bats apparently. Many others turn five words in twenty. There are translations and then there are interpretations - difference animals. I prefer my Bible to be translation only or a study bible which differentiates between the word and the theologians' speculations.

However, all of them agree that Genesis 5:3 states that mankind is conceived in the image of Adam. Doubtless some might try to explain that away so they can cling on to their "image of God" comfort pillow.

In a similar fashion, they want to pound on "God's love is unconditional" while at the same time (quietly) teaching that salvation IS conditional. Unless one is a Calvinist, which - today - I'm not.

[Big RR]

Just today or every Friday? But seriously, surely you're either predestined to be a Calvanist or not, even if it is for only one day a week. The rest of the days you can be a reprobate.

And FWIW, I am with you, I prefer the literal translation to the paraphrasing (or dynamic transalation or whatever they call it).

[Sue U]

The whole idea of god's image has always been a little mysterious to me.

***
I have never heard a definition that made a shred of logical sense. If there are other dimensions of being which can account for this I would like to hear them.

Did you read the quoted material in the OP? Did you understand it?

And FWIW, I am with you, I prefer the literal translation to the paraphrasing (or dynamic transalation or whatever they call it).

A "literal translation" loses a lot of the actual meaning and subtleties of the text -- particularly since the "original" Hebrew is chock full of wordplay and non-literal poetic language, not to mention that there are not always direct matches of words and their connotations between languages as different as Hebrew and English (or the ancient Greek translation from which most English versions are derived).

There are translations and then there are interpretations - difference animals. I prefer my Bible to be translation only or a study bible which differentiates between the word and the theologians' speculations.

However, all of them agree that Genesis 5:3 states that mankind is conceived in the image of Adam. Doubtless some might try to explain that away so they can cling on to their "image of God" comfort pillow.

You are of course free to continue arguing whether A=B and B=C means that A=C, or not. Or you can imagine the issue an entirely different way, which was rather the point of the OP.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here since I don't believe that a god-entity exists.

Having said that, if God exists, what makes us think that we are built in his image? How do we know that he doesn't look like a tree or a dolphin or else has some shape of which we have neither the concept nor the words to describe?

In my youth I translated large chunks of the NT from the Greek in which it survived for about a thousand years but I have (and had) no Aramaic or Hebrew so I have no idea of how accurate the OT translation is. But we know, for example, that Genesis as it now exists is based on the science then in style. If you believe in the basic mechanism of evolution and dinosaurs and so on; and if you also believe that the Bible is God's word, then why did he mention only fish and seed-bearing plants in Genesis? We now know that fish have been around for about 500 million years and seed bearing plants for a bit less. If God had said: "BTW it took a while to get around to you guys but I had this ingenious plan which allowed things to develop from a few amino acids formed by lightning and the primordial Campbells. I had a lot of false starts and interesting by products - I won't bore you with the details but I quite liked T. rex. (Not the Marc Bolan one.)" then would not his received word have been written down?

No: I think the guys who wrote the early drafts had a general idea of what makes what - when I did read the Bible, I loved the idea that they started with light. But if God is responsible for the universe why on earth would he share his image with us? There must be more deserving folk or beams of light or vector equations or whatever elsewhere. If earth is around 4.5 billion years old and humans have been here for around 3 million of that, he had the pattern (himself, if we are in his image) for around 4497 million years before deciding to use it. Does not make sense.

[Bicycle Bill]

Who says God — or a God-like entity — has to look like one specific thing?  Sunuvabitch, if the being is a God, he/she/it/they can become whatever they need to be...  and the truly wise man knows it.

Ray Bradbury was one such man, and he tumbled to this something like seventy years ago, back in the early 1950s.  Don't believe me?  Take about fifteen or twenty minutes and read this — "The Fire Balloons" — first published under the title "...In This Sign" in April 1951, and later included in his collection of short stories, "The Illustrated Man".

May your mind be opened.   Mine was.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

A "literal translation" loses a lot of the actual meaning and subtleties of the text -- particularly since the "original" Hebrew is chock full of wordplay and non-literal poetic language, not to mention that there are not always direct matches of words and their connotations between languages as different as Hebrew and English (or the ancient Greek translation from which most English versions are derived).

Sue--I understand that, but I would rather have the best literal translation possible, coupled with footnotes or alternative words when appropriate, than to have someone tell me what the idea being expressed is in their own words. Neither is perfect, but the word fro word translation generally doesn't encourage as much mischief as asking someone to interpret it more broadly. in addition to the words, historical contexts also matter greatly, which is why differing minds may disagree.

[Burning Petard]

I don't read Hebrew. I respect the literary and cultural heritage for all the 12 tribes (including adopted tribal members) which is represented in the literary collection call "The Old Testament." Just as I prefer to read translations of Martin Luther's writings done by Lutherans, I prefer to read the TANAKH published by the Jewish Society of Philadelphia. But the Jewish poet Robert Alter has now published a complete translation with nearly every page half to a third commentary and explanations as to why he used this phrase rather than another. Alter's work has received strong support from Jewish scholars.

And Luther's plea for reform which he wrote to the Pope, as a good and faithful monk, I find to be the strongest argument for freedom of speech in Western literature.

Translation of literature is always difficult. I am struggling with Rilke's Book of Hours, in two different 21st century translations from the German and I still think I am missing something important that is in the original.

snailgate