Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Was Man "Created" In The Image/Likness Of God

IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 9:39:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

For the sake of clarity:

"An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject " usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it."

"There have been many interpretations of the idea of God's image from ancient times until today, and Biblical scholars still have no consensus about the meaning of the term."

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 11:48:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Philip said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father. That is all we need."
Jesus answered, "Philip, I have been with you for a long time. So you should know me. The person that has seen me has seen the Father too. So why do you say, 'Show us the Father'? the trinity 3 but one!
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 11:53:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"I and the Father are one." 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:00:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
18 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

5 And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.

6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.

7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetcht a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it.

8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

9 And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

10 And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.

11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

13 And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

16 And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way.

17 And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;

18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:17:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 12:52:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:39:46 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

For the sake of clarity:

"An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject " usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it."

"There have been many interpretations of the idea of God's image from ancient times until today, and Biblical scholars still have no consensus about the meaning of the term."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for providing that clarity, allowing it to become part of the overall discussion.

I will address this and offer my view, for consideration in the following post, in regards to "image" as defined concerning this topic.
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 1:41:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 12:52:54 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:39:46 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

For the sake of clarity:

"An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject " usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it."

"There have been many interpretations of the idea of God's image from ancient times until today, and Biblical scholars still have no consensus about the meaning of the term."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for providing that clarity, allowing it to become part of the overall discussion.

I will address this and offer my view, for consideration in the following post, in regards to "image" as defined concerning this topic.

To further begin examining this topic, I will address our atheist friends contribution, to clarify the term "image" and that Bible scholars are not even sure to its meaning.

I would submit, that the Latin term "image" translated from the Hebrew is: "Tselem" and the definition is as follows from DR. Strong's, Hebrew Lexicon H6754

I. image

A. images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)

B. image, likeness (of resemblance)

C. mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)

With that in mind, we also see the word "likeness" in addition to the word "image" in this passage, which forces the context of the verse we are examining, to understand "image" & "likeness" are to be understood as TWO different qualities in this application of the verse.

The word "likeness" from DR. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon is H1823 "demuwth" and renders this following definitions:

n f

I. likeness, similitude

adv

II. in the likeness of, like as

So given this information and the linguistic frame work of the verse, it is evident that, "image" and "likeness" does not hold the same meaning and the intent is to establish 2 different meanings, that humans are to be created with. That of "image" and that of "likeness"

Does anyone take up disagreement, with this linguistic context I submitted and wish to disprove, with substance ? If so, I am quite ready to stand corrected, if shown.
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 2:13:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Moving forward.

I was in discussion with a Mormon friend of ours here on DDO in the thread "Ask A Mormon" and some of his thoughts, had me re-examine whether or not, God and his Son Jesus are spirits with flesh & bone features as is man.

Initially I was not seeing or accepting this point of view. However, upon further examining, the biblical scriptures. I can clearly see, there is some truth to this and can understand the linguistic application of both words "Image" & "Likeness"

"Image" given the definitions from the Hebrew word it was translated from and the definition from the Latin.

It is evident that the "image" is the physical features they posses and the "likeness" is the similitude of qualities and traits of God and his Son.

So, with that in mind. One of the "Likeness" of God and his Son that they possessed was of course "The KNOWLEDGE of Good & Evil"

So, I contend that according to the Hebrew manuscripts and the context of the account given, God and his Son, began the creation process, and part of this creating man in their image, was the master plan for our first parents to eat of the KNOWLEDGE of "Good & Evil"

For this reason, we find this in:

Genesis 3:22

" And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

Man now possess this likeness that God said in the beginning: " Let us make man in our image, after our LIKENESS"

It also appears according to scripture, that God is continuing to carry out his master plan and will bring humanity fullyinto there "likeness" and yes of course, now I see as scripture says, in there "Image" physical features, were we created and the "likeness" part of the plan, is currently an ongoing process of the creating (Yet to be created completely) Humanity.

With that, I am open for others to contribute thought in this.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 2:45:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 1:41:34 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:52:54 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:39:46 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

For the sake of clarity:

"An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject " usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it."

"There have been many interpretations of the idea of God's image from ancient times until today, and Biblical scholars still have no consensus about the meaning of the term."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for providing that clarity, allowing it to become part of the overall discussion.

I will address this and offer my view, for consideration in the following post, in regards to "image" as defined concerning this topic.

To further begin examining this topic, I will address our atheist friends contribution, to clarify the term "image" and that Bible scholars are not even sure to its meaning.

I would submit, that the Latin term "image" translated from the Hebrew is: "Tselem" and the definition is as follows from DR. Strong's, Hebrew Lexicon H6754


I. image

A. images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)


B. image, likeness (of resemblance)


C. mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)


With that in mind, we also see the word "likeness" in addition to the word "image" in this passage, which forces the context of the verse we are examining, to understand "image" & "likeness" are to be understood as TWO different qualities in this application of the verse.

The word "likeness" from DR. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon is H1823 "demuwth" and renders this following definitions:

n f

I. likeness, similitude

adv


II. in the likeness of, like as


So given this information and the linguistic frame work of the verse, it is evident that, "image" and "likeness" does not hold the same meaning and the intent is to establish 2 different meanings, that humans are to be created with. That of "image" and that of "likeness"

Does anyone take up disagreement, with this linguistic context I submitted and wish to disprove, with substance ? If so, I am quite ready to stand corrected, if shown.

"Different Meaning

The Bible does make a distinction between these words. Image means idols, statutes, or some artistic representation of things that are physical. Likeness has the idea of some type of representation.

Hebrew Parallelism

While it is true that each of these words may have a different dictionary definition, we should not expect to find two different meanings in this passage. This is an example of a common device in Hebrew literature known as parallelism. The two words are actually synonymous. The Hebrews would often emphasize something by stating the same thing in two different ways. This seems to be what we have here. There is no real difference between image and likeness. "


https://www.blueletterbible.org...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 3:03:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 2:45:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:41:34 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:52:54 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:39:46 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

For the sake of clarity:

"An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject " usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it."

"There have been many interpretations of the idea of God's image from ancient times until today, and Biblical scholars still have no consensus about the meaning of the term."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for providing that clarity, allowing it to become part of the overall discussion.

I will address this and offer my view, for consideration in the following post, in regards to "image" as defined concerning this topic.

To further begin examining this topic, I will address our atheist friends contribution, to clarify the term "image" and that Bible scholars are not even sure to its meaning.

I would submit, that the Latin term "image" translated from the Hebrew is: "Tselem" and the definition is as follows from DR. Strong's, Hebrew Lexicon H6754


I. image

A. images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)


B. image, likeness (of resemblance)


C. mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)


With that in mind, we also see the word "likeness" in addition to the word "image" in this passage, which forces the context of the verse we are examining, to understand "image" & "likeness" are to be understood as TWO different qualities in this application of the verse.

The word "likeness" from DR. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon is H1823 "demuwth" and renders this following definitions:

n f

I. likeness, similitude

adv


II. in the likeness of, like as


So given this information and the linguistic frame work of the verse, it is evident that, "image" and "likeness" does not hold the same meaning and the intent is to establish 2 different meanings, that humans are to be created with. That of "image" and that of "likeness"

Does anyone take up disagreement, with this linguistic context I submitted and wish to disprove, with substance ? If so, I am quite ready to stand corrected, if shown.

"Different Meaning

The Bible does make a distinction between these words. Image means idols, statutes, or some artistic representation of things that are physical. Likeness has the idea of some type of representation.

Hebrew Parallelism

While it is true that each of these words may have a different dictionary definition, we should not expect to find two different meanings in this passage. This is an example of a common device in Hebrew literature known as parallelism. The two words are actually synonymous. The Hebrews would often emphasize something by stating the same thing in two different ways. This seems to be what we have here. There is no real difference between image and likeness. "


That statement is opinion of Dum Stewart and is a biased absurd statement, that does not even make since in the context of the scripture.

What he is essential saying, is the bible used two words in conjunction/association with each other rendering the same definition making a statement.

To claim that it is to be rendered as the same definition, is absurd

https://www.blueletterbible.org...
Gentorev
Posts: 2,937
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 3:39:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

I see that you use the singular context "Adam and Eve WAS created," rather than the plural, "Adam and Eve WERE created."

And that is the way it should have been phrased.

In the day that God created MAN (Singular) in the likeness of God made he HIM (Singular) Male and female he created THEM (Plural) and called their nam Adam=mankind (Singular).

Man, is an androgynous being of male and female aspects in the likeness of God who is also an androgynous being.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 4:04:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 3:03:11 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 2:45:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:41:34 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:52:54 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:39:46 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

For the sake of clarity:

"An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject " usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it."

"There have been many interpretations of the idea of God's image from ancient times until today, and Biblical scholars still have no consensus about the meaning of the term."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for providing that clarity, allowing it to become part of the overall discussion.

I will address this and offer my view, for consideration in the following post, in regards to "image" as defined concerning this topic.

To further begin examining this topic, I will address our atheist friends contribution, to clarify the term "image" and that Bible scholars are not even sure to its meaning.

I would submit, that the Latin term "image" translated from the Hebrew is: "Tselem" and the definition is as follows from DR. Strong's, Hebrew Lexicon H6754


I. image

A. images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)


B. image, likeness (of resemblance)


C. mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)


With that in mind, we also see the word "likeness" in addition to the word "image" in this passage, which forces the context of the verse we are examining, to understand "image" & "likeness" are to be understood as TWO different qualities in this application of the verse.

The word "likeness" from DR. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon is H1823 "demuwth" and renders this following definitions:

n f

I. likeness, similitude

adv


II. in the likeness of, like as


So given this information and the linguistic frame work of the verse, it is evident that, "image" and "likeness" does not hold the same meaning and the intent is to establish 2 different meanings, that humans are to be created with. That of "image" and that of "likeness"

Does anyone take up disagreement, with this linguistic context I submitted and wish to disprove, with substance ? If so, I am quite ready to stand corrected, if shown.

"Different Meaning

The Bible does make a distinction between these words. Image means idols, statutes, or some artistic representation of things that are physical. Likeness has the idea of some type of representation.

Hebrew Parallelism

While it is true that each of these words may have a different dictionary definition, we should not expect to find two different meanings in this passage. This is an example of a common device in Hebrew literature known as parallelism. The two words are actually synonymous. The Hebrews would often emphasize something by stating the same thing in two different ways. This seems to be what we have here. There is no real difference between image and likeness. "


That statement is opinion of Dum Stewart and is a biased absurd statement, that does not even make since in the context of the scripture.

What he is essential saying, is the bible used two words in conjunction/association with each other rendering the same definition making a statement.

To claim that it is to be rendered as the same definition, is absurd



https://www.blueletterbible.org...

Absurd you say? Have a look at the definition of likeness, notice the synonyms?

Likeness: the semblance, guise, or outward appearance of.
"humans are described as being made in God's likeness"
synonyms:semblance, guise, appearance, outward form, form, shape, image
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 4:48:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

God (if there be such) did not create man in his image, Man created God in man's image.
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2015 6:30:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 4:04:05 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 3:03:11 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 2:45:01 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 1:41:34 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 12:52:54 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:39:46 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

For the sake of clarity:

"An image (from Latin: imago) is an artifact that depicts or records visual perception, for example a two-dimensional picture, that has a similar appearance to some subject " usually a physical object or a person, thus providing a depiction of it."

"There have been many interpretations of the idea of God's image from ancient times until today, and Biblical scholars still have no consensus about the meaning of the term."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for providing that clarity, allowing it to become part of the overall discussion.

I will address this and offer my view, for consideration in the following post, in regards to "image" as defined concerning this topic.

To further begin examining this topic, I will address our atheist friends contribution, to clarify the term "image" and that Bible scholars are not even sure to its meaning.

I would submit, that the Latin term "image" translated from the Hebrew is: "Tselem" and the definition is as follows from DR. Strong's, Hebrew Lexicon H6754


I. image

A. images (of tumours, mice, heathen gods)


B. image, likeness (of resemblance)


C. mere, empty, image, semblance (fig.)


With that in mind, we also see the word "likeness" in addition to the word "image" in this passage, which forces the context of the verse we are examining, to understand "image" & "likeness" are to be understood as TWO different qualities in this application of the verse.

The word "likeness" from DR. Strong's Hebrew Lexicon is H1823 "demuwth" and renders this following definitions:

n f

I. likeness, similitude

adv


II. in the likeness of, like as


So given this information and the linguistic frame work of the verse, it is evident that, "image" and "likeness" does not hold the same meaning and the intent is to establish 2 different meanings, that humans are to be created with. That of "image" and that of "likeness"

Does anyone take up disagreement, with this linguistic context I submitted and wish to disprove, with substance ? If so, I am quite ready to stand corrected, if shown.

"Different Meaning

The Bible does make a distinction between these words. Image means idols, statutes, or some artistic representation of things that are physical. Likeness has the idea of some type of representation.

Hebrew Parallelism

While it is true that each of these words may have a different dictionary definition, we should not expect to find two different meanings in this passage. This is an example of a common device in Hebrew literature known as parallelism. The two words are actually synonymous. The Hebrews would often emphasize something by stating the same thing in two different ways. This seems to be what we have here. There is no real difference between image and likeness. "


That statement is opinion of Dum Stewart and is a biased absurd statement, that does not even make since in the context of the scripture.

What he is essential saying, is the bible used two words in conjunction/association with each other rendering the same definition making a statement.

To claim that it is to be rendered as the same definition, is absurd



https://www.blueletterbible.org...

Absurd you say? Have a look at the definition of likeness, notice the synonyms?

Likeness: the semblance, guise, or outward appearance of.
"humans are described as being made in God's likeness"
synonyms:semblance, guise, appearance, outward form, form, shape, image

Yes. As I stated. Absurd to suggest the words used, in the context of the sentence is to be applied with the same definition.

The Scripture we are examining:

" 26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Example: #1 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our image" ?? Really ?

This would be a redundant way of speech if the words were to be applied as the same definition.

Example #2 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our likeness"

The context of the verse demands two different definitions be applied.

What is difficult for scholars to figure out here ? This is just basics, We are not trying to understand and define some complex alien language we have no understanding of.
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 9:28:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 4:48:11 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 1/11/2015 9:30:54 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
This thread is to discuss from a biblical and Christian perspective, the account recording the beginning of creation and humans as part of the creation.

Does the bible record that our first parents Adam & Eve was "Created" in the context of a completed and perfect creation in their ( God the Father and his Sons ) image ?

OR

As the Hebrew manuscripts record originally, that God and his Son began 'Creating' man in their "image & likeness" in the context, the creators began the creation process. In which, the creation process is still ongoing and yet to be completed ?

I would much like to discuss the merits to these questions, from a reasonable and scriptural perspective, looking at and examining the Hebrew language and context comparing it to most translations that apply the word "Created" in the completed since.

I will be leaving for a few hours for Sunday service and will return to engage in the discussion/debate.

Thank you in advance for contributing your views to this topic and I look forward to every ones point of view.

God (if there be such) did not create man in his image, Man created God in man's image.

God and Son there is. In their "image" they did create human. In their "likeness" the creation process is still an ongoing process.

That is the point, I am making. Per the account giving according to scripture. Now one can and does question the validity of the scripture, in addition to if God is real. I understand that.

However, The context of this particular verse we are examining in the scriptures, in addition to the linguistic context of the biblical story, as a whole, demands this conclusion.

Yes. Man has made God in mans image in their minds eye. But as a result of not reading and comprehending the scriptures in the linguistic context it was written and/or simply not believing what was written in the bible they claim to cherish.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 10:06:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/11/2015 6:30:15 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:

Yes. As I stated. Absurd to suggest the words used, in the context of the sentence is to be applied with the same definition.

The Scripture we are examining:

" 26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Example: #1 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our image" ?? Really ?

This would be a redundant way of speech if the words were to be applied as the same definition.

Example #2 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our likeness"

The context of the verse demands two different definitions be applied.

Then, they probably shouldn't have used two terms that were synonyms. If we are to demand two different definitions, then those two terms need to be shown as being totally different.

What is difficult for scholars to figure out here ? This is just basics, We are not trying to understand and define some complex alien language we have no understanding of.

By all means then, feel free to redefine those terms and see if it works,
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 10:19:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 10:06:05 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 6:30:15 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:

Yes. As I stated. Absurd to suggest the words used, in the context of the sentence is to be applied with the same definition.

The Scripture we are examining:

" 26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Example: #1 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our image" ?? Really ?

This would be a redundant way of speech if the words were to be applied as the same definition.

Example #2 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our likeness"

The context of the verse demands two different definitions be applied.

Then, they probably shouldn't have used two terms that were synonyms. If we are to demand two different definitions, then those two terms need to be shown as being totally different.

What is difficult for scholars to figure out here ? This is just basics, We are not trying to understand and define some complex alien language we have no understanding of.

By all means then, feel free to redefine those terms and see if it works,

The two words can either hold the same meaning or different meaning. DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE THEY ARE BEING USED.

In this particular passage we are examining, It is evident, that "image" is to be defined as

"Image" defined as a masculine noun as in a structural "Image"

and "likeness" is to be defined as an ADV.

in the likeness of, like as/ IE: the qualities of Gods attributes.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 10:23:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 10:19:47 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:06:05 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 6:30:15 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:

Yes. As I stated. Absurd to suggest the words used, in the context of the sentence is to be applied with the same definition.

The Scripture we are examining:

" 26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Example: #1 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our image" ?? Really ?

This would be a redundant way of speech if the words were to be applied as the same definition.

Example #2 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our likeness"

The context of the verse demands two different definitions be applied.

Then, they probably shouldn't have used two terms that were synonyms. If we are to demand two different definitions, then those two terms need to be shown as being totally different.

What is difficult for scholars to figure out here ? This is just basics, We are not trying to understand and define some complex alien language we have no understanding of.

By all means then, feel free to redefine those terms and see if it works,

The two words can either hold the same meaning or different meaning. DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE THEY ARE BEING USED.

In this particular passage we are examining, It is evident, that "image" is to be defined as

"Image" defined as a masculine noun as in a structural "Image"

and "likeness" is to be defined as an ADV.

in the likeness of, like as/ IE: the qualities of Gods attributes.

Fair enough, but where in that verse is that particular distinction? It says nothing about 'qualities of Gods attributes'.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 10:56:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 10:23:45 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:19:47 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:06:05 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 6:30:15 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:

Yes. As I stated. Absurd to suggest the words used, in the context of the sentence is to be applied with the same definition.

The Scripture we are examining:

" 26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Example: #1 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our image" ?? Really ?

This would be a redundant way of speech if the words were to be applied as the same definition.

Example #2 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our likeness"

The context of the verse demands two different definitions be applied.

Then, they probably shouldn't have used two terms that were synonyms. If we are to demand two different definitions, then those two terms need to be shown as being totally different.

What is difficult for scholars to figure out here ? This is just basics, We are not trying to understand and define some complex alien language we have no understanding of.

By all means then, feel free to redefine those terms and see if it works,

The two words can either hold the same meaning or different meaning. DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE THEY ARE BEING USED.

In this particular passage we are examining, It is evident, that "image" is to be defined as

"Image" defined as a masculine noun as in a structural "Image"

and "likeness" is to be defined as an ADV.

in the likeness of, like as/ IE: the qualities of Gods attributes.

Fair enough, but where in that verse is that particular distinction? It says nothing about 'qualities of Gods attributes'.

That verse, in and of it, by itself, only allows us to understand the two words, "Image" and "likeness" are to be viewed with different meaning. According to the context of that particular statement.

We then, in order to understand, what different meanings they hold and in what context, we are required to continue reading the story (in context) to understand the two different meanings of the two words utilized, within that verse and its application.

This is just basic 101 reading and comprehension skills....

So, if one continues to read the story (in context) it becomes evident what the meaning is.

In which, I already laid out. God said let us make man in our "image." He already did that. He also said " in our LIKENESS" Part of the likeness of him was the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, that man did not posses. He knew that man would consume this KNOWLEDGE and placed it there not really thinking or believing man would not. But as part of a MASTER PLAN, to create man in their "LIKENESS" in which man did take of the KNOWLEDGE and then God said this once that part of his master plan played out:

"Behold, man has become LIKE ONE OF US"

And as one continues to read the bible (IN CONTEXT) it becomes evident the "Likeness" aspect of them "CREATING" man is still an ongoing process, but if one completes reading the book (IN CONTEXT) is becomes evident what the final outcome of the lengthy process is and why the length of time to complete the master plan he began in the beginning.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 11:05:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 10:56:05 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:23:45 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:19:47 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:06:05 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 6:30:15 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:

Yes. As I stated. Absurd to suggest the words used, in the context of the sentence is to be applied with the same definition.

The Scripture we are examining:

" 26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Example: #1 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our image" ?? Really ?

This would be a redundant way of speech if the words were to be applied as the same definition.

Example #2 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our likeness"

The context of the verse demands two different definitions be applied.

Then, they probably shouldn't have used two terms that were synonyms. If we are to demand two different definitions, then those two terms need to be shown as being totally different.

What is difficult for scholars to figure out here ? This is just basics, We are not trying to understand and define some complex alien language we have no understanding of.

By all means then, feel free to redefine those terms and see if it works,

The two words can either hold the same meaning or different meaning. DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE THEY ARE BEING USED.

In this particular passage we are examining, It is evident, that "image" is to be defined as

"Image" defined as a masculine noun as in a structural "Image"

and "likeness" is to be defined as an ADV.

in the likeness of, like as/ IE: the qualities of Gods attributes.

Fair enough, but where in that verse is that particular distinction? It says nothing about 'qualities of Gods attributes'.

That verse, in and of it, by itself, only allows us to understand the two words, "Image" and "likeness" are to be viewed with different meaning. According to the context of that particular statement.

We then, in order to understand, what different meanings they hold and in what context, we are required to continue reading the story (in context) to understand the two different meanings of the two words utilized, within that verse and its application.

This is just basic 101 reading and comprehension skills....

So, if one continues to read the story (in context) it becomes evident what the meaning is.

In which, I already laid out. God said let us make man in our "image." He already did that. He also said " in our LIKENESS" Part of the likeness of him was the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, that man did not posses. He knew that man would consume this KNOWLEDGE and placed it there not really thinking or believing man would not. But as part of a MASTER PLAN, to create man in their "LIKENESS" in which man did take of the KNOWLEDGE and then God said this once that part of his master plan played out:

"Behold, man has become LIKE ONE OF US"

And as one continues to read the bible (IN CONTEXT) it becomes evident the "Likeness" aspect of them "CREATING" man is still an ongoing process, but if one completes reading the book (IN CONTEXT) is becomes evident what the final outcome of the lengthy process is and why the length of time to complete the master plan he began in the beginning.

I think the problem here is your use of the phrase, "in context" which really doesn't help at all considering the vast amount of interpretations based on that phrase.

If we're talking about comprehension 101, then it's best to stick with the definitions of the words themselves, rather than attempting to redefine them to fit a particular interpretation.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
IRONHIDE
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2015 11:21:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/12/2015 11:05:25 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:56:05 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:23:45 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:19:47 AM, IRONHIDE wrote:
At 1/12/2015 10:06:05 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/11/2015 6:30:15 PM, IRONHIDE wrote:

Yes. As I stated. Absurd to suggest the words used, in the context of the sentence is to be applied with the same definition.

The Scripture we are examining:

" 26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Example: #1 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our image" ?? Really ?

This would be a redundant way of speech if the words were to be applied as the same definition.

Example #2 "Then God said let us make man in our image, in our likeness"

The context of the verse demands two different definitions be applied.

Then, they probably shouldn't have used two terms that were synonyms. If we are to demand two different definitions, then those two terms need to be shown as being totally different.

What is difficult for scholars to figure out here ? This is just basics, We are not trying to understand and define some complex alien language we have no understanding of.

By all means then, feel free to redefine those terms and see if it works,

The two words can either hold the same meaning or different meaning. DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT OF THE SENTENCE THEY ARE BEING USED.

In this particular passage we are examining, It is evident, that "image" is to be defined as

"Image" defined as a masculine noun as in a structural "Image"

and "likeness" is to be defined as an ADV.

in the likeness of, like as/ IE: the qualities of Gods attributes.

Fair enough, but where in that verse is that particular distinction? It says nothing about 'qualities of Gods attributes'.

That verse, in and of it, by itself, only allows us to understand the two words, "Image" and "likeness" are to be viewed with different meaning. According to the context of that particular statement.

We then, in order to understand, what different meanings they hold and in what context, we are required to continue reading the story (in context) to understand the two different meanings of the two words utilized, within that verse and its application.

This is just basic 101 reading and comprehension skills....

So, if one continues to read the story (in context) it becomes evident what the meaning is.

In which, I already laid out. God said let us make man in our "image." He already did that. He also said " in our LIKENESS" Part of the likeness of him was the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, that man did not posses. He knew that man would consume this KNOWLEDGE and placed it there not really thinking or believing man would not. But as part of a MASTER PLAN, to create man in their "LIKENESS" in which man did take of the KNOWLEDGE and then God said this once that part of his master plan played out:

"Behold, man has become LIKE ONE OF US"

And as one continues to read the bible (IN CONTEXT) it becomes evident the "Likeness" aspect of them "CREATING" man is still an ongoing process, but if one completes reading the book (IN CONTEXT) is becomes evident what the final outcome of the lengthy process is and why the length of time to complete the master plan he began in the beginning.

I think the problem here is your use of the phrase, "in context" which really doesn't help at all considering the vast amount of interpretations based on that phrase.

If we're talking about comprehension 101, then it's best to stick with the definitions of the words themselves, rather than attempting to redefine them to fit a particular interpretation.

We are using the definitions themselves of both these words. But reading ad comprehensions REQUIRES one to apply the appropriate definition in the CONTEXT of the story.

What is so difficult to comprehend in that reality of proper reading and comprehending ?

Ok... Lets not utilize proper methods in reading and comprehension and throw education out the window.

Lets use vast personal interpretation like in the case of DUM Newton you cited in biblehub.com

His interpretation is that "likness" and "Image" must be rendered as the same meaning. Thus this highly educated bible scholar begins to talk like this:

God said let us make man in our image, in our image and let them have dominion over the earth.

The guy begins to sound like he either has a stuttering problem and/or threw all intelligence out the window and went full retard in an attempt to "Interpret"

Get Real....