• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

In God's Image?

S

steve_bank

Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
13,769
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
Genesis 1:26-27 ESV / 290 helpful votes
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Click to expand...

The plural in Genesis has always puzzled me.

If we are in god's image, or god and friends., then we are as god. Violent, greedy, petty, and warlike.

If we take the passage as poetry and metaphor instead of a literal belief it makes sense. We are self described gods or god like with dominion over the Earth. The Earth is for us humans to consume.
 
The word image comes from the Latin word used in translation of the Hebrew OT.

The word of the Hebrew Torah. Tzelem. Which has several meanings. Including idol.
 
steve_bank said:
The plural in Genesis has always puzzled me.
Click to expand...
It was written into the Authorised Version under instruction from James VI of Scotland, and I of England, using the royal plural.

English monarchs have long indicated their status as representative of the nation as a whole, though the use of "we" as a personal pronoun; Extending this exclusive courtesy to God, as ruler of everything, wouldn't appear in any way strange to anyone familiar with Early Modern English as employed by British monarchs.

There are other parts of Genesis that suggest God may have been a part of a wider pantheon; But the mere use of plural pronouns isn't a good indicator of that.
 
bilby said:
steve_bank said:
The plural in Genesis has always puzzled me.
Click to expand...
It was written into the Authorised Version under instruction from James VI of Scotland, and I of England, using the royal plural.

English monarchs have long indicated their status as representative of the nation as a whole, though the use of "we" as a personal pronoun; Extending this exclusive courtesy to God, as ruler of everything, wouldn't appear in any way strange to anyone familiar with Early Modern English as employed by British monarchs.

There are other parts of Genesis that suggest God may have been a part of a wider pantheon; But the mere use of plural pronouns isn't a good indicator of that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The Original Testament wasn't written in English.

It's a vague translation based on an ancient story. Pretending that you can parse out the meaning of the words of God, as told by a primitive alien culture, is kinda ridiculous.
But religious.
Tom
 
bilby said:
steve_bank said:
The plural in Genesis has always puzzled me.
Click to expand...
It was written into the Authorised Version under instruction from James VI of Scotland, and I of England, using the royal plural.

English monarchs have long indicated their status as representative of the nation as a whole, though the use of "we" as a personal pronoun; Extending this exclusive courtesy to God, as ruler of everything, wouldn't appear in any way strange to anyone familiar with Early Modern English as employed by British monarchs.

There are other parts of Genesis that suggest God may have been a part of a wider pantheon; But the mere use of plural pronouns isn't a good indicator of that.
Click to expand...
It wasn't "written in", Elohim is grammatically plural and takes plural pronouns, in Hebrew. Those who try to obscure that fact in English translation are "writing out" inconvenient facts.
 
I think the point is we have no idea of the intent or what the story meant to the ancient Hebrews who wrote it.

Humans created the Genesis myth of a humanoid god and company creating humans in their image.

Throughout all of the Star Trek saga with exceptions aliens are humanoid, and if not humanoid imbued with human qualities,

That the Hebrew god is a reflection of humans is to be expected.

Greek gods are humans with supernatural powers, demigods semi supernatural.

More modern Superman. The X-Men.

How the Hebrew god was crafted in the image of humans is no mystery.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
So what are god's pronouns?

Is it He/Him/they/them?
Click to expand...
The names and titles of G-d in the Hebrew Scriptures are many and various, and most take on particular associated pronouns. So male, female, and collective/"royal" pronouns are all used at various points, but it wouldn't be correct to treat them as interchangeable or necessarily referring to the same personality.

If this seems confusing, it's worth remembering G-d neither is, nor is meant to be, portrayed in a simple and comprehensible fashion in the HS; these were the official records of an explicitly theocratic state with a fairly complicated theology, not a novel or pamphlet written with a popular audience in mind. Indeed, there was no such thing as a literate popular audience at the time.
 
steve_bank said:
I think the point is we have no idea of the intent or what the story meant to the ancient Hebrews who wrote it.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the thing about eschewing all scholarship, Steve. It leaves you with the impression that everything is mysterious and unknowable, when in fact there are a great many facts in the world.

Like whether or not "Elohim" is in the plural form in the HS.
 
Politesse said:
bilby said:
steve_bank said:
The plural in Genesis has always puzzled me.
Click to expand...
It was written into the Authorised Version under instruction from James VI of Scotland, and I of England, using the royal plural.

English monarchs have long indicated their status as representative of the nation as a whole, though the use of "we" as a personal pronoun; Extending this exclusive courtesy to God, as ruler of everything, wouldn't appear in any way strange to anyone familiar with Early Modern English as employed by British monarchs.

There are other parts of Genesis that suggest God may have been a part of a wider pantheon; But the mere use of plural pronouns isn't a good indicator of that.
Click to expand...
It wasn't "written in", Elohim is grammatically plural and takes plural pronouns, in Hebrew. Those who try to obscure that fact in English translation are "writing out" inconvenient facts.
Click to expand...
I wasn't trying to imply that it was new; Just that it was unremarkable.

Indeed, it would be remarkable if monarchs were to refer to themselves in the singular; And even more remarkable if they were to fail to give God the same courtesy, while claiming Him as their patron.

I'm sure nobody is seeking to suggest that there was more than one Queen Victoria, on the grounds that she famously said "We are not amused".
 
Eschew? Sounds biblical.

No amount of 'scholarship' can say what was in the minds and what the cultural meaning in the time of the ancient Hebrews when it was written.

I read the Oxford commentary volume that goes along with Oxford bible I used in a philosophy comparative religion class.

There is no singular interpretation of the creation story, there are several possibilities.

We do not have all the ancient Hebrew writings, only the ones that survived. Job was probably part of a lost set of teaching materials. Job probably was about captivity which Hebrews in the day would have understood.

2500 years from now could people speaking a completely different language understand the cultural context of a small set of writings today, without any detailed accurate historical records using a dictionary?

What does your academic acumen say about that? Some scholars make a livng speculating on the unobservable. Some becme enmored in such speculation.

There is a saying about myths haveng a basis in facts.

The refence in Geneis to god and u plural may have been about real peole elevated to myth.

Arhceogy and antroplogy shows take scant physcal evdence and make wild ass guesses interpreting cultural significance.
 
If we are in the image of god does god have a penis?
 
bilby said:
steve_bank said:
The plural in Genesis has always puzzled me.
Click to expand...
It was written into the Authorised Version under instruction from James VI of Scotland, and I of England, using the royal plural.

English monarchs have long indicated their status as representative of the nation as a whole, though the use of "we" as a personal pronoun; Extending this exclusive courtesy to God, as ruler of everything, wouldn't appear in any way strange to anyone familiar with Early Modern English as employed by British monarchs.

There are other parts of Genesis that suggest God may have been a part of a wider pantheon; But the mere use of plural pronouns isn't a good indicator of that.
Click to expand...

God's sons. See Genesis 6, Job 1 and Job 2 for details.

Genesis 6
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Job 1
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom