hindupridemn
Defender of the Truth
states "male and female He created them"..... Doesn't this make it hard to assert the maleness of God? And doesn't it contradict the Adam and Eve story?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis 1:27
- Thread starter hindupridemn
- Start date
Dingbat
Avatar of Brittania
I guess it contradicts it if you assume the Bible is the literal word of God or you read Genesis in a literal manner. I have never seen anything in Genesis that suggests I should read it literally it is simply a creation myth with stories about obeying God. Then again I find my inability to take Genesis literally has put me on the outs with a lot of Abrahamic faiths so I am probably not the best person to answer.
Shermana
Heretic
There is some Jewish tradition that the humans created in Genesis 1:27 are NOT the same as the ones he created in the Garden, who are more of the "Prime humans'. The articulation of "The Adam" is to be noted. In this idea, 900 generations or so exist between them and Adam. This explanation also dashes some of the claims of the Documentary Hypothesis.
I would like to get a Talmud scholar (i.e. Levite) on whether the following is true:
http://www.koshertorah.com/PDF/shemitot.pdf
Here is Chagiga 13B for any fluent Hebrew readers.
http://e-daf.com/index.asp?ID=1554&size=1
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
There is no reason to think that it was intended to be read as a myth, virtually all the Jewish midrash accounts it as a literal perspective. The idea that it was meant to be read as a "myth" seems to be a modern liberal connotation from those who trying to hold on to their beliefs in the face of perceived threats from scientific theories. Until the 1800s, I don't think there was anyone calling Genesis a myth to be interpreted, and I welcome anyone to prove me wrong on this.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
no, not really.
It helps us to see that God is both masculine, as represented by the male, and feminine as represented by the female. He created mankind in his image...into the man he imbued his masculine qualities and gave Adam the role of being the leader or head of his family. To the woman he placed the feminine qualities so that she could be the nurturer of the family under the headship of the man.
So we can see God as an authoritative confident leader and as a caring and nurturing mother
The wisdom of Jehovah never ceases to amaze me.
The vast majority of people I've ever talked to assert that God has no gender.
Last I checked, the Creation story stated that God created both man and woman. I don't see any contradiction.
Words in Hebrew provide a rich source of midrash: see, e.g., king and kingdom.
Emet
New Member
I don't know how you are understanding that. In Biblical Hebrew, word order can be quite liberally messed around with. If that is what you refer to.
As for Adam and Eve, that is an interesting matter you've stumbled into. And I'm sure you don't want to hear about Lilit.
Levite
Higher and Higher
I didn't bother to read it, merely because it comes from Ariel bar Tzadok, who is a charlatan and a huckster. I wouldn't trust anything he says.
However, it is true that there is a Kabbalistic tradition, extending back to the mystics of the Talmud, that there were a great number of generations before Adam. Some say that these generations represent "failed attempts" as God slowly perfected human beings. Others say that they were generations of Adam Kadmon, the primal proto-human which was hermaphroditic, prior to the "splitting" of the hermaphroditic Adam Kadmon into male and female human beings. Still others say that these generations of Adam Kadmon were purely spiritual, and that "Adam" was created when the spirit of humans was finally prepared to inhabit the vessel that God would design for it. And there are other speculations also.
That chapter of Chagigah is a great one for early Kabbalah. Fascinating bit of the Talmud, really.
Some of our scholars say that the first story (Gen. 1:27) represents the primal condition of humanity, as a single, aggregate, hermaphroditic creature (the Hebrew literally reads "male and female He created him," hence the basis for the hermaphrodite hypothesis, although since the "him" refers to the creature adam-- that being the name of humanity, and the general word for "human being," over and above its being the proper name of the first human male-- it probably should be translated "it," since Hebrew has no neuter gender and defaults to male for neutrals).
Some say that it is simply a synthesis of the Adam and Eve story, which will be retold at greater length later.
But in any case, we don't claim that God is masculine. We use the masculine gender to refer to Him because Hebrew has no neuter gender in its grammar. Male imagery is often used, but we understand that to be just poetic anthropomorphisms. We do not believe that God has gender, because God has no physical body, and is the only One God, and thus has no need for sexual reproductive equipment. Some of our poets also use feminine imagery for God, and certain aspects of God are always spoken of in the feminine gender. But that doesn't mean God is female, either. God is beyond gender, being beyond physicality.
dantech
Well-Known Member
Just to add to what Levite has explained so well,
Genesis 1:26 does say that man was made in the image of God. If taken literally, this passage would mean that God has two arms, two legs, a face, and hair. But if God looks like a human being, why does Judaism go to such lengths to forbid us from drawing or sculpting Him? To avoid an anthropomorphic conclusion, Maimonides points out that image is an ambiguous term which sometimes denotes a resemblance in figure or shape. In English, we might say "He is the image of his father," meaning that two people look alike. But sometimes the degree of resemblance is much looser. If we say, "He was the very image of valor," no one would argue that valor has arms and legs. According to Maimonides, it is this second use of image which is the best approximation of the Biblical claim that man was made in God's image. What the text means is that, unlike anything else on earth, God made us in His image by endowing us with rational faculties. Interpreted this way, Genesis 1:26 is both true and important, yet does not imply that there is a physical resemblance between human beings and their Creator.
If you study Shir HaShirim, you will see that it sounds like a man speaking of a woman. It mentions the woman's shapes, eyes, breasts, etc... However, this has been interpreted in a way that makes you understand that it is actually God speaking about Israel. Because we can't visualize certain aspects of God's words, we use human terms.
The process is called eisegesis.
Shermana
Heretic
All the MORE reason to prohibit attempting to portray him if he has a physical body (which some of the ancient Jewish pseudipigrapha like 3 Enoch seems to indicate). There's absolutely no reason for believing God doesn't have a body, and the arguments against it are hollow. The word "likeness" nowhere ever means anything other than "physical similarity". Why is it a special exception here?
Also, it can be read as made in the image of the gods (angels), but that's for another story. Much midrash agrees that the "us" is referring to the "angels" who are the "sons of god", or "gods". There should be no question that the OT portrays these "sons of god" (gods) as human like. After all, man was made "A little lower than the gods".
Thus, the "likeness" question should be resolved fairly handily: Man was made in the PHYSICAL SIMILARITY of the "gods", the Angels.
I suppose the fact that Moses was able to see God's back was somehow metaphorical? Pray tell the metaphor for that.
Last edited:
Levite
Higher and Higher
It's not. There are various other places where tzelem means other things: "shadow," "reflection," "shade" (as in the shade of a tree or a roof), and in several of those places, the pshat (plain, surface meaning) usage is clearly not literal, but metaphorical. Likewise, the word d'mut is used variously to mean "resemblance," "similarity," "idea," "dream-vision," and "imitation," with several of these usages also clearly having a non-literal pshat.
That position reflects a couple of midrashim, which were the roots of one Rabbinic school of thought about what the plural usage in Bere****/Genesis might mean. It is by no means a dominant theme in the Midrash, or the only-- or even historically most cited-- reading of the text. It may be the one you like, but that does not mean that it must be "the" meaning of the text.
The word that is used is not the word for "back," which is gav. The word that is used is achorai, which can mean "that which is behind Me" (and in Midrashic anthropomorphism is usually understood as the back of the head or nape of the neck, rather than the back properly), but properly, the word should mean something more akin to "that which follows Me" or "that which comes after Me." The classical commentators generally understand it to mean a kind of "wake" of radiance left by the passage of the Divine Glory. Some have also said that it refers to God's actions: we know God's presence not by theophanic revelation but by His compassion, forgiveness, mercy, and justice. But even those rabbis that have referenced the anthropomorphic midrashim make it clear that those are midrashim-- parable-- the text is not to be understood as implying that God has a physical "back" or "face" or any other physical part.
Shermana
Heretic
I would argue that in every case where D'mut is used, the "imitation" and "resemblance" and "Similarity" and "dream-vision" is intended to imply "something that LOOKS PHYSICALLY" like the object in question. Strong's Hebrew: 1823. ??????? (demuth) -- 25 Occurrences
Now as for "image" which is not the word I was referring to originally, I would say similarly, the overwhelming definition of such seems to be "physical copy" or "physical appearance" of.
Even where its referred to as a metaphor, the concept is as a literal description. I fail to see where the words are actually used in a way to describe something that's not an explicit physical recreation, please show a single example, even in metaphorical usage. If the term can mean a vision which doesn't imply a direct physical image of something, then you'd have a case. But it seems the word was intended to only ever refer to a physical image, not some abstract metaphorical spiritual description.
I agree that it's only SOME (Much) Midrash, and doesn't necessarily act as the defining Midrash. However, I do take notice that it says "Let us" and "our". Part of what makes "Elohim" singular is the use of the singular verbs, conjunctions, and pronouns, am I incorrect? This issue also comes up in other places where Elohim is oft translated as "God" but seems to indicate "gods" by grammar. Either way, this demonstrates that there was at least some Rabbinical tradition with this concept, even if the majority didn't agree. I fail to see however any other example where Ha-Elohim (THE god) refers to himself as "us" and "our".
That doesn't really jive too well with the context of the story. The context is that he's not allowed to see his face.
Last edited:
Levite
Higher and Higher
I am away from my desk, so I don't have a Tanach or concordance to hand, but off the top of my head, in Ps. 39, it says ach b'tzelem yit'halech ish, ach hevel yehemayun yitzbor, v'lo yeda mi osfam "In mere imitation [of life] man walks, in mere futility he stockpiles wealth, never knowing who will gather it." And in Ps. 91:1 it says yoshev b'seter elyon, b'tzel shadai yitlonan "He who dwells in the fortress of the Highest, finds sanctuary in the protection [lit. "shade"] of the Almighty."
And likewise, in the twelfth chapter of Hoshea, it says ve-dibarti 'al ha-nevi'im, v'anochi chazon hirbeiti, u'v'yad ha-nevi'im adameh "I spoke by way of the prophets, I caused prophetic visions to increase: through the prophets I made parables [lit. "by the hand of the prophets I became metaphor"]. Perhaps even more on point, Isaiah 40:18 asks, v'el mi tidamyun el, u'mah d'mut ta'archo "To what can you compare God? What similar thing can you measure against Him?"
It probably helps to know that panim, which means "face," also means "presence," "[in] front [of]," "[in] person," "directly" and "aspect."
So when God says et panai lo tireh ("you shall not see 'my face'") panai is not being used there to literally mean "face," but to signify a kind of direct revelation of God's "full" presence. These kinds of metaphorical uses are quite common.
Shermana
Heretic
The use of Tselem as "imitation" in Psalm 39:6 only enhances my case. As for "Tsel" in 91:1, we see that the word "Shadow" does in fact have a connotation of what an "image" implies. And what is a shadow? The physical shape, even if its not the same thing. Both your examples prove my case.
I believe that's a different word being used for "vision" in Hosea 12:10, Chazon.
"Similar thing" you say? And that goes against what I said how exactly? If a "likeness" can be read as a "Similar thing" in another context well then, that's kinda point, game and match. As we see, the word "Likeness" does in fact mean "Similar thing" as in physical tangible concept.
I'd love to see a single instance where it is in fact used as "presence" and not as "face/surface". Unless you're referring to "attention", which is not something Moses could see. When its used as "presence" I believe its used in the sense of "Field of vision" which is similar to our use of "about face", the idea that one's "face" is their "presence", but this interpretation of Moses's encounter would imply that God has a limited presence. I don't think the author had an idea of "full presence vs partial presence". Did Adam and Eve have a point where they were outside of God's presence? Is the word "presence" used to describe God's being dwelling in the Temple? If there's an example of "presence" being used to describe His presence in the Temple, then I'll rethink this position. But I don't think the word 'Presence" here with "face" means what "presence" would mean in English particularly at face value.
Strong's Hebrew: 6440. ??????? (panim or paneh) -- face, faces
If you're referring to things like Genesis 3:8, that's only an opinion as other translations use "face" instead of "presence" so its apparently not so concrete and may have in fact been a change by editors who didn't want to anthropomorphize God. Do you have any examples where other translations don't use "face"? Do you have midrash examples of the use of Panim for "presence"? As far as I'm concerned, it literally means "face" and it was only revisioned to "presence" later. I have no reason to believe that "face" has ever been used for "presence" until modern translations. How could Adam and Eve hide themselves from the "presence" of God? If you hide yourselves from someone's presence, it's their face you're hiding yourselves from.
Additionally, if Cain left the "Presence" of God does that mean he saw it? Why was Cain able to see the presence but Moses couldn't? Now what you may to mean is "Before" as in "Presence before". In that case, there is no such thing as "to see God's presence", because one would be IN God's presence. It's not something you can see, it's a description of God's attention. Moses was clearly asking to see His actual face. Similar usage would be: "I failed in the face of the judges". The face of the judges is their attention. It's not something tangible.
[/QUOTE]
I'd like to see some of these "quite common" examples in other usage with the "Full presence" as opposed to the "partial presence". So far whenever I see Panim, I only see "face" or "Surface" or "presence" in the sense of one's attention in the same sense of "face" in English. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough. I can see the use for "presence" in some translations, but it appears to be interchangable with "face" each time, and I don't think I'm gonna have much luck finding the word used in Midrashic literature for anything other than "face". And even then, under your definition, to say that God has a "presence" means he has a finite, definable field of being. How is someone able to not be in His presence by your logic? What is his "Full presence" as opposed to his "partial presence" in this interpretation?
With that said though, I think we've shown that "Likeness" nonetheless always means "physical similiarity", and that "Image" has a base in "shadow" which pertains to "close physical image but not the real thing". But I have yet to see a case where these examples can give an indication of use outside of these parameters.
Last edited:
Levite
Higher and Higher
I think the lesson here is that if you go into the text determined to read it in the most literal possible way, regardless of style, usage, idiom, metaphor, and poetic imagery, then you will ignore those things at all costs when you encounter them.
Torah is poetry. It uses language in the ways such literature always does: by definition, full of rich imagery and metaphor and so forth. And on top of the poetic aspect, Torah is also full of mystical narratives, which are even more heavily and consciously employing of euphemism, simile, allegory, analogy, and allusory parable and imagery.
It's bad enough that translations inevitably run roughshod over Biblical Hebrew poetry; but it really should not be made worse by then failing to read even the translation as poetry, or even just as decently composed literature, by stripping out literary usage in nearly every form.
For example, tzel in Ps. 91:1 need have nothing to do with a person's shadow. The dominant image used for God in the first two verses isn't even anthropomorphic: God is liked to a fortress, a hilltop citadel. The word tzel is used more often in Tanach to describe the shade a tree casts than the shadow of a person or even an animal. And shade, whether cast by a tree or a fortress, is by no means simply equatable to a reflection of the form of the thing casting it.
And in the verse in Hoshea, the operative word isn't chazon, it's adameh, which is a form of domeh, which is the same root word as d'mut. And in that verse, it basically means "metaphor" or "parable." It is an abstract meaning, having nothing to do with a physical form.
You have already decided that God has physicality, at least in Biblical text. The fact that the text can easily be read in other ways clearly holds no interest for you. But while you may be able to make the text support your reading, you cannot make a case that it is the only reading, or even a dominant reading in Jewish tradition.
Shermana
Heretic
See my last edit. It seems that "Presence" in fact means "face".
In no way did I imply that it's the only or dominant reading in Jewish tradition. I'm just saying what I think WAS the only and dominant in ANCIENT (Pre Rabbinic) Jewish tradition.
This probably deserves its own thread, but I believe the Torah writers intended it to be read as literal history, not as "Mystical narratives".
And there's plenty of different opinions about what the 'idioms" and "metaphors" are, and there's plenty of Midrash that takes the most literal approach possible. To accuse someone of "ignoring" them because they disagree is not accurate.
My point remains, that it seems some of these "metaphors" and "idioms" are recent inventions that the ancients wouldn't have been familiar with, i.e. revisionism.
I will search for examples that it applies to the "shade" of the "shadow" rather than the shadow itself.
It may be a Conservative Jewish position to read it as poetry, but the Orthodox do not agree on that for the most part. Do you believe Genesis was intended as all metaphor by chance? I'll bring in Jayhawker if that's the case.
As for Hosea 12:10, the word "Parable" does in fact have a root of "likeness" because it implies that there's a similiarity in concept to the lesson being conveyed. So far, nothing has changed that the use of "likeness" only ever implies physical likeness in the text. Adamah is simply a usage of a word BASED on "likeness".
As for Psalm 91:1, it doesn't have to mean "shadow" in its literal use for the word to have a metaphorical connotation, now can you find any OTHER examples where the word BASED on "likeness" is used as such? It wouldn't be able to be used if it didn't have that original literal meaning. Metaphors are based on literal meaning. In this case, gramatically it's much different than the case of "In their likeness they made them". There's simply no way to read "in their likeness" as a metaphorical way without abstractions that have no textual support.
In no way did I imply that it's the only or dominant reading in Jewish tradition. I'm just saying what I think WAS the only and dominant in ANCIENT (Pre Rabbinic) Jewish tradition.
This probably deserves its own thread, but I believe the Torah writers intended it to be read as literal history, not as "Mystical narratives".
And there's plenty of different opinions about what the 'idioms" and "metaphors" are, and there's plenty of Midrash that takes the most literal approach possible. To accuse someone of "ignoring" them because they disagree is not accurate.
My point remains, that it seems some of these "metaphors" and "idioms" are recent inventions that the ancients wouldn't have been familiar with, i.e. revisionism.
I will search for examples that it applies to the "shade" of the "shadow" rather than the shadow itself.
It may be a Conservative Jewish position to read it as poetry, but the Orthodox do not agree on that for the most part. Do you believe Genesis was intended as all metaphor by chance? I'll bring in Jayhawker if that's the case.
As for Hosea 12:10, the word "Parable" does in fact have a root of "likeness" because it implies that there's a similiarity in concept to the lesson being conveyed. So far, nothing has changed that the use of "likeness" only ever implies physical likeness in the text. Adamah is simply a usage of a word BASED on "likeness".
As for Psalm 91:1, it doesn't have to mean "shadow" in its literal use for the word to have a metaphorical connotation, now can you find any OTHER examples where the word BASED on "likeness" is used as such? It wouldn't be able to be used if it didn't have that original literal meaning. Metaphors are based on literal meaning. In this case, gramatically it's much different than the case of "In their likeness they made them". There's simply no way to read "in their likeness" as a metaphorical way without abstractions that have no textual support.
Last edited: