I understand; take literally those things that coincide with one's beliefs and tag all others as allegory, myth, parable, folklore, or . . . .
Not at all. I really don't see how you got this from what I said. If one wants to take the Bible seriously, whether it is in the form of critiquing it or studying it, one needs to understand the various forms of genre, and literary techniques that are employed. To simply take only literally what coincides with one's beliefs is ridiculous, and a disservice. It is also very disrespectful, which is why I don't indulge in doing such.
This story is clearly not meant to be literal. It is written in a mythological creation story. It conforms to the genre of myth, which should tell us that the intention of the story then is to relate a "truth."
No it doesn't, so why bring it up?
Because you implied that was the case. By saying that you are practically indistinguishable from God, I thought it was worth bringing up that that is not what the verse is actually saying.
But the word isn't qualified, is it, which would be as god wanted it (the Bible being his inspired word and all---can't imaging god letting his scribes misquote his intention.) So I wouldn't think second guessing him is all that proper. Would you?
That's not how I view the Bible. Sure, the Bible may be the word of God, or inspired by God, but it was written by men. More so, we don't have the original manuscripts anyway, so even if the Bible was truly guided by the hand of God, it really means nothing as any length of comparing manuscripts will clearly show that there are dozens of scribal mistakes.
Also, there has been a long tradition, starting back with the early Hebrews, of interpreting and trying to explain what the Bible was saying (or what individual books are trying to relate). In Judaism, this is called the Oral Torah. There are also a variety of commentaries from ancient times as well. To me, if God did have a hand in writing the Bible, then I would also assume God wanted people to also discuss it.
So, I don't see this as second guessing. I see it as standing in a long line of individuals who look at the Bible and interpret it in a manner that is founded on a massive amount of research and study in order to get to the actual meaning so that it can be better understood.
So you're now saying that "image" shouldn't be taken metaphorically, or ideally. But what, that god has a penis, scrotum, nipples, a belly button . . . . . . and a vagina?
I may not have been clear here. I don't take the verse literally. My previous response was working with both taking the verse literally, as it appeared that is what you were doing in the OP. Because of that, I discussed what a literal reading actually said. If taken literally, it would only apply to image, and nothing else. This also means that the image of God is not clear anyway as there is quite a bit of diversity in humans, which would mean that whatever God actually looked like, it would not be what humans look like.
I then followed by saying that taking this verse literally simply is incorrect. It wasn't meant to be literal, but instead, to imply a truth. That truth can be debated.
And after just having told us that we resemble god "just image wise."
Kind of want (need) it both ways don't you. As I said: [you want to] take literally those things that coincide with one's beliefs and tag all others as allegory, myth, parable, folklore, or . . . . Pretty convenient, but hardy honest.
I think you just misunderstood me. I could have just came in here and said that your view of this verse simply is wrong as you are taking it literally, and leave it at that. However, I think such a brief comment is useless. So instead, I addressed the verse by first taking it in a literal fashion, and discerning what it was actually saying. I then followed up and said that taking it in a literal fashion is wrong. The two should go hand in hand, as a literal reading should show, by the impossibility of taking this verse 100% literally (because by taking it literal, it says pretty much nothing) that it is not meant to be literal.
So I'm not taking any of this literal, nor do I take only the portions literal that support my view point. But when you open a thread that is taking a verse literally, it seems logical to entertain that idea for the sake of argument.
Like too much in the Bible: contradictory.
What I said wasn't contradictory. Also, just because there are contradictions in the Bible really means nothing. In nearly any collection of books, you will see contradictions or disagreements. That is simply the nature of literature, especially theology. People see things differently. That doesn't mean that what they are seeing is wrong.
