'Man was created in the image of G-d'

[Ingledsva]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi disciple :

I reviewed your posts and think that we are speaking from two different base models that diverge on these discrete speculations (e.g. Jesus' motives). This is why I was confused regarding your description (it simply did not make sense given my base models and personal bias).


DIFFERING BASE MODELS

I grew up in a native Christianity that believed Jesus was also, in some way, God the Father (and the Holy Spirit as well). However, as I entered the historical context of early Judeo-christian texts, I abandoned that base model years ago, else, the early Judeo-Christian texts could never be coherent as a genre (since the base model of these early text assumed a Lord God that was a different individual than Jesus the son.)

I am probably so historically oriented / biased towards such pre-nicene models of the trinity where The Lord God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate individuals, that I am not sure I can speculate very accurately regarding discrete motives of Jesus/God/spirit inside the later models such as the Nicene theory or in any theory where these three are one individual.

Both Christian Models that believe God/Christ/and Holy Spirit are individuals as well as the models that believe all are one individual use similar words and similar biblical texts, but they mean different things to these two different worldviews.


MAN CREATED IN GODS’ “IMAGE”

For example, the OP uses as a premise : “Man was created in the image of G-d.”: “And God made man. According to [the] image of God he made him.” (gen 1:27)
The greek LXX uses the term “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God.

Koine Greek used this term for actual, physical, visual descriptions of individuals in official documents.
For example in BGU IV. 1059.7, εικονα (icon/image) is used to describe actual visual characteristics of a female slave (ης τα ετη και αι εικονις θποκειντα&#953.
P. Tebt I 32:21 (145 b.c.?) is another example of this same usage as well.
In P Ryl II. 156.33 (approx first century a.d.) it describes multiple individuals and their physical appearance (εικον&#945.

Early sacred texts use εικονα in an actual, visual context as well.
For example, when Barnabas explained that though “… Moses had commanded, “You shall not have a cast or a carved image for your God, nevertheless he himself made one in order to show them a symbol of Jesus.” (Epistle of Barnabas 12:6), this εικονα / icon or image he speaks of is clearly a visual and physical “image” and not a metaphor.

The point is that “image” in this sense was a word used to describe an actual, real, image and is not metaphorical or symbolic in vernacular usage. I can't think of any single early koine greek example of εικονα that is clearly used in early texts in a metaphorical sense. Can anyone else?

I think modern Christians started to use εικονα metaphorically as a mechanism to try to make the early texts harmonize to their beliefs rather than to harmonize their beliefs to what the texts said. For example :


TWO TYPES OF CHRISTIANITIES - AN EXAMPLE

Consider the way this word must be handled first, by a Christianity that believes God had an image (i.e. an appearance) in Gen 1:27 and a second Christianity that does NOT believe that God had an image in Gen 1:27.

While the first Christian movement may take Genesis 1:27 at it’s “face value” and in it’s "standard vernacular" and in it's obvious meaning . There is no need to change the vernacular definition of the word "image" into a metaphor or to attempt redefine "image" in any way..

The second christian movement that believes God had no icon; no appearance, and no “image” must change, and / or redefine the obvious meaning of the word "image" into a metaphor in order to create coherence and decrease disharmony between the obvious textual implication versus their own base belief on this specific point.

This repeated process of creating metaphors to explain the many similar disagreements between text and belief partially explains the multiplication of theories among Christian movements. In fact, the process of producing different metaphors encourages schisms and splits based on differing metaphors and theories while the Christianity that takes this specific example at face value can use such descriptions in the common vernacular and obvious meaning WITHOUT the same problem of coherence and their inherent coherence and harmony decreases schisms on this specific point (though schisms may occur on other points).

This process of “metaphorizing” texts repeats itself multiple times in multiple ways on multiple points of doctrine, in order to create coherence between text and belief. At some point, such spiritualizing and metaphorizing of the text may become a reflex and a standard refuge to which one finds sheltering explanations for difficult passages. It is however, difficult to make any firm rule regarding what is actual and what is metaphor (since metaphors certainly do exist in early texts…).



EARLY TEXTUAL USEAGE OF EIKONA / IMAGE WERE, USUALLY A VISUAL DESCRIPTION

In the case of Adam being made in the εικονα, icon or "image" of God, it is clear in much of the early sacred texts, this was not a metaphorical doctrine in early Christianity.

For example, an early Christian text describes a clear physical/visual meaning to the use of εικονα . / “image” when

“ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw(Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal…. “

Contextual descriptions in such texts are clearly describing an actual visual appearance of Adam before his “fall”.

And the angels and the hosts of heaven heard the Voice of God saying unto him, "Adam, behold; I have made thee king, and priest, and prophet, and lord, and head, and governor of everything which hath been made and created; and they shall be in subjection unto thee) and they shall be thine, and I have given unto thee power over everything which I have created." And when the angels heard this speech they all bowed the knee and worshiped Him. . Cave of Treasures (chapt on Creation of Adam)


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

Here from the Hebrew - is a use as metaphor.


Psa 39:5 Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah.

Psa 39:6 Surely every man walketh in illusion: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them.


As some old texts put it - a vain show (image) = illusion.


*

 

[Desert Snake]

Here from the Hebrew - is a use as metaphor.


Psa 39:5 Behold, thou hast made my days as an handbreadth; and mine age is as nothing before thee: verily every man at his best state is altogether vanity. Selah.

Psa 39:6 Surely every man walketh in illusion: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them.


As some old texts put it - a vain show (image) = illusion.


*

Genesis 2 really isn't indicative of that meaning.

 

[Ingledsva]

Genesis 2 really isn't indicative of that meaning.

This shows that it can be used as metaphor.


It doesn't have to be a physical "image" of Elohiym.



*

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]POST ONE OF TWO
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Clear # 172

Hi disciple :

I reviewed your posts and think that we are speaking from two different base models that diverge on these discrete speculations (e.g. Jesus' motives). This is why I was confused regarding your description (it simply did not make sense given my base models and personal bias).


DIFFERING BASE MODELS

I grew up in a native Christianity that believed Jesus was also, in some way, God the Father (and the Holy Spirit as well). However, as I entered the historical context of early Judeo-christian texts, I abandoned that base model years ago, else, the early Judeo-Christian texts could never be coherent as a genre (since the base model of these early text assumed a Lord God that was a different individual than Jesus the son.)

I am probably so historically oriented / biased towards such pre-nicene models of the trinity where The Lord God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate individuals, that I am not sure I can speculate very accurately regarding discrete motives of Jesus/God/spirit inside the later models such as the Nicene theory or in any theory where these three are one individual.

Both Christian Models that believe God/Christ/and Holy Spirit are individuals as well as the models that believe all are one individual use similar words and similar biblical texts, but they mean different things to these two different worldviews.


MAN CREATED IN GODS’ “IMAGE”

For example, the OP uses as a premise : “Man was created in the image of G-d.”: “And God made man. According to [the] image of God he made him.” (gen 1:27)
The greek LXX uses the term “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God.

Koine Greek used this term for actual, physical, visual descriptions of individuals in official documents.
For example in BGU IV. 1059.7, εικονα (icon/image) is used to describe actual visual characteristics of a female slave (ης τα ετη και αι εικονις θποκειντα&#953.
P. Tebt I 32:21 (145 b.c.?) is another example of this same usage as well.
In P Ryl II. 156.33 (approx first century a.d.) it describes multiple individuals and their physical appearance (εικον&#945.

Early sacred texts use εικονα in an actual, visual context as well.
For example, when Barnabas explained that though “… Moses had commanded, “You shall not have a cast or a carved image for your God, nevertheless he himself made one in order to show them a symbol of Jesus.” (Epistle of Barnabas 12:6), this εικονα / icon or image he speaks of is clearly a visual and physical “image” and not a metaphor.

The point is that “image” in this sense was a word used to describe an actual, real, image and is not metaphorical or symbolic in vernacular usage. I can't think of any single early koine greek example of εικονα that is clearly used in early texts in a metaphorical sense. Can anyone else?

I think modern Christians started to use εικονα metaphorically as a mechanism to try to make the early texts harmonize to their beliefs rather than to harmonize their beliefs to what the texts said. For example :


TWO TYPES OF CHRISTIANITIES - AN EXAMPLE

Consider the way this word must be handled first, by a Christianity that believes God had an image (i.e. an appearance) in Gen 1:27 and a second Christianity that does NOT believe that God had an image in Gen 1:27.

While the first Christian movement may take Genesis 1:27 at it’s “face value” and in it’s "standard vernacular" and in it's obvious meaning . There is no need to change the vernacular definition of the word "image" into a metaphor or to attempt redefine "image" in any way..

The second christian movement that believes God had no icon; no appearance, and no “image” must change, and / or redefine the obvious meaning of the word "image" into a metaphor in order to create coherence and decrease disharmony between the obvious textual implication versus their own base belief on this specific point.

This repeated process of creating metaphors to explain the many similar disagreements between text and belief partially explains the multiplication of theories among Christian movements. In fact, the process of producing different metaphors encourages schisms and splits based on differing metaphors and theories while the Christianity that takes this specific example at face value can use such descriptions in the common vernacular and obvious meaning WITHOUT the same problem of coherence and their inherent coherence and harmony decreases schisms on this specific point (though schisms may occur on other points).

This process of “metaphorizing” texts repeats itself multiple times in multiple ways on multiple points of doctrine, in order to create coherence between text and belief. At some point, such spiritualizing and metaphorizing of the text may become a reflex and a standard refuge to which one finds sheltering explanations for difficult passages. It is however, difficult to make any firm rule regarding what is actual and what is metaphor (since metaphors certainly do exist in early texts&#8230.



EARLY TEXTUAL USEAGE OF EIKONA / IMAGE WERE, USUALLY A VISUAL DESCRIPTION

In the case of Adam being made in the εικονα, icon or "image" of God, it is clear in much of the early sacred texts, this was not a metaphorical doctrine in early Christianity.

For example, an early Christian text describes a clear physical/visual meaning to the use of εικονα . / “image” when

“ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw(Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal…. “

Contextual descriptions in such texts are clearly describing an actual visual appearance of Adam before his “fall”.

And the angels and the hosts of heaven heard the Voice of God saying unto him, "Adam, behold; I have made thee king, and priest, and prophet, and lord, and head, and governor of everything which hath been made and created; and they shall be in subjection unto thee) and they shall be thine, and I have given unto thee power over everything which I have created." And when the angels heard this speech they all bowed the knee and worshiped Him. . Cave of Treasures (chapt on Creation of Adam)

[/FONT]

POST TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO

[FONT=&quot]Clear # 173[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Such description don’t just use εικονα (or "image") as an indication of visual context, but also forms of greek ομοιωμα (or "likeness") are often also used in such descriptions of Adams’ appearance. Ομοιωμα is distinguished from εικων since it implies an archetype, the “likeness” or “form”.

The great Greek linguist Moulton, uses the example of ομιοωμα, “as one egg is like another” (The eggs are not exactly the same, but so close to the same that one may not tell the difference in his example from OGIS 669.62 (from first century a.d.). This is another “visual” context since, In other, non-visual contexts, one may see ομολογεω used, indicating two individuals simply “agree with” each another (without the indication of a visual “sameness&#8221.

A good example of both words being used in such a context is from the early Christian text Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1 when Lucifer is describing to Adam, one main reason for his (Lucifers') fall from heaven. Lucifer tells Adam : “…God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God….” And “the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.” Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1

These two terms forms of εικονα and ομοιωμα became ingrained not only in texts, but into the oral liturgies and prayers of early Christianity. For example, in one Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer, the prayer reads :

“And the goal of the creative work – the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness”... 24 But when man was disobedient, You took away his deserved life. 25 You did not make it disappear absolutely, but for a time, 26 having put (him) to sleep for a little (while), by an oath you have called (him forth) to new birth. 27 You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope!(aposCon 7.34.1-8)


Such examples often seen in early textual traditions are so obviously and consistently a physical, visual context that one cannot mistake some descriptions for metaphor.

For example from Jewish Haggadah repeats this same theme of physical appearance :

“When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. ‘The Lord reigns,’ “ he continued, “‘he is appareled with majesty.’” And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, “ when God caused sleep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.” (The Haggadah -Woman)

Whether early traditions are correct or not, still, they did conceive of Adam having the same image (εικον&#945 and likeness (ομοιωμ&#945 as his creator.

In fact, the most common post c.e. tradition that is common to all three Abrahamic religions (i.e. early Judaism and Christianity AND early Islam) IS the tradition concerning the fall of Lucifer, and it concerns the honoring of Adam, as the image and likeness of God. Though the story/tradition exists in multiple texts common to all three Abrahamic traditions, Christian Vita is a good example of this genre of literature. Satan explained to Adam the motive for Satans’ enmity against Adam and God, saying :

When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ Ch 14 1 And Michael went out and called all the angels, saying, ‘Honor the image of the LORD God, as the LORD God has instructed. And Michael himself honored [him] first, and called me and said, ‘Honor the image of God, Yahweh. 3 And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to honor me.’ (Vita) 12:1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3

This very famous and widespread historical tradition has Satan explaining that he not only existed before Adam, but was superior to Adam who “is made of dust” whereas Satan claims he was “made of fire” and claims superiority to Adam. The point is that almost all such traditions are in the context of Adam being made according to an actual visual image and likeness of his Creator, rather than simply a metaphorical image and likeness. Thus early Christian doctrines and traditions differed in this specific point from the later Christian traditions.

I was typing between appointments at work and I just got off. I’m going to quit here disciple. My point is that "image" and "likeness" used in Genesis 1:27 (LXX) were not generally used in any metaphorical sense in any common usage anciently.

Katzpur – I saw your post but simply ran out of time. Hopefully this post will also apply to your point as well.

See you

Clear
εινεειτω [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ingledsva[/FONT][FONT=&quot] # 181 [/FONT]

"Here from the Hebrew - is a use as metaphor. Psa 39:6 Surely every man walketh in illusion: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them. As some old texts put it - a vain show (image) = illusion.“

Disciple # 182

"Genesis 2 really isn't indicative of that meaning."

Ingledsva # 183

"It doesn't have to be a physical "image" of Elohiym."

OK disciple, I think I understand the point being made here.

To help me try to understand the context of the two posts in red, I twirled in my office chair until I was dizzy, while sniffing an energy drink up my nose. That seemed to help me overcome obvious issues of credibility; inaccurate mixing of languages and culture, etc, ; as well as helped with the very, very strange translation we were offered for Psalm 38:6 (is 39:6 IN Mt).

NOW, I think I understand the possible point being made is this : The entirely koine GREEK word “εικονα”, when it is (somehow...and in some way...) used “in Hebrew”, can then be used as a possible metaphor (maybe…. )

It is like the English word “missed” (i.e. I “missed” the target) , which sounds like the german word “mist”, which then has obvious meaning for German ears …, (and yet "mist" retains it's accurate metaphoric description of this proposal...)

The post attempting to make this point only appears obviously irrelevant for say, the first two or three hours... BUT, IF one is willing to stare at it long enough (it helps to cross your eyes a bit as well) it becomes more relevant...I think.


For example, if we try to use εικονα in a sentence in a context we are discussing, and follow the posted suggestion, we end up with : “Man was created in the illusion of God.”

Oops, Hmmm, lets think about that for a moment … ok, I'm done considering it. It doesn't work.


I do like the idea of metaphorical applications to εικονα in a visual context, but this example of "illusion" doesn't work in this context and on the planet where the rest of us live. (I do think some of the other translations come closer to possible metaphorical uses of εικονα - for examples : LXX uses).

Clear
τωεισετζω

does anyone know whether I spelled the german word "mist" correctly? If not, how do the Germans' spell it? (My german is rusty...)

 

[Ingledsva]

POST TWO

[FONT=&quot]Clear # 173[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Ingledsva[/FONT][FONT=&quot] # 181 [/FONT] Disciple # 182 Ingledsva # 183OK disciple, I think I understand the point being made here.

To help me try to understand the context of the two posts in red, I twirled in my office chair until I was dizzy, while sniffing an energy drink up my nose. That seemed to help me overcome obvious issues of credibility; inaccurate mixing of languages and culture, etc, ; as well as helped with the very, very strange translation we were offered for Psalm 38:6 (is 39:6 IN Mt).

NOW, I think I understand the possible point being made is this : The entirely koine GREEK word “εικονα”, when it is (somehow...and in some way...) used “in Hebrew”, can then be used as a possible metaphor (maybe…. )

It is like the English word “missed” (i.e. I “missed” the target) , which sounds like the german word “mist”, which then has obvious meaning for German ears …, (and yet "mist" retains it's accurate metaphoric description of this proposal...)

The post attempting to make this point only appears obviously irrelevant for say, the first two or three hours... BUT, IF one is willing to stare at it long enough (it helps to cross your eyes a bit as well) it becomes more relevant...I think.


For example, if we try to use εικονα in a sentence in a context we are discussing, and follow the posted suggestion, we end up with : “Man was created in the illusion of God.”

Oops, Hmmm, lets think about that for a moment … ok, I'm done considering it. It doesn't work.


I do like the idea of metaphorical applications to εικονα in a visual context, but this example of "illusion" doesn't work in this context and on the planet where the rest of us live. (I do think some of the other translations come closer to possible metaphorical uses of εικονα - for examples : LXX uses).

Clear
τωεισετζω

does anyone know whether I spelled the german word "mist" correctly? If not, how do the Germans' spell it? (My german is rusty...)

Are you trying to be funny?

YOU took a HEBREW verse and gave us the GREEK translation of it.


Telling us the Greek word for IMAGE could by used one way- for the Hebrew verse.


I took it back to the HEBREW and showed another HEBREW verse showing that it CAN be used as metaphor!


And as such - that metaphor can take multiple forms.





*

 

[Clear]

POST ONE

1) “Are you trying to be funny?” Ingledsva # 186

Are you trying to display stupidity, illogic, twisting claims of others while offering dishonest claims as to your levels of knowledge in Hebrew and Greek as well as trying to be irrational?

Ingledsva; honestly, do yourself a favor and try to pick your arguments more carefully, rather than argue about every petty issue. Try to stay with the more important points rather than petty points. Try to stay with things you know something about and try to recognize that you (and the rest of us) have errors in our beliefs and so we will occasionally have to admit to errors in our data. You will gain more respect by doing these things, than by claiming to know things you do not know and then having your real knowledge level be revealed in petty arguments.




2)You said : “YOU took a HEBREW verse and gave us the GREEK translation of it.” Ingledsva # 186

Now you are trying to display stupidity, illogic and irrationality.

I did not quote a single Hebrew verse in my response, but instead quoted from the LXX which is a Greek bible. Εικονα is a greek work which does not exist in Hebrew. My comments had to do with Christian theology (with Jewish undertones) and I generally use the texts the Christians used in discussions about Christian theology. Those texts are often Greek and rarely in Hebrew.

Here is how I used the greek word εικονα :

The OP premise said : “Man was created in the image of G-d.”: “And God made man. According to [the] image of God he made him.” (gen 1:27)

I responded to the OP originator by :

&#913 Discussing the Koine Greek Term εικονα in it’s typical usage using examples from papyri of the period and from Christian Barnabas

&#914 I discussed how different Christianities were affected by their base beliefs regarding "the 'εικονα' / 'image' of God"

C) I gave multiple examples from early religious texts regarding the context of "εικονα" / "Image" in a visual context to show how the term was employed in early Christian Context.

Below are these three areas of discussion I offered :


A) HOW ΕΙΚΟΝΑ WAS USED IN KOINE GREEK

The greek LXX uses the term “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God.

Koine Greek used this term for actual, physical, visual descriptions of individuals in official documents.
For example in BGU IV. 1059.7, εικονα (icon/image) is used to describe actual visual characteristics of a female slave (ης τα ετη και αι εικονις θποκειντα&#953.
P. Tebt I 32:21 (145 b.c.?) is another example of this same usage as well.
In P Ryl II. 156.33 (approx first century a.d.) it describes multiple individuals and their physical appearance (εικον&#945.

Early sacred texts use εικονα in an actual, visual context as well.
For example, when Barnabas explained that though “… Moses had commanded, “You shall not have a cast or a carved image for your God, nevertheless he himself made one in order to show them a symbol of Jesus.” (Epistle of Barnabas 12:6), this εικονα / icon or image he speaks of is clearly a visual and physical “image” and not a metaphor.

The point is that “image” in this sense was a word used to describe an actual, real, image and is not metaphorical or symbolic in vernacular usage. I can't think of any single early koine greek example of εικονα that is clearly used in early texts in a metaphorical sense. Can anyone else?

I think modern Christians started to use εικονα metaphorically as a mechanism to try to make the early texts harmonize to their beliefs rather than to harmonize their beliefs to what the texts said.

B) HOW DIFFERENT BASE BELIEFS REACT TO THE USE OF “EIKONA” AS AN “IMAGE”

For example :

TWO TYPES OF CHRISTIANITIES - AN EXAMPLE

Consider the way this word must be handled first, by a Christianity that believes God had an image (i.e. an appearance) in Gen 1:27 and a second Christianity that does NOT believe that God had an image in Gen 1:27.

While the first Christian movement may take Genesis 1:27 at it’s “face value” and in it’s "standard vernacular" and in it's obvious meaning . There is no need to change the vernacular definition of the word "image" into a metaphor or to attempt redefine "image" in any way..

The second christian movement that believes God had no icon; no appearance, and no “image” must change, and / or redefine the obvious meaning of the word "image" into a metaphor in order to create coherence and decrease disharmony between the obvious textual implication versus their own base belief on this specific point.

This repeated process of creating metaphors to explain the many similar disagreements between text and belief partially explains the multiplication of theories among Christian movements. In fact, the process of producing different metaphors encourages schisms and splits based on differing metaphors and theories while the Christianity that takes this specific example at face value can use such descriptions in the common vernacular and obvious meaning WITHOUT the same problem of coherence and their inherent coherence and harmony decreases schisms on this specific point (though schisms may occur on other points).

This process of “metaphorizing” texts repeats itself multiple times in multiple ways on multiple points of doctrine, in order to create coherence between text and belief. At some point, such spiritualizing and metaphorizing of the text may become a reflex and a standard refuge to which one finds sheltering explanations for difficult passages. It is however, difficult to make any firm rule regarding what is actual and what is metaphor (since metaphors certainly do exist in early texts&#8230.

C) USE OF EIKONA AND ΟΜΙΟΩΜΑ IN THE CONTEXT OF GOD AND MANKIND IN EARLY TEXTS

EARLY TEXTUAL USEAGE OF EIKONA / IMAGE WERE, USUALLY A VISUAL DESCRIPTION

In the case of Adam being made in the εικονα, icon or "image" of God, it is clear in much of the early sacred texts, this was not a metaphorical doctrine in early Christianity.

For example, an early Christian text describes a clear physical/visual meaning to the use of εικονα . / “image” when

“ God formed Adam with His holy hands, in His own Image and Likeness and when the angels saw Adam's glorious appearance they were greatly moved by the beauty thereof. For they saw(Fol. 5a, col. 2) the image of his face burning with glorious splendor like the orb of the sun, and the light of his eyes was like the light of the sun, and the image of his body was like unto the sparkling of crystal…. “

Contextual descriptions in such texts are clearly describing an actual visual appearance of Adam before his “fall”.

And the angels and the hosts of heaven heard the Voice of God saying unto him, "Adam, behold; I have made thee king, and priest, and prophet, and lord, and head, and governor of everything which hath been made and created; and they shall be in subjection unto thee) and they shall be thine, and I have given unto thee power over everything which I have created." And when the angels heard this speech they all bowed the knee and worshiped Him. .Cave of Treasures (chapt on Creation of Adam)

Such description don’t just use εικονα (or "image") as an indication of visual context, but also forms of greek ομοιωμα (or "likeness") are often also used in such descriptions of Adams’ appearance. Ομοιωμα is distinguished from εικων since it implies an archetype, the “likeness” or “form”.

The great Greek linguist Moulton, uses the example of ομιοωμα, “as one egg is like another” (The eggs are not exactly the same, but so close to the same that one may not tell the difference in his example from OGIS 669.62 (from first century a.d.). This is another “visual” context since, In other, non-visual contexts, one may see ομολογεω used, indicating two individuals simply “agree with” each another (without the indication of a visual “sameness&#8221.

A good example of both words being used in such a context is from the early Christian text Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1 when Lucifer is describing to Adam, one main reason for his (Lucifers') fall from heaven. Lucifer tells Adam : “…God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God….” And “the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.” Life of Adam and Eve (Vita) 41:2 and 42:1

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

USE OF EIKONA AND ΟΜΙΟΩΜΑ IN THE CONTEXT OF GOD AND MANKIND IN EARLY TEXTS (continued)

These two terms forms of εικονα and ομοιωμα became ingrained not only in texts, but into the oral liturgies and prayers of early Christianity. For example, in one Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer, the prayer reads :

“And the goal of the creative work – the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness”... 24 But when man was disobedient, You took away his deserved life. 25 You did not make it disappear absolutely, but for a time, 26 having put (him) to sleep for a little (while), by an oath you have called (him forth) to new birth. 27 You have loosed the boundary of death, You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope!(aposCon 7.34.1-8)

Such examples often seen in early textual traditions are so obviously and consistently a physical, visual context that one cannot mistake some descriptions for metaphor.

For example from Jewish Haggadah repeats this same theme of physical appearance :

“When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are your works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer his adoration. But he spoke : “Why do you come to worship me? Nay, you and I together will acknowledge the majesty and the might of him who has created us all. ‘The Lord reigns,’ “ he continued, “‘he is appareled with majesty.’” And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts, “ when God caused sleep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.” (The Haggadah -Woman)

Whether early traditions are correct or not, still, they did conceive of Adam having the same image (εικον&#945 and likeness (ομοιωμ&#945 as his creator.

In fact, the most common post c.e. tradition that is common to all three Abrahamic religions (i.e. early Judaism and Christianity AND early Islam) IS the tradition concerning the fall of Lucifer, and it concerns the honoring of Adam, as the image and likeness of God. Though the story/tradition exists in multiple texts common to all three Abrahamic traditions, Christian Vita is a good example of this genre of literature. Satan explained to Adam the motive for Satans’ enmity against Adam and God, saying :

When God blew into you the breath of life and your countenance and likeness were made in the image of God, Michael brought you and made (us) honor you in the sight of God, and the Lord God said, ‘Behold Adam! I have made you in our image and likeness.’ Ch 14 1 And Michael went out and called all the angels, saying, ‘Honor the image of the LORD God, as the LORD God has instructed. And Michael himself honored [him] first, and called me and said, ‘Honor the image of God, Yahweh. 3 And I answered, ‘I do not worship Adam.’ ...’Why do you compel me? I will not worship one inferior and subsequent to me. I am prior to him in creation; before he was made, I was already made. He ought to honor me.’ (Vita) 12:1-2, 13:13, 14:2-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3

This very famous and widespread historical tradition has Satan explaining that he not only existed before Adam, but was superior to Adam who “is made of dust” whereas Satan claims he was “made of fire” and claims superiority to Adam. The point is that almost all such traditions are in the context of Adam being made according to an actual visual image and likeness of his Creator, rather than simply a metaphorical image and likeness. Thus early Christian doctrines and traditions differed in this specific point from the later Christian traditions. &#8230.

4) Telling us the Greek word for IMAGE could by used one way- for the Hebrew verse. : Ingledsva # 186

You really are trying to display stupidity, illogic and irrationality.

I said the Greek word εικονα, when used in Koine Greek, almost always refers to a physical / visual context and usage, To support this statement, I used multiple examples from actual peri c.e. era greek papyri where εικονα was used in common greek to describe physical and visual characteristics.

I made no comment as to how any greek word could be used in a “Hebrew verse”. I do not believe Greek "εικονα" and Hebrew “ צלם” are equivalents (they are not). Thus, your failed attempt to create a metaphor for the Hebrew word and then imply the greek had an equivalent, was, complete stupidity. FIND SOMEONE WHO READS HEBREW AND ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU.

Ingledsva, do yourself a favor. Stop presuming that you can read Greek or Hebrew with anything approaching fluency and actually ASK SOMEONE WHO CAN READ GREEK OR HEBREW to help you understand these basic linguistic principles.

You are constantly presuming a greater knowledge than you have. For example, when you claim : I also translate the Hebrew and the Greek. My interest is the ancient spread of language, philosophy, and religion. (Ingledsva, #1360) Such claims cause irrepairable damage to your credibility when forum members see the obvious fact that you neither read nor translate greek nor Hebrew with anything approaching fluency.

Readers can see with their own eyes that your posts actually represent the same type of cutting and pasting from hebrew and greek dictionaries like most other posters do. Such Facades and inaccurate claims are DANGEROUS and often do MORE DAMAGE than the undeserved benefit they seem to bestow.

When you make the most basic of errors in linguistic logic, it then is painfully obvious to almost all of the readers on the forum that your claims in this regard are a façade and an overstatement meant to impress others and bestow undeserved credibility upon yourself.

To simply presume that because, a word in Hebrew (צל&#1501, can be a metaphor for “illusion”, that another word from an entirely different language; from an entirely different culture, from an entirely different time period; and in an entirely different religious context; has an identical metaphorical meaning, is simply stupidity, even inside “cut and paste thinking”. You are not doing “translation of the Greek”. It is a pretender; a “wannabe translator” who does these things.

Thus, when you make the silly and quite erroneous claim regarding the Greek word εικονα, saying : “I took it back to the HEBREW and showed another HEBREW verse showing that it CAN be used as metaphor!”, (ingledsa #186) forum readers with even minimal logical ability are able to recognize your error and illogic and irrationality in this attempt.

It’s not simply that you overstate what you actually did, but since you do not really read Hebrew of Greek with anything approaching fluidity or translational level ability, You didn’t’ “take GREEK εικονα "back to the HEBREW” (ingledsva # 186), (since it was never really IN hebrew...) but rather, you simply cut and pasted from dictionaries and from the work others have done and which you think you can use to make your point. You ended up with an almost unmanageable rending of the Hebrew.

And, since your “Hebrew verse” did NOT contain the greek word εικονa, thus you did not tell us anything about how the greeks (either pagans or Christians) would have used εικονα in koine Greek nor in it’s historical Christian religious context.

It was Eybers who suggested more than 40 years ago that צלם came from it’s root (צ&#1500 of “shadow” or “darkness”. It is NOT a “cut and paste” equivalent for greek εικονα or ομιοωμα. Stop claiming that you are “arguing from what the actual Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible say.” (Ingledsva, #139) You are obviously not very aware of what "actual" Hebrew" or "Greek" texts say.

Such incredibly ignorant, and bizarre assumptions tell us that you know very, very little about historical linguistics and you are NOT a competent translator by any means. Stop claiming that you are…. Instead, ASK SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY DOES KNOW GREEK OR HEBREW TO EXPLAIN THESE THINGS TO YOU.


Actually, I think εικονα can be used as a metaphor and can provide my own examples from Greek LXX. However, what I have not seen are non-visual/non physical/ metaphors in any context related to current usage. If anyone has seen this, I am still interested in hearing about εικονα as a non-visual metaphor in the context in which we are speaking.

I am not particularly interested in Hebrew, Polish, Spanish, Swahili metaphors that can be made to appear similar.



Clear

τωτωτωδρ

 

[Clear]

Ingledsva :

I note that my posts are, in general, not very supportive of the way you communicate or interact. I am sorry to be so negative about your communications when I truly think that you are simply trying to do the best you can at supporting your position of belief, the same as all of the rest of us are trying to do. Also, the same faults that I see in you are the same faults that all of us can, and probably have engaged in from time to time.

You have not made a single type of mistake that I, myself, have not made before.

Please, do not assume that I am your enemy, or that I am trying to spite you when I take a position on a subject that is different than your belief. I have been reminded of some important historical points in our discussions (some authentic ones came from you). I think that you and I agree on several points but that the nature of our discussion simply emphasizes the points of conflict. I apologize for this.

Clear

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva :

I note that my posts are, in general, not very supportive of the way you communicate or interact. I am sorry to be so negative about your communications when I truly think that you are simply trying to do the best you can at supporting your position of belief, the same as all of the rest of us are trying to do. Also, the same faults that I see in you are the same faults that all of us can, and probably have engaged in from time to time.

You have not made a single type of mistake that I, myself, have not made before.

Please, do not assume that I am your enemy, or that I am trying to spite you when I take a position on a subject that is different than your belief. I have been reminded of some important historical points in our discussions (some authentic ones came from you). I think that you and I agree on several points but that the nature of our discussion simply emphasizes the points of conflict. I apologize for this.

Clear

LOL! Pages and pages of more crap in an attempt to muddy the waters.


You did exactly what I said you did!


You quoted a Hebrew text - then gave us the Greek translation - and used that to tell us there is a specific translation for "image"

For example, the OP uses as a premise : “Man was created in the image of G-d.”: “And God made man. According to [the] image of God he made him.” (gen 1:27)
The greek LXX uses the term “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God." #172

I took it back to the Hebrew (which should have been used for a Hebrew quote,) and using another Hebrew verse PROVED the Hebrew "image" can be used as metaphor.


Perhaps you should stop writing multi-pages of text answers, in the hopes no one will fully read them, - and actually take time to read the replies written to you.


Here is the verse were you show your usual crap - and "display stupidity, illogic and irrationality" YOURSELF - for as shown - you did exactly what I said you did!

"2)You said : “YOU took a HEBREW verse and gave us the GREEK translation of it.” Ingledsva # 186

Now you are trying to display stupidity, illogic and irrationality.

I did not quote a single Hebrew verse in my response, but instead quoted from the LXX which is a Greek bible. Εικονα is a greek work which does not exist in Hebrew. My comments had to do with Christian theology (with Jewish undertones) and I generally use the texts the Christians used in discussions about Christian theology. Those texts are often Greek and rarely in Hebrew.

Here is how I used the greek word εικονα :

The OP premise said : “Man was created in the image of G-d.”: “And God made man. According to [the] image of God he made him.” (gen 1:27)

MY! MY!



*

 

[Desert Snake]

I took it back to the Hebrew (which should have been used for a Hebrew quote,) and using another Hebrew verse PROVED the Hebrew "image" can be used as metaphor.






*

Nifty, but that isn't implied further on in Scripture. 'Bread' can also have two different meanings in Scripture, so what.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO


Hi Disciple :

Since we’ve already settled the issue of early Christian theology and their belief that man was create in the image of God, I might as well comment on another of your points you made early on in the thread. And that is the Christian tradition that Jesus was, in concert with the Fathers plan, the creator of material and mortal worlds that we inhabit.

Though New Testament Hebrews makes the innocuous statement that “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” (kjv Heb 1:1-2) , I think the concept underlying the words the Son "made the worlds" is often overlooked. However this tradition that the Son (or the son of man, or the word, or the logos, etc) was the creator of the words (as directed by God to do so) is not common knowledge.

This verse traditionally referred to the time before creation when he was “…made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Vs 4

The prophet enoch spoke of this same tradition and time period, when, before creation, “ At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits, the head of days. This time period was “… even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits.” And he became the Chosen One... (c.f.1st Enoch 48:1-7)


The tradition of the Son of Man becoming chosen by God as the savior (i.e. the lamb slain before the foundation of the world” and his special servant) is woven into early textual histories just as his role as “the Word of God” (i.e. the “Logos”).

Thus many of the early Hellenistic synagogal prayers reflect God the Father, having create the world through Jesus.

For example, one post Eucharistic prayer reads :

#1 vs 2 We give thanks to you, O God and Father of Jesus our Savior...on behalf of the knowledge and faith and love and immortality which you gave to us through Jesus your Son. 4 O Master Almighty, the God of the universe, you created the world and what is in it through him, and you planted deeply in our souls a law; and you prepared for men the things (necessary) for communion; " (aposCon 7.26. 1-3)

Thus 1 Clement also taught the early Christian saints as he refers to God the Father as “ ... the creator of the universe...through his beloved servant Jesus Christ, “…through whom he called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to the knowledge of the glory of his name.

Clement still realized that the Father is the “primal source” since all is done by direction of and in in accordance with the Fathers plan. The Father commands, and the Word or Logos, Jesus, obeys. 1 Clement 59:2-3;

This is the same context of another Hellenistic Synagogal prayer which Blesses God, the “… King of the ages, who through Christ made everything, and through him in the beginning ordered that which was unprepared; who separated waters from waters with a firmament, and put a lively spirit in these; 3 who settled the earth (firmly), and stretched out heaven, and ordered the exact arrangement of each one of the creatures..... Vs 18 And the goal of the creative work – the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness” (aposCon 7.34.1-8) ;

Barnabas speaks of this same close relationship where the Father includes the Son in his plan from this early stage of creation. “For the Scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, and let them rule over the beasts of the earth and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea.” And when he saw that our creation was good, the Lord said: “Increase ad multiply and fill the earth.” These things he said to the Son" The Epistle of Barnabas 6:12;

And, again he refers to the Lord Jesus as “Lord of the Whole world” says “And furthermore, my brothers: if the Lord submitted to suffer for our souls, even though he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness, how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the hands of men.?“The Epistle of Barnabas 5:5

The early tradition which has Jesus / the word/logos as the main one to whom God the Father was speaking permeates multiple synagogal prayers. When God said “Let us make man according to our image and likeness”

Even at this early stage of creation, the traditions indicate that the Savior was already mediating creation. Thus yet another Hellenistic Synagogal prayer reads : #4 vs 2 “O Creator, Savior, rich One in favors, Long-sufferer, and supplier of mercy, who do not withdraw from the salvation of your creatures!” as the prayer shifts to honoring the father (vs38) the prayer reads : “ For you are the Father of wisdom, the Creator, as cause, of the creative workmanship through a Mediator...41 the God and Father of the Christ,... (aposCon 7.35.1-10);

As yet another example, Hellenistic Synagogal prayer #5 starts out recognizing this same relationship, saying : “O Lord, Almighty One, you created the cosmos through Christ, and marked out a Sabbath day for a remembrance of this; 2 because on it you rested from the works (of creation), in order to give attention to your own laws. “ (aposCon 7.36.1-7);

Such references that were so ingrained in early Christian prayers and texts were incredibly influential and had profound popularity in early Christianity. For example, the very text that Columbus used as a guide to how long his journey across the ocean would take, also references this same relationship between the Lord God and his “word” or his “logos”. It reads :
“O Lord, you spoke at the beginning of creation, and said on the first day, ‘Let heaven and earth be made,’ and your word accomplished the work. ...”Again, on the second day you created the spirit of the firmament, and commanded him to divide and separate the waters,...”On the third day you commanded the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part of the earth; six parts you dried up and kept so that some of them might be planted and cultivated and be of service before you. For your word went forth, and at once the work was done.” the Fourth Book of Ezra 6:38-44;


POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

[FONT=&quot]“There is the Son of man and there is the son of the Son of man. The Lord is the Son of man, and the son of the Son of man is he who is created through the Son of man. The Son of man received from God the capacity to create. He also has the ability to beget.” P 99 The gospel of Phillip; [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This early and clear tradition was described in multiple early texts, thus the jewish haggadah relates Adam was created by God and “the word” created the rest : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“The superiority of man to the other creatures is apparent in the very manner of his creation, altogether different from theirs. He is the only one who was created by the hand of God. The rest sprang from the Word of God.” The Haggadah (Man and the world) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Still, regardless of any involved in actual creation, the plan remained the Fathers plan. It was according to his design and his will. Thus it was said that ““Logos followed Will for through the logos, Christ created all things. The Secret Book of John (of Sophia);
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]“As the work of the farmer is the plough and the helmsman the guidance of the ship so my work is a song to the Lord ....He created and rested. Created things follow a pattern. They do not know rest. ....And nothing exists without the Lord. He was before anything was, and our worlds were made by his word, his thought and his heart. THE ODES OF SOLOMON ODE 16; [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the Gospel of Bartholomew, Mary also glorified God the Father as a primal creator “… exceeding great and all wise, king of the ages, indescribable, ineffable, .who created the breadths of the heavens by your word and arranged the vault of heaven in harmony, who gave form to disorderly matter and brought together that which was separated....” Later, speaking of the logos/word of the Father, she refers to his descent through the seven heavens and explains the context of creation, saying :. The seven heavens could scarcely contain you, but you were pleased to be contained in me, without causing me pain, you who are the perfect Word of the Father, through whom everything was created. The Gospel of Bartholomew ch two
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]At any rate disciple, the early textual traditions, clearly describe the Plan for mans' salvation originated with the father and, once he choses a savior and mediator, Jesus, then Jesus is involved very closely with the father as his servant and "son", to the point of taking on the role of Creator of much of creation. I'm not sure where you got the concept that it was not the Father, in the main, who creates, but the son/logos/word instead, but I think it is interesting that you knew this. Still too early to frubal you for this historical point..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Clear
τωτωακτω
[/FONT]

 

[Ingledsva]

Nifty, but that isn't implied further on in Scripture. 'Bread' can also have two different meanings in Scripture, so what.

SO - humans don't have to take those verses as an actual image of God.


It could be metaphor.


EDIT - Also - Clear said this -

While the first Christian movement may take Genesis 1:27 at it’s “face value” and in it’s "standard vernacular" and in it's obvious meaning . There is no need to change the vernacular definition of the word "image" into a metaphor or to attempt redefine "image" in any way..

The second christian movement that believes God had no icon; no appearance, and no “image” must change, and / or redefine the obvious meaning of the word "image" into a metaphor in order to create coherence and decrease disharmony between the obvious textual implication versus their own base belief on this specific point.

You folks realize - right? - that for it to only mean image in the way you are saying -


YHVH would have to be some weird hermaphrodite - right?


The image is MALE and FEMALE.


It is metaphor.



*

 

[Desert Snake]

The image is MALE and FEMALE.

So? It's still the 'image' G-d and the Host. Notice 'our' there, anyway, it is not singular.

It is metaphor.

No it isn't, Genesis 2 pretty much indicates it's literal. I already brought that up, and you conveniently ignore that.



As an aside, Eve was made from Adams rib, she in essence is an image of Adam as well.

 

[Clear]

Ingledsva :



1) Why don’t you simply stop pretending you know either Greek or Hebrew well enough to translate them?

I also translate the Hebrew and the Greek. My interest is the ancient spread of language, philosophy, and religion. (Ingledsva, #1360)

Such claims cause irreparable damage to your credibility when forum members see the obvious fact that you neither read nor translate greek nor Hebrew with anything approaching fluency.

Readers can see with their own eyes that your posts actually represent the same type of cutting and pasting from hebrew and greek dictionaries like most other posters do. Such Facades and inaccurate claims are DANGEROUS and often do MORE DAMAGE than the undeserved benefit they seem to bestow.

When you make the most basic of errors in linguistic logic, it then is painfully obvious to almost all of the readers on the forum that your claims in this regard are a façade and an overstatement meant to impress others and bestow undeserved credibility upon yourself.

To simply presume that because, a word in Hebrew (צל&#1501, can be a metaphor for “illusion”, that another word from an entirely different language; from an entirely different culture, from an entirely different time period; and in an entirely different religious context; has an identical metaphorical meaning, is simply stupidity, even inside “cut and paste thinking”. You are not doing “translation of the Greek”. It is a pretender; a “wannabe translator” who does these things.

Consider the result of your logic of using what you think you know about a Hebrew word and your attempt to apply that HEBREW WORD directly onto a GREEK word εικονα from another era and culture, and the result of placing this linguistic frankenstein into the context of Genesis 1:27 :


You said : "Here from the Hebrew - is a use as metaphor. Psa 39:6 Surely every man walketh in illusion: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them. As some old texts put it - a vain show (image) = illusion.“


I noted your point :

OK disciple, I think I understand the point being made here.

To help me try to understand the context of the two posts in red, I twirled in my office chair until I was dizzy, while sniffing an energy drink up my nose. That seemed to help me overcome obvious issues of credibility; inaccurate mixing of languages and culture, etc, ; as well as helped with the very, very strange translation we were offered for Psalm 38:6 (is 39:6 IN Mt).

NOW, I think I understand the possible point being made is this : The entirely koine GREEK word “εικονα”, when it is (somehow...and in some way...) used “in Hebrew”, can then be used as a possible metaphor (maybe…. )

It is like the English word “missed” (i.e. I “missed” the target) , which sounds like the german word “mist”, which then has obvious meaning for German ears …, (and yet "mist" retains it's accurate metaphoric description of this proposal...)

The post attempting to make this point only appears obviously irrelevant for say, the first two or three hours... BUT, IF one is willing to stare at it long enough (it helps to cross your eyes a bit as well) it becomes more relevant...I think.


For example, if we try to use εικονα in a sentence in a context we are discussing, and follow the posted suggestion, we end up with : “Man was created in the illusion of God.”

Oops, Hmmm, lets think about that for a moment … ok, I'm done considering it. It doesn't work.

I am almost sorry for the sarcasm, but your claim to be able to translate Greek and Hebrew was truly laughable in it's inconsistencies and it's implications to the “translation” you offered the forum members.

Your contextual logic that “Man was created in the illusion of God”, doesn’t work.
It simply betrayed your inability to even consider very basic principles of translation.

The forum is not made up of complete idiots. Your claim to be able to translate greek and Hebrew is a completely transparent façade now. Why not abandon it, use what you have learned from that mistake, and then continue progressing in knowledge and experience?




2) Why offer your new fiasco / theory of “hermaphroditism” as an inevitable translational given? It’s silly and only causes you to lose even more credibility with forum members. You are becoming irrelevant by doing these self-destructive things.



CONSIDER THE INGLEDSVIAN THEORUM OF HERMAPHRODITE AS A TRANSLATION


You folks realize - right? - that for it to only mean image in the way you are saying -
YHVH would have to be some weird hermaphrodite - right?Ingledsva #194

Although I do, truly, want to laugh at this suggestion, I think it is kinder to simply answer your question / suggestion as "no". Your theory doesn't work.

The Ingledsvian logic and it’s "theory of translation" that brought us :
“So God created man in his own illusion” (gen 1:27)
is now offering us
“Hermaphrodites created he them.” (Gen 1:27).

Two attempts to offers basic principles to translate this very basic verse, and two complete fails. This is NOT a record that is going to inspire forum members to have faith in your claim that you “translate greek and Hebrew”.


Ingledsva, Stop claiming to be able to translate greek and Hebrew. If you actually had the most basic ability to actually read Greek, then you would see that the answer to your question regarding Gen 1:27 and your theory of Hermaphroditism is staring you in the face. ASK SOMEONE YOU TRUST, WHO READS GREEK, to EXPLAIN it to you. This is very, very, basic, low level, “dick and jane” type stuff.

The greek reads : Και εποιησεν ο θεος τον ανθρωπον. Κατ εικονα θεου επιοησεν αυτον. αρσεν και θηλυ επιησεν αυτους.

If you could actually read greek, you would already have your answer. Since you don't read greek sufficiently well and since you won't trust me to explain it I think you should :

1) Ask a historian that reads greek what it means when there are multiple sentences involved in ancient textual timelines.

2) Ask anyone who reads greek where separate sentences begin and end in this case and how many sentences there actually are.

3) Then ask a historian to explain regarding timelines that apply to each sentence and what that implies.

4) STOP pretending to be able to translate Greek or Hebrew and ASK SOMEONE TO HELP YOU understand these very basic things.

If you read greek, you would already have your answer by simply looking at and reading this simple greek sentence and you would not bring up so many silly and petty theories which waste time in petty argument that always end up with the original historical claims remaining intact and you with yet more mud in your face.

Stop pretending to be able to translate. It simply doesn’t work and I don’t know any forum member who believes it anyway.





Disciple :

Last night I posted regarding the early tradition that God the Father created a plan designed to ultimately prepare the spirits of mankind to live is a social “heaven” in Joy and Harmony and Unity forever.

As part of this plan, he chose the Pre-mortal spirit of Jesus (“named”, “nominated”, Chose, etc) him as the redeemer/savior/mediator for mankind as a central part of this plan.

However, as part of the assignments given to Jesus was to be an active and leading participant in creation. And I gave multiple examples from synagogal prayers and early sacred texts that demonstrate that this tradition existed in a wide range of texts.

You had posted JUST after I did but your post is gone today.

I had intended to respond to your post but thought that since you deleted it, you might have wanted to change some of your comment and so will hold off a response on your now-deleted post. I am still quite impressed that you were aware of the early tradition that Jesus was the primary individual responsible for creation (though others were also involved) as he was directed by the Lord God.

In any case, good luck in coming to your own convictions as to what these things might mean.

Clear

 

[Ingledsva]

So? It's still the 'image' G-d and the Host. Notice 'our' there, anyway, it is not singular.




No it isn't, Genesis 2 pretty much indicates it's literal. I already brought that up, and you conveniently ignore that.



As an aside, Eve was made from Adams rib, she in essence is an image of Adam as well.

Genesis does NOT indicate it is literal.


Eve is NOT made from Adams rib.


Read that whole section in the Hebrew.


The Human being - which is both male and female - is split apart to form a separate male and a female, for procreation purposes.



*

 

[Desert Snake]

You had posted JUST after I did but your post is gone today.

I had intended to respond to your post but thought that since you deleted it, you might have wanted to change some of your comment and so will hold off a response on your now-deleted post. I am still quite impressed that you were aware of the early tradition that Jesus was the primary individual responsible for creation (though others were also involved) as he was directed by the Lord God.

In any case, good luck in coming to your own convictions as to what these things might mean.

Clear[/SIZE][/FONT]

Hey Clear. Yes, I didn't want to possibly confuse the issue with some off-topic, I was thinking of re-formulating that into a more concise point by point list.

-disciple

 

[Ingledsva]

Ingledsva :



1) Why don’t you simply stop pretending you know either Greek or Hebrew well enough to translate them?

Consider the result of your logic of using what you think you know about a Hebrew word and your attempt to apply that HEBREW WORD directly onto a GREEK word εικονα from another era and culture, and the result of placing this linguistic frankenstein into the context of Genesis 1:27 :


You said : "Here from the Hebrew - is a use as metaphor. Psa 39:6 Surely every man walketh in illusion: surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up riches, and knoweth not who shall gather them. As some old texts put it - a vain show (image) = illusion.“


I noted your point :

I am almost sorry for the sarcasm, but your claim to be able to translate Greek and Hebrew was truly laughable in it's inconsistencies and it's implications to the “translation” you offered the forum members.

Your contextual logic that “Man was created in the illusion of God”, doesn’t work.
It simply betrayed your inability to even consider very basic principles of translation.

The forum is not made up of complete idiots. Your claim to be able to translate greek and Hebrew is a completely transparent façade now. Why not abandon it, use what you have learned from that mistake, and then continue progressing in knowledge and experience?




ING - Are you really this dense - that you try to twist this around?


"YOU" quoted a HEBREW verse with the word IMAGE in it - then launched into your usual long reply - USING GREEK - and making claims about that HEBREW word IMAGE (from the verse) - based on a translation of the word for image in the GREEK language.


I showed that when using the proper LANGUAGE for the HEBREW verse - IMAGE has more then one meaning.


THAT IS A FACT - GET OVER IT!


*



2) Why offer your new fiasco / theory of “hermaphroditism” as an inevitable translational given? It’s silly and only causes you to lose even more credibility with forum members. You are becoming irrelevant by doing these self-destructive things.



CONSIDER THE INGLEDSVIAN THEORUM OF HERMAPHRODITE AS A TRANSLATION


You folks realize - right? - that for it to only mean image in the way you are saying -
YHVH would have to be some weird hermaphrodite - right?Ingledsva #194

Although I do, truly, want to laugh at this suggestion, I think it is kinder to simply answer your question / suggestion as "no". Your theory doesn't work.



ING - LOL! Dude! Now you don't recognize sarcasm?



*


The Ingledsvian logic and it’s "theory of translation" that brought us :
“So God created man in his own illusion” (gen 1:27)



ING - I never said that - YOU DID!


I said that in the correct language of HEBREW, - the word "Image" can also be used as metaphor.


The second Hebrew verse I used, showed how the Hebrew word for "image" can be used as metaphor, - and - IT - used the metaphor, vain "illusion."


Obviously it can be used as metaphor - and that opens "image" to multiple word choices. Not just "ILLUSION, - LOL!!!


*


is now offering us
“Hermaphrodites created he them.” (Gen 1:27).



ING - And again - I didn't say that either - YOU DID! You are taking what I say OUT OF CONTEXT - and spouting absolute CRAP! I was being sarcastic - implying that if we have to take "IMAGE" as you two claim it is, - then since we are told male and female - god or they - or both, would be hermaphrodites!


*



Two attempts to offers basic principles to translate this very basic verse, and two complete fails. This is NOT a record that is going to inspire forum members to have faith in your claim that you “translate greek and Hebrew”.


ING - And as you can see above - you spout crap as usual - and people can go back and read the thread in context - and see that for themselves.


*


Ingledsva, Stop claiming to be able to translate greek and Hebrew. If you actually had the most basic ability to actually read Greek, then you would see that the answer to your question regarding Gen 1:27 and your theory of Hermaphroditism is staring you in the face. ASK SOMEONE YOU TRUST, WHO READS GREEK, to EXPLAIN it to you. This is very, very, basic, low level, “dick and jane” type stuff.

The greek reads : Και εποιησεν ο θεος τον ανθρωπον. Κατ εικονα θεου επιοησεν αυτον. αρσεν και θηλυ επιησεν αυτους.



ING - GOOD GOD! DUDE! THE TEXT IS A HEBREW TEXT - shut of the GREEK CRAP! We could care less what uses there are for the word translated "image" in Greek.

As explained, - it has NO bearing here, - as The text is in HEBREW!!!!!! ONLY the uses of "the word for "IMAGE" in Hebrew count with translation of HEBREW VERSEs and their meanings.



*


If you could actually read greek, you would already have your answer. Since you don't read greek sufficiently well and since you won't trust me to explain it I think you should :

1) Ask a historian that reads greek what it means when there are multiple sentences involved in ancient textual timelines.

2) Ask anyone who reads greek where separate sentences begin and end in this case and how many sentences there actually are.

3) Then ask a historian to explain regarding timelines that apply to each sentence and what that implies.

4) STOP pretending to be able to translate Greek or Hebrew and ASK SOMEONE TO HELP YOU understand these very basic things.

If you read greek, you would already have your answer by simply looking at and reading this simple greek sentence and you would not bring up so many silly and petty theories which waste time in petty argument that always end up with the original historical claims remaining intact and you with yet more mud in your face.

Stop pretending to be able to translate. It simply doesn’t work and I don’t know any forum member who believes it anyway.
...

Clear

LOL! See above. You lose again!



*

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

To the forum members : I noticed ingledsva's parting comment in the prior post above : LOL! See above. You lose again!

Though such statements are often made, simply as bravado, still, I hope the forum members realize that I do not see these discussions as any personal "combat" between enemies where one person "wins" and the other "loses". I do NOT want ingledsva to "LOSE" or to feel like she has "lost" some battle with an enemy. I understand that some discussions become heated. However, I wish that discussions, even disagreements can become conducted in a logical, reasonable and rational manner where forum members can be offered rational data supporting the various positions. Data that is credible and which the readers then can subject to their own logic and reasoning and their own criteria as to whether is it good data and what sort of meaning the data might have for them. IF we can learn, as forum members. to do this, then we can all progress in knowledge and understanding, rather than feeling animosity and feeling some sort of satisfaction at simply winning an argument. Especially if we offered faulty data or appeal to emotions or improper base biases in order to appear to win. That defeats the purpose of religious education.


Ingledsva said : " I showed that when using the proper LANGUAGE for the HEBREW verse - IMAGE has more then one meaning. "

Actually, you didn't. You simply didn’t know enough Hebrew to know that the word you thought was a Hebrew equivalent to greek εικονα, wasn’t an equivalent at all. If you had understood enough Hebrew and translational basics, you might have noticed that I have already pointed out that the word YOU used for “illusion” is NOT an equivalent to εικονα. I already told the forum

Eybers, in the 1970s proved that צלם came from it’s root (צ&#1500 of “shadow” or “darkness”. It is NOT a “cut and paste” equivalent for greek εικονα OR ομιοωμα.

(so much for being able to read and translate Hebrew and Greek&#8230

Your “example” did not offer us any words in hebrew to examine or discuss, but rather, you offered us a verse in english and then claimed to have used an “eikona” equivalent as a metaphor. I do not know if you were trying to trick forum member or if you didn't know enough Hebrew to know the word you used was not even an equivalent to εικονα. I assumed ignorance, rather than a conscious attempt to deceive forum members. “Translator of Hebrew and Greek” indeed... Do you seriously think ANYONE in the forum believes you have sufficient fluency in hebrew OR Greek to be the "translator of Greek and Hebrew" that you claim to be?
.
.
1)Firstly : You keep claiming to offer the forum "proper" "hebrew", yet Forum members have not seen you offer a single Hebrew word; not even a single hebrew character in this thread. Nor have you offered nor explained any word in Hebrew in any detail, but you have simply offered verses in English and proudly claim they are “proper” “Hebrew” and then expected them to take your word for it. This façade of being able to “refer to Hebrew” is becoming old. Perhaps there is a forum member who believed your example. I don’t know of one. Do you? Give us the hebrew to look at and comment on rather than the english and then claim it is proper "hebrew".

Since your claim on this example of proper "hebrew" seems to be so important to you and your logic and reasoning hinges on this single example you gave us, let’s discuss it. If you disagree with Eybers in his conclusion that the word you used is NOT equivalent to εικονα, then lets discuss why YOU think Eybers is incorrect and that צלם IS an equivalent to εικονα and thus applies to your example.

Explain to us these points regarding hebrew. The obvious conclusion is that you simply saw another translator who used “εικονα” in this spot and so you thought it was an equivalent to the same spot in the hebrew verse. This is your chance to show us your knowledge and skill in Hebrew and greek and translation. Show us what you have to offer us.

2)Secondly, the claim that εικονα has multiple meanings and uses is irrelevant. Of COURSE “image” has multiple meanings and uses (especially nowadays). A third grader can probably tell you that. I can give you examples as I pointed out. That was never the issue. The point is how εικονα IS actually USED in the OP (#3 is the issue.). Εικονα is used as a visual description in koine Greek and not as a metaphorical implement in this context of description.

3)Thirdly, we are discussing the OP’s premise where “Man was created in the image of G-d”. specifically, we are discussing the Christian tradition that when God created man “in the image of God”, that THIS usage referred to an actual visual image in early Christian tradition. In responding to disciples O.P. I made the following point (data is in post #2 that follows)

MAN CREATED IN GODS’ “IMAGE”

For example, the OP uses as a premise : “Man was created in the image of G-d.”: “And God made man. According to [the] image of God he made him.” (gen 1:27)
The greek LXX uses the term “εικονα“ (“Icon” in english) for “image” of God.

Koine Greek used this term for actual, physical, visual descriptions of individuals in official documents.
For example in BGU IV. 1059.7, εικονα (icon/image) is used to describe actual visual characteristics of a female slave (ης τα ετη και αι εικονις θποκειντα&#953.
P. Tebt I 32:21 (145 b.c.?) is another example of this same usage as well.
In P Ryl II. 156.33 (approx first century a.d.) it describes multiple individuals and their physical appearance (εικον&#945.

Early sacred texts use εικονα in an actual, visual context as well.
For example, when Barnabas explained that though “… Moses had commanded, “You shall not have a cast or a carved image for your God, nevertheless he himself made one in order to show them a symbol of Jesus.” (Epistle of Barnabas 12:6), this εικονα / icon or image he speaks of is clearly a visual and physical “image” and not a metaphor.

The point is that “image” in this sense was a word used to describe an actual, real, image and is not metaphorical or symbolic in vernacular usage. I can't think of any single early koine greek example of εικονα that is clearly used in early texts in a metaphorical sense. Can anyone else?

I think modern Christians started to use εικονα metaphorically as a mechanism to try to make the early texts harmonize to their beliefs rather than to harmonize their beliefs to what the texts said. For example :

POST TWO FOLLOWS AND CONTAINS EXAMPLES OF THIS EARLY CHRISTIAN TRADITION OF GOD, CREATING ADAM IN HIS OWN VISUAL IMAGE