Image of God: Biblical Meaning (Earth, Torah, Deuteronomy, mysticism)

[joeboonda]

Originally Posted by sojourner

But if the house is to stand, we can't be busting down walls and using the holes for doors, just out of ignorance. We have to see the house (and all its parts) for what it is -- not for what we want it to be -- or it shall not stand.

Mathew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I Cor. 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.
11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

I agree, we must see it as it is, and the chief cornerstone, the rock, the firm foundation, is Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour, if we have placed our trust in Him.
Trusting Jesus plus anything else, or trusting in other paths is all sinking sand, only Christ is the Solid Rock of Our Salvation.

[sandy whitelinger]

The last two or three pages of post are nice, but what the heck do they have to do with the original post? Could you take it somewhere else please?

[joeboonda]

Oops, sorry! My bad.

[Bick]

I know there are many views that I've read, but, to come to a conclusion as to this link, I believe it is imperative that the word "image", from the original writings, must be read and studied, wherever they occur, to arrive at the proper conclusion.

First, in the OT, using Young's Concordance, I read all the occurrences, and my conclusion is, "image" basically has to do with "form", "figure", "likeness".

Therefore, to me, we are made in 'Their image': that is, having a head at the top, two arms, a torso, two legs, etc. Plus, we are sentient beings, with a rational mind, a capacity for His spirit, etc.

It is true, God is described as invisible (Col. 1:15 and 1 Tim. 1:17), but that has to be with reference to man in the flesh.

Christ Jesus in Col. 1:15 is said to be "the image of God", which means Christ was more than just having the same shape and figure, but was the very essence of his Father God.

Finally, when we read in Rev.21, that God himself will dwell with men in the New Jerusalem on the New Earth, and I have no doubt he will look just as a human being, with his power and glory turned down some.

Bick

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Bick

I know there are many views that I've read, but, to come to a conclusion as to this link, I believe it is imperative that the word "image", from the original writings, must be read and studied, wherever they occur, to arrive at the proper conclusion.

First, in the OT, using Young's Concordance, I read all the occurrences, and my conclusion is, "image" basically has to do with "form", "figure", "likeness".

Therefore, to me, we are made in 'Their image': that is, having a head at the top, two arms, a torso, two legs, etc. Plus, we are sentient beings, with a rational mind, a capacity for His spirit, etc.

It is true, God is described as invisible (Col. 1:15 and 1 Tim. 1:17), but that has to be with reference to man in the flesh.

Christ Jesus in Col. 1:15 is said to be "the image of God", which means Christ was more than just having the same shape and figure, but was the very essence of his Father God.

Finally, when we read in Rev.21, that God himself will dwell with men in the New Jerusalem on the New Earth, and I have no doubt he will look just as a human being, with his power and glory turned down some.

Bick

That's mainly what you want it to believe since almost all of the usages of the word image in the Old Testament refer to idolotry and the creating of a false image. Of the maybe two other mentions it cannot be conclusive to mean what you say so I'll stick with the contex in which it is used in my passages.

[Bick]

Seems to me the replies have strayed from the original question, "Image of God: Biblical Meaning".

As for contending that the truth of the Scriptures is too obscure because we, the average reader, without knowing Hebrew and Greek, can not trust the English translations, is something I would disagree with.

First of all, the vast bulk of the translators were experts in both Hebrew or Greek, depending on which they were translating from. I would even say they must have been more knowledgable scholars than anyone on this thread.

To say that the New Testament was made a book until 300 or so A.D. doesn't line up with the historians comments I have read.

For instance: from The Origin of the Bible by Phillip W. Comfort, The Canon of the New Testament (chapter) by Milton Fisher, pg 66, states: :"Tertullian, an outstanding Christian writer in the first two decades of the third century, was one of the first to call the Christian Scriptures the 'New Testament.' That title had appeared earlier (c.190) in a composirion against Montanism, the author of which is unknown. This is significant. Its use placed the New Testament Scripture on a level of inspiration and authority with the Old Testament."

And while there are numerous Greek manuscripts, such as Byzantine, Western, Alexandranian, etc, and there certain degrees of uncertainty in arriving at the exact wording, I believe Dr. J.L. Dagg, a Baptist theologian, said it best:

"Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray."


To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes,

"We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus."

I am convinced that with the various versions, concordances and other tools, I can arrive at almost the correct meaning.

Bick

[angellous_evangellous]

I am convinced that with the various versions, concordances and other tools, I can arrive at almost the correct meaning.

"Almost" is the key...

One very critical thing that you will miss that cannot be translated is various aspects of the culture that affect interpretation. That is, the NT is written from quite a different political, economic, and social framework than 21st century America. A good commentary will draw some attention to these different perspectives that are quite foreign to the modern reader.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Bick

First of all, the vast bulk of the translators were experts in both Hebrew or Greek, depending on which they were translating from. I would even say they must have been more knowledgable scholars than anyone on this thread.

Golly Bick, that's...that's...that's...heresy!

[angellous_evangellous]

the vast bulk of the translators were experts in both Hebrew or Greek, depending on which they were translating from. I would even say they must have been more knowledgable scholars than anyone on this thread.

I've been trained by several of them... and yes, all of the people that I know who have contributed to the NIV, the ESV, and other modern versions are exceptionally brilliant.