The Image of God: Katzpur vs. Sandy (Jesus Christ, Earth, virgin)

[sandy whitelinger]

Ok, here goes. I'll base my position on what I stated in my post:
Image of God: Biblical Meaning.

The short of it is that based on the sentences that discuss the image of God in relation to Adam in the King James Bible, that phrase means that Adam has both dominion and was created a plurality. This is the direct meaning of Adam being in the "image of God."

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Ok, here goes. I'll base my position on what I stated in my post:
Image of God: Biblical Meaning.

The short of it is that based on the sentences that discuss the image of God in relation to Adam in the King James Bible, that phrase means that Adam has both dominion and was created a plurality. This is the direct meaning of Adam being in the "image of God."

Hi, Sandy. I'll be back this evening to respond to your OP. I would suggest maybe four or five posts each, but I'll let you make the call. Let me know what you decide.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Hi, Sandy. I'll be back this evening to respond to your OP. I would suggest maybe four or five posts each, but I'll let you make the call. Let me know what you decide.

I'd look at this as more a discussion than a debate. I think it might become clear after a while whether we have stalled along the way.....I hope. I probalby won't be able to get back to your evening post until tomorrow. Be patient. Thanks

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

I'd look at this as more a discussion than a debate. I think it might become clear after a while whether we have stalled along the way.....I hope. I probalby won't be able to get back to your evening post until tomorrow. Be patient. Thanks

I see that you started this thread in the One on One Debate Discussions forum. Actually, I think this forum is intended for other RFers to discuss what they think of our debate, but I'm okay leaving it here. I'm fine with calling it a discussion, too, although I hope you realize that my interpretation is significantly different from yours. I'm going to start by doing a copy and paste of your OP in the Image of God: Biblical Meaning thread. That way, anyone who may wish to follow along won't have to go back and reference the other thread. Anyway, your post follows:

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

The rules of the English language. They need to be applied when reading the Bible. The Bible means what it says and says what it means. My first Bible teacher said (quoting Popeye, one of the world’s great philosophers by the way), “Just read it the way it was wrote.” It helps to have a dictionary. The meanings of words are important. A dictionary is not enough though. English has rules and the rules give meaning. English uses punctuation which has rules and gives meaning as well.

This is important when trying to feather out the concept of the image of God when Genesis 1:26-27 talks about Adam being created in “our [God's] image.” Pronouns are important as well. Our and us are significant in the context of that passage.

The punctuation of importance in these two passages is the colon and the semi colon. A colon separates two thoughts in a sentence when the first thought is complete and the second thought illustrates the first. A semi colon separates two thoughts in a sentence when the first thought is complete and is not dependent on the second thought but the second thought is dependent on the first and adds to the first thought. This is of vital importance in understanding the meaning in the passages I will use.

Genesis 1:26-27 states:
[26] And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Go to the colon in verse 26 and look at the thought before it. There are two important points. The first is that God uses the plural “us” and “our” to describe Himself. This establishes God as a plurality: a single entity with multiple identities; a trinity perhaps. The second point is that God made man in His image.

Now, look at the thought after the colon. The idea presented, by use of the colon, futher illustrates the thought before it, “In our image, after our own likeness." What is illustrated is giving man dominion. Dominion, therefore, is the aspect of being in the image of God that is offered by this verse.

The next aspect of the image of God is illustrated by verse 27. Find the first semi colon and look at the thought presented before it, the creation of man in the image of God. What comes after, by the rules of the English language, further adds to that point. The phrase following the semi colon establishes that man was created as a plurality, male and female, thus mirroring God as a plurality, which was established in verse 26.

My conclusion, by looking at the text without any inference but using rules of grammar, is that being created in the image of God means that man mirrors God in having dominion and being a plurality.

Before we get going, did you want to set a specific number of posts for each of us. I don't have a problem leaving it open-ended, except that I just hate threads where having the last word becomes more important than coming to an understanding and respect for one another's perspective. Now, on to the "discussion/debate":

I hate to disagree right off the bat, but I’m going to have to. I would agree that the rules of English need to be applied when reading the Bible if the Bible had initially been written in English. Unfortunately for both of us, it wasn’t. I don’t know what your knowledge of ancient languages is, but mine is pretty much nil. While I have access to materials that provide me with the translation of certain key words, I certainly don’t claim to have an extensive knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic or any other ancient tongue. Even if we were to go with your statement that “the Bible means what it ways and says what it means,” we would still have to decide which translation to use. Judging from the verses you’ve quoted, I’m going to assume that you intend to use the KJV, which is fine with me, as that’s the translation I use as well. At any rate, given the qualifications I’ve just described, I would essentially go along with you about sticking to a straightforward understanding of what the Bible actually says and not trying to interpret it according to what we think it intended to say.

I agree that the word “our” is important. I also agree that it implies a plurality. I’m reasonably certain that you and I would define that “plurality” differently, though. As I’m sure you know, I do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. I do believe, however, that God the Father was speaking to His Son, who would later be born to a virgin and be known as Jesus Christ.

I’m afraid I can’t go along with your emphasis on the use of the colon and semi-colon for the simple reason that the text of Genesis, as originally penned, included neither of these punctuation marks. I’ll go along with you, anyway, in terms of the concept that just as God has dominion over us, He has given us dominion over the rest of His creation. I’m not sure how you see us as being a plurality, but if you would care to elaborate, we can discuss it further.

I’ve attempted to address the points you raised in your OP, but it’s getting late and I’ve got to get up early. Tomorrow I’ll explain what I believe is meant by the words “image” and “likeness” in the context of Genesis 1.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Before we get going, did you want to set a specific number of posts for each of us. I don't have a problem leaving it open-ended, except that I just hate threads where having the last word becomes more important than coming to an understanding and respect for one another's perspective. Now, on to the "discussion/debate":

Lets just see how it goes. If it helps I'll let you have the last word. Just say, "Last word!"

Originally Posted by Katzpur

...we would still have to decide which translation to use. Judging from the verses you’ve quoted, I’m going to assume that you intend to use the KJV, which is fine with me, as that’s the translation I use as well.

I only use the KJV. Is that agreed upon?

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I hate to disagree right off the bat, but I’m going to have to. I would agree that the rules of English need to be applied when reading the Bible if the Bible had initially been written in English.... At any rate, given the qualifications I’ve just described, I would essentially go along with you about sticking to a straightforward understanding of what the Bible actually says and not trying to interpret it according to what we think it intended to say.

If we are not going to use the rules of English when reading English then nothing can be agreed upon. Anyone can make a plain statement mean whatever they want by bending the rules.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I’m afraid I can’t go along with your emphasis on the use of the colon and semi-colon for the simple reason that the text of Genesis, as originally penned, included neither of these punctuation marks.

That Hebrew didn't use punctuation is irrelevant. Computers use a binary code yet the message is accurately transcribed into English for us to read including punctuation. The rules of English, including punctuation apply to transcribing the thought that was stated in the Hebrew. Appling that logic then Hebrew did not use English letters so it would invalidate the whole translation.

Nevertheless let's discuss the passage as it was written in English since that is what we are using.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I agree that the word “our” is important. I also agree that it implies a plurality. I’m reasonably certain that you and I would define that “plurality” differently, though. As I’m sure you know, I do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity. I do believe, however, that God the Father was speaking to His Son, who would later be born to a virgin and be known as Jesus Christ.

It can be accepted then that God is a plurality. That is the emphasis of my meaning.

As total aside I could suggest that God might be more than a trinity, ie. consider the pillar of fire and column of smoke. There may be many aspects to God that are irrelevant to us, or for Him to make us aware of.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I’ll go along with you, anyway, in terms of the concept that just as God has dominion over us, He has given us dominion over the rest of His creation.

Would you agrre then, from the usage, that that is part of the image of God we were created in?

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I’m not sure how you see us as being a plurality, but if you would care to elaborate, we can discuss it further.

Male and female from, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Even if you ignore the meaning of the semi-colon (Which was significant enough to the translator to include) the fact it is in the same sentence, directly following the image of God statement (just in case periods have no meaning) should show it applies.

[sandy whitelinger]

Katzpur...are you there?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by sandy whitelinger

Katzpur...are you there?

Yeah, I am. I hadn't responded because you've had so many responses in your other thread on this subject that I thought maybe my opinons were superfluous. If you are really interested in hearing more from me, I'll be happy to pick up where I left off. Most of the time, there isn't a one-on-one debate going on at the same time as an open one, so I kind of lost interest.

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Yeah, I am. I hadn't responded because you've had so many responses in your other thread on this subject that I thought maybe my opinons were superfluous. If you are really interested in hearing more from me, I'll be happy to pick up where I left off. Most of the time, there isn't a one-on-one debate going on at the same time as an open one, so I kind of lost interest.

The open debate degenerated into a whizzing contest without much input of value other than people saying you can't trust a translation of a thousands of years old text to have any meaning.