• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

in our image, after our likeness - and able to research responsibly

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
At the time of this writing there are over 221 posts in the 'Man was created in the image of G-d'. No doubt there are many fine posts among them.

That said, let me begin with the following from Sarna's The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis:
in our image, after our likeness This unique combination of expressions, virtually identical in meaning, emphasizes the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God. The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues.

The continuation of verse 26 establishes an evident connection between resemblance to God and sovereignty over the earth's resources, though it is not made clear whether man has power over nature as a result of his being like God or whether that power constitutes the very essence of the similarity. A parallel passage in 9:6-7 tells of God's renewed blessings on the human race after the Flood and declares murder to be the consummate crime precisely because "in His image did God make man." In other words, the resemblance of man to God bespeaks the infinite worth of a human being and affirms the inviolability of the human person. The killing of any other creature, even wantonly, is not murder. Only a human being may be murdered. It would seem, then, that the phrase "in the image of God" conveys something about the nature of the human being as opposed to the animal kingdom; it also asserts human dominance over nature. But it is even more than this.

The words used here to convey these ideas can be better understood in the light of a phenomenon registered in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, whereby the ruling monarch is described as "the image" or "the likeness" of a god. In Mesopotamia we find the following salutations: "The father of my lord the king is the very image of Bel (shalam bel) and the king, my lord, is the very image of Bel"; "The king, lord of the lands, is the image of Shamash"; "O king of the inhabited world, you are the image of Marduk." In Egypt, the same concept is expressed is expressed through the name Tutankhamen (Tut-ankh-amun), which means "the living image of (the god) Amun,: and in the designation of Thutmose IV as "the likeness of Re."

Without doubt, the terminology employed in Genesis 2:26 is derived from regal vocabulary, which serves to elevate the king above the ordinary run of men. In the Bible this idea has become democratized. All human beings are created "in the image of God"; each person bears the stamp of royalty. This was patently understood by the authors of Psalm 8, cited above. His description of man in royal terms is his interpretation of the concept of the "image of God" introduced in verse 26. It should be further pointed out that in Assyrian royal steles, the gods are generally depicted by their symbols: Ashshur by the winged disk, Shamash by the sun disk, and so forth. These depictions are called: "the image (shalom) of the great gods." In light of this, the characterization of man as "in the image of God" furnishes the added dimension of his being the symbol of God's presence on earth. While he is not divine, his very existence bears witness to the activity of God in the life of the world. This awareness inevitably entails an awesome responsibility and imposes a code of living that conforms with the consciousness of that fact.

It should be added that the pairing of the terms tselel and demut, "image" and "likeness," is paralleled in a ninth-century B.C.E. Assyrian-Aramaic bilingual inscription on a statue at Tell Kekheriyeh in Syria. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and obviously cannot be used as criteria for source differentiation. [pg. 12]
The point I wish to emphasize is Sarna's comment:
"The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues."
We all have a right to our opinion no matter how thoughtful or inane it might be. But not all opinions are created equal, and it wouldn't hurt to realize that our opinions (and, even more so, our claims) can often benefit from relevant scholarship. On questions of import we should perhaps do our best to avail ourselves of it.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
What exactly you mean from "in the image of God"?

Is an Atheist "in the image of God"?

If yes; in what meaning? Please

Regards
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I always feel we non-Jews spend way too much time thinking about and analyzing the Old Testament. It's all 'overimportantized' (I created a new word in my rant).

So many brilliant minds and great spiritual minds and souls have been around since then. And 'back then' is where too many people are looking for understanding.

:bonk:
 
Last edited:

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
At the time of this writing there are over 221 posts in the 'Man was created in the image of G-d'. No doubt there are many fine posts among them.

That said, let me begin with the following from Sarna's The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis:


in our image, after our likeness This unique combination of expressions, virtually identical in meaning, emphasizes the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God. The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues.

The continuation of verse 26 establishes an evident connection between resemblance to God and sovereignty over the earth's resources, though it is not made clear whether man has power over nature as a result of his being like God or whether that power constitutes the very essence of the similarity. A parallel passage in 9:6-7 tells of God's renewed blessings on the human race after the Flood and declares murder to be the consummate crime precisely because "in His image did God make man." In other words, the resemblance of man to God bespeaks the infinite worth of a human being and affirms the inviolability of the human person. The killing of any other creature, even wantonly, is not murder. Only a human being may be murdered. It would seem, then, that the phrase "in the image of God" conveys something about the nature of the human being as opposed to the animal kingdom; it also asserts human dominance over nature. But it is even more than this.

The words used here to convey these ideas can be better understood in the light of a phenomenon registered in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, whereby the ruling monarch is described as "the image" or "the likeness" of a god. In Mesopotamia we find the following salutations: "The father of my lord the king is the very image of Bel (shalam bel) and the king, my lord, is the very image of Bel"; "The king, lord of the lands, is the image of Shamash"; "O king of the inhabited world, you are the image of Marduk." In Egypt, the same concept is expressed is expressed through the name Tutankhamen (Tut-ankh-amun), which means "the living image of (the god) Amun,: and in the designation of Thutmose IV as "the likeness of Re."

Without doubt, the terminology employed in Genesis 2:26 is derived from regal vocabulary, which serves to elevate the king above the ordinary run of men. In the Bible this idea has become democratized. All human beings are created "in the image of God"; each person bears the stamp of royalty. This was patently understood by the authors of Psalm 8, cited above. His description of man in royal terms is his interpretation of the concept of the "image of God" introduced in verse 26. It should be further pointed out that in Assyrian royal steles, the gods are generally depicted by their symbols: Ashshur by the winged disk, Shamash by the sun disk, and so forth. These depictions are called: "the image (shalom) of the great gods." In light of this, the characterization of man as "in the image of God" furnishes the added dimension of his being the symbol of God's presence on earth. While he is not divine, his very existence bears witness to the activity of God in the life of the world. This awareness inevitably entails an awesome responsibility and imposes a code of living that conforms with the consciousness of that fact.

It should be added that the pairing of the terms tselel and demut, "image" and "likeness," is paralleled in a ninth-century B.C.E. Assyrian-Aramaic bilingual inscription on a statue at Tell Kekheriyeh in Syria. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and obviously cannot be used as criteria for source differentiation. [pg. 12]



The point I wish to emphasize is Sarna's comment:
"The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues."
We all have a right to our opinion no matter how thoughtful or inane it might be. But not all opinions are created equal, and it wouldn't hurt to realize that our opinions (and, even more so, our claims) can often benefit from relevant scholarship. On questions of import we should perhaps do our best to avail ourselves of it.



Thank you for this info.


You proved my point in the other thread - about "image" and metaphor, in the Hebrew.



*
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
What exactly you mean from "in the image of God"?

Is an Atheist "in the image of God"?

If yes; in what meaning? Please

Regards


I think you need to re-read his quote.


Also - we are not talking about it being real, or not - thus it doesn't matter about Atheists. We are discussing the meaning of "image" in Hebrew Tanakh.



*
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I always feel we non-Jews spend way too much time thinking about and analyzing the Old Testament. It's all 'overimportantized' (I created a new word in my rant).
But it's an effective term, clearly expressing your contempt for Jewish scripture as 'Old' and unimportant. Thanks for sharing.

Do you have anything to add thats on-topic?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
But it's an effective term, clearly expressing your contempt for Jewish scripture as 'Old' and unimportant. Thanks for sharing.

It's not contempt. It's my considered opinion it is not that important to NON-JEWS. I have no contempt for Navajo ancient teachings either by the way.

Do you have anything to add thats on-topic?

No. But off-topic I think your attitude is uncalled for and childish. I feel no need to respond to you in the future.

My post was frubaled by a learned member too.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
What about the drawings from 800BC that show Yahweh as a human male. ?

Early Israelites worshipped a family of deities.

To me, if anything, it resembles what the people wanted out of their deity. They viewed them as human like in certain context.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
What about the drawings from 800BC that show Yahweh as a human male. ?

Early Israelites worshipped a family of deities.

To me, if anything, it resembles what the people wanted out of their deity. They viewed them as human like in certain context.

Do you have a link to the drawings?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
George-ananda said:
I always feel we non-Jews spend way too much time thinking about and analyzing the Old Testament. It's all 'overimportantized'
jayhawker soule said:
But it's an effective term, clearly expressing your contempt for Jewish scripture as 'Old' and unimportant.
George-ananda said:
It's not contempt. It's my considered opinion it is not that important to NON-JEWS.
I don't think Jews like having their scriptures being called "Old Testament", George.

The "Old Testament" is a Christian term or Christian label that some (Jews) might find offensive or "contemptuous".
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I don't think Jews like having their scriptures being called "Old Testament", George.

The "Old Testament" is a Christian term or Christian label that some (Jews) might find offensive or "contemptuous".

Oh please....
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Oh please....


Actually this is true.

We have had a couple of Jewish members ask us to use Tanakh, as it is not an "old" testament to them, it is current religious doctrine, just as the Christian "Bible" is for Christians.

Could you imagine the uproar if we started calling them the - OT and the SNCOT? (Slightly Newer Christian Old Testament) :)

*
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
At the time of this writing there are over 221 posts in the 'Man was created in the image of G-d'. No doubt there are many fine posts among them.

That said, let me begin with the following from Sarna's The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis:
The point I wish to emphasize is Sarna's comment:
"The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues."
We all have a right to our opinion no matter how thoughtful or inane it might be. But not all opinions are created equal, and it wouldn't hurt to realize that our opinions (and, even more so, our claims) can often benefit from relevant scholarship. On questions of import we should perhaps do our best to avail ourselves of it.
This is informative thank you. I tend to agree that humans have an obvious responsibilty that many take for granted.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Actually this is true.

We have had a couple of Jewish members ask us to use Tanakh, as it is not an "old" testament to them, it is current religious doctrine, just as the Christian "Bible" is for Christians.

Could you imagine the uproar if we started calling them the - OT and the SNCOT? (Slightly Newer Christian Old Testament) :)

*

Semantics. This is ridiculous.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
This is informative thank you. I tend to agree that humans have an obvious responsibilty that many take for granted.

It basically, randomly insults a thread I created, and you're fine with that, as well. Hey, good to know.

I am really not sure what your referring to. I am not here for drama I am here to learn.
Disciple... I think Idav is clueless about the history of this and is innocent. Jayhawker though is best ignored.
 
Top