In God's Image...

[Hirohito18200]

Ponder this....

If God created man, and lets include angels, in his image, then why to we have the ablility to choose good or evil, when God cannot do an evil thing if He wanted to, although he can't desire to but anyway. We, then, were really made in the image of the angels, not God.

Random thought: Some deists believe that God made the angels and that Lucifer, or other angels, made creation. This would explain the presense of evil and all.

Conclusion: How can we be made in God's image if we are not omnicent, omnipotent, or omnipresent; if we are given free will when he is confined within the boundries of his nature; if he implanted the seeds of jealosy into his first creation, and caused evil to spread throughout the universe?

 

[inca]

Hirohito: First we need to know the orignal words and not wrong translations to make further philosophy. In Genesis 1:26 it says something 99.9% of Christians do ingore to start with. It doesn't say "let's create". In Hebrew that is "barah" yet the text doesn't say that but "form". Something repeated in in 2:7, 18, 19, 22 describing the episodes about Adam & Eve. In fact Genesis 2:7 explicitly says Adan was taken from the ground or dust. If Christians imagination was teased by John Huston's film "The Bible...in the beginning" or ilustrations in religious books and magazines or tracts, that's another issue.
Even the fact that this "god" talks in plural was overlooked and explained by Trinitarian dogma adapted from paganism thousands of years later in Christianism. There was no majestic plural at all in Genesis 1:26 but simple plural. The same happens in 3:22 when the entity (by concern, envy or jealousy) confirmed Satan didn't say a lie cos Adam & Eve in fact became like THEM (the gods). And that very plural is repeated once again in Genesis 11:7, "let's go down and confuse their language". In other texts we can't translate -for example- "the gods created heaven and earth in the beginning" cos the verb is in singular. Therefore, if you wanna know something more accurate I encourage you to read :
www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
www.sitchin.com/images/adam1.jpg
www.sitchin.com/genetics.htm
www.sitchin.com/primate.htm
www.sitchin.com
He has the advantage not only of knowing Hebrew being himself a Russian-Jew but knowing Sumerian account

 

[jay1_z]

We are made in God's image, but because we have free-will we were brought into sin.

How can we be made in God's image if we are not omnicent, omnipotent, or omnipresent

Because God gave us flesh. We were given dominion over the earth in the physical realm. God didn't make us to be His servants. We are His children. We are King & Lords made to rule with Him, not under Him. He is the "King of Kings, Lord of Lords". Sin breaks the relationship that we have with God. If we never sinned, which could be lack of faith, then we would be able to move mountains. Who, in this world has, has enough faith to do that?

 

[inca]

In the other hand, neverthless, Xenophanes philosopher confused the reflection in a mirror with reality when he used the argument gods are anthropomorphous. In fact, it's the opposite, we are teo-morphous or deimorphous, in their shape. If you talk about moral issue rather than biological that's something to discuss about.
Perhaps you gotta see some odd experiences not witnessed necessarily by squizophrenic people to understand a little bit better what can't be shown with human devices in the hyperdimensions, something I already discussed in personal letter to physicist Michio Kaku (author of Hyperdimensions).

 

[inca]

You can read what I posted under my name Oscar in check the sites I included:
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=21826
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=17499
www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=22113

 

[Hirohito18200]

Jay1_z: "We are King & Lords made to rule with Him, not under Him"

The word "with" implies equality. If we are to rule with God, then shouldn't we have an equal say. To say we rule with him would render all rules and regulations useless, becasue, when we die, we could go up and argue with him to get into heaven. You were correct in your Sons and Daughters approach. Refer to the the hot topic for details. http://www.religiousforums.com/parkweb/viewtopic.php?p=4075#4075

Perhaps wording it: "to rule under God" would solve alot of problems :goodjob:

 

[inca]

Certainly it's not me the one who wrote we could or would rule WITH him.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Okay, god gave us flesh, so we don't resemble him physically, and we aren't omnipotent, etc., so we don't resemble him mentally either. How then, are we created in his image? Something is definately missing here--although to say that something is missing is to imply that it was present at some previous time...

 

[inca]

Please re-read the links I provided in my message before on Wed. May 05 8:02 a.m.
I'm saying God didn't make a direct creation, He just allowed the curse of events and in doing it so, other creatures already existed before. They were the ones who practice genetic engineering. That's why even the Bible hides the use of plural in some verses in Genesis providing several details. Now if anyone wants to discuss evolution as theorized by neo-Darwinist, welcome....
Before that, let's remember human females don't have the bodies covered with hair as males while we don't see too much of a difference between males and females in apes. They can't let their hair to grow and have hair like ours. This has something to do with hormons of course but the survival of the "most skilled" was worthless in the hominds who were more "evolved" than apes and yet we have the less evolved with us (monkeys, gorillas, orangotangoes, Rhesus all together with chickens, sharks, mosquitoes, snakes, whales..you name it). The fragments around the world are so scarce that you can put them together in a ping pong table. They were mutants. Yet mutation is a weak argument to explain our existence cos geneticist know much better than Darwin mutants are 99% fiasco. Evolution in reverse or involution. Scientists tried unsuccsesfully to convert flies into spiders with gamma rays but only achieved the changing of color of the eyes, putting eyes on the wings, adding feet...after a while they got back to what they were cos of atavic genetic law. With antibiotic you can see actually the survivals are crippled and the future generations get through cos plasmides but will never see an Echeria Coli transforming hocus pocus into Salmonella or Shigella. The map of DNA code is specific and you can't jump the barriers unless you use genetic engineering and even so, it's very difficult and you have to fight against math odds. The natural limit of hybridation even IN SIMILAR SPECIES like lions and tigers or horses and donkeys is hybridism and sterilization...

 

[inca]

In the sites that I quoted you will see HOW clay was used in Adam & Eve experience. The text in Sumerian and Biblical account give extraordinary details like the fact Adam was slept to be operated. The rib was taken out. If you take the rib out leaving intact the periostium, it can grow again like lizard's tail. More important than this is the fact marrow inside ribs and bones create blood and Adam is a name linked to blood. It's said he became a living soul but soul in Hebrew is néphesh meaning also blood and life. This néphesh allows néshama which in Hebrew is breathing and we know it's because of blood that the process hematosis exists, the blood carries the O2 to the cells all over the body.
The ribs have an area very irrigated with blood and the use of cartilages are important. Christians usually haven't consider the fact Eve was taken from Adam so this is a case of genetic endogamy or genetic INCEST. The very fact she was taken from him explains the reason we know NOW. When you need a marrow transplant whom are you gonna pick? You're gonna choose a CLOSE RELATIVE TO DODGE THE INMUNITY REJECTION. The text specifies Adam's words "this is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone".
The genetic affinity between monkeys and man and Rhesus factor needs to be better explained. So, read again the posting I did in the message on May 05, 8:02 am.

 

[inca]

That's why is no surprise Cain married his sister Awan (according to the Book of Jubilees). Compared with with Genesis 5:4 where the account admits Adam had daughters as well (not specified by name in the Bible for reasons I already suggested in this forum somewhere else). The verb "yadhá" in Hebrew means "know by experience", hence in Genesis 4:25 wasn't a case of 'glad to meet you AGAIN darling" but SEX. Everytime there was that "knowing" a child was born. Hence Cain didn't met his wife but had sex with his sister (Genesis 4:17). Please, don't reply or ask other details cos we're gonna go off topic. I'm just mentioning this cos the text in Biblical account and Sumerian account always mentioned the incest which was later on forbidden due to imaginable circumstances. Jewish myths have always known cases of gigantism and dwarfs in Cain's offspring. The case of possible black poliploid hermafrodites with 6 fingers (sometimes giants) can be check in the case of one of the Refaim in 2 Samuel 21:18-22.
Sorry I gotta work now....

 

[painted wolf]

If you take the rib out leaving intact the periostium, it can grow again like lizard's tail. More important than this is the fact marrow inside ribs and bones create blood and Adam is a name linked to blood.

this is a bit ridiculous.... a human rib can't 'grow again like a lizards tail'... :lol:

This néphesh allows néshama which in Hebrew is breathing and we know it's because of blood that the process hematosis exists, the blood carries the O2 to the cells all over the body.

Hematosis is the creation of blood in the bone marrow... but for blood to carry O2 it needs lungs or gills to mix it with the O2 in the first place.... Blood also carrys CO2 wich it picks up in excange from the cells.... without a way to dump the CO2 and pick up fresh O2 the system breaks down... blood also requires a heart to move it though the vessels so that it can reach the cells that need it... no heart and the blood sits still and clots.... your rib would suffocate to death. :roll:
of cource your rib would also have get energy... since a rib can not break down food into usable form like the digestive system it would quickly run out of energy and starve to death... :roll:

oh and in responce to your previous message...
yes, women have just as much hair as men... ours is finer and shorter and thus less noticable... mens hair is thicker and darker... :mrgreen:
and the reason we still have apes, chikens and sharks and everything 'less evolved' then us is they are adapted for what they do... Humans can't replace any of those species because we cant do what they do... we cant eat the same foods or move as easily in the same environments, so realy they are more evolved for thier lives then we are.
(try outswimming a shark, outflying a bird or outrunning a horse for example.) 8)

wa:-do

 

[inca]

First of all, my statement about the rib is not something invented out from my imagination, it's a scientific fact (maybe you're unaware, that's another thing) that's why I specified not removing the periostium which is the fiber tissue around the bone. Of course, everything you say about CO2 is correct, I'm not denying the point. I'm just saying the Hebrew text leaves those things implicit cos specifies the use of a word meaning blood and soul breathing at the same time. As I indicated the text in the Bible doesn't use the word "create" (barah) in Hebrew but "form" or "modelate" from something already existing, so the genetic engineering was performed in the hominds who had already the organs. People have always used the term "adaptation" and confused that with "evolution" as understood by Darwin. Darwin went beyond what was discovered by genetic. He thought the adaptation would be such that a certain specie would eventually become another thing, anphibious becoming birds and then mammals and sometimes again getting back to square one but if you wanna start a discussion about evolution I will be glad to discuss with every little detail, quoting names of known scientists, books, pages and so on until insults keep on coming to me rather than scientific and logic arguments. Your correction about the meaning of hematosis is wellcome though it doesn't change the argument cos the marrow created blood and we know Adam is related both to color red and blood as a Hebrew root. In fact red cells don't have nucleus neither DNA cos of that very process. I don't remember how to write properly something taken out of Greek and I'm in the office and have no time to check in a proper dictionary. I think want I wanted to write was hemostasis or something like this. Can you correct me?
Too much obliged and thanks for your response.
I wanted to add our inteligence is not something to be overlooked cos our brain processes 10800 options trough each one of 14 billion neurons and conections. That's more -some have calculated- than the ### of atoms in the universe....

 

[inca]

The anthropic principle of the universe spins around the fact a minimum alteration on physics of the universe would eliminate life. So, Nobel Prize, Steven Weinberg explains the universe is like this cos otherwise there wouldn't be anyone to ask why it is like this. The physic Freeman Dyson wrote the Universe somehow knew we were coming. And the discussion of Stephen Hawkings actually opened more chat about the weak anthropic principle of the universe, as you can read in Hyperspace made by author Michio Kaku, physicist himself.

 

[inca]

A couple of things I forgot to say:
1) The tail of a lizard doesn't grow again FULL SIZE, so don't expect some ribs are gonna grow the same dimensions.
2) To compare human hair with thick ape hair is crossed-eye perspective and typical from evolutionist point of view always repeating the same leftover argument about philogenesis and onthogenesis when some "animal parts" change totally and we haven't see EVER an animal expelling excrements from the spine. In that argument although they say resemblance doesn't prove evolution at all, they kept showing the same figures books after books even embryo. A better look would determine in that sense we're more alike to pigs and rabbits than monkeys! Life on this planet uses the same elements but the similarity was always a weak argument.
Now what shall we talk about? Hyperthricosis as a mutation helping the survival of the most skill?
Since the very beginning (as scientific fossil evidence clearly shows) mosquitos were mosquitos, sharks were sharks and crocodiles were crocodiles. The missing link is always missing. Wherever you search for a evolutionar gap you'll see the parts are completed, not half constructed. Therefore, since that scientific evidence was against all crap said by evolutionists attributed to Father Chronus time (saying this happened so sloooooow and boring) they invented a new term "macroevolution" saying now, it happened SO FAST that they left no evidence of the change, it was done hocus pocus Copperfield magic! Good thing, now they say that's science and not faith! Please, I beg you, START A THEME ABOUT EVOLUTION even with the best examples of evolution and see how far the rabbit goes into the hole...
Now, if you wanna discuss about moral, good versus evil, that is another theme.

 

[inca]

But before I go to rest, lemme say our spine,etc, is like this not because of that old fashioned argument of 'adaptation' but genetics:
www.hon.ch/News/HSN/514201.html
That there's too much to be learned about ribs:
www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine_health/report-13412.html
And finally check this:
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp
www.s8int.com/adamsrib.html

 

[inca]

By the way, the Genesis stories about GIANTS (a universal legend different from isolated myth) could reveal our "image":
www.s8int.com/giants1.html
www.s8int.com/giants2.html
www.s8int.com/giants3.html
www.s8int.com/giants4.html
www.s8int.com/giants5.html
www.s8int.com/giants6.html
www.s8int.com/giants7.html
www.s8int.com/giants8.html

 

[painted wolf]

First of all, my statement about the rib is not something invented out from my imagination, it's a scientific fact

if it is fact then please post your source so I can check it out...

Darwin went beyond what was discovered by genetic.

well... we've learned a lot since Darwin... we learned about DNA and the forces behind adaptation/evolution(adaptation is quick changes, evolution is the long term effect of many adaptations)... Darwin simply proposed a therory where good genes are passed down from parent to child and bad genes are eleminiated... How did he go byond genetics?

Your correction about the meaning of hematosis is wellcome though it doesn't change the argument cos the marrow created blood and we know Adam is related both to color red and blood as a Hebrew root. In fact red cells don't have nucleus neither DNA cos of that very process. I don't remember how to write properly something taken out of Greek and I'm in the office and have no time to check in a proper dictionary. I think want I wanted to write was hemostasis or something like this. Can you correct me?

hemostasis is the process of blood clotting.... now about blood cells... the bone marrow also makes white blood cells... these cells contain DNA... which is why we can test blood for DNA matching. So does the adam argument work with white as well?

Hyperthricosis- Hyper-many/excessive osis-abnormal condition but what does thric stand for? never heard of this term....

as for sharks always being sharks have you seen thier fossil record? They had some funky proto-sharks out there.... as well as proto-crocs that were likewise very odd... some eaven herbivorus... both very unlike modern examples.... look at the history of horses for instance.
now the feathered dinosaurs coming out of china are really interesting...

as for the idea that aliens geneticaly engineered us... I think thats infinatly more far-fetched than any biological theory :lol:

wa:-do

 

[inca]

As I said, if you want a discusion about evolution you can open a thread. I already quoted sites but really my references about the ribs I knew from books long ago. Darwin went beyond genetics for the reasons I have already explained clearly. Read again & again until understand. Proto-sharks or proto-crocodiles don't have to be equal as lions are not equal to tigers or kitties, yet the fact is you can't traspass the limits already written in DNA code unless you directly manipulate them. When flies were bombed by gamma rays it wasn't a case of "natural" circumstance but scientists tried unsuccesfully to recreate what nature could've done with external radiation. They did it with flies cos the time they procreate so they calculate the same could happen in X generation of men. The flies had some alterations but didn't went beyond the limits of their species as Darwin expected (and evolutionists faith still wait in vane), flies got back to what they were but never transformed into scorpions or spiders, etc.
The so-called Eohippus, the ancestral of the horse was probably a daman, an animal who actually exists in Africa. And the finding of some fragments of skeletons doesn't mean they are what paleonthologists interpret they are. Indeed most of animals in the past were giants from cockroaches to birds the size of horses, something that is not explained by gigantism mutation or any other biologist's explanation but something that should be answered by geologists who doesn't even know the forces (the cause) of the division in Pangea sole continent. But, you can keep on posting forever. It's better to open a new thread. The issue here was human's image and God's image and eventually transformed into something else.

 

[inca]

You can check about hirsutism and hypertricosis by internet too. I admit it, I wrote fast and added an H, but if you like to search and investigate in behalf of science you could've check with desire to learn too in behalf of science rather than "jumping" the information, even the links I mentioned. You can always search for yourself too, ask how many experts in surgery have done operations in ribs without taken out the tissue, etc. I have worked with doctors many years of my life and don't think that because they have been many years in the university or in the hospital or clinic they really know everything they should, okey dokey?
If you think the believing in aliens is narrow minded attitude and set the emoticon of a laughing face, maybe you think Carl Sagan and Richard Hoagland and Michio Kaku were and are stupid people too cos they have believed this in spite of all his knowledge and medals and awards in science, not to mention other scientists. Please, write to the scientists saying you (whose name is...?) have declared the idea as absurd.