[b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk
kevlds at hotmail.com
Thu Sep 8 09:15:01 EDT 2005
== Kevin, please stop saying things like "scholars are generally in
agreement", and come up with some good arguments against this rather obvious
point that the meaning and purpose of the image of God in Genesis 1:26 is
explicitly stated in that same verse, that humanity will have dominion.
Peter, please don't pretend I've presented ZERO arguments, but merely relied
on consensus. The text only says dominion was a consequence of being in the
image, it does not say that dominion is the defining element of the image. I
have the consensus of scholarship backing me on this point, so how can you
sit there and say your interpretation is such an "obvious point" and that it
== Dominion was God's purpose in creating humanity, and this was possible
because the image of God distinguished them from the animals etc.
But this doesn't say what the image is. The blessing of dominion was granted
AFTER man was created in the image of God. Again, I've provide far more
material than the two of you put together on this point, so how can you
imply that I haven't made any arguments and have relied strictly on
consensus? I bring up consensus for two reasons. 1) So you know I'm not just
pulling this stuff out of my butt, and 2) because it is a valid observation
when its plausibility is doubted as "obvious" and "explicitly" so. It is so
obvious, but the most respected commentators disagree. OK.
== While I would not claim that this is all there is to the image, the link
in this verse is so close that "defining element" seems to me exactly how it
should be described.
I've provided plenty of conflicting evidence in my other post. There appears
no reason to believe this to be so other than theologica, and you've
provided no reason to believe otherwisel. All the early references or
allusions to Gen 1:26, even in the Hellenistic period, undermine your
thesis. For instance, one Jewish tradition recalls that the angels
worshipped Adam shortly after his creation, because they mistook him for God
Almighty. Why? Because he was created in God's glorious image. He looked
just like him. There is nothing supporting the domonion explanation and
nothing to support the morality explanation prior to the middle-ages. So if
you want to keep pushing these arguments, you have to deal with the mountan
of conflciting evidence I've presented, and give us something more
authoritative than your blase dismissals
I would think that if any of the modern apologetic explanations held any
water, then there would at least be SOME evidence of these arguments in the
Jewish tradition prior to the Rabbinic period. But you've offered absolutely
nothing by way of pre-rabbinic evidence. Instead, again, everything alluding
to the image of God implies the very interpretation I've been suggesting.
Were the Jews getting their own scripture wrong for thousands of years?
More information about the b-hebrew