Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Kevin Graham" <kevlds AT hotmail.com>
  • To: peterkirk AT qaya.org
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Divine Embodiment - Peter Kirk
  • Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:15:01 +0000


== 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 is "explicit"?

== 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?






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page