• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Evolution or Creation?

I believe, 86, we can actually put this one to a "test" of sorts, to see what the passage might mean

Buckeye86;1469943; said:
... I think that there are a lot of people out there, and maybe even most people out there, who take the passage literally and think that God looks exactly like modern day humans and that is one of the main foundations in their opposition to evolution
OK... Which ones? Which humans does G-d look like?
Me? You? Bearded? Why does He have hair at all?
Is he White? Black? Asian?
A Man? Woman? Why would He need any reproductive organs?

If G-d looks like "man" at all, why do Jews take idolism so seriously?

There are a host of other questions we might also ask...

I have never been able to answer these questions in a consistent way save for the conclusion that "image" and/or "likeness" cannot mean physical appearance. Of course, mine is not the only conclusion... but... it is what it is.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1469950; said:
I believe, 86, we can actually put this one to a "test" of sorts, to see what the passage might mean


OK... Which ones? Which humans does G-d look like?
Me? You? Bearded? Why does He have hair at all?
Is he White? Black? Asian?
A Man? Woman? Why would He need any reproductive organs?

If G-d looks like "man" at all, why do Jews take idolism so seriously?

There are a host of other questions we might also ask...

I have never been able to answer these questions in a consistent way save for the conclusion that "image" and/or "likeness" cannot mean physical appearance. Of course, mine is not the only conclusion... but... it is what it is.

right or wrong, this is the standard that I think a lot of people go by (this is completely conjecture on my part, however)

The_Creation_of_Adam.jpg
 
Upvote 0
Is G- one of BKB's many personalities?
What if G-d was one of us?

“Look within your heart, for there you will find both Karim and Ram; All the men and women of the world are His living forms.”
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Are you looking for me? I am in the next seat.
My shoulder is against yours.
you will not find me in the stupas, not in Indian shrine
rooms, nor in synagogues, nor in cathedrals:
not in masses, nor kirtans, not in legs winding
around your own neck, nor in eating nothing but
vegetables.
When you really look for me, you will see me
instantly --
you will find me in the tiniest house of time.
Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God?
He is the breath inside the breath.​
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1469937; said:
Beyond the scope of this thread, really, but.. I would be willing to accept that the Flood story in the Bible does address a real flood. Here's what I think on Flood stories (Biblical and otherwise)
1 - Flood stories are embellishments about what the world looked like to man living on coastlines during the end of the ice age. As the ice melted, the water level arose.... Man in North Africa notices the Med is "higher" talks about it... says some god must be responsible.. since no other story makes sense to him.
2 - The Biblical Flood discusses the flooding of the plain that now lies beneath the Persian Gulf. Link

In my view my theory explains why so many cultures have flood myths and it also explains something a little more specific regarding the Biblical story (assuming the data on the link I linked is indeed correct)

I've copied this into the Biblical thread.

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/...heology-discussion-thread-85.html#post1470071

I'm still searching for some past info that an acquaintance wrote. Once I find it, I'll place it there.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye86;1469943; said:
so was the Bible just being redundant when it used both "image" and "likeness"? I can definitely give you that one may have been referring to intellectual similarities, but why throw the other one in there as well?

Rashi was a Jewish Sage that was known for short, precise explanations to verses and/or passages. What I present to you is not ABSOLUTE; however, it should show a prevalence of how the Jewish understanding differs from the Christian one.

Genesis - Chapter 1 (Parshah Berei[censored]) - Genesis - Torah - Bible

26. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."

Let us make man: From here we learn the humility of the Holy One, blessed be He. Since man was created in the likeness of the angels, and they would envy him, He consulted them. And when He judges kings, He consults with His Heavenly household, for so we find regarding Ahab, that Micah said to him, (I Kings 22:19): ?I saw the Lord seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven were standing by Him, on His right and on His left.? Now do ?left? or ?right? apply to Him ?! But rather, [the passage means that] these [angels] were standing on the right to defend, and these [angels] were standing on the left to prosecute. Likewise, (Dan. 4:14): ?By the decree of the destructive angels is the matter, and by the word of the holy ones is the edict.? Here too, He took counsel with His heavenly household. He said to them, ?Among the heavenly beings, there are some in My likeness. If there are none in My likeness among the earthly beings, there will be envy among the creatures of the Creation. ? - [from Tanchuma, Shemoth 18; Gen. Rabbah 8:11, 14:13]

Let us make man: Even though they [the angels] did not assist Him in His creation, and there is an opportunity for the heretics to rebel (to misconstrue the plural as a basis for their heresies), Scripture did not hesitate to teach proper conduct and the trait of humility, that a great person should consult with and receive permission from a smaller one. Had it been written: ?I shall make man,? we would not have learned that He was speaking with His tribunal, but to Himself. And the refutation to the heretics is written alongside it [i. e., in the following verse:]?And God created (וַיִּבְרָא) ,? and it does not say,?and they created וַיִּבְרְאוּ.? - [from Gen. Rabbah 8:9]

in our image: in our form.

after our likeness: to understand and to discern.

and they shall rule over the fish: Heb. וְיִרְדּוּ This expression contains both the meaning of ruling and the meaning of subservience. If he merits, he rules over the beasts and over the cattle. If he does not merit, he becomes subservient to them, and the beast rules over him. ? [from Gen. Rabbah 8:12]

27. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

And God created man in His image: In the form that was made for him, for everything [else] was created with a command, whereas he [man] was created with the hands (of God), as it is written (Ps. 139:5): ?and You placed Your hand upon me.? Man was made with a die, like a coin, which is made by means of a die, which is called coin in Old French. And so Scripture states (Job 38:14): ?The die changes like clay.? - [from Letters of Rabbi Akiva , second version; Mid. Ps. 139:5; Sanh. 38a]

in the image of God He created him: It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the likeness of his Creator. ? [from B.B. 58a]

86 said:
also, both words definitely have overwhelmingly visual connotations, is this a case of a bad translation?

Understood. However, anthropomorphism is a way for the human mind to grasp the concept.

In regards to the translation question, my answer would be: that depends. There is so much depth to the Hebrew that it's more than just a word-for-word consideration.

86 said:
I actually like the idea of not taking God's image literally, since it doesn't really make sense to do so, but I have two problems with that:

#1 picking and choosing what is meant literally and what is meant figuratively in the Bible throws a major wrench into the idea that the Bible is the absolute truth when there is so much room for interpretation, why not just say that Noah's ark was just a metaphor, or any number of other things in the Bible were just figures of speech ect.

#2 if this is the case, then it seems like even less of reason for people to be so vehemently apposed to the theory of evolution, I mean, the absolute largest factor that separated modern day humans from everything else on the evolutionary timeline was their intelligence, that seems to gel pretty well with both the Bible and evolution if "image" wasn't meant to be a visual thing

while your interpretation may be true, and may make more sense, I think that there are a lot of people out there, and maybe even most people out there, who take the passage literally and think that God looks exactly like modern day humans and that is one of the main foundations in their opposition to evolution

Indeed, literal versus other perspectives is definitely a study. I hope that I've shown above how the differences can and do come into play.

Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1469950; said:
If G-d looks like "man" at all, why do Jews take idolism so seriously?

Excellent question.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top