GeorgeW Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 . . . Gen 1:27 it does say "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them" That would seem to say they are real but even that is not certain as the Hebrew word that was translated image ( tselem - literally means a phantom, figuratively an illusion or resemblance especially as an idol image) Joseph, I am not aware of the 'phantom' meaning of the Hebrew tselem. I would be interested if you could cite a biblical passage in which it has this meaning. It is generally translated as 'image' (like Num. 33:52 'molten images'). George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Well George, even a 'molten image' is not real. While it is not translated by the authors as phantom, if you look at the root word in a Hebrew dictionary it will indicate Phantom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Perhaps 'image' in this sense, that something in some way resembles or represents something else, but in fact has no qualities of the something it represents or resembles? My example for this thought...a photograph of a human person. There is absolutely nothing of that photograph, not the paper, the ink or chemicals, that remotely resemble a human person, have anything to do with what a human person actually is, let alone some particular person. It is only though our common agreement, through perhaps what is examined under the paradigm of social psychology, 'symbolic interactionism', that any of us can look at that paper and ink and 'recognize' it as an image of a certain person. This involves certain specialized intellect and learning in dealing with abstracts, of the human mind. An animal, such as a dog or cat or horse, can look at the same paper and ink, and even though it knows well what human persons are and look like, would not 'see' anything of a human person about it. Same for a 'molten image', say a metal casting of a human person, or a lion, or what someone thinks god looks like. There's nothing there but a hunk of metal. Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Well George, even a 'molten image' is not real. While it is not translated by the authors as phantom, if you look at the root word in a Hebrew dictionary it will indicate Phantom. Joseph, I have three dictionaries of Hebrew including the B-D-B dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. The two others are modern Hebrew, one electronic (on my iPhone) and one hard copy. They all indicate a meaning of 'image' under the entry tselem. None indicate 'phantom.' A reverse look-up for 'phantom' gives a completely different Hebrew word (roughly damioni). What dictionary are you using? Does it give any biblical references for the word? George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 I don't find it so implausible that the authors of the OT actually thought that humans exist in the physical image of God. Further, there are many passages in which the worship of physical representations of others such as calves and various Canaanite deities are condemned. It is also plausible to me that the meaning may be more abstract, and something close to 'likeness' in terms of moral characteristics, sensibilities, ethics and the like which distinguish us from other animals. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 9, 2011 Share Posted October 9, 2011 Joseph, I have three dictionaries of Hebrew including the B-D-B dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. The two others are modern Hebrew, one electronic (on my iPhone) and one hard copy. They all indicate a meaning of 'image' under the entry tselem. None indicate 'phantom.' A reverse look-up for 'phantom' gives a completely different Hebrew word (roughly damioni). What dictionary are you using? Does it give any biblical references for the word? George —Brown-Driver-Briggs (Old Testament Hebrew-English Lexicon) From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol:—image, vain shew. tselem George, i had no problem finding this on the internet. While it is translated to different words by translators , the root word in my studies means to shade; a phantom OR THIS HERE or HERE Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 George, i had no problem finding this on the internet. While it is translated to different words by translators , the root word in my studies means to shade; a phantom Joseph, Hmm, Interesting. I have a Brown-Driver-Briggs hard-copy dictionary. It gives the following meanings of tselem with verse citations of each: Image, likeness, resemblance and figuratively = mere, empty, image, semblance. Nowhere does it give 'phantom.' My Oxford English Dictionary defines phantom as: 1. A ghost. 2. A figment of the imagination 3. Not real, illusory I can't image that the author of Genesis 1:26-27 intended any of these. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 (snip) My Oxford English Dictionary defines phantom as: 1. A ghost. 2. A figment of the imagination 3. Not real, illusory I can't image that the author of Genesis 1:26-27 intended any of these. George Not only you George but all of the translators as well. You are in good company. Yet the fact remains if you ignore the translators and study the root word meaning rather than how translators choose to translate it based on their own assumption of what the author meant or didn't mean, you will come up with phantom. While i might personally from my own subjective experience of reality see something deeper here, i would recommend as i said in my other post..... Just count it as me talking nonsense so as to keep it light (so in a sense one might remain open to such a non-obvious possibility that i may be inferring. ) Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Dear PC friends, Not to interrupt the interesting hebrew linguistics and semantics, but if I may conclude my thoughts... Since my first post to this thread I’ve wished to deflect the recurring tendency for discussions regarding “God as Person” concepts to devolve into the same tired old anthropomorphism protests. In this I have failed. More often than not, in my view, such criticisms bark up the wrong tree. I’ve plainly admitted that God’s Personhood must be far beyond any anthropological conception, much less definition. I’ve referred to us as human beings (persons) with unique personalities created by “God as (Infinite) Person”, super Person, transcendental Person, Creator Source and Loving Person - the Ground of ALL BEING . In my opinion, this has nothing to do with anthropomorphic idols or phantoms. Now we’re entertaining additional distraction with “personalities” of sub-human animals which (as Billmc used to say) might see God as a horse or some other animal… Joseph, although personality does not = person, can there be the former without the latter? Does anyone here doubt that we are real persons? If so, will their dog hunt ? While our First Source and Center must be far, far more than any anthropomorphic concept of a Person, can our Creator can be void of Personhood??? Hmmm… We don’t’ have to look far to notice that “God as Person” will never be fully understood “by the mere teaching of the mind”, intellectual logical proof. Che can only be known by the realities of personal experience, therefore did I state unequivocally that “I, personally” regard the concept of “God as Person” to be (an) inarguable fact. Obviously, others still have their doubts. To me, finding Chem through other than progressive personality approach (person-to-Person) is not possible. Have we not been advised by Jesus: “To love God with your whole hearts…”? Do we not receive God’s divine affection and love Chem in return? Is God's Love non-personal? The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law. UP 102:7.3 Discussion of these kinds of questions remind me of Mike’s observation on another thread regarding the “inclusiveness” of so-called Progressive Christianity. He noted that “it might become somewhat amorphous and ambiguous, lacking bite.” Hmmm… In good spirit of loving-service, Brent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Joseph, At the risk of belaboring a point not worth belaboring, the following is an except from the Anchor Bible Dictionary article titled "Image of God." I have excerpted the section regarding the etymology of the Hebrew word. Nowhere is the root meaning of 'phantom' mentioned. What this says is that there is no known root in Hebrew for this word. I promise to drop the subject after this. But, I thought this was pertinent and worth posting. The etymology of the word ṣelem, “image,” is uncertain. Some have suggested that it is related to a verb ṣālam, “to cut off,” which does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. Apart from the “image of God” passages, the word is used twelve times. In ten instances the word refers to a physical representation of something ( e.g. , golden images of mice and tumors in 1 Sam 6:5 , 11 ; images of Baal in 2 Kgs 11:18 and 2 Chr 23:17 ; molten images of Canaanite deities in Num 33:52 ; pagan images in Ezek 7:20 , 16:17 , and Amos 5:26 ; painted pictures of Babylonians in Ezek 23:14 ). Ṣelem has an abstract meaning in Ps 39:7 (— Eng 39:6 ), where it refers to the insubstantial nature of human life, and in Ps 73:20 , where it refers to a dream image that a person retains upon waking. Westermann ( Genesis 1–11 BKAT , 146) is perhaps correct in suggesting that the basic meaning of ṣelem is “representation,” a meaning sufficiently broad to include both the concrete and the abstract aspects of the word. The Akkadian cognate of the word ( ṣalmu ) is the common Akkadian word for statue/image, and it also includes an abstract aspect. The Aramaic cognate of ṣelem is a common word for image, and the word is used in the Aramaic portions of Daniel for the images/statues described in chapters 2 and 3 . The word is also used of the attitude of the king ( lit. “the appearance of his face”) toward those who refused to bow down to the image that he was dedicating.[1] (The underlining and blue fonts came with the copy/paste). George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 Hi Brent, I’ve plainly admitted that God’s Personhood must be far beyond any anthropological conception, much less definition. I’ve referred to us as human beings (persons) with unique personalities created by “God as (Infinite) Person”, super Person, transcendental Person, Creator Source and Loving Person - the Ground of ALL BEING . In my opinion, this has nothing to do with anthropomorphic idols or phantoms. To me, finding Chem through other than progressive personality approach (person-to-Person) is not possible. Have we not been advised by Jesus: “To love God with your whole hearts…”? Do we not receive God’s divine affection and love Chem in return? Is God's Love non-personal? Quote The fact of religious experience implies God, and such a God of personal experience must be a personal Deity. You cannot pray to a chemical formula, supplicate a mathematical equation, worship a hypothesis, confide in a postulate, commune with a process, serve an abstraction, or hold loving fellowship with a law. UP 102:7.3 I believe your point has been well taken here. I do not see "God as person" as an idea in disrepute; there are understandings of the personhood of God that I do find meaningful, if still beyond my capacity to verify. No one here was attacking you or your understanding, so I don't see warrant for what appears to be an inflamed tone toward "so-called" progressive Christians, nor the use of my words for the endorsement of that sentiment. If God is the 'ground of being' and not a 'being among beings'; if God is totally beyond an anthropomorphic imagery, is supra-personal, then I think there is room enough for differing approaches. Creativity is essential; dialogue like this is an unfolding of creativity. There are clearly different types of 'love'; I could not love an infinite person or super person, the Being behind "beings", like I love my friends and family, for they - and not God - are clearly beings among beings. It seems that loving God would require a very different love, a different sense of abiding compassion, tenderness, and openness, than would be defined as in human relationships. It seems to me that whether we define God as non-personal or suprapersonal, there are similar conceptual difficulties that remain unsolved. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted October 10, 2011 Author Share Posted October 10, 2011 For instance, if I were to point out what is God and say, 'This is God, I love him/her/it,' then it would seem that we have objectified God as a being among beings. Personally, I see God as Presence - not abstract and not impersonal (or even personal) as such. If this Presence is not a thing among things, then I could not say that I "love this Presence", but it could be supposed that this Presence itself is Love. This seems to be just what the mystics have said. Is it possible to have "love" without person? Stated in such way, I don't think so, but I'm not actually sure what constitutes person. I do believe that Reality is en-minded, it is 'knowing'. If this fits the bill for 'person' or 'personality', then I suppose I am a theist at heart. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Brent , In all fairness, i think you have made your position on the issue of "God as Person" very clear and stated it to be far beyond any traditional anthropological conception, While some or many (i don't know) may find it both useful and meaningful intellectually or otherwise to define "God as Person" or as a useful religious point of view to see God as 'Personhood', whether as three or one, i personally (my view only) find all such definitions of God both limiting and fallacious (as in tending to mislead). Having said that, i of course am not saying such a view is superior to your own. It is merely the way i choose to look at it from my own subjective experience of reality. Peace, Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 George, Thanks for the added information above. i don't know what the authors real intentions were. Please write-off my comments concerning phantom and the unused root of the Hebrew word 'tselem' as nonsense. Mike, Presence seems to me a good word. It also seems to me that in this Presence, i cannot say "i love this Presence". That thought cannot arise except when 'outside' (so to speak) that Presence. Joseph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Mike and friends, I'm happy to see that you've been able to contribute more of your valuable insights. Surely you know how easily e-sentiment can be misconstrued. Please consider mine more impassioned than “inflamed”. I’m sorry if my use of your wording has been mistakenly viewed as supporting my observations regarding some flavors of progressive Christianity. Peace be with you also, Brent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I see Jesus, Buddha, Mary, Krishna, Shiva, Mohammed ect. as beads on say a rosary. In my journey I saw Buddhist, Muslims, Hindus, and Shiites using beads on their physical journeys, which kept their minds and bodies occupied while they bathed in the present moment without distraction. In the market place I could see these devotees doing business without distraction enjoying the bliss of the Divinity within while taking care of duties. If manipulating a bead in the mind works, I say go for it. It is not the bead, but the awareness of the Divinity within and without that works for me. Grasping the bead to hard only caused me bruises and pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.