Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Christian mythology and its assertion of likeness and image.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Christian mythology and its assertion of likeness and image.

    Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:

    The man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.

    Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

    V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα ). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.

    To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”

    But when its two nominal components—‘image ‘and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of in-comparability is quickly qualified.

    For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately, and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. It seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.

    The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance.

    Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).

  • #2
    Originally posted by Shamash View Post
    Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:

    The man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.

    Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

    V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα ). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.

    To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”

    But when its two nominal components—‘image ‘and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of in-comparability is quickly qualified.

    For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately, and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. It seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.

    The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance.

    Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).
    To be created in Gods image is not a physical form at all, God is Spirit not flesh.

    Man is created in His image by His Spirit, not our flesh. And no one is in His image least He be in you and you be in Him as one by His Spirit be your own. Look at Matt 3:16, Jesus was not in the image of God until after Matt 3:16. Look at Moses, he wasn't in Gods image until God came to him by His Spirit. 120 Look at Adam Gen 3:22 and man did what ... became like Him to know this difference and that comes only by Gods Spirit be your own. That is the only way you will be in the image of God is if you have His same Spirit, disposition.
    The human side is to claim the promises of God. The divine side is to receive them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Shamash View Post
      Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:

      The man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.

      Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

      V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα ). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.

      To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”

      But when its two nominal components—‘image ‘and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of in-comparability is quickly qualified.

      For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately, and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. It seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.

      The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance.

      Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).

      sorry but what is your point other than to defend against God?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by e v e View Post


        sorry but what is your point other than to defend against God?
        The point is that Biblical literature is misleading it is in error as the ‘image ‘and ‘likeness' have logical drawbacks.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by GaryMac View Post

          To be created in Gods image is not a physical form at all, God is Spirit not flesh.
          We are talking about initial creation from Genesis, not birth cycles. You can only in your summation then assert original sin, but when the Hebrew God is creating mankind "sin" does not exist at the time. It isn't until after the fall from the Biblical garden that terms such as "flesh" are used to deter the believer from "sin".
          Originally posted by GaryMac View Post
          Man is created in His image by His Spirit, not our flesh. And no one is in His image least He be in you and you be in Him as one by His Spirit be your own. Look at Matt 3:16, Jesus was not in the image of God until after Matt 3:16. Look at Moses, he wasn't in Gods image until God came to him by His Spirit. 120 Look at Adam Gen 3:22 and man did what ... became like Him to know this difference and that comes only by Gods Spirit be your own. That is the only way you will be in the image of God is if you have His same Spirit, disposition.
          If God is a spirit, then mankind is created in the image of God, meaning to some degree God has human attributes. Man is created by God in his "image and likeness" where did you get "by His Spirit, not our flesh?" We are discussing creation of mankind, what we are not discussing is Jesus, Moses wanting to appease the Hebrew God. Even with Adam in the Old Testament, Genesis 3:22 has nothing to do with "image and likeness" because creation has already happened.

          Once again:

          Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Shamash View Post

            The point is that Biblical literature is misleading it is in error as the ‘image ‘and ‘likeness' have logical drawbacks.
            similar to the line used on Adam to steal from him Gods Image. Every ancient text describes the jealousy had by the fallen angels about Adam , to steal his birthright , those attributes of God.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Shamash View Post
              Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:

              The man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.

              Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

              V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα ). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.

              To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”

              But when its two nominal components—‘image ‘and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of in-comparability is quickly qualified.

              For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately, and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. It seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.

              The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance.

              Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).
              Soul is spirit, it is who we are, how we think and how we react to current knowledge, it is life and how we live it.

              If one knows a certain thing but is ignorant in another is what causes controversy among us. Imagination puts together something tangible where law is established to regulate that what we understand. Terms as in heaven, hell, Eden, lake of fire, angels, God, spawns all kinds of imagination and man puts into law what he thinks of it and that is greatly swayed from one individual to another for what another says or wrights about it as in -- I Like what this guy says about heaven and hell,God, Jesus, or no I don't like what this person says about heaven and hell.

              Independence from these persuasions is something one has to work out himself. Look at Jesus. His persuasion was dont ask me anything, John 16:23, but go to the author of it and acquire His same mind, Spirit, and let Him direct what is in your soul as your way your life and your truth as is your soul, your spirit, walk, light, knowledge.

              When we read all these different opinions about heaven hell Eden God and the alike there is one outstanding truth that manifests and that is ... One cant assume himself to be in a certain condition, knowledge, light, that he never has been in.

              One says heaven is this, the guy sitting next to you says no heaven is this ... so on and so forth. It is like the controversy of man going to the moon. One says he went to the moon another says it was all just a fabrication and man really didn't go. You cant prove man went to the moon all you have is what someone else said about it. Then you say well I watched the event live on TV, What did you see, a fabrication of or by faith that it did?

              Where did you learn about nephesh? did not someone give you opinion about it? What about heaven, hell, Eden. Who told you about them? How did you gain knowledge for this very OP? By reading what someone else said about it and in that stipulate that I agree with this one?

              There is only ONE unmistakable truth that supersedes all of man opinions and cant be regulated by what man says, it cant be written in law, it cant be changed and is the same yesterday as today and will be the same tomorrow and do you know that that is? Simply LOVE, HOLY LOVE, it is who we are how we act how we think, it is our spirit, our soul. My mortal man is not my soul, it is only the temple for what is in it.

              Love is not an opinion, love isn't something I try and do, love isn't just kind words or acts of benevolence. It isn't something I try and be because some law established says I should. Love is my soul, it is who I AM, it is my way, my truth, and my life and no one comes to Love least you are of it, identified with it, manifest in you. And in that is the very message Jesus presented and said don't ask me anything live it yourself. Was that just an opinion Jesus conjured? One could say that if As I said, one cant assume himself to be in a certain condition that he never has been in.

              Anticipation is for future, Reality is manifest today. Ask self, what condition are you in today. Is it one of anticipation for these things where others has swayed ones thinking in established laws spawned from opinion as in an Eden being restored, or do you live the reality of heaven, or hell, or Eden or any other thing man says about it in anticipation?

              Everyone has his truths but there is only one truth of LOVE and that is who I am. And I Am is so misunderstood among Christians, they never ever relate to I am themselves but of some god they cant even relate to waiting for some great and notable day that never happens and go to a grave never knowing the reality of and has conjured laws to regulate their Great I Am to take their place for who they are supposed to be instead.

              All these technical difficulties are put to rest when Love is manifest in you. They mean noting at all other than to show ignorance for what it is to live a life they only dream of. How did you come to know these technical difficulties where arguments about them arise? Was it not from opinions of others?

              Paramount is to live it not speculate about it.
              The human side is to claim the promises of God. The divine side is to receive them.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Shamash View Post
                We are talking about initial creation from Genesis, not birth cycles. You can only in your summation then assert original sin, but when the Hebrew God is creating mankind "sin" does not exist at the time. It isn't until after the fall from the Biblical garden that terms such as "flesh" are used to deter the believer from "sin".


                If God is a spirit, then mankind is created in the image of God, meaning to some degree God has human attributes. Man is created by God in his "image and likeness" where did you get "by His Spirit, not our flesh?" We are discussing creation of mankind, what we are not discussing is Jesus, Moses wanting to appease the Hebrew God. Even with Adam in the Old Testament, Genesis 3:22 has nothing to do with "image and likeness" because creation has already happened.

                Once again:

                Divine image and representation as the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act.
                God is a Spirit and that Spirit is Love and that is the only way man can be in His image is if you are. God does not look like a man, man can only act Him out as their own disposition.
                The human side is to claim the promises of God. The divine side is to receive them.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by e v e View Post

                  similar to the line used on Adam to steal from him Gods Image. Every ancient text describes the jealousy had by the fallen angels about Adam , to steal his birthright , those attributes of God.
                  What on earth are you talking about??? First off there are a number of creations texts (Cuneiform which is baked clay tablets) which predate Biblical texts. Specifically which texts that are ancient that are Cuneiform show "angels having jealousy over Adam"? Those writings are apocryphal BTW and most likely rejected by the church, which is why other texts are extra Biblical because they are not in the Bible.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Shamash View Post

                    What on earth are you talking about??? First off there are a number of creations texts (Cuneiform which is baked clay tablets) which predate Biblical texts. Specifically which texts that are ancient that are Cuneiform show "angels having jealousy over Adam"? Those writings are apocryphal BTW and most likely rejected by the church, which is why other texts are extra Biblical because they are not in the Bible.
                    the translations may have deceived you. I’m talking about hieroglyphs, sumerian texts, and rg Veda and Ramayana and Mahabharata.... if you know how to read them which my colleague does, along with Hebrew, then you would see that they do refer to the events at the fall, though giving different names. As for predating that’s irrelevant since the events themselves and the beings involved predate all the later written accounts of those events. What matters is that. Not whether sineone telling of the event first had some sort of edge for writing them down first.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      also, many translators have translated hieroglyphs left to right when in fact they need to be translated right to left, as Hebrew, which only rarely has been done.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by e v e View Post
                        the translations may have deceived you. I’m talking about hieroglyphs, sumerian texts, and rg Veda and Ramayana and Mahabharata.... if you know how to read them which my colleague does, along with Hebrew, then you would see that they do refer to the events at the fall, though giving different names. As for predating that’s irrelevant since the events themselves and the beings involved predate all the later written accounts of those events. What matters is that. Not whether sineone telling of the event first had some sort of edge for writing them down first. also, many translators have translated hieroglyphs left to right when in fact they need to be translated right to left, as Hebrew, which only rarely has been done.
                        Why are you coupling "heiorglyphs, Sumerian Cueniform, Vedic and Mahābhārata sanskrit" all together? Those are all seperate cultures years apart from each other.

                        Sumerian Cuneiform being the oldest because it is in Sun Baked Tablet Form and Cuneiform predates any Papel writing, the idea of writing on animal skin isn't until about 2000 BC, the Sumerian's would have etched in Clay writing about 4000 BC if not all the way back to 6000 BC.

                        For example in a Sumerian Cuneiform the God Enki divides the languages, yet we see in Biblical writings that it isn't until Babylon that the Hebrew God divides the languages. The Sumerian's existed long before the Babylonian's and the "Israelite's" ever existed.

                        Sumerian is a non Semitic, pre Semitic language and is agglutination (forming words predominantly by agglutination, rather than by inflection or by using isolated elements), being that it is pre Semitic it's safe to say that the tablet of Enki dividing the languages far predates the Biblical story of dividing languages seen with the tower of Babel.

                        The other issue that the Bible has is that all those cultures writings you refer to are polytheistic, they do not believe in one God.

                        Ziursudra for example was a pious man who worshiped Enki and when Enlil is distraught he sends a flood, then comes the holy instruction to Ziusudra, build an ark to save mankind from the flood. It isn't until much later that we see a monotheist named Noah who is given holy instruction to build an ark.

                        Also, Biblical languages tend to borrow from those polytheistic in order to create their own epics, which are loosely adopted from those earlier cultures.

                        We can discuss for example Noah’s Ark in Genesis From here, as good investigators, we must follow the Ark trail where it naturally leads, which is to the Hebrew Bible and beyond.

                        Genesis 6:14–16

                        Make yourself an ark (tēvāh) of gopher wood [came the instruction]; make rooms (qinnīm) in the ark, and cover it (kāpar) inside and out with pitch (kopher). This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.

                        The biblical word tēvāh, which is used for the arks of Noah and Moses, occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The flood and baby episodes are thus deliberately
                        associated and linked in Hebrew just as the Atrahasis and Sargon Arks are linked associatively in Babylonia.

                        Now for something extraordinary: no one knows what language tēvāh is or what it means. The word for the wood, gopher, is likewise used nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and no one knows what language or what kind of wood it is. This is a peculiar state of affairs for one of the most famous and influential paragraphs in all of the world’s writing.

                        The associated words kopher, ‘bitumen’, and kāphar, ‘to smear on’, are also to be found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, but, significantly, they came from Babylonia with the narrative itself, deriving from Akkadian kupru, ‘bitumen’, and kapāru, ‘to smear on’. In view of this it is logical to expect that tēvāh and gopher are similarly loanwords from Babylonian Akkadian into Hebrew, but there has been no convincing candidate for either word. Suggestions have been made for gopher-wood, but the identification, or the non-Hebrew word that lies behind it, remains open.
                        Ideas have also been put forward over the centuries concerning the word tēvāh, some linking it – because Moses was in Egypt – with the ancient Egyptian word thebet, meaning ‘box’ or ‘coffin’, but these have ended nowhere.






                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GaryMac View Post

                          Soul is spirit, it is who we are, how we think and how we react to current knowledge, it is life and how we live it.

                          If one knows a certain thing but is ignorant in another is what causes controversy among us. Imagination puts together something tangible where law is established to regulate that what we understand. Terms as in heaven, hell, Eden, lake of fire, angels, God, spawns all kinds of imagination and man puts into law what he thinks of it and that is greatly swayed from one individual to another for what another says or wrights about it as in -- I Like what this guy says about heaven and hell,God, Jesus, or no I don't like what this person says about heaven and hell.

                          Independence from these persuasions is something one has to work out himself. Look at Jesus. His persuasion was dont ask me anything, John 16:23, but go to the author of it and acquire His same mind, Spirit, and let Him direct what is in your soul as your way your life and your truth as is your soul, your spirit, walk, light, knowledge.

                          When we read all these different opinions about heaven hell Eden God and the alike there is one outstanding truth that manifests and that is ... One cant assume himself to be in a certain condition, knowledge, light, that he never has been in.

                          One says heaven is this, the guy sitting next to you says no heaven is this ... so on and so forth. It is like the controversy of man going to the moon. One says he went to the moon another says it was all just a fabrication and man really didn't go. You cant prove man went to the moon all you have is what someone else said about it. Then you say well I watched the event live on TV, What did you see, a fabrication of or by faith that it did?

                          Where did you learn about nephesh? did not someone give you opinion about it? What about heaven, hell, Eden. Who told you about them? How did you gain knowledge for this very OP? By reading what someone else said about it and in that stipulate that I agree with this one?

                          There is only ONE unmistakable truth that supersedes all of man opinions and cant be regulated by what man says, it cant be written in law, it cant be changed and is the same yesterday as today and will be the same tomorrow and do you know that that is? Simply LOVE, HOLY LOVE, it is who we are how we act how we think, it is our spirit, our soul. My mortal man is not my soul, it is only the temple for what is in it.

                          Love is not an opinion, love isn't something I try and do, love isn't just kind words or acts of benevolence. It isn't something I try and be because some law established says I should. Love is my soul, it is who I AM, it is my way, my truth, and my life and no one comes to Love least you are of it, identified with it, manifest in you. And in that is the very message Jesus presented and said don't ask me anything live it yourself. Was that just an opinion Jesus conjured? One could say that if As I said, one cant assume himself to be in a certain condition that he never has been in.

                          Anticipation is for future, Reality is manifest today. Ask self, what condition are you in today. Is it one of anticipation for these things where others has swayed ones thinking in established laws spawned from opinion as in an Eden being restored, or do you live the reality of heaven, or hell, or Eden or any other thing man says about it in anticipation?

                          Everyone has his truths but there is only one truth of LOVE and that is who I am. And I Am is so misunderstood among Christians, they never ever relate to I am themselves but of some god they cant even relate to waiting for some great and notable day that never happens and go to a grave never knowing the reality of and has conjured laws to regulate their Great I Am to take their place for who they are supposed to be instead.

                          All these technical difficulties are put to rest when Love is manifest in you. They mean noting at all other than to show ignorance for what it is to live a life they only dream of. How did you come to know these technical difficulties where arguments about them arise? Was it not from opinions of others?

                          Paramount is to live it not speculate about it.

                          God is a Spirit and that Spirit is Love and that is the only way man can be in His image is if you are. God does not look like a man, man can only act Him out as their own disposition.
                          Before I can even answer your posting, can you please clarify what it is you are going on about?

                          I am discussing the creation of mankind concerning the terms "likeness and image", you seem to be referencing things that happen after creation of mankind, which is fine.

                          But, what you miss is that I am explaining the issues of creation itself and there are very serious issues.

                          In other words how the authors portray the Hebrew God is as a perfect creator, but by the Bible itself the term "image and likeness" are faulty, because they are jussive's and simply by that mankind is flawed from creation itself.

                          What I am not discussing is the advent of sin and the fall of mankind, which seems you are eluding to, this is why I do not include terms like flesh or sin and so on. I do however state that "Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: )."

                          So essentially just asking if you could clarify.

                          BTW the term "Eden" is firstly seen in Sumerian and is termed "Edin" meaning a steppe or plain, Eden in a Biblical sense is a garden, most likely taken from Babylonian hanging garden in Mesopotamia and upwards from Turkey.

                          In Sumerian exorcism texts, demons or evil galla are banished to to the steppe or plain, which literally means Edin, much later in Semitic the term is adopted Eden.

                          I find it interesting, that demons are banished to Eden/Edin, and that the myth epic of Adam and Eve includes a tempting serpent seen as an evil demon. Meaning that the garden that the Hebrew God made had evil spirits in it to begin with. Clearly the Bible puts together and cross pollinates the epics from Sumer, Babylon, Mari, Egypt and makes them monotheistic, when those cultures are clearly polytheistic.

                          We even see much later Yahweh as the God Baal, a blood thirsty tyrant who often requires sacrifice. Strangely in Luke 8:25 we see Jesus as mastering the storm by calming the storm in a literal sense, however, Yahweh and Baal both in Ugarit and in Canaan are able to tame the storm. It could be said then that Jesus is Baal or Yahweh in a much later writing.

                          If we follow from Luke 8:25 and on eventually we see Jesus die on a cross for the sins of mankind, but being that Jesus is most likely Yahweh or Baal, it is truly Baal or Yahweh who dies on the cross.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Shamash View Post

                            Why are you coupling "heiorglyphs, Sumerian Cueniform, Vedic and Mahābhārata sanskrit" all together? Those are all seperate cultures years apart from each other.

                            Sumerian Cuneiform being the oldest because it is in Sun Baked Tablet Form and Cuneiform predates any Papel writing, the idea of writing on animal skin isn't until about 2000 BC, the Sumerian's would have etched in Clay writing about 4000 BC if not all the way back to 6000 BC.

                            For example in a Sumerian Cuneiform the God Enki divides the languages, yet we see in Biblical writings that it isn't until Babylon that the Hebrew God divides the languages. The Sumerian's existed long before the Babylonian's and the "Israelite's" ever existed.

                            Sumerian is a non Semitic, pre Semitic language and is agglutination (forming words predominantly by agglutination, rather than by inflection or by using isolated elements), being that it is pre Semitic it's safe to say that the tablet of Enki dividing the languages far predates the Biblical story of dividing languages seen with the tower of Babel.

                            The other issue that the Bible has is that all those cultures writings you refer to are polytheistic, they do not believe in one God.

                            Ziursudra for example was a pious man who worshiped Enki and when Enlil is distraught he sends a flood, then comes the holy instruction to Ziusudra, build an ark to save mankind from the flood. It isn't until much later that we see a monotheist named Noah who is given holy instruction to build an ark.

                            Also, Biblical languages tend to borrow from those polytheistic in order to create their own epics, which are loosely adopted from those earlier cultures.

                            We can discuss for example Noah’s Ark in Genesis From here, as good investigators, we must follow the Ark trail where it naturally leads, which is to the Hebrew Bible and beyond.

                            Genesis 6:14–16

                            Make yourself an ark (tēvāh) of gopher wood [came the instruction]; make rooms (qinnīm) in the ark, and cover it (kāpar) inside and out with pitch (kopher). This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks.

                            The biblical word tēvāh, which is used for the arks of Noah and Moses, occurs nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The flood and baby episodes are thus deliberately
                            associated and linked in Hebrew just as the Atrahasis and Sargon Arks are linked associatively in Babylonia.

                            Now for something extraordinary: no one knows what language tēvāh is or what it means. The word for the wood, gopher, is likewise used nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible and no one knows what language or what kind of wood it is. This is a peculiar state of affairs for one of the most famous and influential paragraphs in all of the world’s writing.

                            The associated words kopher, ‘bitumen’, and kāphar, ‘to smear on’, are also to be found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, but, significantly, they came from Babylonia with the narrative itself, deriving from Akkadian kupru, ‘bitumen’, and kapāru, ‘to smear on’. In view of this it is logical to expect that tēvāh and gopher are similarly loanwords from Babylonian Akkadian into Hebrew, but there has been no convincing candidate for either word. Suggestions have been made for gopher-wood, but the identification, or the non-Hebrew word that lies behind it, remains open.
                            Ideas have also been put forward over the centuries concerning the word tēvāh, some linking it – because Moses was in Egypt – with the ancient Egyptian word thebet, meaning ‘box’ or ‘coffin’, but these have ended nowhere.





                            it matters little what you said since all the texts are talking about and loyal to the same realm, though in different flavors, the realm of the fallen angels aka watcher gods. That is how their devised tree of good and evil and all their constructs function.. onto infinity.

                            I didnt bother reply to the rest, since it is mixed up containing half truths in every line and that being something would take a long time to reply to only to have th result go nowhere, the point being that overall all you wrote is contextually off, slanted to the watcher god mindset. I know you feel smart...but first to be smart you have to be open to seeing you are not so smart.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by e v e View Post

                              it matters little what you said since all the texts are talking about and loyal to the same realm, though in different flavors, the realm of the fallen angels aka watcher gods. That is how their devised tree of good and evil and all their constructs function.. onto infinity.

                              I didnt bother reply to the rest, since it is mixed up containing half truths in every line and that being something would take a long time to reply to only to have th result go nowhere, the point being that overall all you wrote is contextually off, slanted to the watcher god mindset. I know you feel smart...but first to be smart you have to be open to seeing you are not so smart.
                              I'm a bit on the Academic side, so maybe that is the miscommunication between you and I.

                              All those Cuneiform do out date the Biblical writings, that is not really even a debatable issue, not among Christian and Secular scholars anyways.

                              Fallen angels or watchers come much later with Apocryphal writings, angelic beings (noted as 1/2 man 1/2 winged creature) are seen in Proto Sumer as "Lil Spirits" or spirits of Enlil, they have wings and the Bible adopts winged angels.

                              When you say those texts are in the same realm, I am not really sure what you mean. For example if they are in the same realm it could then be concluded that Yahweh is Baal, as both are storm Gods out of Canaan, and that in the New Testament in Luke 8:25 we see Jesus as master of the storm (specifically to that verse), but earlier in the Old Testament (Shekinah) and in Ugaritic literature Baal already was a master of the storm.




                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X