. - .- . God made man in his image (genises whatever)

by frankiespeakin 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  frankiespeakin

  Now I stand to be corrected about this because this is just my own could be wrong opinion.

  In Genesis when it says that God made man in his image,,I think it may well have been literally lets make man to looks like us (legs a head feet evrything even the genital thingy).

  Now the teaching that it meant let man have intellect and feeling like God(s) (actually it is plural.(Probably from the polytheistic days of isreal?). That makes a point for God being like man and then we can understand the beleiver can understand the anger, jealousy, and quite frankly the evil nature of God this works well because God is the product of human imagination and man is quite limited as to what he can imagine God to be like. Thus assuming God is like man makes it easy to keep the people in fear of him and easier for the preistly class to explain.
• 

  gumby

  The bible is confusing on the issue. It tells if you "see my face" you will die....as if to say he could be seen if you were to look at him. Moses saw his backside. Jacob wrestled with him, Abraham fed him, Adam hid from him as he heard him "walking around in garden".

  In the N.T.he is a spirit and nobody can see a spirit.

  Take your pic.

  Gumbelzebub
• 

  candidlynuts

  hehe gods a short fat poor housewife with bad teeth and frizzy hair like me?
• 

  Markfromcali

  Well, frankly I wonder how much good a reinterpretation of a story does, since it just kind of reinforces the whole story reading business.
• 

  Narkissos

  The idea of humans in the image of the gods seems to be Egyptian in origin. Whereas in Mesopotamia a god can be born of another god and declared "in his image", as a man is born "in the image" of his father (cf. Gilgamesh II, 30-35), in Egypt the same pattern is applied to humans. Probably the best parallel is in the Instruction of Merikare (known from a 14th-century BC papyrus): "They are his [Re's] own images proceeding from his flesh."
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Nark,

  Interesting:

  The idea of humans in the image of the gods seems to be Egyptian in origin.

  Did they think of it as a literal pyhsical image as well as intellectual and emotional.

  Whereas in Mesopotamia a god can be born of another god and declared "in his image", as a man is born "in the image" of his father (cf. Gilgamesh II, 30-35),

  A kind of exact replica? or just imperfect replica?

  in Egypt the same pattern is applied to humans. Probably the best parallel is in the Instruction of Merikare (known from a 14th-century BC papyrus): "They are his [Re's] own images proceeding from his flesh."

  I take it to mean not an exact replica but pretty close. Please correct me in the interest of our readers. And thanks for posting.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Mark,

  Well, frankly I wonder how much good a reinterpretation of a story does, since it just kind of reinforces the whole story reading business.

  That's true to a degree if one is going back to reinterpite,, but that's not the only reason to go back over an old story. There is the benifit that comes from observing human nature,,, you can see how human nature looks at things and the incorrectness of a story which makes us question what is the true story or is there even such a thing as a true story.

  At least it shakes us from these stories or loosens their grip which cause us to think more free and open not accepting any authority.
• 

  Narkissos

  Frankie,

  It would take an egyptologist to answer your questions. I suspect they couldn't be answered directly though, for they start with our modern Western concepts of physical / spiritual / moral levels of meaning which have no exact correspondence in ancient thinking.

  Trying to find something I came across a fascinating site (http://maat.sofiatopia.org/merikare.htm#4a) where you can find the complete translation of the Instruction of Merikare (the passage I was referring to is on lines 284ff) as well as a number of interesting footnotes and essays in hermeneutics. Unfortunately it is difficult to search and you cannot cut and paste from it, but it is worth reading. Also try the pages on Aton (Atum), Amenemope and Maat if you're interested in Bible connections.
• 

  Pole

  If the Genesis statement that people were created in God's image refers to feelings/emotions/intellect, then it is totally out of keeping with any observable reality. Even if you only consider the reality described in the rest of the OT.
  
  This statement actually is actually one of the biggest contradiction in the bible and it makes it very difficult to understand the real nature of God, because it sort of implies that God is only different from humans in terms of power be it physical strength or brainpower.
  
  He loves peace and war at the same time. He is the father of all orphans and yet he seems to aprove of killing pregnant women of nations other than Israel. Well, you all know the ambiguities.
  
  Anthropomorphism in its purest form.
  
  Pole
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Nark,

  It would take a real expert to answer how man thought back when Gensis was written. We(the general public) always have the tendancy to see everything we read in the bible from a western perspective and forget how different from us people thought back then,, after all evolution is at work on man's brain and intellect.