Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Adam was created on the 3rd day
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 16 of 233 (336949)
07-31-2006 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
07-31-2006 2:55 PM


image and likeness
A likeness is not just a painting or photograph.
like·ness
n.
1. The state, quality, or fact of being like; resemblance.
2. An imitative appearance; a semblance.
3. A pictorial, graphic, or sculptured representation of something; an image.
A likeness could be a resemblance. Your child could be your likeness. An image can also be a likeness, but is much more of an exact likeness. The word meanings get blurred which is why I used the mirror example.
im·age
n.
1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness.
2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror.
3. One that closely or exactly resembles another; a double: He is the image of his uncle.
A reproduction, duplicate, exact resemblance. An image is more exact than a likeness. I am using the physics definition.
Edited by graft2vine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 2:55 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 3:37 PM graft2vine has replied
 Message 18 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 3:44 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 17 of 233 (336954)
07-31-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by graft2vine
07-31-2006 3:23 PM


Re: image and likeness
graft2vine writes:
An image is more exact than a likeness. I am using the physics definition.
You can't just cherry-pick a definition of "likeness" that you like and graft it onto the Bible.
Do you really think the authors of the Bible were using the "physics definition"? You're going to have to show that they intended a distinction between "likeness" and "image".

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 3:23 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 3:56 PM ringo has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 18 of 233 (336955)
07-31-2006 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by graft2vine
07-31-2006 3:23 PM


Re: image and likeness
Here are the Strong's definitions:
image
6754 tselem tseh'-lem from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol:--image, vain shew.
The root word means "to shade". That makes me think of a shadow. Your shadow does the same thing as you, just as your mirror image.
likeness
1823 dmuwth dem-ooth' from 1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like:--fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 3:23 PM graft2vine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 4:02 PM graft2vine has replied
 Message 142 by cmettsSC, posted 05-16-2007 8:21 PM graft2vine has replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 19 of 233 (336958)
07-31-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by ringo
07-31-2006 3:37 PM


Re: image and likeness
Ringo,
If those words meant the same thing, there wouldn't be two different words. It would be redundant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 3:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 4:18 PM graft2vine has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 20 of 233 (336960)
07-31-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by graft2vine
07-31-2006 3:44 PM


Re: image and likeness
You're still cherry-picking which of Strong's "definitions" you like.
You have to look at the similarities as well as the differences. Notice that "image" can be rendered as "idol" and "likeness" can be rendered as "model". Not much difference there.
You still have not shown that the authors - not Strong - intended a significantly different meaning for "image" and "likeness", in the pertinent passages.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 3:44 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 4:08 PM ringo has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 21 of 233 (336962)
07-31-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
07-31-2006 4:02 PM


Re: image and likeness
For authors intent, see message 19.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 4:02 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 22 of 233 (336967)
07-31-2006 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by graft2vine
07-31-2006 3:56 PM


Re: image and likeness
graft2vine writes:
If those words meant the same thing, there wouldn't be two different words. It would be redundant.
Have you never heard of redundancy in literature? Authors often use different words with different shades of meaning to describe a concept that neither word covers completely.
All you have shown is that the words can be interpreted differently to give the implication that you want. You have not shown that that was the authors' intention.
"It would be redundant" doesn't fly very high.
Edited by Ringo, : Pluralification.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 3:56 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 5:36 PM ringo has replied
 Message 27 by ramoss, posted 07-31-2006 7:01 PM ringo has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 23 of 233 (337006)
07-31-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
07-31-2006 4:18 PM


Re: image and likeness
Hi Ringo,
Have you never heard of redundancy in literature? Authors often use different words with different shades of meaning to describe a concept that neither word covers completely.
I am no expert in literature, but from what I understand, redundancy doesn't work. I think what you are talking about is being descriptive, not redundant. It is redundant only if the words mean the exact same thing. Example:
"I go to work at 7:30AM in the morning."
This is redundant because "AM" and "morning" mean the same thing. This doesn't fly in good literature. If image and likeness mean the same thing, it would be redundant.
All you have shown is that the words can be interpreted differently to give the implication that you want. You have not shown that that was the authors' intention.
I am glad that I have at least shown that my interpretation is a possibility. It would be very hard pressing to try and prove the authors intention on one verse alone. We must look at the whole of scripture. A start I believe would be to go back and examine further what I have shared in message 13.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 4:18 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 6:08 PM graft2vine has replied
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2006 6:17 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 24 of 233 (337013)
07-31-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by graft2vine
07-31-2006 5:36 PM


Re: image and likeness
graft2vine writes:
If image and likeness mean the same thing, it would be redundant.
I didn't say that "image" and "likeness" mean the same thing. I said that the two words may have been used because they have slightly different meanings.
Your problem is that you are assuming too much difference without good reason.
It would be very hard pressing to try and prove the authors intention on one verse alone.
That's just the point: both "image" and "likeness" are used in Genesis 1:26 with no hint of the distinction that you're proposing:
quote:
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
And "image" is echoed in Genesis 1:27:
quote:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
suggesting that "likeness" is redundant in verse 26. (God planned to use both His image and His likeness, but in practice He used only His image - because they are the same.)
A start I believe would be to go back and examine further what I have shared in message 13.
I can point out other problems in Message 13 if you like, but I don't see how more holes are going to help float your boat.
-------------
By the way, you can see how quotes, etc. are done by clicking the "Peek" button at the bottom of every post.
Welcome to EvC. Not everybody around here is as difficult as I am.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 5:36 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 7:13 PM ringo has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 25 of 233 (337014)
07-31-2006 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by graft2vine
07-31-2006 5:36 PM


Re: image and likeness
I am no expert in literature, but from what I understand, redundancy doesn't work.
i hate to make this sound like an ad hominem, but it's not an issue of being an expert in literature, it's knowing this particular piece of literature, the bible, with a reasonable degree of familiarity.
it's not redundancy, it's standard biblical parallelism. in more poetic sections of the bible, (ie: psalms, and similar), this is often found in full lines that are nearly synonymous with the one before it. is that redundant? it's commonly thought that this was done for effect in biblical hebrew. in the less poetic passages (ie: genesis), a similar technique is used.
"I go to work at 7:30AM in the morning."
This is redundant because "AM" and "morning" mean the same thing. This doesn't fly in good literature. If image and likeness mean the same thing, it would be redundant.
look at the very next verse:
quote:
And God created man in His own image,
in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them.
are the first two lines of that redundant? it's the same words. you've got a long way to go if you wanna remove this "redundancy" from the bible. expect a much thinner book when you're done.
anyways, the real topic. they do in fact mean the same thing, in that they are synonyms. but like any other set of synonyms, they have different connotations and flavours.
(tselem) "image" (literal image: picture, appearance)
(demut) "image" (figurative image: character, personality)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 5:36 PM graft2vine has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 26 of 233 (337028)
07-31-2006 6:59 PM


Intention
To All,
I am going to drop my redundancy argument. It was an attempt by myself to prove my view as the only correct one, and it doesn't fly. I apologize for that... it goes against my original intention.
What I am presenting is theory, and very new at that! My intention here is to share this theory for everyone to consider. I cannot prove it to you whether it is true beyond a shadow of doubt, only God can do that. The Spirit of truth shall teach you all things!
It is not my intent to try and prove it, and my failure to do so does not somehow disprove it. I ask only that you consider it and search the scriptures. If you have something that you believe disproves what I'm sharing, then lets proceed with that.

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 27 of 233 (337029)
07-31-2006 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
07-31-2006 4:18 PM


Re: image and likeness
Not only would it be redundant, but it woudl be saying the same thing two different ways!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 4:18 PM ringo has not replied

  
graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 28 of 233 (337031)
07-31-2006 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ringo
07-31-2006 6:08 PM


Re: image and likeness
Hi Ringo,
My boat is floating so far. You have already acknowledge that my distinction between image and likeness is a possibility. Let's proceed.
Do you have to type in the dbcodes manually? I can't find any icons for quotes or any other type of formatting, so I have just been using another program with HTML.
Thanks for the welcome, it is nice meeting you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 6:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 07-31-2006 7:43 PM graft2vine has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 29 of 233 (337036)
07-31-2006 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by graft2vine
07-31-2006 1:47 PM


Re: Why adam not mentioned on the third day
quote:
What Genesis 1 does is establish the order of when the creation of things were completed
I think that's what I said in Message 9.
So Genesis 1 is the order in which creation took place from the author's perspective after reading the story of the Garden.
quote:
Adam was formed on the third day, but his creation was not complete... he was an unfinished vessel.
What in Genesis 2 supports that idea?
The verses you shared really do not support that Adam appeared on day 3.
The author of Genesis 1 had access to the Garden of Eden Story and wrote Gen 1 accordingly. That author did not put the creation of man on day 3.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 1:47 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2006 1:53 AM purpledawn has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 30 of 233 (337041)
07-31-2006 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by graft2vine
07-31-2006 7:13 PM


Re: image and likeness
graft2vine writes:
Do you have to type in the dbcodes manually?
Yep. We're old-school around here.
My boat is floating so far.
Have you read the thread on The Difference Between Created and Formed? If you're saying Adam was "formed" on day three but not "created" until day six, you might want to man the pumps now.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by graft2vine, posted 07-31-2006 7:13 PM graft2vine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2006 12:34 AM ringo has not replied
 Message 33 by graft2vine, posted 08-01-2006 2:18 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024