|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Adam was created on the 3rd day | |||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
A likeness is not just a painting or photograph.
like·nessn. 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·agen. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Here are the Strong's definitions:
image6754 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. likeness1823 dmuwth dem-ooth' from 1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like:--fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Ringo,
If those words meant the same thing, there wouldn't be two different words. It would be redundant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
For authors intent, see message 19.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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 "image" is echoed in Genesis 1:27:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1370 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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: 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
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 638 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Not only would it be redundant, but it woudl be saying the same thing two different ways!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
graft2vine Member (Idle past 4981 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024