the problem with "our" image isn't where it says "our" image in plural, but where it doesn't. god says,
quote:נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ
plural. "let us make man in our image, as our likeness." but then, the bible says in the very next verse
quote:וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ
singular. "and god made the man in his own image." strange, right? and it's not that they just fudged the vowels, you'd have changed that nun and the beginning of asah (make) into an alef.
he does it again, in genesis 11, too, also quickly followed by a singular action. this just seems to be god's way that he talks to himself. there's no "jesus" or anyone else there, because the actions that actually take place are all grammatically singular.
it might be something similar, but that likely would have been quite anachronistic for the source. and he doesn't use it speaking of himself to other; only speaking to himself.
or, perhaps, the royal "we" derives from this somehow?
Edited by arachnophilia, : quote, since this is the top of the page now.
Per the Documentary Hypothesis, the Priestly writer wrote Exodus 20:4 and Exodus 25. Notice the cherubims are beaten or hammered work, not carved.
boo, technicalities.
Show me that the Priestly writer in Exodus and the Deuteronomist were speaking of general decorative carvings and not objects made to worship.
i'll one up you. what's the difference, exactly, other than the claims of the author?
pretty much every religion in the area was aniconic. more or less nobody worshiped idols. they were just used in religious functions. in some cases, lavishly worked idols stood in for offerings in the temple, in a kind of perpetual sacrifice so that the person making the offering wouldn't have to keep killing their sheep. in other cases, like in sumeria, the idol stood in for the person, perpetually in the temple (eyes wide to receive the gods). in some of the levantine nations, the idol was the seat of the god who wasn't pictured -- such as in israel. they were religious ornaments, placed permanently in the temple, that did not picture god.
for all intents and purposes, the carubim in israel were not really any different than any idols anywhere in the area. that includes the golden calves in samaria and bethel (during the divided kingdom). it seems that "YOU'RE WORSHIPING AN INANIMATE OBJECT!" was the simultaneous political insult and battle cry of the day, but really just a lot of hot air.
in any case, modern orthodox jews wouldn't make your technical distinction between "beaten" and "graven". any image whatsoever relating to the divine is bad, regardless of medium or method. muslims go one step further, and aren't allowed to depict anything except geometry.
there is such a thing as too much skepticism, as idiotic ideas like solipsism can show us.
III writes:
The real Gen 4:1
And Adam knew Eve(was aware of Eve) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD(Cain was possibly a descendant of God and Eve per the Evidence)".
a·ware /əˈwɛər/ Show Spelled[uh-wair] Show IPA –adjective 1. having knowledge; conscious; cognizant: aware of danger. 2. informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated: She is one of the most politically aware young women around.
—Synonyms 1. mindful.
See conscious.
—Antonyms 1. oblivious.
english definitions are irrelevant. you won't find many answer about what the bible means if all you're going to look at are the meanings of the words the translators chose. indeed, you might not even get much from knowing literally what each word in the text means in the original language. there are idioms, expressions, and obscure non-literal meanings. in this case, יָדַע happens to be a very basic word for "knowing" in much the same sense it is in english. it's the "know" as in עֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע (the tree of knowledge), and the same "know" as in,
and adam knew his wife again, and she gave birth to a son
and
quote:And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'
and
quote:Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man;
lot, btw, is clearly a man. (they're also evidently married, but whatever) it's also the same "know" as in judges 19, which repeats a story very similar to sodom -- only they mob outside the door does indeed accept the trade, and "knows" their rape victim all night long, until she dies. and then there this, a few chapters later:
"And this is the thing that ye shall do: ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.' And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead four hundred young virgins, that had not known man by lying with him; and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
i think it's pretty clear not only that it can sometimes be talking about sex, and when it is. sort of the same way how we english speakers will sometimes that we slept with someone, even though no sleeping was involved.
FYI: We know there is 10 commandments because we can count them.
some skeptic! count them again!
My point is we don't know. This is skepticism. The nature of my posts are skepticism. The nature of your posts are faith. Faith is not skepticism. You're not being skeptical.
your point is clearly nonsensical. how do you know that you've understood what i mean? your posts means to make language nonsense. since your post is largely semantics, this is biting the hand that feeds you.
Yes you took this debate to this level. Now we're talking about definitions. I question the thought that when the Bible words "xxx knew his wife" that it means xxx had sex with his wife. This is skepticism. I don't care what is commonly accepted, this changes with time.
there's an old adage that he who appeals to the dictionary first, loses.
in any case, sometimes things are commonly accepted for a reason. this happens to be one of those things. it's perfectly fine to question commonly accepted notions -- indeed, quite a lot of the commonly accepted theological ideas regarding biblical teachings happen to be wrong.
this, however, is a simple matter of looking at context. not just individually, but as i have above: across multiple verses. this is where a tool like a concordance comes in handy. crack it open, find yada, and check every other verse that it appears in the bible. you'll find that some of them are obviously referring to sexual intercourse, though a great many aren't.
1: Adam had another wife in this line that is not mentioned, one reason Cain and Abel are not mentioned in it.
2: Perhaps Cain and Abel were not of Adam's line per verse 4:1-2.
i never thought this was particularly an issue. the reason cain isn't listed is somewhat obvious: he's cursed. the people writing this genealogy aren't interested him. the reason abel isn't listed is even more obvious.
cain killed him.
Per BLB/strong's concordance: the word "knew" was translated from the hebrew word "yada' " a prim root meaning "to know" where as the word "from" was translated from the hebrew word " 'eth" meaning "with, near or together".
so, a note on the above. concordances can be useful tools, but they are not dictionaries. a concordance is simply a listing of each word in a text, and where it appears. they do not actually included definitions -- though for texts in another language, being read in translation, they can be useful to see how a translator has translated a word in various contexts.
and the dictionary attached to BLB is not the end-all-be-all of hebrew meaning. indeed, it occasionally defines things inappropriately for doctrinal reasons (see leviathan or behemoth), and it can be easy to misuse if you do not understand what it's for. indeed, if you try, you can do very silly things with it.
You can pretend to think you know something all you want but what you know is mere faith. You have faith in your last post to be true. This is faith not skepticism...
ah, but see, you don't actually know that i wrote what i wrote, or what i meant by it. and invite you to prove otherwise.
My point, when dealing with history or reality we all build what we think around what we want to think. If you're a naturalist you want to be, if you're a christian you want to be. If you want to believe this, you will. Skepticism has its intended use and I am using it perfectly.
you are under the potentially mistaken impression that you are speaking to a real person.
have not heard this one before and actually it's almost adoptable but yet it still does not subtract from the other argument that Cain and Abel may not have been descendants of Adam.
i do not understand why this is particularly an issue with you. i have demonstrated above, repeatedly, that "knowing" can indeed refer to sexual intercourse, perhaps euphemistically or idiomatically. it is one thing to be skeptical of a claim, but quite another to continue skepticism after clear demonstration, with substantial evidence. denialism is not skepticism -- it is its own form of belief.
Not really... "he knew her and she conceived" can only mean that he had sex with her.
And it doesn't even really matter what the word is: "he smurfed her and she conceived" means the same thing.
Exactly but only because you have "she conceived" at the end. however, if you add the very end of 4:1 to the context it slightly changes the meaning to a possibility that in MAYBE Cain and Abel were descendants of LORD God. Which would make sense as to why they are not listed in Gen 5.
again, one needs to look at context across verses, as well, in order to determine usage.
quote:And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch:
(genesis 4:17)
there is no other context here that is at all confusing. nor is there most any other time the expression is used. its meaning is pretty clear.
I don't claim that my interpretation is the real one. I claim that possibly the commonly accepted idea or other interpretations are possible. "Skepticism". Interpretations are different for everybody. We know what we think we know, end of story.
there are places where there is room for interpretation.
this is not one of them. not every interpretation you hear is equally valid. some are supportable by the text, and others are not. this one is particularly sketchy, as yada as a sexual euphemism (especially when tied to yalad, as in gen 4:1), is particularly well established. the basic fact of the matter is that a great many things are commonly accepted because they are correct. this is not to say that everything commonly accept is necessarily correct, of course.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)