I assume you’re referring specifically to verse 6 …
Gen9:6- “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.
In Gen1 God creates the humans in His image, then gives them dominion over the animal kingdom. He’s establishing a hierarchy of authority. The above verse, to me at least, reads to be an amendment to that hierarchy. In the case of human on human violence, humans have dominion.
Dominion or not… this is not a percentage concept.
I don’t know what that means, but with what little information is given I’m not sure how you determine what kind of concept it is or isn’t.
I fixed the typo:
With as little as we know, @Jeremy_Christian, we know the image of God is not a pro-rata concept… subject to dilution. You either have it or you dont.
Is that known? I mean, I get the idea, but I don’t get the certainty. I’m not sure this determination can be set in the definition of “image” where all other considerations beyond it are then weighed against it. What makes you certain?
Don’t we first have to know what “God’s Image” is to then know anything about it for certain?
@Jeremy_Christian, you write: “I get the idea, but I don’t get the certainty. I’m not sure this determination can be set in the definition of “image” where all other considerations beyond it are then weighed against it. What makes you certain? Don’t we first have to know what “God’s Image” is to then know anything about it for certain?”
The most crucial hint about the nature of bearing God’s image is that it is the determinant of why there shall be a death penalty for shedding the mortality of someone who bears God’s image. Is this a gradient? Are you allowed to kill or avoid the execution of a human hybrid derived from the Angels and the women of humanity? Is the blood that cries out from the ground … is it a little quieter or less outraged if the victim is not a pure-blood something?
I’m not sure I see the same. This comes just after God sent the flood after stating seeing an increase in evil in humanity. It’s God carrying out the bloodshed. In this covenant God is also promising to never again flood the earth. It seems here that he’s stating that from this point forward humans will deal with murder of other humans. No more punishment doled out from above.
The significance of humans being in “God’s Image” is just to reassert humanity’s position in the hierarchy of dominion in the kingdom of life.
You write: “The significance of humans being in “God’s Image” is just to reassert humanity’s position in the hierarchy of dominion.”
Well, I like to be helpful. But I have to say that this is the very first time I’ve heard of that explanation. I find it to be relatively thin soup.
I don’t know. Two mentions of “image of God”. Both are spoken of in comparison to animals and plants. Humans are said to be in God’s image and in dominion of animals and plants. That’s the distinction being made, both times.
Not that thin.
The choice to use the words “image” and “likeness” is telling. There were words to describe a spiritual aspect if that’s what was meant. Right?
You write: “The choice to use the words “image” and “likeness” is telling. There were words to describe a spiritual aspect if that’s what was meant. Right?”
And in another post you wrote: “The significance of humans being in “God’s Image” is just to reassert humanity’s position in the hierarchy of dominion.”
And so you want us to agree that the reason God set up a death penalty is because God doesn’t like anyone who looks like him to be murdered? And that if you marry someone outside of your tribe, you no longer look like God?
I don’t think He’s setting up a death penalty. He’s just saying that He will no longer be doling out the punishment. That it’s in the hands of humans to administer their own.
Im not too interested in who administers the code… im more interested in the why. And the dominion angle might make sense to you… but why this should have to do with a like appearance seems less than logical.
If we assess what it is that separates humans from animals … and that separates live oeople from dead people is: “the mind”, “self awareness”.
I get that. But I get hung up on the choice of wording: “image”, “likeness”.
These are words that specifically refer to appearance. There are words that could have been used instead if what was intended was the mind/psyche.
I feel it’s important to key in specifically on what’s given. This wording. We can speculate all kinds of things, but it begins to go away from the word choice.
The Hebrew for “likeness” is a cognate of “shadow”… where a shadow “models” the object’s appearance.
In Egyptian metaphysics, the spirit can have a shadow like presence… which is essentially a THINKING shadow.
Thinking is really the only thing to go on here. God isnt going to set uo a death penalty based on anatomy… especially since a dead person’s appearance doesnt have to change when he dies.
But… it is absolutely true that his thinking stops.
Humans have dominion over animals… because we THINK.
Right, Hebrew use of the word speaks of “appearance”. Not sure Egyptian views can be applied in its meaning.
I agree thinking is one of the primary attributes that separates us from the animals. All animals do think, we just have a higher capacity. But I don’t think there’s enough here to justify projecting this view onto the text.
If thinking was the determining difference, I feel it would have said that. But instead it uses words that speak of physical appearance.
This idea of a “death penalty” seems to be coloring your perception. I’m not sure that’s what this is saying. I feel it’s more passing on responsibility from God to humans in this regard. Not that God is calling for required corporal punishment.
Im not so sure that the ancients would agree that animals think like humans… and if you agree that the ancients saw animal thinking as different, it would explain all the anomalies…
You fixate on the meaning of likeness… but the meaning of likeness is secondary.
The primary connodation is “shadow”… and what shadows represent to the ancients… which was essence.
Gosh… you just won’t let go of anything… Part of a convincing discussion is the ability to tie different facts together into a convincing whole.
And the only person here speaking to the Hebrew meaning of the word is me:
Here’s a tool you should get famliiar with:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H1823&t=KJV
This particular page analyzes Strong’s Hebrew (H) word # 1823: H1823:
Strong’s H1823: dem-ooth (from H1819);
Means: “resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like:—fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.” Notice that one of the meanings of this word is “manner”. <= Manner is adjective that refers to how or what something is “doing”… not just how they look. The definition even refers to “adverbial” senses of the word.
If we then proceed to the purported source of H1823, it is H1819: which is “damah”
to be like, resemble
to liken, compare
to imagine, think
to make oneself like
Num 33:56 - “Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought H1819 to do unto them.”
Judges 20:5 - “And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought H1819 to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead.”
Psa 48:9 - “We have thought H1819 of thy lovingkindness, O God, in the midst of thy temple.”
Psa 50:21 - “These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest H1819 that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.”
Isaiah 14:24 - “The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, H1819 so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand…”
I would seriously explore the Hebrew literature on these two words, and Rabbinical commentary.
Credibility is earned. And just pushing the English interpretation of a just a few meanings in English is just going to leave you high and dry. What do you have right now?
I have given you a speculation about what pattern fits, and more importantly, what doesn’t fit:
A) If it’s VISUAL… then why shouldn’t there be a penalty for crippling a person, rather than killing one? You can kill someone and not affect their appearance.
B) Does this sound credible? That it is human appearance that makes murder so taboo?
C) Then, what does appearance have to do with having dominion over animals? Would a gorilla qualify as ALSO having dominion? What if you shaved a gorilla… would that qualify him?
However, if you explore “thought”, “thinking”, a “shadow” as the evidence of a “spirit” … perhaps even equated with “mind” ? And I have already shown you that “likeness” can apply to behavior, not just appearance.
So, let’s go back over (A), (B) and ©:
A) If it is “mind” or “thinking” that is copied in humans, would killing a “thinking man”, a “sapiens” be worthy of a taboo? I think a lot of people would.
B) Does it sound credible that a person’s mind is more important than a person’s appearance? Again, that seems pretty credible.
C) What does thinking have to do with dominion over animals? Isn’t God’s dominion over humanity based on God’s greater mind?.. rather than his greater anatomy?
Surely, there is nothing here that I can say that will convince you … but at least I’ve made a case that gets us into the ball park. Credibility is earned… I’ll see you in a year and see if you are still batting around “image bearers” as the mirror image of God’s body…
Thank you for the tool reference. Very useful. I’m not sure it’s helping make your point though.
Not trying to be pushy. If you convince me the point I’m trying to make isn’t valid, I’ll let go. Right now it seems my point is still very much valid. Moreso after reading through what this tool says about the word.
If someone is mimicking the mannerisms of a person, you recognize these mannerisms by observing. Actions and mannerisms are seen to determine whether or not they’re “like” someone else’s mannerisms.
In every scriptural example given it’s speaking of physical appearance.
I see nothing here that supports the way in which you’re reading the word.
Besides, it should be said that the fact that these two words are used together, “image” and “likeness”, takes away every other interpretation possibility, wouldn’t you say? They’re talking about physical resemblance.