When do Humans Arise?

@Jeremy_Christian

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.

@jeremy_christian

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?

  1. It has to be visual?
  2. It has to involve having dominion over the animals?
  3. It has to explain why God would attach a severe punishment to killing a living thing that had this quality?

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…

1 Like

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.

@Jeremy_Christian: You write: “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. More so after reading through what this tool says about the word.”

Jeremy, quit kidding a kidder.
There is no way of convincing a tone-deaf violinist that his violin music is not quite right. You think you are on to something. Best of luck. I’ll catch up with you on the one-year anniversary of Thanksgiving…

I even brought you the Hebrew that says you are on the wrong trail. Not because it doesn’t say “physical likeness” (it certainly does) … but because, to my surprise, the Hebrew word in question is also related to the word for thought and thinking. You think physical similarity answers all the riddles, and I think there’s nothing about the physical side that fits any of the problems.

So… go have a go… You can leave me out of it. I’ve given you enough for one holiday season.

Gen5:3 - When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.

If the other verse wasn’t there, and you only saw this one, how would you read this? You’d read that as meaning Seth looks like Adam.

In this context the word clearly isn’t meaning “thought”. Using both “image” and “likeness” together makes it clear what it’s saying.

I appreciate the time you spent engaging me on this. See you next Thanksgiving!

@Jeremy_Christian,

You write: “Gen5:3 - When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in
his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.” - - If the
other verse wasn’t there, and you only saw this one, how would you
read this? You’d read that as meaning Seth looks like Adam."

Jeremy, you are blowing right past a key distinction, and again, it
comes down to the Hebrew. In Genesis 5:3, the “likeness of Adam” is
further clarified by the additional text: “in his own image”. The
English terms have been reversed, and would probably make more
distinctive sense if the words used are used the way we translate the
other sentences:

"And Adam … begat a son ‘in his own image, after his likeness’; and
called his name Seth… " I suggest reversing the terms because the
Hebrew used first is the word we looked at already:

o o o “image, rather than likeness” = demuwth (Strong’s H1823).

o o o “likeness, rather than image” = tselem (Strong’s H6754).

One might even imagine that the scribe added the second phrase,
and the use of the term “tselem” to distinguish this verse from how
the term demuwth is used elsewhere.

Jeremy, the facts that are working against your scenario is something
that takes experience to appreciate. Every time you develop a new
“spin”, I ask myself, would an intelligent person really try to
express Jeremy’s interpretation using the words that Jeremy quotes?
From the beginning the answer, in my mind, has been “no”. And towards
the end, the situation further deteriorated for your interpretation
because, on the fly, I think I’ve identified a much more plausible way
of interpreting the very same words (and especially when we look at
the Hebrew).

You’re right, I’m no Hebrew scholar. But I’m not sure I agree this is plausible.

Here’s the problem I have with your assessment. Tell me if I’m wrong …

Num 33:56 - “Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought H1819 to do unto them.”

Psa 48:9 - “We have thought H1819 of thy lovingkindness, O God, in the midst of thy temple.”

In these verses you sited, where the word is translated as “thought”, the word is used as a verb. This is not the case in the two examples from Genesis.

In both cases it’s describing humans in the context of other forms of life, and it’s paired with “image”. And when our “image”/“likeness” is compared to other forms of life, it is indeed distinct.

Exodus 33:22-23 - When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

This would seem to suggest that God is also anthropomorphic, which is fascinating to even consider. But if this is the case then we are indeed in his “likeness” and “image”.

@jeremy_Christian

You write: "Here’s the problem I have with your assessment …

Num 33:56 - “Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought H1819 to do unto them.” Psa 48:9 - “We have thought H1819 of thy lovingkindness, O God, in the midst of thy temple.” In these verses you sited, where the word is translated as “thought”, the word is used as a verb. This is not the case in the two examples from Genesis."

Here are my responses in three categories:
[1] The word used in Genesis is derived from H1819. It is not unusual for a verb to inspire a noun, or a noun to inspire a verb. Or do you think I’m “gaslighting” you [< get it? noun… used as a verb!].

[2] Are there not other examples of the word (H1819) being used as a noun or adjective?

[3] If all else fails, it sounds to me like you have a Hebrew challenge. Offer to take a Rabbi to lunch. That’s how I got my start!

See you next year…

@Jeremy_Christian

And your pleadings continue?

You do understand that the Bible’s writings extend over several
generations, right? Where one way of describing things becomes
over-turned by a new way of describing things? If you just sit down
and ask yourself, what does God intend by saying someone has his
“similtude”? Forget the body for a moment… what is it that you
think is the most crucial thing shared between God and humans?

If you honestly think it is our physical nature… I have no idea what
else to tell you. In the meantime:

Prepare yourself for your arrival in heaven, God is a giant roaster
chicken! See Psalm 17:8 - “Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me
under the shadow of thy wings…”

John 1:18 “No man has seen God at any time…”

1st John 4:12 “No one has seen God at any time…”

John 6:46 “Not that any man has seen the Father, except the one who is
from God; this one has seen the Father.”

1st Timothy 1:17 “Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible,
invisible, the only God…”

Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
of all creation…”

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Full Question
A Pentecostal friend of mine says God has a body just like ours. This
is why the Bible talks about human beings being made in his image and
why it also talks about the “arm of the Lord.”

Answer
God is spirit, and as such he doesn’t have a body (Lk 24:39: “A spirit
does not have flesh and bone.”). When the Bible speaks of our being
made in his image, then, it doesn’t mean we’re like him physically. It
means that, like God, we possess a spiritual aspect to our being.
[AKA: Thinking, Knowing, Choosing, Loving.]

Part of the problem here is that many people who should know better
succumb to an anthropomorphic view of God. They think of him as an old
man with a long beard who sits on a throne in the sky. However helpful
such ideas maybe when not taken literally, they can be harmful when
their anthropomorphic nature isn’t understood. The Old Man in the Sky
divinity is easily disproved and ridiculed. After the first Soviet
cosmonauts returned to Earth, they thought their atheism was
vindicated because they hadn’t seen God in outer space.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-god-have-a-body-like-ours

I think you’re reaching. Yes, one of its definitions is “to imagine, think (verb)”, but the context makes it clear that’s not how it’s being used. However, the definition “to be like, resemble (description)” fits the context rather well.

No grammatical gymnastics required.

Then what did Moses see in Exodus 33? He was described to have had a hand, a back, and a face.

@Jeremy_Christian,

When you tell children a ghost story around the camp fire … has anyone cross-referenced your terminology with the Universal Tome on Metaphysics? Probably not. Why this failure? Because there Isnt a Universal Tome on Metaphysics.

The Gospel of John says Jesus started his career by over-turning the tables of the money-changers.

The other three gospels say Jesus ended his career by over-turning the tables of the money-changers.

The Vatican says that Jesus overturned the tables twice, once in the beginning and once in the end. Pretty nifty explanation, but it doesn’t address how all four gospels could end up discussing only ONE event in the lifetime of Jesus… without even a passing reference to “that other time” that Jesus did the same thing…

I really don’t know which is worse, Jeremy:
1] You being shocked to realize there is no real uniformity or consistency in the language of a book written over centuries, by different ethnic origins and different levels of education; or

2] You attempting to foist a “trivializing” interpretation over the metaphor of “the image of God” by using these inconsistent and contradictory terminologies to do so.

Isn’t there someone else you could discuss this with … someone who is more interested in the idea that God’s first “real humans” were brutes?

I kind of took your willingly responding and engaging as interest. I’m talking to everyone here.

You’re now moving the goal post on me. Not so much you specifically, but you the group. For a good week I got all these responses preaching biblical inerrancy because I, like you have here, was taking a more realistic approach. Now I’m the a-hole that won’t let go again because of all these possible errors in a fallible text I should be considering.