Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet you do not provide Mr. Garr’s informed conclusions to check them against common sense.
I explained the position for which his study advocates already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
The emphasis should be used to emphasize the God’s creation, not the gods’ plan about a future creation (try common sense, Daniel, it helps!)
No, the emphasis rests on the first iteration. You're misapplying literary principles about which you clearly know slightly less than jack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
It is not I the one insisting, it is the... emphasis that it was put in the wrong place by the naughty redactors.
No, that's not true at all, you're just making up an excuse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
What is it that is not true
Everything in the section of your post that I quoted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
The sentence “That is just not true” is not an argument.
It's a contradiction of your assertion. Since you made the assertion, the onus is on you to support it. If you think your assertion has merit, then prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Forget for a while that you are an omniscient scholar and support your assertions with some evidence.
You're the one who asserted that,
Quote:
all gods, every culture’s gods, got rid of their first human creations, which means that there was something wrong with them.
And this is simply not true. Since you made the initial assertion, though, it's your job to show I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
When I accuse scholars I justify my accusations.
That's a bald-faced lie. You never justify your accusations. All you do is assert someone's wrong and then refuse to explain why. I've shown numerous times over that you cannot support your arguments with anything more than naked assertion and goofy mistranslations and/or misinterpretations of Egyptian texts you don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
So please pay attention to the following example.
The passage is from Chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead and the hieroglyphic text comes from the Papyrus of Ani
Ani, in the narrative, has already been proclaimed pure by the judges and so he is afraid of no one any longer. He exclaims: “Nobody can do any harm to me” and continues:
..because I am among the followers of the Lord of All according to the records of the forms.
The phrase “according to the records of the forms” betrays that what is judged, what is evaluated and what is finally recorded is the appearance of the man being judged.
The phrase in Egyptian reads:
r \ sSw \ n \ xprw
according \ writings \ of \ forms
The last word xprw is written with two determinative signs plus the three strokes indicative of the plural. The determinative signs are: A53, a mummy upright used as a determinative sign in the words “wi” mummy, “twt” statue, likeness, “ki” form, shape; and Y1, a papyrus rolled up, tied, and sealed, a sign used as an ideogram in words naming abstract notions. There is no doubt whatsoever that the meaning of the word is “forms” and one needs not be an Egyptologist or an expert in hieroglyphs to realize that fact.
Yet, scholars cannot bring themselves to accept that it was the form of the living body that was assessed during judgment procedure. So, it was the stupid ancient scribe who did not know what he was writing. They do not say so but that is their only excuse for the way in which they translated.
There is the name of the god “xprr”, Kheperu or Khepri which can be written with only one “r” (the same as the word in question –xprw- without the “w” of the plural) but which is determined with the sign for the god (A40 or G7).
W.Budge, literal translation in the year 1895:
….because I am among the followers of Neb-er-tcher according to the writings to Kheperu.
Rendering by R.O.Faulkner in the year 1972:
I am in the suite of the Lord of All at the edict of Khepri.
Thomas George Allen, however, was translating in 1968 as follows:
For I am one of the followers of the Lord of the Universe in accordance with the book(s) of transformations.
“xprw” does not mean transformations but this translation is acceptable because what actually happened is that the assessor gods were evaluating the appearance of the man and accordingly they were declaring the man a god, a demigod, a normal man or a primitive man (actually an animal that was killed instantly).
Everyone prior to his judgment was considered a half animal and thus, by acquiring the official form ascribed to him by the judges, he was thought of as having undergone a transformation.
None of this has any relevance whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Three thousand years ago the scholars responsible for the Hebrew texts were well educated and since the Greek philosophers sought higher education in Egypt we may say that the Hebrew scholars did the same.
No, Greek philosophers did not seek higher education in Egypt, and no, Hebrew scholars did not do the same. You can't even begin to support the latter, and while you can find a couple examples of people like Herodotus and others travelling to Egypt, it was not a standard practice, and the majority of the time that travel was for sightseeing purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
To understand the Bible, dear Daniel, you have to study the Egyptian texts, but, as you see, you will have to do your own translations because the available translations cannot be trusted!
As I showed the first time I dealt with your nonsense, you don't know Egyptian to save your life. You were never able to address the rather fundamental and basic problems I pointed out with your understanding of the grammar and syntax, and you've not improved at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
What gives you the right to talk in behalf of the Hebrew Bible?
Since when does an informed and objective exegetical perspective constitute "talking in behalf of the Hebrew Bible"? You arrogate to yourself absolute authority on things regarding which you know next to nothing, and then you challenge me on my interpretations of a text the study of which I have made my career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Step down from the broom, Daniel. Yahweh was one of the sons of Elohim and the sons of Elohim had sex with human women and produced offspring.
I've explained this already several times in the past, and it has nothing to do with my challenge of your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Is it so, my friend? The story of a hero who wants to become god when found in texts 4.500 years old is different from a hero who also wishes to become god and whose story we find in texts 3.500 years old and also different from a similar story recorded 2.500 years ago.
Yes, just like the story of boy meets girl, loses girl, and then wins girl back; underdog defies expectations to defeat champion; and fallen hero seeks redemption are all different from one iteration to the next. They are motifs and they are stock plotlines. They are not genetically related. What were you saying about common sense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
The only thing that remains to be told by you is that it was the writers of the Bible who first had the idea of the existence of gods/God.
[quote=Daniel O. McClellan;24601839]I explained the position for which his study advocates already.[/quote]
You mean the following I guess:
Humanity is theomorphic. We might also understand humanity to be the "image" in the same sense used in "graven image." In other words, humanity is God's image/representative on earth. No graven images are necessary as a result. This would align with the Assyrian notion of the king as the "image" of the deity in the same sense that an idol is an "image" (i.e., secondary divine agent).
Humanity is theomorphic and the God is anthropomorphic. Correct!
So what is his theory? That humans are a... “secondary divine agent”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
No, the emphasis rests on the first iteration. You're misapplying literary principles about which you clearly know slightly less than jack.
I see, according to literary principles one has to put the emphasis on the proposed creation and not on the actual creation. Never mind what the God created, the point is to know what he had in mind to create!!
Our conversation is amusing indeed. Thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
It's a contradiction of your assertion. Since you made the assertion, the onus is on you to support it. If you think your assertion has merit, then prove it.
I wrote:Then there is the fact that all gods, every culture’s gods, got rid of their first human creations, which means that there was something wrong with them.
Your comment was: This is just not true.
To that I responded:The sentence “That is just not true” is not an argument.
So what is that which is not true? The fact that every culture’s gods got rid of their first human creations or my conclusion that there was something wrong with the first creations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
That's a bald-faced lie. You never justify your accusations. All you do is assert someone's wrong and then refuse to explain why. I've shown numerous times over that you cannot support your arguments with anything more than naked assertion and goofy mistranslations and/or misinterpretations of Egyptian texts you don't understand.
I suggest that in the future you read the entire post and then go back to make your comments because what you say above you wrote prior to reading the example and my justifications provided with my last post -to show the way in which the translators mistreat the texts.
When you reached the example and read it you could only say: None of this has any relevance whatsoever.
No relevance between “form,” “image,” and “likeness”!!
Well, you had a chance, however, to defend the translators and show that... I don't know Egyptian to save my life. And that I was never able to address the rather fundamental and basic problems you pointed out with my understanding of the grammar and syntax, and that I've not improved at all.
Or maybe you understood at last and felt ashamed for your Egyptologist colleagues?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
No, Greek philosophers did not seek higher education in Egypt, and no, Hebrew scholars did not do the same. You can't even begin to support the latter, and while you can find a couple examples of people like Herodotus and others travelling to Egypt, it was not a standard practice, and the majority of the time that travel was for sightseeing purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
The ancient Greek philosophers while… sightseeing in Egypt, took some lessons in Egyptian theology and when they went back to Greece forbade the teaching of Homer!!
Traitors! The.. so-called Greek, idealist philosophers were traitors who paved the road for Christianity.
The Israelites adopted the Egyptian theology but did not betray their tradition.
He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.(Is. 53:8)
He was not judged and therefore his generation could not be known.
KJV agrees with the translation of the Septuagint.
Go back to post #39, read again the passage from the Book of the Dead, and say again what you said about relevance.
What you learn here your tutors did not know or did not want you to know because that stuff can be deadly for religion in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
Since when does an informed and objective exegetical perspective constitute "talking in behalf of the Hebrew Bible"? You arrogate to yourself absolute authority on things regarding which you know next to nothing, and then you challenge me on my interpretations of a text the study of which I have made my career.
It seems that you are the one who knows next to nothing because your study is channelled within limits and you believe you can explain everything philologically and linguistically.
You have to dig into the past of the people whose writings you are studying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
Yes, just like the story of boy meets girl, loses girl, and then wins girl back; underdog defies expectations to defeat champion; and fallen hero seeks redemption are all different from one iteration to the next. They are motifs and they are stock plotlines. They are not genetically related. What were you saying about common sense?
The story of boy meets girl, when you have it recorded in various epochs, lets you know how the boy treated the girl, and the story of the hero who wanted to be god, which we do have recorded in various epochs, tells you how the people believed one may attain “divinity” in the various epochs.
Off course you freak out with the Egyptian hero who attained divinity by slaughtering those who revolted against the gods (you do not even agree to the fact that once the belief prevailed that people revolted against the gods). Yet, it is here where knowledge can be found, my friend, by understanding why did people believed such things. But you are afraid to know; you do not want to know. You have to protect your beliefs and preconceptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
Utter nonsense.
Tell me then who do you believe that was the first to have the idea of the existence of gods/God.
AS USUAL - another nice thread is reverting to utter nonsense.
I gave Dtango the benefit of the doubt at first, but nothing ever changes.
We have rebutted his ridiculous and infantile assertions concerning everything from real live giants running around impregnating women to his claims to knowing Egyptian better than scholars; we have provided evidence that would make a normal person stop and rethink their approach, (Daniel, especially, has provided the best and most educated answers); and have even pointed him in proper directions for study, and informed him of why study is required - rather than attempting a strange hybrid synthesis of subjects that he has little knowledge of apart from whatever strange websites and fringe books he refers to.
But as I said - nothing ever changes. Every single thing that has been offered to him has been rejected as part of some conspiracy theory trying to suppress some secret truth of human-raping-bull-giant-gods-and-Egyptian-Funerary-Texts-As-The-Key-To-All-Of-Life's-Questions, and he continues to repeat the same tired, inane, spamming bull****. I don't say "bull****" because I am angry - I say it because that is what it is: bull****.
Unless we are in the business of padding our egos to demonstrate how ridiculously stubborn an individual can be - I still see no point in even entertaining the slightest notion from him, for it all leads back to the same place, no matter how innocently the initial question or query starts out; the pattern is fairly easy to spot by now. Anyone who is not willing to entertain the possibility that they are in error from time to time, and are willing to adjust themselves to new data, is not participating in a conversation: they are proselytizing dogmatically - and we all know the futility of dealing with a Fundamentlalist is, no matter what beliefs drive their "Fundamentalism".
Pointless. This isn't material for the philosophy/religion section of the forum - it's material for the paranormal, alien-astronaut, conspiracy theory section of the forum.
Reverting to nonsense? Naw, it started there with the very first words of the OP are "god says". It's all down hill from there.............
Oh, Asheville, you are hurting believers’ pious feelings!
However, I will ask you to permit my attempting some fine-tuning in the frequency of your transmitted message: “Man made God.”
This thread is about the “image of God” which believers insist that it is foggy and blurred and not possible for the man to clearly see it. God made man in his image but it is impossible for them to acknowledge that God looks like us. Why?
Because if he looks like us he is no God. He was a man who made love to a woman, produced a new man and then legend took over and... it’s all down hill from there, as you said. So, they prefer the version “Man made God,” when it comes to theology, because that proves that the brain of man has been programmed before hand to seek, find, and reveal God’s existence (in which case God is a... vision residing somewhere in the outskirts of the universe).
By investigating the image of gods/God as it appears in the ancient texts one realizes that the ancient peoples, all over the world, believed that the gods used mortal women to create humans and from that point on they relate a story which is full of killings and misery caused by the so-called gods.
To answer the question of the OP, satisfactorily for the believers, we should not venture outside the Bible, and while we are at it we should be experts in Biblical studies so that we may know where the P writer’s writings overlap with J writer’s writings, to have the specialized knowledge that permits to choose between two identical accounts and to have grasped the art of confusing and blurring everything up so that the image of God remains unseen, mysterious and unknown.
Now, if we support the “God made Man” hypothesis and start investigating, the findings would be not to the believers' liking.
On the other hand, the “Man made God” hypothesis leads to nowhere and it is quite safe.
I am exploring the “God made Man” hypothesis and what I have revealed so far has driven my friend Whoppers crazy to the point that he resorted in writing the poisonous post #43.
So,... do you want believers to have a heart attack upon seeing your banner?
Amend it to read “God made man using his phallus” which is what the ancients believed, after all!
Reverting to nonsense? Naw, it started there with the very first words of the OP are "god says". It's all down hill from there.............
Yes, probably so - but we are still able to discuss literary works without being full-fledged believers in the contents of those works. I know many a person who has spent quite a bit of time studying the literary works of Shakespearre (all made-up stories, by the way) - but they were not engaged in believing that Shakespearre was telling true stories.
I study religion - I do not necesarrily practice the religious habits I study. Seeing as religion has been one of the most influential forces in humanity's development - it makes it an extremely compelling study. I don't jettison such study simply because there are some Fundamentalist Extremists running around believing everything they read, however.
Besides - even from an Atheistic view, (if that is the view one is proceeding from) it helps to have a working knowledge of the actual contents of the Bible, rather than having to filter your results through what Fundamentalists claim.
For starters, you don't appear to know what the word "image" means. An "image" is the representation of something's physical qualities. You look in the mirror and you see your image. A child that looks like his father is often said to be "the spittin' image of his dad." Identical twins are thought of as being the very image of one another, regardless of how different their personalities may be. When you take a picture of something with a camera, you are producing the image of what that thing looks like. Even when we say that someone is the image of good health, we mean he appears to be healthy, that judging from the way he looks, he's in good health.
There is no such thing as a "spiritual image," which it appears you are suggesting the word means. If anything, the word "likeness" could pertain to non-physical qualities, but the word "image" cannot. Likewise, you can use the word "spiritual" to refer to "wealth" but not to "currency." There can be said to be such a thing as "spiritual wealth," but there is no such thing as "spiritual $20 bills." An image is the representation of something's physical, not spiritual qualities.
Genesis 1:24-25 (from the KJV) states, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
The very next verses continue by saying, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Verses 24 and 25 were obviously talking about the physical creation of all animal life and were pointing out that each form of life would reproduce after its own kind. Immediately afterwards, we have God saying that man would be created in God's image and likeness. I see absolutely no reason on earth to assume that we are suddenly moving from the subject of a physical creation of life that would produce after its kind to a discussion of the non-physical attributes and potential qualities of man, God's greatest creation.
Just a few chapters later, we are told that Adam had a son and that this son was "in his own image, after his likeness." What God had said would happen in terms of each species reproducing its own kind took place when Adam first had a son who, like him, was in the likeness of a human. Simply put, Adam's son bore a physical resemblance to him. The wording in Genesis 1, describing man -- the God's offspring, and the wording in Genesis 5, describing Seth -- Adam's offspring, is virtually identical. Why would we assume anything other than that the meaning was the same?
If humans were physically made in God's image, doesn't that imply that God has a body? Uh... yes. That's exactly what it implies. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was "in the express image of His [Father's] person." This makes no sense, if Jesus Father was not also in the form of a person. Understand that I'm not saying that God has a mortal body or that Jesus Christ now has a mortal body. Once resurrected, Jesus had a perfect, glorified, celestial, immortal body. He ascended into Heaven with that body and we are told that He will return the same way He left. He is no longer subject to death, disease, pain, disfigurment, etc. He will continue to exist forever exactly as His exists now -- with an immortal body, one that appears essentially human but is sustained by spirit, not blood.
I believe that when Stephen looked up into Heaven and saw Jesus on the right hand of His Father, He saw two immortal beings that were recognizable as a Father and a Son. The scriptures say this. They don't say that Stephen saw one glorious being sitting on the right hand of some nebulous thing that was unidentifiable.
Either way, God's vocalized decision to create humanity includes both words - even if the actual reported creation does not. I think it's safe to assume that both occured (especially from later passages), not that it really matters: Judging from the words, themselves, the one translated as "image" has more of a connotation of an actual physical representation of something, while the the word translated as "likeness" is more akin to a simple comparison to another thing. If one had to jettison "likeness", it wouldn't affect the overall picture at all - for "likeness" naturally follows from "image".
God said: Let us make humankind, in our image, according to our likeness!...
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God did he create it,
male and female he created them.
(Genesis 1:26, 27, SB)
This one line should make people question their perception of God. Let me imply for Christians to read their spiritual history not the church's history, but actual spiritual history, I suggest not to look for it in the KJV bible, but if you must cross-reference to see who God really is... I will give everyone who crosses this thread a hint, the essence of God is the one in the mirror you view everyday
"Ancients": every culture that you put into to that category, knew/know who God really is
06-06-2012, 01:14 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtango
Amend it to read “God made man using his phallus” which is what the ancients believed, after all!
Let me ask you a question - Did the Hebrew writer of Gen.1:26 believe that?
If not then that is not the intent or meaning of the 'image' in Genesis. Ergo, your whole argument for interpreting it as such fails.
If so, prove it! Show that this was the intent and belief of the writer in Genesis. Showing that the ancient Egytians believed this is not proof.
Let me ask you a question - Did the Hebrew writer of Gen.1:26 believe that?
Did the gospel writers believe it too? Of course they did!
They did not write that Jesus came down from heavens. He was born by a common woman and his father was a god. This idea was not produced by the gospel writers, Nana the mother of Hattes (Άττης) got pregnant by touching an almond to her breasts. The gospel writers received the story and changed it a little bit.
The writer of Gen. 1:26 was also using an older story which he altered a bit to suit his needs. If we wish to know what story reached him, we are obliged to look for the same story recorded before the time of the Genesis writer.
The Egyptian version in every story is more crude than the Hebrew and the Sumerian because it is older. Moreover, the Egyptian texts contain unprocessed oral tradition which is something that is not known from any other archaic texts.
But let us leave alone the Egyptian texts
In the Atrahasis epic narrative when the gods decided to create the human race called the goddess Nintu:
“Thou art the mother-womb, the one who creates mankind.
[Saying: “The creatress of mankind] we call thee; [The mistr]ess of all the gods be thy name!” [They went] to the House of Fate, [Nin]igiku-Ea (and) the wise Mama. [Fourteen mother]-wombs were assembled.
(ANET, pg.100)
The goddess, who is called Mother-womb herself, in order to create humans has to call a number of mother-wombs. Indeed, these fourteen mother-wombs produced seven men and seven women.
Those impregnating the mother-wombs were the gods.
The scholars of 3.000 years ago knew very well the above story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
If not then that is not the intent or meaning of the 'image' in Genesis. Ergo, your whole argument for interpreting it as such fails.
The God of the OT is anthropomorphic, meaning that his image is the image of a man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1
If so, prove it! Show that this was the intent and belief of the writer in Genesis. Showing that the ancient Egytians believed this is not proof.
How about the Sumerians and the people of Ugarit? The stories about gods were the same all over Near East. There are differences in the texts at our disposal because they were recorded at different periods. Were the Hebrew stories recorded one thousand years earlier, they would have been identical with those of the cuneiform script.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Uh... yes. That's exactly what it implies. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was "in the express image of His [Father's] person." This makes no sense, if Jesus Father was not also in the form of a person. Understand that I'm not saying that God has a mortal body or that Jesus Christ now has a mortal body. Once resurrected, Jesus had a perfect, glorified, celestial, immortal body. He ascended into Heaven with that body and we are told that He will return the same way He left. He is no longer subject to death, disease, pain, disfigurment, etc. He will continue to exist forever exactly as His exists now -- with an immortal body, one that appears essentially human but is sustained by spirit, not blood. 
