It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A rather simple question about Genesis.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Forgive my lack of understanding on this as it may seem like a very simple question.

When the bible says that God created Adam in his own image is it supposed to be interpreted literally?

Does it mean that he created him physically in his own image or does it imply that he created him with specific values and abilities, a moral code as it were?

We usually try to instil certain values in our own children so is which one is the generally accepted interpretation please?
edit on 4/1/2016 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I was born and raised in a Christian family and have been a faithful Christian for my entire life. As far back as I can recall, I was always taught this to mean that man was created in the physical likeness of God.

I am open to other interpretations... and I think there may be some liberty in the way one reads this. Perhaps the answer could possibly be both physical and spiritual, meaning man was created to look like God and there was also a bit of His values and abilities splashed in there. It would make sense to me.
edit on 4-1-2016 by waarheid because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific
It took me a few minutes, but i finally tracked down the answer I gave the last time this question was asked;

"I would take this to mean that human life is self-aware, in a sense that doesn’t apply to other living things; intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.
That would make us the “image” of a God who is self-aware, intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing."
That would be why God follows on immediately by giving instructions about "having dominion" over the earth. The two things go together.




edit on 4-1-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
"I would take this to mean that human life is self-aware, in a sense that doesn’t apply to other living things; intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.


Various levels of self-awareness have been demonstrated in animals.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: waarheid
I was born and raised in a Christian family and have been a faithful Christian for my entire life. As far back as I can recall, I was always taught this to mean that man was created in the physical likeness of God.

I am open to other interpretations... and I think there may be some liberty in the way one reads this. Perhaps the answer could possibly be both physical and spiritual, meaning man was created to look like God and there was also a bit of His values and abilities splashed in there. It would make sense to me.


Thank you for your answer, I am not religious in any form myself but have been reading more about various religions lately.

One of the things that bothered me was that line as it seemed odd that something so powerful would have the physical characteristics that we do.

Taken as a moral code it seems far more plausible to me.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: nonspecific
It took me a few minutes, but i finally tracked down the answer I gave the last time this question was asked;

"I would take this to mean that human life is self-aware, in a sense that doesn’t apply to other living things; intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.
That would make us the “image” of a God who is self-aware, intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing."
That would be why God follows on immediately by giving instructions about "having dominion" over the earth. The two things go together.





Thank you.

So may I ask if you then do not think that we are actually based on god in a physical sense.

Your answer has given me more questions than answers but thank you.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Well it can't be physical. People will find other justifications for its truth but to suggest he has 4 limbs and organs sort of undermines his greatness no?



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DISRAELI
"I would take this to mean that human life is self-aware, in a sense that doesn’t apply to other living things; intelligent and reasoning and consciously willing.


Various levels of self-awareness have been demonstrated in animals.


Has this been proven?

Maybe he gave us a head start.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Even if the difference is not absolute, the writer of Genesis would have been impressed by the relative difference.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
Well it can't be physical. People will find other justifications for its truth but to suggest he has 4 limbs and organs sort of undermines his greatness no?


That was kind of my point.

Given time we may reach a similar level of understanding and ability but that changes what god is supposed to be.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

You do realise what you wrote has no substance?
Please elaborate on "conciously willing" without using the words consciously willing.

Take a step back and please reread what you wrote.
Imagine someone else wrote that and objectively critically analyse the statement.

I would link the thread on research about BS but can't find it.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific
I think it all stems from being the children of god. If we are than we will share similar characteristics. Human creations tend to not reach beyond human perspective.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

There is no such thing as a simple question as it pertains to the Bible. To answer your question, it depends on the type of Christian you are talking to when you ask that question. As are all interpretations of ANY passage in the Bible.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nonspecific

There is no such thing as a simple question as it pertains to the Bible. To answer your question, it depends on the type of Christian you are talking to when you ask that question. As are all interpretations of ANY passage in the Bible.


Agreed but as a non Christian I was looking for a rough guide to the interpretation.

The subject is my new hobby and I thought I would start off simple and work my way up from there.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
Has this been proven?

Maybe he gave us a head start.


Ethology is a growing field as it gives us insight into our own development.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific
One example is polar bears being aware that there nose is black and try to hide it when stalking prey for stealth reasons. One of a billion examples.

You could say plants are self aware, knowing the environment and adapting ones colours to mimic surroundings. Depends how philisophical you want to get about being self aware. We don't fully know our capabilities, our structure or thought processes so we aren't fully self aware. Unless you just keep self awareness in the realms of theory of mind.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific
No, it's understood in theology that God does not have a physical body, because physical bodies belong to the created world.
The idea that God has a physical body was actually condemned by one of the early councils of the church, but I would have to dig around to discover which one.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Even if the difference is not absolute, the writer of Genesis would have been impressed by the relative difference.


Or he could have been completely oblivious to the fact that some animals share an attribute which he would have labeled as clearly being a 'human' one.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

But that's the thing, there is no defined standard to look at the bible and say "this is a metaphor" or "this should be taken literally". 100% of the Bible is open to individual interpretation of the reader. This is one of my biggest problems in regards to the book being used as a history book.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus
The words I used have a plain-language meaning, which could be understood easily enough by anyone who wanted to understand them.
You are hostile to some part of the concept (perhaps the idea of consciousness in God), and you express that by pretending that you don't understand it.
That is your choice.


edit on 4-1-2016 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join