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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

And that was the elaboration I was expecting. Thankyou.




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus
My pleasure.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.


Looking at the old testament as a true history book is my new hobby.

I am having to add some pretty hardcore ATS theories to make it work though.


My current speculation is that god was a dinosaur. As you can imagine I have set myself a pretty big task.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI
Il give you some time to search consciously willing and allow you to backtrack. No need to apologise. Hehe



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: DISRAELI
Il give you some time to search consciously willing and allow you to backtrack. No need to apologise. Hehe


Do you have a positive position on this question please?

If so I would be pleased to hear it.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Actually, I prefer to think of God as an extra-dimensional being, but that's just me.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus
Does it help if I explain that I am using "willing" as a present participle, not as an adjective?
That's the only ambiguuity I can think of.
Otherwise, I think you're just creating your own difficulties for their own sake.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

Actually, I prefer to think of God as an extra-dimensional being, but that's just me.



That is why I was asking, as a non Christian I was of the assumption that it was as it reads but looking at it from a different angle makes it a far more plausible concept.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Dr. Micheal Heiser lecture takes up the Image of God and suggests that it is a title . Man has the title of image barer of God .



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Good luck with that. Though I've played "read between the lines" with the Bible before trying to get a factual basis for all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo in it too.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific
Posted many already. Summed up its a human concept created by humans.being an image of god gives us a sense of being better than the animals he created. Touched by a divine spark if you will. This way we can relate to god and accept him if we have similar characteristics.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI
Genuinely not. Just struggling to understand the substance that's all. It's the same sort of things you hear in religious debates on YouTube. It can't be something you truly believe otherwise you wouldn't of had to revisit a previous thread for you thoughts on the matter. Just saying.
I will leave it at that. Soz OP.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus
Bad reasoning. I picked up the wording from a previous thread because I did not think I could better the formula I worked out the first time, and could not remember it offhand. I always think, "anything worth using once is worth using twice".
If they were not genuinely my own thoughts, I would have picked them up from somebody else's thread.
I used English language words with a straightforward meaning, so any difficulties are coming from your own "keep out religious ideas" defences.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI
Lol. Far from it. I shall leave you be. Another deja vu debate between us.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I read your post and the first thing I thought was "god" is a human with a quantum computer.

For years I've been leaning towards the theory that we are at the butt end of an advanced technology run by a sadist.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
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?


When God created Adam, the word 'bara' was used, which means to make something from nothing. Adam's Soul was the only part of him made from nothing. His body was formed or shaped from the earth, and Eve's body was manufactured from Adam's rib (yatser and banah).

So Adam's soul was made in the image/format of God.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific




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


I take that to mean that the writer believed that mankind was created and endowed with the attributes to be "like" God.

Example:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 3:22


Also, in regards to animals, the Serpent, according to the story, was more advanced and consciously aware than Adam and Eve.

Later in Genesis, God requires the same test for murder of the animals as he does for mankind.

And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
Genesis 9:5



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 04:11 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?


It can be if the Old Testament God isn't actually the omnipotent/omniscient everything that ever was, is, and will be. I always believed it meant physical likeness (or at least close to it), but then I've believed for a long time that "God(/s)" is didn't actually create the entire universe, but did create humans on Earth. (I'm a filthy, heathen heretic.)

The other part of that is that even physical likeness doesn't necessarily mean physical attributes. God cells might be coursing with highly advanced nanotechnology, the DNA might have 128 base pairs, and a liver which can process 100 kegs of beer a day for 20,000 years, but still look like humans. There would have been an advantage to making us look like them too...if God/s looked like we do, but we looked like the skitters from Falling Skies, we would probably be terrified of their not-scaly, not-slimy skin and lack of insectoid-like legs. Plus, according to the Bible, a lot of them liked to get touchy-feely with the Earth ladies back in the day. Just another benefit of being able to customize a species as you see fit.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: waarheidI believe that God created man in his own image. To be physical. It also mentions that God used a rib from Adam to create Eve. So this to me simply says it was all physical.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
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?


I would not interpret this passage to mean that God has an actual human body. It is obvious that, from other Biblical references to God and his exploits, He is supernatural and unlimited in such a way.

The passage is very vague on the degree of 'alikeness' God has with His creation. The wording used is similar to that used where the Hebrews are instructed not to make a 'likeness' of anything, living or otherwise, for the purposes of worship. Similar passages ridicule the carving of a wooden branch into a 'god' and worshipping it.

I don't think it is a physical likeness at all.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join