Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalist] Image of God

Expand Messages
  • George F Somsel
    I m inclined to understand the divine council as referring to a pantheon including foreign gods which are later (Ps 82) condemned for their injustice and
    Message 1 of 26 , Mar 28, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm inclined to understand the divine council as referring to a pantheon including foreign gods which are later (Ps 82) condemned for their injustice and sentenced to death.


      george
      gfsomsel

      search for truth, hear truth,
      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      defend the truth till death.

      - Jan Hus
      _________



      >________________________________
      > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@...>
      >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
      >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:46 AM
      >Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Image of God
      >
      >
      >

      >
      >Hi George,
      >
      >Thanks for the reply. A couple of things. First, I think the idea of ruling as perhaps the main thing that constitutes the image-bearing is probably now the academic consensus. However, I would like some reaction as well to the whole "council of Yahweh" and "angelic resemblance" components of my thesis. Second, I think your calling attention to the immortality concept in the second creation account is worth considering, though there might be some question as to whether or not there is any real conscious connection between this element and the image-of-God issue in the first creation account. Would this connection be redactoral rather than authorial?
      >
      >Blessings,
      >
      >Jerry
      >
      >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
      >Associate Professor of Old Testament
      >Taylor Seminary
      >11525 - 23 Avenue
      >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
      >CANADA
      >Office: (780)431-5250
      >Home: (780)434-1164
      >Fax: (780)436-9416
      >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
      >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
      >
      >________________________________
      >
      >From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
      >Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 11:27 AM
      >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God
      >
      >The one thing which is said in the 1st creation account is, as you noted, that of ruling (let's skip any angelic likeness). In the second creation account it is noted that man would be like God in knowing "good and evil", i.e., knowing all things (and by implication from the denial of death, immortality).
      >
      >george
      >gfsomsel
      >
      >search for truth, hear truth,
      >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
      >defend the truth till death.
      >
      >- Jan Hus
      >_________
      >...
      >
      >>________________________________
      >> From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
      >>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
      >>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:00 AM
      >>Subject: [biblicalist] Image of God
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>Hi Listers,
      >>
      >>There hasn't been any activity on this list for quite a while. So I thought I would try to get things going again. Here's something for you to interact with.
      >>
      >>When Elohim deliberates and decides to create humankind in Gen 1:26, the best explanation of the plural is that of the divine council, what later came to be referred to as the sod Yahweh. The other deliberative passages in Genesis lend support to this idea (3:22; 11:7; 18:16-22) as well other later "council of Yahweh" passages such as 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; and Isaiah 6:8. This is not so new by any means. However, what has not normally been done is to take this understanding of the plural over into the makeup of the image of God. Does the rest of the divine council have a co-creating function in the passage? And does the rest of the divine council provide at least part of the model for the image. That is, does the narrator envisage in this passage that humans are in some way formed after an angelic prototype or have an angelic resemblance? This would account for several things. First, angels appear, for the most part, in the rest of the
      >Hebrew Bible, in human form. Could we turn this around and say that it is not so much that angels appear in human form, but that humans were created in angelic form? Second, it would account for passages like Psalm 8:5, where humans are made a "little lower" than the "divine beings." Might this also not imply some resemblance? Third, probably the best explanation of what the image consists of is that humans have been created to rule over the earth. They are co-regents with God. But members of the divine council (angels) have also been given ruling functions (e.g., Deut 4:19; Daniel 10). Now I realize these many passages come from disparate sources and traditions; yet it is possible they reflect a common understanding. It has been a while since I read it, but I believe J. Richard Middleton, in his book, The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1, has made some of the same suggestions. In any case, what do you think? Feel free to tell me I'm out to
      >lunch. Treat the theory like a piece of Swiss cheese! Later, I'll argue for some intertestamental and NT connections as well.
      >>
      >>Blessings,
      >>
      >>Jerry Shepherd
      >>
      >>
      >>Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
      >>Associate Professor of Old Testament
      >>Taylor Seminary
      >>11525 - 23 Avenue
      >>Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
      >>CANADA
      >>Office: (780)431-5250
      >>Home: (780)434-1164
      >>Fax: (780)436-9416
      >>Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
      >>Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
      >>
      >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jerry Shepherd
      Hi Chris, It may be a knee-jerk reaction, but I think your knees have more reasoned thoughts in them than are contained in most people s brains. Thanks for
      Message 2 of 26 , Mar 28, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Chris,

        It may be a knee-jerk reaction, but I think your knees have more reasoned thoughts in them than are contained in most people's brains. Thanks for the nuancing and the question. Here is one quick reply with regards to your intra-Tanakh question. As I mentioned in the initial post, I believe other contexts in Genesis provide analogies to the "deliberative" element in Gen 1:26. In Gen 3:22, we have another one of those "us" passages, and then cherubs are employed to execute the sentence. It doesn't seem a stretch to me to suggest that the cherubs may have been in the "us" deliberation in v. 22. In Gen 18:16-22, Yahweh "deliberates" with the other two men. When Yahweh finishes talking, the two men then go down toward Sodom. We then find out in Gen 19, explicitly, that the other two men were angels. Going back to the Tower of Babel narrative, it seems reasonable to suppose that when God says "let us confuse their language," he is talking to angelic beings, who then are the ones who actually carry out the judgment on Babel. So again, my identification may be too quick, but I would suggest that elohim (when plural), bene elohim, malakim, and the "host of heaven" and "spirits" (1 Kings 22:19-23) are basically referring to the same entity, "divine beings" other than God himself.

        Thanks Chris.

        Blessings,

        Jerry

        Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
        Associate Professor of Old Testament
        Taylor Seminary
        11525 - 23 Avenue
        Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
        CANADA
        Office: (780)431-5250
        Home: (780)434-1164
        Fax: (780)436-9416
        Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
        Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>

        ________________________________

        From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Chris Heard
        Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 11:41 AM
        To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God




        Dear Jerry et al.,

        On Mar 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Jerry Shepherd wrote:
        > the image. That is, does the narrator envisage in this passage that humans are in some way formed after an angelic prototype or have an angelic resemblance?
        >

        I'm very interested in this topic, but have very little time to contribute to such a conversation right now. My knee-jerk reaction is that you (Jerry) may be "demoting" the divine council too much in equating the elohim (when plural) or bene-elim/bene-elohim/bene-elyon (I take these expressions as synonymous) with angels or malakim. The vocabulary seems to me distinct. I realize that the Greek translators smoothed out this distinction. Is there any intra-Tanakh evidence for treating the elohim/bene-[divine designation] as synonymous with malakim?

        Chris

        Chris Heard
        Associate Professor of Religion
        Pepperdine University
        Malibu, CA 90263-4352
        http://drchris.me <http://drchris.me/>

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jerry Shepherd
        Hi George, I agree with your identification per Ps 82. One question though about the chronology. You say that they are later condemned and sentenced to
        Message 3 of 26 , Mar 28, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi George,

          I agree with your identification per Ps 82. One question though about the chronology. You say that they are "later" condemned and sentenced to death. But it is at least possible that these sentences are both eternal and repeated. As an analogy, take the fall of Satan in the NT; he appears to fall several times (Luke 9; Rev 12). Thanks.

          Blessings,

          Jerry

          Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
          Associate Professor of Old Testament
          Taylor Seminary
          11525 - 23 Avenue
          Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
          CANADA
          Office: (780)431-5250
          Home: (780)434-1164
          Fax: (780)436-9416
          Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
          Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>

          ________________________________

          From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
          Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 12:03 PM
          To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God




          I'm inclined to understand the divine council as referring to a pantheon including foreign gods which are later (Ps 82) condemned for their injustice and sentenced to death.

          george
          gfsomsel

          search for truth, hear truth,
          learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
          defend the truth till death.

          - Jan Hus
          _________
          ...

          >________________________________
          > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
          >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
          >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:46 AM
          >Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Image of God
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >Hi George,
          >
          >Thanks for the reply. A couple of things. First, I think the idea of ruling as perhaps the main thing that constitutes the image-bearing is probably now the academic consensus. However, I would like some reaction as well to the whole "council of Yahweh" and "angelic resemblance" components of my thesis. Second, I think your calling attention to the immortality concept in the second creation account is worth considering, though there might be some question as to whether or not there is any real conscious connection between this element and the image-of-God issue in the first creation account. Would this connection be redactoral rather than authorial?
          >
          >Blessings,
          >
          >Jerry
          >
          >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
          >Associate Professor of Old Testament
          >Taylor Seminary
          >11525 - 23 Avenue
          >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
          >CANADA
          >Office: (780)431-5250
          >Home: (780)434-1164
          >Fax: (780)436-9416
          >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
          >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
          >
          >________________________________
          >
          >From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of George F Somsel
          >Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 11:27 AM
          >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
          >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God
          >
          >The one thing which is said in the 1st creation account is, as you noted, that of ruling (let's skip any angelic likeness). In the second creation account it is noted that man would be like God in knowing "good and evil", i.e., knowing all things (and by implication from the denial of death, immortality).
          >
          >george
          >gfsomsel
          >
          >search for truth, hear truth,
          >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
          >defend the truth till death.
          >
          >- Jan Hus
          >_________
          >...
          >
          >>________________________________
          >> From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
          >>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
          >>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:00 AM
          >>Subject: [biblicalist] Image of God
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>Hi Listers,
          >>
          >>There hasn't been any activity on this list for quite a while. So I thought I would try to get things going again. Here's something for you to interact with.
          >>
          >>When Elohim deliberates and decides to create humankind in Gen 1:26, the best explanation of the plural is that of the divine council, what later came to be referred to as the sod Yahweh. The other deliberative passages in Genesis lend support to this idea (3:22; 11:7; 18:16-22) as well other later "council of Yahweh" passages such as 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; and Isaiah 6:8. This is not so new by any means. However, what has not normally been done is to take this understanding of the plural over into the makeup of the image of God. Does the rest of the divine council have a co-creating function in the passage? And does the rest of the divine council provide at least part of the model for the image. That is, does the narrator envisage in this passage that humans are in some way formed after an angelic prototype or have an angelic resemblance? This would account for several things. First, angels appear, for the most part, in the rest of the
          >Hebrew Bible, in human form. Could we turn this around and say that it is not so much that angels appear in human form, but that humans were created in angelic form? Second, it would account for passages like Psalm 8:5, where humans are made a "little lower" than the "divine beings." Might this also not imply some resemblance? Third, probably the best explanation of what the image consists of is that humans have been created to rule over the earth. They are co-regents with God. But members of the divine council (angels) have also been given ruling functions (e.g., Deut 4:19; Daniel 10). Now I realize these many passages come from disparate sources and traditions; yet it is possible they reflect a common understanding. It has been a while since I read it, but I believe J. Richard Middleton, in his book, The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1, has made some of the same suggestions. In any case, what do you think? Feel free to tell me I'm out to
          >lunch. Treat the theory like a piece of Swiss cheese! Later, I'll argue for some intertestamental and NT connections as well.
          >>
          >>Blessings,
          >>
          >>Jerry Shepherd
          >>
          >>
          >>Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
          >>Associate Professor of Old Testament
          >>Taylor Seminary
          >>11525 - 23 Avenue
          >>Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
          >>CANADA
          >>Office: (780)431-5250
          >>Home: (780)434-1164
          >>Fax: (780)436-9416
          >>Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
          >>Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
          >>
          >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • George F Somsel
          I am, of course, speaking in terms of the history of composition.  I would not take Lk 9 and Re 12 as being repeated—they are both expressions of the same
          Message 4 of 26 , Mar 28, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I am, of course, speaking in terms of the history of composition.  I would not take Lk 9 and Re 12 as being repeated—they are both expressions of the same concept.


            george
            gfsomsel

            search for truth, hear truth,
            learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
            defend the truth till death.

            - Jan Hus
            _________



            >________________________________
            > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@...>
            >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
            >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:21 AM
            >Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Image of God
            >
            >
            >

            >
            >Hi George,
            >
            >I agree with your identification per Ps 82. One question though about the chronology. You say that they are "later" condemned and sentenced to death. But it is at least possible that these sentences are both eternal and repeated. As an analogy, take the fall of Satan in the NT; he appears to fall several times (Luke 9; Rev 12). Thanks.
            >
            >Blessings,
            >
            >Jerry
            >
            >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
            >Associate Professor of Old Testament
            >Taylor Seminary
            >11525 - 23 Avenue
            >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
            >CANADA
            >Office: (780)431-5250
            >Home: (780)434-1164
            >Fax: (780)436-9416
            >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
            >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
            >
            >________________________________
            >
            >From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
            >Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 12:03 PM
            >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God
            >
            >I'm inclined to understand the divine council as referring to a pantheon including foreign gods which are later (Ps 82) condemned for their injustice and sentenced to death.
            >
            >george
            >gfsomsel
            >
            >search for truth, hear truth,
            >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
            >defend the truth till death.
            >
            >- Jan Hus
            >_________
            >...
            >
            >>________________________________
            >> From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
            >>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
            >>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:46 AM
            >>Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Image of God
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>Hi George,
            >>
            >>Thanks for the reply. A couple of things. First, I think the idea of ruling as perhaps the main thing that constitutes the image-bearing is probably now the academic consensus. However, I would like some reaction as well to the whole "council of Yahweh" and "angelic resemblance" components of my thesis. Second, I think your calling attention to the immortality concept in the second creation account is worth considering, though there might be some question as to whether or not there is any real conscious connection between this element and the image-of-God issue in the first creation account. Would this connection be redactoral rather than authorial?
            >>
            >>Blessings,
            >>
            >>Jerry
            >>
            >>Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
            >>Associate Professor of Old Testament
            >>Taylor Seminary
            >>11525 - 23 Avenue
            >>Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
            >>CANADA
            >>Office: (780)431-5250
            >>Home: (780)434-1164
            >>Fax: (780)436-9416
            >>Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
            >>Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
            >>
            >>________________________________
            >>
            >>From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of George F Somsel
            >>Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 11:27 AM
            >>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
            >>Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God
            >>
            >>The one thing which is said in the 1st creation account is, as you noted, that of ruling (let's skip any angelic likeness). In the second creation account it is noted that man would be like God in knowing "good and evil", i.e., knowing all things (and by implication from the denial of death, immortality).
            >>
            >>george
            >>gfsomsel
            >>
            >>search for truth, hear truth,
            >>learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
            >>defend the truth till death.
            >>
            >>- Jan Hus
            >>_________
            >>...
            >>
            >>>________________________________
            >>> From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
            >>>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
            >>>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:00 AM
            >>>Subject: [biblicalist] Image of God
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>Hi Listers,
            >>>
            >>>There hasn't been any activity on this list for quite a while. So I thought I would try to get things going again. Here's something for you to interact with.
            >>>
            >>>When Elohim deliberates and decides to create humankind in Gen 1:26, the best explanation of the plural is that of the divine council, what later came to be referred to as the sod Yahweh. The other deliberative passages in Genesis lend support to this idea (3:22; 11:7; 18:16-22) as well other later "council of Yahweh" passages such as 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; and Isaiah 6:8. This is not so new by any means. However, what has not normally been done is to take this understanding of the plural over into the makeup of the image of God. Does the rest of the divine council have a co-creating function in the passage? And does the rest of the divine council provide at least part of the model for the image. That is, does the narrator envisage in this passage that humans are in some way formed after an angelic prototype or have an angelic resemblance? This would account for several things. First, angels appear, for the most part, in the rest of the
            >>Hebrew Bible, in human form. Could we turn this around and say that it is not so much that angels appear in human form, but that humans were created in angelic form? Second, it would account for passages like Psalm 8:5, where humans are made a "little lower" than the "divine beings." Might this also not imply some resemblance? Third, probably the best explanation of what the image consists of is that humans have been created to rule over the earth. They are co-regents with God. But members of the divine council (angels) have also been given ruling functions (e.g., Deut 4:19; Daniel 10). Now I realize these many passages come from disparate sources and traditions; yet it is possible they reflect a common understanding. It has been a while since I read it, but I believe J. Richard Middleton, in his book, The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1, has made some of the same suggestions. In any case, what do you think? Feel free to tell me I'm out to
            >>lunch. Treat the theory like a piece of Swiss cheese! Later, I'll argue for some intertestamental and NT connections as well.
            >>>
            >>>Blessings,
            >>>
            >>>Jerry Shepherd
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
            >>>Associate Professor of Old Testament
            >>>Taylor Seminary
            >>>11525 - 23 Avenue
            >>>Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
            >>>CANADA
            >>>Office: (780)431-5250
            >>>Home: (780)434-1164
            >>>Fax: (780)436-9416
            >>>Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
            >>>Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
            >>>
            >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>>
            >>
            >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >>
            >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Jerry Shepherd
            Thanks George. I agree that the Luke 9 and Rev 12 are the same concept, but I still think it opens up the possibility of repetition. Blessings, Jerry Dr.
            Message 5 of 26 , Mar 28, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks George. I agree that the Luke 9 and Rev 12 are the same concept, but I still think it opens up the possibility of repetition.

              Blessings,

              Jerry

              Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
              Associate Professor of Old Testament
              Taylor Seminary
              11525 - 23 Avenue
              Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
              CANADA
              Office: (780)431-5250
              Home: (780)434-1164
              Fax: (780)436-9416
              Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
              Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>

              ________________________________

              From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
              Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 12:34 PM
              To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God




              I am, of course, speaking in terms of the history of composition. I would not take Lk 9 and Re 12 as being repeated-they are both expressions of the same concept.

              george
              gfsomsel

              search for truth, hear truth,
              learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
              defend the truth till death.

              - Jan Hus
              _________
              ...

              >________________________________
              > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
              >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
              >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 11:21 AM
              >Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Image of God
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >Hi George,
              >
              >I agree with your identification per Ps 82. One question though about the chronology. You say that they are "later" condemned and sentenced to death. But it is at least possible that these sentences are both eternal and repeated. As an analogy, take the fall of Satan in the NT; he appears to fall several times (Luke 9; Rev 12). Thanks.
              >
              >Blessings,
              >
              >Jerry
              >
              >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
              >Associate Professor of Old Testament
              >Taylor Seminary
              >11525 - 23 Avenue
              >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
              >CANADA
              >Office: (780)431-5250
              >Home: (780)434-1164
              >Fax: (780)436-9416
              >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
              >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
              >
              >________________________________
              >
              >From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of George F Somsel
              >Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 12:03 PM
              >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
              >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God
              >
              >I'm inclined to understand the divine council as referring to a pantheon including foreign gods which are later (Ps 82) condemned for their injustice and sentenced to death.
              >
              >george
              >gfsomsel
              >
              >search for truth, hear truth,
              >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
              >defend the truth till death.
              >
              >- Jan Hus
              >_________
              >...
              >
              >>________________________________
              >> From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
              >>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:46 AM
              >>Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Image of God
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>Hi George,
              >>
              >>Thanks for the reply. A couple of things. First, I think the idea of ruling as perhaps the main thing that constitutes the image-bearing is probably now the academic consensus. However, I would like some reaction as well to the whole "council of Yahweh" and "angelic resemblance" components of my thesis. Second, I think your calling attention to the immortality concept in the second creation account is worth considering, though there might be some question as to whether or not there is any real conscious connection between this element and the image-of-God issue in the first creation account. Would this connection be redactoral rather than authorial?
              >>
              >>Blessings,
              >>
              >>Jerry
              >>
              >>Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
              >>Associate Professor of Old Testament
              >>Taylor Seminary
              >>11525 - 23 Avenue
              >>Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
              >>CANADA
              >>Office: (780)431-5250
              >>Home: (780)434-1164
              >>Fax: (780)436-9416
              >>Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
              >>Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
              >>
              >>________________________________
              >>
              >>From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of George F Somsel
              >>Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 11:27 AM
              >>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God
              >>
              >>The one thing which is said in the 1st creation account is, as you noted, that of ruling (let's skip any angelic likeness). In the second creation account it is noted that man would be like God in knowing "good and evil", i.e., knowing all things (and by implication from the denial of death, immortality).
              >>
              >>george
              >>gfsomsel
              >>
              >>search for truth, hear truth,
              >>learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
              >>defend the truth till death.
              >>
              >>- Jan Hus
              >>_________
              >>...
              >>
              >>>________________________________
              >>> From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
              >>>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
              >>>Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:00 AM
              >>>Subject: [biblicalist] Image of God
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>Hi Listers,
              >>>
              >>>There hasn't been any activity on this list for quite a while. So I thought I would try to get things going again. Here's something for you to interact with.
              >>>
              >>>When Elohim deliberates and decides to create humankind in Gen 1:26, the best explanation of the plural is that of the divine council, what later came to be referred to as the sod Yahweh. The other deliberative passages in Genesis lend support to this idea (3:22; 11:7; 18:16-22) as well other later "council of Yahweh" passages such as 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; and Isaiah 6:8. This is not so new by any means. However, what has not normally been done is to take this understanding of the plural over into the makeup of the image of God. Does the rest of the divine council have a co-creating function in the passage? And does the rest of the divine council provide at least part of the model for the image. That is, does the narrator envisage in this passage that humans are in some way formed after an angelic prototype or have an angelic resemblance? This would account for several things. First, angels appear, for the most part, in the rest of the
              >>Hebrew Bible, in human form. Could we turn this around and say that it is not so much that angels appear in human form, but that humans were created in angelic form? Second, it would account for passages like Psalm 8:5, where humans are made a "little lower" than the "divine beings." Might this also not imply some resemblance? Third, probably the best explanation of what the image consists of is that humans have been created to rule over the earth. They are co-regents with God. But members of the divine council (angels) have also been given ruling functions (e.g., Deut 4:19; Daniel 10). Now I realize these many passages come from disparate sources and traditions; yet it is possible they reflect a common understanding. It has been a while since I read it, but I believe J. Richard Middleton, in his book, The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1, has made some of the same suggestions. In any case, what do you think? Feel free to tell me I'm out to
              >>lunch. Treat the theory like a piece of Swiss cheese! Later, I'll argue for some intertestamental and NT connections as well.
              >>>
              >>>Blessings,
              >>>
              >>>Jerry Shepherd
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
              >>>Associate Professor of Old Testament
              >>>Taylor Seminary
              >>>11525 - 23 Avenue
              >>>Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
              >>>CANADA
              >>>Office: (780)431-5250
              >>>Home: (780)434-1164
              >>>Fax: (780)436-9416
              >>>Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
              >>>Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
              >>>
              >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>
              >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>
              >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • J Thomas Phillips
              Dr. Shepherd, You may want to know that when folks attempt to respond to you at you indicated mailing locations following your signature here, a pop up on the
              Message 6 of 26 , Mar 28, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Dr. Shepherd,

                You may want to know that when folks attempt to respond to you at you indicated mailing locations following your signature here, a pop up on the screens shows that your site is not safe and could damage "my" computer. Just thought you might want to be aware of this situation. All the best, Thomas 

                ________________________________
                From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...>
                To: "biblicalist@yahoogroups.com" <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:27 PM
                Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God


                 
                The one thing which is said in the 1st creation account is, as you noted, that of ruling (let's skip any angelic likeness).  In the second creation account it is noted that man would be like God in knowing "good and evil", i.e., knowing all things (and by implication from the denial of death, immortality).

                george
                gfsomsel

                search for truth, hear truth,
                learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                defend the truth till death.

                - Jan Hus
                _________


                >________________________________
                > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@...>
                >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:00 AM
                >Subject: [biblicalist] Image of God
                >
                >
                >

                >
                >Hi Listers,
                >
                >There hasn't been any activity on this list for quite a while. So I thought I would try to get things going again. Here's something for you to interact with.
                >
                >When Elohim deliberates and decides to create humankind in Gen 1:26, the best explanation of the plural is that of the divine council, what later came to be referred to as the sod Yahweh. The other deliberative passages in Genesis lend support to this idea (3:22; 11:7; 18:16-22) as well other later "council of Yahweh" passages such as 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; and Isaiah 6:8. This is not so new by any means. However, what has not normally been done is to take this understanding of the plural over into the makeup of the image of God. Does the rest of the divine council have a co-creating function in the passage? And does the rest of the divine council provide at least part of the model for the image. That is, does the narrator envisage in this passage that humans are in some way formed after an angelic prototype or have an angelic resemblance? This would account for several things. First, angels appear, for the most part, in the rest of the
                Hebrew Bible, in human form. Could we turn this around and say that it is not so much that angels appear in human form, but that humans were created in angelic form? Second, it would account for passages like Psalm 8:5, where humans are made a "little lower" than the "divine beings." Might this also not imply some resemblance? Third, probably the best explanation of what the image consists of is that humans have been created to rule over the earth. They are co-regents with God. But members of the divine council (angels) have also been given ruling functions (e.g., Deut 4:19; Daniel 10). Now I realize these many passages come from disparate sources and traditions; yet it is possible they reflect a common understanding. It has been a while since I read it, but I believe J. Richard Middleton, in his book, The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1, has made some of the same suggestions. In any case, what do you think? Feel free to tell me I'm out to
                lunch. Treat the theory like a piece of Swiss cheese! Later, I'll argue for some intertestamental and NT connections as well.
                >
                >Blessings,
                >
                >Jerry Shepherd
                >
                >
                >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                >Associate Professor of Old Testament
                >Taylor Seminary
                >11525 - 23 Avenue
                >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                >CANADA
                >Office: (780)431-5250
                >Home: (780)434-1164
                >Fax: (780)436-9416
                >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                >
                >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jerry Shepherd
                Hi Thomas, Thanks for notifying me of the problem. Two things: first, there s really no danger to your computer. The message only comes up because I sent the
                Message 7 of 26 , Mar 28, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Thomas,

                  Thanks for notifying me of the problem. Two things: first, there's really no danger to your computer. The message only comes up because I sent the message using Microsoft's Outlook's web access (emailing from home). I don't know how to keep the email address that starts with the "owa" from showing up. But if you want to contact me offlist, you can do so mechanically by simply copying the original email address into the "To" line of your email. Thanks.

                  Blessings,

                  Jerry

                  Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                  Associate Professor of Old Testament
                  Taylor Seminary
                  11525 - 23 Avenue
                  Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                  CANADA
                  Office: (780)431-5250
                  Home: (780)434-1164
                  Fax: (780)436-9416
                  Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                  Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>

                  ________________________________

                  From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of J Thomas Phillips
                  Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 1:06 PM
                  To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God




                  Dr. Shepherd,

                  You may want to know that when folks attempt to respond to you at you indicated mailing locations following your signature here, a pop up on the screens shows that your site is not safe and could damage "my" computer. Just thought you might want to be aware of this situation. All the best, Thomas

                  ________________________________
                  From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel@... <mailto:gfsomsel%40yahoo.com> >
                  To: "biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> " <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> >
                  Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 1:27 PM
                  Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Image of God



                  The one thing which is said in the 1st creation account is, as you noted, that of ruling (let's skip any angelic likeness). In the second creation account it is noted that man would be like God in knowing "good and evil", i.e., knowing all things (and by implication from the denial of death, immortality).

                  george
                  gfsomsel

                  search for truth, hear truth,
                  learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                  defend the truth till death.

                  - Jan Hus
                  _________
                  ...

                  >________________________________
                  > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.Shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
                  >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com>
                  >Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:00 AM
                  >Subject: [biblicalist] Image of God
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >Hi Listers,
                  >
                  >There hasn't been any activity on this list for quite a while. So I thought I would try to get things going again. Here's something for you to interact with.
                  >
                  >When Elohim deliberates and decides to create humankind in Gen 1:26, the best explanation of the plural is that of the divine council, what later came to be referred to as the sod Yahweh. The other deliberative passages in Genesis lend support to this idea (3:22; 11:7; 18:16-22) as well other later "council of Yahweh" passages such as 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; and Isaiah 6:8. This is not so new by any means. However, what has not normally been done is to take this understanding of the plural over into the makeup of the image of God. Does the rest of the divine council have a co-creating function in the passage? And does the rest of the divine council provide at least part of the model for the image. That is, does the narrator envisage in this passage that humans are in some way formed after an angelic prototype or have an angelic resemblance? This would account for several things. First, angels appear, for the most part, in the rest of the
                  Hebrew Bible, in human form. Could we turn this around and say that it is not so much that angels appear in human form, but that humans were created in angelic form? Second, it would account for passages like Psalm 8:5, where humans are made a "little lower" than the "divine beings." Might this also not imply some resemblance? Third, probably the best explanation of what the image consists of is that humans have been created to rule over the earth. They are co-regents with God. But members of the divine council (angels) have also been given ruling functions (e.g., Deut 4:19; Daniel 10). Now I realize these many passages come from disparate sources and traditions; yet it is possible they reflect a common understanding. It has been a while since I read it, but I believe J. Richard Middleton, in his book, The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1, has made some of the same suggestions. In any case, what do you think? Feel free to tell me I'm out to
                  lunch. Treat the theory like a piece of Swiss cheese! Later, I'll argue for some intertestamental and NT connections as well.
                  >
                  >Blessings,
                  >
                  >Jerry Shepherd
                  >
                  >
                  >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                  >Associate Professor of Old Testament
                  >Taylor Seminary
                  >11525 - 23 Avenue
                  >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                  >CANADA
                  >Office: (780)431-5250
                  >Home: (780)434-1164
                  >Fax: (780)436-9416
                  >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd%40taylor-edu.ca> >
                  >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                  >
                  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Michael Welch
                  Dear Dr. Shepherd, Hi!!! I am definitely not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Last time I was discussing things on this list with Dr. Somsel, I stood
                  Message 8 of 26 , Mar 28, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Dr. Shepherd, Hi!!! I am definitely not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Last time I was discussing things on this list with Dr. Somsel, I stood up for the AntiChrist when I was trying to stand up for the Jews. So sometimes I get things completely backwards. I would say that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are included in us along with the angels. The angels eventually had a problem with God and these sons of God lusted after Eve and later the daughters of Eve. I believe there is a verse in the New Testament which says for ladies to be modest because the angels are watching. So I guess the angels still could Fall. It appears God the Father is a spirit in human form sitting on the throne in Revelation. Angels appear in human form when they talk with Lot. So it appears that we humans are created in this human form like God the Father, Jesus, and the angels. Thank you for your time.
                    With Much Gratitude and Admiration,
                    Sincerely Yours,
                    Michael Welch
                    Deltona, Florida




                    --- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Shepherd" <Jerry.Shepherd@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Listers,
                    >
                    > There hasn't been any activity on this list for quite a while. So I thought I would try to get things going again. Here's something for you to interact with.
                    >
                    > When Elohim deliberates and decides to create humankind in Gen 1:26, the best explanation of the plural is that of the divine council, what later came to be referred to as the sod Yahweh. The other deliberative passages in Genesis lend support to this idea (3:22; 11:7; 18:16-22) as well other later "council of Yahweh" passages such as 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; and Isaiah 6:8. This is not so new by any means. However, what has not normally been done is to take this understanding of the plural over into the makeup of the image of God. Does the rest of the divine council have a co-creating function in the passage? And does the rest of the divine council provide at least part of the model for the image. That is, does the narrator envisage in this passage that humans are in some way formed after an angelic prototype or have an angelic resemblance? This would account for several things. First, angels appear, for the most part, in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, in human form. Could we turn this around and say that it is not so much that angels appear in human form, but that humans were created in angelic form? Second, it would account for passages like Psalm 8:5, where humans are made a "little lower" than the "divine beings." Might this also not imply some resemblance? Third, probably the best explanation of what the image consists of is that humans have been created to rule over the earth. They are co-regents with God. But members of the divine council (angels) have also been given ruling functions (e.g., Deut 4:19; Daniel 10). Now I realize these many passages come from disparate sources and traditions; yet it is possible they reflect a common understanding. It has been a while since I read it, but I believe J. Richard Middleton, in his book, The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1, has made some of the same suggestions. In any case, what do you think? Feel free to tell me I'm out to lunch. Treat the theory like a piece of Swiss cheese! Later, I'll argue for some intertestamental and NT connections as well.
                    >
                    > Blessings,
                    >
                    > Jerry Shepherd
                    >
                    >
                    > Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                    > Associate Professor of Old Testament
                    > Taylor Seminary
                    > 11525 - 23 Avenue
                    > Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                    > CANADA
                    > Office: (780)431-5250
                    > Home: (780)434-1164
                    > Fax: (780)436-9416
                    > Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                    > Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Jerry Shepherd
                    Hi Michael, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Hey, don t sell yourself short. Sometimes the brightest bulbs on the tree use too much energy, are too
                    Message 9 of 26 , Mar 29, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Michael,

                      Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Hey, don't sell yourself short. Sometimes the brightest bulbs on the tree use too much energy, are too glaring, and burn out too soon. There's something to be said for us "low-lights."

                      Now in response to some of your comments. First, from a canonical perspective, that is, from the perspective of the completed canon, sure, the Son and the Spirit should be included in the "us." But from the perspective of the author of the creation account in Genesis 1, he would not have had the concept of God as a Trinity. So it is preferable to read the passage from the standpoint that there is later revelation yet to come. So in Genesis 1 itself, there is no Trinitarian concept.

                      Second, each of the other passages you mentioned with regard to the angels have their own difficulties of interpretation, so it's probably best not to bring them into the discussion at this point. Perhaps later when I make some Intertestamental and NT connections, we could explore their relationship to the issue then.

                      Finally, just a reminder, not just to you, but to all contributors, that we all need to try to be objective as possible in our comments. None of us can be purely objective, and perhaps pure objectivity is not even the goal. We all come to the text with our own biases, presuppositions, faith positions or non-faith positions. And we cannot simply check all those at the door when we come into the room to discuss the texts. But we should also humbly be mindful that there are a number of perspectives represented in the list membership: different brands of Christian, Jewish, atheist, libreral, conservative, etc. So for the purposes of these discussions, we need to be simply mindful of that and try to kind of "bracket-out" our faith or non-faith commitments in our argumentation.

                      Thanks for your contribution Michael.

                      Blessings,

                      Jerry

                      Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                      Associate Professor of Old Testament
                      Taylor Seminary
                      11525 - 23 Avenue
                      Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                      CANADA
                      Office: (780)431-5250
                      Home: (780)434-1164
                      Fax: (780)436-9416
                      Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                      Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>

                      ________________________________

                      From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Michael Welch
                      Sent: Wed 3/28/2012 4:43 PM
                      To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God




                      Dear Dr. Shepherd, Hi!!! I am definitely not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. Last time I was discussing things on this list with Dr. Somsel, I stood up for the AntiChrist when I was trying to stand up for the Jews. So sometimes I get things completely backwards. I would say that Jesus and the Father and the Spirit are included in us along with the angels. The angels eventually had a problem with God and these sons of God lusted after Eve and later the daughters of Eve. I believe there is a verse in the New Testament which says for ladies to be modest because the angels are watching. So I guess the angels still could Fall. It appears God the Father is a spirit in human form sitting on the throne in Revelation. Angels appear in human form when they talk with Lot. So it appears that we humans are created in this human form like God the Father, Jesus, and the angels. Thank you for your time.
                      With Much Gratitude and Admiration,
                      Sincerely Yours,
                      Michael Welch
                      Deltona, Florida

                      --- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:biblicalist%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jerry Shepherd" <Jerry.Shepherd@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Listers,
                      >
                      > There hasn't been any activity on this list for quite a while. So I thought I would try to get things going again. Here's something for you to interact with.
                      >
                      > When Elohim deliberates and decides to create humankind in Gen 1:26, the best explanation of the plural is that of the divine council, what later came to be referred to as the sod Yahweh. The other deliberative passages in Genesis lend support to this idea (3:22; 11:7; 18:16-22) as well other later "council of Yahweh" passages such as 1 Kings 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; and Isaiah 6:8. This is not so new by any means. However, what has not normally been done is to take this understanding of the plural over into the makeup of the image of God. Does the rest of the divine council have a co-creating function in the passage? And does the rest of the divine council provide at least part of the model for the image. That is, does the narrator envisage in this passage that humans are in some way formed after an angelic prototype or have an angelic resemblance? This would account for several things. First, angels appear, for the most part, in the rest of the Hebrew Bib le, in human form. Could we turn this around and say that it is not so much that angels appear in human form, but that humans were created in angelic form? Second, it would account for passages like Psalm 8:5, where humans are made a "little lower" than the "divine beings." Might this also not imply some resemblance? Third, probably the best explanation of what the image consists of is that humans have been created to rule over the earth. They are co-regents with God. But members of the divine council (angels) have also been given ruling functions (e.g., Deut 4:19; Daniel 10). Now I realize these many passages come from disparate sources and traditions; yet it is possible they reflect a common understanding. It has been a while since I read it, but I believe J. Richard Middleton, in his book, The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1, has made some of the same suggestions. In any case, what do you think? Feel free to tell me I'm out to lunch. Treat the theory like a piece of Swiss cheese! Later, I'll argue for some intertestamental and NT connections as well.
                      >
                      > Blessings,
                      >
                      > Jerry Shepherd
                      >
                      >
                      > Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                      > Associate Professor of Old Testament
                      > Taylor Seminary
                      > 11525 - 23 Avenue
                      > Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                      > CANADA
                      > Office: (780)431-5250
                      > Home: (780)434-1164
                      > Fax: (780)436-9416
                      > Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                      > Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <http://www.taylor-edu.ca/> <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Michael Welch
                      Dear Dr. Shepherd, Hi!!! Thank you for your reply. There are many different views on Scripture. It will be nice to have yours. Everyone is entitled to their
                      Message 10 of 26 , Mar 30, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Dr. Shepherd, Hi!!! Thank you for your reply. There are many different views on Scripture. It will be nice to have yours. Everyone is entitled to their view. I certainly welcome everybody. I would say that when Adam wrote Genesis 1:26, he knew that Elohim included Jesus and the Spirit and Yahweh the Father. Progressive revelation may be more beneficial to us rather than the writers of the different parts of Scriptures such as Adam(Genesis 5:1). I do not look at the Council of Yahweh as including anything that Yahweh through Jesus did not create. In other words, I would not expect to see Baal there. But this is my interpretation. Thank you for your time.
                        With Much Gratitude and Admiration,
                        Sincerely Yours,
                        Michael Welch
                        Deltona, Florida


                        --- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Shepherd" <Jerry.Shepherd@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi Michael,
                        >
                        > Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. Hey, don't sell yourself short. Sometimes the brightest bulbs on the tree use too much energy, are too glaring, and burn out too soon. There's something to be said for us "low-lights."
                        >
                        > Now in response to some of your comments. First, from a canonical perspective, that is, from the perspective of the completed canon, sure, the Son and the Spirit should be included in the "us." But from the perspective of the author of the creation account in Genesis 1, he would not have had the concept of God as a Trinity. So it is preferable to read the passage from the standpoint that there is later revelation yet to come. So in Genesis 1 itself, there is no Trinitarian concept.
                        >
                        > Second, each of the other passages you mentioned with regard to the angels have their own difficulties of interpretation, so it's probably best not to bring them into the discussion at this point. Perhaps later when I make some Intertestamental and NT connections, we could explore their relationship to the issue then.
                        >
                        > Finally, just a reminder, not just to you, but to all contributors, that we all need to try to be objective as possible in our comments. None of us can be purely objective, and perhaps pure objectivity is not even the goal. We all come to the text with our own biases, presuppositions, faith positions or non-faith positions. And we cannot simply check all those at the door when we come into the room to discuss the texts. But we should also humbly be mindful that there are a number of perspectives represented in the list membership: different brands of Christian, Jewish, atheist, libreral, conservative, etc. So for the purposes of these discussions, we need to be simply mindful of that and try to kind of "bracket-out" our faith or non-faith commitments in our argumentation.
                        >
                        > Thanks for your contribution Michael.
                        >
                        > Blessings,
                        >
                        > Jerry
                        >
                        > Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                        > Associate Professor of Old Testament
                        > Taylor Seminary
                        > 11525 - 23 Avenue
                        > Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                        > CANADA
                        > Office: (780)431-5250
                        > Home: (780)434-1164
                        > Fax: (780)436-9416
                        > Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                        > Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                        ________________________________
                      • Jerry Shepherd
                        Hi Michael, I ll simply say that I am an Evangelical believer, and that I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God. But again, this is not a list for the
                        Message 11 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Michael,

                          I'll simply say that I am an Evangelical believer, and that I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God. But again, this is not a list for the purpose of discussing individuals' faith commitments.

                          For the rest of your post, it isn't a matter of exegesis either to say that Adam wrote Genesis 1 or that he was thinking of the Trinity when he wrote it. Neither one of these positions are evident from the text.

                          No, I wouldn't think that Baal was in the "council of Yahweh." I do, however, think it likely that at least some of the authors of the OT books considered Baal to be a real entity, but one who was in opposition to God.

                          Thanks again.

                          Blessings,

                          Jerry

                          Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                          Associate Professor of Old Testament
                          Taylor Seminary
                          11525 - 23 Avenue
                          Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                          CANADA
                          Office: (780)431-5250
                          Home: (780)434-1164
                          Fax: (780)436-9416
                          Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                          Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>

                          ________________________________

                          From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Michael Welch
                          Sent: Fri 3/30/2012 6:44 AM
                          To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God




                          Dear Dr. Shepherd, Hi!!! Thank you for your reply. There are many different views on Scripture. It will be nice to have yours. Everyone is entitled to their view. I certainly welcome everybody. I would say that when Adam wrote Genesis 1:26, he knew that Elohim included Jesus and the Spirit and Yahweh the Father. Progressive revelation may be more beneficial to us rather than the writers of the different parts of Scriptures such as Adam(Genesis 5:1). I do not look at the Council of Yahweh as including anything that Yahweh through Jesus did not create. In other words, I would not expect to see Baal there. But this is my interpretation. Thank you for your time.
                          With Much Gratitude and Admiration,
                          Sincerely Yours,
                          Michael Welch
                          Deltona, Florida




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Michael Welch
                          Dear Dr. Shepherd, Hi!!! We agree that Yahweh included angels in His Council. I think we agree that the image of God includes the human shape of Yahweh and His
                          Message 12 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Dr. Shepherd, Hi!!! We agree that Yahweh included angels in His Council. I think we agree that the image of God includes the human shape of Yahweh and His angels. I would say that the bene elohim are angels who fell from their first estate. From this group of angels, we have Satan the god of this world. He is still in charge of this world today. As far as exegesis goes, Genesis 5:1 has been interpreted by Bible Scholars as meaning Adam wrote the first five chapters of Genesis. I really am not making this view up. Thank you for your time. I still would like to see your view with the Old Testament verses, intertestamental verse(s), and New Testament verses.
                            With Much Gratitude and Admiration,
                            Sincerely Yours,
                            Michael Welch
                            Deltona, Florida


                            --- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Shepherd" <Jerry.Shepherd@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Hi Michael,
                            >
                            > I'll simply say that I am an Evangelical believer, and that I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God. But again, this is not a list for the purpose of discussing individuals' faith commitments.
                            >
                            > For the rest of your post, it isn't a matter of exegesis either to say that Adam wrote Genesis 1 or that he was thinking of the Trinity when he wrote it. Neither one of these positions are evident from the text.
                            >
                            > No, I wouldn't think that Baal was in the "council of Yahweh." I do, however, think it likely that at least some of the authors of the OT books considered Baal to be a real entity, but one who was in opposition to God.
                            >
                            > Thanks again.
                            >
                            > Blessings,
                            >
                            > Jerry
                            >
                            > Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                            > Associate Professor of Old Testament
                            > Taylor Seminary
                            > 11525 - 23 Avenue
                            > Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                            > CANADA
                            > Office: (780)431-5250
                            > Home: (780)434-1164
                            > Fax: (780)436-9416
                            > Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                            > Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • George F Somsel
                            Angels were introduced during the Captivity period under the influence of Zoroastrianism. george gfsomsel search for truth, hear truth, learn truth, love
                            Message 13 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Angels were introduced during the Captivity period under the influence of Zoroastrianism.

                              george
                              gfsomsel

                              search for truth, hear truth,
                              learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                              defend the truth till death.

                              - Jan Hus
                              _________



                              >________________________________
                              > From: Michael Welch <lmlkes@...>
                              >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                              >Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 8:59 AM
                              >Subject: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              >
                              >Dear Dr. Shepherd, Hi!!! We agree that Yahweh included angels in His Council. I think we agree that the image of God includes the human shape of Yahweh and His angels. I would say that the bene elohim are angels who fell from their first estate. From this group of angels, we have Satan the god of this world. He is still in charge of this world today. As far as exegesis goes, Genesis 5:1 has been interpreted by Bible Scholars as meaning Adam wrote the first five chapters of Genesis. I really am not making this view up. Thank you for your time. I still would like to see your view with the Old Testament verses, intertestamental verse(s), and New Testament verses.
                              >With Much Gratitude and Admiration,
                              >Sincerely Yours,
                              >Michael Welch
                              >Deltona, Florida
                              >
                              >--- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com, "Jerry Shepherd" <Jerry.Shepherd@...> wrote:
                              >>
                              >> Hi Michael,
                              >>
                              >> I'll simply say that I am an Evangelical believer, and that I believe the Scriptures are inspired by God. But again, this is not a list for the purpose of discussing individuals' faith commitments.
                              >>
                              >> For the rest of your post, it isn't a matter of exegesis either to say that Adam wrote Genesis 1 or that he was thinking of the Trinity when he wrote it. Neither one of these positions are evident from the text.
                              >>
                              >> No, I wouldn't think that Baal was in the "council of Yahweh." I do, however, think it likely that at least some of the authors of the OT books considered Baal to be a real entity, but one who was in opposition to God.
                              >>
                              >> Thanks again.
                              >>
                              >> Blessings,
                              >>
                              >> Jerry
                              >>
                              >> Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                              >> Associate Professor of Old Testament
                              >> Taylor Seminary
                              >> 11525 - 23 Avenue
                              >> Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                              >> CANADA
                              >> Office: (780)431-5250
                              >> Home: (780)434-1164
                              >> Fax: (780)436-9416
                              >> Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                              >> Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                              >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Jerry Shepherd
                              Hi George, To me, the references to angels are too pervasive in the biblical text, in both Torah and Former Prophets, to argue that they were introduced into
                              Message 14 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Hi George,

                                To me, the references to angels are too pervasive in the biblical text, in both Torah and Former Prophets, to argue that they were introduced into the text only at this late period. The period may perhaps be seen as influential in the way angels are seen, but I don't believe their actual introduction at this late date is tenable.

                                Blessings,

                                Jerry

                                Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                                Associate Professor of Old Testament
                                Taylor Seminary
                                11525 - 23 Avenue
                                Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                                CANADA
                                Office: (780)431-5250
                                Home: (780)434-1164
                                Fax: (780)436-9416
                                Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                                Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • George F Somsel
                                That would depend upon your view of the composition of the scriptures (i.e., if your view is that traditional one—prior to the rise of critical views—you
                                Message 15 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  That would depend upon your view of the composition of the scriptures (i.e., if your view is that traditional one—prior to the rise of critical views—you MUST view it as you state).  I have decided that the critical view has the better of the argument on a number of grounds and thus am not restricted to that position.  Some have argued that the final composition was quite late and based on Greek models.  I think that is carrying things a bit too far, but I do think that the Captivity with its exposure to Zoroastrian views among the Persians did have an influence.


                                  george
                                  gfsomsel

                                  search for truth, hear truth,
                                  learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                  defend the truth till death.

                                  - Jan Hus
                                  _________



                                  >________________________________
                                  > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@...>
                                  >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                                  >Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 9:49 AM
                                  >Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >

                                  >
                                  >Hi George,
                                  >
                                  >To me, the references to angels are too pervasive in the biblical text, in both Torah and Former Prophets, to argue that they were introduced into the text only at this late period. The period may perhaps be seen as influential in the way angels are seen, but I don't believe their actual introduction at this late date is tenable.
                                  >
                                  >Blessings,
                                  >
                                  >Jerry
                                  >
                                  >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                                  >Associate Professor of Old Testament
                                  >Taylor Seminary
                                  >11525 - 23 Avenue
                                  >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                                  >CANADA
                                  >Office: (780)431-5250
                                  >Home: (780)434-1164
                                  >Fax: (780)436-9416
                                  >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                                  >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                                  >
                                  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Jerry Shepherd
                                  Hi George, Much of what you say here I would agree with. But I would like to emphasize that the traditional view of the composition of the Scriptures, is not
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hi George,

                                    Much of what you say here I would agree with. But I would like to emphasize that the traditional view of the composition of the Scriptures, is not pre-critical only. Both during the critical period, as well as today in a period that is somewhat post-critical, the more traditional view has many qualified academic proponents, though certainly with modifications. Additionally, not only compositional but tradition history comes into play.

                                    Blessings,

                                    Jerry

                                    Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                                    Associate Professor of Old Testament
                                    Taylor Seminary
                                    11525 - 23 Avenue
                                    Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                                    CANADA
                                    Office: (780)431-5250
                                    Home: (780)434-1164
                                    Fax: (780)436-9416
                                    Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                                    Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>

                                    ________________________________

                                    From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
                                    Sent: Sat 3/31/2012 11:28 AM
                                    To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God




                                    That would depend upon your view of the composition of the scriptures (i.e., if your view is that traditional one-prior to the rise of critical views-you MUST view it as you state). I have decided that the critical view has the better of the argument on a number of grounds and thus am not restricted to that position. Some have argued that the final composition was quite late and based on Greek models. I think that is carrying things a bit too far, but I do think that the Captivity with its exposure to Zoroastrian views among the Persians did have an influence.

                                    george
                                    gfsomsel

                                    search for truth, hear truth,
                                    learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                    defend the truth till death.

                                    - Jan Hus
                                    _________
                                    ...





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • George F Somsel
                                    וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Apr 1, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃
                                      Dever has speculated on the basis of archaeological finds that Asherah may have been an integral part of Israelite religion.  I'm wondering whether this passage might be a remnant of the conception of the divine council as being bi-sexual  Man, i.e. humanity may here be represented as being in the image of God in being bi-sexual in nature  If so, this would represent an older stage of Hebrew religion before Yahweh alone was conceived as being the God of Israel and the sole God 
                                       
                                      george
                                      gfsomsel

                                      search for truth, hear truth,
                                      learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                      defend the truth till death.

                                      - Jan Hus 
                                       

                                      _________



                                      >________________________________
                                      > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@...>
                                      >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                                      >Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:47 AM
                                      >Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >

                                      >
                                      >Hi George,
                                      >
                                      >Much of what you say here I would agree with. But I would like to emphasize that the traditional view of the composition of the Scriptures, is not pre-critical only. Both during the critical period, as well as today in a period that is somewhat post-critical, the more traditional view has many qualified academic proponents, though certainly with modifications. Additionally, not only compositional but tradition history comes into play.
                                      >
                                      >Blessings,
                                      >
                                      >Jerry
                                      >
                                      >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                                      >Associate Professor of Old Testament
                                      >Taylor Seminary
                                      >11525 - 23 Avenue
                                      >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                                      >CANADA
                                      >Office: (780)431-5250
                                      >Home: (780)434-1164
                                      >Fax: (780)436-9416
                                      >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                                      >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                                      >
                                      >________________________________
                                      >
                                      >From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
                                      >Sent: Sat 3/31/2012 11:28 AM
                                      >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                                      >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                                      >
                                      >That would depend upon your view of the composition of the scriptures (i.e., if your view is that traditional one-prior to the rise of critical views-you MUST view it as you state). I have decided that the critical view has the better of the argument on a number of grounds and thus am not restricted to that position. Some have argued that the final composition was quite late and based on Greek models. I think that is carrying things a bit too far, but I do think that the Captivity with its exposure to Zoroastrian views among the Persians did have an influence.
                                      >
                                      >george
                                      >gfsomsel
                                      >
                                      >search for truth, hear truth,
                                      >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                      >defend the truth till death.
                                      >
                                      >- Jan Hus
                                      >_________
                                      >...
                                      >
                                      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Deane Galbraith
                                      I don t know that bi-sexual is the best word for the sexuality of God and adam: the term usually refers to those who have sex with both men and women.
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Apr 2, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I don't know that "bi-sexual" is the best word for the sexuality of God and adam: the term usually refers to those who have sex with both men and women. While Yahweh certainly had sex with his divine consort, Asherah, I don't know of any male gods Yahweh had intercourse with. There is that moment in 1 Sam 16.12, where Yahweh seems so overcome with David's physical beauty that he chooses him as king rather than Saul: "Now he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome, and Yahweh said, 'Rise and anoint him; for this is the one.'" But while there may have been a little divine lust involved here, the Bible of course does not mention any sex between Yahweh and his anointed one.
                                         
                                        The usual explanation, along these lines, is that God and adam are "androgynous" rather than "bi-sexual". Phyllis Trible, for example, links the creation of adam in Gen 1 to other creation myths involving the creation of a primal androgyne. Stephen Moore has more recently argued that the reason that Yahweh only showed his rear end to Moses was to hide the fact that he had both male and female genitals up front. Whether he is right or not, it does logically follow that if adam was created as an androgyne, and adam was created in the (at least physical) image of God, then God too must possess both penis and vagina.
                                         
                                        I tend to think, however, that the shift from plural to singular adam in Gen 1 and 5 indicates that "adam" refers both to corporate humanity and the individual named "Adam", rather than an androgyne combining male and female elements. It's hard to tell, though, and the coincidence of a shift from plural to singular in describing both adam and God is curious.
                                         
                                        Deane Galbraith
                                        Antipodes
                                         

                                        ________________________________
                                        From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...>
                                        To: "biblicalist@yahoogroups.com" <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012 4:59 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God


                                         
                                        וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃
                                        Dever has speculated on the basis of archaeological finds that Asherah may have been an integral part of Israelite religion.  I'm wondering whether this passage might be a remnant of the conception of the divine council as being bi-sexual  Man, i.e. humanity may here be represented as being in the image of God in being bi-sexual in nature  If so, this would represent an older stage of Hebrew religion before Yahweh alone was conceived as being the God of Israel and the sole God 
                                         
                                        george
                                        gfsomsel

                                        search for truth, hear truth,
                                        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                        defend the truth till death.

                                        - Jan Hus 
                                         

                                        _________


                                        >________________________________
                                        > From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@...>
                                        >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                                        >Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:47 AM
                                        >Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >

                                        >
                                        >Hi George,
                                        >
                                        >Much of what you say here I would agree with. But I would like to emphasize that the traditional view of the composition of the Scriptures, is not pre-critical only. Both during the critical period, as well as today in a period that is somewhat post-critical, the more traditional view has many qualified academic proponents, though certainly with modifications. Additionally, not only compositional but tradition history comes into play.
                                        >
                                        >Blessings,
                                        >
                                        >Jerry
                                        >
                                        >Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                                        >Associate Professor of Old Testament
                                        >Taylor Seminary
                                        >11525 - 23 Avenue
                                        >Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                                        >CANADA
                                        >Office: (780)431-5250
                                        >Home: (780)434-1164
                                        >Fax: (780)436-9416
                                        >Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                                        >Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                                        >
                                        >________________________________
                                        >
                                        >From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
                                        >Sent: Sat 3/31/2012 11:28 AM
                                        >To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                                        >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                                        >
                                        >That would depend upon your view of the composition of the scriptures (i.e., if your view is that traditional one-prior to the rise of critical views-you MUST view it as you state). I have decided that the critical view has the better of the argument on a number of grounds and thus am not restricted to that position. Some have argued that the final composition was quite late and based on Greek models. I think that is carrying things a bit too far, but I do think that the Captivity with its exposure to Zoroastrian views among the Persians did have an influence.
                                        >
                                        >george
                                        >gfsomsel
                                        >
                                        >search for truth, hear truth,
                                        >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                        >defend the truth till death.
                                        >
                                        >- Jan Hus
                                        >_________
                                        >...
                                        >
                                        >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Michael Welch
                                        Dear Dr. Galbraith, Hi!!! This is all very interesting. Do you have any thoughts on the marriage supper of the Lamb in Reveleation 19:7-10? Will there be any
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Apr 2, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Dear Dr. Galbraith, Hi!!! This is all very interesting. Do you have any thoughts on the marriage supper of the Lamb in Reveleation 19:7-10? Will there be any sexual relationship going on? Thank you for your time.
                                          With Much Gratitude and Admiration,
                                          Sincerely Yours,
                                          Michael Welch
                                          Deltona, Florida


                                          --- In biblicalist@yahoogroups.com, Deane Galbraith <peloni_almoni@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > I don't know that "bi-sexual" is the best word for the sexuality of God and adam: the term usually refers to those who have sex with both men and women. While Yahweh certainly had sex with his divine consort, Asherah, I don't know of any male gods Yahweh had intercourse with. There is that moment in 1 Sam 16.12, where Yahweh seems so overcome with David's physical beauty that he chooses him as king rather than Saul: "Now he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome, and Yahweh said, 'Rise and anoint him; for this is the one.'" But while there may have been a little divine lust involved here, the Bible of course does not mention any sex between Yahweh and his anointed one.
                                          >  
                                          > The usual explanation, along these lines, is that God and adam are "androgynous" rather than "bi-sexual". Phyllis Trible, for example, links the creation of adam in Gen 1 to other creation myths involving the creation of a primal androgyne. Stephen Moore has more recently argued that the reason that Yahweh only showed his rear end to Moses was to hide the fact that he had both male and female genitals up front. Whether he is right or not, it does logically follow that if adam was created as an androgyne, and adam was created in the (at least physical) image of God, then God too must possess both penis and vagina.
                                          >  
                                          > I tend to think, however, that the shift from plural to singular adam in Gen 1 and 5 indicates that "adam" refers both to corporate humanity and the individual named "Adam", rather than an androgyne combining male and female elements. It's hard to tell, though, and the coincidence of a shift from plural to singular in describing both adam and God is curious.
                                          >  
                                          > Deane Galbraith
                                          > Antipodes
                                          >   ________________________________
                                        • George F Somsel
                                          I agree that the term bisexual is not the best, but I definitely do not mean androgynous.   Such statements as YHWH the god of XXX and his Asherah
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Apr 2, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            I agree that the term "bisexual" is not the best, but I definitely do not mean "androgynous."  Such statements as "YHWH the god of XXX and his Asherah" indicate a posibility that "Let us make man in our image" may refer to this pair.


                                            george
                                            gfsomsel

                                            search for truth, hear truth,
                                            learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                            defend the truth till death.

                                            - Jan Hus
                                            _________



                                            >________________________________
                                            > From: Deane Galbraith <peloni_almoni@...>
                                            >To: "biblicalist@yahoogroups.com" <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
                                            >Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 12:23 AM
                                            >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >

                                            >
                                            >I don't know that "bi-sexual" is the best word for the sexuality of God and adam: the term usually refers to those who have sex with both men and women. While Yahweh certainly had sex with his divine consort, Asherah, I don't know of any male gods Yahweh had intercourse with. There is that moment in 1 Sam 16.12, where Yahweh seems so overcome with David's physical beauty that he chooses him as king rather than Saul: "Now he was ruddy, and had beautiful eyes, and was handsome, and Yahweh said, 'Rise and anoint him; for this is the one.'" But while there may have been a little divine lust involved here, the Bible of course does not mention any sex between Yahweh and his anointed one.

                                            >The usual explanation, along these lines, is that God and adam are "androgynous" rather than "bi-sexual". Phyllis Trible, for example, links the creation of adam in Gen 1 to other creation myths involving the creation of a primal androgyne. Stephen Moore has more recently argued that the reason that Yahweh only showed his rear end to Moses was to hide the fact that he had both male and female genitals up front. Whether he is right or not, it does logically follow that if adam was created as an androgyne, and adam was created in the (at least physical) image of God, then God too must possess both penis and vagina.

                                            >I tend to think, however, that the shift from plural to singular adam in Gen 1 and 5 indicates that "adam" refers both to corporate humanity and the individual named "Adam", rather than an androgyne combining male and female elements. It's hard to tell, though, and the coincidence of a shift from plural to singular in describing both adam and God is curious.

                                            >Deane Galbraith
                                            >Antipodes

                                            >
                                            >________________________________
                                            >From: George F Somsel <gfsomsel@...>
                                            >To: "biblicalist@yahoogroups.com" <biblicalist@yahoogroups.com>
                                            >Sent: Monday, 2 April 2012 4:59 AM
                                            >Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                                            >

                                            >וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃
                                            >Dever has speculated on the basis of archaeological finds that Asherah may have been an integral part of Israelite religion.  I'm wondering whether this passage might be a remnant of the conception of the divine council as being bi-sexual  Man, i.e. humanity may here be represented as being in the image of God in being bi-sexual in nature  If so, this would represent an older stage of Hebrew religion before Yahweh alone was conceived as being the God of Israel and the sole God 

                                            >george
                                            >gfsomsel
                                            >
                                            >search for truth, hear truth,
                                            >learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                            >defend the truth till death.
                                            >
                                            >- Jan Hus 

                                            >
                                            >_________
                                            >…
                                            >
                                            >>________________________________
                                            >> From: Jerry Shepherd <Jerry.Shepherd@...>
                                            >>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                                            >>Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:47 AM
                                            >>Subject: RE: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >> 
                                            >>
                                            >>Hi George,
                                            >>
                                            >>Much of what you say here I would agree with. But I would like to emphasize that the traditional view of the composition of the Scriptures, is not pre-critical only. Both during the critical period, as well as today in a period that is somewhat post-critical, the more traditional view has many qualified academic proponents, though certainly with modifications. Additionally, not only compositional but tradition history comes into play.
                                            >>
                                            >>Blessings,
                                            >>
                                            >>Jerry
                                            >>
                                            >>Dr. Jerry E. Shepherd
                                            >>Associate Professor of Old Testament
                                            >>Taylor Seminary
                                            >>11525 - 23 Avenue
                                            >>Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3
                                            >>CANADA
                                            >>Office: (780)431-5250
                                            >>Home: (780)434-1164
                                            >>Fax: (780)436-9416
                                            >>Email: jerry.shepherd@... <mailto:Jerry.shepherd@...>
                                            >>Internet: http://www.taylor-edu.ca <https://owa.taylor-edu.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.taylor-edu.ca>
                                            >>
                                            >>________________________________
                                            >>
                                            >>From: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com on behalf of George F Somsel
                                            >>Sent: Sat 3/31/2012 11:28 AM
                                            >>To: biblicalist@yahoogroups.com
                                            >>Subject: Re: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God
                                            >>
                                            >>That would depend upon your view of the composition of the scriptures (i.e., if your view is that traditional one-prior to the rise of critical views-you MUST view it as you state). I have decided that the critical view has the better of the argument on a number of grounds and thus am not restricted to that position. Some have argued that the final composition was quite late and based on Greek models. I think that is carrying things a bit too far, but I do think that the Captivity with its exposure to Zoroastrian views among the Persians did have an influence.
                                            >>
                                            >>george
                                            >>gfsomsel
                                            >>
                                            >>search for truth, hear truth,
                                            >>learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                                            >>defend the truth till death.
                                            >>
                                            >>- Jan Hus
                                            >>_________
                                            >>...
                                            >>
                                            >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >
                                            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                            >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.