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

Re: Image of God

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 26 , Mar 31, 2012
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 26 , Apr 1 9:59 AM
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 26 , Apr 2 12:23 AM
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 26 , Apr 2 7:21 AM
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 26 , Apr 2 9:13 AM
                    View Source
                    • 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.