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

RE: [biblicalist] Re: Image of God

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 26 , Mar 31 10:47 AM
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.