“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Or, Doc, if you prefer,
“Vayomer Elohim na’aseh adam betsalmenu
kidemutenu veyirdu bidegat hayam uve’of
hashamayim uvabehemah uvechol-ha’arets
uvechol-haremes haromes al-ha’arets.”
Pretty unambiguous, as far as I can see.
Which means, of course, that God looks like this.
Here’s a picture of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, shortly after the Fall.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Or, Doc, if you prefer,
“Vayomer Elohim na’aseh adam betsalmenu
kidemutenu veyirdu bidegat hayam uve’of
hashamayim uvabehemah uvechol-ha’arets
uvechol-haremes haromes al-ha’arets.”
Pretty unambiguous, as far as I can see.[/quote]
I think so, too. I used the word “may.”
Oh, but what about that nasty–er, ambiguous–“our…?”
Damn. My picture didn’t upload. Here we go. Behold the face of God.
Oh, and Doc? The word “our” is perfectly understandable when you consider that the word “elohim” means “the gods.”
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
It doesn’t seem to bother me - one of the guys footing the bill - nearly as much as it bothers you.
I foot the bill for churches in Canada, where the arrangements are similar.
Why should we be forced to foot the bill of organizations we don’t wish to support?
If members of a congregation wish to pay the taxes of their churches, I have no problems with it.
Just don’t force everyone to do it.
In short - this community, and most all communities I have been a part of welcome churches, and other non-profits into the community. If it doesn’t bother us, why does it bother you?
You lost track of the ball again.
I argued to Varq that churches were picking his pockets because he has to support them, by paying their share of taxes, whether he likes it or not.
You chimed in by asking how churches were picking our pockets, because you were apparently too dense to figure it out even though you appear to pass for an accountant in your neck of the woods.
A couple of back-and-forths later, you’ve fallen back on the argument that you don’t mind paying the share of your church, thereby proving my point: Churches do pick our pockets because we have to pay their share of taxes, whether we like it (as you do) or not.
Now go shoot some varmint or sumthin’.[/quote]
You don’t pay attention very well. Or maybe you can’t take a hint.
The government allows the charitable organization designation.
Let me be more direct - mind your own fucking business. You don’t pay a fucking thing for my church, or any church in the US.
If you want to change shit up in the tundra - knock yourself out. I really don’t care what you, or your gov’t does.
But either shit or get off the pot. You are like tits on a boar hog.
Is that legible? Let me make it shorter - just in case the bright, flashy lights of the interwebz gets you all confused:
I don’t care what you like or don’t like. Change the shit you don’t like, or shut the hell up.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
The text of Genesis may be ambiguous but it is not equivocal. It was understood then, and certainly by Maimonides in the 11 th century, that God was incorporeal;
[/quote]
Yes, but note that Maimonides specifically points out the terms for likeness and image as being equivocal. He also points out that Onqelos, in his Aramaic translation, replaces equivocal terms that may seem to indicate corporeality into terms that indicate away from such.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Or, Doc, if you prefer,
“Vayomer Elohim na’aseh adam betsalmenu
kidemutenu veyirdu bidegat hayam uve’of
hashamayim uvabehemah uvechol-ha’arets
uvechol-haremes haromes al-ha’arets.”
Pretty unambiguous, as far as I can see.[/quote]
But image is not the same as form or configuration (to’ar).
Demuth (likeness) is derived from damoh (to be like).
Thou shalt despise their image (Psalms 73:20) does not refer to the shape or configuration of the despised, but rather their souls.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Damn. My picture didn’t upload. Here we go. Behold the face of God.
Oh, and Doc? The word “our” is perfectly understandable when you consider that the word “elohim” means “the gods.”[/quote]
A cunning linguist, indeed!
But…
“Elohim” looks like a plural, but everywhere else it takes the singular form of verbs, and the pronouns that follow it are singular–I, me, mine and not we, us, ours. In the exegesis, one school thinks that God addresses the (never-created) angels, cherubs, etc. More likely, the Redactors used this very sentence as the bridge, the moment in universal time when the pagan notion of a council of gods was superseded by the unity of a single God.
I like ambiguity!
Pookie, I look at it like this:
Let’s say I run a store, and the mob hits me up for protection money. They are essentially allowing me to choose whether I would like my pocket picked, or my leg broken.
I can either pay up (pocket picked), refuse (leg maybe broken), arm myself to the teeth and fight it out with the mob (suicide) or go out of business, thereby reducing the incentive of the mob to come and pick my pocket.
On the other side of the street is another store, whose owner has a pretty daughter who is dating the cousin of the brother of the local mobster. Since the owner of the store is practically family, the mob doesn’t hit him up for protection money. It’s not fair, maybe, and I certainly don’t like it, but I tend to be angrier at the gangsters who are actively collecting my money at gunpoint than I am at the poor schmo with tenuous mob connections.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I like ambiguity![/quote]
Me too. After all, ambiguitas follis volatilis diaboli est.
(10 cunning linguist points if you know what that means. 20 if you know who said it.)
[quote]nephorm wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
The text of Genesis may be ambiguous but it is not equivocal. It was understood then, and certainly by Maimonides in the 11 th century, that God was incorporeal;
Yes, but note that Maimonides specifically points out the terms for likeness and image as being equivocal. He also points out that Onqelos, in his Aramaic translation, replaces equivocal terms that may seem to indicate corporeality into terms that indicate away from such.[/quote]
Brother Neph,
Point conceded on Maimonides; the argument was long and I cut to the chase. But hold your horses, there, my friend; I double checked my Onqelos before posting, and darn! if it don’t use the same words as the Hebrew for “image” and “likeness!”
And that is why youngsters like us should then go to Rashi, the great grammarian. Rashi explained “image” as “mold,” but “likeness” as “with the power of intellect and understanding.”
(Gosh. I guess that is equivocal. Or encompassing.)
I still like ambiguity!
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
“Elohim” looks like a plural, but everywhere else it takes the singular form of verbs, and the pronouns that follow it are singular–I, me, mine and not we, us, ours. [/quote]
You mean everywhere else but Genesis 1:26? Hmmm. That sounds like a challenge.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
I like ambiguity!
Me too. After all, ambiguitas follis volatilis diaboli est.
(10 cunning linguist points if you know what that means. 20 if you know who said it.)[/quote]
Uncertainty is the devil’s thieving purse.
…swift bellows?
uhh…
Jimmy Carter?
I guess I lose…
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
“Elohim” looks like a plural, but everywhere else it takes the singular form of verbs, and the pronouns that follow it are singular–I, me, mine and not we, us, ours.
You mean everywhere else but Genesis 1:26? Hmmm. That sounds like a challenge. [/quote]
…and hence, it is the search, and not the answer, that enlightens.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
The text of Genesis may be ambiguous but it is not equivocal. It was understood then, and certainly by Maimonides in the 11 th century, that God was incorporeal;
Yes, but note that Maimonides specifically points out the terms for likeness and image as being equivocal. He also points out that Onqelos, in his Aramaic translation, replaces equivocal terms that may seem to indicate corporeality into terms that indicate away from such.[/quote]
Neph, … I said it in a different thread and this is off topic but smart guys are sexy.
/hijack
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
Neph, … I said it in a different thread and this is off topic but smart guys are sexy.
/hijack
[/quote]
Yeah, I hear Maimonides was really popular with the ladies.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
I like ambiguity!
Me too. After all, ambiguitas follis volatilis diaboli est.
(10 cunning linguist points if you know what that means. 20 if you know who said it.)
Uncertainty is the devil’s thieving purse.
…swift bellows?
uhh…
Jimmy Carter?
I guess I lose…[/quote]
No, no, no.
Uncertainty is the evaporation of the devil’s hair. or Uncertainly evaporating hair is the devil.
It was clearly a metaphor of some sort, or a complaint from old men losing their hair.
To the original question…
Absolutely.
OG - You’re hot!
“Ambiguity is the Devil’s volleyball.”
Emo Phillips.
In answer to the original question:
Absolutely
OG - you’re hot.