Did the earth BECOME formless and void?

[Anto9us]

in the earliest human settlements Flint instruments indeed are common but they are associated with metal or betray the influence of metalworking

Flint instruments -- side by side with metalworking?

 

[ShamashUruk]

Flint instruments -- side by side with metalworking?

This is in reference to threshing boards.

 

[Anto9us]

Threshing boards - OK...

“There is no particular significance in the change of prepositions (‘in’ our image, ‘according to’ our likeness).

There could be significance to it --various forms of parallelism, chiasmus, and whatever can come into play -- could be aiming at a 'double likeness'

 

[ShamashUruk]

Threshing boards - OK...



There could be significance to it --various forms of parallelism, chiasmus, and whatever can come into play -- could be aiming at a 'double likeness'

Sure, elaborate on "double likeness". I did post on another posting about this issue on the likeness issue.

 

[Anto9us]

I can't really elaborate on it, except to say that the way things are worded it's possible there is a likeness in two senses

 

[ShamashUruk]

I can't really elaborate on it, except to say that the way things are worded it's possible there is a likeness in two senses

I imagine that most Christian perspectives will equate the "likeness" of God in humans and the development of sin. However, keep in mind that sin in early cultures was a personal offense against ones own God, to the much later developed "missing the mark" definition.

 

[Peter1000]

Threshing boards - OK...



There could be significance to it --various forms of parallelism, chiasmus, and whatever can come into play -- could be aiming at a 'double likeness'

ShamashUruk said, "there is no particular significance in the change of prepositions (‘in’ our image, ‘according to’ our likeness)".
I don't think he realizes how significant is the difference between 'our image', and 'our likeness'.

So here is what I think the difference is:

'Image' is like putting a light behind you and then seeing your shadow on the wall in front of you. The figure that you see is your 'image'. It has a head and a neck and a torso and arms and legs and 10 fingers and 10 toes.

'Likeness' is what this 'image' is made of. So what is God's image made of?
Is it made of pure 'spirit'? Is it made of some essence we are unfamiliar with?
Is it made of flesh and bone and spirit? This is the question about 'likeness'.

The only possible way to answer this question is to look at what the scripture says. God created man in His own image, according to his own likeness.

So if we follow this, we as mortal people are in God's own 'image', and we are also in the 'likeness' of God. So if you look at yourself, you should, according to the scripture be looking at what God looks like and what God is made of.
Therefore His 'likeness' has to be some combination of flesh and bone and spirit, because that is what we are made of. Since we are made in His image and likeness, its not a huge leap to find that God looks like us and is made up of the same stuff.

'Same stuff' is not quite true. We are made up of flesh and bone and spirit.
It is mortal and finite, and corruptible. God's body is a perfect incorruptible, resurrected body that is far far superior to our 'stuff', but nonetheless, He is made up of flesh and bone and spirit, 'like' us. So we are made according to the 'likeness' of God.

Quite a difference between 'image' and 'likeness' don't you think.

 

[ShamashUruk]

ShamashUruk said, "there is no particular significance in the change of prepositions (‘in’ our image, ‘according to’ our likeness)".
I don't think he realizes how significant is the difference between 'our image', and 'our likeness'.

So here is what I think the difference is:

'Image' is like putting a light behind you and then seeing your shadow on the wall in front of you. The figure that you see is your 'image'. It has a head and a neck and a torso and arms and legs and 10 fingers and 10 toes.

'Likeness' is what this 'image' is made of. So what is God's image made of?
Is it made of pure 'spirit'? Is it made of some essence we are unfamiliar with?
Is it made of flesh and bone and spirit? This is the question about 'likeness'.

The only possible way to answer this question is to look at what the scripture says. God created man in His own image, according to his own likeness.

So if we follow this, we as mortal people are in God's own 'image', and we are also in the 'likeness' of God. So if you look at yourself, you should, according to the scripture be looking at what God looks like and what God is made of.
Therefore His 'likeness' has to be some combination of flesh and bone and spirit, because that is what we are made of. Since we are made in His image and likeness, its not a huge leap to find that God looks like us and is made up of the same stuff.

'Same stuff' is not quite true. We are made up of flesh and bone and spirit.
It is mortal and finite, and corruptible. God's body is a perfect incorruptible, resurrected body that is far far superior to our 'stuff', but nonetheless, He is made up of flesh and bone and spirit, 'like' us. So we are made according to the 'likeness' of God.

Quite a difference between 'image' and 'likeness' don't you think.

Let's clarify your issue, a preposition is a word such as "after, in, to, on, and with". Prepositions are usually used in front of nouns or pronouns and they show the relationship between the noun or pronoun and other words in a sentence. So "in" is the preposition of "our image" and "according to" is the preposition of "our likeness".

You are differentiating image and likeness, not the prepositions of image and likeness.

Let's look at the etymology of image (I put in bold an important part of the word image), it means "piece of statuary; artificial representation that looks like a person or thing," from Old French image "image, likeness; figure, drawing, portrait; reflection; statue," earlier imagene, from Latin imaginem (nominative imago) "copy, imitation, likeness; statue, picture," also "phantom, ghost, apparition," figuratively "idea, appearance," from stem of imitari "to copy, imitate" (see imitation).

That is a dictionary defintion and etymology of the term image, which includes the term likeness. Likeness include the representation of an object, or the image of an object.

In your case if you put a light behind you and see your shadow you are seeing your image. The shadow is a likeness of you physically, there is no real difference.

 

[Anto9us]

I feel there could be significance between the exact prepositions and nouns of the two clauses.

I even feel that possibly Priestly account
(first that we come to in the Bible, but perhaps later in time of composition)
can tell of creation of man as spirit-being (where it is not said that female is anything but same time as male)
and Yahwistic account
(later in the text but allegedly earlier in time of composition)
which definitely gives physical male created first, and physical female later

 

[ShamashUruk]

I feel there could be significance between the exact prepositions and nouns of the two clauses.

I even feel that possibly Priestly account
(first that we come to in the Bible, but perhaps later in time of composition)
can tell of creation of man as spirit-being (where it is not said that female is anything but same time as male)
and Yahwistic account
(later in the text but allegedly earlier in time of composition)
which definitely gives physical male created first, and physical female later

By significance, the prepositions are the same and the nouns are the same.

Not sure about the second part, you would need to learn certain linguistics and how translations worked, the Masoretic Jews weren't very good at that. Also, look into the P sources, this will give big indicating clues.

The texts of PT are essential to P, providing its most basic structure in Genesis. More than a structural device, however, Priestly writers were particularly interested in genealogies—in establishing the connection of the generations and in emphasizing the bonds uniting all Israelite's.

 

[Peter1000]

Let's clarify your issue, a preposition is a word such as "after, in, to, on, and with". Prepositions are usually used in front of nouns or pronouns and they show the relationship between the noun or pronoun and other words in a sentence. So "in" is the preposition of "our image" and "according to" is the preposition of "our likeness".

You are differentiating image and likeness, not the prepositions of image and likeness.

Let's look at the etymology of image (I put in bold an important part of the word image), it means "piece of statuary; artificial representation that looks like a person or thing," from Old French image "image, likeness; figure, drawing, portrait; reflection; statue," earlier imagene, from Latin imaginem (nominative imago) "copy, imitation, likeness; statue, picture," also "phantom, ghost, apparition," figuratively "idea, appearance," from stem of imitari "to copy, imitate" (see imitation).

That is a dictionary defintion and etymology of the term image, which includes the term likeness. Likeness include the representation of an object, or the image of an object.

In your case if you put a light behind you and see your shadow you are seeing your image. The shadow is a likeness of you physically, there is no real difference.

If there is no difference, then why did God not stop at 'in our image'?

 

[ShamashUruk]

If there is no difference, then why did God not stop at 'in our image'?

You are the one who asserted there is no difference, the terminology is the same.

Your first issue is that St. Moses pens those words, so whether his claim is accurate or not cannot be properly founded. Let's assume his (St. Moses) claim is accurate, that he was inspired by God, then God did not know that likeness and image have the same etymologies and definitions.

 

[Peter1000]

You are the one who asserted there is no difference, the terminology is the same.

Your first issue is that St. Moses pens those words, so whether his claim is accurate or not cannot be properly founded. Let's assume his (St. Moses) claim is accurate, that he was inspired by God, then God did not know that likeness and image have the same etymologies and definitions.

You side stepped by question nicely, but not unnoticed.

God obviously knows the difference between 'image' and 'likeness', and their prepositions. So the real answer to my question was he didn't stop at 'in our image', because 'according to our likeness' was needed to help us to know that we were created according to the 'likeness' of God, not just in His 'image'.

So, again, if you want to know what God looks like, just look at another fellow human being. In fact Jesus said that very thing to his disciple. Philip asked Jesus to show them his Father. Jesus said look at me and you see the Father. Not that Jesus was God the Father, but he was in the express image and likeness of God the Father. So if you are wanting to know what God the Father looks like, look at the mortal Jesus (and the mortal Jesus looked like just any other mortal human).

 

[ShamashUruk]

You side stepped by question nicely, but not unnoticed.

God obviously knows the difference between 'image' and 'likeness', and their prepositions. So the real answer to my question was he didn't stop at 'in our image', because 'according to our likeness' was needed to help us to know that we were created according to the 'likeness' of God, not just in His 'image'.

So, again, if you want to know what God looks like, just look at another fellow human being. In fact Jesus said that very thing to his disciple. Philip asked Jesus to show them his Father. Jesus said look at me and you see the Father. Not that Jesus was God the Father, but he was in the express image and likeness of God the Father. So if you are wanting to know what God the Father looks like, look at the mortal Jesus (and the mortal Jesus looked like just any other mortal human).

You are the one who lead to that conclusion, that God didn't know the difference. Yet you wanted the answer of "God wanted to help us know were were created to the likeness of God and not just in his image", there is no difference between likeness and image, so once again that argument fails.

To your "look at another fellow human being", humans are not perfect, hence God is not perfect, yet we are in his divine image and likeness? God looks like a human would be the conclusion here. You even state "he was in the express image and likeness of God the Father" hence you don't even distinguish between likeness and image.

Let's look further into this; the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:


the man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a

decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.


Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.


V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.


To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”


But when its two nominal components—‘image’and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of incomparability is quickly qualified.

For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected

in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. That is to say, it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.


The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance (see § . .).


Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid (see also §).Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).

 

[Peter1000]

You are the one who lead to that conclusion, that God didn't know the difference. Yet you wanted the answer of "God wanted to help us know were were created to the likeness of God and not just in his image", there is no difference between likeness and image, so once again that argument fails.

To your "look at another fellow human being", humans are not perfect, hence God is not perfect, yet we are in his divine image and likeness? God looks like a human would be the conclusion here. You even state "he was in the express image and likeness of God the Father" hence you don't even distinguish between likeness and image.



Let's look further into this; the creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple ... Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:


the man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a

decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.


Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.


V. 27 will corroborate and will execute this vision. Its first clause names the creator, the human creature, and the divine image that God invests in human beings (v. 27aα). Overlapping with the first, the second clause identifies the divine possessor of the image (v. 27aâ). The third clause deletes reference to the image yet describes the human creature as a constituent pair (v. 27b). V. 27 therefore will reiterate the unique relationship between God and humanity, explains the relationship, and tracks it from its source to its individual heirs. So, the interpretive details of Gen :26–27 are unclear at best.


To be sure, the characteristics uniquely shared by creator and creature assert “the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God.”


But when its two nominal components—‘image’and ‘likeness’—are queried, the assertion of incomparability is quickly qualified.

For example, what does the ‘image’ of God signify, and how does the human race reflect it? Or, what is a divine ‘likeness’, how does it compare to the divine ‘image’, and how is the ‘likeness’ reflected

in humankind? The responses are often unsatisfying. Very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. That is to say, it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded. These statements, then, testify to the problem.


The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun. And as such, it refers to a representation of form, figure, or physical appearance (see § . .).


Thus if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid (see also §).Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry (Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: ).

Well you are dancing all around it.

'in His image' = in his shape, (i.e. a head, a torso, 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 finders, 10 toes)

'in His likeness = defines what the image is made of. (i.e. resurrected flesh and bone and spirit)

Again, since we are made in His image and likeness, God by definition is in 'our image' and in 'our likeness'. It's pretty simple. It just does not seem like it could be, and so it is hard for some folks to get their arms around the concept, but it is really that simple.

Jesus was the picture boy for his Father, God the Father. If you want to know what his Father looked like, look at him. A head, a torso, 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers, 10 toes made of resurrected flesh and bone and spirit. Far advanced from man's flesh and bone and spirit, but nonetheless the same kind of stuff.

Why do you think God took such a personal interest in our human creation?
It is because we are His children, and we are going to grow up to be just like Him. He wanted it to be done right, and it was.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Well you are dancing all around it.

'in His image' = in his shape, (i.e. a head, a torso, 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 finders, 10 toes)

'in His likeness = defines what the image is made of. (i.e. resurrected flesh and bone and spirit)

Again, since we are made in His image and likeness, God by definition is in 'our image' and in 'our likeness'. It's pretty simple. It just does not seem like it could be, and so it is hard for some folks to get their arms around the concept, but it is really that simple.

Jesus was the picture boy for his Father, God the Father. If you want to know what his Father looked like, look at him. A head, a torso, 2 arms, 2 legs, 10 fingers, 10 toes made of resurrected flesh and bone and spirit. Far advanced from man's flesh and bone and spirit, but nonetheless the same kind of stuff.

Why do you think God took such a personal interest in our human creation?
It is because we are His children, and we are going to grow up to be just like Him. He wanted it to be done right, and it was.

So the setting of "why God took a personal interest in human creation". The creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve, the cohortative. Whereas the earlier jussives expressed God’s will with a third person, nonagentive verb form, the cohortative is both first person and agentive. Unlike the jussives, too, the cohortative doesn’t itself create but prepares or introduces the creative act. With justification, then:


the man and the woman in Gen. I ... are ... created ... by God’s own personal decision (v. 26)—a

decision unique in the Priestly document’s whole creation account.


Similarly, God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, P’s God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As P tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

Also, you see "image" and "likeness" being entirely different.

In his image: The ‘image’ is problematic in its own right. For in most of its occurrences, íìö ‘image’ is a concrete noun, wherein a concrete noun is a noun that can be identified through one of the five senses taste, touch, sight, hearing, or smell. This is a problem because if the human race is created in the ‘image of God’, there is an unavoidable logical implication: God is also material, physical, corporeal, and, to a certain degree, humanoid. Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ seems to violate the second commandment, which forbids idols and idolatry Ex 20: – ; Dt : –10; see also Dt :15–19, and, within the Priestly tradition, Lev 19: , 26: and this is the first issue with image.

In his likeness: The etymology of image and likeness are the same, hence the term image and likeness are the same. So let's take your example, image and likeness. You equate image to head, torso, arms, legs and so on, then you state:

'in His likeness = defines what the image is made of. (i.e. resurrected flesh and bone and spirit)

You in using the term "in His likeness" define what an image is made of. You even use the word image to define likeness, you don't use another word (e.g. copy) but inherently even that would relate the same. Also, very little distinction can be made between the two words. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and one has to conclude that “image” and “likeness” are, like “prototype” and “original,” essentially equivalent expressions. They do not seek to describe two different sorts of relationship, but only a single one; the second member of the word-pair does not seek to do more than in some sense to define the first more closely and to reinforce it. That is to say, it seeks so to limit and to fix the likeness and accord between God and man that, in all circumstances, the uniqueness of God will be guarded.

Humans are imperfections, hence if "we are made in his image and likeness" the same befalls "Him" as he is then an imperfection.

Jesus is "God" in fleshly form, in "His" image and likeness, there is no distinction between both words (see posted above), because both words are not describing two different relationships God has with man, it's all one relationship. The Bible uses "image" and "likeness" to describe a relationship, a single relationship, not different relationships, hence all the word "likeness" does is reinforce "image", it doesn't create a different relationship at all. In the early parts of Genesis we don't see a "Jesus" hero until the New Testament, so there is not any other than one relationship.

 

[ShamashUruk]

You side stepped by question nicely, but not unnoticed.

God obviously knows the difference between 'image' and 'likeness', and their prepositions. So the real answer to my question was he didn't stop at 'in our image', because 'according to our likeness' was needed to help us to know that we were created according to the 'likeness' of God, not just in His 'image'.

So, again, if you want to know what God looks like, just look at another fellow human being. In fact Jesus said that very thing to his disciple. Philip asked Jesus to show them his Father. Jesus said look at me and you see the Father. Not that Jesus was God the Father, but he was in the express image and likeness of God the Father. So if you are wanting to know what God the Father looks like, look at the mortal Jesus (and the mortal Jesus looked like just any other mortal human).

This is addition to what I posted earlier 'image' and 'likeness' are suitable characterizations
of the divine-human relationship in Genesis. They are semantically alike; the nouns are each representational terms that express similative content. They imply, two foci of comparison between the divine and human spheres. Ostensibly, humanity is envisioned to be, and created as, a token of divine presence and participation in the world. The nouns state in two respects at least, humanity will resemble, replicate, or mimic God and his divine community. Humanity, then, is a theophany. The crux lies in the nature of this theophany. The theophany is not physical. The parallel terms “image” (selem) and “likeness” (d ̆emût) are noncorporeal resemblance and representation. Hence, the theophany is concrete.

 

[Peter1000]

This is addition to what I posted earlier 'image' and 'likeness' are suitable characterizations
of the divine-human relationship in Genesis. They are semantically alike; the nouns are each representational terms that express similative content. They imply, two foci of comparison between the divine and human spheres. Ostensibly, humanity is envisioned to be, and created as, a token of divine presence and participation in the world. The nouns state in two respects at least, humanity will resemble, replicate, or mimic God and his divine community. Humanity, then, is a theophany. The crux lies in the nature of this theophany. The theophany is not physical. The parallel terms “image” (selem) and “likeness” (d ̆emût) are noncorporeal resemblance and representation. Hence, the theophany is concrete.

We are not envisioned to be, and created as, a token of divine presence and participation in the world. We are embryos of God Himself, not a token.

The parallel terms image and likeness are absolutely physical. We are not noncorporeal resemblances and representations of God. He has created us in His image and likeness. No shadow spirit form, but real

If God was just a spirit, we would be just spirits, being in the image and likeness of Him. Since we are not just spirit, then it stands to reason that God is not just spirit, being in our image and likeness.

Like I say, it is hard to get your arms around this doctrine, but if you read the scriptures, it becomes easier and easier to understand.

 

[ShamashUruk]

We are not envisioned to be, and created as, a token of divine presence and participation in the world. We are embryos of God Himself, not a token.

The parallel terms image and likeness are absolutely physical. We are not noncorporeal resemblances and representations of God. He has created us in His image and likeness. No shadow spirit form, but real

If God was just a spirit, we would be just spirits, being in the image and likeness of Him. Since we are not just spirit, then it stands to reason that God is not just spirit, being in our image and likeness.

Like I say, it is hard to get your arms around this doctrine, but if you read the scriptures, it becomes easier and easier to understand.

To your "embroys": God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, (P’s) God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As (P) tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

You contradict yourself, you say we are not noncorporeal, we are corporeal, the defintion itself would indicate so and meaning relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.

We are talking strictly about Genesis and creation and its epics, we aren't talking Genesis and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans those are written much later and not even by St. Moses. The Genesis is written from the viewpoint of St. Moses, in fact St. Moses can't look at YHWH he can only see his backside as he passes him by. It isn't until the NT that people can physically see a "Jesus". So "Adam & Eve" do not see "God" in physical form, we don't see any indication of this in the Genesis. We only see "likeness" and "image" which then bares the issue of "likeness" only defining "image", as they are not two seperate relationships, are you then stating that there is a dualistic purpose there and that there are two different relationships? There actually cannot be, only one relationship hence would exist, and not two.

Also, the fact that both words are nouns; 'image' and 'likeness' are suitable characterizations of the divine-human relationship in Genesis. They are semantically alike; the nouns are each representational terms that express similative content. They imply, two foci of comparison between the divine and human spheres. Ostensibly, humanity is envisioned to be, and created as, a token of divine presence and participation in the world. The nouns state in two respects at least, humanity will resemble, replicate, or mimic God and his divine community. Humanity, then, is a theophany. The crux lies in the nature of this theophany. The theophany is not physical. The parallel terms “image” (selem) and “likeness” (d ̆emût) are noncorporeal resemblance and representation. Hence, the theophany is concrete.

Also, when you talk about studying the Bible you'd include it religiously, however, to approach it academically is also warranted. The Bible contains history that coincides among other cultures, hence we see cultural events happening much earlier than the Bible's epics, and written much later in Biblical papyri. Obviously there is going to be intertextual and cross reference between each. Hence, the Bible is written after many events occurred and adopts those events as its own. However, this isn't done solely by the Bible itself, Babylon would have simultaneously adopted its epics from Akkad, so Bible isn't the only "book" to make copies and call those copies its own. So when you talk about Bible study, it becomes very non specific.

 

[Peter1000]

To your "embroys": God participates more intimately and intensively in this than in the earlier works of creation. As the cohortative form suggests, (P’s) God anticipates a more active role, greater control, and stronger personal involvement in the human creation than in his previous seven creative acts. God’s involvement also runs deeper. As (P) tells the story, this last creative act coincides with an extraordinary divine event. When God initiates human creation, God takes the opportunity to identify himself, for the first time, in the self-referential first person. At the same time, God’s identity is invested in this human creature and is represented by two characteristics: a divine image and a divine likeness. Humanity resembles divinity through two inherent yet divine features. Of all God’s creations, only humanity is envisioned as comparable to divinity.

You contradict yourself, you say we are not noncorporeal, we are corporeal, the defintion itself would indicate so and meaning relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.

We are talking strictly about Genesis and creation and its epics, we aren't talking Genesis and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans those are written much later and not even by St. Moses. The Genesis is written from the viewpoint of St. Moses, in fact St. Moses can't look at YHWH he can only see his backside as he passes him by. It isn't until the NT that people can physically see a "Jesus". So "Adam & Eve" do not see "God" in physical form, we don't see any indication of this in the Genesis. We only see "likeness" and "image" which then bares the issue of "likeness" only defining "image", as they are not two seperate relationships, are you then stating that there is a dualistic purpose there and that there are two different relationships? There actually cannot be, only one relationship hence would exist, and not two.

Also, the fact that both words are nouns; 'image' and 'likeness' are suitable characterizations of the divine-human relationship in Genesis. They are semantically alike; the nouns are each representational terms that express similative content. They imply, two foci of comparison between the divine and human spheres. Ostensibly, humanity is envisioned to be, and created as, a token of divine presence and participation in the world. The nouns state in two respects at least, humanity will resemble, replicate, or mimic God and his divine community. Humanity, then, is a theophany. The crux lies in the nature of this theophany. The theophany is not physical. The parallel terms “image” (selem) and “likeness” (d ̆emût) are noncorporeal resemblance and representation. Hence, the theophany is concrete.

Also, when you talk about studying the Bible you'd include it religiously, however, to approach it academically is also warranted. The Bible contains history that coincides among other cultures, hence we see cultural events happening much earlier than the Bible's epics, and written much later in Biblical papyri. Obviously there is going to be intertextual and cross reference between each. Hence, the Bible is written after many events occurred and adopts those events as its own. However, this isn't done solely by the Bible itself, Babylon would have simultaneously adopted its epics from Akkad, so Bible isn't the only "book" to make copies and call those copies its own. So when you talk about Bible study, it becomes very non specific.

There is a reason God participated more intimately and intensively in the creation of man than in the earlier works of creation. It is because we are of His same nature. Unlike a plant or animal or star or light or mountain, we are His literal children. So the idea that we are made in His image and likeness is not a bold assertion unless you believe that God is a vapour or essence of wind or spirit, without body, parts, or passions, that is so large that He fills the immensity of space but is so small that he can live in your heart. If this
is your definition of God, then don't read Genesis 1:26 because it will make no sense.

How can God, who is an immaterial X, make man in that image and likeness?
Just the fact that we are made up of flesh and bone and spirit, proves that God is also flesh and bone and spirit (only highly refined, and far advanced than our flesh and bone and spirit). Or we are really not made in His image and likeness.

Again, 'likeness' is the substance of 'image', closely related, but a little different. Not complicated.