Did the earth BECOME formless and void?

[ShamashUruk]

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.

Okay so obviously there are some if not a lot of miscommunication between you and I, mainly because you made my points. So let me break this down easily so you can understand what I am getting across.

You obviously don't understand that the Bible and specifically the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (originally because it begins with the Israelites), which means there is what is called a source or sources, they are the P E D and J sources (feel free to google). The P, E, D, J sources are where Mesopotamian influence on the Bible comes from, which most Christians are unaware of.

You state that "likeness" and "image" are different, I am stating they are not. The word image and its etymology contain likeness, because they are similar concete nouns. There is no difference in the wording.

God makes man in his image and likeness in Genesis. There isn't two different relationships, there is only one relationship. The term "image" only backs up the term "likeness", they are not different.

Example: I just purchased a brand new 'auto mobile', my 'car' is a Honda. The word car only backs up or clarifies auto mobile.

I don't have a different relationship with my auto mobile and my car, here would be an example of that.

Example: I love my 'auto mobile' which is my 'car'.

Auto mobile and car are the same thing, you can't love one over another, because they are both the same thing.

The point is that mankind is then made in the "image" and "likeness" of God, there is no difference in the wording. I challenge you to go and look up the etymology of "image".

You further state " 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)." Meaning that we are made up of flesh, bone, spirit, and that God is also flesh, bone, spirit. Meaning that you agree then that mankind is corporeal, which is my point exactly. Hence, 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.Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ violates 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]

ShamashUruk says,

Hence, 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.

You are right, there is an unavoidabeol logical implication that God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and to a certain degree, humanoid (only far more advanced).

 

[ShamashUruk]

ShamashUruk says,


You are right, there is an unavoidabeol logical implication that God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and to a certain degree, humanoid (only far more advanced).

The "unavoidable logical implication" I am referring to is: Hence, 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.Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ violates 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]

The "unavoidable logical implication" I am referring to is: Hence, 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.Problematic, too, is the intertextual implication of a concrete, human ‘image’. Indeed, the very existence of such an ‘image’ violates 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: ).

How does God being corporeal violate the 2nd commandment? The commandment is: There shall be on other Gods before me.

If 'me' is corporeal, or if 'me' is a spiritual essence, what does that matter to the 2nd commandment?

 

[ShamashUruk]

ShamashUruk says,


You are right, there is an unavoidabeol logical implication that God must also be material, physical, corporeal, and to a certain degree, humanoid (only far more advanced).

The roles shown in the Old Testament and the New Testament are inherently different. Bible shows Adam as a first of creation, New Testament shows Jesus as a first of saviors. The trinitarian role of Jesus in the New Testament would have less to do with the Genesis creation, as he is seen as savior and Adam is not. But, the role of Jesus in a trinitarian view would have more implications towards Celtic cult trinitarian view points.

There is a homology implication concerning "image" and "likeness" and has little to do with a salvation concept.

No other Gods, implicated idol worship. God is a jealous God, hence idolatry would violate the 2nd commandment. Human flesh should not worship other human flesh, or graven images. We can see King's, Pharoah's being worshiped by people, these people (King's, Pharoah's) per Genesis are made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Peter1000]

ShamashUruk says:

No other Gods, implicated idol worship. God is a jealous God, hence idolatry would violate the 2nd commandment. Human flesh should not worship other human flesh, or graven images. We can see King's, Pharoah's being worshiped by people, these people (King's, Pharoah's) per Genesis are made in the image and likeness of God.

The idea that human flesh should not worship other human flesh would be improper.

Gods corporeal, material, physical nature is still far different from our corporeal human flesh. But God is nonetheless corporeal in nature.

So in affect we are not worshipping human flesh, we are worshipping a far superior Being who created everything and deserves our worship.

No violation of the 2nd commandment.[/QUOTE]

 

[ShamashUruk]

ShamashUruk says:


The idea that human flesh should not worship other human flesh would be improper.

Gods corporeal, material, physical nature is still far different from our corporeal human flesh. But God is nonetheless corporeal in nature.

So in affect we are not worshipping human flesh, we are worshipping a far superior Being who created everything and deserves our worship.

No violation of the 2nd commandment.

[/QUOTE]

Actually the worship of other human beings is attributed to comparing human beings to a God figure, which we see in Egypt.

The nature if in "image" and "likeness" is the same, hence corporeal.

A person identified another human being as a God, this is classic idolatry.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I am one who thinks there is a GAP between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2

Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

There are two reasons I see a GAP here -- one, if God had just finished CREATING something, it would not be "without form and void" -- it would be a finished creation. Two, the later command to REPLENISH the earth -- that presupposes an earlier time when it was "plenished", but then became not so anymore

Here is jazz about the word in Gen 1:2 translated was :


The KJV translates Strong's H1961 in the following manner: was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee.
Outline of Biblical Usage H1933); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):—beacon, × altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, follow, happen, × have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, × use.

---

Gen 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Yes, it became void.

The context is that it was created (with Heaven) and was perfect. Then, it became desolate.

Does God make desolate things?


Further into Genesis 1, the Hebrew context suggest there was activity between "light and dark" (see the connotations for those Hebrew words,) and that because of this activity (and the consequences,) the earth became desolate.

Many people refer to this as "gap theory," the period in the canon that skips the point between the creation of earth, and the beginning of God's restoration of earth.

EDIT: The apocryphal books explain in detail this "gap" theory - though not canonical, it certainly provides insight into what happened in Genesis 1-7.

 

[Peter1000]

Actually the worship of other human beings is attributed to comparing human beings to a God figure, which we see in Egypt.

The nature if in "image" and "likeness" is the same, hence corporeal.

A person identified another human being as a God, this is classic idolatry.[/QUOTE]
__________________________________________________________________

If a person identified another human being as a God, this would in fact be classic idolatry. If you are telling me that I have done that, you are mistaken.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Actually the worship of other human beings is attributed to comparing human beings to a God figure, which we see in Egypt.

The nature if in "image" and "likeness" is the same, hence corporeal.

A person identified another human being as a God, this is classic idolatry.

What I am saying is the prohibition of identifying or idolizing a person, place, or thing (all nouns) as a God or to be made more important the Biblical God is considered idolatry by Biblical standards.

I'm not talking about you specifically, I'm talking about what the terms of the Old Testamentary laws are concerning the 2nd commandment.

 

[Peter1000]

What I am saying is the prohibition of identifying or idolizing a person, place, or thing (all nouns) as a God or to be made more important the Biblical God is considered idolatry by Biblical standards.

I'm not talking about you specifically, I'm talking about what the terms of the Old Testamentary laws are concerning the 2nd commandment.

You would be right unless the Biblical God is a Person (noun). Therefore Christians worship a Person by the name of God. This is proper worship since we are not worshipping a thing less than Almighty God, who BTW is a corporeal Person.

 

[ShamashUruk]

You would be right unless the Biblical God is a Person (noun). Therefore Christians worship a Person by the name of God. This is proper worship since we are not worshipping a thing less than Almighty God, who BTW is a corporeal Person.

You just contradicted yourself. You say I'd be right if God is a person, then you state God is a corporeal person, interesting.

 

[Peter1000]

You just contradicted yourself. You say I'd be right if God is a person, then you state God is a corporeal person, interesting.

I was trying to say that it would be idolatry except that Almighty God is a Person. So in this instance it is proper to worship a Person because that Person is God, who made the rules.

I added that this God is also a corporeal Person.

Did that explanation uncontradict myself?

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, it became void.

The context is that it was created (with Heaven) and was perfect. Then, it became desolate.

Does God make desolate things?


Further into Genesis 1, the Hebrew context suggest there was activity between "light and dark" (see the connotations for those Hebrew words,) and that because of this activity (and the consequences,) the earth became desolate.

Many people refer to this as "gap theory," the period in the canon that skips the point between the creation of earth, and the beginning of God's restoration of earth.

EDIT: The apocryphal books explain in detail this "gap" theory - though not canonical, it certainly provides insight into what happened in Genesis 1-7.

So you believe that God created the heavens and the earth and that somehow the earth became desolate a short time after God created it? And then in vs 2 He repaired it and got it ready for us?

 

[ShamashUruk]

I was trying to say that it would be idolatry except that Almighty God is a Person. So in this instance it is proper to worship a Person because that Person is God, who made the rules.

I added that this God is also a corporeal Person.

Did that explanation uncontradict myself?

God is either a person or a spirit, it still is a contraindication, either humans are person's or spirit's.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

So you believe that God created the heavens and the earth and that somehow the earth became desolate a short time after God created it? And then in vs 2 He repaired it and got it ready for us?

Not *somehow;* I believe there was a very specific set of events - involving a specific and existent group of agents - that led to the desolation of the earth.

God didn't create heaven and earth desolate.

 

[Peter1000]

God is either a person or a spirit, it still is a contraindication, either humans are person's or spirit's.

God is corporeal, but He is not human, He is far, far, far above what a human is. No contradiction, no idolatry.

 

[Peter1000]

Not *somehow;* I believe there was a very specific set of events - involving a specific and existent group of agents - that led to the desolation of the earth.

God didn't create heaven and earth desolate.

Interesting, can you give us the name of the agents? And if they are scriptural, can we find them in scripture?

 

[ShamashUruk]

God is corporeal, but He is not human, He is far, far, far above what a human is. No contradiction, no idolatry.

Corporeal means "having a body", having a body is what humans have. If he is "far, far, far" above what a human is, then God is not corporeal. We humans are created in the "image" and "likeness" of God, hence God is corporeal as we humans are corporeal.

 

[Peter1000]

Corporeal means "having a body", having a body is what humans have. If he is "far, far, far" above what a human is, then God is not corporeal. We humans are created in the "image" and "likeness" of God, hence God is corporeal as we humans are corporeal.

Have it your way, but it does not change the nature of my worship to God, corporeal or spiritual.
It does not matter to me what the scholars or the Jews, or the pagans think is proper worship. We worship God, who we believe looks like us, and is made of the same stuff, only far far advanced from our stuff.