Graven images of Jesus

[ViaCrucis]

Iconoclasm is heretical, because the core of Iconoclasm is a denial of the Incarnation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Believer000]

why are there falsely so many unbiblical graven images of Jesus in so called church buildings, online, in memes, and wherever else that has Jesus as white with long blonde/gold hair (long hair is a sin for a man 1 Corinthians 11:14) and they always have him doing some kind of unbiblical hand sign, we don't even know what that means, what is going on there?

Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:”

Statues of so called saints and bible figures or anyone else alive or dead is a sin, graven image and idolatry, some even falsely claim they see statues moving or crying, or even bleeding! yet when it comes to images of Jesus so many people still falsely use unbiblical images of a made up Jesus online and this is falsely accepted that Jesus was white blonde long hair. why?

how do we know what Jesus looked like? even if there is a true and accurate depiction out there among the thousands that is still a violation of Gods written commands to use any depiction of Jesus any color, race, ethnicity it is all a sin, graven image and idolatry, and very offensive.

(Now I want to clearly state that I in no way endorse this false new age depiction of Jesus circulating around online, that is very offensive and false as well.)

I believe the Catholics started that. The first painted picture of Jesus was based on the Popes son. And this image of Jesus has carried on through the 'churches', - just like how they endorse Christmas.

Jesus was not a blonde haired blue eyed white man. He was born in the middle East. Those 'churches' who keep those images up will be judged, God commanded us not to do this.

 

[SkyWriting]

I believe the Catholics started that.

Certainly not the case. The timing is not correct.

Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:”

 

[ozso]

why are there falsely so many unbiblical graven images of Jesus in so called church buildings, online, in memes, and wherever else that has Jesus as white with long blonde/gold hair (long hair is a sin for a man 1 Corinthians 11:14) and they always have him doing some kind of unbiblical hand sign, we don't even know what that means, what is going on there?

Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:”

Statues of so called saints and bible figures or anyone else alive or dead is a sin, graven image and idolatry, some even falsely claim they see statues moving or crying, or even bleeding! yet when it comes to images of Jesus so many people still falsely use unbiblical images of a made up Jesus online and this is falsely accepted that Jesus was white blonde long hair. why?

how do we know what Jesus looked like? even if there is a true and accurate depiction out there among the thousands that is still a violation of Gods written commands to use any depiction of Jesus any color, race, ethnicity it is all a sin, graven image and idolatry, and very offensive.

(Now I want to clearly state that I in no way endorse this false new age depiction of Jesus circulating around online, that is very offensive and false as well.)

God didn't want the Israelites to fall into worshiping Asherah poles, images of Baal, images Moloch ie practicing the paganism of the cultures around them at the time, which was was a fairly frequent problem they had. Like many of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic law, it was specific to Israel. Jesus is depicted as having long hair because he was from Nazareth and might have been a Nazirite. A Nazirite is an Israelite consecrated to the service of God, under vows that include letting their hair grow.

 

[ozso]

.

 

[prodromos]

The first painted picture of Jesus was based on the Popes son.

Citation needed, or retraction and apology. You won't be able to provide the former, so I hope the latter will be forthcoming.

 

[dani'el]

Rather it is you who needs to reread Ex 20:4-5. There is no "nor" before "thou shalt not bow down to them"

Exodus 20:4-5
(4) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
(5)[*here*] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;​

OK, let me point out to you that what you read from is a transliteration, NOT the actual word as written. I was characterizing the quote accurately, NOT saying your Old English translation said "nor." And if you are wanting context (which is a good thing) you have to consider:

Exodus 20:3-5 Young's Literal Translation
(which is not really literal or you couldn't read it)
3 `Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
4 `Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image, or any likeness which [is] in the heavens above, or which [is] in the earth beneath, or which [is] in the waters under the earth.
5 Thou dost not bow thyself to them, nor serve them: for I, Jehovah thy God, [am] a zealous God, charging iniquity of fathers on sons, on the third [generation], and on the fourth, of those hating Me,

So read in context of v.3 as well, any honest reading of vss 4 and 5 reads more as don't have other gods, don't make idols/ graven images, and don't bow down to or serve any idols/ graven images. NOT a direct translation- but then, neither is even the YLT. But regardless the translation you use, it does NOT say you can do any of these as long as you just don't do them all. And my point above was even just taking vss. 4&5 it does not say it is ok to just do one but not the other. It just says don't do either.

Or if you want to stick with your argument the ENGLISH word "nor" isn't there I'd say: neither does it say "[*here* for the purposes of] bowing to it."

 

[Jipsah]

I believe the Catholics started that. The first painted picture of Jesus was based on the Popes son.

Really? Which pope, and when?

And this image of Jesus has carried on through the 'churches', - just like how they endorse Christmas.

Yeah. Can't celebrate the coming of God Incarnate, the Savior of Humanity, the Creator of the Universe, as though it was something special. We should follow the example of the non-Christian world and ignore it. Right?

Jesus was not a blonde haired blue eyed white man. He was born in the middle East.

May have looked kinda like this, you reckon?

 

[RickReads]

God didn't want the Israelites to fall into worshiping Asherah poles, images of Baal, images Moloch ie practicing the paganism of the cultures around them at the time, which was was a fairly frequent problem they had. Like many of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic law, it was specific to Israel. Jesus is depicted as having long hair because he was from Nazareth and might have been a Nazirite. A Nazirite is an Israelite consecrated to the service of God, under vows that include letting their hair grow.

I`m not too big on Jesus' pictures although as I understand it most Jesus' pictures are based on the image on the shroud. The shroud may in fact be real in my opinion, if it is the pictures could portray what Jesus really looked like.

 

[dani'el]

God didn't want the Israelites to fall into worshiping Asherah poles, images of Baal, images Moloch ie practicing the paganism of the cultures around them at the time, which was was a fairly frequent problem they had. Like many of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic law, it was specific to Israel. Jesus is depicted as having long hair because he was from Nazareth and might have been a Nazirite. A Nazirite is an Israelite consecrated to the service of God, under vows that include letting their hair grow.

The terms sound similar, but are not the same. Jesus could not have been a Nazarite, because He drank wine. He was a Nazarene, as one being from Nazareth. And remember, these are English terms, not Hebrew.

Nazerite (Judg 13:5) H5139 נָזִר נָזִיר. nâzı̂yr nâzir- From H5144; separate, that is, consecrated (as prince, a Nazirite); hence (figuratively from the latter) an unpruned vine (like an unshorn Nazirite). (The translation, Nazarite, is by a false alliteration with Nazareth.): - Nazarite [by a false alliteration with Nazareth], separate (-d), vine undressed.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary: Nazareth- separated, generally supposed to be the Greek form of the Hebrew netser , a "shoot" or "sprout." Some, however, think that the name of the city must be connected with the name of the hill behind it, from which one of the finest prospects in Palestine is obtained, and accordingly they derive it from the Hebrew notserah , i.e., one guarding or watching, thus designating the hill which overlooks and thus guards an extensive region.

Regardless how one chooses to look at the term, everyone from Nazareth was not a Nazarite, but rather a Nazarene.


By the way, where do you find those 613 commandments?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe the Catholics started that. The first painted picture of Jesus was based on the Popes son.

Where did you hear that?

There are literally pictures of Jesus from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

This is a depiction of the Magi bringing their gifts to the Child Jesus having followed the star they saw in the sky that led them to Bethlehem.

And this image of Jesus has carried on through the 'churches', - just like how they endorse Christmas.

Oh, it's gonna be one of these discussions. I'd recommend you do some scholarly and critical homework on the origins of Christmas. That'll dissuade you of the myth of a "pagan Christmas".

Hint: It has nothing to do with the Roman Saturnalia, which lasted from December 17th to December 23rd; whereas the Christian Feast of Christmas begins on December 25th, and also consists (inclusively) of twelve days ending on January 5th, the Eve of Epiphany (also called Theophany by the Eastern Churches).

Hint: It has nothing to do with Sol Invictus. The Cult of Sol Invictus didn't even exist when Christians were already talking about Jesus having possibly been born on December 25th. In the 3rd century the Roman Emperor Elagabalus ascended the throne, a worshiper and priest of the ancient Arab solar deity Elagabal, which the emperor adopted as his regnal name. Solar deities were not uncommon, the Greeks and Romans already had Helios and Apollo, and the Cult of Mithras also seem to have identified Mithras as a solar deity figure. But it wouldn't be until later, under Aurelian (a sun worshiper) that an attempt to synthesize the various solar cults and deities into a singular cult of worship was made: The Cult of Sol Invictus. It is true, that in a 4th century Chronograph it lists two events that happen on December 25th: The Christian Feast of Christ's Nativity (aka "Christmas") and the pagan observance of the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (aka "the birthday of the unconquered sun"). But two things happening on the same day means nothing--there is no mention of this anywhere prior to this 4th century record.

If the Dies Natalis had any influence on Christmas at all, it would have been that it helped push Christians to insist on celebrating Christ's Nativity on December 25th (which it already was in some places); as part of the Church trying to push out pagan superstitions and observances from public life as the Roman Empire underwent a period of Christianization (a topic that itself deserves its own separate conversation). This can be seen, for example, in that not all Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25th, the Armenian Church continues to celebrate Christmas as part of Epiphany, on January 6th, which was one of the ways the ancient Church celebrated Christ's Nativity, not as a separate feast, but as part of the already established feast of Epiphany.

And no, Santa Claus isn't an anagram for "Satan". Santa Claus is a modern amalgamation of St. Nicholas of Myra, whose feast day is December 6th; as well as the British personification of the Christmas spirit, "Father Christmas" (the ghost of Christmas Present in Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol).

And no, Christmas trees are not Ashera poles, nor are they based on pagan tree worship. The Christmas tree originated as part of a popular German Christian practice of having Paradise Trees as part of popular mystery plays (which Church authorities hated and tried to stamp out). During the Protestant Reformation Lutherans started the tradition of having a "Christ tree" by bringing trees from the public square into the private residence, and decorating the tree with candles: to symbolize the light of Jesus entering the world, the light of the world being born (the tree a symbol of everlasting life which is found in Jesus). As such, the Christmas tree has explicitly Christian origins.

Jesus was not a blonde haired blue eyed white man. He was born in the middle East. Those 'churches' who keep those images up will be judged, God commanded us not to do this.

Most depictions of Jesus, historically, don't show Him blonde haired and blue eyed.

What we see is that Jesus and the saints (and angels) are, when depicted, usually depicted as reflecting the people who make the depiction. The Ethiopian Church's icons show Jesus, Mary, the saints, the angels as black. In Egypt Jesus looks North African/Egyptian. In fact:

Do you remember the opening chapter of the Gospel of John? "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).

God became man.

God became one of us.

When we depict Jesus as one of us, we are declaring that God has come into our midst. Yes, Jesus Christ our Lord and God was a brown skinned Jewish man who worked under the hot Galilean sun. But the Good News isn't that God became brown, or God became Jewish, or God became male. It's that God became human: "of a rational soul and body".

In Jesus is the whole of Adam's progeny: all of us, every single one of us, regardless of our skin color, eye color, hair, height, tribe, nationality, language, or social position, or station in life.

"For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" - Galatians 3:28

"After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'" - Revelation 7:9-10

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Der Alte]

OK, let me point out to you that what you read from is a transliteration, NOT the actual word as written. I was characterizing the quote accurately, NOT saying your Old English translation said "nor." And if you are wanting context (which is a good thing) you have to consider:
Exodus 20:3-5 Young's Literal Translation
(which is not really literal or you couldn't read it)
3 `Thou hast no other Gods before Me.
4 `Thou dost not make to thyself a graven image, or any likeness which [is] in the heavens above, or which [is] in the earth beneath, or which [is] in the waters under the earth.
5 Thou dost not bow thyself to them, nor serve them: for I, Jehovah thy God, [am] a zealous God, charging iniquity of fathers on sons, on the third [generation], and on the fourth, of those hating Me,
So read in context of v.3 as well, any honest reading of vss 4 and 5 reads more as don't have other gods, don't make idols/ graven images, and don't bow down to or serve any idols/ graven images. NOT a direct translation- but then, neither is even the YLT. But regardless the translation you use, it does NOT say you can do any of these as long as you just don't do them all. And my point above was even just taking vss. 4&5 it does not say it is ok to just do one but not the other. It just says don't do either.
Or if you want to stick with your argument the ENGLISH word "nor" isn't there I'd say: neither does it say "[*here* for the purposes of] bowing to it."

Alas you did exactly what I thought you would you found a scholar who says what you want to hear and you quote him without bothering to look any further.
Here is Robert Young's biography. Please note, "simultaneously taught himself various oriental languages.

Robert Young was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, the son of John Young a book-binder on Parliament Square on the Royal Mile.[2] He served an apprenticeship in printing and simultaneously taught himself various oriental languages. He eventually joined the Free Church, and in 1847 he started his own business of printing and selling books, particularly of works related to Old Testament studies, with a shop at 5 North Bank Street off the Royal Mile.[3]
For three years he was connected with Thomas Chalmers's Territorial church sabbath school in the West Port, Edinburgh. From 1856 to 1861 he was literary missionary and superintendent of the mission press at Surat; and during this time he added Gujarati to his acquirements. From 1864 to 1874 he conducted the ‘Missionary Institute;’ in 1867 he visited cities in the United States.[4] In 1871 he was an unsuccessful candidate for the Hebrew chair at the University of St Andrews. Most of his life was passed in Edinburgh, where he died at home, 14 Grange Terrace,[5] on 14 October 1888.
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...rt-young/RK=2/RS=XrAvJequ9P_FD93OLPRTNs7LqvA-​

 

[Cockcrow]

Where did you hear that?

There are literally pictures of Jesus from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

This is a depiction of the Magi bringing their gifts to the Child Jesus having followed the star they saw in the sky that led them to Bethlehem.



Oh, it's gonna be one of these discussions. I'd recommend you do some scholarly and critical homework on the origins of Christmas. That'll dissuade you of the myth of a "pagan Christmas".

Hint: It has nothing to do with the Roman Saturnalia, which lasted from December 17th to December 23rd; whereas the Christian Feast of Christmas begins on December 25th, and also consists (inclusively) of twelve days ending on January 5th, the Eve of Epiphany (also called Theophany by the Eastern Churches).

Hint: It has nothing to do with Sol Invictus. The Cult of Sol Invictus didn't even exist when Christians were already talking about Jesus having possibly been born on December 25th. In the 3rd century the Roman Emperor Elagabalus ascended the throne, a worshiper and priest of the ancient Arab solar deity Elagabal, which the emperor adopted as his regnal name. Solar deities were not uncommon, the Greeks and Romans already had Helios and Apollo, and the Cult of Mithras also seem to have identified Mithras as a solar deity figure. But it wouldn't be until later, under Aurelian (a sun worshiper) that an attempt to synthesize the various solar cults and deities into a singular cult of worship was made: The Cult of Sol Invictus. It is true, that in a 4th century Chronograph it lists two events that happen on December 25th: The Christian Feast of Christ's Nativity (aka "Christmas") and the pagan observance of the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (aka "the birthday of the unconquered sun"). But two things happening on the same day means nothing--there is no mention of this anywhere prior to this 4th century record.

If the Dies Natalis had any influence on Christmas at all, it would have been that it helped push Christians to insist on celebrating Christ's Nativity on December 25th (which it already was in some places); as part of the Church trying to push out pagan superstitions and observances from public life as the Roman Empire underwent a period of Christianization (a topic that itself deserves its own separate conversation). This can be seen, for example, in that not all Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25th, the Armenian Church continues to celebrate Christmas as part of Epiphany, on January 6th, which was one of the ways the ancient Church celebrated Christ's Nativity, not as a separate feast, but as part of the already established feast of Epiphany.

And no, Santa Claus isn't an anagram for "Satan". Santa Claus is a modern amalgamation of St. Nicholas of Myra, whose feast day is December 6th; as well as the British personification of the Christmas spirit, "Father Christmas" (the ghost of Christmas Present in Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol).

And no, Christmas trees are not Ashera poles, nor are they based on pagan tree worship. The Christmas tree originated as part of a popular German Christian practice of having Paradise Trees as part of popular mystery plays (which Church authorities hated and tried to stamp out). During the Protestant Reformation Lutherans started the tradition of having a "Christ tree" by bringing trees from the public square into the private residence, and decorating the tree with candles: to symbolize the light of Jesus entering the world, the light of the world being born (the tree a symbol of everlasting life which is found in Jesus). As such, the Christmas tree has explicitly Christian origins.



Most depictions of Jesus, historically, don't show Him blonde haired and blue eyed.

What we see is that Jesus and the saints (and angels) are, when depicted, usually depicted as reflecting the people who make the depiction. The Ethiopian Church's icons show Jesus, Mary, the saints, the angels as black. In Egypt Jesus looks North African/Egyptian. In fact:

Do you remember the opening chapter of the Gospel of John? "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).

God became man.

God became one of us.

When we depict Jesus as one of us, we are declaring that God has come into our midst. Yes, Jesus Christ our Lord and God was a brown skinned Jewish man who worked under the hot Galilean sun. But the Good News isn't that God became brown, or God became Jewish, or God became male. It's that God became human: "of a rational soul and body".

In Jesus is the whole of Adam's progeny: all of us, every single one of us, regardless of our skin color, eye color, hair, height, tribe, nationality, language, or social position, or station in life.

"For there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" - Galatians 3:28

"After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'" - Revelation 7:9-10

-CryptoLutheran

Jesus died in 33 AD, paintings drawn hundreds of years later are just guessing, there is nothing in the Bible that allows us to worship a man made image of Jesus, it is not accurate to do so. Those paintings are not Jesus those are offensive and scary.

 

[dani'el]

Alas you did exactly what I thought you would you found a scholar who says what you want to hear and you quote him without bothering to look any further.
Here is Robert Young's biography. Please note, "simultaneously taught himself various oriental languages.

Robert Young was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, the son of John Young a book-binder on Parliament Square on the Royal Mile.[2] He served an apprenticeship in printing and simultaneously taught himself various oriental languages. He eventually joined the Free Church, and in 1847 he started his own business of printing and selling books, particularly of works related to Old Testament studies, with a shop at 5 North Bank Street off the Royal Mile.[3]
For three years he was connected with Thomas Chalmers's Territorial church sabbath school in the West Port, Edinburgh. From 1856 to 1861 he was literary missionary and superintendent of the mission press at Surat; and during this time he added Gujarati to his acquirements. From 1864 to 1874 he conducted the ‘Missionary Institute;’ in 1867 he visited cities in the United States.[4] In 1871 he was an unsuccessful candidate for the Hebrew chair at the University of St Andrews. Most of his life was passed in Edinburgh, where he died at home, 14 Grange Terrace,[5] on 14 October 1888.
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrDQqNQ5Ydi3CMAvAEPxQt.;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1653102033/RO=10/RU=https://mysticbooks.org/author/robert-young/RK=2/RS=XrAvJequ9P_FD93OLPRTNs7LqvA-​

Alas you did exactly what I thought you would. You tried to dodge the issue with a red herring. Please stay on topic.

And I quoted Young because it is a (supposedly) literal translation. The fact is it still follows more the lines of the KJV than the Hebrew. And it and your KJV and many other translations I am familiar with still all read as a neither-nor rather than an either-or. And do not again try to tell me your Bible doesn’t say those words- again, a characterization of what is said, not a direct quote any more than any English translation you can find other than an Interlinear. And even those are problematic!

Verses 3-5 are combined into one commandment when they are listed. Read it through as you would a paragraph. Think back to your English classes and identify the subject, which is ‘other gods.’

Exodus 20:3-5 English Standard Version
3 “You shall have no other gods [besides] me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,

It basically says don’t have any other gods. Don’t make images, the implication being to represent them, AND it says don’t bow to them or worship them.

v3 subject- other gods
v4 don’t make a carved image or any likeness
v5 don’t bow down to what? … Other gods!

Can’t make it any simpler or easier for you than that. So unless you are just looking for a loophole in the word, there it is, plainly stated. However if a loophole is your goal, then not much more I can say to you; other than if you think you are smarter than God I wish you luck!

 

[dani'el]

Jesus died in 33 AD, paintings drawn hundreds of years later are just guessing, there is nothing in the Bible that allows us to worship a man made image of Jesus, it is not accurate to do so. Those paintings are not Jesus those are offensive and scary.

I agree, however the inaccuracy goes deeper than the physical. The real problem is our need for a physical representation of any sort takes our focus off the deeper attributes we should be worshiping our God for. His love, mercy, grace, justice, care, protection. His character that would cause Him instead of just wiping us all out with a thought and starting over to make a way for us time and again, finally coming as a man and dieing for us. Stop for a moment and just reflect on His awesome power, to create such a complex universe then forever sustaining that universe with His mind. If His thoughts lapsed for even a moment, think of the implications. Consider that at any given moment in time He could give you the speed of travel and the orbital path of any electron and how it is or is not bonded to another molecule; which He can also map. Every part of every molecule in even in just a single star- it boggles the mind. THAT is what I think of when I consider what His infinite nature means! And that is just a small part of the infinity equation. My opinion, but I think these are the things we are to think on when we worship. Not ‘where is the nearest statue or painting.’ Or worse, maybe I can find a statue or my medal of a saint and they can intercede for me. If they are truly saints, I bet their bones shiver and rattle every time someone does that! (And before some here jump on that, it is being facetious to make a point; not what I actually believe.)

Worship in spirit and truth, not in awe of how well someone made a work of art. Let our thoughts go to God, and He will come to us. Don't depend on an idol to bring the Almighty to us.

 

[Der Alte]

Alas you did exactly what I thought you would. You tried to dodge the issue with a red herring. Please stay on topic.
And I quoted Young because it is a (supposedly) literal translation. The fact is it still follows more the lines of the KJV than the Hebrew. And it and your KJV and many other translations I am familiar with still all read as a neither-nor rather than an either-or. And do not again try to tell me your Bible doesn’t say those words- again, a characterization of what is said, not a direct quote any more than any English translation you can find other than an Interlinear. And even those are problematic!
Verses 3-5 are combined into one commandment when they are listed. Read it through as you would a paragraph. Think back to your English classes and identify the subject, which is ‘other gods.’
Exodus 20:3-5 English Standard Version
3 “You shall have no other gods [besides] me. 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
It basically says don’t have any other gods. Don’t make images, the implication being to represent them, AND it says don’t bow to them or worship them.
v3 subject- other gods
v4 don’t make a carved image or any likeness
v5 don’t bow down to what? … Other gods!
Can’t make it any simpler or easier for you than that. So unless you are just looking for a loophole in the word, there it is, plainly stated. However if a loophole is your goal, then not much more I can say to you; other than if you think you are smarter than God I wish you luck!

This has been my position all along. There is no stand alone verse prohibiting the simple making of an image only if that image is specifically made to represent a deity AND is bowed down to and worshipped, then it is prohibited.
If the mere making of an image was forbidden then God would not have commanded that the figure of a cherub be placed on the ark of the covenant and He would not have commanded that the image of a serpent be placed on a pole to be looked at to save the Israelites who rebelled when Moses was on the mountain. Also the tribal banner of the tribe of Judah would not have the image of a lion on it.
I am not KJVO although I tend to use it frequently. At that time if a person chose to have a carving made or have a picture painted of a loved one there would have been nothing wrong with it.
FYI there are several "literal" translations, all are different.

 

[dani'el]

You are just restating things that have already been addressed, like saying it over will make it true. Not anything else I can tell you as I do not get bogged down in circular arguments. Enjoy your icons, and we all can make up our own minds on the truth, either way.

 

[ozso]

What it comes down to is artists make illustrations of the people and events contained in well known books, and the Bible is no exception.

 

[Der Alte]

My wife was born in Korea and lived in Korea until her thirties. Some years ago she was in ESL, English as a Second Language. By and By her class had a "graduation." While we were sitting there a small boy 1-2 years was old running around, crawling under empty chairs, etc. being a boy. He had middle eastern looking complexion and curly black hair. His mother was dressed in a hijab. I said to my wife "Do you want to know what Jesus looked like as a child?" She said "What?" I pointed to the little boy.

 

[ozso]

Jesus died in 33 AD, paintings drawn hundreds of years later are just guessing, there is nothing in the Bible that allows us to worship a man made image of Jesus, it is not accurate to do so. Those paintings are not Jesus those are offensive and scary.

Islam forbids illustrations of Muhammad. Are you of that mindset?