Re: "Image FOR God" = Proper translation of Gen 1:26

At 06:14 PM 4/5/2006, Janice Matchett wrote:

>This is VERY interesting!
>
>
>Scott N. Morschauser, a Presbyterian Theologian, has recently used
>the evidence from the Ancient Near East to argue that Gen 1:26
>should be more properly understood as, "Image for God." In this way,
>many theological stumbling blocks can be diverted since man isn't
>really in the image of God.
>
>S.N. Morschauser, "Created in the Image of God: The Ancient Near
>Eastern Background of the Imago Dei," Theology Matters, Vol 3 No.6
>Nov/Dec 1997.
>http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rykV-Jmomk8J:www.theologymatters.com/TMIssues/Novdec97.pdf+Morschauser+Created+in+the+Image+of+God+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
>
>~ Janice

@ I'm sort of surprised that there has been no response to the above
commentary (at the link). Might that be that no one has read it? :)

I found that link yesterday as I was doing research in preparation
for a review I'm planning to post on Amazon.com of Dick Fischer's
book, "The Origins Solution".

Also, in my research, I ran across this 2/7/2006 comment:

"... Milton Terry says on Genesis in Biblical Apocalyptics. It's a
hundred something years old, but still (IMO) far beyond 99% of the
Genesis debate material published since then. It is a testimony to
the monumental genius Milton Terry was in his own day. His shadow
will continue to dominate the field.

Personally, I prefer Milton Terry's approach over Fischer's because
it matches how we, as preterists, handle the book of Revelation. No
need to shift gears from (what I perceive) as literal excess by
Fischer to something else in Revelation. (That's not to say that
Fischer doesn't have some good
points.) ..." http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=631

Since I'm a partial-preterist, the above comment stopped me in my
"review-writing" tracks, and now I have to do more research.

If Dick Fischer would like to comment when he gets time, I would
appreciate it.

Morschauser is quite right that many theological stumbling blocks can
be diverted since man isn't really in the image OF God but was
created to be an image FOR God.

It is my opinion that Morschauser's suggestion of how Gen 1:26 should
be interpreted dove-tails with, and backs up what Dick wrote in his
book - especially on page 192 Re: The Image of God.

I know Eve is one who would despise Morschauser's translation. :)

~ Janice
Received on Thu Apr 6 12:50:02 2006