Janice,
I found it quite interesting reading, actually. But it's awfully
dense and I was going to wait for somebody else with more theological
training to comment. If Gen 1:26-27 should really be translated in
this lord-vassal fashion, that would make John Eldridge's "Wild at
Heart" look pretty silly.
Chris
On 4/6/06, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 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 14:03:10 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 06 2006 - 14:03:10 EDT