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

What is it when we use the term "created in the image of God" that
bothers people, are we debasing God or are we dignifying man?

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Janice Matchett
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:20 PM
To: Chris Barden
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; dickfischer@verizon.net
Subject: Re: "Image FOR God" = Proper translation of Gen 1:26

At 02:01 PM 4/6/2006, Chris Barden wrote:

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

@ It would upset a lot more apple-carts than Eldridge's. :)

This is where I originally found the quote:

Created in the Tselem of God: A reply
http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/bodyblow.html

Mormon: [Note 45] "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

J.P. Holding: The idea makes sense, since "for" is implied indeed in
the meaning. [snip]

~ Janice

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 14:33:33 2006