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

At 02:32 PM 4/6/2006, Alexanian, Moorad wrote:

>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

@ I had no problem with the phrase, nor did I question it until
yesterday when I read the piece by Morschauser regarding the "new
evidence" from the Ancient Far East.

Now I'm interested in learning more.

~ Janice

>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 15:16:14 2006