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

A mild caution: Biblical scholars & theologians have been debating the
meaning(s) of tselem 'elohim for a long time & have suggested several
possible meanings
for it. Morschauer's proposal ought to be given fair consideration but we
shouldn't leap to the conclusion that he's got the definitive answer.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Barden" <chris.barden@gmail.com>
To: "Janice Matchett" <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>; <dickfischer@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: "Image FOR God" = Proper translation of Gen 1:26

> 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 16:01:41 2006