No.

We do not look like him, we do not act like him, we are not in any way related to him.

The argument of the father and the son holds no weight, because no two people are alike. They might look alike, but even twins are different(as i am sure any twin will tell you).

Speaking from a spiritual or religious point of view, God wanted us to act a certain way, that is why he sent prophets to guide the people. If we weere made in his image, then we would not have had all the prophets.

So that leaves the argument that we have the potential to be like him, or rather to be what He wanted us to be. This argument has weight because we have been given the choice of choosing between right and wrong.

So, to sum it up, we are not made in God's image, but we can achieve a certain stature that He has reserved for those people that follow His path.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A smile is a fortune but you can't sell it, you can't buy it and you can't steal it, but it isn't good to anyone until it is given away."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wow you gave out your answer like you had no time to think it over. Sure were nothing like God nor can anyone compare us to him. His son the same way. No one can equal to what they could do nor what they did.

But tell me what if you were asked, if we were an image that God had and he created it? That there would mean were not related to him in anyway, because were not his own body image, but we are a body image that he thought of and created it. So that would mean we are a creation in an image of God. Am I right? Am I wrong? Can you prove it? Can I say i am right, no I can't, because I have no proof, but my beliefs.

So I ask, could I be right? Then again I could be wrong, but my belief makes sense.

Losing a cousin you have known your whole life, is like losing a brother and a friend at the sametime.
-- Topgun
In memery of Jake Gesin

quote:

---

So that would mean we are a creation in an image of God. Am I right? Am I wrong? Can you prove it? Can I say i am right, no I can't, because I have no proof, but my beliefs.

So I ask, could I be right? Then again I could be wrong, but my belief makes sense.

---

I'm glad your belief makes sense, because your way about describing it certainly doesn't.

I know what you're getting at, and I'll opt for the you're wrong answer.

The question is Are Humans Made in God's Image?. Not Are humans made in an image that God created?. Obviously the latter is true unless he didn't think about anything when he created Humans.

The answer to the first of those two questions is no. God has no image.

quote:

---

I'm glad your belief makes sense, because your way about describing it certainly doesn't.

---

So you say, but just maybe you don't understand. If I said, I made a house in my image, does that mean I made a house that looked like me? Please tell me you don't think that it is possible for such a thing. Maybe there is, but is that what it means? Think about it.

quote:

---

The question is Are Humans Made in God's Image?. Not Are humans made in an image that God created?. Obviously the latter is true unless he didn't think about anything when he created Humans.

---

As I said before, it depends how you truly look at the question. The bible was written in old English. So therefore it would have been written like this, Humans are made in thee image of God or humans are made in an image of God. Today we would say, Humans are an image that God created or Humans are the image he created. There is no real proof of what it means. Old and new English are different in many ways.

So I say my belief makes sense in many ways.

Losing a cousin you have known your whole life, is like losing a brother and a friend at the sametime.
-- Topgun
In memery of Jake Gesin

quote:

---

So you say, but just maybe you don't understand. If I said, I made a house in my image, does that mean I made a house that looked like me?

---

It would mean exactly that.

quote:

---

Please tell me you don't think that it is possible for such a thing.

---

Why is it not possible to make a house in a persons image?

quote:

---

Maybe there is, but is that what it means? Think about it.

---

Yes, that is what it means. Doesn't take a whole lot of thinking.

quote:

---

The bible was written in old English. So therefore it would have been written like this, Humans are made in thee image of God or humans are made in an image of God.

---

I feel like I'm stating the obvious when I say they are both the same thing. All you could argue is that by saying an image instead of saying the image is that the word an can be applied to multiples.

Even so, the bible doesn't even say that. You're just presuming there is a translation error. Your belief might make sense to you, but it doesn't hold much ground.

quote:

---

Even so, the bible doesn't even say that. You're just presuming there is a translation error. Your belief might make sense to you, but it doesn't hold much ground.

---

Never said it was the same saying. I said it would have said it a little like that. Also, if you think that old English and new English are the same, then try reading Shakespeare's plays. They are not the same. They have some of the same words indeed, but they speak differently then we do now. For example if I said, "I would paint your face red". That does not mean I will take red paint and paint your face red. Shakespeare wrote that and it meant I would bloody your face. Now as I said Old English is different then New English.

quote:

---

Yes, that is what it means. Doesn't take a whole lot of thinking.

---

Your opinion mean nothing to me, give me your facts.

quote:

---

Why is it not possible to make a house in a persons image?

---

Until some one does it, it is consider impossible. When one creates something impassible then it, becomes possible.

quote:

---

It would mean exactly that.

---

Again I want your facts, not your opinions.

Losing a cousin you have known your whole life, is like losing a brother and a friend at the sametime.
-- Topgun
In memery of Jake Gesin

quote:

---

But tell me what if you were asked, if we were an image that God had and he created it? That there would mean were not related to him in anyway, because were not his own body image, but we are a body image that he thought of and created it. So that would mean we are a creation in an image of God. Am I right? Am I wrong? Can you prove it? Can I say i am right, no I can't, because I have no proof, but my beliefs.

---

Dude I don't know quite what you are saying here.

First of all, we are talking about an image, right? So its not physical. God had a physical image and he used that to create us. This is fact, as any doctor or scientist will tell you, that the human body is unique and no one can replicate it. God did not have any other image except the physical one. But he has laid down rules and guidelines for us to live our lives by. If we follow these then we can achive a certain stature. (I am having to repeat my self here)

Now my argument, as mentioned earlier, is that since we have had so many prophets (Moses, Jesus, Noah, Muhammad to name a few) sent to guide the people, we were and are not created in His image. Because it stands to reason that if we were, then we would not need all the prophets.

This (the various prophets) is not only my belief, but fact also.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"A smile is a fortune but you can't sell it, you can't buy it and you can't steal it, but it isn't good to anyone until it is given away."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote:

---

Never said it was the same saying. I said it would have said it a little like that. Also, if you think that old English and new English are the same, then try reading Shakespeare's plays. They are not the same. They have some of the same words indeed, but they speak differently then we do now. For example if I said, "I would paint your face red". That does not mean I will take red paint and paint your face red. Shakespeare wrote that and it meant I would bloody your face. Now as I said Old English is different then New English.

---

I think you're mixing up what I said. I never said old and new English are the same. I said what you said was the same.

quote:

---

Your opinion mean nothing to me, give me your facts.

---

Facts? How can you get any more factual than the context of a language? You said if somebody say's "make a house in the image of a person", does it really mean that? I said it means exactly that and you ask for facts not opinions? You've lost me.

quote:

---

Until some one does it, it is consider impossible. When one creates something impassible then it, becomes possible.

---

It's impossible because nobody has ever done it? What kind of logic is that? Who taught you that? I'm not even going to try and prove that statement wrong. Start using your brain.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would mean exactly that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Again I want your facts, not your opinions.

---

Go and read a dictionary. Seriously, you need to.

I will say again. You're presuming a translation error has been made and that when people say Humans are made in God's image, it really meant we are made in an image of God. You think this for no real reason.

Speaking of facts, where are yours?

quote:

---

God had a physical image and he used that to create us.

---

A physical image that God had in his thoughts. That would mean an image he created. An image that he started. That is Gods image for us. He created it. That would mean, that is Gods image. Not his own body image or anything like that, but we are made in Gods image. An image he created. not his own.

quote:

---

I feel like I'm stating the obvious when I say they are both the same thing. All you could argue is that by saying an image instead of saying the image is that the word an can be applied to multiples. [/QUOTE


If you are not saying that old English and new English are the same, then clearly you need to fix this statement.

[QUOTE] It's impossible because nobody has ever done it? What kind of logic is that? Who taught you that? I'm not even going to try and prove that statement wrong. Start using your brain.

---

Well no one has done it yet, so how can one say it is possible? When people started believing in cars, they said impossible and then it was done. Then it became possible.

Losing a cousin you have known your whole life, is like losing a brother and a friend at the sametime.
-- Topgun
In memery of Jake Gesin

quote:

---

acts? How can you get any more factual than the context of a language? You said if somebody say's "make a house in the image of a person", does it really mean that? I said it means exactly that and you ask for facts not opinions? You've lost me.

---

Not to be fussy, but you change my English and I just had to complain. I never said " make a house in the image of a person". Please do not change my English, it is rude .

Now what I really said was make a house in someone's own image. Like this for example, my name is David and there are many more people ok. We are having a contest. Now we all have drawn a house in blue print. My blue print win the contest. So they say make the house in David's image. I am not saying my face image, but the image of my blue print.

quote:

---

Speaking of facts, where are yours?

---

I was waiting for you to say this and finely you have. My facts, there are none. You choose what to believe without judgment. That was one of Jesus teachings. My belief makes sense as long as I believe it, but you assume it's how you believe it. What ever happen to free will, another teachings of jesus. Jesus spoke that God gave us free will and so if we want to believe we are in the perfect body image of God or an image of his thoughts. Then pass on no judgment was one of Jesus requests.

Losing a cousin you have known your whole life, is like losing a brother and a friend at the sametime.
-- Topgun
In memery of Jake Gesin

quote:

---

A physical image that God had in his thoughts. That would mean an image he created. An image that he started. That is Gods image for us. He created it. That would mean, that is Gods image. Not his own body image or anything like that, but we are made in Gods image. An image he created. not his own.

---

I'm sorry, Topgun, but this is where people seem to disagree with you. Old English and modern English put aside, it doesn't mean what you think it does.

I will say it for the third time...

There is no solid reason for anybody to believe that we were made in God's image because it is the image he thought of. Those words don't mean that, translation errors or not. They mean are we made to look and act like God. As in, if we were to meet a physical form of God, would he look human.

That is the question in this debate. We are talking about physical appearance and attributes, not mental images.

Surely, either way (though I think most disagree with your definition, TG) is irrelevant, as there is no way of proving either?

I said 'either' twice.

...you annoint my head with oil, my cup runneth over...

That is what I am trying to say. You can't say i am wrong or right, because there is no real proof.

quote:

---

There is no solid reason for anybody to believe that we were made in God's image because it is the image he thought of. Those words don't mean that, translation errors or not.

---

You can't prove it so don't say you are right. Neither do I say I am right, but that is how I believe it to be true. The bible has been written to many times to say what is true or what is wrong.


I am not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that what you believe is not what we all agree with nor do we have too. If people believe we look or act like God, then let them. If they don't then good for them

quote:

---

Surely, either way (though I think most disagree with your definition, TG) is irrelevant, as there is no way of proving either?

---

Beacon of hope said it all.

Losing a cousin you have known your whole life, is like losing a brother and a friend at the sametime.
-- Topgun
In memery of Jake Gesin

I hope such words discourage anyone from bringing up topics that are totally subjective without a shred of tangible evidence to work with.

"Its all opinions!". Yay!!!

...you annoint my head with oil, my cup runneth over...

This debate is going in circles. You're all arguing over what the word "image" means, and each person is taking it to mean something a little different. The way you need to work this out is to all agree on a definition. Surely the word "image" allows for multiple meanings, just like many another English word, many of which are figurative or allegorical or anagogical.

Also, have you considered whether this debate over the English meaning of "image" is philologically flawed? The passage in Genesis you are arguing about was originally written in Hebrew. Any debate over what Genesis means by "image" should begin with the Hebrew word that "image" translates. What did the Hebrew writer (I forget in this instance whether it was the Yahwist, Elohist, or Priestly writer who belongs to this passage) mean by the word? You ought to go find that word, and find the best Hebrew-English dictionary out there, and come back arguing for whichever meaning you prefer.

That being said, I myself have no direct experience with Hebrew. Perhaps one of you could consult Airedale on this?

Postremo nemo aegrotus quidquam somniat tam infandum, quod non aliquis dicat philosophus.
--Varro, Fragmenta

quote:

---

This debate is going in circles. You're all arguing over what the word "image" means

---

In which case we refer to the original post and the original question.

I don't understand the difficulty in grasping what this debate is asking us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jwpublius:
Also, have you considered whether this debate over the English meaning of "image" is philologically flawed? The passage in Genesis you are arguing about was originally written in Hebrew. Any debate over what Genesis means by "image" should begin with the Hebrew word that "image" translates. What did the Hebrew writer (I forget in this instance whether it was the Yahwist, Elohist, or Priestly writer who belongs to this passage) mean by the word? You ought to go find that word, and find the best Hebrew-English dictionary out there, and come back arguing for whichever meaning you prefer.

That being said, I myself have no direct experience with Hebrew. Perhaps one of you could consult Airedale on this?

---

Thanks for that vote of confidence, JW; much as I would love to tackle this topic (I've contemplated it for years), I haven't the leisure at present to do so.

However, I did pull out of mothballs one of my fav authors, the late Dr. Arthur Custance, who held an M.A. in oriental languages and Ph.D. in Anthropology. He spent considerable time investigating and then writing on "the image of God". In his book Man in Adam and in Christ, he reviews bible scholars' traditional answers to the question "What is the image of God?". He argues the Hebrew text does not use "image" and "likeness" as synonyms in Gen. 1, which also makes for interesting reading. I'd recommend anyone interested in a thoughtful Judeo-Christian answer to check out these chapters below:

THE TERMS "IMAGE" AND "LIKENESS"
AS USED IN GENESIS 1:26
Introduction
http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/Part_III/Introduction.html

The Creation of the Image
http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/Part_III/chapter1.html

The Image Lost
http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/Part_III/chapter2.html

The Likeness Achieved
http://custance.org/Library/Volume3/Part_III/chapter3.html

Excerpts:

It is not, therefore, the possession of a faculty that constitutes in man the Imago Dei, but the possession of a relationship. By creation, God reconstitutes in man, when he is born again, something which sets him apart from all unredeemed men and makes him a member of what is, in fact, a new species, the blameless family of God. He becomes related as a son to the Father and knows it. He knows it because the new spirit born within him bears witness to this fact in a self-conscious way and because he is assured of it by the Holy Spirit of God, whereby he cries, "Father" (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6). ~ pg. 9, chapter 1

Recapitulating a little, we have observed that with Adam, the image was created when he himself was created, so that from the very first he appeared as true man, though he lost this status when he sinned. He was at the first, and in the end, a son of God. But the likeness of God was not created in him, it was merely appointed for him. Unlike the image, the likeness was something which was to be achieved by his obedience and submission to God. It would be safer, and more scriptural, to say that the likeness was not to be achieved by Adam's effort but rather by the working of the Holy Spirit in Adam. Our part is not so much a positive one, as though we were able creatively to reform ourselves so that we become Christlike, but rather that we should resist and restrain, as far as possible and with the help of the Holy Spirit, all the propensities of the old nature, both good and bad. ~ pg. 2, chapter 3, my emph.

------------------------------
The opposite of joy is not sorrow. It is unbelief. ~ Leslie Weatherhead
Picture me with my ground teeth stalking joy--fully armed too, as it's a highly dangerous quest. ~ Flannery O'Connor