@Mujus - I provided a link to evidence that shows the leap you make with the interpretation of "Let us make man in our image" to be false. Please read the link I provided for some enlightenment on that.

Draug, I've seen smart theologians argue both ways on that one, and in truth, I don't think the arguments either way are sufficient to make an iron-clad case. The most you can say is that the case is not strong enough on either side to draw firm theological conclusions. (Yes, I looked at your article. Parts of the argument were strong, parts were weak. The weakest, in my opinion, was on the cohortative mood in the analysis of "Let us make." The plural refers to whoever God is speaking to? Really? So there are other beings helping God with creation? And man is made in the image of all of them? While not impossible by any means, that would certainly be in tension with the rest of the passage and the rest of the OT, at least as much as trinitarianism.)

I'm not saying this argument can't be right. I'm just saying it's not clearly right, and there are smart people on both sides of that issue. (If you have access to online journals, see e.g. "The Imago Dei and Election: Reading Genesis 1:26–28 and Old Testament Scholarship with Karl Barth," by Nathan McDonald, in the International Journal of Systematic Theology, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp. 314 ff).

As for interpreting OT prophetic passages, it's true of course that you can't go to them already with the explicit premise that they refer to Christ, but there is nothing wrong with arguing that they do, based on what they say, the arc of redemptive history, etc.

Gentiles are not Jews, as Santa pointed out in another thread. I agree, culturally and ethnically. But they are grafted in to the tree of faith, and are branches along with Jews who praise God. Jew, from Judah, means Praise, and Christians who praise the God of the Bible are joint heirs of the covenant of Moses and the covenant of Jesus--God with us. I can't think of anything more Jewish than that, spiritually, since it goes back to the true roots, the Torah, the prophets, the Psalms, the historical books. God is God.

@semck - The fact that God is talking and man hasn't been made yet means one of two things. He either talks to himself (how interesting would a neurotic or psychotic God be, guess it depends on if he responds to himself) or there are other beings around...

As for arguing the prophecies refer to Christ, I again point out that Christ himself knew the prophecies and could alter the things he did and guide the things that were happening around him to appear as fulfillment. The fervent nature of his followers would fill in the rest regarding his "virgin birth" and lineage in their fanaticism.

@Draug,

"The fact that God is talking and man hasn't been made yet means one of two things."

Or, he has a multiple nature. Don't artificially restrict the possibilities and then declare victory. You may not rule out an interpretation a priori. That's called begging the question.

"As for arguing the prophecies refer to Christ, I again point out that Christ himself knew the prophecies and could alter the things he did and guide the things that were happening around him to appear as fulfillment. "

So? That pretty much always holds true for prophecies, doesn't it? Sure enough, anybody familiar with the OT in the first century could have provided an interpretation and then tried to live his life according to that interpretation and claim Messiahship. In fact, several did. And the NT is pretty clear various times that Jesus is doing something explicitly to fulfill prophecy.

All of which has about nothing to do with whether He was, in fact, the told-of Messiah, because there's no prophecy saying the Messiah won't do that. Moreover, several of the aspects of Jesus' live -- like rising from the dead -- are _not_ something that just anybody could do, and cause one to examine a little more seriously whether He does meet the pattern for the promised Messiah.

(You could of course say that His resurrection was just made up by his followers, but that's a completely other question. At issue is whether Christ's life, as presented in the NT, supports the conclusion that He was the Messiah; not whether His life was in fact true).

"The fervent nature of his followers would fill in the rest regarding his "virgin birth" and lineage in their fanaticism. "

More question begging. Sure it could have happened that way, but it could have happened that they were telling the truth, too. To just choose one arbitrarily is no argument.

Oh and one last point. You list one of your (artificially restricted) two possibilities as being that "there are other beings around." No doubt there were other beings around. See for example Job 38:7. But the question is whether they were participating in creation, and whether they were the image man was made in. That's quite another thing, and the text suggests otherwise. (Just for example, after saying "Let us," God goes on in the following verses to make man unaided).

@semck - I was being sarcastic. Realistically, talking to oneself is not a sign of neurosis in and of itself (or at least I hope not with all the conversation I have in my head and out loud regarding code). And considering I'm more of a "Genesis is a prable" kind of guy...

Cool, Draug, sorry for misinterpreting.

"And considering I'm more of a "Genesis is a prable" kind of guy... "

Understood. But since you got involved in a discussion of how its minutiae should be interpreted, for those who do care, I just wanted to point out (in my first post) that the issue is hardly considered closed among scholars.

I just meant that God probably didn't say squat as there was no literal Eden, no Adam and Eve, no serpent who got his legs magical zapped off, and no tree of knowledge. God didn't actually spend 6 days creating then need a rest cause an all powerful God wouldn't *need* to rest. But early man needed a tale to enforce morality and recognized that all work and no play becomes counter productive so he invented this legend and tacked on another about a flood which did happen but was localized to his known region that he thought was the world so he decided that must be God's anger.

I know what you meant Draug. I was just pointing out that whether you take the story literally isn't relevant when you choose to participate in the literal interpretation of the story. You may or may not think that the literalism you're engaging in makes sense, but you are engaging in it, so it's perfectly legit to respond to you accordingly.

Ah, but it is exactly the point. If the triality nature of God is in Genesis, then it is of *man's* reckoning if you believe in God but don't believe in taking Genesis literally (like me). Therefore any evidence either way in Genesis becomes moot. Had that evidence appeared in Exodus, however, I might be more inclined to consider it seriously as I do believe the events occured (Red Sea parting? Maybe, maybe not. But Israel escaping Egypt definitely and the plagues quite possibly depending on if one accepts the idea of a possibly pissed off God killing innocent babies who happened to be the first born sons of some young Egyptian couples.)

So Draugnar, you reject the events of Genesis, but not those in Exodus? On what facts do you base this opinion?

On scientific evidence as to the age of the universe and the fossil record as well as observed evolution shwoing the earth to be far older than a mere 6000 years and having taken far longer to firm up than 1 day and the fact that we now understand how rain works and that there is no firmament above. Science shows all the myth in Genesis and pointsa out how false it is.

Also on my research (and the resaearch of others far more experienced and knowledgable than your or I) into the prose style of both books. Genesis is written in a style that typically indicates allegory where as Exodus is wsritten in a more historical style.

Beyond that, I have seen no independent evidence that confirms the accoutns of either book to be taken literal. For instance, a true earth covering flood has no evidence supporting it, but a localized one during that time does, so I can accept that there are elemnts of the legends based in reality as with all legends (Vlad the Impaler/Count Dracula),so I have to use my own common sense to make the final decision as to how much I accept and how much I write off as something akin to cave drawings of aliens spacecraft.

So where did you read that Genesis is written in a style that indicates allegory? I'd like to read up on that.

I believe that many parts of the Bible are historical truth, while other parts are true, but not in the literal sense--rather as lessons and such. But it's all there for a purpose.

It's purpose was to reformulate the ideology of the Judaic kingdom after the Babylonian conquest. The purpose of the NT was to overthrow the Temple Cult.

I'm not going to dig out all the books from the basement right now and do the research all over again to give you chapter, page, and paragraph. But here is a good place for your to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

Draug,

"Ah, but it is exactly the point. If the triality nature of God is in Genesis, then it is of *man's* reckoning if you believe in God but don't believe in taking Genesis literally (like me). Therefore any evidence either way in Genesis becomes moot."

No, it's not the point. If you had raised that argument in the first place, it would have been the point. As it was, you raised a very fine point of how the text should be _literally_ interpreted. If you think it's moot how Genesis is interpreted, then you shouldn't have been linking to articles and claiming to have established how it should be interpreted. (Articles, I'll point out, which did not support or even mention any allegorical interpretation).

12 hours later, semck? Fine, whatever. The discussion has since migrated to literal versus allegorical.

"In fact the Passover looks forward to Jesus, but many Christians do not realize that it was the Passover bread and wine that Jesus said represented him and the new agreement (the new cup in my blood). The cup represented an agreement.... "

So because the events of the New Testament happened at a Passover Seder Passover looks forward to Jesus? Give me a break.

So yes, states can secede, if the American people pass a constitutional amendment allowing them to secede.

my bad wrong thread

...We're no longer talking about my TV Rabbi Guy, are we?

LOL

Draugnar, after reading your wikipedia link, it seems that you were referring primarily to the creation account, and I agree that much of the creation account can be read allegorically. Did Satan actually appear as a talking snake, or is that symbolic? Did God actually create the world in seven 24-hour days? Sure, he could have, but our faith in God and God's word is not dependent on whether or not he did. But most of the rest of Genesis is specific historical events, and there's no evidence of allegory or anything less than absolutely historical in the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for example.

Santa, I'm sure you're well aware that both gentile and Jewish Christians believe that the events in the Old Testament point the way to Jesus, and that the rest of the New Testament points back toward him, or in the case of Revelations, forward to his second coming. There's a lot of evidence for this point, if you're just looking at it from a logical point of view.

There is nothing that points to Jesus besides what christians went back in and mistranslated to try to look like it led to jesus. And the fact that Jesus made a speach at a Passover Seder doesn't mean passover pointed to Jesus. The fact I was born on Presidents day doesn't mean George Washington's life pointed to my birth.

I guess its just the difference of someone looking at it objectively and others grasping at straws to validate their faith

Well, both sides _would_ say that, wouldn't they, SC? The fact is, a Jew who doesn't accept Jesus as Christ is no more "objective" than a Christian in the matter.