Anthropomorphism or Theomorphism?

[genuineoriginal]

if prayer cannot affect God nor hope to change his will, why would he say this?

2Ch 7:14 KJV
(14) If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Anthropomorphism?

anthropomorphism an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics

​

theomorphism representation or conception of something or someone in the form of deity

​

Are we seeing human characteristics in God that aren't there (anthropomorphism)?
Or are we recognizing that the characteristics of God are similar to human characteristics because we are created in His image (theomorphism)?

Genesis 1:27 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Recognizing and Interpreting Anthropomorphic Language The term “anthropomorphism,” in its restricted sense, refers to the representation of God with the forms of humanity (such as an arm or hand). “Anthropopathism” refers to the representation of God with the feelings of humanity. “Anthropopraxism” refers to the representation of God with the activities of humanity. As professor Edwin M. Yamauchi notes, however, the term anthropomorphism is used in a more general sense to include all these aspects

​

Does God have the forms of humanity?

Recognizing and Interpreting Anthropomorphic Language We find multiple examples of anthropomorphism in Scripture. For example, God is described as having an arm (Job 40:9), a back (Exod. 33:21-23), breath (Job 33:4), ears (2 Sam. 22:7), eyes (Ps. 34:15), a face (Exod. 33:11), feet (Gen. 3:8), fingers (Deut. 9:10), hair (Dan. 7:9), a hand (Ps. 95:4-5), a head (Dan. 7:9), a heart (2 Chron. 7:16), lips (Ps. 89:34), a mouth (Deut. 8:3), nostrils (2 Sam. 22:9, 16), shoulders (Deut. 33:12), a tongue (Isa. 30:27), and a voice (Exod. 3:4).

​

Does God look like a man?

Ezekiel 1:26 26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.​

 

[Derf]

Does God have the forms of humanity?

Recognizing and Interpreting Anthropomorphic Language We find multiple examples of anthropomorphism in Scripture. For example, God is described as having an arm (Job 40:9), a back (Exod. 33:21-23), breath (Job 33:4), ears (2 Sam. 22:7), eyes (Ps. 34:15), a face (Exod. 33:11), feet (Gen. 3:8), fingers (Deut. 9:10), hair (Dan. 7:9), a hand (Ps. 95:4-5), a head (Dan. 7:9), a heart (2 Chron. 7:16), lips (Ps. 89:34), a mouth (Deut. 8:3), nostrils (2 Sam. 22:9, 16), shoulders (Deut. 33:12), a tongue (Isa. 30:27), and a voice (Exod. 3:4).

​

Here's where I stumble on this topic: if God has a nose, does He need air to breathe? If so, then air must precede God. If not, then what is the purpose of nostrils. Even if He doesn't need air to breathe, and He uses nostrils only to blow, it seems like there's nothing to blow before there is air. Did God make no use of nostrils until he created air?

If God has a mouth, tongue, and voice did He use them for what we do ours? Does He take in food with them? Is the food material in nature, or "spiritual" (energy or something else?)? Did He talk with His mouth? Does the "sound" need to move air molecules to actually exist as sound, like ours?

Did the other members of the trinity use ears to hear what the Father said with His mouth?

Feet: does God have something to walk on? Did it precede Him?
Fingers: Was there something to hold before the material world was created?
Back, shoulders, arms: Was there something to lift or lean against or push on?

I'm not saying there's nothing for God to do with His facial features and limbs, because I don't know how the spirit world works. But it seems strange to consider that there had to be something there for God to use His limbs for before God made anything. Or maybe God had these features before there was any material thing, and He made the material things (or possibly spiritual things) to take advantage of His features.

Does God actually have a heart like we do, that pumps blood? I think this one is the one most likely to be anthropomorphism, or anthropopathism, or both, because we use "heart" as a source of emotions or desires, so even in humans it is not just a pumper of blood. Even less so in ancient Hebrew, it seems.

How far does the image of God go in us? Does God have an immune system? Nerve cells? A brain or kidneys or liver? Sex organs? None of these make sense to me, based on their functions. Perhaps "image" is a surface-only thing, and the internal organs are not part of the image of God (heart being clearly a seat of emotions rather than a physical organ).

Anthropopathisms are a different subject. While the A-morphisms can be suggestive of an ability (like a "hand" showing God can gather and retain things), the A-pathisms should also be suggestive of...what? If they aren't emotions, what are they? What is "anger" for God, if not actually anger? The Hebrew words for these things, from what I understand, are more physical than we are used to.

'The Hebrew terms [for anger] are ḥaron af, literally, "the burning of the nose"' (from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1523-anger)

Thus, even the anthropopathisms are sometimes actual, and not just implied, anthropomorphisms. I have a hard time believing that the language for anthropopathisms are really nested anthropomorphisms that really mean that God didn't have those feelings, which is the interpretation of some.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here's where I stumble on this topic: if God has a nose, does He need air to breathe? If so, then air must precede God. If not, then what is the purpose of nostrils. Even if He doesn't need air to breathe, and He uses nostrils only to blow, it seems like there's nothing to blow before there is air. Did God make no use of nostrils until he created air?

How would God smell without nostrils?

Leviticus 26:31 31 And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Anthropopathisms are a different subject. While the A-morphisms can be suggestive of an ability (like a "hand" showing God can gather and retain things), the A-pathisms should also be suggestive of...what? If they aren't emotions, what are they? What is "anger" for God, if not actually anger? The Hebrew words for these things, from what I understand, are more physical than we are used to.

'The Hebrew terms [for anger] are ḥaron af, literally, "the burning of the nose"' (from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1523-anger)

Thus, even the anthropopathisms are sometimes actual, and not just implied, anthropomorphisms. I have a hard time believing that the language for anthropopathisms are really nested anthropomorphisms that really mean that God didn't have those feelings, which is the interpretation of some.

I fully believe that our emotions come from being created in the image of a God that has those same emotions.

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.​

 

[Derf]

How would God smell without nostrils?

Leviticus 26:31 31 And I will make your cities waste, and bring your sanctuaries unto desolation, and I will not smell the savour of your sweet odours.​

Are you saying God can't perceive in any other way than the way we perceive?

For your example, which is an odd one for this conversation, because it is one of God NOT perceiving (smelling) rather than one of God perceiving.

Perhaps we don't really understand how smell works, but according to our current theories, small amounts of the molecules of the odoriferous object are transported through the air to the nostrils. This requires two things God shouldn't need to smell--molecules and air--even if we don't mention that there is an object that is giving off the molecules. And if God's heaven is above our atmosphere, at least one of those things is missing.

That doesn't mean God isn't able to smell, but if smell is a purely material experience, it doesn't seem like God would have the right equipment, unless He made Himself a nose when he made our material world.

 

[Derf]

I fully believe that our emotions come from being created in the image of a God that has those same emotions.

1 John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.​

Again, you pick an interesting example, because the context seems to be talking about actions and not emotions. This kind of "love" is something we DO rather than something we FEEL. And if it is merely emotion, then God is reduced to a feeling ("for God IS love").

 

[Rosenritter]

Are you saying God can't perceive in any other way than the way we perceive?
...
That doesn't mean God isn't able to smell, but if smell is a purely material experience, it doesn't seem like God would have the right equipment, unless He made Himself a nose when he made our material world.

God could choose to know what the scent would smell like as we would perceive it, but I think that would be anthropomorphism.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Again, you pick an interesting example, because the context seems to be talking about actions and not emotions. This kind of "love" is something we DO rather than something we FEEL. And if it is merely emotion, then God is reduced to a feeling ("for God IS love").

You have persuaded me.
Love in the verse is agape, which is action and not feelings.
English is good at messing up our understanding.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Are you saying God can't perceive in any other way than the way we perceive?

For your example, which is an odd one for this conversation, because it is one of God NOT perceiving (smelling) rather than one of God perceiving.

Is this one better?

Genesis 8:21 21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.​

Perhaps we don't really understand how smell works, but according to our current theories, small amounts of the molecules of the odoriferous object are transported through the air to the nostrils. This requires two things God shouldn't need to smell--molecules and air--even if we don't mention that there is an object that is giving off the molecules. And if God's heaven is above our atmosphere, at least one of those things is missing.

That doesn't mean God isn't able to smell, but if smell is a purely material experience, it doesn't seem like God would have the right equipment, unless He made Himself a nose when he made our material world.

God does state plainly that He has a nose.

Isaiah 65:5 5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.​

Are these anthropomorphisms merely a turn of phrase, or do they mean something more?

 

[genuineoriginal]

God could choose to know what the scent would smell like as we would perceive it, but I think that would be anthropomorphism.

God anthropomorphising Himself by giving Himself human abilities?

The Trinity doctrine says God became man in the form of Jesus.
Wouldn't that be the ultimate anthropomorphisation?

 

[Rosenritter]

Is this one better?

Genesis 8:21 21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.​

God does state plainly that He has a nose.

Isaiah 65:5 5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.​

Are these anthropomorphisms merely a turn of phrase, or do they mean something more?

Although the word nose is used, I wouldn't say it is a plain statement that God has a nose. The plain statement is that this is a rebellious people (verse 2) being the primary cause for the passage. "These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day" would be normally interpreted as a metaphor that makes reference to the aforesaid incense, but likewise being just as applicable to remaining among graves, lodges in mountains, eating swine's flesh, broth of abominable things in vessels. The incense becomes a symbol for all of those things and other unmentioned items of like manner. For example, it would also include eating mouse flesh.

 

[Derf]

Is this one better?

Genesis 8:21 21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.​

God does state plainly that He has a nose.

Isaiah 65:5 5 Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.​

Are these anthropomorphisms merely a turn of phrase, or do they mean something more?

I was going to say that metaphorical smoke only works on a metaphorical nose, but [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] said it in better English.

On the first one, where God smelled a sweet savour, I think it is most likely anthropomorphic, and we don't know if it is because of the sacrifices, or because of Noah's heart.

 

[Derf]

By the way, [MENTION=4345]genuineoriginal[/MENTION], I don't want to seem hypercritical of the idea that God is like us in these ways. I've considered this possibility fairly recently myself, but I kept running into the problem that we seemed to be designed so well to fit with our environment, and our environment to fit with us, that we don't really understand the environment of God's abode. But even if we did, it still seems like God preceded His environment, and any kind of sensory equipment would have been given to Him by His predecessor (which I don't subscribe to) or He would have had to make it Himself.

Not so with angels. They were created to fit their environment, too, so as spiritual beings, they might have necessary and functioning sensory equipment and appendages. But because they and God are spiritual beings, can we make some kind of comparison, even though they AREN'T made in the image of God, at least as far as we know?

And if angels are closer to God in looks (whatever that means for a spiritual being) than men, and they seem to be able to rebel (thus have some kind of free will), in what way are men made MORE in God's image than angels?

I really don't know the answer, but your conversation is driving some good questions.

 

[Rosenritter]

By the way, @genuineoriginal, I don't want to seem hypercritical of the idea that God is like us in these ways. I've considered this possibility fairly recently myself, but I kept running into the problem that we seemed to be designed so well to fit with our environment, and our environment to fit with us, that we don't really understand the environment of God's abode. But even if we did, it still seems like God preceded His environment, and any kind of sensory equipment would have been given to Him by His predecessor (which I don't subscribe to) or He would have had to make it Himself.

Not so with angels. They were created to fit their environment, too, so as spiritual beings, they might have necessary and functioning sensory equipment and appendages. But because they and God are spiritual beings, can we make some kind of comparison, even though they AREN'T made in the image of God, at least as far as we know?

And if angels are closer to God in looks (whatever that means for a spiritual being) than men, and they seem to be able to rebel (thus have some kind of free will), in what way are men made MORE in God's image than angels?

I really don't know the answer, but your conversation is driving some good questions.

How would we say that the angels are not made in the image of God? I cannot think of a statement saying they were made in any other image. As for the positive indication, we can reference statements from Job that place angels present at the creation of the earth, meaning these angels would also have been present on day six when God said "Let us make man in our image." I'm sure God was doing the creating, but whom would have been there that would hear his voice? What might it mean, to be made after God's image?

 

[genuineoriginal]

By the way, [MENTION=4345]genuineoriginal[/MENTION], I don't want to seem hypercritical of the idea that God is like us in these ways. I've considered this possibility fairly recently myself, but I kept running into the problem that we seemed to be designed so well to fit with our environment, and our environment to fit with us, that we don't really understand the environment of God's abode. But even if we did, it still seems like God preceded His environment, and any kind of sensory equipment would have been given to Him by His predecessor (which I don't subscribe to) or He would have had to make it Himself.

If God created His environment, then God either already possessed fully functionary sensory equipment that was needed for Him to see, hear, smell, taste, and touch, or God gave Himself the sensory equipment at the time that He created things for Him to see, hear, smell, taste, and touch.

Not so with angels. They were created to fit their environment, too, so as spiritual beings, they might have necessary and functioning sensory equipment and appendages. But because they and God are spiritual beings, can we make some kind of comparison, even though they AREN'T made in the image of God, at least as far as we know?

It is impossible for me to imagine what the spiritual equivalent to sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch could be without a physical environment to interact with.

And if angels are closer to God in looks (whatever that means for a spiritual being) than men,

Angels appear to have been created for specific functions and they do not all look like God or like men.

and they seem to be able to rebel (thus have some kind of free will), in what way are men made MORE in God's image than angels?

Great question.
I think the answer can be found here:

Mark 12:30 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.​

I really don't know the answer, but your conversation is driving some good questions.

If we keep this up, we will soon be asking how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin. :chuckle:

 

[genuineoriginal]

How would we say that the angels are not made in the image of God?

Some angels have four faces, others look like wheels inside of wheels, are they all made in the image of God?

What might it mean, to be made after God's image?

That is the real question being asked by this thread. :thumb:

 

[Rosenritter]

Some angels have four faces, others look like wheels inside of wheels, are they all made in the image of God?

That is the real question being asked by this thread. :thumb:

When God appeared before Abraham, he is not noted as having any description different from the angels that accompanied him. When the two angels went down to Sodom, they certainly had the ability to appear like normal men. Are you willing to consider that perhaps the image of God isn't a physical image but something else entirely?

Col 1:12-15 KJV
(12) Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
(13) Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
(14) In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
(15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

I am inclined to think that the image of God might have a deeper meaning than the question of bushy eyebrows vs. no eyebrows.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Are you willing to consider that perhaps the image of God isn't a physical image but something else entirely?

Yes.

Ezekiel 1:26 26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.​

Are you willing to consider that perhaps the image of God may include our physical appearance?

I am inclined to think that the image of God might have a deeper meaning than the question of bushy eyebrows vs. no eyebrows.

The Bible says God can love and man can love.
Are there any other beings that can love?
Could the capacity to love be the deeper meaning of the image of God?

 

[Derf]

Yes.

Ezekiel 1:26 26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.​

Are you willing to consider that perhaps the image of God may include our physical appearance?

What does a physical appearance look like on a non-physical being?

The Bible says God can love and man can love.
Are there any other beings that can love?
Could the capacity to love be the deeper meaning of the image of God?

Yes, I think others can, but it would help to have a definition of love. Can you provide one?