Sharkly recently left a comment where he promoted his skills at interpreting the original biblical language.
You likewise are willing to quote gender-inclusive Bible translations in order to make the scriptures appear to say what they do not say. Your use of intentionally gender-distorted translations show that you aren’t truly interested in accurately promoting the concepts which the original Biblical texts convey.
…
If people truly want to examine what I’ve written, they should read it at my site and check it against the original words of scripture that are made easy to explore at places like biblehub.com and Etc.
And, what do you know, he’s following through on his promise!
Today I’d like to break down the first sentence of Psalm 39:6. What follows is my personal translation of the verse:
This verse was first brought to my attention while I was reading “Letter LI. From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem”. Epiphanius’ letter did not survive, but we have Jerome’s translated copy of it. And he recorded that Psalm 39 says: “For all that every man walketh in the image.” And Epiphanius used that as one of his 7 Scriptural proofs that men maintained the image of God and had not lost the image of God at Adam’s fall, as Origen had claimed.
Look at that, his own translation!
It is curious that Sharkly is citing Epiphanius, who believed that all of humanity—both men and women—were created in the image of God. If Epiphanius could get such a simple detail wrong (according to Sharkly), who is is to say he is right about men maintaining the image of God after the Fall of Man? After all, Origen lived nearly a century and a half closer to the Apostolic Age and Epiphanius’ view was never even the majority view of the early church. By Sharkly’s own standard, Epiphanius does not seem to be a reliable witness.
But, regardless, we’re going to judge Epiphanius’ view on its own merits, not on whether he’s a good witness.
However, as Epiphanius pointed out the Hebrew word used (בְּצֶ֤לֶם ׀ tselem) means image. It is the same Hebrew word that is always translated as “image” all 16 times it appears elsewhere in the KJV Bible. Strangely King James’s translators chose to translate the word as “image” 16 out of 17 times, but they translated it as “in a vain shew” when it was clearly used in reference specifically to (’îš, ish) men or husbands in Psalm 39:6.
Sharkly wants you to believe that translators have been avoiding using the word “image” in order to avoid saying that men walk about as images of God, rather than images of men (i.e. shadows). Is there any merit to this claim? In short, no, not really.
Psalm 39:6 is a Hebrew parallelism:
Surely every person walks like a tselem.
Surely they busy themselves in vain.
He heaps up and does not know who will gather.
Whether this is a Synonymous Parallelism or a Synthetic Parallelism, the first colon is (at minimum) complimented or completed by the second and third. Tselem is complimented by “in vain” and “does not know.” There is no sense—not even a hint—that it is referring to the image of God, and so no translation uses the word image here.
The whole point of the passage is to express a person and their deeds as vanity, which is an idiomatic Hebrew way to express non-being, non-life, irrelevancy, or futility. Compare it to the previous verse:
Behold, you have made my days a few handbreadths.
My lifetime is as nothing before you.
Surely every man stands as a mere breath.
Psalm 73:20 does the same thing:
They will be like a dream when one wakes up;
O Lord, when you arouse yourself you will have contempt for their tselem.
The word is associated with a dream, something that isn’t real.
According to Sharkly’s recommended biblehub.com here, the word tselem is variously translated as fantasies or phantoms.
The phrase in this verse is also translated as “despise their image.” If one were to interpret this as a reference to the “Image of God,” it would have God showing contempt for—or despising—his own image. By contrast, the poetic parallel between the dream and the image appears to be a Hebrew idiom that indicates that upon awakening one leaves dream state: casting off unreality—what is imaginary—for what is real. This is what the commentaries indicate.
In fact, we see the same in Psalm 39:6: the tselem is in vain and not known: it is imaginary or unreal.
Now let’s look at Job 14:2:
What is the word used here? It is tsel. Does that look familiar? It should. It’s the root word for what we are looking at: tselem. It’s also related to the word tsalal, which can mean to shade. In Job, tsel means shadow. The word is used throughout the Old Testament, including the book of Psalms. So when translators were faced with deciding what tselem meant, they were not just inventing the concept of a shadow to suit their preconceptions. It clearly has strong linguistic support on the etymology alone, and that’s without even considering the evidence from the Hebrew parallelisms.
What is an image? It is a shadow of the real thing. This is why idols are termed “images” because they are imaginary representations. Just as the Psalm used “shadow” and “vain” together, so too does scripture also call idols both “images” and “vain.” When used the Psalms, tselem carries the sense of being ephemeral and imaginary: in vain, does not know, and like a dream.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Sharkly’s translation:
The problem is not with saying that a man goes about as an image, because that conveys the sense that he is going around as a mere “shell of himself” rather than being just himself as he is. It adequately conveys the unreality of the situation. But using the term “shadow” makes the point much clearer and prevents the confusion that Sharkly is trying to introduce by associating it with the image of God.
There is no justification for associating Psalm 39:6 with the image of God. Even if it were true that it meant image (and not shadow) in all the other locations, it will still not negate the fact that the root of the term is a word that means “shadow.” It’s just not enough that different verses used the same word, especially when that word is used infrequently. Such simple usage doesn’t establish the meaning of a word.
In any case, Sharkly has given no good reason why we should take Epiphanius’ minority view over the majority view of the other patristic writers and the consensus of the modern church.
Derek, you are going to convince him. Women are “things” made by God for man. The are not in the image of God according to them…..yet they have free will……but are still held to biblical standards of sin, accountability but can have salvation and make choices (but their own Game / RP theories believe they cannot help what they do, thus no accountability)
Adam even tried to dodge his fault concerning “the tree of life” and stated “that woman you gave me…”
His actions right there are female behavior if we look at it through a “red pill lens” (avoiding responsibility / accountability) and its odd, because if women were not made in the image of God…and are to be “ruled” by man and “cannot help what they do”, its just female nature….which is to ONLY upsur mans’ authority and to provide sexual pleasure for him……….
Why the incessant discussions over these decades? Why even worry about it? Women are things and are not in the image of God……they cant help what they do, the man is responsible for the woman on everything and if she sins…so what? The Gospel wasnt for her anyway.
This rabbit hole in the end leads to what we have today
A huge weight of papers, a cottage industry on how to control your “thing” (woman) and how to have sex with them and how to make them give it up to you.
A big waste of time in the end. It shhow me that these men have zero self-control (they worship the sex-act) and spend all their time on something they cannot control, effort wasted on something that has zero accountability…….
They just dont like women, or blame the woman in their lives for their own lack of self-control, poor choices or they just want their sex drive justified.
Telling women to be “holy” but at the same time calling her prude if she doesnt give it up and then slamming her for sin they they themselves ACTIVELY participated in
Boggles the mind
I assume that’s a typo, that I’m not going to convince him? If so, then, yeah, I know.
Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a lot of information about why this verse is typically translated “shadow” instead of “image.” Even the commentaries are a little vague at times. Clarifying this provides value that goes well beyond convincing Sharkly.
In Part 2, I’ll discuss all the evidence against the thesis that only men are made in the Image of God. That too will be clarifying.
What makes citing Epiphanius funny?
One little famous incident about substituting images of MEN for God that instantly put Epiphanius on the theological map:
The curtain incident
Letter LI in Jerome’s letters gives Jerome’s Latin translation, made at Epiphanius’ request, of his letter, originally in Greek from c. 394, “From Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, to John, Bishop of Jerusalem” (see previous section for wider context). The final section covers the often quoted incident of the curtain, which unlike other passages attributed to Epiphanius and quoted by the Iconoclasts, is accepted as authentic by modern scholars:[9]
9. Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort—opposed as they are to our religion—shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge. Beware of Palladius of Galatia—a man once dear to me, but who now sorely needs God’s pity—for he preaches and teaches the heresy of Origen; and see to it that he does not seduce any of those who are intrusted to your keeping into the perverse ways of his erroneous doctrine. I pray that you may fare well in the Lord”
”Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ’s church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures”
i thought Epiphanius recognized that the image of a MAN is the same as the image of God and yet says it’s ”contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures”?
Sparkly admires (in his mind) BAMF debaters like Ben Shapiro, bgr=matt Perkins(as he said at Spawny’s) & Jordon Peterson yet he would have trouble getting on a high school debate team.
IOW
Sharkly has an inferiority complex and it comes raging out through going in circles about words, terms, and the center of his & every other tradcons life WOMEN{their whole existence is based (and revolves around) on the little dearies either in ”love” or hate of them it matters little which}
I’d like to see Sharkly’s response to this. It might make for an interesting future article as well.