The problem with saying man was created in God's image is that we don't know what God looked like. He may have

Question

looked like a fish or a monkey, or he may have had no physical substance. In any case, man has evolved to what he now looks like, so it does not matter whether the first man looked like a fish or monkey. Why do you agree with this?

Answer 1

Actually, I think this argument is a little bit backwards. God didn't create man in his own image, man created god in his. Have you ever noticed that deities throughout the world have human emotions and responses to dilemas? Wouldn't you expect a divine being to be above such petty issues?

Answer 2

God is a spirit. Image can mean representation of a person or object, persona, idea, conception etc.. In the Bible (Malachi 3:6) it says that God does not change.)-- He created the world and everyone and thing in it, monkeys and fish too by the way. Man is intelligent and does not look like or behave as fish, monkeys, or any other animal. That being noted, if we were made in his image and he does not change, he does not look like a monkey, fish, or any other animal that's not human either! He is a spirit and if he were a physical being he would appear as we do, just as Jesus did. It's interesting that you mention evolution and God in the same paragraph. If God changeth not, and we are made in his image, then we did not evolve. If you are so naive as to belive in evolution, please understand that according to it, it would take millions and millions of years for something like a fish to evolve into a human. (Funny) and modern man, which supposedly evolved from ape like ancestors is only about forty to fifity thousand years old. Neither falls within the Bible's time line. So either you're going to believe the Bible as truth or you're not. GOD CREATED MAN. NOT EVOLUTION! You can't take some of the Bible as truth, because God is not a lier and the Bible was written under his direction (2 Peter 1: 16-21) So knowing that our Majestic God made us in his image, surely should show how important you are to him. Hope this clears things up for you and others.

Answer 3

People like to think of God as a man. Primitive mythologies always had gods looking like men, and also having some of the faults that men have--jealousy, vanity, anger, etc. etc.

But think about it. Our bodies are designed (or evolved) to be comfortable on earth. In 1-g gravity, 20% oxygen atmosphere, converting plant and animal life to energy, etc. etc. That's a limitation! We can't live in space. We can't know everything or be everywhere like God can.

So it doesn't seem reasonable to me that God has a human-like body, with 1/3 of it's weight devoted to a digestive system, with lungs that need a specific mixture of gases to live, with eyes that can only see a narrow spectrum of light, etc. etc. Or a fish or a monkey. It makes much more sense that God is a spiritual being who has no physical body because he doesn't need one, and because bodies, like anything in the physical world, are not eternal.

When Genesis says God made man in his own image, it means his -spiritual- image. Spiritually we are all a little bit like God. We are creative, which animals are not.

Answer 4

This answer was already answered quite well by the very first answerer, but I felt like I should comment on a different answer anyway...

Man is poorly designed for a biped????

I don't know if you are trying to criticize God, or if you are trying to show the faultiness of evolution, but either way, you are seriously kidding yourself if you are saying that the human body is not amazingly designed and currently, and likely forever to be unmatched by any form of science and technology. Some parts of the human body are so complexly beautiful that we can't even understand them completely: the eye, the brain....

You'd better do your research or at least think about what you are typing before you do... and be careful when you make comments like God being an invalid... He may not like that very much!

Answer 5

I guess I can't say why I agree with this because I don't agree with this.

You are assuming that when it says that we were made in God's image it is referring to physical characteristics. And in all honest we have NO IDEA what made in God's image means and I can say that after studying the Bible at a collegiate level for 4 years.

Answer 6

The Bible shows God is a spirit with no physical body. We are created in His image with His "qualities" of love, justice, wisdom and power. Only His are in perfect degrees, ours not so much.

Now I have had some U G L Y relatives but are first human parents were created perfect. So they must have looked pretty good.

Answer 7

Depends on what the word "image" means. If you are talking about a physical appearance, then you are right. We don't know what he may look like. Since we can't see GOD, but know he is there, then "image" is what we see with our hearts and souls. Your brain may show you a picture but your soul can put you in that picture.

Answer 8

There is no problem at all. You are merely being misled by the use of translations instead of actually doing some real research and scholarship. The word translated as "image" in English does not mean a physical resemblance. Instead, it refers to having some sort of symbolic tie, like an acorn is "in the image of" an oak. Within the acorn is an oak-like potential.

I cannot agree with your claim because yours is based on ignorance.

Answer 9

God said that he was going to create man in his image. What is the image of God? It don't have anything to do with looks.

Answer 10

When Genesis was written, the writers were clearly describing a God that looked like man.

If you accept that Jesus was God, and looked like a man, then the description turns out to be correct.

The bible needs to be interpreted as happening all at once if it is to be interpreted to be the word of God. God lives outside of our time.