[Remole]

"If we are not created in God's image because he loved us and wanted us for companionship"

___________

In your immediately preceding post, you claim "If Genesis is open to interpretation, then the entire Bible is nothing more than a story book." But "interpretation" is precisely what you have done in your explanation of the meaning of Genesis 1, 26! There is nothing in the text of Genesis 1,26 that moves the mind immediately to understand that verse in the way that you explain it. Now, I happen to AGREE with you regarding the meaning of that verse; my point is that "Interpretation" is necessary. It is not wise to disparage Interpretation in principle. What is needed, though, is a method of Interpretation that respect the meaning which the sacred author intended to communicate and that stands in continuity with a believing community. I know I just said a mouthful, but that's the main idea.

[vt_crosscut]

I agree that interpretation is necessary to understand the Bible. But there is a difference between making an interpretation based on other Scripture references and further study, and making and interpretation based on "Creation isn't possible, so God must have ment something else when he wrote Genesis"

[Woahhs]

Perhaps you could elaborate on your "mouthful," because at first glance it looks like alot of caviling on your part.

[rdb3]

What is needed, though, is a method of Interpretation that respect the meaning which the sacred author intended to communicate and that stands in continuity with a believing community.

I agree. Scripture interprets scripture.