in some versions i guess, for example in revelations 4:3 'And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald.' according to https://www.openbible.info/topics/gods_appearance
I wouldn't take the book of Revelations as being representative of anything shared in the 'Abrahamic' religions, or even Christianity, much less a description of God.
I've never heard of this site before so I'm not sure how credible it is, but quite a few of the verses in this list have absolutely nothing to do with describing God's "physical" appearance, especially in context, so I also wouldn't put too much trust into their claim.
Truth is there is no real Biblical basis for such description, even including any of Jesus if I recall correctly.
Also, the term Jehovah was just kinda made up in Germany. That name also doesn't exist Biblically.
They appeared to use the NIV translation, which you may object to but is also easily one of the most common versions. The original King James Version reads very similarly, as does the NKJV.
There are definitely multiple descriptions of Jesus (you can see people mention them in the dumb "Was Jesus white?" arguments), and here is a collection of relevant passages.
Jehovah is just a lightly Germanicized version of Yahweh, look at the consonants: J [which is pronounced as an English Y]; H; V [can be either a V or an F in English phonetics, probably a V here]; H, like Yahweh being YHWH. Jesus isn't what Jesus was actually named (it was Yeshua), these are just things that happen in translation.
I do agree that the description is probably being applied to Christ, though. Not that Revelations would give a historically accurate view, but theologically Revelations is canonical so a Christian is in no standing to deny it.
They appeared to use the NIV translation, which you may object to but is also easily one of the most common versions. The original King James Version reads very similarly, as does the NKJV.
Yeah, I didn't object to the translation used. I studied Ancient Greek so I can and have read the Bible as well as other Ancient Greek philosophy texts in their original language, so please believe me I'm really just treating this as a discussion of ancient literature. No different to LotR or GoT lore. And while I prefer the NRSV despite it having translation issues as well, the NIV wasn't used by that site. It used and only used the ESV, which is common among hardline Right-wing Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, and was another reason red flags went up for that site. That being said, their translation of that specific verse is almost identical to the NRSV, since the ESV is based off the RSV, so there isn't really an issue on that point.
There are definitely multiple descriptions of Jesus (you can see people mention them in the dumb "Was Jesus white?" arguments), and here is a collection of relevant passages.
Thanks for linking that! I read it and it comes from a Catholic source, so take that how you will, but it itself says at the start that
There is no physical description of Christ in any of the Gospels or New Testament letters.
The rest is either admission that people choose to imagine Jesus however they like or using Jewish scripture (written hundreds or thousands of years before the alleged person of Jesus existed) to guess how Jesus might have looked due to retrospective 'prophecy'. It also cites a Letter and the Shroud of Turin, both questionable in authenticity, and then ends with the use of the noble science of phrenology to suggest Jesus was a genius because he was big brained. Not saying people don't use these as bases for descriptions, they definitely do, because then we do have Nazis making false claims about White Jesus but the Bible itself has no direct or clear physical descriptions of Jesus. Best guess is Jesus probably looked like one of the many Palestinians being genocided at the moment.
Jehovah is just a lightly Germanicized version of Yahweh, look at the consonants: J [which is pronounced as an English Y]; H; V [can be either a V or an F in English phonetics, probably a V here]; H, like Yahweh being YHWH. Jesus isn't what Jesus was actually named (it was Yeshua), these are just things that happen in translation.
Yup, that is true.
I do agree that the description is probably being applied to Christ, though. Not that Revelations would give a historically accurate view, but theologically Revelations is canonical so a Christian is in no standing to deny it.
That's cool if you read that as being Jesus, I'm not really contesting that and I have no issue with it. The text itself isn't clear so there's no way of knowing for sure what is being referred to there. It's open to interpretation. And, that's true, Revelations is canon but it was unpopular or rejected even when it became canon and continued to be questioned and was even rejected by Martin Luther thousands of years later in his Preface. Whether a Christian has standing to deny it is a theological question and I don't have authority to answer it but I think there is good precedent for it, and from a purely critical perspective there's no reason one book written by one guy that has no relation to any other texts should necessarily be considered a foundational text to the religion. My point was just that taking Revelations at face value, given the above, to make the claim that it speaks for the Abrahamic religions as such on the subject of God's appearance is not accurate, academically nor theologically.
i literally provided a description froma version of the bible, dont pretend like your favorite interpretation of an appearanceless god is the only interpretation that exists. i was using jehovah ironically as an english pronunciation of YHWH or whatever the sky wizard OCs name is supposed to 'ackshually' be. i dont 'put too much trust' in anyones claims about bronze age war deities, because i dont believe in them, stone age religions are much cooler and we all know Manicheanism is the One True Religion anyway
I'm not pretending my favorite interpretation is the only one that exists? I never said that and I'm very open to discussing different interpretations. But taking Revelations at face value as an authority on anything isn't very well supported academically or theologically either and that site's list of verses didn't even match the alleged theme so I was kinda doubting its credibility. It's even open to interpretation whether that verse is referring to God or someone/thing else. Just saying, Revelations sucks. Its 'interpretation' of God's appearance in those verses, if we assume it's God, literally doesn't exist anywhere else in the Bible, which is a significant point because it is not a view shared with either Judaism or Islam, nor even within Christianity generally. So, it's just one book's interpretation and one which was unpopular. I don't think that justifies extrapolating it to make a claim about the "Abrahamic" God's appearance.
Anyway, not trying to argue with you or rehash the classic internet religion debate, and I'm sorry if it came off as an attack but you mentioned a description of God's alleged appearance in "Abrahamic" religions, in what I know was a joke, but then someoned asked about its validity Biblically and then you responded with something not quite accurate Biblically speaking so I just wanted to add a point of clarification. Maybe it would've just been better to respond to GarbageShoot but just thought it would be good to keep the thread linear.
further excerpts which attribute features of appearance to god:
Exodus 33:18-22
And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my FACE: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away את my hand, and you shall see my BACK PARTS: but my FACE shall not be seen.
Daniel 7:9
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Revelation 4:2-3
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
26 And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire,[e] and seated above the likeness of the throne was something that seemed like a human form. 27 Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around, and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire, and there was a splendor all around. 28 Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendor all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.
Whatever, dude. You're either not getting or just ignoring my point. You don't have to believe in the Bible nor am I proselytizing to you absolutely anything, in fact I agree the Bible is wildly contradictory, but we can always learn to be more accurate and knowledgable when we do speak on any subject.
Okay, I think from this that you're just not getting my point, which is fine, and I'm sorry again if I am writing any of this in an argumentative way because I'm sincerely not trying to attack you or argue and get heated. I think we agree on some things, I just think if you ask Muslims or Jews, even Christians, if that description in Revelations matches how they view God the answer will probably be No.
But, anyway, I'm respectfully not going to continue this discussion on your other points because this probably isn't the appropriate place for it in the first place nor do I think it's going to de-escalate by going further. I was just putting that out there for others' edification but I'm still happy to continue the conversation with you elsewhere if you'd like.
Abrahamic Jehovah: red/brown colored skin (like a jasper and a sardine stone), glowing red-hot like heated iron, 'wooly' white hair
whites: this is literally me
God (besides Jesus, subsequently) gets a physical description in the Bible?
in some versions i guess, for example in revelations 4:3 'And he who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian, and around the throne was a rainbow that had the appearance of an emerald.' according to https://www.openbible.info/topics/gods_appearance
I wouldn't take the book of Revelations as being representative of anything shared in the 'Abrahamic' religions, or even Christianity, much less a description of God.
I've never heard of this site before so I'm not sure how credible it is, but quite a few of the verses in this list have absolutely nothing to do with describing God's "physical" appearance, especially in context, so I also wouldn't put too much trust into their claim.
Truth is there is no real Biblical basis for such description, even including any of Jesus if I recall correctly.
Also, the term Jehovah was just kinda made up in Germany. That name also doesn't exist Biblically.
They appeared to use the NIV translation, which you may object to but is also easily one of the most common versions. The original King James Version reads very similarly, as does the NKJV.
There are definitely multiple descriptions of Jesus (you can see people mention them in the dumb "Was Jesus white?" arguments), and here is a collection of relevant passages.
Jehovah is just a lightly Germanicized version of Yahweh, look at the consonants: J [which is pronounced as an English Y]; H; V [can be either a V or an F in English phonetics, probably a V here]; H, like Yahweh being YHWH. Jesus isn't what Jesus was actually named (it was Yeshua), these are just things that happen in translation.
I do agree that the description is probably being applied to Christ, though. Not that Revelations would give a historically accurate view, but theologically Revelations is canonical so a Christian is in no standing to deny it.
Yeah, I didn't object to the translation used. I studied Ancient Greek so I can and have read the Bible as well as other Ancient Greek philosophy texts in their original language, so please believe me I'm really just treating this as a discussion of ancient literature. No different to LotR or GoT lore. And while I prefer the NRSV despite it having translation issues as well, the NIV wasn't used by that site. It used and only used the ESV, which is common among hardline Right-wing Christian fundamentalist evangelicals, and was another reason red flags went up for that site. That being said, their translation of that specific verse is almost identical to the NRSV, since the ESV is based off the RSV, so there isn't really an issue on that point.
Thanks for linking that! I read it and it comes from a Catholic source, so take that how you will, but it itself says at the start that
The rest is either admission that people choose to imagine Jesus however they like or using Jewish scripture (written hundreds or thousands of years before the alleged person of Jesus existed) to guess how Jesus might have looked due to retrospective 'prophecy'. It also cites a Letter and the Shroud of Turin, both questionable in authenticity, and then ends with the use of the noble science of phrenology to suggest Jesus was a genius because he was big brained. Not saying people don't use these as bases for descriptions, they definitely do, because then we do have Nazis making false claims about White Jesus but the Bible itself has no direct or clear physical descriptions of Jesus. Best guess is Jesus probably looked like one of the many Palestinians being genocided at the moment.
Yup, that is true.
That's cool if you read that as being Jesus, I'm not really contesting that and I have no issue with it. The text itself isn't clear so there's no way of knowing for sure what is being referred to there. It's open to interpretation. And, that's true, Revelations is canon but it was unpopular or rejected even when it became canon and continued to be questioned and was even rejected by Martin Luther thousands of years later in his Preface. Whether a Christian has standing to deny it is a theological question and I don't have authority to answer it but I think there is good precedent for it, and from a purely critical perspective there's no reason one book written by one guy that has no relation to any other texts should necessarily be considered a foundational text to the religion. My point was just that taking Revelations at face value, given the above, to make the claim that it speaks for the Abrahamic religions as such on the subject of God's appearance is not accurate, academically nor theologically.
i literally provided a description froma version of the bible, dont pretend like your favorite interpretation of an appearanceless god is the only interpretation that exists. i was using jehovah ironically as an english pronunciation of YHWH or whatever the sky wizard OCs name is supposed to 'ackshually' be. i dont 'put too much trust' in anyones claims about bronze age war deities, because i dont believe in them, stone age religions are much cooler and we all know Manicheanism is the One True Religion anyway
I'm not pretending my favorite interpretation is the only one that exists? I never said that and I'm very open to discussing different interpretations. But taking Revelations at face value as an authority on anything isn't very well supported academically or theologically either and that site's list of verses didn't even match the alleged theme so I was kinda doubting its credibility. It's even open to interpretation whether that verse is referring to God or someone/thing else. Just saying, Revelations sucks. Its 'interpretation' of God's appearance in those verses, if we assume it's God, literally doesn't exist anywhere else in the Bible, which is a significant point because it is not a view shared with either Judaism or Islam, nor even within Christianity generally. So, it's just one book's interpretation and one which was unpopular. I don't think that justifies extrapolating it to make a claim about the "Abrahamic" God's appearance.
Anyway, not trying to argue with you or rehash the classic internet religion debate, and I'm sorry if it came off as an attack but you mentioned a description of God's alleged appearance in "Abrahamic" religions, in what I know was a joke, but then someoned asked about its validity Biblically and then you responded with something not quite accurate Biblically speaking so I just wanted to add a point of clarification. Maybe it would've just been better to respond to GarbageShoot but just thought it would be good to keep the thread linear.
further excerpts which attribute features of appearance to god:
Exodus 33:18-22
And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
19 And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my FACE: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away את my hand, and you shall see my BACK PARTS: but my FACE shall not be seen.
Daniel 7:9
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Revelation 4:2-3
2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
26 And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire,[e] and seated above the likeness of the throne was something that seemed like a human form. 27 Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around, and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire, and there was a splendor all around. 28 Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendor all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezek.+1-3%3B+8%3A1%E2%80%933%3B+10&version=NRSVUE
'not quite accurate' lmfaoooo its literally from the bible, its literally as accurate as anything else from the bible
Whatever, dude. You're either not getting or just ignoring my point. You don't have to believe in the Bible nor am I proselytizing to you absolutely anything, in fact I agree the Bible is wildly contradictory, but we can always learn to be more accurate and knowledgable when we do speak on any subject.
deleted by creator
Okay, I think from this that you're just not getting my point, which is fine, and I'm sorry again if I am writing any of this in an argumentative way because I'm sincerely not trying to attack you or argue and get heated. I think we agree on some things, I just think if you ask Muslims or Jews, even Christians, if that description in Revelations matches how they view God the answer will probably be No.
But, anyway, I'm respectfully not going to continue this discussion on your other points because this probably isn't the appropriate place for it in the first place nor do I think it's going to de-escalate by going further. I was just putting that out there for others' edification but I'm still happy to continue the conversation with you elsewhere if you'd like.