I think people are confusing transformation with reformation.
If by people you mean you then you are right.
I have no problem with your definition and understand of reformation. but you are all confused about transformation, even within your own definition which is neither secularly nor biblically correct.
Transformation - The act or operation of changing the form or external appearance.
This is not correct - where did you get the definition did you make it up? Transformation is not just an external event.
Your examples don't even fit an external event form of transformation.
1. Metamorphosis; change of form in insects; as from a caterpillar to a butterfly.
Do you think a butterfly and caterpillar are the same inside? If you do you need to go back to Biology I in high school. Their anatomical structure is vastly different.
2. Transmutation; the change of one metal into another, as of copper or tin into gold.
Do you think gold and tin are the same inside? If you do you need to go back to Physics I in high school, they differ in the number of neutrons and protons in the nucleus. Can't get much more inside than that!
3. The change of the soul into a divine substance, as among the mystics.
What mystics are you relying on now for your description of soul?
4. Transubstantiation.
This has nothing to do with transformation. In this event the accidents, the appearance both inner and outer remain the same, while the substance (that inner philosophical principal that determines the true nature of something) changes. The closest it comes would be to the reverse of transformation.
5. In theology, a change of heart in man, by which his disposition and temper are conformed to the divine image; a change from enmity to holiness and love.
And now we get to why you try to twist this definition so. To support your idea that man is transformed (a term you admit doesn't get used in the Bible, but whose idea you hope to claim does based on the definitions above) and that transformation explains how we are merely covered up with a new creature, not really changed at all just hidden. Unfortunately your examples don't work, your definition is apparently of your own making (or at least chosen very carefully from a list of alternatives from a dictionary) and flawed.
On top of this the Bible uses the word converted, not transformed. It means to imply a true change internally not just an external change. That is why justification being merely imputed and us being merely covered by the blodd does not do the discussion of salvation real justice. We have to be converted, justification is infused into us. We are different we don't just appear different to God. That is playing the Father for a sucker.
Back to the drawing board for you.
Transformation – though not a “Bible” word the principle according to the definition is. Note definition #2 and #3 – these two coupled with the Bible words, regeneration, justification, sanctification, etc. along with 2 Cor 5:17
Definition #2 is about transmutation. So we are transformed like tin is transmuted into gold? I can agree to that - because it means we are changed internally at the most fundamental level. It is not just a cover up or an outward change with no inward conversion. But then that doesn't match your doctrine so I suspect you will be throwing this example out.
Author