Him, Her, Them,?

[Anonymous]

https://www.bible.com/bible/114/ISA.54.5-8.NKJV#:~:text=Isaiah%2054%3A5%2D8%20NKJV,refused%2C%E2%80%9D%20Says%20your%20God.

Hmm seems humanity is nonbinary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we use He, Him for God? Why assign gender if we see him as gender free?

Male (or masculine) is God’s revealed gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Who was the writer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Also, you know, none of us know the language the documents were written in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Also, you know, none of us know the language the documents were written in

QED, I guess.
Stating the obvious is dull and unhelpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Also, you know, none of us know the language the documents were written in

What if it was written in a genderless language? In a language without plurals? Inaccuracies pop up everytime a piece is translated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Also, you know, none of us know the language the documents were written in

What if it was written in a genderless language? In a language without plurals? Inaccuracies pop up everytime a piece is translated.

All of the evidence is against this, given the presence of gendered pronouns in both ancient and modern Semitic languages. But since proving a negative is impossible ("Can you prove there wasn't a pre-pre-pre-Hebrew genderless proto-language?"), it's pretty easy to go into a fatal spiral of counterfactuals. Not would I would call intellectually honest inquiry, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the male-centered language for God compares God to the husband and humanity as God's bride. It sets up a partnership/marriage between God and the people within a construct that we understand.

That said, there is a movement to just drop pronouns for God altogether, and an increasing awareness/understanding (I think) that gendered language for God is a tool to help us better understand God, while God is actually genderless, just like we refer to God's outstretched arm, when our theology also says God doesn't have a body. These are just tools to help us conceptualize God.

Can you give an example of this marriage?
I've heard King and Father but not Husband.

Isaiah 54:5-6
For the One who made you - whose name is "God of Hosts" - will espouse you. The Holy One of Israel - who is called "God of all the earth" - will redeem you. God has called you back as a wife forlorn and forsaken. Can one cast off the wife of his youth? said your God.

Also, most of Hosea 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

There is a Jewish midrash (oral tradition) that Adam was both male and female before Eve was split from him, at which point, they became male and female.

"Adam" in Hebrew comes from the same root word as "Adom" which means "red" (like the clay of the earth that God used to make Adam) or "Adamah" which means "from the ground."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Also, you know, none of us know the language the documents were written in

Some of us do... ✡️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Also, you know, none of us know the language the documents were written in

Some of us do... ✡️

This is going to be good...

What language is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we use He, Him for God? Why assign gender if we see him as gender free?

Ummm... he is called "Father" by Jesus Christ. We do not see Him as gender free.

[Anonymous]

He is the Father.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Genesis 2, where man is formed out of dust, and woman is made from Adam's rib? Is God made of dust? Did God forget he'd already created man? Why are there two creation stories?

Interesting question. Some posit that Genesis 1 is "God created mankind" and Genesis 2 is "He did it like this".

Or it's bad writing/editing by multiple uncoordinated authors.

I always find this argument a bit silly. For people who refuse to sit with tension or paradox, they accuse the writers of "bad editing," as if it wouldn't have been the work of five minutes to make the stories match simplistically and exactly. The writers and editors of scripture are well aware of the multitude of paradoxes and seeming contradictions among the many canonical books. They are constantly referring to and quoting earlier ones without trying to scrub away the tension. We moderns often seem incapable of this.

You believe either version?

I believe both. And if I understand scripture wrongly (i.e., take passages literally when they should be taken symbolically, or take them poetically when they should be understood literally), that is my human frailty at work, not the fault of the writer.

Also, you know, none of us know the language the documents were written in

What if it was written in a genderless language? In a language without plurals? Inaccuracies pop up everytime a piece is translated.

I understand gender neutral language but the prayers I grew up with mean a lot to me so I want to still say He

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we use He, Him for God? Why assign gender if we see him as gender free?

Ummm... he is called "Father" by Jesus Christ. We do not see Him as gender free.

+1 I think Christianity's placement of God in the Trinity as the Father to the male Son of God, Jesus Christ, makes it harder for anyone to conceptualize God as anything other than male.