Bible Study God described a (s)he

[papajoe]

One of my youth club, non-Christian but referring to the God of the bible, described God as (s)he. I just wanted to double check (as I know nothing of the original language the bible was written in) that describing God as He is biblically sound.

Is this correct?

Not exactly.
The Hebrew name of God the creator is “Elohimâ€Â. The translators of the King James version would translate the Hebrew “Elohim†as the English “Godâ€Â. (2500 times)
The problem is that the name Elohim is a plural noun and the word God is a singular noun, from the Greek “Theosâ€Â, The Supreme Being.
In Gen 1:26 and 27 we can see very clearly that it is Adam AND Eve that are the image of God (Elohim).
I believe the feminine aspect of the creator has been suppressed because so many pagan religions worshiped a female as a Goddess. And that, of coarse is a satanic imitation.
There’s a lot more to this, but it gets even more controversial. I would be happy to share, if you want to go there.
I am not a language scholar! I’m only reporting what some such scholars have pointed out. I would recommend AndrewJukes, his book “The names of Godâ€Â.

 

[cyberjosh]

I would recommend Andrew Jukes, his book “The names of Godâ€Â.

I recently read that! Andrew Jukes has an amazing understanding of Scripture. And he confirmed what I had already encountered in a lexicon on the etymology of Shaddai as meaning "breast", meaning God is the life-giver and nourisher of his Children as from a loving mother to a new born babe, as well as a Father.

P.S. How many of Jukes books have you read?

~Josh

 

[papajoe]

="cybershark5886
How many of Jukes books have you read?

~Josh

Just the one, on the Names of God.
Those insights completely changed my Christian experience, that is; it was a turning point.
It's amazing to me how many pastors will not accept that understanding about the creator.
papajoe

 

[Heidi]

One of my youth club, non-Christian but refering to the God of the bible, described God as (s)he. I just wanted to double check (as I know nothing of the original language the bible was written in) that describing God as He is biblically sound.

Is this correct?

No, that is another myth. It would change the whole bible if it were true. So get the interlinear bible which has the Hebrew and Greek and you will see that nowhere is God described as a "she." :

 

[papajoe]

One of my youth club, non-Christian but refering to the God of the bible, described God as (s)he. I just wanted to double check (as I know nothing of the original language the bible was written in) that describing God as He is biblically sound.

Is this correct?

No, that is another myth. It would change the whole bible if it were true. So get the interlinear bible which has the Hebrew and Greek and you will see that nowhere is God described as a "she." :

It is (was for American) the convention of several languages (including Hebrew) to refer to someone as “heâ€Â; even if that chairman was female, if what they said was from a group that included at least one male person.

Within the name of God (Hebrew Elohim) Gen 1:1. Is the “male†and “female†persons of the Creator. See also Gen 1:26 & 27

Please also look into the Hebrew name for “God Almightyâ€Â. The Hebrew word “shad†can only refer to a womans breast.
With some study it becomes very apparent that El Shaddai and the Holy Spirit have the same Characteristics .

And also; look into Rev 1:8 & 13. In the King James the word is “papsâ€Â. From the Latin and in the original Greek. A very specific word for a womans (human) breast.
But be sure to keep in mind that John is looking ata “visionâ€Â. That is; something in the Spirit.

 

[Gerald]

Orion wrote: Is God more masculine than feminine? If so, then does that make masculine characteristics more Godly than feminine? Where does that leave women? :-?


Re: God described a (s)he

dancing queen wrote:One of my youth club, non-Christian but referring to the God of the bible, described God as (s)he. I just wanted to double check (as I know nothing of the original language the bible was written in) that describing God as He is biblically sound.

Is this correct?

We should be careful of our reason for asking this question. (Taking every thought captive). So that sin does not enter in. If you are female and feel you are less in the body of Christ because God is referred to as (he) you couldn't be more wrong.Every body of Christ is very important male or female. A good study of 1 Corinthians 12 will show you this. Don't let the sin of envy or selfishness captivate your thoughts.We all belong to the same body of Christ and should not raise one above another. When we read the bible we should be reading it in the spirit not in the flesh with the five senses given to the flesh.
IN Gods Love
Jerry

 

[follower of Christ]

Re:

Thank you for replying, I thought this thread had been successfully ignored so I am grateful for your input

While God surely needs no sexual organs, "HE' does refer to Himself as masculine in nature, so what we are left with is that there is probably much more to male and female differences than just body shapes and reproductive organs.

My guess is that we we remove the body parts and get down to the person inside that overall there will still be something different in general about men and women.

Whatever it is that is beyond sex organs that makes men men and women women is possibly what God is Himself that He also put into men.
A desire to lead? to be followed? the 'head' of the body?....what is is as a whole I couldnt even begin to guess, but for the most part women do act like women and men do act like men and its very easy to tell the difference.

Just rambling at this point, but I do personally believe that it is quite offensive to God the Father to be presented as feminine. Not because women are any less than a man....but simply because of who He is.

 

[follower of Christ]

Re:

If God isn't a male, then God isn't a "He". If God is neither, then why delegate a human term, one that connotes masculine qualities, and completely disregard feminine qualities?

I think you are exaggerating, quite frankly.
That He shows Himself as masculine in no way negates who the woman is or her importance.

And if the word doesn't actually describe God accurately, why would it be in the texts? I think it IS because man needs to see God as masculine (or rather the writers needed to see God as masculine because the feminine was of no value).

Because beyond the sexual glands and organs there are 'roles' that each gender plays.
Why you make the feminine of no value because God is a 'HE' in scripture seems to be merely for shock value.
No one said that females are less than men....merely different.
If anything the woman is far greater in my opinion, for within her God has placed the ability to create life and has chosen her alone to bring His Son into the world.
You call THAT of no value ?

Is God more masculine than feminine? If so, then does that make masculine characteristics more Godly than feminine? Where does that leave women? :-?

It leaves woman being the wondeful person that her heavenly FATHER created her to be. No more and no less than a man....merely different.