God's gender? And more importantly, does it matter?

[Dreadsox]

I would like to interrupt this thread with a sill response.....

IS TOO

IS NOT

IS TOO

Thank you!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Only a female God could have a good enough sense of humor to create the male species

 

[thacraic]

Actually, there absolutely is. Read John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2

Yep.

 

[beli]

IS TOO

IS NOT

IS TOO

Thats the FYM slogan, isnt it?

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[AvsGirl41]

Hiya BVS (hope its ok I call you that),
God DID make man in His image, I don't see how anything I have said would state otherwise. If I recall, the first person God made did in fact have, two legs, a hairy chest (maybe, maybe not, depending on how literal you take renaissance artists rendering of Adam ) and a penis. Granted God doesn't need any of those things, I give you that but why (again if you believe God did create man, the universe etc) did He make Adam as He did and then say it was in His image? (Actually He said let us make man in Our image, which is a reference of course to Christ (you know He was present at the creation of the world... etc...)

It depends what version of Genesis you read, though.

The second, "priestly" account of the Creation in Genesis mentions men and women being made at the same time "in our image" throwing the whole Adam's rib story out the window. I don't know if other editions of the Bible edit this version out, but the two versions I've read had it.

It's also worth noting that the Wisdom/Logos figure that Jesus becomes (the Word present at Creation) is originally female in the Old Testament. I have the verses up in my notes. It's a real shift in perception because of the Greco-Roman influence on the NT.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Only a female God could have a good enough sense of humor to create the male species

Hrm.. unless God had a feminine side... Probably.

 

[Dreadsox]

It depends what version of Genesis you read, though.

The second, "priestly" account of the Creation in Genesis mentions men and women being made at the same time "in our image" throwing the whole Adam's rib story out the window. I don't know if other editions of the Bible edit this version out, but the two versions I've read had it.

It's also worth noting that the Wisdom/Logos figure that Jesus becomes (the Word present at Creation) is originally female in the Old Testament. I have the verses up in my notes. It's a real shift in perception because of the Greco-Roman influence on the NT.

You may want to explain who P was...hehe

 

[nbcrusader]

It depends what version of Genesis you read, though.

The second, "priestly" account of the Creation in Genesis mentions men and women being made at the same time "in our image" throwing the whole Adam's rib story out the window. I don't know if other editions of the Bible edit this version out, but the two versions I've read had it.

The summary description of the creation of man in Chapter 1 and the detailed description of the creation of man in Chapter 2 do not conflict.

I'm not sure why some theologians find the false distinction.

 

[AvsGirl41]

The summary description of the creation of man in Chapter 1 and the detailed description of the creation of man in Chapter 2 do not conflict.

I'm not sure why some theologians find the false distinction.

I find there is a major distinction. Why would the summary account be there, unless it is markedly different than the longer one? The Hebrew editors were careful to include both sides of the story, as it were, when they compiled the final texts. That's why there are so many duplicates.

I find it very interesting and important it's there, considering how much emphasis has been placed on the Genesis story in the past--Man was superior because he was created *first* and Women being inferior because she was created second *and* out of Man. Thus, she was "weaker" from the start. When you have an account which omits those details, it puts quite a different spin on things.

Perhaps to a male reader, this *isn't* much of an issue, but to a female audience (particularly given the blame of original sin we've enjoyed for how many thousands of years) it's a nice inclusion.

 

[AvsGirl41]

You may want to explain who P was...hehe

Awww, don't you want to write that particular essay for me?

 

[nbcrusader]

I find there is a major distinction. Why would the summary account be there, unless it is markedly different than the longer one?

Chapter one is a summary account of the six days of creation. Chapter 2 is a detailed account of the creation of man. I don't see how this becomes two separate stories.

I find it very interesting and important it's there, considering how much emphasis has been placed on the Genesis story in the past--Man was superior because he was created *first* and Women being inferior because she was created second *and* out of Man. Thus, she was "weaker" from the start. When you have an account which omits those details, it puts quite a different spin on things.

Perhaps to a male reader, this *isn't* much of an issue, but to a female audience (particularly given the blame of original sin we've enjoyed for how many thousands of years) it's a nice inclusion.

If you look to Chapter 1 to combat the mis-use of Chapter 2 in gender relations, fine. But to turn that into a principle of interpretation that makes one account true and the other false is dangerous. On this basis, with four different Gospels, we could dismiss three (and, in reality, all four).

 

[AvsGirl41]

Chapter one is a summary account of the six days of creation. Chapter 2 is a detailed account of the creation of man. I don't see how this becomes two separate stories.

If you look to Chapter 1 to combat the mis-use of Chapter 2 in gender relations, fine. But to turn that into a principle of interpretation that makes one account true and the other false is dangerous. On this basis, with four different Gospels, we could dismiss three (and, in reality, all four).

I never said one was false. I don't believe they are the same story, however. There are real differences between the two--they're written by different people, set into one narrative. This is well known.

But yes, I'm more inclined to believe that God (who knows all, sees all, nothing is impossible, etc.) made man and woman at the same time, both in the divine image, than having to stop and think twice about it--and without having to resort to borrowing body parts. Chapter 2 seems to have its roots more in folklore and the truth is probably somewhere within the two.

Personally, I believe it's more dangerous to limit God to fit within the confines of our Biblical text than to engage in literary criticism.
The variations within the Gospels are hardly the same issue, as those are a matter of different sources, audiences and concerns.
A blanket defense such as that is as silly as anyone who would quickly dismiss the texts.

 

[nbcrusader]

I never said one was false. I don't believe they are the same story, however. There are real differences between the two--they're written by different people, set into one narrative. This is well known.

But yes, I'm more inclined to believe that God (who knows all, sees all, nothing is impossible, etc.) made man and woman at the same time, both in the divine image, than having to stop and think twice about it--and without having to resort to borrowing body parts. Chapter 2 seems to have its roots more in folklore and the truth is probably somewhere within the two.

Personally, I believe it's more dangerous to limit God to fit within the confines of our Biblical text than to engage in literary criticism.
The variations within the Gospels are hardly the same issue, as those are a matter of different sources, audiences and concerns.
A blanket defense such as that is as silly as anyone who would quickly dismiss the texts.

I guess if we have different views on the author, then we will always come to different conclusions.