Is God a Woman?

[crystalonyx]

ONe does wonder about god concepts that imply gender - i.e. maleness - agresssion- protectiveness, vs femaleness - nurturing and caring. It would seem people would want all these traits in a supposed god.

 

[kai]

If God is a woman, she wouldnt be allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia




http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/current-events/70971-two-saudi-women-pull-thelma-louise.html

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The bible refers to creating humans in "our image, male and female" indicating at least two beings.

The reference to that, I believe, is that Adam was created as a plurality, as God is.

 

[Surya Deva]

Let me add another perspective:

God, as you understand the term that is, the supreme being(Purush) is the masculine energy and Prakriti, the universe, is the feminine energy. We Hindus believe that all material power is feminine. Thus women are considered to be symbols of power in the world.

 

[Draka]

The reference to that, I believe, is that Adam was created as a plurality, as God is.

Or you can take it at face value, as you and so many others seem to take the rest of the bible.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Or you can take it at face value, as you and so many others seem to take the rest of the bible.

Ok, wiseacre I'll take it at face value:

"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 creepeth upon the earth."

Do you see the colon in the first line? That means that the thought that comes before it is incomplete without the thought that comes after it. Technically then, being in the image of God means that Adam had dominion over all the earth and the animals.

 

[Worshipper]

Ok, wiseacre I'll take it at face value:

"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 creepeth upon the earth."

Do you see the colon in the first line? That means that the thought that comes before it is incomplete without the thought that comes after it. Technically then, being in the image of God means that Adam had dominion over all the earth and the animals.

I'm not certain, sandy, what exactly you're pointing out by emboldening the word 'image'. If you're highlighting the fact that it's singular, then I don't think that can get you very far. It's common in the Bible for nouns that would be singular if they were discussed as possessions of a single person to still be singular when discussed as possessions of multiple people. You can see that in all the instances of "our heart" that occur in the Bible, for example:

Deuteronomy 1:28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.

Psalm 44:18 Our heart is not turned back, neither have our steps declined from thy way;

Isaiah 63:17 O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear?

Lamentations 5:15 The joy of our heart is ceased; our dance is turned into mourning.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

(all from the KJV.)

Clearly they have more than one heart, but they use the singular. So the singular 'image' does nothing to undo the literal plurality in 'let us make man in our image', complete with male copies and female copies of multiple male and female Gods.

If all you're trying to do by emboldening image is point out that colon, I've got to say you're asking that one punctuation mark that didn't even exist when the Bible was written to do an awful lot of doctrinal work. Colons weren't around when the books of Moses were written, and weren't even around in Jesus's time. They're all the children of modern, well-meaning-but-not-prophetic editors and, in this case, translators.

Having done some editing of pre-punctuation manuscripts and having done plenty of translating, I would hate it if someone put too much emphasis on my punctuation choices and thus got carried away from the meaning of the text as a result.

It's usually best to read the Bible as though it had no punctuation, because the original manuscripts didn't have any at all. I definitely wouldn't want to stake a whole doctrinal claim about the nature of God on a single punctuation mark.

I think Draka's right. If you take this passage at face value, it's talking about multiple gods whose set of images includes both male and female. There may be good reason not to take this passage at face value, perhaps based on other portions of the Bible or perhaps based on extra-biblical theological reasoning. But if we're limiting ourselves to Genesis 1, a literal interpretation forces a belief in multiple gods (at least two) who at least look like men and women.

 

[blackout]

Ok, wiseacre I'll take it at face value:

"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 creepeth upon the earth."

Do you see the colon in the first line? That means that the thought that comes before it is incomplete without the thought that comes after it. Technically then, being in the image of God means that Adam had dominion over all the earth and the animals.

I don't have time now, but REALLY you need to include the WHOLE section if you want to be intellectually honest.

There are quite a few more "they" and "them" and "Us"'s left in the complete passage...
and it does not support what you are saying.
I see that it clearly supports the idea that God is BOTH male and female.

I'll come back and post the rest later, if someone else has not already done so.

 

[Alex_G]

I have heard of this view, but I have never really understood it. Is there anyone that believes that God is a woman that can explain the rationale behind this belief?

Another way of putting it might be, why would one have a male image for their god? It surely comes down to the role and position of women in societies history. Specifically for the christian-judeo God, one reason may be Aristotle's philosophical influence in its development and his inferior view of women, which unfortunately, rather than Plato's more uplifting position, carried on into the middle ages, and was inherited by the church.

Of course there are many other gods looked upon in a masculine light, but i would imagine similar cultural origins in its rationale. Same logic would apply to the specific roles female Gods would have in polytheistic cultures involving such things as ferility and beauty.

If i were to ask whether God was gay, i'd hope that would illuminate my point

 

[Draka]

Ok, wiseacre I'll take it at face value:

"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 creepeth upon the earth."

Do you see the colon in the first line? That means that the thought that comes before it is incomplete without the thought that comes after it. Technically then, being in the image of God means that Adam had dominion over all the earth and the animals.

There is the word "and" as well. "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them..."

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm not certain, sandy, what exactly you're pointing out by emboldening the word 'image'. If you're highlighting the fact that it's singular, then I don't think that can get you very far. It's common in the Bible for nouns that would be singular if they were discussed as possessions of a single person to still be singular when discussed as possessions of multiple people. You can see that in all the instances of "our heart" that occur in the Bible, for example:

Deuteronomy 1:28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.

Psalm 44:18 Our heart is not turned back, neither have our steps declined from thy way;

Isaiah 63:17 O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear?

Lamentations 5:15 The joy of our heart is ceased; our dance is turned into mourning.

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

(all from the KJV.)

Clearly they have more than one heart, but they use the singular. So the singular 'image' does nothing to undo the literal plurality in 'let us make man in our image', complete with male copies and female copies of multiple male and female Gods.

If all you're trying to do by emboldening image is point out that colon, I've got to say you're asking that one punctuation mark that didn't even exist when the Bible was written to do an awful lot of doctrinal work. Colons weren't around when the books of Moses were written, and weren't even around in Jesus's time. They're all the children of modern, well-meaning-but-not-prophetic editors and, in this case, translators.

Having done some editing of pre-punctuation manuscripts and having done plenty of translating, I would hate it if someone put too much emphasis on my punctuation choices and thus got carried away from the meaning of the text as a result.

It's usually best to read the Bible as though it had no punctuation, because the original manuscripts didn't have any at all. I definitely wouldn't want to stake a whole doctrinal claim about the nature of God on a single punctuation mark.

I think Draka's right. If you take this passage at face value, it's talking about multiple gods whose set of images includes both male and female. There may be good reason not to take this passage at face value, perhaps based on other portions of the Bible or perhaps based on extra-biblical theological reasoning. But if we're limiting ourselves to Genesis 1, a literal interpretation forces a belief in multiple gods (at least two) who at least look like men and women.

The boldface of the word image is just a carryover from the search engine I used to pull up the quote. Talk about reading to much into something. As for your insight into how to translate ancient Hebrew into Old English I'll trust my own reading of the Old English and the translators ability to convey a meaning over your vague and unspecific explanation.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't have time now, but REALLY you need to include the WHOLE section if you want to be intellectually honest.

There are quite a few more "they" and "them" and "Us"'s left in the complete passage...
and it does not support what you are saying.
I see that it clearly supports the idea that God is BOTH male and female.

I'll come back and post the rest later, if someone else has not already done so.

Perhaps you need to go back and put my response into context of whom and what I was adressing.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There is the word "and" as well. "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them..."

That's nice. Do you have a point you can address with that observation?

 

[Worshipper]

The boldface of the word image is just a carryover from the search engine I used to pull up the quote. Talk about reading to much into something.

Touché!

As for your insight into how to translate ancient Hebrew into Old English I'll trust my own reading of the Old English and the translators ability to convey a meaning over your vague and unspecific explanation.

Gee that's seems like it's worded kind of rudely. Did you mean to be rude here, or am I taking it wrong?

You say I was vague and unspecific. Let me try to fix that. Moses did not write the colon. Modern editors wrote the colon. I believe God spoke to Moses. I don't necessarily believe that God spoke to some editor. Unless you think the editors who put the colon in are on a par with Moses, then it's wrong to put your faith in that colon. And if you do think that the translators who put that colon in are on the same level as Moses, I have to wonder whether you have sought out the rest of their writings to follow them. Surely they must be the word of God just as much as Moses's writings are?

Incidentally, since you're reading this text in Old English, please let me know where to find the passage we're discussing. This specific passage is one that I don't know of any Old English translation for. Genesis A doesn't have it, and I don't know of any other text that does. Genesis A has the be fruitful and multiply part:

"Temað nu and wexað, tudre fyllað
eorðan ælgrene, incre cynne,
sunum and dohtrum. Inc sceal sealt wæter
wunian on gewealde and eall worulde gesceaft.
Brucað blæddaga and brimhlæste
and heofonfugla. Inc is halig feoh
and wilde deor on geweald geseald,
and lifigende, ða ðe land tredað,
feorheaceno cynn, ða ðe flod wecceð
geond hronrade. Inc hyrað eall."

But not the part where it says God said let us make man in our image. What Old English text are you reading that renders this specific passage?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Gee that's seems like it's worded kind of rudely. Did you mean to be rude here, or am I taking it wrong??

Sarcasm not rudeness.

You say I was vague and unspecific. Let me try to fix that. Moses did not write the colon. Modern editors wrote the colon. I believe God spoke to Moses. I don't necessarily believe that God spoke to some editor. Unless you think the editors who put the colon in are on a par with Moses, then it's wrong to put your faith in that colon. And if you do think that the translators who put that colon in are on the same level as Moses, I have to wonder whether you have sought out the rest of their writings to follow them. Surely they must be the word of God just as much as Moses's writings are??

Oh please, try and show some insight into how a translation works. The reader of the Hebrew has to convert the context into a suitable meaning using the rules of the language being translated into..

Following your precept I could imply two things. One, since Hebrew has no vowels we should leave out them as well as the punctuation. Let's see how that transpires:
Genesis 1:1-3
"n th bgnnng Gd crtd th hvn nd th rth nd th rth ws wtht frm nd vd nd drknss ws pn th fc f th dp nd th Sprt f Gd mvd pn th fc f th wtrs nd Gd sd lt thr b lght nd thr ws lght"

Very coherent!

Second, lets see how this applies in other areas. Music is recorded in wax as a series of peaks and valleys in order to make a record. Now music is neither wax nor changes in elevation so a record must then be invalid and incorrect as a translation of music.

Any other thoughts?

 

[Worshipper]

Sarcasm not rudeness.


Oh please, try and show some insight into how a translation works. The reader of the Hebrew has to convert the context into a suitable meaning using the rules of the language being translated into..

Following your precept I could imply two things. One, since Hebrew has no vowels we should leave out them as well as the punctuation. Let's see how that transpires:
Genesis 1:1-3
"n th bgnnng Gd crtd th hvn nd th rth nd th rth ws wtht frm nd vd nd drknss ws pn th fc f th dp nd th Sprt f Gd mvd pn th fc f th wtrs nd Gd sd lt thr b lght nd thr ws lght"

Very coherent!

Second, lets see how this applies in other areas. Music is recorded in wax as a series of peaks and valleys in order to make a record. Now music is neither wax nor changes in elevation so a record must then be invalid and incorrect as a translation of music.

Any other thoughts?

I'm not quite certain how your sarcasm in the earlier post differs from what most people would consider rudeness.

But I told you before how a translation works. You do your best to convey the general idea and pray that people don't get too hung up on the details, because there you had to wing it.

A colon is a detail. The general idea of this passage within Genesis 1 is that a number of Gods, some male and some female, made mankind in two sexes to look like the Gods did. If we take it at face value, that's what we've got.

If you don't think we should interpret that passage to mean that, then you can't really point to anything in the English text you've been using that will back up your decision to interpret it differently. Any attempt to do so will be asking the translators to be superhuman. You can point to other passages of the Bible to back up your non-literal interpretation of this passage. You can point to extra-biblical theology to back up your non-literal interpretation of this passage. But you can't use anything in this translation to back up your interpretation, or you're asking the translation to do more than translations can do. Kind of like asking me to play a record without a needle.

How much translation experience do you have, by the way?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have heard of this view, but I have never really understood it. Is there anyone that believes that God is a woman that can explain the rationale behind this belief?

How do you define "woman"?

Would someone who is able to menstruate, ovulate, give birth to children, and lactate count as a woman?

Wouldn't an omnipotent God be capable of all those things?*




*recognizing also that an omnipotent God would also be capable of meeting whatever set of characterics you could come up for a man, implying that an omnipotent God would be both male and female.

 

[Draka]

That's nice. Do you have a point you can address with that observation?

Same point Worshipper made here basically:

A colon is a detail. The general idea of this passage within Genesis 1 is that a number of Gods, some male and some female, made mankind in two sexes to look like the Gods did. If we take it at face value, that's what we've got.

Seems to me, as it is written, the sentence is no different than if it was:

Let us make action-figures in our image, male and female; and let them swim in the Artic Ocean and play hopscotch on the moon.

 

[blueman]

I have heard of this view, but I have never really understood it. Is there anyone that believes that God is a woman that can explain the rationale behind this belief?

No, He is not

 

[Draka]

No, He is not

How would you know?