Posted on 08/19/2016 8:06:44 AM PDT by daniel1212
In what has to be a new low for the New York Times, the Gray Lady (or should we now say the Bearded Lady?) has published an op-ed piece titled “Is God Transgender?” by a New York rabbi named Mark Sameth. Cousin to a man who “transitioned to a woman” in the 1970s, Sameth contends that “the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers a highly elastic view of gender.” He marshals many purported examples of gender fluidity in the Hebrew scriptures, in order to argue that religion should not be put in service of “social prejudices” against transgendering. But his treatment of the Bible amounts to propaganda, not scholarship...
biblical scholars are in general agreement that “Yahweh” is derived from the third-person singular of the verb “to be” (hayah), whether a qal imperfect (“he is” or “he will be”) or the causative hiphil imperfect (“he causes to come into being, he creates”). This view is confirmed by numerous lines of evidence:..No historical evidence supports Sameth’s reading—only his own sex ideology.
It is true that the Hebrew Bible describes God in both masculine (predominantly) and feminine imagery (for the latter, see Isa 42:14; 49:15; 63:13; Hosea 13:8; by inference Num 11:12; Deut 32:11, 18; Hos 11:1-4). However, for God to transcend gender is not the same as his being “transgender”—which refers to a person’s abandoning his or her birth sex for a self-constructed and distorted self-image. It is no mere coincidence that God is never imaged as Israel’s (or the church's) wife, but always as her husband, nor that God is never addressed as Mother.
Sameth’s purported evidence for a “highly elastic” view of gender in the Hebrew Bible is anything but...The fact that Paul could describe himself in 1 Thessalonians 2-3, in relation to his converts, as a brother, father, nursing mother, and even an orphaned child is no indication that he approved transgendering...
Sameth’s further evidence mostly amounts to indefensible misreadings of orthographic variations. He claims: “In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as ‘he.’” But this is an orthographic matter. The Hebrew consonantal text suggests hu’ (“he”) (with later scribes providing vowel pointing for hi’ [“she”])—an artifact of an early stage in writing, when hu’ was used generically of both sexes and the feminine form hi’ was used sparingly. By assigning her the pronoun hu’, Genesis is not imaging Eve as a man. This point is underscored by the fact that the verb form following this pronoun, nathenah, has a feminine ending (“she gave”).
Similar fallacies proliferate...By the rabbi's reasoning, half of the protagonists of the Hebrew Bible were presented by biblical authors as candidates for transgender surgery...
Sameth's statement that “Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as ‘them’” is true, but Sameth overlooks the fact that “Adam” is here not a proper name but a description of “the human” or “humankind”: “God created the adam in his image.” Genesis 1:27 goes on to say, “male and female he (God) created them,” which is simply to acknowledge what Sameth denies: the significance of sexual differentiation for humanity...
Sameth has based his arguments on his left-of-center sex ideology, and not at all on a credible historical reading of the biblical text in context. His Times op-ed piece is historical revisionism at its worst.
the ancient Israelite figures known as the qedeshim (literally, “cult figures” or self-named so-called “sacred ones,” connected with idolatrous cult shrines), men who thought themselves possessed by an androgynous deity, were condemned for assuming female appearance (sometimes including castration; so also the Greco-Roman galli). Indeed, the authors of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History (Judges thru 2 Kings) characterize them as having committed an abomination (Deut 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7). The same tag is applied to any man who dresses like a woman (Deut 22:5).
The extraordinary efforts prohomosexual apologists engage in trying to negate the Biblical condemnation of homosexual relations and even find sanction for the same, reveals what even many "Christians" fail to see: that Scripture, as the wholly inspired word of God and substantive body of Truth, is the supreme transcendent doctrinal basis against homosexual relations.
Thus, as with the temptation of the Lord in Mt. 4, the devil seeks to employ its authority in order to deceive, but whom the Lord soundly reproved by the same source. So must true Christians who are born again by this word of Truth.
In it we see that God created man and women as uniquely compatible and complimentary, and only joined them together in marriage (Gn. 2:24) - as the Lord Jesus specified in Mt. 19:4-6 - leaving all other human sexual relations to be fornication, and only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with,
An extensive examination and refutation of prohomosexual apologetic can be see here , by the grace of God.
That said, we have all been deceived by sin, and their is room at the cross for all who will come to the Lord Jesus in repentant faith, trusting the only Divine Son sent by the Father to save them on his account, by His sinless shed blood.
To God be the glory.
Ping
Liberal God is whatever is fashionable among the ruling class.
Without faith it is impossible to please God. Fallen man cannot understand the things of God because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned. Scripture is not a western scientific textbook explaining all things. We don’t start with man, in all his sinful foibles, and work towards understanding God. We start with GOD.
“This only have I found: God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes.”—Ecclesiastes 7:29
This kind of thing (God as “transgender”) is just so hawg-stupid. God is beyond gender, both linguistic gender and social “gender.” God is beyond sex, our biological reproductive dimorphism. God is beyond all our dopey categories.
It’s a sign you’ve invented your God when He hates the same people you hate.
Just because a masculine term was used by the Hebrews to describe God does not mean He is male. English speakers seem to forget about this every time. For instance, the Spanish word for “table” is “la mesa” (feminine term), but a table isn’t a female. God is not trans-gender, God is non-gender because their is only one God and He is neither male or female.
Does anyone believe that the All-Powerful, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, the Alpha and Omega, is in any way a sexual being??? Why would God need to reproduce? Absent any such biological imperative, why would He need to be sexual?
We refer to the Deity in the masculine out of tradition, but I highly doubt God has ANY definable “gender.” A being that can create the universe ex nihilo can also probably be any gender He chooses, or none at all.
What a ridiculous issue!
Some people will go to any lengths to rationalize or excuse their sin.
God is not amused.
Fluke shot ;-).
U haz a gift, lol.
Help yourself to a Guinness and a kitten!
Much appreciated, thanx! :)
I agree that God is beyond sex, but I have often thought of Wisdom as being the female manifestation of God.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that in a poetic sense, as long as one recognizes that figurative languages says something about one aspect of the indescribable reality, rather than saying everything about a perfectly comprehensible reality.
I am speaking figuratively; when I mentioned this at a choir practice, the women readily agreed. :-)
I’m sure that’s true. I don’t see how any reasonable person could disagree that Wisdom is sometimes presented, poetically, in Scripture and Tradition, as a feminine element in God’s Being.
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:21-23)
We are in the Romans 1 age now. Fireworks at 11.
The author isn’t exactly displaying a good grasp of Judaism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.