OK, how did they change "With God as our father"?
And the above lyric change reminds me of this top 10 hit from last century:
Posted on 02/08/2018 9:57:48 AM PST by SeekAndFind
As LifeSite News reported, earlier this month, “The Episcopal church in the Diocese of Washington, D.C., passed a resolution . . . to stop using masculine pronouns for God in future updates to its Book of Common Prayer.
“The resolution to stop using ‘gendered language for God’ was passed quickly by delegates to the Diocese's 123rd Convention.”
To be sure, this is not the first group to move in the direction of “gender-inclusive” language when it comes to the deity.
Back in 2011, I documented how some gay churches replaced God as Father with God as Creator in their hymns. And last year, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Sweden voted to urge “its clergy to use more gender-neutral language when referring to God and to avoid referring to the deity as ‘Lord’ or ‘He’.”
As explained by Archbishop Antje Jackelen, a woman, and the head of this church, “Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human.”
That, of course, is true, and none of us think that God has biological sex or that His image is not found in women as well as men.
At the same time, He revealed Himself to us as Father, He inspired the human authors of Scripture to refer to Him with male pronouns, and He is called Lord (not Lady) multiplied hundreds of times in the Scriptures. Not only so, but when He took on flesh, He did so in the person of His Son (another male image!), as a man named Yeshua (Jesus). And should I mention that He’s also described in the Bible as a Man of War?
In short, you have to rewrite the Bible in order to remove “gendered language for God.” And there is a difference between praying to the Heavenly Mother rather than the Heavenly Father. (In other words, gender differences are important and intentional.) And if a non-gendered God wanted us to pray to it (?) as the Heavenly Parent, then it (or, they?) would have said so.
But it gets worse. Lifesite News notes that, “The Rev. Linda R. Calkins from St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Laytonsville, Maryland, challenged the delegates to go further.”
She stated that, “Many, many women that I have spoken with over my past almost 20 years in ordained ministry have felt that they could not be a part of any church because of the male image of God that is systemic and that is sustained throughout our liturgies. Many of us are waiting and need to hear God in our language, in our words and in our pronouns.”
So, “many, many women” stay out of church “because of the male image of God that is systemic and that is sustained throughout our liturgies.” Perhaps these women have some issues with their own fathers – or husbands (or, ex-husbands), or men in general? Perhaps there’s something deeper going on? And with problems like these, how could they relate to a male Savior figure?
Speaking of that, an Episcopal bishop in New York defended a statue of the crucifix featuring a female Jesus called Christa. I kid you not.
But there’s more. “Calkins read from Genesis Chapter 17, in which God tells Abraham ‘I am El Shaddai.’ She said that if Episcopalians ‘are going to be true to what El Shaddai means, it means God with breasts.’” Yes, the God of Israel is a fertility deity with breasts!
To be honest, Calkins is not the first to make this claim, and I’ve even heard it in some evangelical circles, where it was taught that God as the “many breasted one” spoke of God as Provider.
But there’s not a stitch of scholarly evidence to support this, and I can state that with authority. Not only is my Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University, but I specialized in comparative Semitic lexicography (meaning, understanding dictionary definitions of words in light of the comparative ancient languages).
My doctoral dissertation focused on one Hebrew word (in light of its ancient Near Eastern background), and I own every major Hebrew lexicon and theological encyclopedia. Every single one of them rejects the idea that El Shaddai means “God of (many) breasts.” (I even did a short Facebook video, with a large pile of these books in hand, to demonstrate the point.)
It’s possible that the name Shaddai is related to an ancient Akkadian word for “mountain,” hence depicting God as a Rock, a common scriptural image speaking of power. (Akkadian refers to the language of the Babylonians and Assyrians.) But this is far from certain.
What we do know is that the ancient biblical translators commonly rendered Shaddai with “Almighty,” and they likely had a good reason for it. As for the idea that the God of Israel, who identified Himself with male pronouns and used masculine verbs, was depicted as a many-breasted female fertility deity, they would have found the idea blasphemous. So should we.
In short, there’s a good reason to use gendered language when speaking of God, even though He has the best characteristics of both mother and father and He even though He transcends human aspects of gender. To deny this to deny divine reality, to our own lasting harm and confusion.
They wouldn't try this trick with other ancient literature such as the Iliad or what have you.
Theology is the attempt to understand God as He revealed Himself to us. Not we mere mortals trying to define God in our image.
“What bathroom would Jesus use” is the only question on some people’s minds. They can all go to uniheaven.
You can rewrite the Bible to exclude language about homosexual lifestyle and include language about transgenders and “mother god” but that doesn’t make it the word of God.
“You Can’t Rewrite the Bible to Remove Gendered Language for God”
I believe a version doing exactly that came out a couple decades ago, IIRC.
It is not difficult at all to see what is going on, daughter of Eve.
Not really. If you look at the Bible from a secular view point, it's one continuous rewrite.
The Catholic hymnals for a number of years were rewording many old hymns to eliminate “he”, “him” and other male references. Then it appeared to change back.
In “Let There Be Peace On Earth” for example, “let me walk with my brother” was changed to “let us walk with each other”.
RE: I believe a version doing exactly that came out a couple decades ago, IIRC.
Here’s a gender neutral version of the Lord’s Prayer:
Our Father and Mother who dwells in Heaven and Earth, hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our treaspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
Help us to avoid temptation and deliver us from evil, for Yours is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.
Read more at
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogerwolsey/2015/05/lets-change-the-lords-prayer/#7oUuPkSGEJgLprG1.99
RE: “Let There Be Peace On Earth” for example, “let me walk with my brother” was changed to “let us walk with each other”.
I know the song.
It also has the phrase “With God as our father, brother’s all are we”.
How will that be changed now?
I think for some folks....getting to the idea that various monks who were copying the Greek translated version...were in the act of rewriting on a continuous basis...would disturb them greatly.
You start with Hebrew work...going into Aramac...then into Greek....then into Latin....then into English, German, French, Spanish. You could easily have hundreds of phrases that got messed up.
“Read more at...”
I think I’ll pass. But thanks anyway. ;)
The pronouns used in Hebrew and Greek are masculine. If you translate them into English, you must use the corresponding masculine pronouns.
This is a simple concept, that even a liberal can understand.
I forgot to start with that line... it was changed from brothers all are we to "we are family".
re: “Not really. If you look at the Bible from a secular view point, it’s one continuous rewrite.”
Ok, I’ll bite. How so? There are thousands of Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament, plus the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), and over five thousand Greek New Testament manuscripts.
Yes, there are a few negligible scribal errors (repeating words, letters, etc.) but no theological contradictions. The scribes were extremely meticulous in making a copy - one discovered mistake and the whole copy was tossed.
I’m not an expert on the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, but from what I have read and studied, it is clear that the Old and New Testaments are reliably sourced with hundreds of thousands of copies to rely on.
If you’re speaking of English translations, there is always going to be the need for updates in minor language usage over the decades and centuries - but, that is NOT rewriting the Bible. You cannot change the basic meaning of the Hebrew and Greek texts. Sometimes we can sharpen up the translation of a phrase or word with new archeological discoveries, but again, we’re only speaking of minor word usage - not major doctrinal teachings.
The Hebrew and Greek texts use the masculine pronoun “He” not “She” when referring to God. To change that IS rewriting the Hebrew and Greek Biblical texts.
English “translations” are NOT the Biblical text. The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are.
Not if they dont want to.
re: “I think for some folks....getting to the idea that various monks who were copying the Greek translated version...were in the act of rewriting on a continuous basis...would disturb them greatly.
You start with Hebrew work...going into Aramac...then into Greek....then into Latin....then into English, German, French, Spanish. You could easily have hundreds of phrases that got messed up.”
Reliable translations are based on the ancient Hebrew and Greek Old and New Testament manuscripts, of which there are literally hundreds of thousands of copies. Latin, German, English, etc. are all “translations” - NOT the Biblical texts. Only the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are. Those are the languages that the original authors spoke and wrote. In addition, there are also many copies of the New Testament in Aramaic.
The Greek manuscripts predate (so far at least) the Aramaic manuscripts and for the most part, Western Christian scholars rely on the Greek manuscripts, while the Eastern Orthodox rely on the Aramaic. But, again, there are NO major doctrinal contradictions between the Greek and the Aramaic texts.
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.