Now that we got all that out of the way, back to the original question. Why do we refer to God as “He?” It very well could be because Elohiym is masculine. That would make a lot of sense. But if that’s the case, then why don’t we call the Holy Spirit “she” since the Hebrew word that is always translated “Spirit” in reference to God is Ruha? Ruha is a feminine plural noun.
Let’s just say, hypothetically, that the feminine and masculine tenses were just something the ancient civilizations made up and it got passed down and they don’t mean anything; now if we believe that God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (whether they are the same entity or separate makes no difference right now) are invisible spiritual entities that created the universe and all that exists, would it not be a reasonable assumption to make that with only a consciousness and no physical body that God could not have a gender? I think so.
And if Adam and Eve were both created in God’s image and likeness, and God does not have a physical image, would it not also be a reasonable assumption to make that “image” is speaking of a figurative image rather than a literal image? In which case, God would represent both male AND female. So why DO we refer to God as “He?”
Maybe it got lost in translation. Literally. For all extensive purposes, women had no rights until the late 1800’s when the Women’s Rights Movement took off. Before then, the translators of the scriptures (which were all biased political men) could translate them however they wanted, and they did. By the time common people could gain access to the earliest scriptures available, the masses were already used to referring to the Godhead as “He.” Maybe it just stuck.
OR… maybe God really is physical male beings as Elohiym describes. No, not THE God, Source of Existence God, but the God or Gods described in the Bible. Maybe what the ancients were experiencing as Gods, angels, and demons were actual physical beings that “came down from the heavens?”
Maybe these beings were thought of as Elohiym because they were powerful and strong and could perform seemingly miraculous things. Maybe the ancients called them Elohiym because they hadn’t seen any being like them before, and out of their amazement, they deemed them gods.
Let’s take a look at an interesting Biblical passage. Exodus 3:2-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+3%3A2-6&version=NIV#fen-NIV-1586aAnd if Adam and Eve were both created in God’s image and likeness, and God does not have a physical image, would it not also be a reasonable assumption to make that “image” is speaking of a figurative image rather than a literal image? In which case, God would represent both male AND female. So why DO we refer to God as “He?”
Maybe it got lost in translation. Literally. For all extensive purposes, women had no rights until the late 1800’s when the Women’s Rights Movement took off. Before then, the translators of the scriptures (which were all biased political men) could translate them however they wanted, and they did. By the time common people could gain access to the earliest scriptures available, the masses were already used to referring to the Godhead as “He.” Maybe it just stuck.
OR… maybe God really is physical male beings as Elohiym describes. No, not THE God, Source of Existence God, but the God or Gods described in the Bible. Maybe what the ancients were experiencing as Gods, angels, and demons were actual physical beings that “came down from the heavens?”
Maybe these beings were thought of as Elohiym because they were powerful and strong and could perform seemingly miraculous things. Maybe the ancients called them Elohiym because they hadn’t seen any being like them before, and out of their amazement, they deemed them gods.
The word that is translated “Lord” in verses 2 and 4 is the Hebrew word Yhwh, clearly a different word than Elohiym. Yhwh was a personal name, a PROPER NOUN rather than a title. Notice that Elohyim is also used in verse 4 that is translated “God.” Don’t forget Elohiym is PLURAL, so this signifies that there was more than one voice that called to Moses.
Also, note that in verse 2 the scripture reads that the “angel of the Lord” (“angel” is the Hebrew word malak which SHOULD be translated “messenger”) appeared to Moses from within the bush, but in verse 4 it reads “God (Elohiym) called to him from within the bush…” So which is it? Was it a messenger of the Lord, or was it God who appeared to Moses in the bush? Or are they one in the same? It’s quite possible. We can infer from verse 4 that since the Lord (Yhwh) saw Moses “go over” to the bush, and Gods (Elohiym) called from WITHIN the bush, that “God” and “the Lord” are 2 separate beings. So it is very possible that what we are dealing with in this scripture is a messenger of Yhwh, who was also apparently thought to be one of the Elohiym, appeared to Moses while Yhwh observed.
If that doesn’t seem strange enough for you, try this Biblical passage on… Genesis 18
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18&version=NIV and Genesis 19:1-29
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+19%3A1-29&version=NIV
Go ahead and read both passages.
Genesis 18:1 and 2 is very interesting to say the least. The “Lord” here that appeared to Abraham in verse 1 is, in fact, Yhwh, a specific being. However, in verse 2, Abraham looked up to witness “three men standing nearby.” So whoever this Yhwh was, he was apparently a physical being that could be viewed with the eyes. Also, these 3 men had to have had something unique enough about their form or clothing that Abraham knew immediately to bow down to them, unless Abraham already knew them personally.
In verses 4 and 5 Abraham offers the water to wash their feet and food (which they ate later) so that they may be refreshed, so whoever the 2 other men were with the Lord (Yhwh), they were not spiritual beings either; they were flesh and blood. Yhwh goes on to explain to Abraham how even though his wife is past the age of childbearing, he will return at the same time a year from then and Sarah would have a son. When the 3 men go to leave, Abraham wondered along with them (possibly trailing them?) to watch them go on their way.
The Lord goes on to ask (he appears to be speaking to the 2 other men) if he should hide his plan for Sodom and Gomorrah from Abraham. In verse 19 it reads, “For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”
That verse could have been translated more accurately. “Chosen” is the Hebrew word yada, which means to get to know or experience someone. “Way” is the Hebrew word derek meaning journey, path, way of life or custom, if that clarifies what the “way of the Lord” meant. “Just” is the Hebrew word mispat which means lawful. The worst translation in this verse is the word “promised.” The actual Hebrew word is dabar. It means to speak, and it is one of the most general words in the entire Old Testament. It is used when referring to merely uttering words, so why they translated it “promise” I will never know. Also it is strange that the Lord is talking in the 3rd person in this verse rather than just saying “Me” or “I.”
Let’s see what the scripture SHOULD say if translated accurately… “For I have gotten to know him so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep my custom and way of life by doing what is right and lawful, so that I will bring about for Abraham what I have told him I would do.” Wow, that sounds a lot different now, doesn’t it? So we can see that Yhwh got to know Abraham so that Abraham would direct his bloodline to follow the customs of Yhwh by obeying the law set forth by him. We can also see that Ywhw did not promise Abraham anything, but rather, giving him a son was dependent on whether Abraham proved himself to be someone who would carry out Ywhw’s will.
Is this the one true God that so many people are worshipping? Or has there been a huge misconception about who God really is?
Let’s read on. In verses 20 and 21 the Lord says that he will “go down and see” if what Sodom and Gomorrah have done is as bad as what he has heard. Now if this being was the one true God, wouldn’t he be omnipotent? Would he not already know how bad things have gotten in Sodom and Gomorrah? Why would he need to physically go there to see if it’s true? Wouldn’t he already know the truth?
Genesis 19 continues to baffle. Verse 1 should not say “angels” but rather “messengers.” The Hebrew word translated angel is, once again, malak. The actual definition of this word is messenger or delegate present as a representative of the one who sent him. And clearly, judging by what took place in Genesis 18, we can definitely conclude that these 2 messengers were the same 2 flesh and blood men that were with Yhwh when he approached Abraham.
At the beginning of chapter 19, the 2 messengers find favor with Lot because he was good enough to take them in for the night and feed them. He also stood up in their defense against the crowd of men who wanted to rape them. In verse 10, the messengers pull Lot back into the house and slam the door, then cause blindness to fall on everyone outside the house so that they couldn’t find the door. How they did it isn’t specified, but apparently they had some special capabilities.
As dawn approaches, the 2 messengers frantically urge Lot to take his family members and flee quickly to the mountains because the time is approaching that Yhwh is going to destroy Sodom. Verse 15 –“Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished!” By the description, I keep picturing a nuke dropped on Sodom and a shock wave blasting out!
Once Lot reached his escape destination, we see in verse 24, “Then the Lord (still Yhwh) rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah- from the Lord out of the heaven (should be translated sky).” In verse 25 it describes that even the vegetation was destroyed, so whatever Yhwh dropped on the city out of the sky, it had to be something that was powerful enough to lay the entire plain desolate.
Verse 29 is not accurately translated (big surprise). “God” is the plural Elohiym, and so is “he” so the scripture should read, “So when the Gods destroyed the cities of the plain, they remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot lived.”
Could it be possible, that the Elohiym that the Old Testament refers to time and time again is a whole race of beings that were different, perhaps, more powerful and advanced than the civilization of that time? Could it be possible that the “angels” were viewed as part of the Elohiym, and Yhwh was their leader? Of course it is. Anything is possible.
After all, the Sumerians, who are the earliest known civilization to date (and a very advanced civilization at that), believed they were created for the Gods as a worker race. The ancient Sumerian texts, dating back to the 27th century B.C. describe these Gods as coming down from the sky and teaching them technology, astronomy, and other handy crafts. They describe “demons” and “monsters” that the God’s genetically created through experimentation by combining humans and animals. They believed in multiple of these “gods” with a select few that had greater authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerians
It may seem farfetched, but you have to ask yourself, how DID these supposedly primitive civilizations build the massive stone temples and monoliths that we can still visit today? The technology that we possess today can barely move some of the huge stone blocks at some of the ancient sites and create some of the intricate work they did, and yet we are supposed to believe they used primitive tools and mere man power? NO WAY. To believe that would be asinine.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that what is described numerous times in the Bible and other religious texts as God or the Lord was actually some advanced being from elsewhere in the cosmos. And let’s say that that being was from a whole race of beings just like him that had the ability to control energy with the channeling of their own brain power (this is something that even humans can do on a small scale with practice). Now let’s say that these beings had the technology to artificially inseminate (I know I’m going WAY out on a limb here, but stay with me).
Now let’s take a look at Matthew 1:18-24. In verse 18 we find that before Joseph could lay with Mary, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. An angel (messenger) of the Lord appeared to him in a dream to tell him this.
As crazy as the idea sounds, if we are to imagine Jesus being the offspring of human and some advanced extra terrestrial DNA, would he not be capable of doing some seemingly miraculous things? Would he not be able to read the thoughts of others with his advanced mind? Would he not be the “Son of God?”
We can see in the scriptures that even as a child, he was very knowledgeable and spoke to men in parables so that only those who understood would be spared (Matt. 13:10-23). Of course, there is no proof for this idea of Jesus being part human and part extra terrestrial. It is merely an interesting theory.
It is also quite possible that Jesus was nothing more than a knowledgeable man and teacher who understood the mysteries of the universe and tried to explain them to his follows. His claiming to be the Son of God may have been nothing more than him understanding that the Energy Source that created the universe and all that exists within it, also created him and abided in him. Maybe over time, the roman catholic church leaders made him into a deity.
The study of quantum physics in the modern age has taught us a lot about what we really are. On the molecular level, everything that exists is just energy. Things take different forms depending on what frequency it is vibrating at. Even thoughts, electric charge, magnetism, and oxygen (aka. things unseen) are energy and have their own frequencies.
Is it that difficult to believe that maybe Jesus understood this truth? Maybe he understood that we are ALL “Sons of God” and are ALL capable of the same things he was. After all, did Jesus not teach his disciples that they could perform miracles too? John 14:12 - ”I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.”
In John 14:15-23 and 15:1-17 Jesus goes on to explain the connection between the Father and himself and his disciples. These could be more examples of him trying to explain through terms they could understand an idea of everything being connected. Science has proven that on the basic level of existence, we are all one, all came from the same point of origin, and everything is indeed connected.
Just look at what Jesus taught! Matt. 17:20- “…I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you." By FAITH Peter walked on water with Jesus. When he began doubting, he began sinking. Sounds to me like Jesus understood the Law of Attraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Attraction
http://www.mindbridge-loa.com/Law-of-Attraction-Quantum-Physics-for-beginners.html
If this theory is true, then that means we are all a part of God. It means God is source energy that IS existence. It means we are in God and God is in us and gives US the power to create the life we want. It means we are all connected through our energy and vibration.
And if THAT is true, then it means we are capable of so much more than we realize right now. If our minds have the capacity to know the knowledge of the source energy that made us, just think what we could accomplish just by understanding how to fully control our own minds.
So what does ALL this mumbo jumbo mean? Well, quite simply, it means there are a lot of theories, possibilities, and unanswered questions still out there. And what I shared was only a fraction of it. The point of sharing all this information is to show you that you probably don’t know nearly as much as you think you do. Don’t allow yourself to stop here. There is still much knowledge to gain.
Now that you are probably confused as all get out, you can start feeling humbled. It’s important that we realize fighting about the nature of God amongst ourselves is as pointless as a screen door on a submarine. Let’s just all face the fact that we don’t know right now, and love each other anyway. I mean, after all, does it really matter if we know the exact nature of God? Does it really matter if we know who or what created us? We have a few short decades to live. Love yourself, love others, do good to all. That’s MY religion.
10 comments:
There are a lot of wild assumptions here that are "just theories", and you take a lot of huge logical leaps with a very hazy explanation for how you get from point A to point B.
The Hebrew word Elohim is technically plural when paired with plural verbs, but when referring to God it is, more often than not, paired with the singular male form. So why is He referred to as He? Because the Torah refers to Him as He. A singular male verb attached to the plural form of God = a singular male God. This has been accepted for literally thousands of years. Although there are places it is paired with a plural verb (very few and far between, relative to the singular male form), there are a large list of possible reasons why that may be, and most of them make more sense (IMO) than simply throwing out the singular male verb form. Furthermore, it is a fact that often in the Hebrew Bible things referring to something godly are referred to in the plural, even when they are singular, but are given the plural of excellence. Furthermore, in some accounts, such as the Genesis creation story, there are literary reasons to believe intentional insinuations are made to pagan religions in order to make the message that these things are being toppled by God.
Plural of excellence? Message to pagans? All interesting theories, and all of them take into account the fact that Elohim, when referring to God, is overwhelmingly most often considered a singular noun. Your interpretation appears to ignore this, if I read it correctly. I dont think the spirit argument makes a lot of sense because of the context: the Hebrew word used for spirit is wind or breath, which happens to be a feminine noun. In English its kind of weird, but most languages have gender associations with common words: this wasnt a changed gender for God, if the book had been about me (I am male) and it had said "the spirit of TRJ" it also would have been feminine, according to female grammar.
Ill respond to some other stuff later, but I just wanted to talk about some of the semantical backflips I feel like youre doing to try and prove your point.
I meant according to Hebrew* grammar. My bad :P
You stated, "So why is He referred to as He? Because the Torah refers to Him as He. A singular male verb attached to the plural form of God = a singular male God. This has been accepted for literally thousands of years."
I realize the Torah refers to God as He. You are merely repeating what I have already pointed out in my original post. The question was WHY is God referred to as "He" in the Old Testament scriptures. I simply gave some theories for why that may have been.
Also, just because a belief has been around for thousands of years, does that make it truth? The beliefs of the Sumerians have been around way longer than Judaism, but I would bet you don't believe their pagan religion is truth, do you? So that doesn't seem to be a very good arguement in my opinion.
You stated, "Furthermore, it is a fact that often in the Hebrew Bible things referring to something godly are referred to in the plural, even when they are singular, but are given the plural of excellence."
With as much studying as I have done of the Hebrew language and history, I have never heard such a thing. My mother dedicated 30 years of her life to studying the Bible in its original languages as well as studying the languages themselves. I checked with her and she has never heard of such a thing as "plural of excellence" either. Maybe this is an interpretation that your church teachers or seminary professors have taught you? Either way, it is possible that could be true, although it seems to be unlikely based on all other information. But still a possibility.
You stated, "All interesting theories, and all of them take into account the fact that Elohim, when referring to God, is overwhelmingly most often considered a singular noun. Your interpretation appears to ignore this, if I read it correctly."
"I" do not have any one interpretation. I offer MANY views that I do not neccesarily believe as a means of making a point. Furthermore, I did not ignore anything, seeing as how that statement you made is just blatantly false. Elohiym, when referring to God, is NOT most often considered a singular noun. It is ALWAYS a plural noun. ALWAYS. For it to be singular would be the word ELOHA. And you say "when referring to God" as if Elohiym could refer to anything BUT God? I'm just not understanding a lot of what you're debating here.
All that aside, I appreciate your opinions and interpretation TRJ. It's as good as anyone elses and if they help you and make your life better, then by all means, stick with it. Hope you have a blessed day. :)
I was consumed by homework, but I plan on responding to both this and the other comments section over the next few days.
As an aside, most of what I know and believe was formed by my own personal study. The reason you havent seen a lot of what I post (for example, the plural noun interpretation) is because I started my study with Judaism and ancient Rabbinic literature, and while Christians tend to jump straight to "Trinity", Jews have accepted Elohim as a singular noun for God when paired with a single, male verb for hundreds of years prior to Jesus having been born, and have written out their reasons for why in a lot of different places.
Christianity spawned from Judaism, so I came to try and understand Judaism so I could better understand Christianity. I am not someone who is spoonfed theology (although youre right, I have received formal theology education, its not where the bulk of my theology comes from and I frequently disagree with my pastors and teachers on various issues), so dont make assumptions that I am.
I am really, really looking forward to this conversation. You seem like you will be interesting to discuss with.
btw that ^ was not my full response, I just wanted you to know where I was coming from.
I have to admit, there is SO much to be discussed on this topic that I don't really see any reason to discuss it any further. I know where I stand in all this, and you know where you stand. The only purpose in debating or discussing would be with the intention to convince each other that we are each right, and I already know that isn't going to happen. You arent going to tell me any facts that I havent already studied for myself and the rest is, well... opinion and interpretation, which to me is useless. And seeing as how you are a seminary student, nothing I say is going to much matter to you, and Im not the kind of person who debates just to show off my knowledge of a topic. In the grand scheme of life, I just really dont think the amount of facts we know is the end all be all. Character is higher than intellect. I really do believe that. Sometimes its fun to just discuss interesting topics such as this one to challenge our minds, but it takes wisdom to know when to shut our mouths and agree to disagree with kindness. I don't agree with you, but I don't fully disagree with your either. Anything is possible. ;) Let's just let it lie with a "God bless" and a smile, shall we? Have a happy journey, my friend!
May I ask you a question, then?
what theory are you referencing when you say all matter is composed of energy?
The Quantum Theory, otherwise known as Quantum Physics or Quantum Mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
I know what Quantum Mechanics is, Ive studied it quite a bit.
Are you talking about wave-particle duality? Bosonic string theory? What, specifically, are you referencing when you say "everything is energy"? Thats a very vague statement, and to say it comes from Quantum Mechanics is like saying that "stuff falls" is from Physics - it doesnt establish how the conclusion was reached in terms clear enough that someone could follow your line of thought.
Well, you could say that matter is composed of energy, but to be more accurate, matter is created and held together by energy. Without that energy there would be no matter. All matter is constantly vibrating and energy is what causes the vibration. Science has already proven this. What this energy source is, science cannot say, but I believe it to be what most people call "God." Different things vibrate at different frequencies which is why some matter takes the form of plants while other matter takes the form of clouds and water and people. I don't always like to just come right out and connect the dots for the people that read my blog. My aim is to encourage people to research it for themself.
Post a Comment