Jacob Samuelson
Active Member
I want to propose an idea where God is neither male nor female. Rather he is the perfect combination of both Here are the supporting arguments from the Bible: Genesis 1: 26-27
26. 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.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And Genesis 2: 21-23
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
I want to focus on these two scriptures even though I can dig up support for the nature of God that doesn't coincide as simply masculine as we might typically think.
In the first scripture, we see that God uses the pronoun us. Which I'm sure is already a subject of many scholarly reports as the meaning of use in this context, but I want to take it with the next sentence. 'So God created man in 'his' own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
We see that immediately it jumps from the pronoun 'us' to the possessive pronoun 'his' and later 'him and he'.
The pronouns are apparently masculine, which can distract us from the next part: 'Male and Female created he them'
it is my position that due to God creating 'male and female', he could not have belonged to any of those gender roles or types. Remember it doesn't say God created 'man and woman' in this part, it says that he created 'male and female' Man and women were only a product of these supporting genders.
Still, the usage of pronouns were fairly important especially when deciphering parts of words that were hard to read from tattered pages of script and therefore partially dependent on their gender cases.
That is where I think we get the form 'us' as the divine pronoun. Which I think is much more correct then simply a second person singular. The pronoun 'he' must have been describing something other than a being, I think it was more likely a subject of a whole. The same way we generalize 'he'. eg. "A person is defined by his willingness to lead" or "One cannot pretend that he is different than another." This is very common also in other languages as well when generalizing a group of people, using masculinity as the default, not the exemption, for convenience sake as well to provide general understanding in relaying information during certain epochs and languages.
We get even more interesting hints from the next scripture I shared. In the creation of women, we hear that God took a rib from Adam. At first I thought this was merely folklore fable when it says He used a rib to create another human being. Many have just come to the conclusion that God can do anything even from a rib, but perhaps there is more reasoning we think. Consider these images:
This is the 23 pair of male chromosomes also know as XY pairing. The female is the XX pairing:
Now these images are a little too ideal, but the principles of xy and xx come from how these chromosomes appear.
Notice that Males chromosomes appear to lack, whereas Females do not. Doesn't it almost seem that Males had 'a rib' like structure taken out of their chromosomal composition? (Don't humans have 24 ribs - 1= 23?. Hmmm?)
Now I believe that it was during Adam's anesthesia induced slumber that God used 'splicing' techniques in order to create Eve and only then Adam became Man as we know (xy). Not before. Now I know what you might think "Wasn't the word 'man' used before the creation of woman in the Bible?" Technically yes, however, with context, it doesn't contradict the Bible, only perhaps skew its chronology a bit (which by the way is vague anyways during the first couple of chapters so give me a break) and point of view (which we have to remember that there was an author to the Bible writing in past tense so the usage of 'man' could have been in reference to the authors point of view as well as man used as the general 'mankind' ). Adam, known at that point as man as they didn't have another word for his creation, would have to most likely start out as being created with God's omnigender prior, and only after the operation did he gain his male and Eve her female.
The interesting part of that is: if this were true, than God's DNA (remember that God breathed into man to create Adam) would be partially in man and partially in woman. The combination of which would match God's. It could also explain why women tend to have more of spiritual nature and are typically closer to God because they have the part which men lack. The part that was given to them from Adam's prior omnigender.
Aside from that, I believe the unity of man and woman is God. Only the combination of the sexes in perfect harmony, applying the difference in both create the whole, which is God. Perhaps even a omnigender could be created by finding the exact splices and reuniting them again. Perhaps, that is what happened in Jesus's case, but I digress.
Anyway I know this OP was a long one and there still is more to discover about God, but I don't think we should think that He is superior because he a certain humanistic gender. I think we should be careful to apply attributes of superiority in our selves because of what we think the Bible teaches. Great things have always happened when both sexes were involved working together and in turn getting closer to God. I believe that if we understand God designed us very complementary to each other's sex we would try far better to accept our weaknesses and rely on our strengths because we are both one in the same. Together we are God.
26. 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.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And Genesis 2: 21-23
21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
I want to focus on these two scriptures even though I can dig up support for the nature of God that doesn't coincide as simply masculine as we might typically think.
In the first scripture, we see that God uses the pronoun us. Which I'm sure is already a subject of many scholarly reports as the meaning of use in this context, but I want to take it with the next sentence. 'So God created man in 'his' own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
We see that immediately it jumps from the pronoun 'us' to the possessive pronoun 'his' and later 'him and he'.
The pronouns are apparently masculine, which can distract us from the next part: 'Male and Female created he them'
it is my position that due to God creating 'male and female', he could not have belonged to any of those gender roles or types. Remember it doesn't say God created 'man and woman' in this part, it says that he created 'male and female' Man and women were only a product of these supporting genders.
Still, the usage of pronouns were fairly important especially when deciphering parts of words that were hard to read from tattered pages of script and therefore partially dependent on their gender cases.
That is where I think we get the form 'us' as the divine pronoun. Which I think is much more correct then simply a second person singular. The pronoun 'he' must have been describing something other than a being, I think it was more likely a subject of a whole. The same way we generalize 'he'. eg. "A person is defined by his willingness to lead" or "One cannot pretend that he is different than another." This is very common also in other languages as well when generalizing a group of people, using masculinity as the default, not the exemption, for convenience sake as well to provide general understanding in relaying information during certain epochs and languages.
We get even more interesting hints from the next scripture I shared. In the creation of women, we hear that God took a rib from Adam. At first I thought this was merely folklore fable when it says He used a rib to create another human being. Many have just come to the conclusion that God can do anything even from a rib, but perhaps there is more reasoning we think. Consider these images:
This is the 23 pair of male chromosomes also know as XY pairing. The female is the XX pairing:
Now these images are a little too ideal, but the principles of xy and xx come from how these chromosomes appear.
Notice that Males chromosomes appear to lack, whereas Females do not. Doesn't it almost seem that Males had 'a rib' like structure taken out of their chromosomal composition? (Don't humans have 24 ribs - 1= 23?. Hmmm?)
Now I believe that it was during Adam's anesthesia induced slumber that God used 'splicing' techniques in order to create Eve and only then Adam became Man as we know (xy). Not before. Now I know what you might think "Wasn't the word 'man' used before the creation of woman in the Bible?" Technically yes, however, with context, it doesn't contradict the Bible, only perhaps skew its chronology a bit (which by the way is vague anyways during the first couple of chapters so give me a break) and point of view (which we have to remember that there was an author to the Bible writing in past tense so the usage of 'man' could have been in reference to the authors point of view as well as man used as the general 'mankind' ). Adam, known at that point as man as they didn't have another word for his creation, would have to most likely start out as being created with God's omnigender prior, and only after the operation did he gain his male and Eve her female.
The interesting part of that is: if this were true, than God's DNA (remember that God breathed into man to create Adam) would be partially in man and partially in woman. The combination of which would match God's. It could also explain why women tend to have more of spiritual nature and are typically closer to God because they have the part which men lack. The part that was given to them from Adam's prior omnigender.
Aside from that, I believe the unity of man and woman is God. Only the combination of the sexes in perfect harmony, applying the difference in both create the whole, which is God. Perhaps even a omnigender could be created by finding the exact splices and reuniting them again. Perhaps, that is what happened in Jesus's case, but I digress.
Anyway I know this OP was a long one and there still is more to discover about God, but I don't think we should think that He is superior because he a certain humanistic gender. I think we should be careful to apply attributes of superiority in our selves because of what we think the Bible teaches. Great things have always happened when both sexes were involved working together and in turn getting closer to God. I believe that if we understand God designed us very complementary to each other's sex we would try far better to accept our weaknesses and rely on our strengths because we are both one in the same. Together we are God.
