Dovegiven : And anyone else interested :
You failed to mention birds, fish, etc were included in the list, so you are making too much of the male/female human connection.
I think the thrust of what I wrote makes clear perfectly that any facsimile was forbidden, birds, fish, ‘anything in the heavens or on the earth’, including man or woman.
I think we may take it as read that the Triune Godhead, (assuming one believes God to be Triune), cannot be thought of in simple terms as if (they, he, she, it) were embodied entirely in ‘a man’. That is idolatrous thinking, making God in our own ‘male’ image.
One Member of the Godhead, namely Jesus was male, certainly, and may still be, though we don’t exactly know what glorified state the Son has assumed after his ascension into heaven and what that may entail as far as fleshly gender is concerned. Scripture seems noticably silent on the subject of his genitalia. Scripture also seems to be silent on the details of whether ‘The Father’ or ‘The Holy Spirit’ or the ‘Godhead as a whole’ is exclusively male, (unless one is inclined to take all Biblical metaphores quite literally). Therefore since ‘God’ is all three, to represent God as a man, suggesting that God has only male and no female characteristics (possessing even male genitalia) is a form of idolatry.
Metaphorically God is a ‘Father’ to all his creatures, but that need not entail God being some kind of ‘super man’ or suggest that God must be ‘male’. Metaphorically, according to scripture, God is ‘a rock’, ‘a mother eagle’, a ‘she bear protecting her cubs’, ‘a consuming fire’ and many other material entities, but God is not actually any of these material things. They are metaphores. God is just God. Being ‘Holy’ means being utterly, completely unique. A being only describable by using metaphores.
The feminist source you quote from using that verse out of context is grossly missing the point.
I was quoting from the good old KJV actually and as far as I am aware it is not ‘feminist’.
3Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb: 4And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you. Isa. 46:4-4 KJV
You wrote : Quote : “It is extremely poor exegesis to make that verse say God has a womb for bearing humans or breast-feeding like a woman does. Normal men don't do such things”.
Because you are an avowed ‘literalist’ I will excuse you for implying that I actually suggested what you claim. I did not! Further more I don’t believe the woman who cited that verse of scripture ever had that in mind either. It seems to be your contention though that God has male genitalia. If so, then that errant notion would arise as a result of your extreme ‘literalist’ interpretation of scripture on this subject, not from what scripture actually says.
The passage clearly demonstrates through the scripture, that ‘God’ (in total) or God (The Father), claims to have metaphorically, conceived, carried and delivered, Israel, (The Nation), (all incidentally exclusively female imagery), since it’s metaphorical ‘birth’.
The passage merely suggests that in addition to behaving ‘like a Father’, God also behaves ‘like a mother’.
Your comments regarding context are misplaced and irrelevant as to the salient fact that scripture here clearly attributes characteristic female ‘behaviour’ to God. God (according to scripture), does not ‘have a problem’ with behaving that way.
What scripture does not do, (but you seek to do, it seems by insisting on God’s ‘masculinity’), is attribute actual anatomical features to God. All such attributes are necessarily metaphorical, not literal. The idea of the Godhead actually having breasts is as ludicrous as the Godhead actually having a penis and scrotum.
The image received upon hearing those words is obviously of a chicken and chicks, not meant to conjure up the image of a woman gathering her children.
Try as I may I just cannot understand how you ever got the impression that I, or anyone else in this conversation had any notion whatever of the passage referring to a ‘woman and her children’. You seem to have an inexhaustible ability to misunderstand what I thought was clearly written.
Let me make it clear again then that the Hen and chicken metaphor is exactly that, a metaphor. Let me also put it on record for all ‘literalists’ that a scriptural metaphor is not a device for hiding the truth. It is a means of revealing the truth for those who have ‘eyes to see and ears to hear’. The Pharisees could not understand metaphorical meanings in the stories Jesus told, neither do the scripturally ‘dull witted’ in today’s society either.
If Jesus had a feminine side then that was the moment to make it clear. But He used a chicken.
What are you suggesting? That Jesus was 'making it clear' that he had a 'chicken' side? You know I really wonder if you understand how a metaphor is actually supposed to work. Perhaps that is why you hold such a low opinion of them when it comes to the conveying of 'truth'.
Yes! A chicken with chicks was the metaphor Jesus chose to use, just as he chose many others to illustrate the truths of the Kingdom, including a dragnet, a dishonest steward, an ungrateful debtor, trees, fields of corn, God as ‘Our Father’, coins, pearls of great price, treasure in fields, wayward sons, bereft Fathers etc. etc. etc. All metaphores of the spiritual realities they represent.
In fact if all the metaphors were taken out of the Bible, there would be very little of any value left behind. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “The truth about God is plainly written for anyone willing to accept God on God's terms”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . And for all that the plain truth is there to be found by anyone who can read or hear and understand parables, metaphors, similes, proverbs, poetry, stories and figures of speech.
Kind Regards - Chris.