Is it appropriate to refer to God as “It”? [closed]Is Political Correctness showing shame for our God?Why does Jesus refer to himself as the “Son of Man”?Is there any biblical justification for referring to God as Mother?How do we know to refer to the Holy Spirit as He?What are the good Bahasa / Malay / Indonesian words to refer to the Christian God?Do any Christian groups refer to God as “she”, “it” or “they”? (Or is it always “He”?)What is the Catholic explanation as to why God has revealed himself in “male” terms?Is there a name for The God Who Hears?Why is God considered by many to be a male?Where does Marsilio Ficino write that all nations refer to God with a four-letter name?

Why doesn't Dany protect her dragons better?

Company stopped my paying salary. What are my options?

logo selection for poster presentation

How would an instant or sorcery with an effect that targets work with Feather?

Two (probably) equal real numbers which are not proved to be equal?

Does this website provide consistent translation into Wookiee?

Is your maximum jump distance halved by grappling?

Why is the episode called "The Last of the Starks"?

Is there an application which does HTTP PUT?

Can the Telekinesis spell be used on yourself for the following?

What are my options legally if NYC company is not paying salary?

Is there a list of the most-transited airports in the world?

GLM: Modelling proportional data - account for variation in total sample size

What's an appropriate age to involve kids in life changing decisions?

Can a character shove an enemy who is already prone?

why it is 2>&1 and not 2>>&1 to append to a log file

Is it a good idea to copy a trader when investing?

Employee is self-centered and affects the team negatively

Can the president of the United States be guilty of insider trading?

Is there an idiom that means "revealing a secret unintentionally"?

Is it safe to keep the GPU on 100% utilization for a very long time?

"I can't place her": How do Russian speakers express this idea colloquially?

What will Doctor Strange protect now?

Partition error (Fdisk/Parted)



Is it appropriate to refer to God as “It”? [closed]


Is Political Correctness showing shame for our God?Why does Jesus refer to himself as the “Son of Man”?Is there any biblical justification for referring to God as Mother?How do we know to refer to the Holy Spirit as He?What are the good Bahasa / Malay / Indonesian words to refer to the Christian God?Do any Christian groups refer to God as “she”, “it” or “they”? (Or is it always “He”?)What is the Catholic explanation as to why God has revealed himself in “male” terms?Is there a name for The God Who Hears?Why is God considered by many to be a male?Where does Marsilio Ficino write that all nations refer to God with a four-letter name?













6















I have recently read in a book about some debate around the fact that God is considered a masculine figure (He/His) and that we should find gender neutral of expressing the same ideas.



In my native language it is very hard to do this (God is a masculine noun and it is also derived from Domine Deus which also sounds masculine).



However, English has the advantage of having "it". According to Wordnick, "it" usage guide is also:




Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified (..)




It sounds like a good fit, but I am wondering if this is ever appropriate or even offensive.



Question: Is it appropriate to refer to God as "It"?










share|improve this question













closed as primarily opinion-based by curiousdannii, depperm, KorvinStarmast, Nathaniel Apr 30 at 0:33


Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.






















    6















    I have recently read in a book about some debate around the fact that God is considered a masculine figure (He/His) and that we should find gender neutral of expressing the same ideas.



    In my native language it is very hard to do this (God is a masculine noun and it is also derived from Domine Deus which also sounds masculine).



    However, English has the advantage of having "it". According to Wordnick, "it" usage guide is also:




    Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified (..)




    It sounds like a good fit, but I am wondering if this is ever appropriate or even offensive.



    Question: Is it appropriate to refer to God as "It"?










    share|improve this question













    closed as primarily opinion-based by curiousdannii, depperm, KorvinStarmast, Nathaniel Apr 30 at 0:33


    Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




















      6












      6








      6


      2






      I have recently read in a book about some debate around the fact that God is considered a masculine figure (He/His) and that we should find gender neutral of expressing the same ideas.



      In my native language it is very hard to do this (God is a masculine noun and it is also derived from Domine Deus which also sounds masculine).



      However, English has the advantage of having "it". According to Wordnick, "it" usage guide is also:




      Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified (..)




      It sounds like a good fit, but I am wondering if this is ever appropriate or even offensive.



      Question: Is it appropriate to refer to God as "It"?










      share|improve this question














      I have recently read in a book about some debate around the fact that God is considered a masculine figure (He/His) and that we should find gender neutral of expressing the same ideas.



      In my native language it is very hard to do this (God is a masculine noun and it is also derived from Domine Deus which also sounds masculine).



      However, English has the advantage of having "it". According to Wordnick, "it" usage guide is also:




      Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified (..)




      It sounds like a good fit, but I am wondering if this is ever appropriate or even offensive.



      Question: Is it appropriate to refer to God as "It"?







      names-of-god gender political-correctness






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Apr 29 at 5:12









      AlexeiAlexei

      15617




      15617




      closed as primarily opinion-based by curiousdannii, depperm, KorvinStarmast, Nathaniel Apr 30 at 0:33


      Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









      closed as primarily opinion-based by curiousdannii, depperm, KorvinStarmast, Nathaniel Apr 30 at 0:33


      Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          22














          In English, the appropriate non-gender pronouns are 'they' and 'them', but this construction is clumsy if people attempt to use it all the time. It simply does not work as a substitute. It does not adequately express person.



          Babies are sometimes referred to as 'it' because, I suppose, their personality is not yet apparent. But, no, it is not appropriate in English (and, yes, it is offensive) to call a person 'it'. English just does not work like that.



          When a voice was heard from heaven saying :




          This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. [Matthew 17:5 KJV] ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα αυτου ακουετε




          the voice used the masculine gender pronoun, αυτου - 'him'.



          I think that should be respected. Throughout the Hebrew and Greek scripture - God's revelation of himself - the masculine pronoun is used.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 3





            It's not at all clumsy... just ask the trans community. Works pretty well for all the non-binaries who identify with it.

            – Adonalsium
            Apr 29 at 13:34






          • 1





            I'm old enough to remember when the non-gender (singular) pronouns were "he" and "him". ("They" and "them" were plural, which was not gendered.) That is to say that when referring to a person of unknown/unspecified gender, the "masculine" pronouns were used. Thus, when "she" and "her" were used, it was in reference to someone explicitly known to be female. This is no longer the case. But it was the case when nearly all English translations were done.

            – Monty Harder
            Apr 29 at 20:33






          • 2





            @MontyHarder, You're really 700 years old? The use of singular "they" dates back to about the 14th century, and was used by such notable authors as Shakespeare.

            – Mark
            Apr 29 at 22:26






          • 1





            @Mark Monty is not saying that "they" was never used: just that it wasn't the popular solution. Generally it was (as in most translations of the Bible still) that "he" was used to mean either "he" or "she" in general cases. ("My Brothers" probably doesn't exclude sisters.)

            – Cullub
            Apr 29 at 22:40






          • 1





            @Cullub : and even now it isn't, it's just a very load minority who wants to rewrite grammar every decade or so, and pretend that it's some kind of law.

            – vsz
            Apr 29 at 23:36


















          12














          We should refer to God in the manner God wants us to refer to God (not using a pronoun here intentionally).



          The first time we see a pronoun for God is in Genesis 1:5 (NASB)




          1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night and there was evening and there was morning, one day.




          Now one might say that this is how Moses (considered the author of Genesis) referred to God.



          So we can look at how each Person of the Trinity referred to the other. Let's refer to them as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity.



          1st Person sends a message about 2nd Person through an angel to Joseph:




          Matthew 1:21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus,
          for He will save His people from their sins." (NASB)




          2nd Person (named Jesus) speaks about the 1st Person as "Father":




          Matthew 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.




          2nd Person speaks about the 3rd Person (Holy Spirit - see below) and refers to "He" and "Him":




          John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
          in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your
          remembrance all that I said to you.(NASB)




          Further, per the complete revelation of the Bible, Christ will come back for wedding His corporate bride (Rev 19:7). And He is the bridegroom (John 3:29).






          share|improve this answer




















          • 4





            The Greek for John 14:16, 17 uses the neuter gender for the pronouns referring to the holy spirit, not masculine pronouns. This is because the Greek word for "spirit" is of the neuter gender. However, in verse 26, it does use a masculine pronoun, because the Greek word for "helper" is a masculine noun.

            – 4castle
            Apr 29 at 12:36











          • @4castle: Thanks for your comment. What about Helper mentioned in verse 16? It seems to be Masculine too.

            – P.W
            Apr 29 at 12:56











          • @4castle: "...that He may be with you forever". The "He" refers to the Holy Spirit. Unlike Jesus who was with them for only a few years, the "Holy Spirit" would be with the forever.

            – P.W
            Apr 29 at 13:15


















          5














          This is as much a theological as a linguistic question, not least a question of other languages than English — in particular Hebrew — and their translation.



          Canonical English as well as canonical Christianity unequivocally assign a male gender to the Jewish/Christian god. On the other hand, if you are looking for answers beyond the canon, all bets are off: How we speak and what we believe is ultimately our own decision. By the way, the linguistic question is quite interesting, not least because Hebrew does not have a neuter and one of the words used for God, Elohim, is plural.



          You also may find an article in the New York Times by Rabbi Mark Sameth interesting. He argued that there is more gender fluidity to God than one might think.






          share|improve this answer























          • Agreed. What's more the Hebrew holy Name introduced in Genesis 2 is a form of the first-person singular indicative of the verb to be. That Name is rendered Lord with small caps in English translation, and observant Jews avoid speaking it. There's no gender-revealing inflection on it. In John's Gospel Jesus sometimes speaks the words ἐγώ εἰμι, rendered into English as "I am he," but close in meaning to the Name. Humility is a good start when we try to fit the holy One into human categories. Can we live with the mystery of the holy nature?

            – O. Jones
            Apr 29 at 20:24











          • @O.Jones Regarding ἐγώ εἰμι: If we think that Jesus indeed said that, it is probably already a translation -- I assume Jesus (usually) spoke Hebrew?

            – Peter A. Schneider
            Apr 30 at 5:00


















          2














          No, “It” is inappropriate because God neither inanimate nor an animal.



          One fairly common practice is to avoid using the pronoun altogether. As a matter of style, it takes a lot of thought to pull this off well, but it doesn't necessarily require awkward English. You can do a lot with strategic passives, controlling your sentence structure, etc. A mild consequence is that sentences come across as awkwardly emphatic. “God will accomplish God's purposes.” The alternative to the reflexive pronoun is “Godself,” like “God can speak for Godself.” That's a neologism, and therefore could serve as an intention way to communicate one's position on the matter.



          It is a reasonable question, but obviously a politically charged one, whether using a masculine pronoun for God meaningfully affects people's perceptions of God. People differ as well in their perceptions of English style, so it is good to be charitable in assessing other people's writing. (On a separate gender issue, I prefer to use a generic feminine, or to alternate between masculine and feminine, rather than use singular “their.”)






          share|improve this answer





























            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes








            4 Answers
            4






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            22














            In English, the appropriate non-gender pronouns are 'they' and 'them', but this construction is clumsy if people attempt to use it all the time. It simply does not work as a substitute. It does not adequately express person.



            Babies are sometimes referred to as 'it' because, I suppose, their personality is not yet apparent. But, no, it is not appropriate in English (and, yes, it is offensive) to call a person 'it'. English just does not work like that.



            When a voice was heard from heaven saying :




            This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. [Matthew 17:5 KJV] ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα αυτου ακουετε




            the voice used the masculine gender pronoun, αυτου - 'him'.



            I think that should be respected. Throughout the Hebrew and Greek scripture - God's revelation of himself - the masculine pronoun is used.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 3





              It's not at all clumsy... just ask the trans community. Works pretty well for all the non-binaries who identify with it.

              – Adonalsium
              Apr 29 at 13:34






            • 1





              I'm old enough to remember when the non-gender (singular) pronouns were "he" and "him". ("They" and "them" were plural, which was not gendered.) That is to say that when referring to a person of unknown/unspecified gender, the "masculine" pronouns were used. Thus, when "she" and "her" were used, it was in reference to someone explicitly known to be female. This is no longer the case. But it was the case when nearly all English translations were done.

              – Monty Harder
              Apr 29 at 20:33






            • 2





              @MontyHarder, You're really 700 years old? The use of singular "they" dates back to about the 14th century, and was used by such notable authors as Shakespeare.

              – Mark
              Apr 29 at 22:26






            • 1





              @Mark Monty is not saying that "they" was never used: just that it wasn't the popular solution. Generally it was (as in most translations of the Bible still) that "he" was used to mean either "he" or "she" in general cases. ("My Brothers" probably doesn't exclude sisters.)

              – Cullub
              Apr 29 at 22:40






            • 1





              @Cullub : and even now it isn't, it's just a very load minority who wants to rewrite grammar every decade or so, and pretend that it's some kind of law.

              – vsz
              Apr 29 at 23:36















            22














            In English, the appropriate non-gender pronouns are 'they' and 'them', but this construction is clumsy if people attempt to use it all the time. It simply does not work as a substitute. It does not adequately express person.



            Babies are sometimes referred to as 'it' because, I suppose, their personality is not yet apparent. But, no, it is not appropriate in English (and, yes, it is offensive) to call a person 'it'. English just does not work like that.



            When a voice was heard from heaven saying :




            This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. [Matthew 17:5 KJV] ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα αυτου ακουετε




            the voice used the masculine gender pronoun, αυτου - 'him'.



            I think that should be respected. Throughout the Hebrew and Greek scripture - God's revelation of himself - the masculine pronoun is used.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 3





              It's not at all clumsy... just ask the trans community. Works pretty well for all the non-binaries who identify with it.

              – Adonalsium
              Apr 29 at 13:34






            • 1





              I'm old enough to remember when the non-gender (singular) pronouns were "he" and "him". ("They" and "them" were plural, which was not gendered.) That is to say that when referring to a person of unknown/unspecified gender, the "masculine" pronouns were used. Thus, when "she" and "her" were used, it was in reference to someone explicitly known to be female. This is no longer the case. But it was the case when nearly all English translations were done.

              – Monty Harder
              Apr 29 at 20:33






            • 2





              @MontyHarder, You're really 700 years old? The use of singular "they" dates back to about the 14th century, and was used by such notable authors as Shakespeare.

              – Mark
              Apr 29 at 22:26






            • 1





              @Mark Monty is not saying that "they" was never used: just that it wasn't the popular solution. Generally it was (as in most translations of the Bible still) that "he" was used to mean either "he" or "she" in general cases. ("My Brothers" probably doesn't exclude sisters.)

              – Cullub
              Apr 29 at 22:40






            • 1





              @Cullub : and even now it isn't, it's just a very load minority who wants to rewrite grammar every decade or so, and pretend that it's some kind of law.

              – vsz
              Apr 29 at 23:36













            22












            22








            22







            In English, the appropriate non-gender pronouns are 'they' and 'them', but this construction is clumsy if people attempt to use it all the time. It simply does not work as a substitute. It does not adequately express person.



            Babies are sometimes referred to as 'it' because, I suppose, their personality is not yet apparent. But, no, it is not appropriate in English (and, yes, it is offensive) to call a person 'it'. English just does not work like that.



            When a voice was heard from heaven saying :




            This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. [Matthew 17:5 KJV] ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα αυτου ακουετε




            the voice used the masculine gender pronoun, αυτου - 'him'.



            I think that should be respected. Throughout the Hebrew and Greek scripture - God's revelation of himself - the masculine pronoun is used.






            share|improve this answer















            In English, the appropriate non-gender pronouns are 'they' and 'them', but this construction is clumsy if people attempt to use it all the time. It simply does not work as a substitute. It does not adequately express person.



            Babies are sometimes referred to as 'it' because, I suppose, their personality is not yet apparent. But, no, it is not appropriate in English (and, yes, it is offensive) to call a person 'it'. English just does not work like that.



            When a voice was heard from heaven saying :




            This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. [Matthew 17:5 KJV] ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα αυτου ακουετε




            the voice used the masculine gender pronoun, αυτου - 'him'.



            I think that should be respected. Throughout the Hebrew and Greek scripture - God's revelation of himself - the masculine pronoun is used.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 29 at 9:02

























            answered Apr 29 at 8:57









            Nigel JNigel J

            4,2051416




            4,2051416







            • 3





              It's not at all clumsy... just ask the trans community. Works pretty well for all the non-binaries who identify with it.

              – Adonalsium
              Apr 29 at 13:34






            • 1





              I'm old enough to remember when the non-gender (singular) pronouns were "he" and "him". ("They" and "them" were plural, which was not gendered.) That is to say that when referring to a person of unknown/unspecified gender, the "masculine" pronouns were used. Thus, when "she" and "her" were used, it was in reference to someone explicitly known to be female. This is no longer the case. But it was the case when nearly all English translations were done.

              – Monty Harder
              Apr 29 at 20:33






            • 2





              @MontyHarder, You're really 700 years old? The use of singular "they" dates back to about the 14th century, and was used by such notable authors as Shakespeare.

              – Mark
              Apr 29 at 22:26






            • 1





              @Mark Monty is not saying that "they" was never used: just that it wasn't the popular solution. Generally it was (as in most translations of the Bible still) that "he" was used to mean either "he" or "she" in general cases. ("My Brothers" probably doesn't exclude sisters.)

              – Cullub
              Apr 29 at 22:40






            • 1





              @Cullub : and even now it isn't, it's just a very load minority who wants to rewrite grammar every decade or so, and pretend that it's some kind of law.

              – vsz
              Apr 29 at 23:36












            • 3





              It's not at all clumsy... just ask the trans community. Works pretty well for all the non-binaries who identify with it.

              – Adonalsium
              Apr 29 at 13:34






            • 1





              I'm old enough to remember when the non-gender (singular) pronouns were "he" and "him". ("They" and "them" were plural, which was not gendered.) That is to say that when referring to a person of unknown/unspecified gender, the "masculine" pronouns were used. Thus, when "she" and "her" were used, it was in reference to someone explicitly known to be female. This is no longer the case. But it was the case when nearly all English translations were done.

              – Monty Harder
              Apr 29 at 20:33






            • 2





              @MontyHarder, You're really 700 years old? The use of singular "they" dates back to about the 14th century, and was used by such notable authors as Shakespeare.

              – Mark
              Apr 29 at 22:26






            • 1





              @Mark Monty is not saying that "they" was never used: just that it wasn't the popular solution. Generally it was (as in most translations of the Bible still) that "he" was used to mean either "he" or "she" in general cases. ("My Brothers" probably doesn't exclude sisters.)

              – Cullub
              Apr 29 at 22:40






            • 1





              @Cullub : and even now it isn't, it's just a very load minority who wants to rewrite grammar every decade or so, and pretend that it's some kind of law.

              – vsz
              Apr 29 at 23:36







            3




            3





            It's not at all clumsy... just ask the trans community. Works pretty well for all the non-binaries who identify with it.

            – Adonalsium
            Apr 29 at 13:34





            It's not at all clumsy... just ask the trans community. Works pretty well for all the non-binaries who identify with it.

            – Adonalsium
            Apr 29 at 13:34




            1




            1





            I'm old enough to remember when the non-gender (singular) pronouns were "he" and "him". ("They" and "them" were plural, which was not gendered.) That is to say that when referring to a person of unknown/unspecified gender, the "masculine" pronouns were used. Thus, when "she" and "her" were used, it was in reference to someone explicitly known to be female. This is no longer the case. But it was the case when nearly all English translations were done.

            – Monty Harder
            Apr 29 at 20:33





            I'm old enough to remember when the non-gender (singular) pronouns were "he" and "him". ("They" and "them" were plural, which was not gendered.) That is to say that when referring to a person of unknown/unspecified gender, the "masculine" pronouns were used. Thus, when "she" and "her" were used, it was in reference to someone explicitly known to be female. This is no longer the case. But it was the case when nearly all English translations were done.

            – Monty Harder
            Apr 29 at 20:33




            2




            2





            @MontyHarder, You're really 700 years old? The use of singular "they" dates back to about the 14th century, and was used by such notable authors as Shakespeare.

            – Mark
            Apr 29 at 22:26





            @MontyHarder, You're really 700 years old? The use of singular "they" dates back to about the 14th century, and was used by such notable authors as Shakespeare.

            – Mark
            Apr 29 at 22:26




            1




            1





            @Mark Monty is not saying that "they" was never used: just that it wasn't the popular solution. Generally it was (as in most translations of the Bible still) that "he" was used to mean either "he" or "she" in general cases. ("My Brothers" probably doesn't exclude sisters.)

            – Cullub
            Apr 29 at 22:40





            @Mark Monty is not saying that "they" was never used: just that it wasn't the popular solution. Generally it was (as in most translations of the Bible still) that "he" was used to mean either "he" or "she" in general cases. ("My Brothers" probably doesn't exclude sisters.)

            – Cullub
            Apr 29 at 22:40




            1




            1





            @Cullub : and even now it isn't, it's just a very load minority who wants to rewrite grammar every decade or so, and pretend that it's some kind of law.

            – vsz
            Apr 29 at 23:36





            @Cullub : and even now it isn't, it's just a very load minority who wants to rewrite grammar every decade or so, and pretend that it's some kind of law.

            – vsz
            Apr 29 at 23:36











            12














            We should refer to God in the manner God wants us to refer to God (not using a pronoun here intentionally).



            The first time we see a pronoun for God is in Genesis 1:5 (NASB)




            1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night and there was evening and there was morning, one day.




            Now one might say that this is how Moses (considered the author of Genesis) referred to God.



            So we can look at how each Person of the Trinity referred to the other. Let's refer to them as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity.



            1st Person sends a message about 2nd Person through an angel to Joseph:




            Matthew 1:21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus,
            for He will save His people from their sins." (NASB)




            2nd Person (named Jesus) speaks about the 1st Person as "Father":




            Matthew 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.




            2nd Person speaks about the 3rd Person (Holy Spirit - see below) and refers to "He" and "Him":




            John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
            in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your
            remembrance all that I said to you.(NASB)




            Further, per the complete revelation of the Bible, Christ will come back for wedding His corporate bride (Rev 19:7). And He is the bridegroom (John 3:29).






            share|improve this answer




















            • 4





              The Greek for John 14:16, 17 uses the neuter gender for the pronouns referring to the holy spirit, not masculine pronouns. This is because the Greek word for "spirit" is of the neuter gender. However, in verse 26, it does use a masculine pronoun, because the Greek word for "helper" is a masculine noun.

              – 4castle
              Apr 29 at 12:36











            • @4castle: Thanks for your comment. What about Helper mentioned in verse 16? It seems to be Masculine too.

              – P.W
              Apr 29 at 12:56











            • @4castle: "...that He may be with you forever". The "He" refers to the Holy Spirit. Unlike Jesus who was with them for only a few years, the "Holy Spirit" would be with the forever.

              – P.W
              Apr 29 at 13:15















            12














            We should refer to God in the manner God wants us to refer to God (not using a pronoun here intentionally).



            The first time we see a pronoun for God is in Genesis 1:5 (NASB)




            1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night and there was evening and there was morning, one day.




            Now one might say that this is how Moses (considered the author of Genesis) referred to God.



            So we can look at how each Person of the Trinity referred to the other. Let's refer to them as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity.



            1st Person sends a message about 2nd Person through an angel to Joseph:




            Matthew 1:21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus,
            for He will save His people from their sins." (NASB)




            2nd Person (named Jesus) speaks about the 1st Person as "Father":




            Matthew 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.




            2nd Person speaks about the 3rd Person (Holy Spirit - see below) and refers to "He" and "Him":




            John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
            in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your
            remembrance all that I said to you.(NASB)




            Further, per the complete revelation of the Bible, Christ will come back for wedding His corporate bride (Rev 19:7). And He is the bridegroom (John 3:29).






            share|improve this answer




















            • 4





              The Greek for John 14:16, 17 uses the neuter gender for the pronouns referring to the holy spirit, not masculine pronouns. This is because the Greek word for "spirit" is of the neuter gender. However, in verse 26, it does use a masculine pronoun, because the Greek word for "helper" is a masculine noun.

              – 4castle
              Apr 29 at 12:36











            • @4castle: Thanks for your comment. What about Helper mentioned in verse 16? It seems to be Masculine too.

              – P.W
              Apr 29 at 12:56











            • @4castle: "...that He may be with you forever". The "He" refers to the Holy Spirit. Unlike Jesus who was with them for only a few years, the "Holy Spirit" would be with the forever.

              – P.W
              Apr 29 at 13:15













            12












            12








            12







            We should refer to God in the manner God wants us to refer to God (not using a pronoun here intentionally).



            The first time we see a pronoun for God is in Genesis 1:5 (NASB)




            1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night and there was evening and there was morning, one day.




            Now one might say that this is how Moses (considered the author of Genesis) referred to God.



            So we can look at how each Person of the Trinity referred to the other. Let's refer to them as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity.



            1st Person sends a message about 2nd Person through an angel to Joseph:




            Matthew 1:21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus,
            for He will save His people from their sins." (NASB)




            2nd Person (named Jesus) speaks about the 1st Person as "Father":




            Matthew 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.




            2nd Person speaks about the 3rd Person (Holy Spirit - see below) and refers to "He" and "Him":




            John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
            in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your
            remembrance all that I said to you.(NASB)




            Further, per the complete revelation of the Bible, Christ will come back for wedding His corporate bride (Rev 19:7). And He is the bridegroom (John 3:29).






            share|improve this answer















            We should refer to God in the manner God wants us to refer to God (not using a pronoun here intentionally).



            The first time we see a pronoun for God is in Genesis 1:5 (NASB)




            1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night and there was evening and there was morning, one day.




            Now one might say that this is how Moses (considered the author of Genesis) referred to God.



            So we can look at how each Person of the Trinity referred to the other. Let's refer to them as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd persons of the Trinity.



            1st Person sends a message about 2nd Person through an angel to Joseph:




            Matthew 1:21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus,
            for He will save His people from their sins." (NASB)




            2nd Person (named Jesus) speaks about the 1st Person as "Father":




            Matthew 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.




            2nd Person speaks about the 3rd Person (Holy Spirit - see below) and refers to "He" and "Him":




            John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send
            in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your
            remembrance all that I said to you.(NASB)




            Further, per the complete revelation of the Bible, Christ will come back for wedding His corporate bride (Rev 19:7). And He is the bridegroom (John 3:29).







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 29 at 13:22

























            answered Apr 29 at 10:57









            P.WP.W

            2619




            2619







            • 4





              The Greek for John 14:16, 17 uses the neuter gender for the pronouns referring to the holy spirit, not masculine pronouns. This is because the Greek word for "spirit" is of the neuter gender. However, in verse 26, it does use a masculine pronoun, because the Greek word for "helper" is a masculine noun.

              – 4castle
              Apr 29 at 12:36











            • @4castle: Thanks for your comment. What about Helper mentioned in verse 16? It seems to be Masculine too.

              – P.W
              Apr 29 at 12:56











            • @4castle: "...that He may be with you forever". The "He" refers to the Holy Spirit. Unlike Jesus who was with them for only a few years, the "Holy Spirit" would be with the forever.

              – P.W
              Apr 29 at 13:15












            • 4





              The Greek for John 14:16, 17 uses the neuter gender for the pronouns referring to the holy spirit, not masculine pronouns. This is because the Greek word for "spirit" is of the neuter gender. However, in verse 26, it does use a masculine pronoun, because the Greek word for "helper" is a masculine noun.

              – 4castle
              Apr 29 at 12:36











            • @4castle: Thanks for your comment. What about Helper mentioned in verse 16? It seems to be Masculine too.

              – P.W
              Apr 29 at 12:56











            • @4castle: "...that He may be with you forever". The "He" refers to the Holy Spirit. Unlike Jesus who was with them for only a few years, the "Holy Spirit" would be with the forever.

              – P.W
              Apr 29 at 13:15







            4




            4





            The Greek for John 14:16, 17 uses the neuter gender for the pronouns referring to the holy spirit, not masculine pronouns. This is because the Greek word for "spirit" is of the neuter gender. However, in verse 26, it does use a masculine pronoun, because the Greek word for "helper" is a masculine noun.

            – 4castle
            Apr 29 at 12:36





            The Greek for John 14:16, 17 uses the neuter gender for the pronouns referring to the holy spirit, not masculine pronouns. This is because the Greek word for "spirit" is of the neuter gender. However, in verse 26, it does use a masculine pronoun, because the Greek word for "helper" is a masculine noun.

            – 4castle
            Apr 29 at 12:36













            @4castle: Thanks for your comment. What about Helper mentioned in verse 16? It seems to be Masculine too.

            – P.W
            Apr 29 at 12:56





            @4castle: Thanks for your comment. What about Helper mentioned in verse 16? It seems to be Masculine too.

            – P.W
            Apr 29 at 12:56













            @4castle: "...that He may be with you forever". The "He" refers to the Holy Spirit. Unlike Jesus who was with them for only a few years, the "Holy Spirit" would be with the forever.

            – P.W
            Apr 29 at 13:15





            @4castle: "...that He may be with you forever". The "He" refers to the Holy Spirit. Unlike Jesus who was with them for only a few years, the "Holy Spirit" would be with the forever.

            – P.W
            Apr 29 at 13:15











            5














            This is as much a theological as a linguistic question, not least a question of other languages than English — in particular Hebrew — and their translation.



            Canonical English as well as canonical Christianity unequivocally assign a male gender to the Jewish/Christian god. On the other hand, if you are looking for answers beyond the canon, all bets are off: How we speak and what we believe is ultimately our own decision. By the way, the linguistic question is quite interesting, not least because Hebrew does not have a neuter and one of the words used for God, Elohim, is plural.



            You also may find an article in the New York Times by Rabbi Mark Sameth interesting. He argued that there is more gender fluidity to God than one might think.






            share|improve this answer























            • Agreed. What's more the Hebrew holy Name introduced in Genesis 2 is a form of the first-person singular indicative of the verb to be. That Name is rendered Lord with small caps in English translation, and observant Jews avoid speaking it. There's no gender-revealing inflection on it. In John's Gospel Jesus sometimes speaks the words ἐγώ εἰμι, rendered into English as "I am he," but close in meaning to the Name. Humility is a good start when we try to fit the holy One into human categories. Can we live with the mystery of the holy nature?

              – O. Jones
              Apr 29 at 20:24











            • @O.Jones Regarding ἐγώ εἰμι: If we think that Jesus indeed said that, it is probably already a translation -- I assume Jesus (usually) spoke Hebrew?

              – Peter A. Schneider
              Apr 30 at 5:00















            5














            This is as much a theological as a linguistic question, not least a question of other languages than English — in particular Hebrew — and their translation.



            Canonical English as well as canonical Christianity unequivocally assign a male gender to the Jewish/Christian god. On the other hand, if you are looking for answers beyond the canon, all bets are off: How we speak and what we believe is ultimately our own decision. By the way, the linguistic question is quite interesting, not least because Hebrew does not have a neuter and one of the words used for God, Elohim, is plural.



            You also may find an article in the New York Times by Rabbi Mark Sameth interesting. He argued that there is more gender fluidity to God than one might think.






            share|improve this answer























            • Agreed. What's more the Hebrew holy Name introduced in Genesis 2 is a form of the first-person singular indicative of the verb to be. That Name is rendered Lord with small caps in English translation, and observant Jews avoid speaking it. There's no gender-revealing inflection on it. In John's Gospel Jesus sometimes speaks the words ἐγώ εἰμι, rendered into English as "I am he," but close in meaning to the Name. Humility is a good start when we try to fit the holy One into human categories. Can we live with the mystery of the holy nature?

              – O. Jones
              Apr 29 at 20:24











            • @O.Jones Regarding ἐγώ εἰμι: If we think that Jesus indeed said that, it is probably already a translation -- I assume Jesus (usually) spoke Hebrew?

              – Peter A. Schneider
              Apr 30 at 5:00













            5












            5








            5







            This is as much a theological as a linguistic question, not least a question of other languages than English — in particular Hebrew — and their translation.



            Canonical English as well as canonical Christianity unequivocally assign a male gender to the Jewish/Christian god. On the other hand, if you are looking for answers beyond the canon, all bets are off: How we speak and what we believe is ultimately our own decision. By the way, the linguistic question is quite interesting, not least because Hebrew does not have a neuter and one of the words used for God, Elohim, is plural.



            You also may find an article in the New York Times by Rabbi Mark Sameth interesting. He argued that there is more gender fluidity to God than one might think.






            share|improve this answer













            This is as much a theological as a linguistic question, not least a question of other languages than English — in particular Hebrew — and their translation.



            Canonical English as well as canonical Christianity unequivocally assign a male gender to the Jewish/Christian god. On the other hand, if you are looking for answers beyond the canon, all bets are off: How we speak and what we believe is ultimately our own decision. By the way, the linguistic question is quite interesting, not least because Hebrew does not have a neuter and one of the words used for God, Elohim, is plural.



            You also may find an article in the New York Times by Rabbi Mark Sameth interesting. He argued that there is more gender fluidity to God than one might think.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Apr 29 at 12:51









            Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider

            1514




            1514












            • Agreed. What's more the Hebrew holy Name introduced in Genesis 2 is a form of the first-person singular indicative of the verb to be. That Name is rendered Lord with small caps in English translation, and observant Jews avoid speaking it. There's no gender-revealing inflection on it. In John's Gospel Jesus sometimes speaks the words ἐγώ εἰμι, rendered into English as "I am he," but close in meaning to the Name. Humility is a good start when we try to fit the holy One into human categories. Can we live with the mystery of the holy nature?

              – O. Jones
              Apr 29 at 20:24











            • @O.Jones Regarding ἐγώ εἰμι: If we think that Jesus indeed said that, it is probably already a translation -- I assume Jesus (usually) spoke Hebrew?

              – Peter A. Schneider
              Apr 30 at 5:00

















            • Agreed. What's more the Hebrew holy Name introduced in Genesis 2 is a form of the first-person singular indicative of the verb to be. That Name is rendered Lord with small caps in English translation, and observant Jews avoid speaking it. There's no gender-revealing inflection on it. In John's Gospel Jesus sometimes speaks the words ἐγώ εἰμι, rendered into English as "I am he," but close in meaning to the Name. Humility is a good start when we try to fit the holy One into human categories. Can we live with the mystery of the holy nature?

              – O. Jones
              Apr 29 at 20:24











            • @O.Jones Regarding ἐγώ εἰμι: If we think that Jesus indeed said that, it is probably already a translation -- I assume Jesus (usually) spoke Hebrew?

              – Peter A. Schneider
              Apr 30 at 5:00
















            Agreed. What's more the Hebrew holy Name introduced in Genesis 2 is a form of the first-person singular indicative of the verb to be. That Name is rendered Lord with small caps in English translation, and observant Jews avoid speaking it. There's no gender-revealing inflection on it. In John's Gospel Jesus sometimes speaks the words ἐγώ εἰμι, rendered into English as "I am he," but close in meaning to the Name. Humility is a good start when we try to fit the holy One into human categories. Can we live with the mystery of the holy nature?

            – O. Jones
            Apr 29 at 20:24





            Agreed. What's more the Hebrew holy Name introduced in Genesis 2 is a form of the first-person singular indicative of the verb to be. That Name is rendered Lord with small caps in English translation, and observant Jews avoid speaking it. There's no gender-revealing inflection on it. In John's Gospel Jesus sometimes speaks the words ἐγώ εἰμι, rendered into English as "I am he," but close in meaning to the Name. Humility is a good start when we try to fit the holy One into human categories. Can we live with the mystery of the holy nature?

            – O. Jones
            Apr 29 at 20:24













            @O.Jones Regarding ἐγώ εἰμι: If we think that Jesus indeed said that, it is probably already a translation -- I assume Jesus (usually) spoke Hebrew?

            – Peter A. Schneider
            Apr 30 at 5:00





            @O.Jones Regarding ἐγώ εἰμι: If we think that Jesus indeed said that, it is probably already a translation -- I assume Jesus (usually) spoke Hebrew?

            – Peter A. Schneider
            Apr 30 at 5:00











            2














            No, “It” is inappropriate because God neither inanimate nor an animal.



            One fairly common practice is to avoid using the pronoun altogether. As a matter of style, it takes a lot of thought to pull this off well, but it doesn't necessarily require awkward English. You can do a lot with strategic passives, controlling your sentence structure, etc. A mild consequence is that sentences come across as awkwardly emphatic. “God will accomplish God's purposes.” The alternative to the reflexive pronoun is “Godself,” like “God can speak for Godself.” That's a neologism, and therefore could serve as an intention way to communicate one's position on the matter.



            It is a reasonable question, but obviously a politically charged one, whether using a masculine pronoun for God meaningfully affects people's perceptions of God. People differ as well in their perceptions of English style, so it is good to be charitable in assessing other people's writing. (On a separate gender issue, I prefer to use a generic feminine, or to alternate between masculine and feminine, rather than use singular “their.”)






            share|improve this answer



























              2














              No, “It” is inappropriate because God neither inanimate nor an animal.



              One fairly common practice is to avoid using the pronoun altogether. As a matter of style, it takes a lot of thought to pull this off well, but it doesn't necessarily require awkward English. You can do a lot with strategic passives, controlling your sentence structure, etc. A mild consequence is that sentences come across as awkwardly emphatic. “God will accomplish God's purposes.” The alternative to the reflexive pronoun is “Godself,” like “God can speak for Godself.” That's a neologism, and therefore could serve as an intention way to communicate one's position on the matter.



              It is a reasonable question, but obviously a politically charged one, whether using a masculine pronoun for God meaningfully affects people's perceptions of God. People differ as well in their perceptions of English style, so it is good to be charitable in assessing other people's writing. (On a separate gender issue, I prefer to use a generic feminine, or to alternate between masculine and feminine, rather than use singular “their.”)






              share|improve this answer

























                2












                2








                2







                No, “It” is inappropriate because God neither inanimate nor an animal.



                One fairly common practice is to avoid using the pronoun altogether. As a matter of style, it takes a lot of thought to pull this off well, but it doesn't necessarily require awkward English. You can do a lot with strategic passives, controlling your sentence structure, etc. A mild consequence is that sentences come across as awkwardly emphatic. “God will accomplish God's purposes.” The alternative to the reflexive pronoun is “Godself,” like “God can speak for Godself.” That's a neologism, and therefore could serve as an intention way to communicate one's position on the matter.



                It is a reasonable question, but obviously a politically charged one, whether using a masculine pronoun for God meaningfully affects people's perceptions of God. People differ as well in their perceptions of English style, so it is good to be charitable in assessing other people's writing. (On a separate gender issue, I prefer to use a generic feminine, or to alternate between masculine and feminine, rather than use singular “their.”)






                share|improve this answer













                No, “It” is inappropriate because God neither inanimate nor an animal.



                One fairly common practice is to avoid using the pronoun altogether. As a matter of style, it takes a lot of thought to pull this off well, but it doesn't necessarily require awkward English. You can do a lot with strategic passives, controlling your sentence structure, etc. A mild consequence is that sentences come across as awkwardly emphatic. “God will accomplish God's purposes.” The alternative to the reflexive pronoun is “Godself,” like “God can speak for Godself.” That's a neologism, and therefore could serve as an intention way to communicate one's position on the matter.



                It is a reasonable question, but obviously a politically charged one, whether using a masculine pronoun for God meaningfully affects people's perceptions of God. People differ as well in their perceptions of English style, so it is good to be charitable in assessing other people's writing. (On a separate gender issue, I prefer to use a generic feminine, or to alternate between masculine and feminine, rather than use singular “their.”)







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Apr 29 at 18:06









                adam.bakeradam.baker

                1972




                1972













                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to write a 12-bar blues melodyI-IV-V blues progressionHow to play the bridges in a standard blues progressionHow does Gdim7 fit in C# minor?question on a certain chord progressionMusicology of Melody12 bar blues, spread rhythm: alternative to 6th chord to avoid finger stretchChord progressions/ Root key/ MelodiesHow to put chords (POP-EDM) under a given lead vocal melody (starting from a good knowledge in music theory)Are there “rules” for improvising with the minor pentatonic scale over 12-bar shuffle?Confusion about blues scale and chords

                    What if the end-user didn't have the required library?What is setup.py?What is a clean, pythonic way to have multiple constructors in Python?What does Ruby have that Python doesn't, and vice versa?What is the reason for having '//' in Python?How do I create a namespace package in Python?How to package shared objects that python modules depend on?setuptools vs. distutils: why is distutils still a thing?Navigation in Windows 10 vs code not going to virtualenv library when the same library is installed at user levelPython create package for local usePackaging a project that uses multiple python versionsWhy is permission denied on pip install except for when “--user” is included at end of command?

                    Esgonzo ibérico Índice Descrición Distribución Hábitat Ameazas Notas Véxase tamén "Acerca dos nomes dos anfibios e réptiles galegos""Chalcides bedriagai"Chalcides bedriagai en Carrascal, L. M. Salvador, A. (Eds). Enciclopedia virtual de los vertebrados españoles. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid. España.Fotos