How anyone can believe everything we see around us came by accident is beyond belief and yet many do. Thankfully, God has given us His Word which tells us ‘simple people’ that He is the Creator in the Book of Genesis.
This is from Creation Moments declaring the wonders of our Creator God!
The Biden/Harris admin are Leftist Loony Nazis! If they and their Nazi Democrats control the US government for the next four years they will turn the public education system into a Nazi hotbed! Darwinism and Nazism are bedfellows as Dr. Jerry Bergman states in his book Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview: How the Nazi Eugenic Crusade for a Superior Race Caused the Greatest Holocaust in World History.
‘Dr. Bergman should be nicknamed “Babe” after Babe Ruth because he continues to hit home runs with every publication. His latest book should earn him the Triple Crown because it surpasses attempts by others to expose the evils of Darwinism, Nazism, and racism. Throughout the highly documented book there is an obvious thread of Darwinian dogma intertwined in the hearts, minds, and practices of the Nazis.
Creationists and conservatives often point out the connection of Darwinism to Hitler and his henchmen. Too many times, that logical point is silenced by statements that claim that Hitler was a Christian. Dr. Bergman pounds the final nail into the coffin of any claim of connections between Hitler’s ventures and biblical values. Chapter 3 definitely debunks such claims made by Richard Dawkins and other deluded Darwinists. Chapters 5-15 describe the religious leanings of Nazi leaders. Historical facts confirm that top Nazis hated Christianity as much as they hated Jews. It was a matter of practicality to put off dealing with the former until the latter was liquidated. Nazis counted on Christians choosing to compromise. Bergman does not excuse churches for turning a blind eye to what the evolutionists were doing. There were far too few Christians who criticized or challenged the carnage. Referring to pastors, Hitler said, “They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes.” (p. 70) “Even many active Christians, some who were ordained Christian clergy and held at some level to Jewish ethics, were deceived by Darwinism…The very groups that should have strenuously opposed Darwinism and eugenics, on the grounds that it is blatantly contrary to basic Christian teaching, all too often rejected biblical teaching and accepted the so-called ‘scientific’ theory of Darwinism.” (p. 301- 302)
Many of the decisions made leading to the horrors of the Holocaust are similar to those being made in America during recent years and continuing now. There is one tiny flaw in Bergman’s book. He wrote, “Almost every high school student knows one of Hitler’s primary goals was producing a superior race based on the Darwinian idea of ever-advancing progression of life, upward from molecules to humans, caused by natural selection.” (p. 00) The percentage of public school students who know much about Hitler is problematic, but it is a certainly that such students are not exposed to the connection between evolutionism and Nazism because few teachers comprehend that fact. Just as American students are now being brainwashed, so were German children.
“Cutting-edge ideas are often introduced to cultures through the educational system and that was certainly the case when it came to nurturing the seeds of anti-Semitism and eugenics in the land that would ultimately become Nazi Germany: (p. 8) “The content of textbooks played a critical part in the goal of spreading Nazi ideology and Darwinian theory throughout Germany. This is indicated by a statement attributed to Hitler: ‘Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state.’” (p. 265) “The Nazis aggressively pushed the teaching of Darwinism in their schools during the entire time that they ruled Germany, just as is now being done in America and other nations.” (p. 294)
“During World War II, Germany had the highest level of education of any nation in the world. The Nazis also valued education…” (P. 205) The education of children will determine the future. That is why we must rescue our children from American indoctrination centers (http://exodusmandate.org/). I highly recommend reading Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview and sharing what is disclosed—especially with the next generation of Americans.’ https://www.rae.org/essay-links/HitlerReview/
Does anything surprise you anymore? Paul the Apostle wrote to Pastor Timothy in 1Timothy 6: 8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. 12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.
‘Pastors at the scandal-ridden Hillsong Church lived lavishly on congregants’ tithe money, according to former Hillsong members and staff who spoke recently with the New York Post.
The church provided pastors and staff with pre-paid expense cards that they used to buy whatever they wanted—from designer purses to Manhattan hotel stays to huge quantities of food, the sources said.
Former Hillsong LA service pastor Nicole Herman told the Post that she personally loaded the funds onto expense cards for Hillsong pastors, including former Hillsong NYC Pastor Carl Lentz, who recently was fired from the church for an adulterous affair. Herman said the cards were also given to volunteers to make purchases for the church and its pastors.
According to Herman, all the money loaded onto the cards came from church donations and was refilled through her former husband who was the CFO of Hillsong LA.
Another former Hillsong congregant who spoke with the Post was 27-year-old Jenna Babbitt, who started attending Hillsong NYC in August 2011. Babbitt said she worked as a nanny for several Hillsong pastors, including Reed and Jess Bogard who unexpectedly resigned from Hillsong Dallas earlier this month.
Babbitt said she was given access to a pre-paid card to buy food for the children she babysat. She added that she and other volunteers also used the cards to buy spreads of food for the pastors before every service. The cards were also used to buy luxury presents and meals from upscale restaurants for visiting pastors, she said.
According to Babbitt, the church never required her to reconcile the purchases she made with the card, nor was there an expectation that the pastors would reimburse the church for personal purchases made with the card.
During the six years she attended the church, Babbitt said she donated thousands of dollars to Hillsong and worked without pay, even though she was poor at the time.
“The exploitation of free labor while these pastors are making bank is just crazy to me,” Babbitt told the Post. (In a podcast released earlier this month, former Hillsong member Janis Lagata recounted a similar experience.)
Another Hillsong NYC member who worked as a nanny for Hillsong pastors is former member Megan Phalon. Phalon told the Post that she began attending, volunteering and tithing to the church in 2011 and began baby-sitting for Pastors Kane and Karla Keatinge about a year later.
Phalon said she also was given a pre-paid card with the instructions to explicitly use it for the Keatinge’s kids, not herself.
Phalon said Keatinge was required to report his expenditures to Reed Bogard each month, but could never remember what the receipts were for. According to Phalon, the receipts included “hundreds” of purchases from restaurants, $700 for a new iPhone, and four-wheeler ATVs the pastors would drive around Williamsburg, a pricey neighborhood in Brooklyn where all the Hillsong NYC pastors lived.
Similarly, Brandon Walker, a 28-year-old who helped the Bogards start a Hillsong branch in Dallas, spoke of the lavish lifestyle Hillsong pastors lived.
Walker told the Post he remembered “a lot of eating out” and renting “very nice Airbnbs,” including one that cost $1,100/night. Walker added that Hillsong kept the finances secret because the expenditures were so excessive.
Walker said Reed Bogard once gave him $600 when he needed money. “That’s a tactic a lot of these pastors use to keep their secrets,” Walker told the Post. “Buying us expensive gifts, giving us money, like, ‘I got your back, so when I need you to have my back, this is something to remember.’”
I reached out to Reed Bogard for comment, but he did not respond by time of publishing. The Post said it also reached out to the Bogards, but the couple responded by blocking the Post reporter on Instagram.
Hillsong is reportedly investigating its East Coast branch, following the scandal involving Lentz.
Phalon said she shared details of her experience with investigation lawyers who “were shocked” by what she shared. Lawyers also reportedly contacted Babbitt, asking about the church’s use of expense cards.’https://julieroys.com/hillsong-members-tithes-funded-pastors-lavish-lifestyles/?mc_cid=616742f2a5&mc_eid=b13d34ad49
‘One of the earliest moments of the whole Bible is God clothing the man and woman with a modest garment as opposed to nudity and their fig leaves. Their coats God made are a Hebrew word for tunic all the way to the floor and long sleeves. This is the same word used to describe the priestly robes. Genesis 3:21 says, God “clothed them.” God wants people clothed.
Why in particular do young women want to take the will of God on clothing in a different direction? God wants them clothed, but they want to take their clothes off in front of people. Even when they’re wearing clothes, they’re tight. I’ve walked behind so many males and females in these colder winter months, both wearing pants. Two were in front of me at the bank today, and consistently young women wear leggings, a garment that could be mistaken for paint, leaving nothing to the imagination. The male usually wears loose fitting trousers and the woman has some kind of very tight pants, which is mostly what differentiates them from what the man wears.
Young women are wearing their underwear in public, tiny little things that barely cover anything. They are scriptural nudity. They leave a lot of their skin and body parts uncovered on purpose. They are going for people seeing their legs, their breasts, their navel, their bellies, and many other things in between. When they choose a skirt, they on purpose choose one that is well above the knee. They also stand in a manner, one leg in front of the other, for a fuller exposure. The shoes, whatever kind and if any, accentuate a bare leg.
All of what I’m describing, that young women are doing, is wrong. That’s now why I’m writing this. There are many biblical arguments against young women dressing like they do today, and sadly how professing Christian women are dressing, or worse undress, especially because churches are not teaching on it. They don’t preach biblical dress standards or enforce them, even defend or justify unscriptural dress for young women. I’m writing this to explain the tragedy of the undressing of the young woman.
The first tragedy is that God isn’t pleased. He isn’t being honored by these young women because of their dress. God’s angels cover themselves in His presence. An argument for modesty for a woman is shamefacedness, which relates to the presence of God. The pure in heart shall see God. These young women are not pure in heart. They are not ashamed. They glory in their shame. They snub the holiness of God.
Also while I was standing at the bank today, a woman twice in exclamation said the two words, “holy ___________,” the latter word a crude word for excrement. She said it to a younger woman, while looking down at something together. The nature of those words is what these young women are doing with their undressing. They are made in the image of God and they are profaning that image with their immodesty.
The second tragedy is that these young women are defrauding their fathers. Their fathers or their brothers may not care. I say brothers, because I think of the Shulammites brothers in Song of Solomon chapter eight, who protected their younger sister by guarding her modesty and her virginity. If she was a wall, they would reward her, and if she was a door, they would enclose her with boards of cedar. Instead of enclosing her, some fathers and brothers are exhibiting her in her nudity today.
Today the young woman may say that the brother or a father, which seems to be absent, would not have a right to enclose her with boards of cedar. That is for her to decide. What scripture says is that when she is a door, that is, she gives intimate access to herself, that she is defrauding her father. He is to give her away, not her giving herself away. 1 Corinthians 7:36-38 says that she belongs to the father to give away. That’s a joke in today’s culture, a joke protected by the actual me-too movement.
A young woman, who undresses herself in public, is giving herself away to everyone. She is intimate to everyone. She is defrauding her father of that right, but she is also defrauding her future husband, profaning herself, making herself common. She isn’t special any more. She isn’t unique. She is a trampled garden in the parlance of what the brothers were protecting. They were saving her beautiful garden for a future husband. She would have greater value. So, third, she’s defrauding a future husband.
Fourth, the unclothing young woman forsakes future intimacy when she takes off her clothes in public, related to what I said in the previous paragraph. She isn’t the gift she once was and by her choice, so, fifth, she has become easy for someone, who will not have to be a man or show manly qualities. He can avoid a father, because she has given herself to not just him, but everyone who sees her. She has done this because she wanted to. She loses this. She can get some of it back, but once she’s out there, she can never get all of it back. She’s lost something. This matters too, because it will never be as special now. She’ll never know.
Related to the previous paragraph, she is opting for less of a man or not a man at all. A real man would only go through her father. A real man would have the confidence to do so. She has narrowed her pursuers to those who need it easy for them. She has made it easy. Those so-called men who take that easy road will have an easy woman. She has made it that way.
Seventh, is a comparison to fly paper. Fly paper attracts flies. Everything sticks on it. The young woman who undresses might have in mind who she wants to look at her skin, objectifying her, making her a mere object of lust by her choice. However, she’s going to have everyone else sticking to that fly paper as well. Every creepy minded and practicing person will be in on her show.
Someone might say that the above undressed young woman just lacks the confidence to wait, the satisfaction with God, with Jesus Christ, what is characteristic of a true Christian, to stay covered and wait for the right person. That’s all true too, but she’s getting the lust of every man in public. Maybe she thinks that is high praise, that men like seeing skin, her skin and body parts. That doesn’t require anything but lust and sin.
Eighth, the young woman who takes her clothes off in public is encouraging more of that with others. She is offending one of these little ones. She might not be taken advantage of to the extent that someone else is, but she will be partly at fault for it. She is downgrading the culture. She is turning it into Sodom and Gomorrah, a place for a righteous soul to have his soul vexed and for unbelievers to be made twice the children of hell they once were. She is doing that.
I’ve given you eight reasons explaining the tragedy of young women taking their clothes off in public. There are actually many more than these eight and those are all bad too. None of them are good. There is no good reason for young women to take their clothes off in public. You can take some time to meditate on these eight. They are enough reasons to stop this practice.’https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/01/27/the-tragedy-of-young-women-taking-their-clothes-off-in-public/
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16)
‘Concerning Scripture, Christ taught that every “jot and tittle” (i.e., even portions of letters, not to mention words and phrases) was inspired and would last forever. In many portions of Scripture, the teaching rests on a seemingly rather insignificant component of a word or phrase.
For example, consider the phrase “yet once more” in Hebrews 12:26, quoting Haggai 2:6. We see in verse 27 that the argument requiring a coming judgment on all of creation hinges on it pointing back to a similar judgment in the past. Similarly, in Galatians 4:9, we see Paul couching his comments to the Galatian believers, who had returned to a legalistic system, in a question that turned on the active voice of a verb rather than passive. We have not only “known God” but “are known of God.” In John 8:58, a clever use of verb tense was made: “Before Abraham was, I am,” thereby asserting Christ’s deity. Note also in John 10:34-36 how Christ cleverly used the mood of a verb while quoting from Psalm 82:6 in order to defuse the charge of blasphemy leveled against Him. Paul’s argument in Galatians 3:16 (based on a quotation from Genesis 22:17-18) shows how even the singular or plural form of a word is equally inspired.
Consider Christ’s answer to the Sadducees, who denied personal resurrection, when He said, “Have ye not read…I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:31-32). Christ is their God, not simply was. “And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine” (v. 33).
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable.” Let us handle Scripture with the same care and love it with the same fervency as did Christ and the apostles.’https://www.icr.org/article/12554/?utm_source=phplist9236&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=January+24+-+Jots+and+Tittles
It’s the Lord’s Day here in Australia and I am doing a survey of Genesis and I thought this song was very appropriate for such a study. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
‘Many modern Bible versions employ what they call “gender neutral” language. So, for example, the Authorized, King James Version of John 1:9 reads: John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.by way of contrast, the New International Version reads: John 1:9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. There is no textual variant here. The Greek text reads:ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον ἐρχόμενον εἰς τὸν κόσμον.ēn to phōs to alēthinon, ho phōtizei panta anthrōpon erchomenon eis ton kosmon. The KJV translates the Greek word anthropos as “man”–which is what the word means, recognizing that “man” is the generic term for the entire human race, even as Adam, not Eve, represented mankind (Romans 5:12-19). For another example, consider John 12:32. The King James Version reads: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. In contrast, the NKJV, New King James Version, reads: And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” There is no textual variant here either. The Greek text reads:
κἀγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.
kagō ean hypsōthō ek tēs gēs, pantas helkysō pros emauton.
The masculine form of pantas is properly rendered “all men.” The NKJV alters the text to the more feminist “all peoples” to prevent “man/men” from being the generic word for mankind (oops, excuse me, “humankind”; using “mankind” might have been a microaggression and evidence of systemic racism and sexism). Note also that here, as in vast numbers of other places, the NKJV is not simply updating archaic and hard-to-understand language in the KJV; “all men” is not hard to understand in the least.For another example, note Matthew 25:40 in the King James Bible:Matt. 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.Compare the same verse in the New International Version:Matt. 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’Here again there is no textual variant. The Greek reads:
αὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐρεῖ αὐτοῖς, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐφ᾿ ὅσον ἐποιήσατε ἑνὶ τούτων τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων, ἐμοὶ ἐποιήσατε.
ai apokritheis ho basileus erei autois, Amēn legō hymin, eph’ hoson epoiēsate heni toutōn tōn adelphōn mou tōn elachistōn, emoi epoiēsate.
The plural adelphon, “brethren,” is from the Greek word adelphos, “brother.” The “and sisters” is simply not contained in the text, but has been added in by the NIV translators to make their version more feminist.
When the New Testament writers, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, translated the Old Testament, did they follow the practice of modern feminism and transform the inspired Hebrew Old Testament into something more “gender neutral”? Or did the New Testament specifically use “man” as the generic term for all people–does it specifically make the male the representative of generic humanity?Consider Romans 11:4: Rom. 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. ἀλλὰ τί λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ χρηματισμός; Κατέλιπον ἐμαυτῷ ἑπτακισχιλίους ἄνδρας, οἵτινες οὐκ ἔκαμψαν γόνυ τῇ Βάαλ. alla ti legei autō ho chrēmatismos? Katelipon emautō heptakischilious andras, hoitines ouk ekampsan gony tē Baal.
Romans 11:4 is referencing 1 Kings 19:18:
1Kings 19:18 Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.
Notice that the word “men” is not specifically contained in 1 Kings 19:18, but it is in Romans 11:4. Furthermore, Romans 11:4 does not use the Greek word anthropos, which is commonly a generic word for “mankind” or the entire human race, but the word andros (lexical form aner)–“men” as “males.” So when the New Testament, under inspiration, makes reference to the Old Testament, it is so far from removing masculine terms and making the Scripture more gender neutral that it specifically states “all men” in translating a less-specific original language reference.
The Lord Jesus Christ does the same thing as the Apostle Paul. Consider Matthew 12:41:
Matt. 12:41 The men [andros, “males,” from aner] of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
The Lord Jesus is referring to Jonah 3:7-8:
And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man [Hebrew ‘adam, properly rendered “man” but frequently a generic word for the entire human race, not for “males” in particular] nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man [Hebrew ‘adam again, frequently a generic term] and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
When Christ refers to the Old Testament, He takes a more generic Hebrew word for “mankind” or “humankind” and employs the word aner, the word specifically for a “male … in contrast to woman” (BDAG). Christ, speaking in Greek, does not make the Hebrew Old Testament “gender neutral.” He does exactly the opposite. Luke 11:32 indicates this fact as well.
So, what does the Bible teach? When the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it translates and paraphrases the Hebrew in such a way that the text is less gender neutral, not more gender neutral.
In light of the inspired and infallible practice of translation modeled by the sovereign, all-wise God, we should:
1.) Reject modern Bible versions influenced by feminism and gender-neutral language, from the New International Version to the New King James Version, and cleave to the Authorized, King James Bible.
2.) Reject gender-neutral replacements for classical terms for humanity. We should retain expressions such as “all men” and “mankind” if we are engaged in the holy practice of Bible translation ourselves.
3.) We should continue to use “man,” “mankind,” and such like terms in our own speech when reference is made to the entire human race. We should follow the practice of Christ and His Apostles instead of bowing to anti-Scriptural feminism in our language.
4.) Recognize that feminists know exactly what they are doing when they seek to make the English language, and even more importantly, God’s infallible Word, less patriarchal. They oppose patriarchy, while the resurrected Lord and Son of Man, Jesus Christ, their Creator, taught patriarchy Himself and led His prophets and Apostles to support it through what He dictated to them through the Holy Spirit from God the Father. Let us consciously agree with the Father, the Son of God, the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, and the infallible Word of God, and support male headship in our common language and in our English Bible version.’https://kentbrandenburg.com/2021/01/23/2491/
“O send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me; let them bring me unto thy holy hill, and to thy tabernacles.” (Psalm 43:3)
‘This old troubled world desperately needs light to find the way out of its darkness and truth to rightly plan its future. But they must be God’s light and God’s truth, not the seductive lights and humanistic philosophies of man’s fabrications.
God has, indeed, already sent out His light and His truth, but “men loved darkness rather than light” (John 3:19) and, although they profess to be “ever learning,” they yet are “never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” and, in fact, “turn away their ears from the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7; 4:4).
That was true in the psalmist’s day, and perhaps even more so in our day, although we surely have far more light and access to truth today than the psalmist ever had. We now have, for example, God’s complete written Word (Genesis through Revelation). Another psalmist had promised: “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105), and also had promised: “For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light” (Proverbs 6:23).
God’s truth surely is what we need—in fact, all we need—for our faith as we look to our future. This also is revealed in the light of His Word, both His inspired written Word and His incarnate living Word. The Lord Jesus not only claimed “I am…the truth” (John 14:6), He also prayed for us, saying: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:17). And for all who believe His revealed truth: “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). ‘ https://www.icr.org/article/12553/?utm_source=phplist9235&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=January+23+-+Thy+Light+and+Thy+Truth
During the China virus fiasco all the Left could say is “Follow the science”. However, when it comes to gender they shout diversity or something to that effect! Now, there are those who even seek to change what the Bible says about God. ‘A recent UK Times story reported on a Populus survey conducted for the Movement for Reform Judaism, saying that ‘[nearly] three quarters of Christians think that God is male, compared with less than half of the general population.’
However, the newspaper report was slightly misleading, as the wording in the actual poll asks simply how the respondents had thought about God most recently. And the only way they were able to get ‘less than half of the general population’ not believing in a solely male God was to exclude the religious from the general population (62% of respondents last thought of God as male, compared with 73% of Christians and 48% of those who did not consider themselves to belong to any religion). Only 1% of respondents thought of God as female, the rest being divided between both male and female, neither, or ‘none of the above’ (the latter category left undefined—perhaps for the best!).
The radical feminist assault on Christianity
Many feminist writers and theologians claim that the concept of a male God is rooted in a patriarchal culture which by its very nature is oppressive to women, and that the Bible contains a female portrayal of God’s nature that has been suppressed by the Church.2 Having moved past this ‘archaic’ and ‘misogynistic’ view of women, they argue that society should accordingly revise its view of God to include the female characteristics they claim are found both in Scripture and Jewish and Church tradition.
Christians believe that it is only possible to know the information about God that He reveals to us Himself through Scripture. Of course, God is Spirit (John 4:24), so is biologically neither male nor female, and He does not have a sexual nature. Rita Gross objects: ‘If we do not mean that God is male when we use masculine pronouns and imagery, then why should there be any objections to using female imagery and pronouns as well.’ The simple answer is that God is described in male terms because that best describes how God relates to His creation; God has revealed Himself to humanity in male terms; and God became incarnate as a man, not a woman.’ For the entire article go to https://creation.com/whats-in-a-pronoun-the-divine-gender-controversy?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=God+self-identifies+as+%27male%27.+He+is+not+our+%27Mother%27%21&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2021.01.22