I’d rather not guess as it would cause further confusion. Since the point itself makes no sense unless one presumes an anthrapamorphic view of God.
Since neither Christians nor Muslims believe God has a physically body never mind a genetic structure. Remember the whole God is not a man thing Mr Buzzard? This point therefore seems like once again to be an example of theological flim flam disguised as “deep”.
What happened to God is the author of confusion and all that jazz!
That is until the problems start being highlighted and then metaphor will be their weapon of choice. The standards of interpretation of scripture is as vast as the sea when their are no clear principles that all are required to follow. Sadly on this occasion Sir Anthony is doing the same as Trinitarians do with their texts which is to say interpret in light of later theology such as the doctrine of the atonement (whicever model, as their are many…)
Biblical interpretation like Tasfeer is done with an attentive eye to contemporanious testimony and documentation to deride its meanings, i.e according to the original intention not according to later ideas that have their own cultural/historical/philosophical heritage. If interpretation continues in this fashion people will be free to interpret into the texts whatever happens to be prevalent at the time as we are seeing with the Bible in the west with regards to Homosexuality, abortion, and even issues like National security and Immigration.
As the old saying goes “Relativity relativises itself” and texts therefore becoming devoid of many meaning at all.
Blogging Theology 
Genetically related to God … What the heck does it mean?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d rather not guess as it would cause further confusion. Since the point itself makes no sense unless one presumes an anthrapamorphic view of God.
Since neither Christians nor Muslims believe God has a physically body never mind a genetic structure. Remember the whole God is not a man thing Mr Buzzard? This point therefore seems like once again to be an example of theological flim flam disguised as “deep”.
What happened to God is the author of confusion and all that jazz!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry i meant ‘physical body’
LikeLike
And ‘God is not the author confusion’
LikeLike
Problem with some unitarians is they can be as literal biblicists as their hardcore trinitarian “brethren”
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is until the problems start being highlighted and then metaphor will be their weapon of choice. The standards of interpretation of scripture is as vast as the sea when their are no clear principles that all are required to follow. Sadly on this occasion Sir Anthony is doing the same as Trinitarians do with their texts which is to say interpret in light of later theology such as the doctrine of the atonement (whicever model, as their are many…)
Biblical interpretation like Tasfeer is done with an attentive eye to contemporanious testimony and documentation to deride its meanings, i.e according to the original intention not according to later ideas that have their own cultural/historical/philosophical heritage. If interpretation continues in this fashion people will be free to interpret into the texts whatever happens to be prevalent at the time as we are seeing with the Bible in the west with regards to Homosexuality, abortion, and even issues like National security and Immigration.
As the old saying goes “Relativity relativises itself” and texts therefore becoming devoid of many meaning at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
good points!
LikeLike