She wrote:
In Genesis, God says that it is not good for man to
be alone, so He created a helper for man (which is a woman). Many people assume the word
helper in this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However, the original
word in Hebrew is ezer kenegdo and that directly translates to helper equal to. Additionally,
God describes Himself in the Bible using ezer kenegdo, or helper, and He describes His
Holy Spirit as our Helper as well. This shows the importance God places on the role of the helper
(womens roles). God does not view women as less significant than men. He created us with
such intentionally and care and He made women in his image of being a helper, and in the image
of His beauty. If leaning into that role means I am following gender stereotypes then I am
happy to be following a stereotype that aligns with the gifts and abilities God gave me as a
woman.
Are you arguing that because she merely says, "In Genesis," as opposed to "In Genesis X:XX" she isn't citing the Bible?
She not only uses Genesis to support her argument, she purports to be a scholar of Hebrew and provides us with the proper translation of a term used in Genesis.
I'm not sure how this translates into you being all steamed at the reporter who used "cited."
BTW, in the stupid amount of time I spent searching for the actual essay, I ran across a veritable plethora of articles that used the very word "cited" to refer to what she did. You must be mad at a lot of people.
I'm just wondering why.