God - a theological summary

(Click here for a more detailed theological treatment from the Zondervan NIDNTT)

The quoted extracts in the yellow boxes below are taken from the Zondervan NIDNTT CD-ROM. The contributing authors as well as their credits are shown below the quoted extracts.

The Readers Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary has this somewhat popular definition regarding "God"

Since recorded history began mankind has struggled with the notion of "God". "God" as used here is an English word but the meaning assigned to that word varies somewhat from person to person even though there is a definition in the English dictionaries. That meaning varies for good reason. God cannot be described as we would normally describe anything. We describe ourselves and the physical world into which we are born using terminology rooted or having its primary meaning in physical things. Check out the etymology associated with the words in your dictionary and you will find for all the words that the primary meaning is "physical" or the primary meaning is defined using other words which have their primary meanings as physical and so on. From this standpoint the notion of "God" stems back to the idea of breath and wind which are physical terms that take on secondary meanings which allude to the source and force of life and direction or purpose of life.

The notion of God is simply a reference to an incomprehensible (as far as physical terminology is concerned) "beginning" to all that is perceptible by man. Throughout history mankind has in the face of this mental challenge the need to understand this "beginning" and to do so has reverted to a range of compromises. One compromise is the fashioning of idols to represent God. Another compromise is attributing the elements as God or gods. Another compromise known as pantheism is describing the universe itself as God. And a more modern attempt is to deny such a beginning and worship the "physical" universe as its own beginning and end.

Each language of man has its own designation for this "beginning" or cause of life. This beginning can be defined in terms of "one god" or "many gods" and each of these definitions will vary with the culture or society in an attempt to appreciate and describe in human terms what cannot be comprehended in those terms.

The Greek word yeov has been used exclusively in the New Testament writings in essentially the same way as the word "God" is used in the English language. The word yeov was also used in the same fashion in the Septuagint to replace the hebrew Myla ( 'elohiym, el-o-heem, strong=430) [ plural of hwla 'elowahh, el-o'-ah, strong=433, as well as hla 'eloahh, el-o'-ah which relates back to la 'el, ale, strong=410 having the meanings strength, mighty, Almighty, but used as any deity] as used in the following:

From this usage of the Hebrew and the Greek (of uncertain origins but referring to a deity or supreme Divinity) it is clear the word is used as a title. Neither the Hebrew or the Greek words describe "God", rather the word directs our attention to the incomprehensible source and force that is both the beginning and maintainer of creation. We can know this understanding of God as (source and force) applies based on the contextual usage of the word as in Gen 1:1. See the word "beginning". Also, as clarification we have John 1: 1-16.

We have from the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint (LXX) the following verses. The Septuagint is an old Greek version of the Old Testament scriptures, made in Alexandria between 280 and 130 BC, and used by the early Eastern Church and some say also Jesus.

So the Jewish (Old Testament) and Christian (New Testament) treatment of the word translated in both testaments as "God" is not only a title but also briefly defines the relationship between "God" and creation. The Genesis account was culturally determined and forms part of the growing Israeli culture upon which the New Testament is based. Apparently Moses wrote the original account of 5 books called the Pentateuch (Lev 1:1-2; Neh 13:1; Luk 24:27). This means Moses wrote these 5 books also called the "Law" or "Torah" approximately 1230 BC, and that account spanned from approximately 2120 BC with the story of Abraham up to his own time 1230 BC or a period of approximately 890 years, for our purpose about 900 years. Moses drew this information from his cultural heritage that was probably based on some Egyptian sources. The stories of creation, the fall, the flood, and Babel all occurred well before the time of Abraham. Moses wrote about these also. Implicit in the usage of a word is the time in history that a word is used. Therefore, the Hebrew Moses spoke and wrote was the Hebrew used around 1230 BC when he wrote the Pentateuch. By this time the Hebrew used by Abraham and before Abraham would have evolved taking on connotations and additional or secondary meanings. These meanings for the words we translate into the English word "God" and "Spirit' no longer meant "breath" and "wind". To be sure as to what these words do mean we can compare the Greek word for God as taken from the Septuagint (280-130 BC) as well as the usage of the same word at about 125 AD by certain New Testament writers. Therefore the Genesis account provides a "cultural understanding" of the relationship between God and creation. By "cultural understanding" we mean the social and linguistic heritage and background of the Hebrew writer of Genesis as this background impacts the meaning and therefore usage given to words in the written dialog.

The language we speak and write reflects our word usage and indicates the common cultural appreciation of those words. This is not to say the writer was not inspired, it is simply a statement regarding the words etymology. Etymology is the history of influence applied to a word as shown by breaking it down into basic elements or by tracing it back to the earliest known form and indicating its changes in form and meaning; also, a statement of this. Etymology is therefore the study of the derivation of words. An etymon is the earliest known form of a word as in la ('el, ale, strong=410).

For example, regarding influences on the word yeov, as used in the Septuagint we have in the very next verse the connotation that "God" is both the source and force of creation but as "Spirit", not (material or created) in any way the same as the creation. At this point the full meaning of the Greek word pneumatos, translated into English as "Spirit" is not evident by the dialog. From the New Testament writers we do get ample cultural clarification of how we should understand the word pneumatos. This document on the Book of Revelation (Revelation of John) as well as another on the subject of divine fellowship of believers both deal extensively with the meaning of the word pneumatos. There is a tight linkage between the word "spirit" and the word "mind". Instead of "mind" one might be better to use "applied complex intelligence". This linkage is used to develop the theological position regarding the "relationship" between God and creation as well as the character of our notion of reality.

We have in these first 2 verses of Genesis as they appear in the Septuagint a radical departure by the Old Testament writer from the usage of yeov used elsewhere in the world. The historical time frame is the Hellenistic Period (approximately 300 to 100 BC.) where Greek civilization dominated the then known world. The Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Epicurus preceded this period which was set into place by "Alexander the Great". This Hellenistic Period set the stage for the Roman Period (with Greek as a common language) associated with the beginnings of the early Roman Empire which lasted as a single political entity up to just before 400 AD when it divided into eastern and western segments.

Since the Septuagint was a translation of Hebrew made about 280 to 130 BC, it would be around this time that we should consider how the Greek word yeov was used. In other words, around 280 BC the translators of the Septuagint created an equivalency between the Greek word yeov and the Hebrew word Myla, ( 'elohiym, el-o-heem, strong=430). So we have both the cultural context of Myla, at the time the Septuagint was translated and the dialog context of Myla in order to match the meaning attributed to the Greek word yeov as used at the time the Septuagint was translated. There is a cultural span of about 1000 years from the Hebrew word usage of Moses and the Hebrew word usage of the translators of the Septuagint. Nevertheless we have a point in time equivalency created between by the Septuagint translators of the Hebrew word Myla to the Greek word yeov. Since the Greek word yeov is used throughout the New Testament there is little contextual doubt as to its intended meaning even though that same word was used with other variant meanings by other societies.

Regarding this meaning let us closely examine the first part of the Genesis Account to see if there is any more theological information than we have covered to this point.

Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. (First there was nothing, no earth as we know it now, no creation whatsoever, just God, the "beginning". This can also be read just from the standpoint of the earth and not the whole creation.) And the Spirit of God (which is God) was hovering over (configuring) the face (appearance) of the waters (both a theological and a literal term). (I take this usage of the word water in the plural to be first symbolic of a fundamental force that gives rise to the dimensions of heaven and the physical dimension of the universe with both dimensions existing in Spirit. Gen 1:2 is a restatement of Gen 1:1. In Gen 1:1 God is recognized as first cause. In Gen 1:2 God is recognized as the formative agency of creation which briefly states the relationship of the creator with the created. The word "Spirit" conveys the notion of "wind" which moves and "breath" (the air we breath) within which we live, therefore the force that is "God" contains and configures creation. And "water" is more visible than wind and represents the presence of "God" as source. The analogy of "water" is used in the bible by Jesus to refer to the active work of the Spirit that is "God". "God" has a personal interest in creation as creation is established according to the plan and purpose of "God". This theological aspect of Gen 1:2 is not immediately clear as stated and we must rely on much clearer notions expressed elsewhere in the bible to make complete sense out of Gen 1:2. For one example, the New Testament clearly teaches that the creation is formed and coheres in "God" who is "Spirit". The second aspect of the word water is the literal use of the word water associated with the physical appearance of land or continents having lakes, rivers and seas and separated and surrounded by oceans.

[Note: The equation ("left word or expression") OP ("right word or expression") is used to express certain theological relationships. The "OP" or operator joins or compares the left and right word or expression.

Creation inherits some attributes from God/Spirit and yet has attributes peculiar just to creation. For example, we are born into a physical dimension. The aspects of physical are space, matter, time, and energy, none of which apply to God yet the physical dimension has its existence in God as it has the attribute of a spiritual base. From another perspective we have the analogy of the dream and the dreamer. The dreamer is the source of all dreams. The dream is contained within the dreamer. Yet the dream is not the dreamer but carries attributes of the dreamer. The common attribute between the dreamer and the dream is the function of mind distributed in each "player" of the dream. That function of mind is only an image or duplication of the dreaming mind configured according to the purpose of the dream. From the standpoint of the analogy God can be compared to the dreamer and the dream can be compared to creation. Mankind can be compared to the "players" in the dream. But life as we perceive it is not a dream. Life as we perceive it is formed within Divine Spirit/Mind. The concept of existing in God seems very difficult to those that are "captives of the dream" who perceive their existence in terms of the creation and not the creator.

One might suggest that we are reading too much into this simple statement of creation given in the Genesis account and that the statements should be understood in the traditional literal "God made creation in 6 days and 6 nights and on the seventh he rested". However, if we believe that all scripture is given by "inspiration" are we then to believe that God would not convey the theological significance of life as part of the Genesis account of creation? The theological account defines the relationship between God and creation. This theological account is far more important than a high level statement in the form of a story regarding how the earth was formed and man was appointed steward over this earth.

From one perspective the account has importance because further on we are introduced to the story of Adam and Eve. Adam as first man was responsible for the introduction of Sin. And Jesus was responsible for the redemption of man. Some would claim that the entire purpose of Christ is undermined if this story is symbolic and not taken literally. They would say: "Sin entered the world by one man Adam and salvation by one man Jesus Christ". In my mind it makes no difference whether Adam literally is the first man or simply represents mankind in a sinful condition. What matters to me is my salvation in Christ and the transformation to be "Christ Like". For it is that transformation that makes me "one" with God which is eternal life - the "oneness". I recognize the transformation is from a carnal sinful nature. There is only one Christ. But we are also to become as he is for he is the template of the righteousness we must become. There also is only one Adam and that one Adam could be very well the template of the sinful carnal nature. In other words, sinful mankind portrayed as a single real human being having those same attributes. The point I am trying to make here is not whether there was literally one individual through whom sin entered all mankind. The issue here is the story itself and how stories are designed to convey information that may represent a situation, in this case the situation of man's sinful nature. In point of fact archeologists have established that there have been several generations/versions of man, one superceding the other and all originating far back in time well before Adam. It is important to understand that there are a variety of linguistic devices in order to communicate meaning. The challenge we are faced with the bible is to correctly identify these techniques because that is the only way we can establish the true intent.

According to the writers of the New Testament much of the physical temple setup, the sacrifices, and other things were a type or represented the future that Christ fulfilled. This is not clear if one only has the Old Testament. Ask any Jewish person that has not accepted Christianity as legitimately based on the Old Testament. It was not clear to the followers of Jesus. Jesus had to open their "eyes" to the scriptures. As so often stated in this article, there are a variety of literary styles present in the bible. These styles are as diverse as in the one case saying the opposite of what is meant in order to make a strong point, and in other cases, to a multiplicity of figurative styles in order to make a point. In the New Testament we read accounts of Jesus employing a variety of communicative techniques for just this purpose. The parables are stories designed to make important points. The parables may be based on real life situations encountered by Jesus. The creation account appears to be written this way so that two accounts, a theological and a literal are said with the same story. The words have a duality of meaning. But after Gen 1:2 the emphasis does appear to be a story intended to convey the important or more significant aspects of creation. It is clear just by the context of the dialog that the word DAY is not one night and one day as we experience it. Rather, the Hebrew word translated into day conveys the notion of "period" as in a period of time. But the story itself is of a 7 day week as we experience days - 24 hour days. The significant information or intended meaning is being mapped to a story with the framework of 7 days. Think about it. What is there in this dialog that suggests that the story is simply a linguistic device versus a scientific paper. Can a seed sprout in one day, in that same day can a seed become a mature tree, in that day can that mature tree bring forth fruit, and in the same day can that fruitful tree multiply into forests of trees? But if the intended issue is not time and time is only divisive to the issue then the issue must be who created what and why as opposed to how and when. We also have "word usage" issues like "sky" and "heaven" in verse 6. In verse 14 - the fourth day - the entire universe was created after the earth was created and the grass and the trees had multiplied including the sun and the moon. The sun would have been required on the third day so the plant life could grow. At this point it should be obvious that the story is divisive and a relationship between God and creation as well as man and creation is being defined within a story that has a 7day (24 hour day) framework. We tell stories to our children all the time and the stories are divisive. We tell stories like "George" the turtle who talks and walks and who has a friend "Winnie" the train who also talks but moves about on a railway track. George stole something, which was a bad thing to do. He asked Winnie to take it to another place and hide it so no one would know he had stolen it. But Winnie refused as would all good well brought up trains. Winnie convinced George to take what he had taken back to its owner Mr. Smith the grocer. Now that childs story is divisive. Stories that are divisive have purpose and an intended meaning that is matched to elements that make up the story framework. Why then is such a simple everyday communicative literary technique so hard to understand when used in the bible at an adult level when even children can understand that they must use their imagination for those kinds of stories. None of this changes the authority of scripture. What changes is the idea that scripture must be taken literally all the time without giving due concern as to the kind of literature, the communicative techniques, that are used.

But to complicate the issue with the facts, from a scientific standpoint we could have a gigantic planet, one of ice and water and circling the sun. There could also be a molten glob leaving the sun which could collide and in a single day there could be a formless glob with areas of water on its surface and a canopy of water and ice circling and enclosing the entire planet. It is possible that such a thing could happen or did happen. But if so that is not what the story is all about. The story is divisive as determined by the character of the dialog as already stated.

In other words the language framework is purposely constructed with a duality of meaning. In verses 24 to 31 we have the sixth period which is summed up by verse 29-31:

Let it be clearly stated here that the issue is not can God do all these things in 6 literal days (for I believe He can) but rather what kind of literary device or technique is being used and why. There are those that take the Genesis creation account literally and make it an issue of faith for everyone else to do the same. To take every word literally according to its root or primary meaning would be to substitute "breath" for the word translated as God and "wind" for the word translated as Spirit. In other words, there is through out the entire bible the issue of word usage, which is resolved by examining the dialog. There has to be some criteria whereby we establish the character of the literary style and that criteria is to examine the dialog to see if it is consistent with known styles associated with language usage for the culture of the writer at the time of the writing. The second criterion is consistency within the dialog with respect to a certain style. The third criterion is consistency with the other teachings in the bible. The first thing that stands out in this dialog is the "humanizing" of God. God is portrayed as a human character speaking a human language and speaking it to "mankind" in general. "29 (AV) ¶ And God <0430> said <0559> (8799), Behold <02009>, I have given <05414> (8804) you ". Chapter 2 is a kind of recap and clarification, which is always helpful when trying to determine the literary style. Genesis 2:1-2 conveys the idea of planned versus implemented which suggests creation as "ordained":

Here we have in verse 4 the use of "day" as a longer period and as a catch all for the periods preceding the creation of man. And in verse 5 a clear statement that God made … "5 (AV) And every plant <07880> of the field <07704> before <02962> it was in the earth <0776>, and every herb <06212> of the field <07704> before <02962> it grew <06779> (8799): " Contextually within the dialog we have "The day in which God made the earth and the heavens and every plant of the field before it was in the earth and every herb of the field before it grew". To paraphrase we get: "The purpose of these things was resolved by God before they were made - before they were in the earth - before they multiplied and filled the earth". In other words they were spoken of in Genssis 1 as created in the framework of a story that did not regard details and cross dependencies as important. The story was "humanized" presenting God as human speaking in a human language to humans. All of this is divisive and as such is commonly used throughout the Old Testament, especially by the prophets of whom Moses was considered to be a great prophet. Further on we are introduced to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". Yes I believe God can create anything anyway he desires. But that is not the issue here. The issue is that the "tree" is used figuratively as it is often used throughout the bible. God rules through his creation and is consistent in the way he rules. This is clearly taught. The word tree used in this manner is inconsistent with the rest of the Garden of Eden scenario. It is used here divisively as a means of making a quick point regarding the fallen state of man in conflict with the purpose of God in making man.

All this discussion about Genesis is in a way a necessary digression in attempting to provide a theological understanding regarding God and creation. Genesis, after all, is the cultural beginning upon which the bible is based. We find here in genesis the foundational language techniques that are utilized throughout the bible. We cannot separate the use of language from theology proposed by using language. And in order to understand what the bible teaches we must first determine what language techniques and styles are deployed in the bible to convey the intent. We must also understand how "words" evolve and how the root definitions - the primary definitions of all words have a physical foundation or meaning. It is because of this "physical" nature of words that various language styles and techniques are employed to convey understanding and insight. For example, it is far easier and more effective to tell a story, created a story framework and then map secondary meaning to that framework. This is one of the most common techniques for communicating complicated issues where understanding relies heavily on the imaginative powers of the human mind. In a non technical and imprecise society such a story telling technique can be most effective.

After reading the few stories in Genesis that we have so far considered, can we fail to understand that in the beginning was God and God formed creation with purpose and plan? Can we fail to understand that mankind is in a fallen state? And most importantly can we fail to understand that mankind is special within the creative process and should align and synchronize with Divine Spirit? Can we fail to understand there is only One True God and we should serve this One? Everything that happens in the Old Testament is geared to these fundamental concepts. Redemption and "oneness" with God is implicitly dealt with throughout the Old Testament but we must wait till the New Testament to have this revealed to us by Christ the promised Messiah. Is not all this crystal clear whether we take the stories in a predominantly literal way or we take the stores as divisive, a framework involving real people and events but not told in a precise way but told as divisive to highlight certain issues? And finally can we fail to see the literary language techniques of the "humanizing" of God and the "divisiveness" of stories through out the entire bible? In my mind these realizations of language usage help make the bible a more reliable and authoritative reference than trying to force all bible dialog into a literal framework and then declare that framework infallible because it was inspired. Inspired does not imply infallible. Only God is infallible. Trying to turn the bible into God is idolatry. Treating the bible as authoritative is obedience. Understanding the linguistic approaches to convey that inspiration is honesty. I will not put my faith in the bible, rather I will put my faith in the God revealed in the bible. There is a big difference. But we must all make these choices, do we worship the God revealed in the bible or do we worship the bible as God or equivalent to God? If you take the bible away, have you also lost God? I hope you do not think that you have, because then you have never known God intimately, you have never formed a relationship with God through Christ and been transformed to be "Christ Like". The scriptures are very important and authoritative but they are provided as the means to help understand what we have been talking about which culminates in our becoming co-workers with Christ under God.

To recap, firstly, the creation has purpose in God. That is not directly stated but is clearly implied. Secondly, man has purpose. That is also not directly stated but is clearly implied in the story. Because something is implied does not make it invalid. Often, what is implied is of far greater importance than the story framework. Even the story framework may be pointing out how man perceives life - in a very physical way. Man sees life relative to time and transitions. God is timeless and eternal. This will be the challenge for man to look beyond the obvious transitions in time and see the reality of God expressed in creation. Man failed to meet this challenge and necessitated the redemptive process God set in motion through Christ. In other words, we have 2 stories told in the framework of one story - not just one story.

With all the above translations it should be apparent that we have a very unscientific account and also an account that from a literal standpoint is more bent on making a point than accurately describing a process. We may also quite possibly have a situation where words are being used to label phenomena beyond the ability of the writer (and therefore translator) to even comprehend. All inspiration has to emerge from God (who is Spirit) and through the mind of the writer. So the real issue here is what is the intent given to the writer and conveyed by the wording in the Genesis account of creation.

Certainly it must be obvious that the Genesis account is an attempt to lay out something fundamentally important. Implicit in any way we view this account is the role of God as Spirit in the creation. This establishes our higher concern regarding the use of the title "God". This "God" as referred to in Genesis cannot be compared with the "gods" of surrounding nations, the gods of the Greeks who were polytheistic.

For the Greeks they represented their "gods" in anthropomorphic form. Now note this, the same word yeov is used to refer to the Greek gods as is used for the "God" or yeov of both the Old and New Testaments but the meaning varies between the Greek and Hebrew cultures.

Certainly, the Greek use of the Greek word yeov within the Greek culture during Old Testament times referred to a different Deity than did the the Old Testament writers use of the Greek word yeov. Word usage of yeov by the Greeks changed over time with some of the philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, etc. But even at the time of Paul when he encountered a group of Greek philosophers on Mars Hill in Act 17, the Greek society was still engaged in the worship of many gods. Greek gods such as Hercules were masters over men but seemed to be subjected to their own particular fate. None were creators in the same way that the "God" of the Old and New Testament is a creator. Nor was there any theological relationship between a Greek or Roman God as the formative and containing power of creation. These Greek gods were actually considered part of creation over which they ruled. Creation itself was independent and autonomous. This construct implicitly and ultimately makes the universe God leading to such beliefs as materialism and pantheism. Ancient Greek philosophy and theatre significantly impacted the so-called Western Renaissance - the awakening from the darkness of the middle ages.

There are Christians today who think in a similar way except God is Spirit. They see creation as autonomous and free standing and independent of God and not existing in God. They acknowledge God as creator and sustainer of creation but have no theological base to explain the relationship between God and creation. In other words they explain God in a contradictory context. They do not seek to understand how the creation can exist within God while not being God. They think of God as outside of creation and transcendent to creation but this is not scriptural. The Greeks considered their gods as existing within creation. All of this goes to prove that the Greek title for God - yeov, as used in the Septuagint and the New Testament can have many meanings other than the bible and Christian meaning.

From a Christian perspective "God" is identified, but not described, as not only the "beginning" but also the end. This notion is far more sophisticated than one might at first appreciate. "God" is simultaneously both the "beginning" and the "end" which means that "God" as source and force of creation contains "ALL" (creates as cause and maintains all by and within that source and force). This definition is not a definition of "God" but a definition of the impact of "God" as perceived by man. In the bible, "God" is assigned many names in order to describe the many ways man is impacted or can be impacted by "God".

A literary technique or "short form" is often used in the bible to convey the "Divine Will" as perceived by man. This technique gives "God" human attributes such as eyes to see, ears to hear, and a mouth to speak and a language to speak in, all for human benefit. God is portrayed as a human speaking about Himself and others through the lips and minds of the prophets. God is often quoted in the bible as speaking and behaving in human ways. This is an appropriate device to convey information about "God". However, it is only appropriate if we understand that "God" inspires the information delivered by this communicative tactic. The inspiration is through the prophet speaking on behalf of God. God is not a man - God is Spirit. The term "inspired" here means "manifested through the thoughts and feelings of the perceptive agency of the prophet".

Why engage in this kind of communicative tactic? Well the prophets did so the question is academic. This is done so that man can perceptively appreciate that "God" is not human but the will of God must be somehow conveyed to humans in human terms. For "God" is not a man and as such is not part of the creation to be defined in terms of the creation.

This "short form" literary style is working with opposites (the Divine and the human). The Divine Will for humans has to manifest in humans and be understood in human like ways to accomplish the purpose and plan of God for those humans. Then from this standpoint ("Short Form" where God is portrayed as human, humanizing God), in order for man to develop an appreciation of how man is impacted by God, it is necessary for the Divine Will to take a form or be translated into the human mind using human terms and human language. There is no direct mapping in the form of language between Divine Spirit/Mind and the spirit/mind known as man. God does not think in human terms and within human constraints. God grasps or has a handle (figuratively speaking) on the entire creation and in a constant fashion. God "knows" what you are thinking at the very same moment as 10 billion others. God "knows" the "mind" of a sparrow, a bug, a lion, a dog, a crazy person, my horse, my wife, you, and me because Divine Mind contains the entire creation giving it being. And God created both a human example and a human interface when he became a person in Jesus Christ. Otherwise, the term person does not apply to God for Divine Spirit/Mind is beyond any kind of humanity. Man has the attribute called "mind" which has the potential of "God Awareness" and which can be transformed into "oneness" through Christ so that the human "mind" actually becomes an operative extension of Divine Mind and thus we become co-workers with Christ.

God is holy. Holy, holy, holy, God Almighty. "He is holy" means he has kept Himself separate from creation so that he remains sovereign over creation. By separate I mean as the dream of a dreamer is separate. The dream occurs in the mind of the dreamer but the dreamer is in charge of the dream. Holy means separated from. The dream cannot take charge of the Dreamer because the dreamer is holy. Using this analogy, God entered his own dream in the person of Jesus Christ. You literal ones out there beware, I speak of an analogy between the dream and creation and the dreamer and God. But in no way is God asleep at the wheel. And in no way is creation a dream. But just as a dream forms within mind, creation is formed within Divine Mind. This is all part of our "God Awareness". Compare man to a turtle and God to a human. From a human standpoint how would you get the turtle to act in cooperation with you? God does this with humans by allowing the human mind to "humanize" God. This means translating the intent of God into human terms as expressed in human language.

The ability to form a language based on our environment provides a device for containing intent or meaning. If we leave the example of the turtle and defer to a seal, which is a lot more intelligent, then we can show how language in formed from the environment by even an animal. A seal trainer can set up little doors and lights and sounds. A food treat can be placed behind a little door and the seal has to figure out which door. These tests were actually carried out and it was established that the seal could actually conceptualize which until then was considered strictly an attribute of the human intellect. The seal had to learn to use both its memory and its imagination and analyze patterns and complicated reversals. All language is a learned process whether it is the language of the seal's environment with the reward of food or the language of sounds and marks that represent the environment of mankind.

When man "humanizes" God he is forming a translational process reflecting the influence of God within the "heart" or core of human mind. If God were me as God was Christ then I would think and act the same as Jesus Christ in the same circumstances. Man cannot establish this functional unity of Divine Spirit/Mind and human spirit/mind. But Christ can enable this "oneness" that transitions from Divine to human and human to Divine. This was one of the purposes of God entering creation so that man could be redeemed and reconciled to Divine Spirit/Mind. But for a Christian the unity bond of "oneness" is continuous. For the prophets of the Old Testament they had this unity when they were anointed by the Spirit that is God.

But there is no direct mapping because God is Holy. The mapping is indirect. God is defining himself to man when "God" says to man, from the "short form", "humanized", tactical perspective of man, "I AM that IAM". Here we have God speaking in human language and addressing someone as if God were human. But the prophet is speaking on behalf of God or Divine Spirit/Mind (by "humanizing God") and Divine Spirit/Mind is the inspiration, the inflow of meaning in the "heart" of man, the fundamental core of human mind where feelings and thoughts begin to take form. Divine Spirit/Mind does not function like human spirit/mind but Divine Spirit/Mind "knows" (here we are humanizing) how all of us think. I repeat, there is no direct mapping nor can there ever be a direct mapping from Divine to human and from human to Divine. But there can be transition from one to the other and that transition occurs through Christ as interface. Once we accept this as a theological fundamental concept it will drive how we perceive other theological issues.

Here are several renderings (extracts from the On Line Bible) of what "God" said to Moses:

Exodus 3:14 (ASV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Exodus 3:14 (BBE) And God said to him, I AM WHAT I AM: and he said, Say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.

Mk:yla yn:xls hyha larvy ynb:l rmat hk rmay:w hyha rsa hyha hsm-la Myhla rmay:w Exodus 3:14 (BHM)

Mkyla ynxls hyha larvy ynbl rmat hk rmayw hyha rsa hyha hsm-la Myhla rmayw Exodus 3:14 (BHS)

Exodus 3:14 (DOUAY) God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.

01961 hyh hayah haw-yaw

a primitive root [compare 01933]; TWOT-491; v

AV-was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee; 75

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out

1a) (Qal)

1a1) -----

1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass

1a1b) to come about, come to pass

1a2) to come into being, become

1a2a) to arise, appear, come

1a2b) to become

1a2b1) to become

1a2b2) to become like

1a2b3) to be instituted, be established

1a3) to be

1a3a) to exist, be in existence

1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)

1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)

1a3d) to accompany, be with

1b) (Niphal)

1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about

1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone

01961 hyh hayah haw-yaw

hyha rsa hyha

• To be, to exist (Substantive -- Any word or group of words used as a noun. Substantives may be nouns, verbals, adjectives, pronouns, or phrases when used as a noun. Used absolutely in Genesis 2:5 [hyhy]. It more often joins the subject to its predicate, whether this latter be a substantive or an adjective, or if it indicates the place of any person or thing as in: Gen1:2 [hhyh], Gen 2:18 [hwyh]., Gen 3:1 [hyh]. Gen 3:20 [hhyh]. And Gen 4:8 [yhyw]. There are subcases. (a) to be to any one (used of a thing), i.e., for him as the possessor, to be possessed. (b) to be for anything, i.e., to serve for, or as anything. (c) tobe about to, to be going to. (d) to be intent upon anything. (e) to be with anyone. (f) to be with a woman or to be in any one's eyes, i.e, to seem to him. (g) With the participle of another verb it forms a circumlocution for the imperfect.
• To bcome, to be made or done. Absolute: to exist to come to pass. To be made anything is used followed by an accusative (direct object). To be or come to anyone or fall to anyone as prey, portion, etc. Also, to become like any one, to be made like any one or to experience the same anyone. Also, it came to pass or shall come to pass. The verbs [hwh]. [hyh] are both of the same origin with the primary meaning of existing/living and have the signification of breathing, blowing,

Exodus 3:14 (LXX) kai eipen o yeov prov mwushn egw eimi o wn kai eipen outwv ereiv toiv uioiv israhl