3. Words and Meanings

by Tom Minkler

God's true name "I AM" or "the powers that be" fits right in with the way Israel describes and names things. Back in those days, people, places and things are named after acts, circumstances or conditions that exist related to that person, place or thing. A person was given a name which told something about them, that expressed a characteristic or quality they had; that is, it expressed "what they are." This is like the way the American Indians and other societies throughout history name a person after a quality or characteristic they possess or a feature of nature that was believed related to the time or event of their birth, such as "Running Water," "Dances With Wolves," "Long Movie" or "Sitting Bull." In the present, this can be compared to naming a pharmacy in a village the "Village Pharmacy" or a photo-processing shop that promises one-day service "Wonday Photo Mart."

A Biblical example is: Siloam = sent. Jesus told the blind man to “Go and wash in the pool of Siloam (which means Sent).” [John 9:7; parentheses theirs] So if Siloam actually means “sent” (According to Strong's Concordance it is derived from a primitive Hebrew root with that meaning), then when you translate the Bible into English it really means “go and wash in the pool of Sent.” (The reason we haven't actually translated it this way is because they were writing in Greek and "Siloam" was a Hebrew word.) Mount Sinai is not a mountain named “Sinai,” but is actually “The Mountain of God” in Hebrew (I read this but still need to verify); so it is not just a separate “thing,” it IS what happened there, where they encountered I AM. Jacob was re-named by God, as Israel, which means, “one who struggles with God.” So his name is not “Israel,” but really “He who struggles with God.” Peter is “Rock” (or probably something like "Rocky" or "Rocko"), Thomas is “Twin.” "Thomas" is a name now, with no other meaning, but back then it was a word that meant "twin."

The people of the Old Testament looked at life more in this holistic way, and the language reflects it. They didn't have thousands of years of science that had classified, organized, hypothesized and created a divided, numeric picture of everything. Nowdays when we name people, we are not as "inherent" about it. For example, when we name someone Frank, frankly it doesn't usually represent that they are expected to be particularly frank, inherently truthful or up-front, or that there was some special "honesty" going on when the person was conceived or born. "John" doesn't mean the person is related to, born on or near, or in memory of a toilet, nor does it represent the original meaning of the Hebrew "Jehovah-favored." [Strong's] So we have, in general, lost this historic method of naming people and places. And when we translate from ancient writings we do it incompletely, so we change the meaning, or at least the true sense and depth of what was originally meant.

Note that since Israel means "one who struggles With God," Israel includes Christianity by extension, because Christians have historically "struggled" with, or struggled to understand, the same "God." But "Israel," by definition of the word, also includes every human who struggles with God by reaching for the ultimate truth and trying to "discover" or "uncover" the ultimate reality, which could be called "God" or I AM. You can call "God" something else, but you are still struggling with it. So in an interesting twist, we realize that Israel is Catholic (in the sense of the real, "universal" meaning of that word) and includes basically everyone. Even if you are sticking to a limited Christian viewpoint this remains true because Jesus died for everyone. Are the "12 Tribes of Israel" really Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Humanists, Naturalists, Pagans, Scientists, Agnostics and Atheists? If you laugh and say, "of course not," let's not forget that only God really knows.

The same idea of words having their own meaning in English now, but meaning a specific thing back then, is true for concepts like Heaven, Hell, Satan, etc. Hell is spoken of in the Bible as fire, but also as DARKNESS. Since it obviously is not both, we realize that they are only trying to describe the indescribable in different ways to try to make the point. We'll discuss this further in the chapter about Heaven and Hell.

These examples show that back in the day, they used expressions, analogies and comparisons to try and compare what is incomprehensible to something understandable, but they might use many different analogies to try to paint a single picture, as it were, and give the sense of what something might be like. If a picture paints a thousand words, then it must take at least that many words to describe a painting. How many words must it take to define God? Are single human words like "Father" and "Son" adequate to try to describe the indescribable I AM and Jesus' relationship to it?

But nowadays instead of painting a picture using different analogies, we hold to each specific comparison and try to make everything fit exactly to each one, and all of them together, rather than using all of the comparisons as a whole to try and come up with an overall sense of the truth. For instance, in our western way of thought we would try to examine all the parables and definitions of heaven and try to define heaven literally by the combination of the specific ideas in each one. But Jesus just wants us to “get the picture” as he has painted it. It just seems way, way, way easier for us to think of these concepts in the literal way, especially in our Western mode of thought, which is diced, sliced, evaluated, measured, cut, boxed part and parcel and delivered by next-day air to a specified location by a pre-specified deadline, or you're fired.

But it actually ends up being more difficult to try to break everything down into its specific descriptions instead of grasping the overall picture, since, when we try to follow all of the examples to the letter we arrive with a bunch of seeming contradictions. For instance, I AM is a father. But not exactly like any father we know, because all earthly fathers are flawed in some way. So isn't he really, ultimately something "else"? Something beyond our comprehension? Shouldn't we use a different word if it isn't exactly accurate? Don't confuse an attempt to describe God, or give an "idea" or "sense" of God, as an actual, real or complete description of God. Don’t be bound by specific analogies. Remember, Jesus died to set us free.

Notice how simple it is for us to say “A tree grows.” But what is involved in that process? The evaporation of water (a "miracle" in itself ), the condensation of it in the clouds, the weather patterns and the jet streams, the development of rain that falls due to gravity (another incredible phenomenon), the absorption of water and its nearly indefinable complexity of cell structure and nutrients by the roots of the seed/plant/tree, the conversions and chemical reactions that take place to convert the atoms and molecules of the nutrients into usable parts for the cells of the plant, the divisions of molecules and atoms, the electrons, protons, neutrons, chemical reactants, cell receptors and all the other building blocks, discovered and undiscovered, let alone the whole process of photosynthesis, using the sunlight (of which we don’t even know what light actually is; could it be part of I AM?), and the process goes on and on, with each of those processes being composed of smaller, more intricate processes, and we don’t understand all, if much, or really even any of it. But trees grow nonetheless. If I say “Trees grow,” that doesn’t even begin to describe the miracle or the whole truth of the process. And if you talk about any part of trees growing, you have to relate to all the other parts of the process, because they are all interrelated and none exist separately.

The problem with just saying "trees grow" is that someone who doesn't believe in, or hasn't heard of, trees might expect them to grow right away, and when they don’t, your hearer might not understand, because it didn't fit the expectations you created by not presenting the whole process that is taking place, the "forest," as it were. We need to understand more about the processes going on in order to plan correctly for the tree growing. That is why we need to understand the reality of God and the Bible, so that we can understand and explain it with realistic knowledge and expectations.

Note that in the reverse sense, saying "trees grow," doesn't capture the infinite complexity of the whole process, it relates a great truth much better than trying to describe the overall miracle by describing each part of the process step by step. Using the word "forest" can also describe an ultimate reality better than trying to describe each tree. When reading the Bible, we have to be careful not only that we don't miss the forest for the trees, but that we don't miss the trees for the forest.

Substitute the words "Life," “Nature,” “Existence,” Creation,” “Being,” "The Universe" or “The Powers that Be,” for the word "God” or “Lord" in the Bible and see what we get. Every sentence actually fits perfectly. Does the meaning of the Bible really change if we do this? Might all of the standard Christian doctrine still hold true? We will check this out later by verifying whether those words fit all of the qualities Jesus ascribes to "God." In fact these words might make more sense, due to the fact that our perception of “God” has been irreversibly tainted by our own conceptual limitations, in addition to centuries of abuse, ignorance and misunderstanding. Is the immensity of I AM closer to or greater than that of the sum total of all the universes, or is it more intimate, like a “father”? Is God the forest, or the trees, or neither, or both? Or neither AND both? Wouldn’t that more miraculous than the specific, narrow-minded concept we are trying so desperately to cling to?

Let's consider the term "The Force" as popularized by the Star Wars movies. If "God the Lord" is the "powers that be," then he is the "forces that be." But it is very difficult to pray or talk to "everything" or "the universe" - seemingly by the time you've concentrated and tried to picture, conceptualize or "conjure up" what you are taking to, prayer time is over. Although trying to ponder the nature of God can be its own meditation or form of worship, for regular prayers or normal communication it's much easier to "conceive" of God as a "person," "entity" or "being" that you can talk to as you would a friend. "The Force" can be a good compromise between the two, by taking the idea of existing forces and combining them into a single entity that is easier to "picture" or focus on. The best thing about the concept of The Force from Star Wars is that we work "with it," that is, it helps those who help themselves, rather than setting up a contrary, antagonistic relationship where God is against many of the things we do and will hurt us unless we do what he says. Without separation there can be no conflict. This can also resolve "what does he do and what do I do" issue. Does God help those who help themselves, or does God help the helpless? Or is it both? Once again we see how two seemingly exclusive statements can both be true.

If I AM is somehow everything, the sum total of all existence, there is no reason that we wouldn't be able to still feel it, as an "entity" or "spirit." You know when two people are in love? Or when you meet someone and right away you "feel" that something for them, like love, hate, indifference, utter disgust, admiration, loathing, lust, enmity, fear, dispicability, i.e., that connection/feeling that's definitely there? What really is it? Could it be that's what I AM is, only multiplied by 3 trillion or however many human and/or animal souls have ever existed, or however many of us there are here now (on earth anyway). That spiritual connection we all have with each other? Might it be "the universal soul" of which we are all a part? Are we all drops of water in an ocean of God? As just one drop (drip? :), who am I to try to describe the ocean, let alone tell the other drops that they are wrong and that I somehow know more than they do?

When I feel the presence of God, what Christianity has historically called the Holy Spirit, it is often at the same time that I realize some great truth or have a "breakthrough" or "light bulb" moment. Other times I am in a church where people have gathered as one, selflessly and devoutly to set themselves aside, and praise and worship that which is outside of, or greater than, themselves. Or in an A.A. meeting where someone is talking openly and honestly about their personal relationship, real communication and deep dependence on God, whatever they understand IT to be. Sometime I get the same feeling when in a crowd of people in a non-religious setting, even a sports stadium or a political convention, with all their voices raised for a common purpose. Or when I see someone sad and feel an overwhelming empathy and sorrow for how they feel. It is at these moments that the common purpose, the common connection, is strongest. Great truths and a spirit of unity would be at the soul of a "universal soul," and when these things were present is when it would be felt strongest. In other words, God IS truth, God IS unity, God IS love (1 John 4:8). In other words those concepts are not part of God, nor were they created by God, but they ARE ACTUALLY God. Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said, "For when two are three are gathered in my name, There I am in the midst of them." [Matthew 18:20] Notice it doesn't say that he will "show up" or "go" there, but that he IS (already) there. Also he uses the expression I AM, so if you translate that literally as God said his name to be, then Jesus actually said, "For when two or three are gathered in my name, there GOD in the midst of them."

If I AM is "everything," we might say, well then, how could prayer work, if there is no "separate being" to answer or make it come true? But prayer is something that comes from inside of us, from a need or desire that manifests itself as a crying out or a reaching out for help. By stating the feelings or desires that we have, we give them life and power. They move from vague feelings to specific thoughts and ideas. Stating them out loud, especially in front of others, gives them a voice, while at the same time creating that "cognitive dissonance" in us, that is, since we have "gone out on a limb," voicing these desires and sending them out into the world, we create the need in ourselves for them to be fulfilled, or else we might have to doubt somewhat that we had those desires in the first place, or that our God (whoever you're praying to) is helping you. These thoughts and feelings predicate the desire and the will in ourselves (and others) to think and act in a manner that would increase the chances of them coming true. If we have a disease, a belief that we will get better, a positive attitude, creates a much better environment in our body than fear and despair. This is known as the placebo effect, and is well documented throughout medical history. That is why the more faith we have, the better the chance we will get well. It is entirely possible that really believing, having faith that we will heal, would heal us even if there is no such thing as "God" at all. Isn't this what Jesus might have meant when he said, "Your faith has healed you"? (Mark 5:34) Later on we will discuss the idea that the Bible is less about "things that happened" that it is about "truths that are."

"The universe" could definitely answer prayers, because everything around us reacts to us and our will, and the forces of the universe (which are included in the universe itself) are designed to advance and maintain life, which includes responding to life, its desires and forces, including trees sucking up water into their emptiness, and us humans reaching towards our needs and wants (which are an outgrowth of our needs). This also resolves the issue of God NOT answering prayers (or what we like to call God answering them but saying NO), in other words if what we want doesn't happen, then the forces of the universe didn't "want" it to happen, it wasn't a fulfillment of the laws or "wishes" (an improvement in) the universe (which we would have called "God and his plan") for us to have our wish fulfilled.

Does it really matter what I AM actually is, as long as it’s there? If we can’t define it, maybe there is no point in really trying? But perhaps we shouldn't pretend we can? If we pretend we can, it is painfully obvious that we are fooling ourselves and why should anyone listen to anything we have to say? Especially if someone is looking for the first excuse not to listen. All we can do is tell people the truth, about what we KNOW, which is only what we think and how we feel, and we will never be wrong. If we try to tell people "a tree grows," without understanding the process, how will we explain to them why it takes so long? Or why some trees die or grow crooked or why some bear fruit and others don't seem to? But we don’t have to completely understand how trees grow to tell people what we have actually seen of trees growing, and how we feel about them. I can say "trees grow," but I don't have to pretend to know exactly how they do it. I know they grow (or at least something happens) because I see them small and then later I see them big. And I know I love to climb them. Here, let's climb and I'll show you how much fun it is.

Go to Part 4: What is God NOT?