1. What Is God?

by Tom Minkler

Who can measure the wealth and knowledge of God? Who can understand his decisions or explain what he does? Has anyone known the thoughts of the Lord or given him advice?
--Romans 11:33-36

Anyone who thinks they understand the thoughts of I AM is wrong. So says the Bible, anyway, according to that verse. So why do we pretend we understand it? The historical Christian doctrine pretends to be wise by claiming it knows certain things about God. But the point is that we don't. It could be "other" ways than what we think. In fact it must be, since there is no way we can grasp the totality of God. We don't even understand ourselves.

Do we want to know what God is? Would it solve this problem if we could ask “him”? Moses did, in Genesis 3:13. And God answered (or the writers "realized" or were inspired to understand that):

CEV:
And God said, “I am the eternal God. So tell them that the Lord^a, whose name is “I am,” has sent you. This is my name forever, and it is the name that the people must use from now on.” (Exodus 3:14-15 CEV)
The CEV footnote reads:
^a“LORD: The Hebrew text has ‘Yahweh,’ which is usually translated “Lord” in the CEV. Since it seems related to the word translated ‘I am,’ it may mean, ‘I am the one who is’ or ‘I will be what I will be’ or ‘I am the one who brings into being.’”)

RSV:
God said to Moses, "I am who I am."^b And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I am has sent me to you.'" God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'The Lord^c, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you': this is my name forever and thus I am to be known throughout all generations. (Exodus 3:14-15 RSV)
The RSV footnotes read:
^bor 'I Am What I Am' or 'I will be what I will be.'
^c"The word LORD when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH, which is here connected to the verb hayah, to be.

For the word “Lord,” Strong’s Concordance shows the Hebrew word being used in those verses (and the word used for Lord most in the Old Testament) is word #3068 yehôvâh: yeh-ho-vaw'; from #1961, (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jeho-vah, Jewish national name of God. To follow backwards, #1961 is hâyâh: haw-yaw’; a primitive root; to exist, i.e., be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary). Strong's says to compare #1933, havâ’ or hâvâh, haw-vaw’; a primitive root…supposed to mean prop. to breathe; to be (in the sense of existence). Webster’s New World Hebrew dictionary defines hava|yah as existence.

[The other words (used occasionally) in the Old Testament for "Lord" are: #136, 'Adônây: ad-o-noy'; an emphatic form of #113; the Lord, (used as a prop. name of God only):--(my) Lord. #113 is 'âdôwn: aw-done' or (short.) 'âdôn; from an unused root (mean to rule); sovereign, i.e., controller (human or divine).]

The word “God” from Exodus 3:14-15, according to Strong’s Concordance, is word #430, elohiym: el-o-heem’; which is actually a plural (not singular) word meaning gods in the ordinary sense; and specifically used (still in the plural, thus with the article “the”) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative. This plural word is the word translated as God almost every time in the Old Testament. Tracing it back, it is a plural of word #433, elowahh: el-o’-ah; probably prolonged (emphatically) from word #410 and meaning a deity or the Deity: --God, god. Word #410 is el, ale; shortened from #352 and meaning strength, and as an adjective mighty; especially the Almighty (but also used of any deity). Word #352 is ayil, ah’-yil; from the same as #193; properly strength; hence anything strong. Word #193 is ‘uwl, ool; from an unused root meaning to twist, i.e. (by implication) be strong; also powerful. (Webster’s New World Hebrew Dictionary has no word elohiym and defines the word eloheem as a masculine noun meaning “God.” Sure, NOW it does.) Did I AM “twist” space and time to create the big bang and everything as we know it? Is I AM THAT TWIST? Would it change the real meaning of the Bible if it was?

The CEV (© American Bible Society) in its "A Mini Dictionary For The Bible" gives this summary of the translation of "Lord":

"LORD - In the Old Testament the word "LORD" in capital letters stands for the Hebrew consonants YHWH, the personal name of God. Ancient Hebrew did not have vowel letters, and so anyone reading Hebrew would have to know which vowels to put with the consonants. It is not known for certain what vowel sounds were originally used with the consonants YHWH. The word "Lord " represents the Hebrew word "Adonai," the usual word for "lord." By late Old Testament times, Jews considered God's personal name too holy to be pronounced. So they said Adonai, "Lord" whenever they read YHWH. When the Jewish scribes first translated the Hebrew scriptures into ancient Greek, they translated the personal name of God as Kurios, "Lord." Since that time, most translations, including the Contemporary English Version, have followed their example and have avoided using the personal name of God."

In any case, God is saying in Exodus 3:14-15, “I am the almighty strengths, the "self-existent," whose name will always be 'I am.'” Note there is no “he” in that declaration. What part of I AM don’t we understand? At a minumum we should be getting from this that God did not want us to call him God or Lord, but I AM, since "God" and "Lord" are only translations of other words. I AM is "his" name, according to God as quoted directly the Bible. Since that is its name, that is the name we will be using in most of this book, except where it seems like that might distract from the discussion. If you disagree with me, you will have to take it up with I AM, since if you believe the Bible to be true, I am taking it straight from I AM's "mouth." Jesus also said that God is his "father" (as well as ours), which is another word we could use, even though it might not be entirely accurate, as we might see later.

Note that God did not say “I am this” or “I am that”; i.e., not, "I am some 'thing' separate or definable," or “I am part of what is,” but that “I am.” Is it wrong to translate this from our perspective into “what is”? Not even ‘he that is”; for “what is” did not use the word "he" to describe itself, but said “I am.” Perhaps, “what is and what will be”? Or is even using “what is” wrong, because by using I AM maybe he wants us to refer to ourselves in some way? I AM loves you?

It struck me that the English word that best represents the meaning of the word “Lord,” derived from the word "to be" meaning I AM, or existence, or whatever we were able to get out of all that semantic etiology, might be the word “being.” "I am The Eternal Strengths, The Being." The problem with that word is that the modern connotation is something other-worldly or scientific, as in an extraterrestrial "being." But the word ‘being’ is not only a noun, but the present participle of the verb, “to be." The word “being” is describing a state that we’re in, and an activity we are doing, simultaneously. Everything that exists, that is, is also a process. As a human I am continually creating my own cells, including my blood, mucous, bile, urine, etc., and recycling my whole body. In fact, I have created my whole body, except for my bone marrow, which is complete at the time of birth, which was created by my developing cells with the help of my Mother.

As a being, I am always thinking, adjusting my thoughts and mind to accommodate new events and ideas. My whole physical being is always in a state of activity, and not a static object or “thing,” like we can pretend to imagine in our heads. Even rocks are aging and reacting to the forces that are compacting and wearing them down; they are emitting carbon isotopes and other particles into inner space. The rocks are actively changing themselves. Plants are growing themselves. In other words, as the noun “a being” I am also a participant in the verb “being.” I am a being that is being. They are inextricable, the same thing. It is as I AM also is and does.

It finally occurred to me that what God actually said he is (or what Moses or the author(s) "realized" he was) in Exodus 3:14-15, is “The powers that be.” Remember the word for God is plural, meaning ‘strengths.” And Lord is "that which is," the "self-existent." God is saying “I, the strengths that exist, the powers that be, the forces that are, that you shall call “I AM.” So does that mean that this "being" we call I AM is, itself, a separate entity that is or has the powers that be; or are we actually just giving the powers or forces that already existed a name, and collectively calling them "I AM"? It could be either way, according to the Bible. Maybe it's both. And if it's the latter, does it really matter? Do we have to get all pissed off if it doesn't turn out to be the way we conceived it? Especially since we can't possibly describe God exactly anyway? Does looking at it one way or the other really change the overall meaning of the Bible?

Go to Part 3: Words and Meanings