Before I begin, let me begin. My premise in “That God Thing” is that God is the Revealer of Himself, that I am not discovering Him but rather trying to understand what He says about Himself. I believe that if He exists, He is the best to reveal the Truth of Himself rather than leaving me to discover or perceive Him through my sense of observation. In the posts under “That God Thing” I will be writing about my understanding of what I believe He reveals about Himself. No, it won’t be neat and tidy but rather an unfolding of my understanding. You are free to reject, resist, argue or deny but this is me. And yes, I believe the Bible is an accurate record of what He says about Himself as long as you recognize that not everything in the Bible is True.1
Many of my posts begin with the thought of ‘In the beginning’ because I like trying to get back to the roots of where something began. Kind of simplifies issues for me, makes my considerations easier as I begin by ignoring distractions. This is most like that.
When I consider the possibilities of “God,” I go right back to what the first thing He says about himself. I like how He says, “In the beginning, God…” Really does simplify several sticking points for me. I began my higher levels of education with a bent toward science, wrote my first two formal papers on the subject of “In the beginning” although both of those efforts sought to explore the recent (then, 60 years ago) theory of what became known as the Big Bang Theory. Yes, an actual scientific theory and not the entertainment series of 2007-2019. The original theory was first proposed in 1927 by Georges Lamaitre based on Edwin Hubble’s observation of an expanding universe. This conflicted with the Steady State model of physics and it wasn’t until the early 1960’s more answers than questions seemed to solidify. Albeit, sixty years later, with more science has come even more profound questions than originally. Science is like that – the more we actually know as fact, the more gaps we find in our theories.
With my passing years, I did lose some of my fervor for the “rightness” of my science. Too often what is taken for granted as proof and not theoretical is later proven to be incomplete. I distinctly remember when an atom was neutron, proton and electron and everything was easily relegated to the Periodic Table on that simple basis. Nothing was smaller than the electron. Atoms are the building blocks of everything. Well, almost. Atoms are the smallest units of an element. But would you believe there are more things present in an atom than neutrons, protons and electrons? There are several ‘forces’ also involved in an atom. What I didn’t know!
After I lowered my level of being impressed with Science, I began to consider more than “what” but also was there a “who” involved in beginnings. “God” as represented in the Bible isn’t inert or what we see in many religious systems as dysfunctional. The in the beginning “God” has pre-existence, already is before He talks about what He was doing in the beginning. We soon realize His “in the beginning” isn’t His beginning but the beginning He is revealing about what He has done that is relative to us. While not quantum physics, it is a quantum jump in understanding which becomes foundational to understanding what He is saying. In the next several chapters of the first book of the Hebrew Talmud, He reveals more about Himself than about His science. The Bible does not present itself as a scientific explanation but rather a history of the involvement of the Author.2
The first subject that God really deals with is who He is. While we read “In the beginning God” and have the uncertainty of who god is because the translators didn’t transliterate god into our language, “god” is not a generic that fits any definition we give it especially in our Western mindset.. It is not a singular noun like Zeus of the Greeks or Baal of the Middle East. It is not a pantheon like the Greek or Roman myriads of gods with multiple individuals vying for position, power and supremacy over their fellow gods. The “In the beginning God” is ĕlōhīm [English spelling of Hebrew אֱלֹהִים ] which is plural yet with one identity. The beginning of His revealing about Himself is that He is in relationship with Himself, multiple yet acting with singularity, purpose, identity, in full agreement with Himself. As the account unfolds, He reveals how He through His personages works in agreement to create everything He creates. When He gets to the making of mankind He says of Himself, “Let us make him in our image…” Us, Our, Image. If the first thing He tells us about Himself is that He is in perfect relationship with Himself, the second thing of importance is that He makes us for relationship with Him and, by extension, each other. Yes, He is both singular in identity and yet plural in personage. The foundational position is that He is three persons who are uniquely singular in identity, fully and always in complete agreement as the singular Elohim. I know – impossible to quantify, draw an example of, describe, confine to definition – so far beyond our senses or experience as to be non-sense. That’s the dilemma of being of being finite trying to understand infinite, created trying to understand Creator, of being those who were being given revelation and decided to get it on our own because we wanted it now. That opens up the “need to know” subject but more on that later.
God of We – The Revealer of what we need to know.
NOTES:
1 As an accurate record, it includes in context statements contrary to Truth but which are exactly as represented. When Satan quotes God he only half-truths or miss-applies his quotes of what God has said. There are numerous examples that are false if taken out of the context of who or what is being said.
2 I believe in the Bible’s inspiration, that it is God-breathed and recorded by humans who recorded what He “inspired” them to write, not as fiction writer are inspired but rather as those who received the text under His direction through His presence within their spirit guiding the accuracy and intent of the message. Yes, another matter of faith.
