The Expanding God

2001-5-17 22:15:00

I finally have a few moments to post a few words to you, my friends. I have been busier than the law should allow.

Quentin has posed numerous comments that are thought provoking and Larry and Jean gave some great response in alignment with my thinking.

I do not have time to make a complete response here, for one thing I have covered some of this material in the past, but I will make several comments.

As far as the orthodox translation of SHADDAY into "Almighty" and my implication that the word is related to the destroying aspect it is a definite fact that it is derived from SHADAD which is very strongly associated with this idea.

Here are some actual samples of where the word is used which is the best way to get a good feel for the meaning:

At her feet he bowed, he fell, he lay down: at her feet he bowed, he fell: where he bowed, there he fell down dead (SHADAD). (Judges 5:27)

A dreadful sound is in his ears: in prosperity the destroyer (SHADAD) shall come upon him. (Job 15:21)

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed (SHADAD); happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. (Psalms 137:9)

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalms 137:8)

The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy (SHADAD) them. (Proverbs 11:3)

The burden of Moab. Because in the night Ar of Moab is laid waste (SHADAD), and brought to silence; because in the night Kir of Moab is laid waste (SHADAD), and brought to silence; (Isa 15:1)

Destruction upon destruction is cried; for the whole land is spoiled, (SHADAD): suddenly are my tents spoiled (SHADAD), and my curtains in a moment. (Jer 4:20)

Now to acknowledge that SHADDAY is derived from SHADAD and to not acknowledge that some of this meaning is carried over is like saying that the word "thankful" means something totally different from "thanks."

Even though the exact meaning given by the ancient Hebrews to SHADDAY, (which translators usually render as "Almighty") has been lost, an examination of the context where it is used definitely places emphasis on the destroyer aspect. For instance we read:

And she said unto them, Call me not Naomi, call me Mara: for the ALMIGHTY hath dealt very bitterly with me. I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me home again empty: why then call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the ALMIGHTY hath afflicted me? (Ruth 1:20-21)

For the arrows of the ALMIGHTY are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.
Is not my help in me? and is wisdom driven quite from me? To him that is afflicted pity should be shewed from his friend; but he forsaketh the fear of the ALMIGHTY. (Job 6:4&13)

His eyes shall see his destruction, and he shall drink of the wrath of the ALMIGHTY. (Job 21:20)

Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the ALMIGHTY. Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt: (Isaiah 13:6)

Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the ALMIGHTY shall it come. (Joel 1:15)

When one reads these and other verses it becomes obvious that SHADDAY has a meaning deeper than is portrayed by the word "Almighty." Time and time again it is used in connection with some type of destruction or affliction which puts fear in the hearts of those who do not conform with or worship Jehovah.

Because of this destroying aspect, some non dogmatic students have suspected that Jehovah may be the arch enemy Satan himself, but both extremes of thought have missed the mark. The work of Jehovah was an important part of the great Plan of God for the destroyer aspect must be used at times to prepare the way for new revelation to come.

Primitive man had to learn to fear God before more advanced humanity could fully appreciate the Love of God.

As far as HAVAH and IAM versus BECOMING, I have already written extensively on this. The crux of Quentin's thought seems to be expressed by this statement:

With that it mind, what higher consciousness or awareness is there for God to become?

To this I answer that there is endless higher consciousness and awareness for God to Become.

Why does mankind assume that we have a no-growth stagnant God ruling the universe? When you think about it there is no reason to think so.

It is a scientific observation that the universe itself is expanding. If so would not God's consciousness expand with it? Would God not grow with a growing universe? Does God not change as the universe changes?

Quentin says:

From God's "point of view" (loosely) there is nothing new to learn since all knowledge is already contained within him (necessarily).

God himself does indeed evolve and have and does "all things new" as is written in the scriptures.

The life of God experiences newness and evolves with the birth of each child, with the falling in love of each young couple and with the appearance of each new world. When the humble seeker reaches out to God, God reaches out to him and the two who become one and experience that which has never in all eternity been felt in exactly this way before.

The time will come trillions of years hence when this universe will reach a relative perfection to a degree that even God cannot improve upon it. At that time, this cosmos will lay the foundation for a future one, and this future universe will take God and all the rest of us into an experience and newness that the highest Logos cannot at present imagine.