"Eternal"

[Etritonakin]

What does "eternal" really mean in the bible (or any other religious scripture)?

I was considering (different from accepting) the idea of God having developed -and wondering if it contradicted what was written in the bible.

It seems logical to me that everything which now exists has always existed, but not in the same arrangement. Therefore, everything is "eternal". The bible states that God is the one by whom all things consist. In other words, God consists of everything that is. "I AM THAT AM" could also mean God is everything which exists.

We humans do not have eternal life yet -but when we die (that of which we are composed is no longer in the arrangement required for human life), that of which we consist continues to exist. Therefore, we are essentially an arrangement of a portion of "God"

God, however -being composed of and composing everything which always continues to exist -would possibly have eternal "life" by an invulnerable arrangement of that which cannot be destroyed, which allows for thought, memory, processing, modeling and self-arrangement, etc.... after having developed into such by a step-by-step process.

The New Testament describes a government of God which will increase without end -which makes me wonder how little God once governed. The least possible would be himself alone -but including any possible decisions concerning his own arrangement.
Certain things are required for and must precede complex self-awareness and decision-making -and certain things cannot happen unless preceded by complex self-awareness and decision-making.
This would mean God was not responsible for creating that of which he is composed, but creating from that of which he is composed.

That of which he is composed -his "self" -which then became arranged by its/his most basic nature -would simply have existed because it did -and he would have been a simple self -increasingly knowingly-responsible for becoming a complex self. As complex awareness and self-awareness is based on the most simple interactions, he would always have been aware, but more so as he became a more complex self of which to be aware.

God states "I am..... the beginning and the end...", what was and what will be, etc.
However, we are not given much information about the states of "God" in the "past".

It seems logical to me that in order for God to be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc., God must be the sum of all things (God is one), must once have been the most simple state possible -and increased in self-awareness as he became more of a self of which to be aware.
In other words.... though he is eternal, he has increased in complexity.
Creation itself would be God arranging himself.

We are a very complex self before we are aware of anything -and our awareness is due to a complex arrangement. We are not responsible for our own initial arrangement.
Before we can say "I am", we already exist -but we "know" certain things before being able to completely understand them enough to express them.
Even at the end of our lives, however, no human can say they know exactly what they are.

The question is whether or not God has "always" existed in a complex state (what we might call personhood) -or developed from a very simple state/the most simple state possible (not personally responsible for the fact that he exists in the first place, but self-developing in increasing responsibility for that development, and in increasing personal responsibility for that development while becoming a more complex self).

So far, that idea is not contrary to anything I have read in scripture -and it also answers the most basic questions about pretty much everything.

Any thoughts or differing beliefs?

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

What does "eternal" really mean in the bible (or any other religious scripture)?

I was considering (different from accepting) the idea of God having developed -and wondering if it contradicted what was written in the bible.

It seems logical to me that everything which now exists has always existed, but not in the same arrangement. Therefore, everything is "eternal". The bible states that God is the one by whom all things consist. In other words, God consists of everything that is. "I AM THAT AM" could also mean God is everything which exists. We humans do not have eternal life yet -but when we die (that of which we are composed is no longer in the arrangement required for human life), that of which we consist continues to exist. Therefore, we are essentially an arrangement of a portion of "God"

God states "I am the beginning and the end...", what was and what will be, etc.
However, we are not given much information about the states of "God" in the "past".

It seems logical to me that in order for God to be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc., God must be the sum of all things (God is one), must once have been the most simple state possible -and increased in self-awareness as he became more of a self of which to be aware.
In other words.... though he is eternal, he has increased in complexity.
Creation itself would be God arranging himself.

We are a very complex self before we are aware of anything -and our awareness is due to a complex arrangement. We are not responsible for our own initial arrangement.
Before we can say "I am", we already exist -but we "know" certain things before being able to completely understand them enough to express them.
Even at the end of our lives, however, no human can say they know exactly what they are.

The question is whether or not God has "always" existed in a complex state (what we might call personhood) -or developed from a very simple state/the most simple state possible (not personally responsible for the fact that he exists in the first place, but self-developing in increasing responsibility for that development, and in increasing personal responsibility for that development while becoming a more complex self).

So far, that idea is not contrary to anything I have read in scripture -and it also answers the most basic questions about pretty much everything.

Any thoughts or differing beliefs?

Yes there are pantheist Christians.

Mainly though where this idea gets a hitch is if that god is everything, then all of the evil that exists are manifestations of this god and cannot be all good then.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Attempting to apply infinites or absolutes to a god tends to reveal inconsistencies - either in the underlying logic, theology, or both.

 

[George-ananda]

Any thoughts or differing beliefs?

Some good thoughts there. Some of it echoes my non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Advaita beliefs. In my thinking Consciousness/God/Brahman is non-physical and the fundamental basis of everything (the material universe is a derivative/emanation of the fundamental). A ray of the fundamental consciousness animates all living things. So, Consciousness/God/Brahman is eternal and the universe (matter) is always in a state of change (Impermanence).

 

[Tumah]

What does "eternal" really mean in the bible (or any other religious scripture)?

There are two words in the Hebrew (and a third phrase attached to one of them) that are usually translated as "eternal (or forever).
The first one is עולם (o'lam) and shares a root with the word העלם (he'elam) meaning hidden. This word refers to the end point of a given time line, usually in the case of the world's timeline. Its also found in Rabbinic literature to mean the world in which the two endpoints encompass.

Sometimes the word ועד (va'ed) is attached to this word to make the phrase לעולם ועד (l'olam va'ed) which is usually translated as "forever and ever" but is something closer to "to the end-point and beyond".​

The other word is נצח (netzaḥ) and this shares a root with the word מנצח (minatze'aḥ) to be victorious. It denotes a time outside the timeline or timelessness.

I was considering (different from accepting) the idea of God having developed -and wondering if it contradicted what was written in the bible.

Malachi 3:6?

It seems logical to me that everything which now exists has always existed, but not in the same arrangement. Therefore, everything is "eternal".

I think there is a difference between eternal and timeless. The atoms or energy of everything that exists has always existed. But only so long as the universe has existed. Within the universe it is eternal, but it didn't exist before the universe.

The bible states that God is the one by whom all things consist.

This is not in my Bible.

In other words, God consists of everything that is.

I would say the inverse, not this.

"I AM THAT AM" could also mean God is everything which exists.

Its hard to see how you've come to that interpretation. It doesn't say "I am that which is", which might make your interpretation more likely.
The words means I will be that which I will be. In context, Moses was asking for G-d's Name. In the Bible, names are often associated with some aspect of the nature of the character or the events that lead to the character's birth. It kind of sounds like the phrase is meant to be understood as G-d telling Moses that he isn't capable of understanding what He is, to be able to name Him.
Alternatively, the name I Will Be may also be understood to refer to G-d's timelessness. I will [always] be - but you will not [always] be.

We humans do not have eternal life yet -but when we die (that of which we are composed is no longer in the arrangement required for human life), that of which we consist continues to exist. Therefore, we are essentially an arrangement of a portion of "God"

Num. 23:19?

God states "I am the beginning and the end...", what was and what will be, etc.
However, we are not given much information about the states of "God" in the "past".

My Bible only has the first phrase "I am the first and I am the last". This seems like a statement - again - towards G-d's timelessness. He precedes creation and succeeds it.

It seems logical to me that in order for God to be all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc., God must be the sum of all things (God is one), must once have been the most simple state possible -and increased in self-awareness as he became more of a self of which to be aware.
In other words.... though he is eternal, he has increased in complexity.
Creation itself would be God arranging himself.

I don't see why this should be true. Can you not have such a great knowledge of brooms, so as to know everything about a broom without being a broom? Or in other words, can't the source-potential have knowledge of itself and by extension have knowledge of everything that manifests without being the manifested?

We are a very complex self before we are aware of anything -and our awareness is due to a complex arrangement. We are not responsible for our own initial arrangement.
Before we can say "I am", we already exist -but we "know" certain things before being able to completely understand them enough to express them.
Even at the end of our lives, however, no human can say they know exactly what they are.

The question is whether or not God has "always" existed in a complex state (what we might call personhood) -or developed from a very simple state/the most simple state possible (not personally responsible for the fact that he exists in the first place, but self-developing in increasing responsibility for that development, and in increasing personal responsibility for that development while becoming a more complex self).

So far, that idea is not contrary to anything I have read in scripture -and it also answers the most basic questions about pretty much everything.

I think those two verses I quoted earlier contradict the basis of what you're saying here. In one verse, G-d says, He hasn't changed. This wouldn't be true if He had. The other verse says G-d isn't a man. If He was a man, then this wouldn't be true. I understand from these two verses that G-d never became complex man.

Any thoughts or differing beliefs?

I think my belief stems from an understanding that time and space are creations both of which G-d precedes. When we say G-d is infinite and omnipresent these are misnomers. Time and space take place "within" G-d and G-d permeates them. But G-d is also "outside" them. So G-d isn't infinite and omnipresent because He's everywhere and He persists infinitely. Those things are true because G-d also happens to permeate time and space, not because they describe G-d's nature. Objectively speaking, space and time simply don't relate to G-d and can't be used to describe Him. When there is no time and no space there is only One thing and that is unity.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes there are pantheist Christians.

Mainly though where this idea gets a hitch is if that god is everything, then all of the evil that exists are manifestations of this god and cannot be all good then.

I don't believe that to be a hitch.

"Good" is essentially a perfectly-functioning system.
"Evil" is that which causes the system to function imperfectly.

As God created new creative beings which are initially ignorant of him and the system he created, they will inevitably cause imperfection until they master at least the basics of that system and themselves as a part of that system.

A developing God would necessarily be perfect -and see the necessity initially, as everything would effect him directly -whereas our imperfect actions take time to affect us directly.

We will eventually see the necessity -and learn the basics of the system and ourselves -as well as God's place as the all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.

So.... evil is a temporary state which will be corrected -and all adverse consequences can be nullified.

The God of the bible takes full responsibility for the existence of evil -but we must take responsibility for our own actions. Then we can be allowed access to more of the creation without the possibility of evil.

Isaiah 45: 6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
8Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it.

18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

 

[Etritonakin]

There are two words in the Hebrew (and a third phrase attached to one of them) that are usually translated as "eternal (or forever).
The first one is עולם (o'lam) and shares a root with the word העלם (he'elam) meaning hidden. This word refers to the end point of a given time line, usually in the case of the world's timeline. Its also found in Rabbinic literature to mean the world in which the two endpoints encompass.

Sometimes the word ועד (va'ed) is attached to this word to make the phrase לעולם ועד (l'olam va'ed) which is usually translated as "forever and ever" but is something closer to "to the end-point and beyond".​

The other word is נצח (netzaḥ) and this shares a root with the word מנצח (minatze'aḥ) to be victorious. It denotes a time outside the timeline or timelessness.


Malachi 3:6?


I think there is a difference between eternal and timeless. The atoms or energy of everything that exists has always existed. But only so long as the universe has existed. Within the universe it is eternal, but it didn't exist before the universe.


This is not in my Bible.

I would say the inverse, not this.

Its hard to see how you've come to that interpretation. It doesn't say "I am that which is", which might make your interpretation more likely.
The words means I will be that which I will be. In context, Moses was asking for G-d's Name. In the Bible, names are often associated with some aspect of the nature of the character or the events that lead to the character's birth. It kind of sounds like the phrase is meant to be understood as G-d telling Moses that he isn't capable of understanding what He is, to be able to name Him.
Alternatively, the name I Will Be may also be understood to refer to G-d's timelessness. I will [always] be - but you will not [always] be.


Num. 23:19?


My Bible only has the first phrase "I am the first and I am the last". This seems like a statement - again - towards G-d's timelessness. He precedes creation and succeeds it.


I don't see why this should be true. Can you not have such a great knowledge of brooms, so as to know everything about a broom without being a broom? Or in other words, can't the source-potential have knowledge of itself and by extension have knowledge of everything that manifests without being the manifested?


I think those two verses I quoted earlier contradict the basis of what you're saying here. In one verse, G-d says, He hasn't changed. This wouldn't be true if He had. The other verse says G-d isn't a man. If He was a man, then this wouldn't be true. I understand from these two verses that G-d never became complex man.


I think my belief stems from an understanding that time and space are creations both of which G-d precedes. When we say G-d is infinite and omnipresent these are misnomers. Time and space take place "within" G-d and G-d permeates them. But G-d is also "outside" them. So G-d isn't infinite and omnipresent because He's everywhere and He persists infinitely. Those things are true because G-d also happens to permeate time and space, not because they describe G-d's nature. Objectively speaking, space and time simply don't relate to G-d and can't be used to describe Him. When there is no time and no space there is only One thing and that is unity.

God consisting of everything and everything consisting of God are essentially the same thing.

God not changing is apparently referring to his basic nature and the fact that he will certainly bring about the end he has declared, etc. -and there are many examples of God changing in other ways.

I did not mean that God became man -but that he may have been the most simple state possible -being and doing all which necessarily preceded the creation of the universe, man, etc.
God is not a man, but God made men from part of himself -El -to eventually become gods -Elohim
Psalm 82:6 I have said Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

"I AM THAT AM" -which I believe to be the most direct translation -does suggest the meaning "I am that which exists".

I'll have to address the rest later.

 

[Etritonakin]

Some good thoughts there. Some of it echoes my non-dual (God and creation are not-two) Advaita beliefs. In my thinking Consciousness/God/Brahman is non-physical and the fundamental basis of everything (the material universe is a derivative/emanation of the fundamental). A ray of the fundamental consciousness animates all living things. So, Consciousness/God/Brahman is eternal and the universe (matter) is always in a state of change (Impermanence).

Though many things are constantly changing, there must also be an absolute and unchanging foundation -a permanence which allows for stability/predictability/law, etc. Otherwise, we could not predict, plan and create with any certainty.

Creation is essentially causing an imbalance in order to create balance in a new configuration -though what appears to be balance might better be described as a stable circuit.

 

[Etritonakin]

There are two words in the Hebrew (and a third phrase attached to one of them) that are usually translated as "eternal (or forever).
The first one is עולם (o'lam) and shares a root with the word העלם (he'elam) meaning hidden. This word refers to the end point of a given time line, usually in the case of the world's timeline. Its also found in Rabbinic literature to mean the world in which the two endpoints encompass.

Sometimes the word ועד (va'ed) is attached to this word to make the phrase לעולם ועד (l'olam va'ed) which is usually translated as "forever and ever" but is something closer to "to the end-point and beyond".​

The other word is נצח (netzaḥ) and this shares a root with the word מנצח (minatze'aḥ) to be victorious. It denotes a time outside the timeline or timelessness.


Malachi 3:6?


I think there is a difference between eternal and timeless. The atoms or energy of everything that exists has always existed. But only so long as the universe has existed. Within the universe it is eternal, but it didn't exist before the universe.


This is not in my Bible.

I would say the inverse, not this.

Its hard to see how you've come to that interpretation. It doesn't say "I am that which is", which might make your interpretation more likely.
The words means I will be that which I will be. In context, Moses was asking for G-d's Name. In the Bible, names are often associated with some aspect of the nature of the character or the events that lead to the character's birth. It kind of sounds like the phrase is meant to be understood as G-d telling Moses that he isn't capable of understanding what He is, to be able to name Him.
Alternatively, the name I Will Be may also be understood to refer to G-d's timelessness. I will [always] be - but you will not [always] be.


Num. 23:19?


My Bible only has the first phrase "I am the first and I am the last". This seems like a statement - again - towards G-d's timelessness. He precedes creation and succeeds it.


I don't see why this should be true. Can you not have such a great knowledge of brooms, so as to know everything about a broom without being a broom? Or in other words, can't the source-potential have knowledge of itself and by extension have knowledge of everything that manifests without being the manifested?


I think those two verses I quoted earlier contradict the basis of what you're saying here. In one verse, G-d says, He hasn't changed. This wouldn't be true if He had. The other verse says G-d isn't a man. If He was a man, then this wouldn't be true. I understand from these two verses that G-d never became complex man.


I think my belief stems from an understanding that time and space are creations both of which G-d precedes. When we say G-d is infinite and omnipresent these are misnomers. Time and space take place "within" G-d and G-d permeates them. But G-d is also "outside" them. So G-d isn't infinite and omnipresent because He's everywhere and He persists infinitely. Those things are true because G-d also happens to permeate time and space, not because they describe G-d's nature. Objectively speaking, space and time simply don't relate to G-d and can't be used to describe Him. When there is no time and no space there is only One thing and that is unity.

Please note edit to original post (in bold) which -hopefully -better explains what I meant to say.

 

[Etritonakin]

Attempting to apply infinites or absolutes to a god tends to reveal inconsistencies - either in the underlying logic, theology, or both.

That is exactly why I am asking this question -whether God saying he is eternal means what we think it means.

Does it mean "I have always existed in a complex state" -or "I simply exist -have no beginning -but am the beginning -and have been every state which has been"

Some who believe the Big Bang to be the beginning of everything are saying that the most basic stuff from which everything is made simply existed without cause -and became all else by its own nature.

I am wondering if that is true of God -as I perceive that the universe must have been preceded by a self-aware designer, but it seems logical that the designer first became capable of designing a universe and then applied that design to that which has always existed.

In the broadest sense, everyone should be able to agree that the universe was created -and by a designer. That which is called the singularity was a designer of sorts which designated or created the universe from pre-universe "stuff". I do not believe the singularity could have existed prior to the existence of something capable of bringing it into existence by will, forethought, planning and arranging with intent. As I see it, it was far too complex to be the very beginning. However, the reason for the existence of that initial intelligence would be similar to what is believed of the singularity -and a developing intelligence would answer the question of itself and the complexity of the singularity.

 

[Thief]

if God is not eternal....His creation might fail

if He is already dead and His creation continues without Him....
we the living will die and pass into chaos or....eternal darkness of the grave

 

[Tumah]

God consisting of everything and everything consisting of God are essentially the same thing.

Not exactly. Its the difference of pantheism and panentheism.

God not changing is apparently referring to his basic nature and the fact that he will certainly bring about the end he has declared, etc. -and there are many examples of God changing in other ways.

I think that when the verse intends to convey a change of mind, it uses a different word "to regret". This word "change" here indicates that G-d has never changed (and Israel has never been consumed).[/quote]

I did not mean that God became man -but that he may have been the most simple state possible -being and doing all which necessarily preceded the creation of the universe, man, etc.
God is not a man, but God made men from part of himself -El -to eventually become gods -Elohim

That is not in the text. it says G-d made man in His image, not from a part of Himself.

Psalm 82:6 I have said Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

I don't think that's a great translation. There is precedent for the word "elohim" to refer to judges. And this psalm is talking about sitting in judgement. It seems more likely that's the proper translation.

"I AM THAT AM" -which I believe to be the most direct translation -does suggest the meaning "I am that which exists".

I actually find that translation more difficult to understand. The verse uses the aleph prefix which in Biblical Hebrew indicates imperfect tense (it is either in the process of happening or has yet to happen). But i can't think of any case where the aleph prefix is used and it doesn't mean something in the future. Even this exact word can be found in a number of places indicating future tense. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but just about every aleph prefix you come across is referring to a future event. So the more obvious translation I think is "I will Be that which I will Be".[/quote]

 

[Etritonakin]

Not exactly. Its the difference of pantheism and panentheism.


I think that when the verse intends to convey a change of mind, it uses a different word "to regret". This word "change" here indicates that G-d has never changed (and Israel has never been consumed).

Not sure what you meant by God never changing.
The verses seem to say that Israel was not consumed because God declared they would not and is accountable to himself -will not go against his word -did not change.

The Lord has been seen by Moses in his "glorious" body (the back parts) -was a pillar of fire, a pillar of smoke, etc.... So he is able to change form or the way he represents himself -and as he purposes things -plans and brings them to pass -develops things -his mind develops itself while developing those things within itself -but it is the initial development of the mind of God I am considering.
In order to function in certain ways, a mind must be of a certain design.
I am wondering if God self-developed his mind as he developed every thing according to his most basic nature -because every thing would be representative of that which was happening in his developing mind.
His most basic nature would still not have changed -only his overall form, activities, etc.

As for everything being God and God being everything -I mean that God's mind is able to control every thing -so every thing is essentially his body. Therefore all things are part of him -including our selves (though separate by logical arrangement).

As this relates to the other thread about sacrifice and offering (not necessarily the same things) preparing a future where animal sacrifice specifically is not necessary or required....

The New Testament says that we will be given glorious bodies which will allow for creative ability similar to that which allowed for the initial creation of all things.

The Old Testament is not so specific, but it does state that both the heavens and earth were formed "to be inhabited" -and a different sort of body would allow for that.

The whole point of Judah and Israel going through what they have (first) is for their purification -so that they eventually will not sin -and there is plenty of support for that in the Old Testament. Sin causes problems -and our present form limits the problems we can cause. When we no longer cause problems, we need not be so limited.

David considered the matter -but I don't think he realized at the time how much Glory and honor with which God would eventually crown man -or the extent of his works over which man would one day have dominion.

3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
7All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
9O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth

It is written that all nations on earth will eventually keep the feast of tabernacles -or will not receive rain, etc. -and the other holy days and sabbath will likely also be kept -but it is also written that they will not hurt or destroy in all his holy mountain. Animals will not even harm animals, so it is not logical that animal sacrifice specifically will continue -even though tithes, offerings and other sorts of things will continue.

 

[Etritonakin]

Anywho.... To summarize...... the basic question here is whether God always existed as a complex person and creator (and what was he doing forever before deciding to create the universe) -or whether he increased from the most basic simplicity possible to the present complexity -which would still allow for his being eternal (having no beginning or end in the sense of time, but being the beginning and end in the sense of development -having worked through even his own development every step of the way).

Scripture does say that God had no beginning -and also is the beginning -and I was wondering if that is what was meant.

I was considering why man is made as we are (our vulnerable and limited form, pain and sorrow mixed with beauty and joy) and experience the things we do -and it seems we are being given an excellerated course in the things God has made thus far -having done all of the groundwork for us.

 

[Tumah]

Not sure what you meant by God never changing.
The verses seem to say that Israel was not consumed because God declared they would not and is accountable to himself -will not go against his word -did not change.

Yes, I understand that is what the verse is trying to convey. But I think the way it is doing that is slightly different. The verse says "I G-d have not changed". As I explained earlier, the word that is usually used to convey G-d changing His mind is "regret/comfort". I'm suggesting that what the verse is actually saying is that G-d does not change and as a consequence of that, He remains reliable to His word. He doesn't change His mind because He cannot change His mind.

The Lord has been seen by Moses in his "glorious" body (the back parts) -was a pillar of fire, a pillar of smoke, etc.... So he is able to change form or the way he represents himself

There's a huge difference between the two, because the latter option doesn't really leave room for your following point.

-and as he purposes things -plans and brings them to pass -develops things -his mind develops itself while developing those things within itself -but it is the initial development of the mind of God I am considering.
In order to function in certain ways, a mind must be of a certain design.
I am wondering if God self-developed his mind as he developed every thing according to his most basic nature -because every thing would be representative of that which was happening in his developing mind.
His most basic nature would still not have changed -only his overall form, activities, etc.

I think, according to your understanding, G-d did not create time or if so, you believe He is bound to it.

As for everything being God and God being everything -I mean that God's mind is able to control every thing -so every thing is essentially his body. Therefore all things are part of him -including our selves (though separate by logical arrangement).

The Talmud draws a parallel between the soul and the body and G-d and the world, so I won't argue with you.

As this relates to the other thread about sacrifice and offering (not necessarily the same things) preparing a future where animal sacrifice specifically is not necessary or required....

The New Testament says that we will be given glorious bodies which will allow for creative ability similar to that which allowed for the initial creation of all things.

The Old Testament is not so specific, but it does state that both the heavens and earth were formed "to be inhabited" -and a different sort of body would allow for that.

I've responded about this in another post.

The whole point of Judah and Israel going through what they have (first) is for their purification -so that they eventually will not sin -and there is plenty of support for that in the Old Testament. Sin causes problems -and our present form limits the problems we can cause. When we no longer cause problems, we need not be so limited.

Going through tribulations is not meant to be a magic technique that will cause Jews to stop sinning. Its meant to cause us to repent from the sins that we've done. That's what Deut. 30 is all about.

I'm not sure what you mean about limited forms.

David considered the matter -but I don't think he realized at the time how much Glory and honor with which God would eventually crown man -or the extent of his works over which man would one day have dominion.

3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
7All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
9O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth.

What do you think he hadn't taken into consideration?

It is written that all nations on earth will eventually keep the feast of tabernacles -or will not receive rain, etc. -and the other holy days and sabbath will likely also be kept -but it is also written that they will not hurt or destroy in all his holy mountain. Animals will not even harm animals, so it is not logical that animal sacrifice specifically will continue -even though tithes, offerings and other sorts of things will continue.

As I pointed out in another post, you've decided that "sacrifice" falls under the category of "evil" and "destruction". There doesn't seem to be a textual reason for this. As a related point, the word "celebrate" in Zech. 14:16 is also a word used to refer to sacrifices, as in Ex. 23:18. So essentially the verse is saying that the nations will come to bring sacrifices on Tabernacles.

Anywho.... To summarize...... the basic question here is whether God always existed as a complex person and creator (and what was he doing forever before deciding to create the universe) -or whether he increased from the most basic simplicity possible to the present complexity -which would still allow for his being eternal (having no beginning or end in the sense of time, but being the beginning and end in the sense of development -having worked through even his own development every step of the way).

Scripture does say that God had no beginning -and also is the beginning -and I was wondering if that is what was meant.

There seems to be an assumption that G-d is presently complex, but I don't understand why that is necessary.

As I mentioned in another post, you also seem to believe that G-d is subject to time, else change would be impossible. To my mind, this would mean G-d isn't eternal but perhaps extending infinitely as numbers do. Although this may not be true either if you believe that there is an end to this development.

I was considering why man is made as we are (our vulnerable and limited form, pain and sorrow mixed with beauty and joy) and experience the things we do -and it seems we are being given an excellerated course in the things God has made thus far -having done all of the groundwork for us.

I feel there is some information that I don't have here. Earlier you explained that in a way man is a part of G-d's body and the world correlates to G-d's development. According to this, why is G-d giving His own body an accelerated course in -what I believe you mean to say is - His own development? I think what you are getting at is that through teaching His "body" G-d develops Himself?

This idea also seems to resonate with some Hindu teachings, I believe.