|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/2/2008 7:58:09 AM
|
|
|
Dagwat
Posts: 53
Joined: 6/13/2008
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
So you assume God created time? Reference?
God created sun, moon, and stars for the purpose of MEASURING what was already there; TIME. There is no way God created time. There is also no reference in scripture that says he did.
God is eternal (infinite) and unchanging. Time would not make any sense in terms of describing God, because He has no beginning and end, he just is. That’s why when Moses asked His name He simply said, “I am”. Time is a measure of change, a description of a sequence of events; it doesn’t apply to an unchanging infinite being. Time began when the universe began, so as much as you believe God created the universe, you also believe He created time.
quote:
I agree for example, that time is as old as God; both always are. I do not agree that one created the other, whatever direction the argument poses.
Something that is infinite and unchanging is not 'old', it just is.
First my friend, allow me to establish a frame of reference for this concept understood as "universe." It seems to reference a place of which God was outside at one point, it being not in existence pending its creation. With this I do not agree.
WHEREVER God was prior to the creation of what is, call it what you will, it still "WAS" for God WAS "there." To assert that God was "noplace" asserts God was not. For there would be of necessity, no "place" for him to "Be."
If you will examine the creation account recorded in Genesis, (I know you have done so already, but bear with me for a moment) You will see that there is referenced a "beginning" which is a reference to an activity, not to time itself. "In the beginning" refers to those activities which culminated in something becoming something else. It is a reference to a cause, a resulting change, and a conclusive effect.
Prov 8:22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
The word that is translated "way" is "deh-rek" meaning a road, journey, direction, manner, or similar meanings. Prior to creating, God "possessed." So you see, there was something God "did" before creation. This implies "time" as being effective prior to its use in the creative process. He possessed Wisdom before the creation process began.
"Before," and "began" are both a reference to time and its relation to event, in this case, "event" referencing creation, a process involving six "days," whatever that may mean.
As we have no reason to understand how long God possessed wisdom prior to the creation process, I think it respectful to say he always possessed wisdom. "Always" is a reference to time, again, prior to the creation.
To insist that God created "time" or somehow existed "outside of time," makes the account recorded in Proverbs chapter eight, suspect at least.
Time is necessary for ANYTHING to "be." Even God cannot "be" separate and apart from a time for "being."
And again, my freind, where is your scriptural reference for God creating time?
AND just where is YOUR scripture reference that proves God didn't create time? TO assume you know everything about God and when He done whatever He done is just silly my friend. Maybe you need to spend more time praying and communing with God instead of trying to figure Him out and pre-supposeing everything He is and His time frame. I do know the Bible states that God created all that is. And that would include time. If God didn't create time who did? Nothing can create itself, for GOD alone is the creator of all things.
_____________________________
God knows right where each of us are, and just how to find us, even when we don't want to be found. He doesn't have to send someone down to our level to reach us. He knows exactly how to draw us to His message and to where He has placed it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/2/2008 8:33:47 AM
|
|
|
Dagwat
Posts: 53
Joined: 6/13/2008
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I am not a scientist, nor yet a theologian of any pedigree whatsoever. But I do have a thought about God and the age of earth.
And I think that first sentence you typed on this topic says it all. Everything else you have stated is wild, imaginative and very biased. You continue throughout this thread to ask others about their credentials and what justifies their opinion, when there is clearly no basis for your OWN. You give a few twisted scriptures and a lot of pompous attitude but it is all gibberish. The Holy Scripture warns us not to be carried away with every wind of doctrine. It would appear to me that you are doing just that. You've put a lot of effort into arguing your ideas and making yourself out to be something pretty smart, but you simply haven't backed it up with anything but idea and fantasy. Try as you might, you don't have all the answers to God, time and creation and you never will. There are good reasons why God does not reveal everything about His existence to His creation. There are also a lot of references in II Timothy chapter three that describe your attitude. The words "heady" and "high-minded" come to mind. Dude, you're just babbling about things you know nothing about and I can't see a thing you've said in reading all your meaningless posts that are pleasing in the eyes of God, or that brings glory to Him. And it was for THAT purpose that you (and I) were created by God. Incessant argument doesn't make your thoughts more realistic. Get your focus back onto SERVING God, and stop trying to figure Him out. All that does is open your mind for satan to plant more wild ideas that are unjustifiable and unwarranted.
_____________________________
God knows right where each of us are, and just how to find us, even when we don't want to be found. He doesn't have to send someone down to our level to reach us. He knows exactly how to draw us to His message and to where He has placed it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/2/2008 10:14:15 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(dagwat)
AND just where is YOUR scripture reference that proves God didn't create time?
(theo)Right next to your scripture reference that says God is not a spider. We do not know anything about God based upon what scripture does NOT say, only by what it DOES say. I do not worry if scripture does NOT say God did not create time.
Scripture does not tell us God did not create heaven and earth, but it DOES tell us he DID create them. THAT IS HOW SCRIPTURE WORKS. Your protest is empty and without merit; based on the silence of scriptures.
quote:
(dagwat)
TO assume you know everything about God and when He done whatever He done is just silly my friend.
Hmmm!!! Sounds familiar. Could it be another posting under a different name? NOBODY knows everything about God. Does it bother you that SOMEONE knows SOMETHING about God that maybe YOU don't know? Sounds just a little petty to me.
quote:
(dagwat) Maybe you need to spend more time praying and communing with God instead of trying to figure Him out and pre-supposeing everything He is and His time frame.
(theo)And how would you know how much time I spend in prayer and meditation? Or how many years I have been studying to know his revelations about himself?
quote:
(dagwat) I do know the Bible states that God created all that is. And that would include time. If God didn't create time who did? Nothing can create itself, for GOD alone is the creator of all things.
(theo) And THAT is based solely upon assumption, that time is a thing. Scripture tells us Psa 146:6 (God) Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: Time is not "in" heaven, nor "in" earth, nor yet "in" the sea. Time is not "in" all things. All things are "in" TIME.
Ecc 3:11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time"
Time must exist for any thing to be. It is that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/2/2008 10:34:48 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(theo) I am not a scientist, nor yet a theologian of any pedigree whatsoever. But I do have a thought about God and the age of earth.
(dagwat) And I think that first sentence you typed on this topic says it all. Everything else you have stated is wild, imaginative and very biased.
Your assessment seems fair and unbiased. NOT!!!
You have contributed NOTHING to the thread, yet feel you can jump right in and castigate me for defending a position that has been attacked. That is what debate is all about. I did not come into your sunday school class and attack your teacher, so why react as though I did? This is a website debate. Debate is what we do here. Disagree is what we do here.
quote:
(dagwat) You continue throughout this thread to ask others about their credentials and what justifies their opinion,
(theo) Reference please. What is the post number? Time to put your information where your big mouth is.
quote:
(dagwat) when there is clearly no basis for your OWN. You give a few twisted scriptures and a lot of pompous attitude but it is all gibberish.
(theo) Now dagwat, play nice. Please. Please indicate which scripture (by reference) I have "twisted." As for pomposity, that is simply an amateurish attack. As for gibberish, are you in need of a translator?
quote:
(dagwat) The Holy Scripture warns us not to be carried away with every wind of doctrine. It would appear to me that you are doing just that. You've put a lot of effort into arguing your ideas and making yourself out to be something pretty smart, but you simply haven't backed it up with anything but idea and fantasy.
Like scriptures that your friends claim do not count (Prov 8:22-31); like definitions straight from Webster, that no one aknowledges; like disagreements with those who claim "Orthodoxy" results from the votes of denominations and those in power.
quote:
(dagwat) Try as you might, you don't have all the answers to God, time and creation and you never will.
(theo) Well, at least you can read. That was determined in my post #177 and mostly in post #181.
quote:
(dagwat) There are good reasons why God does not reveal everything about His existence to His creation.
(theo) And I bet you know them all.
quote:
(theo) There are also a lot of references in II Timothy chapter three that describe your attitude. The words "heady" and "high-minded" come to mind. Dude, you're just babbling about things you know nothing about and I can't see a thing you've said in reading all your meaningless posts that are pleasing in the eyes of God,
(theo) Is it now I am supposed to Genuflect? Are you going to tell us what pleases God's eyes?
quote:
(dagwat) or that brings glory to Him. And it was for THAT purpose that you (and I) were created by God. Incessant argument doesn't make your thoughts more realistic. Get your focus back onto SERVING God, and stop trying to figure Him out. All that does is open your mind for satan to plant more wild ideas that are unjustifiable and unwarranted.
(theo) So what you are saying is that if one of your friends responds to one of my posts, I am not to respond to his response? Is THAT what you consider "incessant argument?" Or are you to have the last word to make it non-incessant? Please explain it so one as dumb as myself can understand it.
Nice chatting with you.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 7/2/2008 10:45:07 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 9:09:17 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
The funny thing about God creating time is time may just be convention. No to say its not an important convention and one initiated by God.
But, to use t_b's concept of existence, to say that time "exists" is to say that it has duration in time, I believe. Obviously, this is a peculiar statement.
Does it have physical effects? Yes. But does time "exist" in the sense of time as the parsing of duration? No, only by convention. Days are a convention -- though one that God has explained us are important. For instance, one could say "I don't wear a watch and I just don't care about distinctions between weekday wnd weekend." There is nothing for us to objectively point to (secularly speaking -- I mean except God's word) to say that they are trying to deny something patently real, such as gravity. One cannot defy the convention of gravity, because it is real. One, of course, cannot stop oneself from aging, either, tho, so perhaps my analogy is unfair. But, certainly, while it is true to say that effects can be seen from the process of realizing duration, the way we measure duration is by convention.
Another way to say this is that we have the concept "existence." However, there is no such thing as existence without duration. If something exists for less than an instant, it cannot be said to have ever existed.
For instance, if this life is but an instant, then we can make sense of the fact that there are some that we know now on this earth but of whom it will be said in eternity, "I never knew you." Of course, that is not the only way to make sense of that phrase. Nevertheless, I find it intriguing to consider the unrepentent to have never existed at all, because existence is something bestowed by God.
Aside from this, my point is that existence implies duration, so to speak of the salience of another concept time, which we could only understand as the parsing or convention of measuring duration, is not possible. Uh, I mean, it is not a salient or independent concept with ontological exigency. Like this: if existence implies time and time implies existence, then we are talking about the same thing.
< Message edited by hellohellohi -- 7/10/2008 9:17:04 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 10:13:57 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(hellohellohi)
The funny thing about God creating time is time may just be convention. No to say its not an important convention and one initiated by God.
But, to use t_b's concept of existence, to say that time "exists" is to say that it has duration in time, I believe. Obviously, this is a peculiar statement.
Not quite. "Duration" is a noun describing what other things do IN time. Time itself does not have duration, but things have duration in time. Duration connotes the length of time required for something to exist or to function.
quote:
(hellohellohi) Does it have physical effects? Yes. But does time "exist" in the sense of time as the parsing of duration? No, only by convention. Days are a convention -- though one that God has explained us are important. For instance, one could say "I don't wear a watch and I just don't care about distinctions between weekday wnd weekend." There is nothing for us to objectively point to (secularly speaking -- I mean except God's word) to say that they are trying to deny something patently real, such as gravity. One cannot defy the convention of gravity, because it is real. One, of course, cannot stop oneself from aging, either, tho, so perhaps my analogy is unfair. But, certainly, while it is true to say that effects can be seen from the process of realizing duration, the way we measure duration is by convention.
If by "convention" you mean "convenience" or "agreement" I disagree with your conclusion. Time passes whether we are cognizant of it or not. I think you are referencing the "measurement of time," not time itself.
And the way we measure duration is by the Sun and Moon which were given to us by God for that purpose; rather than by man's "convention." (IF I understood your point)
quote:
(hellohellohi) Another way to say this is that we have the concept "existence." However, there is no such thing as existence without duration. If something exists for less than an instant, it cannot be said to have ever existed.
If you can say "It never existed" how then can you say "It existed but less than an instant?" An instant is not the measure of existence, it is the measure of duration of existence. In the age of "nano-seconds" and "giga-seconds" or "pico-seconds," I think an "instant" would appear to be a considerable duration.
quote:
(hellohellohi) For instance, if this life is but an instant, then we can make sense of the fact that there are some that we know now on this earth but of whom it will be said in eternity, "I never knew you." Of course, that is not the only way to make sense of that phrase. Nevertheless, I find it intriguing to consider the unrepentent to have never existed at all, because existence is something bestowed by God.
Actually it makes no sense at all when phrased that way. When God says "I never knew you" it is a disclaimer by God to the rituals and traditions some claim makes them belong to or be closer to God. He is saying "your ways are not my ways and your thoughts are not my thoughts." "While You may claime ME, I never knew YOU."
If non-repentance equates with non-existence, then God does not exist, because many times he failed to repent of the evil he intended for some nation or another. "Therefore also now, saith the LORD, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourning: 13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil." [Joel 2:12-13]
"And said unto them, Thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, unto whom ye sent me to present your supplication before him; 10 If ye will still abide in this land, then will I build you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you up: for I repent me of the evil that I have done unto you." [Jer 42:9-10]
"Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you."[Jer 26:13]
But the strongest example is recorded in Exodus, when Moses pleaded with the Lord God for Israel - "And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. [Exo 32:11-14]
quote:
(hellohellohi) Aside from this, my point is that existence implies duration, so to speak of the salience of another concept time, which we could only understand as the parsing or convention of measuring duration, is not possible. Uh, I mean, it is not a salient or independent concept with ontological exigency. Like this: if existence implies time and time implies existence, then we are talking about the same thing.
But the truth of the matter is, Existence requires time, while time only allows for existence and measures it with duration.
Very good observations but only if I am understanding your point.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 10:36:06 AM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 2463
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
But the truth of the matter is, Existence requires time, while time only allows for existence and measures it with duration.
For us, it does. For God, it does not. I still have not seen an explanation for time going in the other direction, and, by your premises, it must do so. What happens in that time as it becomes new history?
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
<--- BTW, this is the true function of corn! It is to help the oil industry and its functionaries, not detract from them! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 10:46:27 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
Time itself does not have duration, but things have duration in time.
Yes, I agree that this would be a funy thing to say in the least. That was what I was trying to say -- that it is a non-sequitur or something.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 10:49:18 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
And the way we measure duration is by the Sun and Moon which were given to us by God for that purpose; rather than by man's "convention." (IF I understood your point)
Yes, I agree that such is God's convention. I also agree that time passes whetehr we like it or not -- it is known by its effects. But one could argue from the perspective of an unchanging conscious experience (which some may claim) that time doesn't truly exist or something. But, yes, my points were concerning the measurement of time -- basically, I was trying to say that, aside from measurement (which, like all quntifiication, is an expression of making non-salient distinctions) "time" is not salient or distinct or independent from "existence" as a concept.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 10:52:22 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 531
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I am not a scientist, nor yet a theologian of any pedigree whatsoever. But I do have a thought about God and the age of earth.
Can you picture God sitting around an empty universe for aeons of time contemplating creation of what is, but unable to make up his mind about which things to incorporate into his new concept, earth? I can't either.
I think God is first and foremost, active. In fact, Genesis begins by telling us God is six times as active as he is restful. So I find a certain reluctance to suppose God waited a looong time to begin the creative process which resulted in me and my generation. (Touch of ego there?)
No, I like to think of God as considering his "aloneness" as lacking purpose, and almost instantaneously, saying "Let there be light." Earth and all that is soon followed in the process as revealed in the Genesis account.
That would make the earth just an infinitessimal bit younger than God himself. It matters not how old the earth is, nor yet how old God is, so long as he considers us still his children, and still sends his rain and blessings and gives us hope.
As for carbon dating, it works for science. As for chronologically dating in accord with geneological records revealed in scripture, That works for some Christians. Personally, I think it more important to consider "today, while it is called today," and so much the more as I see the day approach.
Is it reasonable to accept evolution as the cause of me? Not for me. Is it reasonable to accept the self-serving revelation of God who lays his love on me? Yup! Got MY attention right away.
Do I care what evolutionists think? Most certainly, for therein is the soul of an image of God at stake. Would I argue with evolutionists? Most certainly. And I would win.
Would that make me smart? Not at all. It would make me reflect that "There, but for God's grace and the lamb's blood sacrifice, go I."
I thank God daily for his love and care, and for the opportunities he gives me to declare his being to those who deny such with their own being.
Actually it's more plausible to picture an eternal God who created the universe than picturing the earth sitting around empty for billions of years then one day, natural laws and properties just happen to come around and create life.  Actually, it's an oxymoron to claim that life happens by chance and is at the same time ordered. Claiming that we have a purposeless life is devaluing life.
So you either believe that God was confused about His plan so he just let earth sit for billions of years after he created it, or when he decided he wanted us to share his plan, he went right to work. The latter is biblical, the former is not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 10:57:14 AM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you can say "It never existed" how then can you say "It existed but less than an instant?" An instant is not the measure of existence, it is the measure of duration of existence. In the age of "nano-seconds" and "giga-seconds" or "pico-seconds," I think an "instant" would appear to be a considerable duration.
Yes, I was trying to conjure an image of a "duration approaching zero" without being too technical. I was trying to express something contradictory, really.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 2:32:15 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
But the truth of the matter is, Existence requires time, while time only allows for existence and measures it with duration.
For us, it does. For God, it does not. I still have not seen an explanation for time going in the other direction, and, by your premises, it must do so. What happens in that time as it becomes new history?
I fail to understand where this concept came from; "For us it does, for God it does not." God is the master of time, not time the master of God. It is God who exercises power in all that he does, while time only provides a medium for duration. All that God does, he does within the parameters of time. Since God is only concerned with today (Today while it is called today) and tomorrow, (feast days and the memorials of covenant), and the only use he has for yesterday is to remind us whence we have fallen, and been raised again; There is no reversal of time. There is no "going back" even for God. It is science fiction mixed with science phantasy. There is never an instance where scripture references such.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 2:36:23 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
And the way we measure duration is by the Sun and Moon which were given to us by God for that purpose; rather than by man's "convention." (IF I understood your point)
Yes, I agree that such is God's convention. I also agree that time passes whetehr we like it or not -- it is known by its effects. But one could argue from the perspective of an unchanging conscious experience (which some may claim) that time doesn't truly exist or something. But, yes, my points were concerning the measurement of time -- basically, I was trying to say that, aside from measurement (which, like all quntifiication, is an expression of making non-salient distinctions) "time" is not salient or distinct or independent from "existence" as a concept.
You remind me of the question "If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
"If there is no one existing, does time not go by?"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 2:38:31 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Carico
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I am not a scientist, nor yet a theologian of any pedigree whatsoever. But I do have a thought about God and the age of earth.
Can you picture God sitting around an empty universe for aeons of time contemplating creation of what is, but unable to make up his mind about which things to incorporate into his new concept, earth? I can't either.
I think God is first and foremost, active. In fact, Genesis begins by telling us God is six times as active as he is restful. So I find a certain reluctance to suppose God waited a looong time to begin the creative process which resulted in me and my generation. (Touch of ego there?)
No, I like to think of God as considering his "aloneness" as lacking purpose, and almost instantaneously, saying "Let there be light." Earth and all that is soon followed in the process as revealed in the Genesis account.
That would make the earth just an infinitessimal bit younger than God himself. It matters not how old the earth is, nor yet how old God is, so long as he considers us still his children, and still sends his rain and blessings and gives us hope.
As for carbon dating, it works for science. As for chronologically dating in accord with geneological records revealed in scripture, That works for some Christians. Personally, I think it more important to consider "today, while it is called today," and so much the more as I see the day approach.
Is it reasonable to accept evolution as the cause of me? Not for me. Is it reasonable to accept the self-serving revelation of God who lays his love on me? Yup! Got MY attention right away.
Do I care what evolutionists think? Most certainly, for therein is the soul of an image of God at stake. Would I argue with evolutionists? Most certainly. And I would win.
Would that make me smart? Not at all. It would make me reflect that "There, but for God's grace and the lamb's blood sacrifice, go I."
I thank God daily for his love and care, and for the opportunities he gives me to declare his being to those who deny such with their own being.
Actually it's more plausible to picture an eternal God who created the universe than picturing the earth sitting around empty for billions of years then one day, natural laws and properties just happen to come around and create life. Actually, it's an oxymoron to claim that life happens by chance and is at the same time ordered. Claiming that we have a purposeless life is devaluing life.
So you either believe that God was confused about His plan so he just let earth sit for billions of years after he created it, or when he decided he wanted us to share his plan, he went right to work. The latter is biblical, the former is not.
Aye! THERE"S the rub. The latter is biblical indeed, the former is not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 2:41:36 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hellohellohi
quote:
If you can say "It never existed" how then can you say "It existed but less than an instant?" An instant is not the measure of existence, it is the measure of duration of existence. In the age of "nano-seconds" and "giga-seconds" or "pico-seconds," I think an "instant" would appear to be a considerable duration.
Yes, I was trying to conjure an image of a "duration approaching zero" without being too technical. I was trying to express something contradictory, really.
The only concept I can think of that has duration approaching zero is the idea that God waited for countless aeons just getting older while he contemplated creating anything at all. I think God opened his eyes and saw what was not and filled in the blanks.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 2:48:28 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
You remind me of the question "If a tree falls in the forrest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
"If there is no one existing, does time not go by?"
Yes, I love that question. I don't know if time would go by under such circumstances. Maybe that is exactly the type of thinking ("if") taht gets us into trouble. I am heartened by the way you focus on the Bible as your source. I would contrast the Bible with putatively objective knowledge, also. And, I would say that you are helping us to see that it is odd, difficult, or pointless to imagine God sitting around without his subjects -- without us observers. Another way to say this is that God erected time for us, and that is all we know. Do we know what He does outside of time? Not at all. There is really no sense to the question. What does matter is that God has subjected himself to time to show us its importance to his plan -- if you would allow me to summarize you again. You have stated this case very well -- Biblically, too.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 2:53:48 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
quote:
The only concept I can think of that has duration approaching zero is the idea that God waited for countless aeons just getting older while he contemplated creating anything at all. I think God opened his eyes and saw what was not and filled in the blanks.
Great application of what I was trying to say! Actually, that's so close to what I was saying, too. I was trying to say that not only was that prior moment "an instant" (in the sense of approaching zero) but that time itself, in eternity, will also be "an instant." (I know you will probably take issue with this, but I just mention it because it is something I have contemplated.) However, paradoxically, I think it is also vital to respect God's emphasis on time. Really, I hadn't thought about it very much (or at least not in a long while), though you have shown it to be rife in the Bible, before you started raising it. The main passages I have focused on for my own treatment of time are the ones along the lines "Today's worries are enough for today..." and those directing us to not be caught asleep on the day of reckoning or judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 2:56:20 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 2463
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: WesP
quote:
But the truth of the matter is, Existence requires time, while time only allows for existence and measures it with duration.
For us, it does. For God, it does not. I still have not seen an explanation for time going in the other direction, and, by your premises, it must do so. What happens in that time as it becomes new history?
I fail to understand where this concept came from; "For us it does, for God it does not." God is the master of time, not time the master of God. It is God who exercises power in all that he does, while time only provides a medium for duration. All that God does, he does within the parameters of time. Since God is only concerned with today (Today while it is called today) and tomorrow, (feast days and the memorials of covenant), and the only use he has for yesterday is to remind us whence we have fallen, and been raised again; There is no reversal of time. There is no "going back" even for God. It is science fiction mixed with science phantasy. There is never an instance where scripture references such.
When did God begin then?
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
<--- BTW, this is the true function of corn! It is to help the oil industry and its functionaries, not detract from them!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. - 7/10/2008 3:00:25 PM
|
|
|
hellohellohi
Posts: 538
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: North Carolina!
Status: offline
|
I believe a reconciliation between the apparently contradictory notions of "the instant" and the apparent duration of life and the importance of time acknolwedged by God Himself is that in this life it is possible to both sin AND be forgiven; however, as repentent sinners, we realize that though we deserved to lose our lives that "instant" we have in fact been given a gracious reprieve. However, we cannot also count on this reprieve continuing as long as we continue to sin: such is courting death and a sudden revocation of "the instant." Time, therefore, is God's great paradox in which salvation of the undeserved sinner takes place.
Does that sound right or Biblical?
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
