God and Time, closing words of William Lane Craig

[glfredrick]

Thank you Amy. Here is the problem. Either the ESV or many other translation are wrong in what they have written. We cannot have it both ways and my guess is that the ESV has added to scripture and if that is so I would chunk it because it changes the meaning of the verse.

The ESV has it correct... The word "pro" (before) is in the Greek:

1:25 μόνῳ θεῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν δόξα μεγαλωσύνη κράτος καὶ ἐξουσία πρὸ παντὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀμήν

Litteral, "before all time and now and forever..."

 

[HankD]

Rev. 10:6 has been misapplied as meaning time will one day cease. The KJV's translation is not the best for that particular verse.

The ESV:
6and swore by(H) him who lives forever and ever,(I) who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay,

NKJV:
6 and swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things that are in it, the earth and the things that are in it, and the sea and the things that are in it, that there should be delay no longer,

In context it is stating the urgency or no longer waiting, not the fact time will cease to exist. Time will never cease to exist, just as we will never cease to exist and be human even after death. We are both part of God's creation.

I disagree webdog, the word is chronos and is used 53 times in the koine NT and is never translated as "delay" (KJV - no I am not KJVO)

There is a word for "delay", more than one, kronos is never used for such in he AV.

Here are examples of kronos :

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

If you want to use the NKJV here is another place where (admitedly in the NKJV in an inconsistent way) the word kronos is used:

NKJV Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.

Time had a beginning, it will have an end.

Eternity has neither. God exists in eternity and we also when we enter the eternal state of Revelation 21.

HankD​

 

[dwmoeller1]

I disagree webdog, the word is chronos and is used 53 times in the koine NT and is never translated as "delay" (KJV - no I am not KJVO)

There is a word for "delay", more than one, kronos is never used for such in he AV.

Here are examples of kronos :

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

If you want to use the NKJV here is another place where (admitedly in the NKJV in an inconsistent way) the word kronos is used:

NKJV Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.

Time had a beginning, it will have an end.

Eternity has neither. God exists in eternity and we also when we enter the eternal state of Revelation 21.

HankD​

Agreeing with WebDog. Your rendering requires an anchronistic view of the word "time". "Time no longer" is a valid translation but to read this phrase as the substance of time ceasing to exist is anachronistic.

So, given the context and how the word is used elsewhere the proper sense of the phrase is certainly "no more delay". English has a couple of idioms which parallels the Greek very well - "no time left" and "out of time". Just as it would be highly unreasonable to read such a statement as a cessation of the substance of all time, so it is when reading Rev 10:6. The fact that every other translation makes this clear should be some weight in your consideration.

And its not that chronos means delay, its that the Greek phrase (esp. given the context) "time no more" carries the meaning of "no more delay" - or in the English idiom "no time left". Reading Rev 10:6 as meaning time ceasing to exist is highly problematic.

 

[HankD]

Agreeing with WebDog. Your rendering requires an anchronistic view of the word "time". "Time no longer" is a valid translation but to read this phrase as the substance of time ceasing to exist is anachronistic.

So, given the context and how the word is used elsewhere the proper sense of the phrase is certainly "no more delay". English has a couple of idioms which parallels the Greek very well - "no time left" and "out of time". Just as it would be highly unreasonable to read such a statement as a cessation of the substance of all time, so it is when reading Rev 10:6. The fact that every other translation makes this clear should be some weight in your consideration.

And its not that chronos means delay, its that the Greek phrase (esp. given the context) "time no more" carries the meaning of "no more delay" - or in the English idiom "no time left". Reading Rev 10:6 as meaning time ceasing to exist is highly problematic.

I disagree with your assessment given that the NKJV got it right in the following passage which I quoted.

NKJV Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.

In addition Revelation 10:6 is in the context of the eternal God and His creation in kronos:

Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:​

HankD

 

[glfredrick]

Okay, I've now waded through this entire thread and have a few observations. Some of this may have been said in another way already so mostly, I hope to clarify.

1) God is not tied to this universe. To say that He is part and parcel of the created universe is to be pantheistic or panentheistic -- we are neither. God is "wholly other" (transcendent) and not part of His creation with the exception of the incarnation of Jesus, sent into this universe as a human baby -- In the words of Isaiah, Immanuel -- God with us (immanent).

2) That places God necessarily apart from time and space. God is not effected by temporal time, save that He created it and acknowledges it, mainly for our sake. (Peter hints at this with 1000 years = one day.)

3) In the universe, there is no "actual infinite." If there were (as was explained previously) there would be no "next" (tomorrow) for you cannot add or subtract one from an actual infinite. We can speculate about infinity, and find infinity (nothing can be added or subtracted) in God, but not in God's creation. That means that time had to have had a beginning, which implies that there was something "before" that beginning, though the human language fails us in trying to wrestle with an actual infinite in the person of God and what it means to be apart from space and time.

4) We cannot even begin to understand how there can be a Trinity, a God apart from space and time, etc., without also understanding that God's creation involves more than the four standard dimensions of height, width, length, and time. The Bible agrees, and we find evidence of God moving in and out of dimensional time as He sees fit. Prayerfully, we will one day understand more about extra dimensions that we currently can do nothing more than speculate on while in this universe.

5) Because God can indeed see (and be sovereign) over the past, present, and future, He can and does indeed work out His plan to perfection in ways that we will never grasp. Isaiah 55 speaks to this issue as does numerous other passages that deal with God's sovereignty.

 

[HankD]

Here is another interesting fact dw.

The Byzantine Majority TR differs from the Stephanus 1550 Greek NT in this place (one of the rare variants between them):

The Stephanus is the AV usage and can make a significant difference in meaning.
Evidently the NKJV translators went with the Byzantine Majority which BTW agrees with the Westcott and Hort text.

BYZ: cronoj ouketi estai(
Steph: cronoj ouk estai eti

HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

I disagree with your assessment given that the NKJV got it right in the following passage which I quoted.

NKJV Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.

No real disagreement with you over this verse. It doesn't, however, support your take on Rev 10:6.

In addition Revelation 10:6 is in the context of the eternal God and His creation in kronos:

Revelation 10:6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:​

Thats the context only if you look at the verse alone. Include vs 7 and the context becomes more clear. The characteristics of God (created heaven...and thing therein) are given as a basis for the what the angel sware. The 'time no longer' is connected to what follows in verse 7. Verse 7 refers to the mystery of God being finished - the 'time no longer' is in reference to this. It is essentially equal to the English phrases "out of time", "no more time" and "time is up". It refers to something coming to completion, not to time ceasing to exist altogether.

There is no textual or contextual reason to read it as you do. You are depending on an anachronistic reading of one particular version. Very poor hermeneutics. That would be my assessment even if I agreed with you that time will end. And, FWIW, I doubt if you will find many, if any, commentators who agree with your take on this phrase.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Here is another interesting fact dw.

The Byzantine Majority TR differs from the Stephanus 1550 Greek NT in this place (one of the rare variants between them):

The Stephanus is the AV usage and can make a significant difference in meaning.
Evidently the NKJV translators went with the Byzantine Majority which BTW agrees with the Westcott and Hort text.

BYZ: cronoj ouketi estai(
Steph: cronoj ouk estai eti

HankD

Is "no more delay" (or some equivalent) an accurate rendering of "cronoj ouk estai eti"?

 

[webdog]

I disagree webdog, the word is chronos and is used 53 times in the koine NT and is never translated as "delay" (KJV - no I am not KJVO)

There is a word for "delay", more than one, kronos is never used for such in he AV.

Here are examples of kronos :

Luke 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

If you want to use the NKJV here is another place where (admitedly in the NKJV in an inconsistent way) the word kronos is used:

NKJV Titus 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.

Time had a beginning, it will have an end.

Eternity has neither. God exists in eternity and we also when we enter the eternal state of Revelation 21.

HankD​

Time is not something that is evil, it was part of God's perfect creation. The creation account verifies this (evening and morning....). New Earth will be a return to God's intended creation and will include time. There's even time in Heaven. When the 7th seal is opened, there will be silence in Heaven for "about a half hour" (Rev. 8:1).

If time were to actually end, our existence would as well, as God intended for us to go together hand in hand. Randy Alcorn did a nice job discussing this in his book Heaven

 

[webdog]

2) That places God necessarily apart from time and space. God is not effected by temporal time, save that He created it and acknowledges it, mainly for our sake. (Peter hints at this with 1000 years = one day.)

If He is apart from time and space, He is not omnipresent. Omnipresence requires omnitemporalness.

 

[lastday]

Lastday

dwmoeller1,
You write correctly:

The characteristics of God (created heaven...and things therein) are given as a basis for what the angel sware. The 'time no longer' is connected to what follows in verse 7. Verse 7 refers to the mystery of God being finished - the 'time no longer' is in reference to this.
It is essentially equal to the English phrases "out of time", "no more time" and "time is up". It refers to something coming to completion, not to time ceasing to exist altogether.

But "time no longer" is ALSO in reference to the final answer given to Daniel
about the 3.5 times that END with "Christ coming with the Saints to destroy the Beast and deliver the kingdoms on earth to the Saints
of the Most High".
Daniel's references in Dan.7:25 and Dan.12:4,7,11 relate to the "End of Time
and Mystery of God which will be finished" with 3 days remaining until the 7th Trumpet sounds that 'God's wrath has come'"!! The final "3.5 times" are just as exacting in fulfilling the number of days in the 2nd half of the final 70th Set of "7" as were the days of the 69 sets of "7" from the month of Nisan in BC 444 to the Triumphal Entry of Christ into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday in that same month of Nisan in the year AD 33!!!

That 2nd half of the final 70th "7" will begin with the Two Prophets coming from heaven to "stand before their God and against the god of earth" until they are killed "in the days when time ends and the mystery of God was finished"...with "no more delay" other than to wait for the last day and hour
of Christ's coming to fulfill the "End of Time" for Christ's glorious return!!! Dan.7:25-27; Dan.12:4-11; Rev.10:6-7; Rev.11:15-18; Rev.19:11-15.
Mel

 

[glfredrick]

If He is apart from time and space, He is not omnipresent. Omnipresence requires omnitemporalness.

He cannot be omnipresent in time. God is timeless "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow..." But, He inserts Himself into time via Jesus Christ, so He fills all avenues required for true omnipresence, both temporal and non-temporal.

 

[webdog]

He cannot be omnipresent in time. God is timeless "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow..." But, He inserts Himself into time via Jesus Christ, so He fills all avenues required for true omnipresence, both temporal and non-temporal.

I disagree. God is present in every part of this world. If He cannot be omnipresent in time, He is not omnipresent. When Jesus was baptized the entire Trinity was present and accounted for in time.

God exists yesterday, today and tomorrow...all at the same time. We cannot fathom that concept, but anything less than that calls into question God's attributes of omnipresence and omnipotence.

 

[dwmoeller1]

If He is apart from time and space, He is not omnipresent. Omnipresence requires omnitemporalness.

Insert "totally apart from time and space" and your logic works. No one though (as far as i can tell) is arguing that God is totally apart from time and space in all ways. At the very least, God directly interacts with time and space by continually maintaining its existence.

So, for instance, if God exists outside of time and space but chooses to 'intersect" time and space, then He can be both omnipresent and omnitemporal by intersecting time and space at all points simultaneously. Thus He is still apart from time and space in His essence, but not apart from time and space in all ways and senses.

 

[dwmoeller1]

He cannot be omnipresent in time. God is timeless "the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow..." But, He inserts Himself into time via Jesus Christ, so He fills all avenues required for true omnipresence, both temporal and non-temporal.

Would you agree that God can communicate directly with temporal beings? Would you agree that He actively sustains the existence of time and space?
If so, then there can be no problem with God being omnipresent in time. If He can "insert" Himself in time to communicate directly to say, Abraham, then it follows that He can insert Himself into every point in time "simultaneously". Thus, He is omnipresent in time not because He is bound to time or because He is somehow inside of time, but because He can intersect with all points in time at the "same time".

In short, "timeless" and "omnipresent in time" are not mutually contradictory.

 

[webdog]

Insert "totally apart from time and space" and your logic works. No one though (as far as i can tell) is arguing that God is totally apart from time and space in all ways. At the very least, God directly interacts with time and space by continually maintaining its existence.

So, for instance, if God exists outside of time and space but chooses to 'intersect" time and space, then He can be both omnipresent and omnitemporal by intersecting time and space at all points simultaneously. Thus He is still apart from time and space in His essence, but not apart from time and space in all ways and senses.

If God exists outside of time and space, He is bound to one location...outside of time and space. Even if He 'intersects' time and space you have pinpointed an exact location of someone who is omnipresent.

 

[HankD]

Is "no more delay" (or some equivalent) an accurate rendering of "cronoj ouk estai eti"?

Not exactly :

Literal of Stephanus text : "Time not shall be anymore".
Literal of Byzantine text : "Time no longer shall be".

In both cases estai is future indicative (shall be).

The verb form (kronidzo) of the noun kronos can be used as its verb counterpart:

Matthew 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

And seems to me that the sentence for the idea of "delay" would have been constructed with a velbalized form of kronidzo.

I have never seen the noun kronos used in a construction that has the sense of "delay" apart from possibly this passage which seems unlikely to me in spite of how many translate it as such.

That is my take. I don't like these protracted and repetitive debates so for now as far as I am concerned, all that can be said probably has been said.

If a Koine grammarian has something else to offer perhaps it might help.

Just an FYI, the Vulgate has:

quia tempus amplius non erit - because time to increase shall not be​

However the Douay-Rheims (16th century Catholic translation of the Vulgate) has:​

Confraternity Edition:
DR Revelation 10:6 And he swore by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven and the things which are therein, and the earth and the things which are in it, and the sea and the things which are therein: That time shall be no longer.​

HankD

 

[dwmoeller1]

If God exists outside of time and space, He is bound to one location...outside of time and space. Even if He 'intersects' time and space you have pinpointed an exact location of someone who is omnipresent.

First of all, outside of time and space is not a location. "Location" has no meaning outside of space.

Regarding pinpointing an exact location, consider this illustration...

Let's say that God is a 3-dimensional being who creates a 2 dimensional world on which beings with a 1 dimensional existence by a limited 2 dimensional perception exist. Lets say this 2 dimensional world is, from God's point of view (POV), shaped like a string/line. As 1 dimensional beings we travel down this string and perceive it as a passage through time. We have no height or depth on this string so we cannot perceive anything directly except on the point where we happen to find ourselves. We can remember the past and anticipate the future but cannot directly perceive either.

However, God, the three dimensional being who exists outside the string of creation, can still "intersect" with the string. He can, for one thing, touch the string. When He does so, He is intersecting the string of creation at multiple points on the timeline and is doing so simultaneously. So, if part of His finger intersects the point where we exist, we can perceive Him at that specific place and time. However, the fact this does not mean that we can therefore pinpoint His precise location as being at that point and time. We, being 1 dimensional beings may perceive it as such - after all we can't really conceive of anything other than 1 dimensional existence - but to argue that our perception represents reality is to make God out to be a 1 dimensional being.

Instead, God is intersecting multiple places as times (all of them actually) w/o ever being located at any of them - not located in the sense we would understand it at least.

 

[RAdam]

It's fun watching people argue over things we cannot even understand. Do you understand eternity? I don't. What is it like to not be constrained by time?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Not exactly :

Literal of Stephanus text : "Time not shall be anymore".
Literal of Byzantine text : "Time no longer shall be".

In both cases estai is future indicative (shall be).

So how does pointing out the differences doesn't really further your point then? Since you are denying that any of the other translations got it right, your argument still has to depend on an anachronistic reading of particular version. Bad hermeneutics. And unless you are an expert on Greek and English etymology, a very fallacious position to take as well.

The verb form (kronidzo) of the noun kronos can be used as its verb counterpart:

Matthew 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

And seems to me that the sentence for the idea of "delay" would have been constructed with a velbalized form of kronidzo.

You are a Greek scholar such that I can take your expectations as a good foundation for understanding Scripture? On what basis should I accept your expectations to be more sound and reasonable than those who rendered every single modern translation otherwise?

Deal with the reason why only the KJV renders it otherwise. Depending on one particular reading of one particular version is an extremely weak position, to say the least.

I have never seen the noun kronos used in a construction that has the sense of "delay" apart from possibly this passage which seems unlikely to me in spite of how many translate it as such.

It is not simply the noun kronos which creates this rendering. It is it being combined with οὐκέτι that gives this particular rendering. Its not the kronos = delay, its that the phrase "cronoj ouketi" gives the meaning of "no more delay".

Just an FYI, the Vulgate has:

quia tempus amplius non erit - because time to increase shall not be​

However the Douay-Rheims (16th century Catholic translation of the Vulgate) has:​

Confraternity Edition:
DR Revelation 10:6 And he swore by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven and the things which are therein, and the earth and the things which are in it, and the sea and the things which are therein: That time shall be no longer.​

When it comes down to it, "time no longer" is an acceptable rendering IF one does not insert an modernistic and technical view of time onto the verse. The mistake is in reading "time no more" as referring to the substance of time rather than the effect of time. Even in modern English such a reading is atypical. For instance, if i were to say there is "no more time", it would be assumed that I refer not to the cessation of time, but to the fact that what time I had has run out. So, when reading the verse, just visualize a sandglass running down and the phrase "time no more" takes on a different meaning than you give. Given that the Greeks didn't tend to think of time as a substance or object, this is a much better take on the verse.

Hence, some of the very good reasons why all modern translations render it to clearly refer to a period of time coming to a close, rather than the cessation of time altogether.