saturneptune
New Member
touche, hard to get ahead of you
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Regarding Time...
- Thread starter humblethinker
- Start date
If one were to google "what is a troll post?" it would take you to Mandym's post above.
Seriously, mandym, if you want to hit the snooze button on the ole grey matter, don't castigate those who desire understanding and just how grand our Creator and His creation is in the process.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Cypress, I think you are quite correct in that time is very ethereal to us. Perhaps it is much like mathematics, a "created" quantifying structure which helps us to make sense of "things". That is why "I" say it in once sense is simply our measure of entropy of creation. In mathematics, there is no "universal 1", nothing we can point to and say....there is "the 1", rather it is a mental construct of our "rational mind". I see time in much the same say.
II Corinthians 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
Trying to define/quantify time while being caught up in (and an integral part of) the space time continuum is IMO presently beyond our understanding.
We are not presently equiped to make that analysis.
Can you explain color to a man born blind?
Fulness: Root: pleroma
Friberg - That which fills up.
Louw-Nida - Quantity which fills a space
Other ways pleroma is used:
Interesting Note: Biblical Hebrew has no past, present or future verb tenses as such only perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incompleted action). Present tense is somtimes indicated by verbal nouns or adjectives by the use of infinitives or participles.
HankD
We are not presently equiped to make that analysis.
Can you explain color to a man born blind?
NKJV Ecclesiastes 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
Passages which deal with time as to quantity:
Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Ephesians 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Fulness: Root: pleroma
Friberg - That which fills up.
Louw-Nida - Quantity which fills a space
Other ways pleroma is used:
Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
1 Corinthians 10:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Stature: Root UBS:helikia,as
Age, span of years or height.
Age, span of years or height.
One day we will have that understanding:
1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for (because) we shall see him as he is.
Interesting Note: Biblical Hebrew has no past, present or future verb tenses as such only perfect (completed action) and imperfect (incompleted action). Present tense is somtimes indicated by verbal nouns or adjectives by the use of infinitives or participles.
HankD
humblethinker
Active Member
I would like to see the scriptural support for the belief that God did not experience passage, sequence, action, etc. before creation.
I would like to see the scriptural support for the belief that God has never experienced sequence, action, passage, etc.
People strongly believe in the atemporality of God (pre and post creation) yet when I seek out their scriptural support for such a view, in no way does the evidence I find seem to amount to a justification of their with white-knuckled obstinate opinion. However, I believe it is possible to justify an open-palmed opinion in favor of the atemporality of God that responds with graceful, thoughtful input. Does your theology allow you to be so heavy handed over things we can't be objectively certain about? I don't necessarily mean just some of the people on this board but other sites and blogs as well.
I would like to see the scriptural support for the belief that God has never experienced sequence, action, passage, etc.
People strongly believe in the atemporality of God (pre and post creation) yet when I seek out their scriptural support for such a view, in no way does the evidence I find seem to amount to a justification of their with white-knuckled obstinate opinion. However, I believe it is possible to justify an open-palmed opinion in favor of the atemporality of God that responds with graceful, thoughtful input. Does your theology allow you to be so heavy handed over things we can't be objectively certain about? I don't necessarily mean just some of the people on this board but other sites and blogs as well.
convicted1
Guest
I think, Brother, you are asking questions that no one can answer, or refute. It's good to ponder on the deep things of God, but some things, I do not think anyone can answer.
humblethinker
Active Member
C1, then do you not get my point!???!!!! :BangHead:
convicted1
Guest
EXACTLY!!!:tonofbricks::tonofbricks::BangHead:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That is the problem!
You are speculating, supposedly from a Christian viewpoint, about matters which Scripture does not address. Not wise!
Now explain to me and perhaps others; just what is meant by:
I got lost in the semantics!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
It is not a good thing for Christians to attempt to go beyond what Scripture tells us about God. And I am not talking about scientific endeavor which is not generally concerned about God, at least in the present TIME!:smilewinkgrin:
It is frequently the case that when people attempt to go beyond Scripture heresy is the outcome: Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarian-Universalists, Christian Science, Word Faith, etc.
Some of these heresies were the result of so-called additional revelation. Others ????
Hi HT,
If you mean in eternity (or pre-post creation as you put it) there is none apart from His revelation of Himself to mankind in the passage of time (except maybe Hebrews 7:3).
However and IMO "sequence" implies a beginning and an end which also seems an essential of time itself (a beginning of an action, an end of an action).
The scripture has a metaphorical statement that for God this does not exist as to His essential being.
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
I don't think anyone here at the BB spends any sleepless nights over this.
Although admitedly we have had some "heavy handed" issues less than gracefully debated here at the BB.
OTOH, this is a debate forum and a certain degree of heavy handedness and assertiveness is to be expected.
HankD
humblethinker
Active Member
Thank you for your reply. I think that there are going to be one or more points of absurdity in any kind of belief. I recognize that in our universe there cannot be an infinite number of events, past or future. However, how can the Trinity exist without relation? Understanding that relation requires sequence, how can atemporalists say that God is a Trinity and yet deny sequence? (It seems that this would be much easier if God did not consist of three but only of one.) If atemporalists appeal to mystery or antinomy then fine, my opinion is no less legitimate than theirs.
HankD, thank you for your reply. I am one who does loose sleep and other things over this issue. Maybe others don't because they have found a way of being more comfortable with uncertainty, or maybe they don't think that it would affect their life, or maybe they're indifferent, or maybe they don't like the uncertainty so they fix their opinion and don't want anyone to rock their boat. Maybe they're just presumptuous, egocentric, etc. But I digress, this is material for a different thread.
You are right about expecting a certain degree of heavy handedness. However, I'd rather understand truth rather than trick, insult or brow-beet people into assuming my opinion.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I am still wondering about:
Like I said HT, there are somethings which I believe are beyond our ability to reconcile in our limited minds. Although I believe the resurrection will solve much of that limitation and yes of course your opinion is certainly as legitimate as mine or that of anyone else here.
But, you are correct. I understand what you mean by the sequential relationship of the persons of the Trinity and does give me pause to consider. Although IMO one or three or any number of eternal entities is a difficulty with us who know only sequence, beginning and end.
HT, I didn't mean my statement as a reflection of your view.
At one time I did loose sleep over this and similar issues which I eventually matured out of (that does not mean I am of greater maturity than you, it may be or it may not be). One of the passages which extricated me from an admitedtly unhealthy concern over these things is:
Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
Interestingly the phrase "be still" can be translated as "relax", "abandon", "let go".
And the equally as familiar passage:
Proverbs 3
5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.
8 It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.
I agree. There has been a lot of bullying of the wrong kind lately.
HankD
humblethinker
Active Member
Re my comment in post 85 of this thread:
White-knuckle, referring to the color of the knuckles when someone is grasping an object (in this case an opinion) with tenacity. Open-palm, referring to someone holding an opinion in an up-turned open palm so that it can be examined, modified, removed or exchanged due to preference, discovery, reason, God. White-knuckled opions will resist all of these and their owners tend to condemn others who aren't white-knuckled like themselves.
quantumfaith
Active Member
:applause::applause::applause:
I will try one super-quick concise stab at the OP:
Scripture does indeed support A-series time and we can dispense with any illusions of the validity of B.
With respect to the other question, I pose a quick deduction:
1.) If Time is not a part of the creative act, or it existed prior to it...then it is a necessary thing. If it is not contingent and it exists, then it exists necessarily
2.) A Universe of sheer nothingness including timelessness intuitively seems to be feasible, it is possible.
3.) Thus time is not necessary but contingent.
4.) If it is contingent it has a cause
5.) That cause is either the creative act itself or it is a facet of God's very being or essence.
6.) Time is not a facet of God's very being
7.) Therefore time was created
This may have flaws, but I only spent about 2 mins. on it. What do you think HT?
Scripture does indeed support A-series time and we can dispense with any illusions of the validity of B.
With respect to the other question, I pose a quick deduction:
1.) If Time is not a part of the creative act, or it existed prior to it...then it is a necessary thing. If it is not contingent and it exists, then it exists necessarily
2.) A Universe of sheer nothingness including timelessness intuitively seems to be feasible, it is possible.
3.) Thus time is not necessary but contingent.
4.) If it is contingent it has a cause
5.) That cause is either the creative act itself or it is a facet of God's very being or essence.
6.) Time is not a facet of God's very being
7.) Therefore time was created
This may have flaws, but I only spent about 2 mins. on it. What do you think HT?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
humblethinker
Active Member
I whole heartedly agree with the first conclusion and while you confirm my thoughts about the second conclusion I must say that I am surprised that there wasn't more of a discussion for you to concede such... but that's ok.
Very nice! What I'm thinking regarding your statements:
1.) Sequence/passage/action existed prior to creation therefore it exists necessarily
2.) A universe of sheer nothingness intuitively seems impossible to create
3.) N/A
4.) N/A
5.) God's very being is in relationship
6.) Passage/sequence are necessary attributes of relationship
7.) Therefore sequence/passage necessarily exists since God existed before/independent of creation
And I would add:
Because God is Free and Relational, these qualities to some degree are genuinely real in creatures in His image as well as the creation formed by Him.
What does our idea of God gain by Him not being atemporal? What does he lose by being temporal?
Newton believed in absolute time, but Newton's absolute time existed IN this universe. I'm proposing absolute time but that it exists outside this universe and there is no reason for me to think that it is metered, has a beginning or has an end since it (sequence) is inherent to the concept of a relationship which is a necessary attribute of the Trinity.
A side thought for everyone: it seems we also may be getting hung up on semantics. What I am saying about God is that passage and sequence existed outside of creation because God existed outside of creation. I am not saying that our metered time is an identical other or the very same essence to what God experienced outside of Creation. I am saying that our univers's time exists due to sequence existing outside of Creation, a logically outflow of it. (I may have gotten a little rhetorically redundant but one must click 'submit reply' sometime!)
Last edited by a moderator:
humblethinker
Active Member
ok, sorry for the misunderstanding.
atemporal: independent of or unaffected by time
temporal: of or relating to time as opposed to eternity