Regarding Time...

[humblethinker]

Regarding Time…

IMO, the evidence in the Bible for an A-series view of time is overwhelming. What scripture would be evidence for the B-series?

In this link, William Lane Craig subscribes to an A-series understanding of time with the start of creation. He believes that 'before' creation that only the B-series of time existed. WLC described time as "a relation among events".

Reading John 17 we observe Jesus describing what he and the Father had experienced before the world was, which was glory and love.

John 17
5 ...with the glory which I had with You before the world was
24 ...for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

I subscribe to the A-series of time before and after the act of creation. I don't think time is a created thing but is a result of a relation among events, before and after creation. While this is easier to understand in the created universe, to consider such before the creation is more difficult since we do not have near as much information. However, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that since there is a relation between the Trinity, this is all that is needed to give support to the A-series of time prior to creation. From a scriptural perspective, prior to creation, there was, at least, the triune God in a relationship of love one to another. My thought is that relationship unavoidable entails sequence, which seems to me to be the basis for A-series time and also a good reason to reject the B-series.

As I said above, IMO, the evidence in the Bible for an A-series view of time is overwhelming. What scripture (in proper context of course) would be evidence for the B-series?

 

[webdog]

Regarding Time…

IMO, the evidence in the Bible for an A-series view of time is overwhelming. What scripture would be evidence for the B-series?

In this link, William Lane Craig subscribes to an A-series understanding of time with the start of creation. He believes that 'before' creation that only the B-series of time existed. WLC described time as "a relation among events".

Reading John 17 we observe Jesus describing what he and the Father had experienced before the world was, which was glory and love.

John 17
5 ...with the glory which I had with You before the world was
24 ...for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

I subscribe to the A-series of time before and after the act of creation. I don't think time is a created thing but is a result of a relation among events, before and after creation. While this is easier to understand in the created universe, to consider such before the creation is more difficult since we do not have near as much information. However, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that since there is a relation between the Trinity, this is all that is needed to give support to the A-series of time prior to creation. From a scriptural perspective, prior to creation, there was, at least, the triune God in a relationship of love one to another. My thought is that relationship unavoidable entails sequence, which seems to me to be the basis for A-series time and also a good reason to reject the B-series.

As I said above, IMO, the evidence in the Bible for an A-series view of time is overwhelming. What scripture (in proper context of course) would be evidence for the B-series?

Not sure about the whole A and B thing myself, but in simple terms I believe when Scripture like that above is used, it is used in an anthropomorphic way. I believe time is part of the creation and it did not exist "prior" (in itself a linear term, I admit). There can be no pre or fore time as both are connected TO time.

I also believe the Scripture like that above also proves the omnitemporalness and atemporalness of God, the great I AM, existing in all points of time and outside of time...at the same time. Our minds can grasp that about as much as they can grasp the Trinity, IMO.

 

[humblethinker]

Not sure about the whole A and B thing myself, but in simple terms I believe when Scripture like that above is used, it is used in an anthropomorphic way. I believe time is part of the creation and it did not exist "prior" (in itself a linear term, I admit). There can be no pre or fore time as both are connected TO time.

I also believe the Scripture like that above also proves the omnitemporalness and atemporalness of God, the great I AM, existing in all points of time and outside of time...at the same time. Our minds can grasp that about as much as they can grasp the Trinity, IMO.

I appreciate your input. What scripture would you say provides evidence for what you believe? Is there scripture that seems to renounce the A-series view (A-series being a 'dynamic' view of time, B-series being a 'static' view of time - much like you've described)? Again, scripture seems to be overflowing with evidence for a dynamic view of time. In your view then is scripture always speaking anthropomorphically when it uses tensed verbs and describes things as before and after and present?

 

[webdog]

I appreciate your input. What scripture would you say provides evidence for what you believe?

Honestly, I think the very same that are used for support of the "A" view, just viewed from a different angle.

Is there scripture that seems to renounce the A-series view (A-series being a 'dynamic' view of time, B-series being a 'static' view of time - much like you've described)?

Not so much renouncing it as showing how it is being used to describe something for our puny, finite minds

Again, scripture seems to be overflowing with evidence for a dynamic view of time. In your view then is scripture always speaking anthropomorphically when it uses tensed verbs and describes things as before and after and present?

Only when linear language is being used in conjunction with the advent of time. To give you an example, I cannot talk about my son existing before he was conceived as it is contradictory. With the advent of time came the advent of the very phrases "before", "after", "pre", "fore", etc.

 

[humblethinker]

Honestly, I think the very same that are used for support of the "A" view, just viewed from a different angle.

Okay then... I just randomly pulled scripture...
Luke 11:38 But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised.

This obviously supports the the A-series, dynamic view. Yet I don't see how this supports the B-series, static view. Can you explain it or provide other scripture that would support your view?

 

[webdog]

Okay then... I just randomly pulled scripture...
Luke 11:38 But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised.

This obviously supports the the A-series, dynamic view. Yet I don't see how this supports the B-series, static view. Can you explain it or provide other scripture that would support your view?

I think it's simple. Approach this passage (as with all of the others) with the mindset that while God was in time here, He also exists outside of time...and in the present and future dynamically. Do you see what I mean?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Regarding Time…

IMO, the evidence in the Bible for an A-series view of time is overwhelming. What scripture would be evidence for the B-series?

In this link, William Lane Craig subscribes to an A-series understanding of time with the start of creation. He believes that 'before' creation that only the B-series of time existed. WLC described time as "a relation among events".

Reading John 17 we observe Jesus describing what he and the Father had experienced before the world was, which was glory and love.

John 17
5 ...with the glory which I had with You before the world was
24 ...for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

I subscribe to the A-series of time before and after the act of creation. I don't think time is a created thing but is a result of a relation among events, before and after creation. While this is easier to understand in the created universe, to consider such before the creation is more difficult since we do not have near as much information. However, it seems perfectly reasonable to me that since there is a relation between the Trinity, this is all that is needed to give support to the A-series of time prior to creation. From a scriptural perspective, prior to creation, there was, at least, the triune God in a relationship of love one to another. My thought is that relationship unavoidable entails sequence, which seems to me to be the basis for A-series time and also a good reason to reject the B-series.

As I said above, IMO, the evidence in the Bible for an A-series view of time is overwhelming. What scripture (in proper context of course) would be evidence for the B-series?

Oh, WOW!!

1.) I am thrilled you are researching WLC, if you are not careful though, he might talk you out of OT, and I would lose my only OT buddy on this board!!:tongue3:

2.) I have not looked at the particular link you posted yet, but having a cursory knowledge of what he speaks of, are you mistaken in suggesting that he contends for a "B"-series view of time prior to creation? I think he simply believes the "B-series" view of time is false in all applications. And he also would decidedly suggest that time is a created thing. I do not think he at least, would suggest that the eternal relationship between the members of the Trinity implied time....Be back later after I check your particular link...but I wanted to jump in before I became a johnny-come-lately on this one! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[humblethinker]

I think it's simple. Approach this passage (as with all of the others) with the mindset that while God was in time here, He also exists outside of time...and in the present and future dynamically. Do you see what I mean?

Ok... It sounds like you agree then that the A-series/dynamic view of time is accurate. Now how about providing scriptural evidence to suppot your B-series/static view of time?

 

[webdog]

Ok... It sounds like you agree then that the A-series/dynamic view of time is accurate. Now how about providing scriptural evidence to suppot your B-series/static view of time?

I don't recall supporting either from my initial reply on this thread, just stating what I did believe in relation to God and time.

 

[humblethinker]

Oh, WOW!!

1.) I am thrilled you are researching WLC, if you are not careful though, he might talk you out of OT, and I would lose my only OT buddy on this board!!:tongue3:

2.) I have not looked at the particular link you posted yet, but having a cursory knowledge of what he speaks of, are you mistaken in suggesting that he contends for a "B"-series view of time prior to creation? I think he simply believes the "B-series" view of time is false in all applications. And he also would decidedly suggest that time is a created thing. I do not think he at least, would suggest that the eternal relationship between the members of the Trinity implied time....Be back later after I check your particular link...but I wanted to jump in before I became a johnny-come-lately on this one! :smilewinkgrin:

Haha... Yes, then watch/listen to the link... Sounds like you will learn something new about WLC... (btw, youre not hiding your man crush very well). I would welcome the idea of not accepting OT... I just need more scriptural reasons not to be.

 

[humblethinker]

I don't recall supporting either from my initial reply on this thread, just stating what I did believe in relation to God and time.

Ok, so can you provide scriptural evidence to warrant your belief?

 

[webdog]

Ok, so can you provide scriptural evidence to warrant your belief?

Now we are going in circles. Please refer back to the earlier responses in this thread...

 

[saturneptune]

I appreciate your input. What scripture would you say provides evidence for what you believe? Is there scripture that seems to renounce the A-series view (A-series being a 'dynamic' view of time, B-series being a 'static' view of time - much like you've described)? Again, scripture seems to be overflowing with evidence for a dynamic view of time. In your view then is scripture always speaking anthropomorphically when it uses tensed verbs and describes things as before and after and present?

Evidence that there is no time in eternity? How about before Abraham was, I AM. When speaking of eternity past, or eternity in general, words like when, where, at what point are meaningless. Sorry , but the phrase "when we have been there ten thousand years" is almost laughable. Basically, the human mind is designed to think in the elements of time and space, and eternity has no time or space. It is a hard concept no doubt.

A crude example. If you, as a three deminisonal being, were trying to communicate with a being in two deminsions, it would be difficult to say the least. Say this being lives on a piece of paper, a plane 2X. If you were going to reveal yourself to this being, say you put your fingers through the plane. The 2X being would see five small circles. Is that what you really look like? A crude example, but translate that from us to eternity.

 

[quantumfaith]

HT, I think time is a result of creation, which immediately initiated entropy. Time is a measure of that entropy. If I remember WLC's position, he was convinced that prior to the "creation event" time as we know it did not exist, after the creation of finite things and beings marked by time (entropy), HE, although not constrained by time, acts in time.

 

[humblethinker]

...I believe when Scripture like that above is used, it is used in an anthropomorphic way. I believe time is part of the creation and it did not exist "prior" (in itself a linear term, I admit). There can be no pre or fore time as both are connected TO time.

Ok, regarding John 17:5 ...with the glory which I had with You before the world was
24 ...for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

so, are you saying that Jesus did not literally mean what he said to the Father? Why would he talk like such when he could have more easily spoken more accurately. Why would he need to speek to the Father anthropomorphically? How would he phrase what he said so that it would not have been anthropomorphic?

I take Jesus at his word here, but your 'philosophy' forces you to re-interpret what he said to get to a different meaning than what he actually said?

I still fail to see how any scripture in this thread promotes a timeless, non-sequential, non-eventful existence prior to creation, nor do I see how any explanation you have given substantiates such. You seem to only state that such is so.

 

[convicted1]

Ok, regarding John 17:5 ...with the glory which I had with You before the world was
24 ...for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

so, are you saying that Jesus did not literally mean what he said to the Father? Why would he talk like such when he could have more easily spoken more accurately. Why would he need to speek to the Father anthropomorphically? How would he phrase what he said so that it would not have been anthropomorphic?

I take Jesus at his word here, but your 'philosophy' forces you to re-interpret what he said to get to a different meaning than what he actually said?

I still fail to see how any scripture in this thread promotes a timeless, non-sequential, non-eventful existence prior to creation, nor do I see how any explanation you have given substantiates such. You seem to only state that such is so.

Time did not exist before God made it, and us. He placed us "in time" and He is outside of it. Jesus was telling God that He desired to be like He was before He came here in the flesh. He was made a little lower than the angels in that He tasted death for every man(Hebrews 2:9). Jesus, in His spiritual body, could not be nailed to the cross, neither could He die. He had to come in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet He was sinless. By Him coming in the likeness of sinful flesh, He could die upon the cross for the likes of you and I.

I am afraid you are asking something that none of us can really give an accurate answer to. Some things are just way above our heads, as the heaven is the earth.

 

[webdog]

Ok, regarding John 17:5 ...with the glory which I had with You before the world was
24 ...for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

so, are you saying that Jesus did not literally mean what he said to the Father? Why would he talk like such when he could have more easily spoken more accurately. Why would he need to speek to the Father anthropomorphically? How would he phrase what he said so that it would not have been anthropomorphic?

I take Jesus at his word here, but your 'philosophy' forces you to re-interpret what he said to get to a different meaning than what he actually said?

I still fail to see how any scripture in this thread promotes a timeless, non-sequential, non-eventful existence prior to creation, nor do I see how any explanation you have given substantiates such. You seem to only state that such is so.

As Willis said, this is above all of our pay grades. Scripture was written to us in terms we can (try to) understand, so while Jesus was not talking to the Father anthropomorphically, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit for us to understand it as such, making it anthropomorphic.

 

[convicted1]

As Willis said, this is above all of our pay grades. Scripture was written to us in terms we can (try to) understand, so while Jesus was not talking to the Father anthropomorphically, it was inspired by the Holy Spirit for us to understand it as such, making it anthropomorphic.

Very well stated. I guess we're just going around and patting each other's back, huh? :laugh:

 

[humblethinker]

HT, I think time is a result of creation, which immediately initiated entropy. Time is a measure of that entropy. If I remember WLC's position, he was convinced that prior to the "creation event" time as we know it did not exist, after the creation of finite things and beings marked by time (entropy), HE, although not constrained by time, acts in time.

Would you say that matter must exist for time to exist?

 

[humblethinker]

Time did not exist before God made it, and us. He placed us "in time" and He is outside of it.

I am afraid you are asking something that none of us can really give an accurate answer to. Some things are just way above our heads, as the heaven is the earth.

You are the one making the assertion that God is outside of time. Why do you say this? What gives you such confidence? Surely you have scriptural reasons for thinking such and not just philosophical reasons which you don't even understand enough to explain how they are scriptural.