[godrulz]

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

This couldn't be from our perspective? And time is relative, so what (if I may speak thus) is the heavenly inertial frame of reference?


Lee

There is no reason to not take the verse at face value. If the Spirit wanted us to think God is timeless, He could have inspired that concept through John (Plato was able to articulate it years before in the same Greek language). The verse teaches tense and duration. God's eternality is endless time, not timelessness. The only reason you will not accept the revelation is because it contradicts your preconceived concepts. It is not figurative or from our perspective only. You only use that loophole because it does not match your ideas. Change your ideas, not Scripture. God has a past, present, future and is from everlasting to everlasting. Timelessness or eternal now is pagan philosophy, not biblical.

There is a relative element to time from our subjective perspective, but this does not negate God's temporality (sequence/duration/succession) objectively.

Either view leads to different conclusions, so if you accept my conclusion, you will have to change other views on foreknowledge, etc. Oh well.

[godrulz]

'Irregardless' is like nails on a chalk board. Just because the language is going to pot is no reason to justify it.

[lee_merrill]

Originally Posted by godrulz

There is no reason to not take the verse at face value. If the Spirit wanted us to think God is timeless, He could have inspired that concept through John...

"Before Abraham was, I AM"?

The verse teaches tense and duration.

Certainly, the question is whose perspective this is from.

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God...

And we do not take this at face value. So simply saying we should take verses at face value will not do, we have to discern where the literal sense is appropriate.

Where, by the way is the first moment? This may argue for God being outside of time, even!

It is not figurative or from our perspective only. You only use that loophole because it does not match your ideas. Change your ideas, not Scripture. God has a past, present, future and is from everlasting to everlasting. Timelessness or eternal now is pagan philosophy, not biblical.

But none of this is arguing for your interpretation, which I think is due to philosophy, so there! But we have to ground our reasoning in Scripture.

... so if you accept my conclusion, you will have to change other views on foreknowledge, etc. Oh well.

He waves the red flag! Now what (if I may speak thus) is the heavenly inertial frame of reference?

Blessings,
Lee

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

"Before Abraham was, I AM"?


Certainly, the question is whose perspective this is from.

Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God...

And we do not take this at face value. So simply saying we should take verses at face value will not do, we have to discern where the literal sense is appropriate.

Where, by the way is the first moment? This may argue for God being outside of time, even!


But none of this is arguing for your interpretation, which I think is due to philosophy, so there! But we have to ground our reasoning in Scripture.


He waves the red flag! Now what (if I may speak thus) is the heavenly inertial frame of reference?

Blessings,
Lee

God is the Alpha/Omega, the Beginning/End, First/Last (as was Jesus who experienced divine-human temporality as the God-Man). This means He has no beginning and no end. He is the uncreated Creator (Ps. 90:2 from everlasting to everlasting; Ps. 102 full of years, not no years). There is no hint of timelessness (your imported assumption). Either way, the title is compatible with endless time or timelessness (whatever that means for a personal being).

Before Abe, I am...before is a tensed expression again showing endless duration, not timelessness. I AM means that God exists or is self-existent, the uncreated Creator with no beginning or end. It does not preclude endless time or duration. It does not imply timelessness (your eisegesis/preconceived assumption). It also does not contradict Rev. 1:4 God existed in the past, exists now, and will exist into the future (even as we also do, though we had a beginning but no end). "I AM" does not inherently mean Platonic 'eternal now'. It is consistent with endless time or timelessness (as incoherent as the latter is).

Gen.- Rev. shows that God has a history (His Story). It becomes nonsense to think of this sequential history as one simultaneous moment. God's reality cannot be diametrically opposed to His revealed reality at the same time. There is no hint of timelessness, but a plethora of verses about His ongoing duration paralleling human history. A timeless God could not incarnate. Jesus is God (and Man) and experienced duration. He did not die and rise before he was incarnated or at the same time. It is not a matter of divine vs human perception, but fundamental reality.

[lee_merrill]

Originally Posted by godrulz

God is the Alpha/Omega, the Beginning/End, First/Last (as was Jesus who experienced divine-human temporality as the God-Man). This means He has no beginning and no end.

At the beginning and the end he is there, and is the author, I would say.

Ps. 102 full of years, not no years. There is no hint of timelessness (your imported assumption).

Actually, for timelessness, I refer to other verses. I need not find timelessness in every reference to time, with God.

I AM means that God exists or is self-existent, the uncreated Creator with no beginning or end.

Yet God is present there! the mixing of tenses may indicate that.

"I AM" can also be read "I will be who I will be" (Ex. 3:13-14) different tenses can be read here. And God's experience of time is certainly different than ours:

Ps. 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

2 Pt. 3:8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

How can both be true? Yet they are, and this is possible if God is outside of time, for then God need not experience all time every moment at a constant rate.

It also does not contradict Rev. 1:4 God existed in the past, exists now, and will exist into the future (even as we also do, though we had a beginning but no end).

Revelation 11:17 "We give thanks to you, Lord God Almighty, the One who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and have begun to reign."

God no longer is to come, in that at this time he has no future? No, instead these verses are from our perspective, and when God is no longer "to come," then he has come.

Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done."

It becomes nonsense to think of this sequential history as one simultaneous moment.

Well, that makes God be in one point in time. Simultaneous is a notion of time. Why not say all moments are present to him, accessible as we experience any present moment? For if God knows every detail about the past, doesn't that make this "virtual reality" essentially the same as actual reality? and similarly if God knows every detail about the future.

There is no hint of timelessness...

Well, I've posted verses with more than a hint, I think. Here is one more, God speaks of events that were yet in the future as if they were done in the past, really done then:

2 Tim. 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.

And once you have foreknowledge, and omniscience, you have "eternal now." So I don't think the philosophers are even required here to make the case in this area.

A timeless God could not incarnate. Jesus is God (and Man) and experienced duration.

Yes, but God is not Jesus--so Jesus could enter time, yet God could be timeless.

Good discussion here! Yer makin' me think. Or so I think.

Blessings,
Lee

[godrulz]

Ps. 90 and 102 shows continuation in the experiences of God, not timelessness. He is from everlasting to everlasting. There is a before and after creation, even for God. Duration does not limit God, but is simply an aspect of the experience of personal beings who must think, act, feel in sequence for it to have any meaning. Confusing time with space or created things is also a flawed assumption (as is EDF, eternal now, etc.). The tensed verses can and should be taken at face value since there is nothing in the context to make one assume that God is eternal now/timeless. How else could God say He experiences duration apart from what He has said? There would be other ways to say He is timeless, but we can assume it means what it says if God has past, present, future (just because He is aware of the past does not make the events actual/real in the present, even for God...Jesus is not still on the cross in any sense; the future is also different than the past since it is not there yet, unlike the past which has existed in reality already).

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by godrulz

'Irregardless' is like nails on a chalk board. Just because the language is going to pot is no reason to justify it.

Language is like theology, never understatement the power of preconceived word usage.

Going to pot?

I I I I
r r r r
r r r r
e e e e
gg g g
a a a a
r r r r
d d r r
l l l l
ee e e
ss s s
s s s s;

three really grand post in response to Lee.

Pot is the number one cash crop in Kentucky. Maybe we should pull out of Afghanistan and send our troupes to Lexington.
Not!

P

[themuzicman]

Is Kentucky run by the Taliban?

Muz

[Philetus]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

Is Kentucky run by the Taliban?

Muz

It think its the Bellyban down there now.

[lee_merrill]

Originally Posted by godrulz

How else could God say He experiences duration apart from what He has said?

By not doing what I mentioned above, then I would be inclined to think the statements about God's years were from his perspective. How else would God say he has a real arm? I can use the same argument in other areas.

There would be other ways to say He is timeless ...

Such as the above! Let's discuss those points more specifically, and not skip any, please...

Blessings,
Lee

[godrulz]

An athropomorphism is evident from context and other verses.

Eternal now simultaneity/timelessness is not explicitly found in Scripture. It was uncritically adopted by Augustine and others because of their desire to mesh pagan philosophy with Scripture.

A word study of Hebrew 'eternal', 'everlasting', etc. does not support timelessness but does support duration or endless time.


Scientifically, Einstein's relativity does not apply to spiritual beings like God (uncreated Creator before creation) and cannot be used to determine God's eternal relationship to time. Some have tried to argue that 'God is light' (I Jn.) refers to God's metaphysical nature and get off on nonsense about God, speed of light, timelessness, omnipresence, etc. In context and Johannine use, it refers to God's moral nature and cannot be a metaphysical proof text for timelessness.

We should base our understanding on revelation and Scripture. It clearly presents God as experiencing an endless duration of time or sequence with no beginning and end. Your pet phrases of 'I am' or Alpha/Omega are fully consistent with this. You are simply reading your concept of timelessness back into the text. It is clear that there is a before and after for God. He uses tensed expressions about His existence because that is true reality. To say it is only from His perspective is to make the Bible say whatever you want. No statements can be accepted at face value if they contradict your ideas (poor hermeneutic; appealing to God not having arms is not parallel...God can reveal things about Himself literally; not everything is figurative).

He is from everlasting to everlasting. Creation happens before incarnation and Second Coming. To say that this really is simultaneous for God and that we are in a Matrix and perceive differently is beyond stupid.

[lee_merrill]

Originally Posted by godrulz

An athropomorphism is evident from context and other verses.

Agreed, now I conclude that the verse is from our perspective, based on the context (Alpha and Omega) and other verses (lack of "is to come" later on).

Eternal now simultaneity/timelessness is not explicitly found in Scripture.

Nor is "God is three persons."

It was uncritically adopted by Augustine and others because of their desire to mesh pagan philosophy with Scripture.

That doesn't mean it's wrong, and how do you know Augustine put no thought into whether this was Scriptural?

A word study of Hebrew 'eternal', 'everlasting', etc. does not support timelessness but does support duration or endless time.

Everlasting strength, everlasting rock (Isa. 26:4) indicates an intensive quality of presentness, more than just duration of time, as does everlasting righteousness (Dan. 9:24). Also, "from everlasting to everlasting you are God" (Ps. 90) speaks in present tense of all God's rule from start to finish.

Scientifically, Einstein's relativity does not apply to spiritual beings...

But time is a physics quantity, and relates to matter. Unless you have some different definition of time--in which case we need to hear it.

Physics time has an inertial frame of reference.

We should base our understanding on revelation and Scripture. It clearly presents God as experiencing an endless duration of time or sequence with no beginning and end. Your pet phrases of 'I am' or Alpha/Omega are fully consistent with this.

"Before Abraham was, I am" is not so indicative of God in time, nor is "a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day."

You are simply reading your concept of timelessness back into the text.

But you are simply reading your concept of time back into the text.

It is clear that there is a before and after for God. He uses tensed expressions about His existence because that is true reality.

Just as it is clear he has a real arm?

To say that this really is simultaneous for God and that we are in a Matrix and perceive differently is beyond stupid.

Again, simultaneous is a concept of time, and to repeat this is to miss a basic point. But let's refrain from insults please.

And God speaks of events that were yet in the future as if they were done in the past, really done then:

2 Tim. 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time.

And once you have foreknowledge, and omniscience, you have "eternal now," events are ever-present if all past and present history is completely known. So I don't think the philosophers are even required here to make the case in this area.

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. Why do you skip strong points, Godrulz? Let's be Elijahs of God, and not flinch at the prospect of a radical test to our position.

[godrulz]

God can speak about some things in the future as certain, but that still does not make them real (things he settles by His ability, not foreknowledge). He also speaks of other things as open or unsettled.

The fact that creation precedes fall, Noah was before David, Jonah before Jesus, incarnation before resurrection, 2006 before 2008, etc. shows that God thinks, acts, feels in sequence.

There is no verse that must lead to a timeless 'eternal now' conclusion. There are endless passages that show God's interaction in an endless duration of time. I can defend a triune understanding from many verses put together. You cannot defend timelessness except through philosophical assumptions and proof texts that make more than sense with an endless time perspective (the fact you have to divorce our view from God's view leads to subjective opinion and makes many verses ambiguous or uninterpretable by that technique).

I think I have checkmate, but we will have to be content with stalemate...next topic?

(Timothy refers to God's potential plan that was implemented after the Fall and actualized centuries later; it points to corporate vs individual grace since we did not exist in the beginning).

[lee_merrill]

Originally Posted by godrulz

God can speak about some things in the future as certain, but that still does not make them real (things he settles by His ability, not foreknowledge).

I think if God settles it, it's in the bank.

There is no verse that must lead to a timeless 'eternal now' conclusion.

Certainly, it is an inference, as would be a good number of theological conclusions.

... we will have to be content with stalemate...next topic?

Well, I would mention this:

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

But the Open View says God does speak and then not act, he promises, and does not fulfill.

Blessings,
Lee

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by lee_merrill

Well, I would mention this:

Deuteronomy 18:21-22 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

But the Open View says God does speak and then not act, he promises, and does not fulfill.

Blessings,
Lee

Conditional prophecies are a specific matter. Deut. 18 is a specific context and is affirmed by OTs. It contrasts true and false prophets. Jonah was not a false prophet just because God acted one way and not another based on men's responses to His warnings. Prophecies may be declarative, not just predictive. Deut 18 is not an issue for OT (it is for JWs or Mormons), but it is an issue for you because you do not fully understand OT.