God's time

[Turgonian]

Yes. When God first created, then logically, God existing without creation causally preceeds God existing with His creation.

In stating that God was timeless, then became temporal, it is acknowledging that there was a state when God really was without our temporal universe, and now a state where God really is with us in our temporal universe. I believe God now has to endure through time the same as the rest of us.

I don't believe that. God is outside of time; He is now. It seems that in this world, God acts through the hypostasis of His Holy Spirit. But God remains eternal.

Does heaven/hell have a logical sequence? Eg we come there, get to know each other, do this, do this , do this and some "time" has gone. And after "time", we remember what will have happened, and will have memories of what happened etc. But again this seems illogical. As "time" would go on we would have more and more memories etc and does this make sense? Probably no.

I recently read that 'history' and 'time' only came after the Fall. That is, Adam worked, moved &c. before the Fall, but he was focused on the Eternal, which made the passing of time irrelevant.

God is not outside of time, rather, time is contained in God. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He cannot jump about to future and past as some have suggested. He cannot undo what has already happened. He experiences it linearly, just like we do.

No, I don't think so. Because God is eternal, He does not need to 'jump'. All successive moments are eternally present with Him.

God is infinitely intelligent, therefore He can process an infinite amount of information in an instant. God is also infinitely knowledgable, He knows EVERYTHING about our universe that happened and everything that is happening in the present. This is because God is above the universe, He can look into it and see everything, He is exempt from Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, He can know everything while we can't.

It doesn't make sense. Even if God gave up eternity (which is impossible) to enter time, He would have known everything that was going to happen within the first nanosecond. That comes with being able to 'process an infinite amount of information in an instant'. But I don't really believe in a god that sounds like a computer.

[Canuckster1127]

I believe you have to allow for some mystery here as again, this ties into the nature of God and His immutable attributes.

I believe God can and does interact within his creation in terms of sequential time but that he is not limited to it.

Time itself is a part of the fabric of this universe and as such is created.

I don't believe that time entered into the picture at the fall. There's nothing Biblically that infers that. In fact, it's debatable that Adam and Eve were immortal in a physical sense prior to the fall. A lot of this ties into the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's arguable I suppose, that God may have had different laws or intevened to override the existing ones, in terms of man's condition before the fall. The extended ages reported prior to the flood are indicative of that. It's a common argument in YEC and some forms of OEC accept or appeal to it as well.

However, as I believe the Bible indicates there was eating, digesting etc, taking place, it seems clear to me that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was in place, as was time, as was physical death in terms of the ecological food chains.

Heisenburg's uncertainty principal relates to electrons circling within an atom. It states, in general that the only the speed or the location of such a particle can be determined or known, not both. I'm not sure how it relates to this argument.

My passing thoughts anyway.

[Kurieuo]

Yes. When God first created, then logically, God existing without creation causally preceeds God existing with His creation.

In stating that God was timeless, then became temporal, it is acknowledging that there was a state when God really was without our temporal universe, and now a state where God really is with us in our temporal universe. I believe God now has to endure through time the same as the rest of us.

I don't believe that. God is outside of time; He is now. It seems that in this world, God acts through the hypostasis of His Holy Spirit. But God remains eternal.

While God's eternity and God's timelessness can be conflated as meaning the same thing, God's eternity should not be conflated with timelessness as understood temporally. There is nothing which rules out God's being eternal in anything I have said of God's being atemporal (timeless), and then becoming temporal as a consequence of His real relations with his temporal creation.

Kurieuo

[Canuckster1127]

Yes. When God first created, then logically, God existing without creation causally preceeds God existing with His creation.

In stating that God was timeless, then became temporal, it is acknowledging that there was a state when God really was without our temporal universe, and now a state where God really is with us in our temporal universe. I believe God now has to endure through time the same as the rest of us.

I don't believe that. God is outside of time; He is now. It seems that in this world, God acts through the hypostasis of His Holy Spirit. But God remains eternal.

While God's eternity and God's timelessness can be conflated as meaning the same thing, God's eternity should not be conflated with timelessness as understood temporally. There is nothing which rules out God's being eternal in anything I have said of God's being atemporal (timeless), and then becoming temporal as a consequence of His real relations with his temporal creation.

Kurieuo

You're right. There is nothing that I can see that rules out God's attributes in your post.

God's interaction with his creation in terms of our experience and perception on it can't help but appear temporal.

It gets to be a fine line, I think as to whether that is how God Himself experiences it as such. If so, then at best I suppose you could argue that God chooses to limit Himself in this manner in this aspect of His interaction.

As Scripture to my knowlege doesn't address it specifically it's open for debate. But, where sequential time appears to be related to God, I think it's equally valid to postulate that we project our limitations and perhaps anthropomorphize God's attributes in this manner.

Once again, I prefer to acknowlege the conflict and attribute it to the normal mystery that surrounds the character and nature of God and confess that seeming contradictions of this nature can exist in my mind, due to its limits and God as infinite transcends my understanding.

It's a mindblowing concept however, no matter which approach you take.

[Kurieuo]

I get what you are saying in preferring to recognise the conflict and put it down to God's mystery. I think this is often the best tact to take on many theological matters. At the same time, there is much value in pushing (or attempting to push) the limits of reason to understand God and what he has revealed to us about Himself. One may not end up with complete solutions, or even the correct solution, but at least one would be able to provide deeper and more coherent responses on such matters to those who ask.

For example, the issue of God's relationship to time is especially relevant for those of us who would argue (as the GodandScience.org website does) that the universe had a beginning, therefore something eternal, God, must have created it. The general responses raised by opponents are usually what came before God? Or does not God existing before time raise an inconsistency with time existing before time? Such questions left without coherent responses would invalidate or take away from any argument which suggest some thing or Being existed before our temporal universe. Therefore, in order for an argument to hold which concludes with God as the Eternal Being and Creator of the universe, a coherent explanation needs to be provided which sifts through such questions in a sound manner. Otherwise Theistic arguments, such as the traditional cosmological argument, no longer have any weight or depth below a surface level understanding.

[madscientist]

Does heaven/hell have a logical sequence? Eg we come there, get to know each other, do this, do this , do this and some "time" has gone. And after "time", we remember what will have happened, and will have memories of what happened etc. But again this seems illogical. As "time" would go on we would have more and more memories etc and does this make sense? Probably no.

I recently read that 'history' and 'time' only came after the Fall. That is, Adam worked, moved &c. before the Fall, but he was focused on the Eternal, which made the passing of time irrelevant.

OK but couldnt time be measured before the fall? Eg years, months, seasons, days etc. There were atoms, movement etc and so time existed. Although he was focused on eternal, was not his whole life supposed to be eternbal? And did he have any memories eg what happened x days ago, did people want to achieve somethung? MAybe there was no aging (or there was as God knew ppl would sin) but it just wasnt seen.
But time must have logically existed. Well but the fact whether eternity means infinite time or no time, thats a subject ti discussion id say...
And in haeven/hell, will there be any logical seqiuence of events? Or will sort of every "day" - or a part of the "time" be like a new life? Because i relaized some time ago that if we had no remembrance of the past, every time we lose our re,membrnce we would be like in a sort of new world, soert of a reincarnation or so. Imagine for example that you forget if you were evil/good, and have to restart again (lets say all your past memeoreis have been washed away). You would not continue what you have been done before and so on. ANd another question is, that if this happened to someone, he woudnt necessarily have to do the same as before. Is this a way of how making someone good/evil? Eg someone is evil because he decided so etc. But his memories would get washed and he would sort of have like a new life. I dotn think hed necessarily have to do evil again, though.
And i think it also relates to heaven. If we knew we were there forever, and knew eg were here for so long and i remember coming here first its different as not knowing anything. But if we knew nothing then it is so much different. If we did not know how long we will be there, etc i dont think wed be able to rewjoice on the idea of eternity. Although it may be eternal, if we werent aware of it we woudlnt know - so it would be different than if we knew. So thats why i think thre should be some sort of time or somehting like that.

[Jac3510]

Here is a discussion between K and me on this question. I thought it was very helpful as it clarified, for me anyway, the primary views that God became temporal with His creation and that God remains atemporal even now.

God bless
edit: And K, here we are two years later, and I still can't accept your view because I take Heb. 4:3 as referring to salvation:

• "For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world."

Ah well . . . some things are never resolved

[Turgonian]

I don't believe that time entered into the picture at the fall. There's nothing Biblically that infers that. In fact, it's debatable that Adam and Eve were immortal in a physical sense prior to the fall. A lot of this ties into the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's arguable I suppose, that God may have had different laws or intevened to override the existing ones, in terms of man's condition before the fall. The extended ages reported prior to the flood are indicative of that. It's a common argument in YEC and some forms of OEC accept or appeal to it as well.

However, as I believe the Bible indicates there was eating, digesting etc, taking place, it seems clear to me that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was in place, as was time, as was physical death in terms of the ecological food chains.

I have not been clear enough. I did not say, 'There was no passing of time before the Fall.' I said, 'The passing of Time was irrelevant.' Adam was focused on the Eternal. There was time before the Fall, but no history.

I believe God is both timeless and eternal, not because I can effectively come to that conclusion (a problem with wits ), but because Erik van Goor has said, 'A culture which focuses on being on its way - whether or not with God - is a culture on its way to its downfall.'

[Michelle]

Could someone set me right sbout this, but isn't there some reference in the Bible regarding everything man knows about science being wrong? Does this also mean the possibility that our interpretation of time and theories concerned with it are wrong?

Anyway I am no scientist. In fact the world would be in very dire straits if it relied on me!

[Canuckster1127]

Could someone set me right sbout this, but isn't there some reference in the Bible regarding everything man knows about science being wrong? Does this also mean the possibility that our interpretation of time and theories concerned with it are wrong?

Anyway I am no scientist. In fact the world would be in very dire straits if it relied on me!

Michelle,

I think the verse you are thinking of is I Tim 6:20 which in the King James Version is translated:

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

"Science" in 1611, when the KJV was translated and released did not mean quite what it does today. Here's the same verse in the NIV,

20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,

The greek word is "gnosis". Two things I think were are work here.

1. Certainly it is being taught that we ought not to elevate human knowledge above the Word of God and that includes science today.

2. There was a heresy from the very earliest times of the church known as "Gnosticism" which was a belief that knowlege of certain secret sayings and truths were the path to God, and it is possible that Paul had this specific type of heresy in mind when he wrote this.

In short, the Bible is not teaching, at least not in this passage (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) that all knowledge or science is wrong. The purpose of the Bible is primarily revelation of God, who He is, and His Plan for salvation through Jesus Christ. I believe that Science is an honorable pursuit and that it is a less direct means of seeing and understanding God, because God also reveals Himself more generally through His creation. When an apparant conflict comes into play, I believe the Bible is correct. However, we also have to maintain some humility in terms of our interpretation of the Bible because there have been times when well meaning Christians have taken the Bible to mean something when Science has claimed otherwise, and where the claim in science has been shown to be true (for example, Galileo's conflict with the Catholic Church that the Sun was the center of the solar system.)

The Bible wasn't wrong. Christians took some verses out of context and tried to hold to the old knowledge that the earth was the center of the universe and those Christians were wrong.

Anyway, I hope this helps to answer you question and doesn't confuse you more.

Blessings,

Bart

[Michelle]

Could someone set me right sbout this, but isn't there some reference in the Bible regarding everything man knows about science being wrong? Does this also mean the possibility that our interpretation of time and theories concerned with it are wrong?

Anyway I am no scientist. In fact the world would be in very dire straits if it relied on me!

Michelle,

I think the verse you are thinking of is I Tim 6:20 which in the King James Version is translated:

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

"Science" in 1611, when the KJV was translated and released did not mean quite what it does today. Here's the same verse in the NIV,

20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,

The greek word is "gnosis". Two things I think were are work here.

1. Certainly it is being taught that we ought not to elevate human knowledge above the Word of God and that includes science today.

2. There was a heresy from the very earliest times of the church known as "Gnosticism" which was a belief that knowlege of certain secret sayings and truths were the path to God, and it is possible that Paul had this specific type of heresy in mind when he wrote this.

In short, the Bible is not teaching, at least not in this passage (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) that all knowledge or science is wrong. The purpose of the Bible is primarily revelation of God, who He is, and His Plan for salvation through Jesus Christ. I believe that Science is an honorable pursuit and that it is a less direct means of seeing and understanding God, because God also reveals Himself more generally through His creation. When an apparant conflict comes into play, I believe the Bible is correct. However, we also have to maintain some humility in terms of our interpretation of the Bible because there have been times when well meaning Christians have taken the Bible to mean something when Science has claimed otherwise, and where the claim in science has been shown to be true (for example, Galileo's conflict with the Catholic Church that the Sun was the center of the solar system.)

The Bible wasn't wrong. Christians took some verses out of context and tried to hold to the old knowledge that the earth was the center of the universe and those Christians were wrong.

Anyway, I hope this helps to answer you question and doesn't confuse you more.

Blessings,

Bart

Bart like I have said before, your blood is worth bottling! Thanks sincerely!

[charlottecowell]

I think the question of God and time is one of the most intriguing things to think about as a 'believer'. When I underwent my own awakening to God, my conception of time was transformed. Firstly I became aware of eternity and that there are moments in our lives where time appears to stand still, because it is an eternal moment, a defining part of our 'spritual' development. I'm sure a lot of us can look back on our lives and recall those types of moments, which by their nature are enlightening.

I think that focusing on the 'local time' someone described above can disrupt our natural sense of rhythm, which is actually in time with the zeitgeist, the rhythm of the universe, where everything appears as timeless because everything happens at precisely the moment God decreed that it would: for example, the moment day becomes night or the infinite possibilities between the numbers one and two. This kind of time is something you can perceive by watching the stars and planets or listening to birdsong, which is intimately connected with the 'universal timepiece', as it were. I found that as soon as I was practically unable to live in accordance with the universal timepiece, as I call it, my ability to feel connected with God dimished to an extent which still feels tragic....

what I'm not sure of, however, is if part of our 'spiritual duty' (for want of a better way of putting it) here on Earth involves having to endure the timeframe that's been imposed upon us, the continual reminder of our mortality, the necessity of submitting to the ever-quickening time the global economy dictates to us.

I also think time travel is possible, at least from the point of view of consciousness, if not physically yet