Proof from the Bible that God is In Time

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lon

Well-known member
If they are laid on top of each other, you still have a "time" when God's eternal reality is both with and without His creation. Impossible.
No, I suggest the same, take Geometry but let me explain it for now and hopefully you'll get it (it is possible because it is the reality):
<--------------------------------------------->
<-------------|-------------|---------------->

As I said, these are both the same line (which is why it's both logically and illustratively a must for possibility). What you have is an time 'line.'

Definition of a line: a line passes through a point into two opposite directions forever (no ends)

Definition of a segment: the part of a line that deals with only two points.

Time is to eternity as a segment is to a line. So time is a part of eternity. God, being eternal is relational to us in creation where it begins (point A or 1) and ends (point B or 2, etc.) in time.

God's eternality must, by necessity, be bidurational (at least).

"Before time began" is IMPOSSIBLE! Why can't you see that?
Nope ▲
 

Lon

Well-known member
"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men."

How would you like to say God existed Lon?
Yup, there's one direction (of at least two). So no problem at all.
 

ghost

New member
Hall of Fame
No, I suggest the same, take Geometry but let me explain it for now and hopefully you'll get it (it is possible because it is the reality):
<--------------------------------------------->
<-------------|-------------|---------------->

As I said, these are both the same line (which is why it's both logically and illustratively a must for possibility). What you have is an time 'line.'

Definition of a line: a line passes through a point into two opposite directions forever (no ends)

Definition of a segment: the part of a line the deals only with two points.

Time is to eternity as a segment is to a line. So time is a part of eternity. God, being eternal is relational to us in creation where it begins (point A or 1) and ends (point B or 2, etc.) in time.
At some point in eternity reality changes for God. Do you see this, yes or no?
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Your OP says that "God is in time". What is the ultimate time God has revealed to us? His starting point is "eternal" before time began as the Bible says. Did He have a starting point before that? only God knows. He is all knowing. To question His all knowing from eternity past is to question if He is God.
So... I guess I'm not going to get a straight answer from you eh? :( I suppose I shouldn't expect an answer from you because no matter how you answer the question it would prove your point wrong.

If you answer "Yes, there was a time before God created His eternal plan." that would prove that the future was open prior to that plan being created.

If you answer "No, there was not a time before God created His eternal plan." that would prove that God never really created anything at all, it just always was.

That fact should be a red flag to you that your position is illogical and in error.
 

Lon

Well-known member
At some point in eternity reality changes for God. Do you see this, yes or no?
How do you mean? The intrinsic/extrinsic definitions are imperative for my answer: Extrinsically - Yes. Intrinsically - No.
 

Lon

Well-known member
So... I guess I'm not going to get a straight answer from you eh? :( I suppose I shouldn't expect an answer from you because no matter how you answer the question it would prove your point wrong.

If you answer "Yes, there was a time before God created His eternal plan." that would prove that the future was open prior to that plan being created.

If you answer "No, there was not a time before God created His eternal plan." that would prove that God never really created anything at all, it just always was.

That fact should be a red flag to you that your position is illogical and in error.
No, you aren't listening:
If you answer 'yes' then you are saying God can't be eternally existent because time is specifically, physically or conceptually, a measurement between two points.
If you answer 'no' then you are saying that our specific concept of time started when God created but that this only applies to Him insomuch as He relates to us but recognizing He transcends that.
That fact should be a red flag to you that your position is illogical and in error.

I don't care who you get to refute me, he/she can be a mathematics PhD. I will stand correct here.
 

ghost

New member
Hall of Fame
How do you mean? The intrinsic/extrinsic definitions are imperative for my answer: Extrinsically - Yes. Intrinsically - No.
No, His attributes/character/nature did not change, but there was a "time" in eternity when God did not have a body. Thus, God experiences time and change.

How do you explain that eternity experiences a new reality and not time?
 

Lon

Well-known member
No, His attributes/character/nature did not change, but there was a "time" in eternity when God did not have a body. Thus, God experiences time and change.

How do you explain that eternity experiences a new reality and not time?
The same way I've been doing so. Either you have God in a unidirectional progression (a ray that has a beginning) or you have Him eternal (a bidurational, bidirectional consideration). Part of God's existence is described in the ray, no problem there. The problem is that He must, necessarily, not just be experiencing a ray of time, but at least a line of time (it is actually much more complicated but I'm paring it down for this one point).
 

sky.

BANNED
Banned
So... I guess I'm not going to get a straight answer from you eh? :( I suppose I shouldn't expect an answer from you because no matter how you answer the question it would prove your point wrong.

If you answer "Yes, there was a time before God created His eternal plan." that would prove that the future was open prior to that plan being created.

If you answer "No, there was not a time before God created His eternal plan." that would prove that God never really created anything at all, it just always was.

That fact should be a red flag to you that your position is illogical and in error.

If you can't see that you have been sold a false doctrine about God's "openness" and what pertains to His sovereignty and mans free will then don't blame it on me. All you need to do is look at the "disciples" that open theism is creating. What open theism is creating in the way of truths of God is not my God.
 

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Time is relative. Do you believe that God is relative or absolute?
Paulos, there's a 5-year-old thread here at TOL stuck atop the BEL forum, Is Time Relative or Absolute? Bob Argues that it's Absolute.
Colossians 2:8-9 does caution us to be careful, but I don't think Paul meant for us to discount "pagan Greek philosophy" entirely. I've posted some evidence that the New Testament itself reflects thoughts and ideas that undoubtedly originated with, or were influenced by, pagan Greek philosophy.
Let me reply with this from Battle Royale X Post 10B:
The Holy Spirit filled the Bible with shadows, figures, types and antitypes, with the entire Old Covenant foreshadowing the New Covenant!, yet Sam argues that because the author of Hebrews indicates “that all before Christ was a shadow,” he “was influenced” and “impacted by Plato’s work” and the evidence he gives is that this “is precisely the meaning of the shadows in [Plato’s] allegory of the cave.” Meanwhile, the God of Abraham is the one who created shadows! God said “Let there be light,” and the light shined in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. And Plato did not comprehend it, and for all the IQ he inherited from God’s creation of Adam, he was a wicked man with a darkened mind.​
And Paulos, as to the appropriateness of the Christian infatuation with Plato, from Post 5B of Battle Royale X:
Plato (B.C. 427–347): Plato had a high IQ, as do many who hate God and righteousness, and yet the Open View does not say that unbelievers are always wrong. Hollywood ends their blockbuster movies with the wicked punished, and the righteous vindicated, even though they hate themselves for it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So we can take an occasional illustration from Hollywood, and benefit from the scientific observations of atheists, but for Christians to allow Plato to influence their doctrine, as otherwise insightful Arminian Settled Viewers do, is downright foolishness. But what can it be called, other than the irony of the ages, when Sam with all five-point Calvinists who say they believe in Total Depravity, conform God’s Word to the influence of pagan Greek philosophy?

Plato by his darkened mind, gave the classic argument for immutability, arguing that God cannot change at all because God must be perfect, and any change could only be “for the worse [thus…] it is impossible that God should ever be willing to change…”

But he forgot to consider acorns. And perfect oceans, and perfect stars, and perfect newborn babies. For the Living God mirrored His own vitality in His creation. However by Augustine’s lifetime commitment to philosophy, he imposed Plato’s perspective on Christianity. But Augustine loved the guy, so perhaps he’s not so bad? Well, he will remind us why God despises paganism, by this glimpse into his Greek mind, from Plato’s Republic, Book VI. For Plato recommended a utopian state in which he would require for the philosophers and the soldiers:

that the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent… [and] a woman, I said, at twenty years of age may begin to bear children to the State, and continue to bear them until forty.”

But what if a teenager or a fortyish woman becomes pregnant? Plato has a delicate solution: just kill the baby. For if he became ruler (the wise philosopher king), Plato would allow childbirth:

“only to those who are within the specified age [with] strict orders to prevent any embryo which may come into being from seeing the light; and if any force a way to the birth, the parents must understand that the offspring of such an union cannot be maintained, and arrange [that is: kill it] accordingly.

It is this same Plato of whom we read, by Augustine, City of God, Book VIII, Ch. 4:

But, among the disciples of Socrates, Plato was the one who shone with a glory which far excelled that of the others, and who not unjustly eclipsed them all… To Plato is given the praise of having perfected philosophy… We must, nevertheless, insert into our work certain of those opinions which he expresses in his writings, whether he himself uttered them, or narrates them as expressed by others, and seems himself to approve of,-opinions sometimes favorable to the true religion, which our faith takes up and defends, and sometimes contrary to it… Plato… is justly preferred to all the other philosophers of the Gentiles…

Sam, if the doctrine of exhaustive foreknowledge has developed directly from Christianity's mingling with pagan philosophy, then the force of the entire story of the Bible makes it abundantly clear that the future is open and both man and God change it continually​

Paulos, the links to original sources is in the BR-X thread.

-Bob Enyart
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If you can't see that you have been sold a false doctrine about God's "openness" and what pertains to His sovereignty and mans free will then don't blame it on me. All you need to do is look at the "disciples" that open theism is creating. What open theism is creating in the way of truths of God is not my God.
Huh?

What in the world are you talking about? :confused:
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Not a problem, just thought this frontpage news...well.
Huh? Is it me or what? I am having a hard time understanding what you and sky are saying. Maybe I'm have a stroke or a brain aneurism or something. :idunno:
 

Lon

Well-known member
Huh? Is it me or what? I am having a hard time understanding what you and sky are saying. Maybe I'm have a stroke or a brain aneurism or something. :idunno:
For me, I was trying to jump in there where I thought I could better explain 'our' traditional view. I have no problem however being asked to not jump in where such isn't desired.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top