The catastrophic tsunami in Asia was....
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Every single instance of time you mentioned deals with the created physical realm. And !!NEWS FLASH!! God created the physical universe (with its physical notation of time).
BTW I never said anything about all time being equal to earth's time.
And to add to your brilliant deduction on age. If you were to compute an average human's age in Lunar years they do live to be 2,214 Lunar years old.
Last edited:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
JRH,
First sentence is false on several levels
(1) I mentioned that Jesus Christ said that God the father shared His glory with Himself before creation. Maybe you didn't read my post to well. (2) Secondly, I never suggested that time is or is not a part of this universe, I said it's not created like any part of creation which is exactly the opposite of what you said, which is that time was created by God. You seem to get confused too easily.
Second sentence is false
God never teaches that time is a notion from creation. In fact, Gods who is eternal, everlasting, eternal, infinite, etc., His name and titles is more than interestingly endued with time.
Third sentence
You said
Fourth sentence
You said
How about we start with the one you already avoided. Here it is again for your answering pleasures.
First sentence is false on several levels
(1) I mentioned that Jesus Christ said that God the father shared His glory with Himself before creation. Maybe you didn't read my post to well. (2) Secondly, I never suggested that time is or is not a part of this universe, I said it's not created like any part of creation which is exactly the opposite of what you said, which is that time was created by God. You seem to get confused too easily.
Second sentence is false
God never teaches that time is a notion from creation. In fact, Gods who is eternal, everlasting, eternal, infinite, etc., His name and titles is more than interestingly endued with time.
- He who is and was and is to come (God was in the past and is in the present and will be in the future)
- The ancient of Days (God really like's to connect Himself with time references)
- Everlasting Father (God has lasted forever, talk about a long "duration event")
- King of the Ages (God likes time being identified with Himself)
- Living Stone (It's hard to imagine something that's living without any time to live...)
- Living Water (See above)
- Living God (See above)
- Love (Godly love that is not freely reciprocated is not being in a loving relationship. And godly love that is reciprocated is the definition of a loving relationship, and "sharing" such love is a wonderful "event")
Third sentence
You said
BTW, I never said anything about you saying about all time beging equal to earth's time. (Could you possibly be less helpful?) Usually the goal is to progress the discussion, not digress or obfuscate. My little theoretical time example was to illustrate how contradictory and foolish your idea is.
Fourth sentence
You said
I know, like I said earlier, you should pay better attention to what I did post. I said
So you actually believe that to be true... This is going to be fun, "if" I can get you to actually answer the pertinent questions around this bizarre fictional assumption.
How about we start with the one you already avoided. Here it is again for your answering pleasures.
Remember, a dying world is looking at you wondering if you are representing God or not. It will help you and them for all eternity if you give a more accurate portrayal of who God is. It's the truth that sets us free, not contradictory false teachings. Please try again.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Stone,
I'm still looking for your answer that you said you already gave that I still can't find and you still haven't helped me find it.
Zakath,
So what do you think? Loony, opps, I mean Lunar people would live to be over two thousand years old, or more like 82? JRH over here thinks that the length of the day, how long it takes for the earth or moon to make one complete rotation around it's axis, is equated to time such that if it's 29 times slower, then you would live about 29 times longer.
Here's another thought candy question. But cover your screen until after JRH answers my previous question because I don't want him to see this before he responds. Consider the Lunar landings we have already done. The communications between them and us happened in a one to one timeframe. For example, Huston might say, what is your status, and one of the astronauts would answer without delay and without a speech impediment. I'm a wannabe musician and so I have experience with adjusting the tempo of music to help analyze how it is played, and so song lyrics also get slowed down too. At just 2 times slower, audible speech becomes somewhat difficult to understand clearly, but at four times slower, it is very difficult to understand, so at 19 times slower, the time differential would have been noticeable on two levels. (1) It would have begun to take forever to respond. For example a normal 4 second pause between send and receive responses would turn into a 108 second pause, that's almost 2 minuets to simply start to respond! And (2) once they finally did respond, it would be completely unintelligible. Instead, what we found is that our communication happened pretty much just like it would on earth.
This is really silly. We have satellite communications that helped us to debunk the time is relative idea years ago. Plus, we have reflectors on the surface of the moon that are used to accurately reflect it's distance via lazar tests from earth. At least I think it was lazar. If time is relative then the results of the distance would be off. The empirical evidence is in, but certain Christians would rather promote false ideas so as to protect precious manmade yet false doctrine.
I'm still looking for your answer that you said you already gave that I still can't find and you still haven't helped me find it.
Zakath,
So what do you think? Loony, opps, I mean Lunar people would live to be over two thousand years old, or more like 82? JRH over here thinks that the length of the day, how long it takes for the earth or moon to make one complete rotation around it's axis, is equated to time such that if it's 29 times slower, then you would live about 29 times longer.
Here's another thought candy question. But cover your screen until after JRH answers my previous question because I don't want him to see this before he responds. Consider the Lunar landings we have already done. The communications between them and us happened in a one to one timeframe. For example, Huston might say, what is your status, and one of the astronauts would answer without delay and without a speech impediment. I'm a wannabe musician and so I have experience with adjusting the tempo of music to help analyze how it is played, and so song lyrics also get slowed down too. At just 2 times slower, audible speech becomes somewhat difficult to understand clearly, but at four times slower, it is very difficult to understand, so at 19 times slower, the time differential would have been noticeable on two levels. (1) It would have begun to take forever to respond. For example a normal 4 second pause between send and receive responses would turn into a 108 second pause, that's almost 2 minuets to simply start to respond! And (2) once they finally did respond, it would be completely unintelligible. Instead, what we found is that our communication happened pretty much just like it would on earth.
This is really silly. We have satellite communications that helped us to debunk the time is relative idea years ago. Plus, we have reflectors on the surface of the moon that are used to accurately reflect it's distance via lazar tests from earth. At least I think it was lazar. If time is relative then the results of the distance would be off. The empirical evidence is in, but certain Christians would rather promote false ideas so as to protect precious manmade yet false doctrine.
STONE
New member
1way,
These were your questions as far as I could tell:
These were my answers:
*To help you better understand please first consider that God is not a rapist, but is perfect in all his ways, and entirely lovable when understood.
* The problem is man's mind is carnal, and cannot understand God as He truly Is.
But by His Grace we come to understand and know God through Faith; but even this faith is not of ourselves...it is the Gift of God.
*Why doesn't God give Grace to all men so all can know Him?
He does. But man's sinful inclination makes man love darkness rather than light, for man's deeds are evil.
*For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now (to intervene in our suffering). Only by God leading men to the truth of their own weakness, through suffering and failure (to set an example), can man accept the Word of God and truly know and love Him through the Holy Spirit (to establish the promise).
-I’ll clarify my last point further: Jesus died for us because He knew it was necessary, and because the Father knew it would be necessary and therefore ordained it.
Your questions were somewhat unclear, my answers may have been unclear.
These were your questions as far as I could tell:
These were my answers:
*To help you better understand please first consider that God is not a rapist, but is perfect in all his ways, and entirely lovable when understood.
* The problem is man's mind is carnal, and cannot understand God as He truly Is.
But by His Grace we come to understand and know God through Faith; but even this faith is not of ourselves...it is the Gift of God.
*Why doesn't God give Grace to all men so all can know Him?
He does. But man's sinful inclination makes man love darkness rather than light, for man's deeds are evil.
*For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now (to intervene in our suffering). Only by God leading men to the truth of their own weakness, through suffering and failure (to set an example), can man accept the Word of God and truly know and love Him through the Holy Spirit (to establish the promise).
-I’ll clarify my last point further: Jesus died for us because He knew it was necessary, and because the Father knew it would be necessary and therefore ordained it.
Your questions were somewhat unclear, my answers may have been unclear.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
1Way,
As long ago as when I was in school (many, many years ago) they were measuring time with atomic clocks by counting the vibrations of atoms (Cesium?). For the scientific world, time has long been detached from astronomical observations...
Time, as humans understand it, is based on measuring movement. The only way time ceases to have measurable meaning is when things stop moving (i.e. maximum entropy)...
As long ago as when I was in school (many, many years ago) they were measuring time with atomic clocks by counting the vibrations of atoms (Cesium?). For the scientific world, time has long been detached from astronomical observations...
Time, as humans understand it, is based on measuring movement. The only way time ceases to have measurable meaning is when things stop moving (i.e. maximum entropy)...
Sign of the Times
Sign of the Times
The intensifying of the "birth pangs" that foreshadow His return.
The hurricane on top of hurricane this summer into Florida. Then
the earthquake in Asia and the *big Wave* of biblical proportions.
"and upon the earth dismay among nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the Waves" Luke 21:25-26
When you see these things Begin to take place, Look up for your redemption draws nigh" Luke 21:28:
Sign of the Times
The intensifying of the "birth pangs" that foreshadow His return.
The hurricane on top of hurricane this summer into Florida. Then
the earthquake in Asia and the *big Wave* of biblical proportions.
"and upon the earth dismay among nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the Waves" Luke 21:25-26
When you see these things Begin to take place, Look up for your redemption draws nigh" Luke 21:28:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Zakath,
You said
(2) Not true. I think you mean that they went from metal spring loaded clocks to atomic ones. Yet neither of them measured time like a ruler measures distance. The most foundational example of the passage of time is our natural days and years. Without that as our guide, and because atomic reaction varies depending upon relative forces of accelaration, it would be very difficult to understand what time it is.
By the way, God uses days and years as the primary scale for time duration, do you think that atomic clocks know better than God?
(3) Our understanding of the duration of time is based up the duration of events, not just measuring movement. "Measuring movement" is more the product of distance and space than it is time and the duration of events.
Right, if you have a timeless event, then that event never had the time to happen. Time and events are as you say, inextricably connected. But clocks and time are not as connected as you seem to think. Clocks only mimic steady movement, and then upon that we try to calibrate that steady movement to match days and years, which we get from our solar and planetary movements. But again, time is an event such as the earth's rotation or it's obit around the sun, rather, time is our way of understanding who events unfold and have duration. Thus time is consistent in direction and rate, and it is independent of how fast the earth moves or how fast atoms vibrate.
But I believe we've been through all this before, haven't we.
You said
(1) A clock, no matter of what variety, does not measure time like a ruler measures distance, instead it imitates several things that mimic the nature of time which is mostly it's consistency. Time progresses at a consistent rate and direction. The best clocks advertise it's "movement" as being "consistent" (plus or minus so much variation within so much time) so the better clock you have, the more steady the movement and the more consistent it is over a longer period of time. But the fact is that it's always off by some amount. Why? Because we are not actually measuring time, we are simply trying to approximate the steady movement and matching that movement up against the known duration of events we find in the solar and planetary system.
(2) Not true. I think you mean that they went from metal spring loaded clocks to atomic ones. Yet neither of them measured time like a ruler measures distance. The most foundational example of the passage of time is our natural days and years. Without that as our guide, and because atomic reaction varies depending upon relative forces of accelaration, it would be very difficult to understand what time it is.
By the way, God uses days and years as the primary scale for time duration, do you think that atomic clocks know better than God?
(3) Our understanding of the duration of time is based up the duration of events, not just measuring movement. "Measuring movement" is more the product of distance and space than it is time and the duration of events.
Right, if you have a timeless event, then that event never had the time to happen. Time and events are as you say, inextricably connected. But clocks and time are not as connected as you seem to think. Clocks only mimic steady movement, and then upon that we try to calibrate that steady movement to match days and years, which we get from our solar and planetary movements. But again, time is an event such as the earth's rotation or it's obit around the sun, rather, time is our way of understanding who events unfold and have duration. Thus time is consistent in direction and rate, and it is independent of how fast the earth moves or how fast atoms vibrate.
But I believe we've been through all this before, haven't we.
JoyfulRook
New member
I agree with this answer.Z Man said: