The Timelessness of God

[Tambora]

That's a terrible analogy and fails to support anything about time and future events known to God.

It was used to show that ideas can exists without being a real tangent thing created.

Do you believe that God can be all places at the same time?

Well, 'can He' is vastly different from 'does He'.
I really don't care to get into a conversation of 'if a frog had wings'.
So lets take at look at what we know He does.

I do know that scripture does describe GOD as 'waiting' which automatically implies sequence.
And we have numerous scriptures which tell of GOD repenting (change of mind), which implies sequence.

As to where His presence is at any given time, there are numerous scriptures that speak of Him dwelling in a certain place, sometimes with a visible manifestation of His presence.
And we have scriptures saying that GOD's presence leaves a certain place.
And then there are those scriptures that tell of messengers and angels reporting to GOD thing that are happening. Wouldn't need that if He is always everywhere.

So if GOD's presence is always everywhere, then those scriptures cannot be factual.
And if GOD is everywhere, then He is within every individual and even within Satan.

So I have a hard time just making some blanket statement that GOD is everywhere at all times.
I do, however, believe that GOD knows everything that is going on, be it that He was there present (as He was when visiting Abraham), or by reports (the angels bring Him), or by looking down Himself from heaven.

When the Bible declares God to be eternal, it is saying that He has always existed and is not aging.

If by 'aging' you mean growing old and decaying, I agree.
But scripture does call GOD ancient, of old, and so forth. So when it comes to oldness (age wise), I would have to conclude that GOD is the oldest thing that exists. You just can't put a number on His age, like 10 years or 1000000000000 years.
Time doesn't grow old either, it is what it has always been no matter what stage of the sequence.


Thanks, RD.
Interesting things to think about, that's for sure!

 

[Tambora]

Does that mean that heaven is non-smoking?

No fine cigars....?

#Silly Evil.Eye.<(I)>

hehe!
Don't even mention that to Knight :cigar:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

hehe!
Don't even mention that to Knight :cigar:

Who cares about [MENTION=595]Knight[/MENTION], I'm crying at "my" possible misery and deprivation!

#Oh no, what if there's only fine cigars in Hell?
#I'm concerned.

....... and Lol about Knight then the :cigar: emoticon.

Next someone is going to say there's no good Scotch in heaven! I'm getting upset now.

: )

Evil.Eye.<(I)> :cigar:

#Possibities of a heavenly black market? :idunno:

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

It was used to show that ideas can exists without being a real tangent thing created.

Well, 'can He' is vastly different from 'does He'.
I really don't care to get into a conversation of 'if a frog had wings'.
So lets take at look at what we know He does.

I do know that scripture does describe GOD as 'waiting' which automatically implies sequence.
And we have numerous scriptures which tell of GOD repenting (change of mind), which implies sequence.

As to where His presence is at any given time, there are numerous scriptures that speak of Him dwelling in a certain place, sometimes with a visible manifestation of His presence.
And we have scriptures saying that GOD's presence leaves a certain place.
And then there are those scriptures that tell of messengers and angels reporting to GOD thing that are happening. Wouldn't need that if He is always everywhere.

So if GOD's presence is always everywhere, then those scriptures cannot be factual.
And if GOD is everywhere, then He is within every individual and even within Satan.

So I have a hard time just making some blanket statement that GOD is everywhere at all times.
I do, however, believe that GOD knows everything that is going on, be it that He was there present (as He was when visiting Abraham), or by reports (the angels bring Him), or by looking down Himself from heaven.



If by 'aging' you mean growing old and decaying, I agree.
But scripture does call GOD ancient, of old, and so forth. So when it comes to oldness (age wise), I would have to conclude that GOD is the oldest thing that exists. You just can't put a number on His age, like 10 years or 1000000000000 years.
Time doesn't grow old either, it is what it has always been no matter what stage of the sequence.


Thanks, RD.
Interesting things to think about, that's for sure!

You have to admit...

Frogs with wings would be cool!

# Bad Evil.Eye.<(I)>
#I apologize [MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION]
#Its all my fault
#Back on OP track... CHOO CHOO

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

It was used to show that ideas can exists without being a real tangent thing created.

Well, 'can He' is vastly different from 'does He'.
I really don't care to get into a conversation of 'if a frog had wings'.
So lets take at look at what we know He does.

I do know that scripture does describe GOD as 'waiting' which automatically implies sequence.
And we have numerous scriptures which tell of GOD repenting (change of mind), which implies sequence.

As to where His presence is at any given time, there are numerous scriptures that speak of Him dwelling in a certain place, sometimes with a visible manifestation of His presence.
And we have scriptures saying that GOD's presence leaves a certain place.
And then there are those scriptures that tell of messengers and angels reporting to GOD thing that are happening. Wouldn't need that if He is always everywhere.

So if GOD's presence is always everywhere, then those scriptures cannot be factual.
And if GOD is everywhere, then He is within every individual and even within Satan.

So I have a hard time just making some blanket statement that GOD is everywhere at all times.
I do, however, believe that GOD knows everything that is going on, be it that He was there present (as He was when visiting Abraham), or by reports (the angels bring Him), or by looking down Himself from heaven.



If by 'aging' you mean growing old and decaying, I agree.
But scripture does call GOD ancient, of old, and so forth. So when it comes to oldness (age wise), I would have to conclude that GOD is the oldest thing that exists. You just can't put a number on His age, like 10 years or 1000000000000 years.
Time doesn't grow old either, it is what it has always been no matter what stage of the sequence.


Thanks, RD.
Interesting things to think about, that's for sure!

 

[Right Divider]

It was used to show that ideas can exists without being a real tangent thing created.

I think I understand what you were trying to do, but I don't think that it really accomplished it.

Well, 'can He' is vastly different from 'does He'.
I really don't care to get into a conversation of 'if a frog had wings'.

That was not where I was going with it, I was just asking a question.

So lets take at look at what we know He does.

I do know that scripture does describe GOD as 'waiting' which automatically implies sequence.
And we have numerous scriptures which tell of GOD repenting (change of mind), which implies sequence.

Once again, God works in time and space when communicating with beings that live in time and space.

As to where His presence is at any given time, there are numerous scriptures that speak of Him dwelling in a certain place, sometimes with a visible manifestation of His presence.
And we have scriptures saying that GOD's presence leaves a certain place.
And then there are those scriptures that tell of messengers and angels reporting to GOD thing that are happening. Wouldn't need that if He is always everywhere.

Once again, God works in time and space when communicating with beings that live in time and space.

The Bible says that God is a Spirit and spirits are immaterial. So unless we understand each instance in its particular context, we have problems.

So if GOD's presence is always everywhere, then those scriptures cannot be factual.
And if GOD is everywhere, then He is within every individual and even within Satan.

I was not trying saying that that God is "always everywhere all of the time". I was trying to say that God can be wherever He wants to be any time that He wants to be (I'll try to word things more carefully going forward). That includes the ability to be in more than one place at time or more then one time at a place.

God is not confined by either time or space. But time and space are not separable. God created a time-space continuum. Time and space work together. That was why I was trying to get you to look at some links that describe time-space.

So I have a hard time just making some blanket statement that GOD is everywhere at all times.

I was not trying to put it that way. Sorry for the confusion.

I do, however, believe that GOD knows everything that is going on, be it that He was there present (as He was when visiting Abraham), or by reports (the angels bring Him), or by looking down Himself from heaven.

When God looks down from heaven.... does He have eyes?

If by 'aging' you mean growing old and decaying, I agree.
But scripture does call GOD ancient, of old, and so forth.

Those are not referring to actual time. They are figures of speech, like a great deal of the Bible when it refers to God. God often used human terms to communicate with humans. It's sort of required because of OUR limitations and not His.

So when it comes to oldness (age wise), I would have to conclude that GOD is the oldest thing that exists. You just can't put a number on His age, like 10 years or 1000000000000 years.
Time doesn't grow old either, it is what it has always been no matter what stage of the sequence.

This is the problem with the idea that time is either an idea or had always existed (or any similar non-created time theories).

Thanks, RD.
Interesting things to think about, that's for sure!

You're welcome Tambora. I'm glad to have a pleasant exchange.

 

[Tambora]

I was not trying saying that that God is "always everywhere all of the time". I was trying to say that God can be wherever He wants to be any time that He wants to be

Oh. I can agree with that statement.
:thumb:

 

[Clete]

Of course you failed to mention what I said specifically about what men are unable to know about the future--who will believe the gospel and who will not.

Or perhaps you want to argue that those who live in time can indeed foreknow who will believe and who will not?

I didn't mention it because it is not relevant to your argument nor my refutation of it. You are claiming that the future in unknowable. Claims have to be substantiated. The fact that I cannot do it is not proof that it cannot be done. I can't climb Mount Everist. I can't fly. I can't see ultraviolet radiation. I can't create a universe. There are a million things that I cannot do. That is not an argument that these things cannot be done. But you are saying more than merely that the future is not knowable, you are saying that the future is not knowable IF one exists in time. You have no means whatsoever by which to substantiate this claim and it is the primary premise of your argument. Your argument is, therefore, moot! It's finished and you know it.

And as I somehow knew in advance, the argument hasn't moved you an inch nor will it.

 

[Clete]

How do we measure an idea?

Arbitrarily.

Time has to do with the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. What the other events are can be anything and can be (and usually are) arbitrarily defined.

Ever wonder why 24 hours in a day and not 19 or 10 or 50 or 100 or 3? There is no fundamental (i.e. objective) reason.

 

[Clete]

Stubbornness is one of the most common traits of the Patriarchs and Prophets.

: )

True, but the point is that some things about the future aren't too hard to know in advance. And I'm just an average Joe Nobody, mere human being! Imagine what God is capable of!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

True, but the point is that some things about the future aren't too hard to know in advance. And I'm just an average Joe Nobody, mere human being! Imagine what God is capable of!

I can't disagree with you.

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

Arbitrarily.

Time has to do with the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. What the other events are can be anything and can be (and usually are) arbitrarily defined.

Ever wonder why 24 hours in a day and not 19 or 10 or 50 or 100 or 3? There is no fundamental (i.e. objective) reason.

To be ornery...

Planetary alignment, earth rotation and lunar influence.

Also... celestial observation of the stars.

 

[Clete]

I would word it that GOD has already calculated every action possible (every direction a man can go), and therefore can intervene to bring His plan to fruition because He already has a plan calculated for any direction the man takes.

GOD tells Jonah to go and tell Nineveh they will be destroyed in 40 days.
Jonah agrees, but then gets scared and goes in another direction.
GOD nudges a great fish to swallow Jonah.
Jonah then says he'll get right on it!

No timelessness required.

Perfect!

Exactly right.

 

[Clete]

To be ornery...

Planetary alignment, earth rotation and lunar influence.

Also... celestial observation of the stars.

None of that has anything to do with TWENTY FOUR hours. It could just as easily have been 10 or 100 hours. In fact, there has been efforts in the past to change the clock to a metric clock with the numbers 1 - 10 on the face rather than 1 - 12. It would work just as well, it would just mean that an hour is about 20% longer than what we're used too. The point being that an hour can be defined in any way you want. Even if it were defined by some natural process, it wouldn't have to be so defined because the length of an hour is not fundamental to, nor derived from, the nature of time nor could it be because time is not an ontological thing. It is merely an idea.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

In fact, if GOD did indeed live in timelessness and already knew in advance, then the statement would be more accurate without that word.

Let us look at this verse:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (1 Sam.16:7).​

Since the LORD can know man's heart He knew that Abraham feared Him. He did not need to see if Abraham would offer up his son or not in order to know if he feared Him. So what is said cannot be taken in a literal manner:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).​

Your argument is based on the idea that we must take what is said there literally.

Do you really think that the LORD did not know if Abraham feared Him until he offered up his son despite the fact that He knew Abraham's heart?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I didn't mention it because it is not relevant to your argument nor my refutation of it. You are claiming that the future in unknowable. Claims have to be substantiated.

Again, what I referred to was the fact that man, who is constrained by time, cannot know who will believe the gospel in the future.

The fact that I cannot do it is not proof that it cannot be done.

So you think that there are men who walk the earth or who have walked the earth who can know beforehand who will believe and who will not?

Your argument is, therefore, moot! It's finished and you know it.

If you can prove that someone, either living now or in the past, can know in advance who will believe the gospel and who will not then tell me who that person is.

Thanks!

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

None of that has anything to do with TWENTY FOUR hours. It could just as easily have been 10 or 100 hours. In fact, there has been efforts in the past to change the clock to a metric clock with the numbers 1 - 10 on the face rather than 1 - 12. It would work just as well, it would just mean that an hour is about 20% longer than what we're used too. The point being that an hour can be defined in any way you want. Even if it were defined by some natural process, it wouldn't have to be so defined because the length of an hour is not fundamental to, nor derived from, the nature of time nor could it be because time is not an ontological thing. It is merely an idea.

# provoked Crete
# Schooled by Clete
# Awesome

 

[Evil.Eye.<(I)>]

None of that has anything to do with TWENTY FOUR hours. It could just as easily have been 10 or 100 hours. In fact, there has been efforts in the past to change the clock to a metric clock with the numbers 1 - 10 on the face rather than 1 - 12. It would work just as well, it would just mean that an hour is about 20% longer than what we're used too. The point being that an hour can be defined in any way you want. Even if it were defined by some natural process, it wouldn't have to be so defined because the length of an hour is not fundamental to, nor derived from, the nature of time nor could it be because time is not an ontological thing. It is merely an idea.

#Cut and paste warrior move

The South Pole is the other point where the Earth's axis of rotation intersects its surface, in Antarctica. The Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the sun and once every 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds with respect to the stars (see below).

-The give of 3 minutes and 56 seconds is why we have daylight savings time and leap years- I totally added this from sheer brilliance.

# And Clete responds?

 

[Tambora]

When God looks down from heaven.... does He have eyes?

I know this is a little off topic of a timeless GOD, but that's really a pretty interesting question.

I'll tell ya right up front that I am not so sure He doesn't.

Of course they would not be fleshly eyes as we have, that are subject to deterioration.
And I know the debates about GOD only being some invisible spirit being, or what one might call a disembodied spirit force. In other words, formless. And therefore all the terms used about eyes, ears, arms, etc. must only be idioms used and not actual eyes, ears, etc. And how those idiom are used because us mere mortals couldn't understand it any other way.

I honestly cannot bring myself to say that is 100% accurate.
I'm not sure where or why the idea that spirit cannot have a form got started.
Angels are invisible spirits and they have form, so I don;t why it cannot also be said of GOD.

Every time I think of saying it, my mind says "Hold on!", and scriptures start popping in my mind.
Adam created in the image of GOD.
Christ comes as a man, the express image of GOD.
GOD visits Abraham as a man.
The Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Man is definately a very special creation of GOD, and even described as being the crowing glory of GOD.

And then there are scriptures like this one:

John 5:37 KJV
(37) And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.


It's not saying that they didn't hear His voice because GOD doesn't have a voice.
We know that GOD has a voice. It was heard both in the OT and NT.
It's saying that the voice of GOD was not heard by these particular guys.
It continues to tell us that the shape of GOD was not seen by these particular guys.



What to do, what to do?
I suppose we could just spiritualize it all.

Now don't get me wrong, I do think there are instances where arms and such terms are clearly idioms.
And I am not suggesting that GOD's shape must be a stationary man-shape that cannot morph. There is probably a better term than morph, but I'm tired so it will have to do for now just to get the gist of what is being said.

 

[Tambora]

Let us look at this verse:

"But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (1 Sam.16:7).​

Since the LORD can know man's heart He knew that Abraham feared Him. He did not need to see if Abraham would offer up his son or not in order to know if he feared Him. So what is said cannot be taken in a literal manner:

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me" (Gen.22:12).​

Your argument is based on the idea that we must take what is said there literally.

Do you really think that the LORD did not know if Abraham feared Him until he offered up his son despite the fact that He knew Abraham's heart?

Details.

for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son

I know is the verb
now is the adverb as to when the verb action took place


If GOD already knew it, the adverb now is out of place here, and it should read "for I know that thou fearest God".
It is definitely saying "now I know". Now as in 'at this time'.
And the clause after it (seeing thou hast not withheld thy son) tells the reason why He now knows it. A clause that would also be out of place if GOD already knew it and had already seen it.

This is the last time I'm gonna bat this verse around.
Don't know how to say it any plainer.