God and Time

My thought is that time is a construct of the creation when God set the uninverse in motion

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

And so we the creation are within the construct of time limited by it , but he is outside of the construct being the one who existed before time was constructed eternity is not within time , time is a construct within eternity

peter is talking here saying that in the end times people will be wondering “ I thought this Jesus was going to come back where is he ? Everything is just going on like always …. Peter assures them he will return but makes this point

“But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:8‬ ‭KJV‬‬

This is evidenced when he tells Adam “ you’ll surely die in the day you eat the fruit “ yet adam lived 935 years and then he died .

God isn’t within the construct or limits of time he created it and existed before and will exist after so his ways are not subject to its construct when Jesus said “ I’m coming soon “

tbat to us means maybe a couple years or something but to him soon may mean ten thousand years because he’s speaking from an eternal perspective

if you experience eternity “ soon “ might be thousands of years but if you are mortal a hundred years seems like an extremely long wait and doesn’t feel like it’s “ soon “

time is part of creation God is the creator

This connection between Trumpets and Pentecost is intriguing.

Perhaps, it is similar to the strong connection between the Day of Atonement and Passover (Jesus' sacrifice tore the veil to the Holy of Holies and made atonement possible between us and God through His blood). Once Satan is out of the picture, I can't wait to see how a Godly society will truly function under Christ's leadership.

How can you measure whether it was a long moment or a long day? If 1,000 people had 1,000 different experiences within that 'timeframe," how would you submit that into the captain's log if it required a notation? down to the millisecond?

If you have any kind of clock that is independent of the sun, evening will fall later than expected. Say I usually plant 100 trees in a day and I have planted 110 trees and most others have also planted 10% more trees before sunset, you can deduce that the day was longer than usual. If 10% more water flows into a cistern before nightfall.

An interesting philosophical concept to consider is the notion of God’s relationship to time. Many Christian are quick to claim that God is not subject to time. This view is known as atemporalism. At first glance, this view seems sound as it affirms God’s immutability, highlights God’s omniscience and seeks to exalt God as one who sits over the constraints of time.

However, there are some serious concerns with this view. First, if this view is correct, God exists in a constant state of stasis. Everything would be a frozen present to God. Thus, creation, redemption and recreation would all be simultaneous events for God. In fact, it would call into question the very concept of God creating the world ex nihilo. For, how could God create the universe which had not previously existed if, for God, there could never be a first moment of creation. Second, the biblical notion that God became flesh would also be called into question as, there would never be a moment for God when God was not Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, this notion would cause us to reconsider God’s interactions with humanity we see in Scripture that is replete with warnings, answered prayers, forgiveness, anger, love and other acts which indicate God is responding and interacting with humanity based on human actions in time. This view is also popular among Calvinists as they use this philosophical notion as justification for God‘s predetermination of the elect and damned based on his sovereign declaration rather than human response. It would only make sense that if everything is a frozen constant to God, then the moment of creation would also be the moment of salvation. God knowing everything prior to creation would have created the world in such a way as to have predetermined all outcomes.

A second view on God‘s relationship with time is temporalism. This view suggests that God exists in time. In the same way humans are subject to time, so is God. Yet for God, his past is infinite as well as his future. In some ways, this fits many of the Biblical descriptions of God’s interaction with time as he is referred to as one who is “from everlasting to everlasting,” “the first and the last,“ and “before all time and now and forever“ (Jude 25). This is not to say that God is subject to time, as if he is inferior to time itself. Rather, that time is part of God’s essence or being. Theologians from this view hold a range of different theological positions from Reformed theologians, Arminians and openness theologians.

A third view would argue that God is metatemporal. Similar to the temporal view, this view claims that God does exist in time. However, God does stand outside the human timeline. This view holds that there is created time and uncreated time. God stands outside the created timeline of the universe he made, but still exists in his own time which is part of his very essence. Thus, God does interact with humanity based on the flow of time and God, himself, along with his thoughts and actions do have a past, present and future. So the encounters with humanity along time are not merely anthropomorphic as atemporalists would argue, but are genuine responses to past and present actions.

What are your thoughts about God and time? I am interesting in discussing your thoughts and their implications on how we understand the teachings of Scripture.

It looks like you have a lot of sacred cows of doctrines in there. Rather than getting into them all when it's late and probably not worth the resources to get into anyway (What reason do I have to believe you would or even could listen to me?), let me encourage you to test the beliefs you have there against the Bible and with God; it doesn't matter how long or wide is the reach of a doctrine in Christianity, it can still be wrong.

Ballaurena, your response indicates that you are only interested in winning arguments, and are not keen to interact on issues where you do not see any reason to expect to win a concession from your interlocutor. You do not sound at all llke someone coming to a discussion to understand others' perspectives, and open to discovering new insights that might challenge your present understanding and alter it in some way.

Chaps simply laid out three perspectives and asked for posters opinions on them. It's always sad when someone who is averse to a discussion topic criticises those who are interested for being interested and bad-mouth the topic per se without being willing to express their opinion on it. In normal conversation one can either walk away or attempt subtly to steer interlocutors from what one finds to be a boring topic of conversation to something more interesting. In a discussion forum, one can simply choose another thread that interests one and contribute there. But I find cancel culture obnoxious.

Incorrect. I am a teacher called by God. It is a burden in my soul to help others in understanding to encourage spiritual health. It comes from the same place that makes me want to get my seedlings in my garden off on a healthy path.

Further, my goal in this is to glorify God and help others to walk their own path to Him. That is one reason why I referred you back to your own relationship with Him. The very fact that I didn't lay out arguments for myself, but rather referred you back to your own walk with God indicates that I'm not as interested in winning arguments as I am in guiding others to win against lies and misconceptions.

Also, I spend much time in scanning where I respond because I'm not interested in just laying out divisive arguments that lead nowhere. I know that ultimately I am only an assistant to Holy Spirit who is the head teacher. Likewise, God is my teacher, and though He uses others, it isn't my job to sort through and counter the arguments of others. Per prophecy, that is fighting deception, which is itself deception. It's up to you, rather than my arguments to test these things for yourself. My job is just to point to the truth; what you do with it is up to you.

Ballaurena, don't take this topic too seriously.
This is a topic about shooting pool, even when some can't play pool.
It's about having fun and enjoying all the ideas and then shoot some more pool.
God bless you.

Thanks, I will keep that in mind but I guess I tend to have a different purpose with being here.

Funny you should mention pool, though, since I had an opportunity to play a game of it yesterday while I waited for the pool to become available (weather delay for my aqua aerobics class), and that's a pretty rare occurrence for me.

I meant this pool:


But water is my favorite thing before pool

New theory suggests time is an illusion created by quantum entanglement.

" To understand the core of this new theory, we need to understand a few things, including quantum entanglement. By its most basic definition, quantum entanglement is when two objects are so inextricably linked that when one is disturbed, the other is also disturbed, no matter how far apart they are. We also need to understand how time works in “general relativity.”

General relativity says that time is baked into our universe, that our physical reality is set in space-time, and that time can warp and dilate in the presence of gravity; scientists believe we have seen the Milky Way’s black hole warp space-time around it. However, quantum theory says that time isn’t bendable in any way. It does not change. Many physicists believe that the definition of time across both theories should be consistent. To prove this, Alessandro Coppo and other researchers went hunting for a new way to define time.

The suggestion here, at its core, seems to point to time being purely a consequence of entanglement. It states that the only reason that an object appears to change over time is because it is entangled with a clock. As such, anyone observing the universe externally would see it as completely static and unchanging. "

https://bgr.com/science/new-theory-suggests-time-is-an-illusion-created-by-quantum-entanglement/

It's also interesting to note that within our Universe any object that falls into a black hole is seen as permanently frozen from our point of view. But from the point of view of the object falling in, 'Time' continues as normal assuming they survive the gigantic G forces.

The theory as explained doesn't make sense to me. So, I'm not buying it at this time.

Paul, have you ever played backgammon? I personally love that game and now that i go to the beach everyday, i play it even more.
I love it because it's a game where despite your best planning the dice can ruin your planning and if you play it without planning the dice can make you win the game.
So nothing is under your control despite the illusion.

I agree with you here.

In the pursuit of "pure" science, one approaches a problem or unknown with a neutral approach and allows the facts to establish a hypothesis. Later, perhaps a theorem which is tested and may become a law. In the discussion of "eternity" and "time", as it applies to God and Creation, the facts must come from the Holy Scriptures and no other conceived human understanding. This highlights one of the biggest problems in human research and study. The elimination of a preconceived "bias".

It seems to me, that PaulThomson is arguing from a preconceived bias. Rather than introducing points from various perspectives, as he did in his opening post, he continues to argue for one particular biased view. In that process, he is having trouble remaining within a coherent lane of thinking because he is trying to force a particular outcome.

As you well pointed out, in your aircraft flight example, an aircraft remains aloft because of it's wing shape and forward thrust. Reduce either the lift force or the thrust and it will not stay airborne. This is not a defying of gravitational attraction but a working within the understood laws. However, if God chose to eliminate or temporarily suspend a single aspect of these laws - Gravity, Dynamic lift, Thrust or Drag - the aircraft would inexplicably stop flying or remain aloft when it should not. I do think, however, that this is what he was trying to say.

What confused me, in regards to his argument, was when he stated that God turned back one of His clocks 40 minutes but not time itself. Either way, it would seem to me, this would prove that God is above time and space. He may work in it and through it to serve His Purpose but in no way is governed or fenced by it. Therefore, time means no more to God than the law of gravity. Time is for his creation - just as gravity and mass attraction keep the Universe from flying apart.

For the scientific community, the biggest problem they still have is explaining the: Uncaused Cause.

I have never understood why people compare religion to science. They are not comparable and are mutually exclusive. Our head of science in my school was also our local christian group leader.

Lisa