Time and Eternity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biblestudy Nov 2008

[Kat]

November 2008 Bible Study

audios found at this link
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,8256.0.html

video
http://bible-truths.com/video/study113008.wmv


                                             Time and Eternity

I'm covering this topic and it took me a while to put it together, but not that long, maybe six or seven hours. Where normally I will spend ten to twenty hours on most Bible studies, even if I know where I'm going and what I'm doing. It just takes that long to look up all the Scriptures, all the references, check all the Hebrew, check all the Greek, check all the cross references, because I want to be sure I'm right. I want to be sure that I'm Scriptural and so on.

Many many years ago, twenty, thirty, forty even, I thought eternity was something outside of the realm of time. I thought that because that's what the pagan Babylonian church teaches. So I accepted it along with many of the other doctrines, although I had already given up on eternal hell.

So then a couple of years ago I got to thinking about this thing of eternity and whether we will someday step out of time and enter this realm called eternity, which is not time. 'Well then what is it?' Well it's eternity. 'well what does that mean?' Well no one knows, but they insist that this is the way it is. One of the reasons why, is because of a Scripture in the Bible that is a totally wrong translation. So we are going to get into this subject today.

What about eternity? If there is no time, then what happens? What will it be like if there is no time? We've got to address that because it really is an important subject. It's tantamount in many respects to free will.  People just know that we have one, they just can't find it in the Bible and they can't prove it scientifically. But they know we have it, you just have to have it. Eternity just has to be a time when there is no time, it's contradictory nonsense.

So I was questioning this thing... why is eternity outside the realm of time?  I remembered this all through these years.  One time I had read a dictionary definition of eternity - the opposite of time, outside of the realm of time.  It has nothing to do with time, see.  So I had that sticking in the back of my head.  But then I'm also learning things in the Scripture and looking at everything from Einstein's special theory of relativity and the movement of the heavens and various things and what is the definition of time and so on and so forth.  So more and more I began to question this thing and pretty soon I was convinced that this was not so. 

I have a standing axiom when it comes to studying the Scriptures and teaching and so on... if the church teaches it, it's false and that's it. So people say, 'what do you think about...'  I say well what does the church teach? They say, 'well it teaches...' Well that must be false and I defy anybody to give me an example of something that isn't. Give me a deep and complete doctrinal dissertation on any Christian doctrine and I will show you that it is not Scriptural.

I think somebody mentioned to me, 'well you believe that Christ died for your sins, because Christians believe that Christ died for your sins? Surely Ray you believe Christ died for your sins, don't you?' I said yes I do, but you don't. 'Oh yes I do!' I said, you meant to tell me that when Christ died on the cross for your sins, that He was dead? 'Oh, no I didn't say He was dead.' Well He didn't die and you don't believe that Christ died for your sins. You think the Savior of the world is a cadaver and Christ Himself never tasted death.  How fundamental can you get? Does the Christian world as a whole believe that Christ died for your sins? No, He never died. 'Well what happened when they hung Him on the cross?' He went to hell... He went to paradise... He went here... He went there. It's nonsense, unscriptural nonsense.

So I found an article on the internet that I thought was very good, not because it was so truthful, but because it covers a lot of ground. I'm going to read a good bit today, so I hope you will bare with me. But I will be interjecting thoughts.


                                      God, Time and Eternity
                                          by William Craig
               http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/eternity.html
                                      (Article excerpts in red)

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in Lama Rota California.

Comment: Actually I think he did a good job... understanding that he doesn't know the truth, he's a Christina. But he did a good job in bringing together a whole plethora... I mean he's got I think five pages of references of people commenting on this thing of time and eternity and so on. 

Is God's eternity to be construed as timeless or temporal?

Comment: That's the first sentence.  Remember how I said people sends me stuff all the time and they want me to critique it.  'Is this true Ray?' I said, on any major doctrine, if it's by orthodox Christians I will always find a problem, a contradiction, an unscriptural heresy within the first couple of pages, sometimes on the first page, sometimes in the first paragraph, sometimes in the first sentence and occasionally in the title itself.

In his first sentence; "Is God's eternity to be construed as timeless or temporal?" Now he doesn't know that timeless is temporal. He doesn't know that. So how is the man going to have an honest appraisal of what the Scriptures teach on this when he thinks timeless is eternal as opposed to temporal which is finite? He doesn't know that timeless is temporal. 

Well if you look it up in a dictionary; 
Timeless - independent of time. Eternal. Unaffected by time, ageless.

Now that's what the word timeless has come to mean. why? Because of fraudulent theologians. It means ageless. What is ageless?

Ageless - existing forever, eternal. 

So are you following me? Timeless, he uses it to mean eternity. Timeless means unaffected by time, ageless. Ageless mean eternity.  Now what does the word age mean? It's a period of time. An age is a period of time. Nowhere will you find a definition of age being eternity, age does not mean eternity. So we have a compound word age-less, we have age and then the suffix less. What does the word less means?
 
Less - not as great in amount or quantity. To a smaller extent, degree or frequency. Without, lacking. 

So what is ageless? 
Ageless - lacking in age, less than an age, not as much quantity as an age. 

What is timeless? Timeless and ageless are synonymous, less than time. But how can you have, less than time? You take a word 'time' and then you say time-less and turn that into eternity. The word's suffix you know, it has a suffix. Suffix - without or lacking. So how can you even study these theological doctrines of the church? They're so screwed up.

We are talking about eternity. 'Well where does this word eternity come from? Is it in the Bible?' No. 'Is it in the dictionary?' Yes.  'What does it mean?' We'll look at it in a little bit. But I'm just showing that the first sentence is already off kilter.

Given that the universe began to exist, a relational view of time suggests that time also began to exist.

Comment: That's rational they say. If the universe didn't always exist, then time didn't always exist. Then of course he gives a lot more to it, he doesn't just leave it hanging like that.

God's existence "prior to" creation would not entail the existence of time if God in such a state is changeless.

Comment: See, it would not exist if God is changeless. Now we are getting into heresy. He is equating the Scripture that says;

Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not;

So he is already interpreting that meaning I don't do anything. Because if I do something, that's a change from before I did it. Right?  Well what's the implication of this? When we are in the kingdom of God there will be no more time, we will enter eternity and we will do nothing, forever. We would be like Han Solo in Star Wars, remember where they froze him in that block of, what was it, like brass or copper or bronze or something. He had this horrid expression on his face. You could say frozen in time. No, frozen in no time, frozen out of time. Of course they brought him back in the movie.

But if there is no time, then nothing is changing, nothing is happening, we are living in perpetual neutral, noncommittal of anything. How exciting is that? I mean they can't even sing their rock gospel music, you know because the lyrics change and there is no change in eternity. Because change has to do with time. See how do you take a Scripture "I change not," and you say, 'well therefore time did not exist, because God doesn't change? So before He created anything there couldn't have been time, because nothing changed. But their definition of change is to do nothing. They have a problem if we just talk about the creation itself. 

Was there a time... you can't even say was there a time... you can not say there was a time when there was no creation. Before time when there was no creation, God at some... you can't say point, that has to do with time. You can't even talk, you are totally frozen in your brain. You can't even discuss this subject on the level of theology and Christianity. You can not discuss it, because you have to have words that contradict each other at every turn. Are you seeing what I'm saying? 

You see what a bright future is being held out to us, where we are all in a state of suspended animation for all eternity. Nothing can change, because if it changes we're living in time and there is no time in eternity. It's nonsense.

But if God sustains real relations with the world, the co-existence of God and the world imply that God is temporal subsequent to the moment of creation (Comment: But not before, you see.). Given the superiority of a relational (comment: That's when something has reference to other things.) over a non-relational (Newtonian) view of time, God ought to be considered as timeless sans creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

Comment: So timeless with reference to creation, meaning before creation there was no time. Then of course they said the implication is when time runs out then there will be no changes. Which is just another way of something saying, nothing will ever happen for all eternity. Nothing. That is demonic, it's demonic. 

Now there is a Scripture in Relation that says "that there should be time no longer."

Rev 10:6 And sware by Him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

That is probably the root of where this stupid argument in the church for the last two thousand years has come from. You look up dozens of other translations and it has nothing to do with time shall be no more. The word is delay. "There will be no longer delay."  He is going to come quickly, remember the opening verse. 

Young's
Rev 1:1 A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to Him, to shew to His servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and He did signify [it], having sent through His messenger to His servant John,

Not shortly, quickly. The word is quickly.

Young's
John 20:4 and the two were running together, and the other disciple did run forward more quickly than Peter, and came first to the tomb,

John ran to the tomb quickly, ahead of Peter. He didn't run shortly, he ran quickly, quicker, faster, you see. It's the same word in Rev. 1:1 and where it says there will be time no more. No. Look up in the Concordant, Rotherham, Young's, almost any of them and it's "there will be no more delay." Because right after you read there will be time no more, you can see the sequence of events that is going to happen. How can that be if we already cut time off. It's nonsense. 

You think in two thousand years the Christian world can get their act together on these most basic of concepts? No, no they can't.

God is the 'high and lofty One who inhabits eternity', declared the prophet Isaiah.

Comment: He declares no such nonsense at all. 

King James
Isa 57:15 For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name [is] Holy:

The King James Bible declares that God inhabits eternity. The word has to do with the future. 

But exactly how are we to understand the notion of eternity is not clear.

Comment: Well that is obvious when you read all of their writings, it is not clear to them.

Traditionally, the Christian church has taken it to mean 'timeless'. But in his classic work on this subject, Oscar Cullmann has contended that the New Testament 'does not make a philosophical, qualitative distinction between time and eternity. It knows linear time only...

Comment: That means where it starts and where it goes. You never back up and you can never go to the future, until it gets here. That's what it means by linear.

[Kat]

He maintains, 'Primitive Christianity knows nothing of a timeless God (comment: They are probably right there.). The "eternal" God is he who was in the beginning, is now, and will be in all the future, "who is, who was, and who will be" (Rev. 1:4).' As a result, God's eternity, says Cullmann, must be expressed in terms of endless time.

When we speak of God as eternal, then, we may mean either 'timeless' or simply 'everlasting'. The question is: which understanding of God's relationship to time is to be preferred? (comment: All these arguments just fall apart.) Taking sharp issue with Cullmann's study, James Barr has shown...

Comment: Now there's a man, James Barr is the one that I contend with in my paper on Is Everlasting Scriptural? I said, 'well this Walter's fellow, he says James Barr says, so oh well, if James Barr said it, let's fold up our tents and go home, the great James Barr has spoken and this conversation is over.' Then I say what about all these dozens of scholars and I quote those that disagree with Barr. But anyway, so Barr says;

James Barr has shown that the biblical data are not determinative. He argues that Cullmann's study is based too heavily upon etymology and vocabulary studies, and these cannot be determinative in deciding the meaning of a term apart from use.

Comment: Now I agree with that. You can't understand everything about any subject by just analyzing all the words that are used in the discussion on a subject. You know if you look up all the definitions of the words, independent of what they say, just look up the words and you get all these definitions. You can read the dictionary one definition after another after another and what does that actually tell you about all those words? Not much. How do you learn about those words more specifically? Use it in a sentence.  Thankfully, because it's a great aid, most of my dictionaries will use the word in a sentence 'here is an example.' Oh, forget the definition now I see how people mean it.

So I agree with that. You don't just look up the definition of a word, although that is important because you can't have sentence construction if you don't know what the words mean. But you can put together a hundred different sentences with the same words and they will have totally different meanings. Correct? So how they are put together is most important.

Barr thinks that Genesis may very well teach that time was created along with the universe (Comment: Well I think Barr is wrong.) and that God may be thought of as timeless. Barr's basic contention is that, 'A valid biblical theology can be built only upon the statements of the Bible, and not on the words of the Bible.' (Comment: Now I'll agree with that.) When this is done, the biblical data are inconclusive:'

Comment: I don't agree with that. He's saying if you look at it in the most logical way, that is, what is actually said about these words or whatever, it's inconclusive. Well part of the reason that I am giving you this study is I'm going to show you that it is not inconclusive. 

I have learned years ago that there is more than one way to skin a cat, as we used to say back in Pennsylvania. There is more than one way to learn the truths of the Scriptures. That's what I pray about when I say, God show me what this means, show me. Show me what this means, because it's there. The answer to many of these profound questions, it's in there. But you have got to pay attention to the words and the structure and the statements and see that they don't contradict every other word and Scripture in the Bible.

...if such a thing as a Christian doctrine of time has to be developed, the work of discussing it and developing it must belong not to biblical but to philosophical theology' (Comment: Hogwash.).

According to the Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, the universe began to exist a finite amount of time ago.

Comment: Do you know what that means?  Ever heard this phrase creatio ex nihilo? It means everything that is was created out of nothing. Of course that's not true, so we have another problem.

Heb 11:3 ...so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.

Made from what? From something. What? Things that don't appear. THINGS. Are there things that don't appear? Yes. Is God a thing?  Yes God is a thing, I think that He's a thing more than He is a person. But some people fault me for not suggesting that God is a person. But He is some 'thing' and the creation is out of Him.

Jesus Christ came from God, from out beside of God, that's where He came from. He came from there before He came out of Mary's womb. So there is a proof that He existed before. I have a dear friend who wrote me a rather lengthy letter about that and I am going to take that up, maybe in another Bible study... can we prove whether or not Christ existed before He was born as a human being? 

So no, the universe was not created out of absolutely nothing.

This doctrine receives philosophical confirmation from arguments demonstrating the absurdity of an infinite temporal regress of events, (Comment: Well yea, you can't have an infinite temporal.)  and empirical confirmation from the evidence for the so-called 'big-bang' model of the universe. If we agree that the universe began to exist, does this necessitate as well a beginning to time itself? The answer is: it all depends. If a person believes that time exists apart from events such that if there were no events there would still be time, then our argument does not entail prima facie a beginning to time. On the other hand, if one accepts that time cannot exist apart from events, then a beginning of events would entail a beginning of time as well.

Comment:Are you following that? Nope? If time has to do with events only, then you would have no time until you had events. But if it exists independent of different events then you don't have to have, even the creation itself, to say that time is there, okay. In other words what we are saying here, is time predicated on when the universe was made? At the universe we began time -- before the universe the there was no time. Two different ideas. 

Okay why is this important for us? Why am I wasting everybody's time going through this? Because it not only has to do with back then, it has to do with up there, the future. Because as God, as they say, inhabits eternity back there, He inhabits eternity up here and we are going to join Him up there and we're going to be in eternity, alright. But what does that mean, what is it? It's important for us to know, first of all, everybody will be there. That's good, the salvation of all. 

Then another question is, what will we do for all eternity? This idea that time began only with creation and ends when the creation is dissolved, puts us in a perpetual position of total stagnation. When you think about this from a Christian theological perspective, think of Han Solo frozen in that bronze type like casket. Frozen there, nothing happens, nothing changes. Why? Because God doesn't change. That's their proof that there was no time, see. Because change has to do with events. So they say that there was no events before creation. God didn't do anything before creation. He was just like Han Solo, just frozen outside of time, but then He made time. But He's going to do away with it and we are going back to that frozen state again. 

I don't think any theologian would tell you that, but my thing is what's the alternative? If nothing changes then we don't do anything. Because when you do something that's different from what happened or what was the state of things before you started to do it. that's a change. If there is no change we will do nothing. What a damnable doctrine.

Swinburne argues that time, like space, is of logical necessity unbounded. For every instant of time must be preceded and succeeded by another instant of time.

Comment: So He thinks whether events, creation, happenings or changes there still has to be time. Because where ever you start time, what was there before that period? There had to be a time before, that's what he says.

The physical universe itself may have had a beginning – but this can only be true if there is a period of time before the beginning during which the universe did not exist.

Comment: Of course this is a philosophical argument. It is not based on Scripture, it's not based on science. But it could be considered, 'well yea, that's a logical argument.' But then if you look at the other one, that time is the differentiation from one event to another, from going to one point to another, from something moving from here to there. Well then that could only happen when you have things that move from here to there and so on. They would say that happens at creation. So what is the answer? Can we  know? I say we can know.

Since prior to and after every period of time there is more time and since the same instant of time never recurs, time must have gone on and will go on forever. Although space would not exist without physical objects, time would. But, he adds, without physical objects, time could not be measured: (comment: Okay breaking this down to a little finite point there.) one could not distinguish an hour from a day in a period of time without objects. Therefore, Newton's claims about Absolute Time were correct. To say that the universe began to exist on such a time scale would simply be to say that a finite time ago there were no physical objects.

Comment: When was there no creation? A long 'time' ago? Was there no creation a long time ago? A theologian couldn't answer that, because you are using the word time. If you use the word when, when has to do with time. How can you formulate a sentence to question 'what,' before creation? What was? Was has to do with time. Now it is, then it was, that is another time. You say before, but before has to do with time. Something happens, what happened before? That's a period of time. You can't discuss this, you can't make up a sentence to even discuss this. That's why all this stuff contradicts. 

I love it when God shows me stuff like this. Because I'm not a scholar, I don't know Hebrew and Greek. Most of these people would laugh me to scorn with their knowledge and stuff. But I understand principles and concepts and Scriptural teaching that most of them don't and I don't apologize for that.

We are getting near the end of these quotes, but they are pretty important.

Ian Hinckfuss also argues that if the universe were frozen into immobility (Comment: Everything like stopped at absolute zero.), there would still be time because temporal duration and measurement are not dependent upon the continuous operation of a clock throughout that time.

[Kat]

                                       TIME A LOCATION

Comment: Now that is an interesting concept, even to me. I remember, I must have been 16 or 18 years old, 40 years ago and I saw something on television, it was just thrown in there with no explanation. It was like a scientific show that was about time and someone said, 'that time is a location.' I thought about that and it hit me, a location. How can time, this nebulous whatever, be a location? Then I thought and I said, yes of course and then I added the words geographical. Time is a geographical location. 'What do you mean, it's some place out there at some location?' No, it's a location of anything with respect to where it was before or will be after. So it could be the earth turning on it's axis, the earth revolving around the sun, phases of the moon or it could be the position of a proton or a neutron circling the nucleus of an atom.  It's changing one location to another location, of course very rapidly. But in that changing of location, it's time. So it's actually a place, a position. So that made sense to me, that time could only be when things moved. 

So his thing is, that if you made everything immobile, he says well there could still be time, but there would be no way to measure it. So I thought about that this morning and I thought you know I have a watch that doesn't work. Well it would work, it's just that the battery is dead. Now this watch I'm wearing works, you can see the second hand changing position. That's time going by second by second. But this watch if you look at the second hand, it doesn't move.  This is a time piece, this measures time, but it is frozen. So therefore this frozen watch is proof that there is no time. 

You say, 'oh Ray that's just one time piece.' Alright let's freeze all the watches in the world, has time now ended? No, because we have the earth is still turning, the moon is still moving. The earth is going around the sun, the sky is changing. Okay let's stop it all, everybody stop, no moving. Now do we have time? Well now is where the argument will come in, no. Most of these would argue, no. There is no time now, because there is no way to measure it.

Okay just ask yourself... suppose you are out in the wilderness and the only time piece we have... it's dark at night, so we can't see the rotation of the sun or the earth. It's just dark hour after hour, although there is no hour because we cannot see any motions. But it is dark, well we've got this watch that doesn't work, okay. Is time going by? No. Look at the heavens, you can't see the heavens, it's dark, cloudy and dark. Is time going by? Who would say no? Of course time is going by. Just because you don't have an instrument in front of you to measure a certain rhythm of time, doesn't mean there isn't any. Let's continue.

Presumably to such thinkers the beginning of the temporal series of events would not entail a beginning to time itself. On the other hand, those who adhere to a relational view of time generally take the beginning of events to be synonymous with the beginning of time itself.

Zwart, for example, asserts; According to the relational theory the passage of time consists in the happening of events. So the question whether time is finite or infinite may be reduced to the question whether the series of events is finite or infinite.

Comment: Well how can a series be infinite? I mean one of the series goes by, then you start another one and that one is finished, it can't be infinite. Again a stupid proposition.

It might be asserted that even on the relational view of time there can be time prior to the first event because one may abstract from individual events to consider the whole universe as a sort of event which occurs at its creation. There would thus be a before and an after with regard to this event: no universe/ universe. And a relation of before and after is the primitive relation of which time consists. On the other hand, this level of abstraction may be illegitimate and may presuppose a time above time.

Comment: Then this just goes into a tangle you know. But can you see their arguments? That to have time you must have a creation, you must have things, you must have movements, you must have changing of position of the sun and the moon, the stars, the earth. You must have that, because without that there is no time. Before God created all that, guess what? There couldn't have been time. So there was no time before there was creation and there will be no time when the human family enters the family of God.

If there was nothing at all, not even space, then it would certainly seem to be true, that there was no time. 

Comment: What are they leaving out of that, if there was nothing at all? When was there ever nothing at all? Did we forget about God? 

It's kind of like that saying... if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make noise? [Comment from attendee: Yes.] How so? [It still happens, whether anyone witnesses it or not.] Right, because you have already stated that it happened. You did say that the tree fell, so just because there was nobody there to hear it (or nobody had a pocket watch or one that worked), doesn't mean that everything else falls by the wayside. Because we know that when the tree falls and hits the ground it produces vibrations, which is noise. That is the laws of science. So if we state emphatically that the tree did fall, but nobody was there to hear it, it still made noise.

Now here is a little interesting part.
When the first event occurred, the first moment of time began. (Comment: "The first event." Was that event physical or spiritual?  Because 'event,' well event can be either.) These are difficult conundrums, and it is at least an open question as to whether a beginning of events necessitates a beginning of time. Therefore, we need to ask whether there is any absurdity in supposing that time had a beginning. Some philosophers have argued that time cannot have a beginning because every instant of time implies a prior instant. Thus, there could be no first instant of time. Within a Newtonian understanding of time this argument, even if valid, would only imply that the universe had a beginning in time instead of with time. But, in fact, it does seem plausible to contend on a relational view of time that a first instant could exist, since apart from events no time exists.

Stuart Hackett argues; Time is merely a relation among objects that are apprehended in an order of succession or that objectively exist in such an order: time is a form of perceptual experience and of objective processes in the external (to the mind) world. Thus the fact that time is a relation among objects or experiences of a successive character voids the objection that the beginning of the world implies an antecedent void time: for time, as such a relation of succession among experiences or objective processes, has no existence whatever apart from these experiences or processes themselves.

Comment: Now here is what I am drawing your attention to. We have events, objects, experiences, processes... some of these are not materialistic objects, they are subjective thoughts, but they use all of these things. So I'm going to use this example. What do the Scriptures say? Do the Scriptures actually say anything about it. If they do how come all these people missed it for two thousand years? Well they have not all missed it. I mean Newton believed, yes time did exist. 

But again you won't find one Scripture in here to back it up. That's where I'm at, when I'm going to talk about theological things and Biblical things, what does the Scriptures say? Is there anything in the Scripture to back it up? That's where I found this thing, that God showed me about what happened before the creation. Is there anything in the Scriptures that talk about something that happened before the creation of the universe? Yes there is!

Therefore, if nothing existed and then something existed, there is no absurdity in speaking of this as the first moment of time. [/color (Comment: Meaning time can only be when the existence of things come into being.) But Ellis draws a very instructive analogy between this sort of speech and talk of temperatures below absolute zero. When a physicist says there are no temperatures lower than absolute zero, the use of 'lower than' does not presuppose there actually are such temperatures, but only that we can conceive it in our minds.

In the same way, to say there was a time when the universe did not exist does not imply there was such a time, but only that we can mentally conceive of such a time. To say there is no time before the first event is like saying there is no temperature -273 C. Both express limits beyond which only the mind can travel.

Comment: Now I know that it is a lot of words in there, but immediately a big contradiction pops out to me. First he says, "but we can conceive" this idea in our minds. Then he says, "Both express limits beyond which only the mind can travel." You can only conceive it in your mind, two sentences later, but it is beyond what your mind can comprehend. That's what we call a contradiction. I've learned to spot these things, like a meteorite shower in the night. It's just boom, there it is.

If time coexists with events, then an origin of time merely implies a beginning of the universe. The first moment of time is not a self-contradictory concept.  (Comment: Well maybe it is. We are almost finished with this, then we are going to get into some Scriptures.)

Thus, on a Newtonian view of time, the universe arises in an absolute, undifferentiated time, while on a relational view of time, it comes into existence with time.

But, of course, prior to creation was not simply nothing, but God. (Comment: Now of course he does bring that in. Now what I'm saying is you don't want to short change this guy, because he does try to cover all the bases, even though he doesn't really understand it.) Would his existence necessitate the presence of time prior to creation? Lucas argues that a personal God could not be timeless and that if God is eternal, then time must be infinite as well. But Hackett argues convincingly (Comment: He says they are both convincing  and they contradict each other.), that a personal God need not experience a temporal succession of mental states. He could apprehend the whole content of the temporal series in a single eternal intuition, just as I analogously apprehend all the parts of a circle in a single sensory intuition. God could know the content of all knowledge - past, present, and future - in a simultaneous and eternal intuition. Therefore, the fact that the creator is personal does not necessitate the presence of time prior to creation.

Comment: See the gobbled gook they come up with. It's gobbled gook, that's what that is.  That makes no rational sense. It isn't that it is over my head, I know what he is saying.

Nelson Pike urges, 'It could hardly escape notice that the doctrine of God's timelessness does not square well with the standard Christian belief that God once assumed finite, human form (the doctrine of the incarnation).'  Soren Kierkegaard called this the Absolute Paradox; this is the contradiction of existence: the presence of the Eternal in time, how God can enter the space-time world without ceasing to be the Eternal.
Thomas Aquinas attempted to solve this problem by arguing that while creatures are really related to God, God sustains no real relation to creatures.  Hence, God exists timelessly, unrelated to creatures, while creatures in time change in their relations to him. In the incarnation, a human nature becomes related in a new way to the second person of the Trinity.

Comment: You've got to bring in all of these pagan unscriptural heresies to even talk about the subject. How are you going to learn the truth? The Trinity is nonsense, you can't use that as an argument for anything. Now the final statement.

These, then, are the alternatives. A relational view of time seems superior to a Newtonian view...

Comment: In other words, that time came into existence at creation, rather than there always was and always will be time.  So time is here for our short duration. There was no time before God created the universe and there will be no time after this part of physical human existence and we enter the family of God.

...because (1) it is difficult to see how time could exist apart from events and (2) the Newtonian objection that every instant of time implies a prior instant is adequately answered by the relational view.

Comment: Rational and human reasoning.

[Kat]

Audio 2

Comment: The Bible has a lot to say about human reason, it's always wrong. That is your truly human carnal reasoning.

Thus, the proper understanding of God, time, and eternity would be that God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in time after creation.

Comment: That interesting to me. Remember how I said you can't even make a statement, if you're saying that time only exist during the period of temporal creation? That is, the moving of objects which mark off time, that's the only way you can know there's time. I said you can't even discuss it, you can't even formulate a sentence, a coherent English sentence (just like I read six pages of stuff to you) without contradicting yourself or using contradictory words. Let me read it again. "Thus, the proper understanding of God, time, and eternity would be that God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in time after creation." Do you see that contradiction? He's trying to say before creation there was no time and after creation is finished there will be no time. How is the only way that he can say it? Listen; "eternity would be that God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in TIME after creation." Oops, his first opening sentence is a contradiction and his final statement is a contradiction.

He's trying to say that before creation there was no time, after creation there will be no time and he says it by saying, "God exists changelessly and timelessly prior to creation and in TIME after creation."  He's trying to tell us there will be no time after creation is through and to do that he says, that will be a time. Am I the only one that is amazed by this nonsense?

Well if all else fails lets look at the dictionary and see if we can find out what the definition of eternity is. I mean surely we have got to be able to find the right definition here and surely the dictionary will tell us without contradiction.

Webster's-Merriam;
Eternal - finite duration. 
Finite, that means what?  Not eternal, finite - limited. 

Eternity - finite duration.  (Comment: Eternity?  What?)  Existing at all times, timeless. 

Of course we looked up less and it means less than.

America Heritage, I thought that I preferred this dictionary in many ways.  So we looked up ageless and timeless, right?  Let's look at the definition of eternal.
 
Eternal - having no beginning, no end, existing outside of time. 

That's the relational view. 

Eternity - time existing outside of time. (comment: well what is it then? It's time.) Time without beginning or end, infinite, time. 

This is unbelievable. Why do we have this problem? Why? How is it the dictionary itself is so screwed up, not only does the dictionaries contradict each other, they contradict themselves. They contradict what they say the word less means, it means this then they give you a word that has the suffix less and they say it means more. Where did all this nonsense come from? How come our dictionaries are so screwed up when it comes to time? Where did all this screwing up nonsense come from? I'll tell you where it came from, the church, Christianity, theology. That's where it came from.

Where did the word eternity come from? There was no word eternity when this Bible was written and then completed. There was no word eternity.
 
Alexander Thompson says no etymologist has ever found a word any place on earth inscribed in stone or hieroglyphics, anywhere where the word meant endless time until the second century A.D. Then the bible was complete. No such word that meant endless time.

This is a great little booklet, Whence Eternity by Alexander Thompson. He is a Scottish theologian and I consider him a great man, a great thinker. He was partly responsible for the translation of the Concordant version of the Bible, which could have been many times a better translation if A. E. Knoch had not blackballed him and kind of ran him off. Because he wanted to make that translation top drawer and A. E Knoch said no, we are going to put it to press. He wanted to get it to press right away no matter how bad some of the parts were.
                 
                                               Whence Eternity
                                           by Alexander Thompson       
                http://www.heavendwellers.com/hd_how_eternity_slipped_in.htm
                                          (Article excerpts in red)

It is now necessary to examine the origin of the word "eternal." Whatever the Latin word meant in the time of Jerome, it certainly did not signify endless three hundred years earlier. Professor Max Muller said of the root of this word, that it originally signified life or time, but had given rise to a number of words expressing eternity, the very opposite of life and time. He says the Latin aevum (which corresponds almost letter for letter with the Greek aiõn, eon, thought to have been originally aivon), became the name of time, age, and its derivative aeviternus, or aeternus, "was made to express eternity."

Comment: Oh it "was MADE to."  It never meant that, it was made to do that.

These are the words of an authority who was quite unbiased in this matter.

The word aiõn (eon) is defined, among other things, as "the life of mankind," and there is cited "the seven eons from the creation of the heaven and earth until the general resurrection of humanity." Phavorinus, the editor, adds "aiõn is the imperceptible (aidios) and the unending (ateleuteetos), as it seems to the theologian!"

Comment: Theologians are the ones that did this, it has nothing to do with real words, the etymology of words, it has to do with theologians changing things.

What he meant was that originally the word never meant unending, but this meaning had been injected by theology. Indeed, he spoke truth, as it is theology, and theology alone, which in any language has imported into time-words the thought of endlessness.

In the year 540, Justinian made arrangements for the calling together of the famous local council of four years later.

Comment: Now we will see where this idea of timelessness, endlessness comes from.

He was determined that certain doctrines must be suppressed. In setting forth the position when writing to the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople, he discussed the doctrines with great ability. In particular, he wished it made very plain that the life of the saints was to be everlasting, and that the doom of the lost was to be likewise. Yet he did not argue that the word eonian meant everlasting. Nor did he claim that the word eonian had hitherto been misunderstood. In setting forth the orthodox position of the Church of that time, he did not say, "We believe in eonian punishment," as this was exactly what Origen, three hundred years before.

Comment: Here is what he said. Here's what Justinian brought up at this council of the Catholic Church and how this unscriptural heresy and nonsense got started.

"The holy church of Christ (Comment: That's the Catholic Church.)  teaches an endless eonian (ateleuteetos aiõnios) life for the just, and endless (ateleuteetos) punishment for the wicked." Justinian knew quite well that by itself eonian did not signify endless, and he therefore added a word the meaning of which is quite unequivocal, a word not found in the Scriptures. This letter of Justinian, which is still in existence, ought to convince anyone who is in doubt, regarding the true scriptural meaning of the word eonian.

There it is!

                                                J. PRESTON EBY

A man I used to read eight years ago J. Preston Eby and I thought he had some really pretty good writings, until one by one I started finding tithing and all this talking in tongues and hedging on the will of man and the Sovereignty of God, trying to interject a little free will and so on. So he puts forth a bunch of arguments. Two statements I want to make before I discuss what he says a little bit. 

In Wikipedia we read this, so you understand that there is a whole segment of Christian and here is what they believe.

Eternity-- While in the popular mind, eternity often simply means existing for a limitless amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside of time.

That's from Wikipedia, there article on eternity and that is from a Christian perspective.

Early on in his rather long article from J. Preston Eby he states this "Endlessness is expressed in the Scriptures by the simple phrase "no end"."

So do the Scriptures speak about endlessness, something will not come to an end? Yes. It uses the word 'end' and then the defiant negative 'no,' no end. Meaning that something that should terminate or consummate will never - no, (no consummation), no end. So he knows that and I want to point that out that Preston Eby is aware of these Scriptures. But just like with his heresy on free will and everything else, he knows all the Scriptures, he just doesn't believe them.

[Kat]

                                           
                                                  ETERNITY
                                             by J. Preston Eby
                 http://www.hisremnant.org/eby/articles/savior/eternity.html
                                         (Article excerpts in red)

The late Dr. Einstein discovered, at least theoretically, that time and space are interdependent, inseparably related, and form a four-dimensonal continuum (length, height, depth, and duration (Comment: or time)). That is to say, there is no space without time, and no time without space. Space cannot be traversed without the passage of time; without the passage of time, there is no traversing of space. That is why in His post-resurrection, spiritual body, Jesus was able immediately to transcend and traverse the space-time continuum with the speed of thought.

Also, since we know from the Scriptures that space is created, we can then know that time is created, too. (Comment: But do we have a Scriptural verse on that? No.) We can also understand that both time and space (as we presently know them) will end together at the conclusion of the ages.

Comment: Okay, time is coming to an end, J. Preston Eby said so. Time is outside of the realm of eternity, as the great James Barr has stated.

I am compelled to state that the Bible says very little by way of a definition of eternity.

Comment: Well he got that right. It says nothing whatsoever, not very little, nothing. It says nothing about eternity. Eternity is a hypocrites' way of distorting and twisting the Scriptures.

ETERNITY IS A STATE OF ABSOLUTE TIMELESSNESS, not of unending time. 

Comment: He gets very specific, it doesn't mean it keeps going on forever. No, it is no time. Time-less-ness, no time.

Eternity is a STATE OF BEING, resident in the very nature and person of God in which such concepts as past, present, future, before, after, change, transition, growth, decay, etc. do not exist.

Comment: "Growth" remember that word. "Such concepts as past, present, future, before, after, change, transition, growth, decay, etc. do not exist." So let's ask ourselves at this junction; when we are in the kingdom of God, where will we think we came from? We won't think we came from anyplace. Why? Because coming from some place does not exist in eternity. You can not say, think or conceive of such an idea, that you came from someplace. Does that sound like heresy to you? It sounds like heresy to me.

It is wrong to assert that, when time ends, eternity will begin, because eternity has no beginning. Neither did it end when time began, as so many charts indicate. Therefore it is very important that we make a clear distinction between ages, which belong to time, and eternity, which is timeless. (We should) search out diligently those passages which refer to time and those which refer to eternity. Do you have it yet? Do you see? (Comment: No. What Scriptures that refer to eternity? There are no Scriptures that refer to eternity, but there are a couple that refer to "no end.")  Eternity doesn't go anywhere, nor does it do anything.

Comment: Now here is where I get angry at this junk. We will not go anywhere in the kingdom of God, we will accomplish nothing, we will not do anything for all eternity. We won't even know where we came from or why we are alive, only that we are. 

Now it's true that we always live in the now. You can not live in ten minutes ago, because it's past. You can't go back and live that, you can think about it in your memory. You can project that in another twenty minutes we are going to be eating lunch. But you can't be eating lunch now if you are not going to do it for twenty more minutes, see. 

So we always live in the now... now... now. I pick up the paper, now. I put the paper down, now. It's all happening now, but now it's in the past. Now in the future I will lift it up again. There I did it. Now it's in the past. Now I'm in the now. That's easy enough, right? 

But how can any of this make any sense if there is no future and there was no past. You're Han Solo frozen in a block of metal. It's just stupid unscriptural heresy.

Eternity transcends beyond our knowing anything having to do with time.

Comment: So we will not know who we are or where we came from and we're not going to go anywhere. Because there is no anywhere. There is no past, there is no anywhere in the future, it's only now. We don't know of anything else, so we are really stupid, we are totally stupid. 

Do people think like am talking when they write these articles? No. No they don't, their mind won't let them go that far. But is what I'm telling you the truth? With a little bit of God's spirit can you see it? 

Eternity transcends beyond our knowing anything having to do with time. It is not time at all. It is just a glorious experience of BEING! 

Comment: Contradiction! The word "being" is a present progressive word that goes into the future. Be is now... what did Aristotle say or was it Plato 'To be or not to be.' 'To be' is being. I know that, I looked it up a couple of weeks ago. Being means to be. He contradicts himself and he has no idea he contradicted himself, he has no idea. He doesn't even know what a contradiction is.

Time serves only as an instrument to help man, to give him time and experience to develop into that new state of being. In time there is change - in eternity there is no change. All change and development must take place in time. 

Comment: That's a damn lie. That's unscriptural heresy and I'm going to prove it to you. 

A proper understanding of time as a created phenomena having beginning and ending is an absolute prerequisite to a proper understanding of eternity.  (Comment: Garbage.)  Time is relative only to the physical universe and the purposes of God therein. (Comment:  Garbage.) Let me ask - If there were no such thing as the planet earth, would there be days? No! If earth didn't have a satellite called the moon, would there be months? No! If both earth and moon didn't have a thing called the sun around which to orbit, would there be years? No! If there were no stars, no suns, no planets, would there be time? No! (Comment: Oh really, we'll see.) 

Time is "duration set forth by measures;" the ticking of a clock, the beating of a pulse, the burning of a candle, the falling of sand through a certain aperture, - these, and a thousand similar regular movements, may serve as measures, more or less exact, of time. Time, then, because it is a created phenomena, can be studied to some extent just as any other part of the creation of God can be studied. We know how it functions by its effects in passing: decay, corrosion, erosion, deterioration, or progression, growth, development, maturity.

Comment: "We know how it functions by its effects," okay. These things only occur in time, progression, growth, development, maturity only occur in time. In other words when we are in the kingdom of God and the orbits and everything that measure time are gone there will be no progression, no growth, no development, no maturity, thus sayeth J. Preston Eby.

Now what sayeth the Scriptures. I don't mean to be disparaging about Mr. Eby, he just ought to stop preaching all of this heresy. He says, if both the earth and moon didn't have a thing called the sun around which to orbit, would there be years?  Would there be years if we didn't have the earth going around the sun, would there be years?  His answer, no.

Psa 102:25  ...and the heavens [are] the work of Your (Comment: This is speaking of God.) hands.
v. :26  They shall perish (Comment: What? The heavens and the earth.), but You shall endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shall You change them, and they shall be changed:
v. 27 But You [art] the same, and Your years shall have no end.

Didn't we read from both of these people that when the creation is done away with that there will be no time?  When there is no sun will there be years? No? "All of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shall You change them, and they shall be changed:  But You [art] the same, and Your YEARS shall have no end." "Shall have" present progressive into the future, "no end."

Didn't J. Preston Eby say that the way to tell if the Bible is talking about something that continues, the Bible uses the phrase "no end?' I read that right at the beginning, he knows that. Here's one that says, the years of God. You say, 'well it's talking about spiritual years.' It doesn't matter, he uses the word "years, shall have no end." Who you going to believe the Bible or theologians, Christian ministers.

Luke 1:33  ...and of His kingdom there shall be no end.

Now it doesn't say what about the kingdom, it just says "of the kingdom." Whatever pertains to the kingdom will have "no end." 

Let's go to Proverbs next. This is the one I used at the conference. Remember I had all of those words; processes, events, happenings, changing and remember they used them all interchangeably... all this has to do with the physical universe and time, has nothing to do before or after the creation. Wrong paleface.

Pro 8:22  The LORD possessed me in the beginning of His way, BEFORE His works of old.

"Before"... 'You mean some-time before?' Well yea, I would think sometime before.

Pro 8:23 I was set up from everlasting (aonian), from the beginning, or ever (That means before) the earth was.


                                    WISDOM WAS BIRTHED

Gen 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What was there before the heavens and the earth? Wisdom. Was it eternal?

Pro 8:24  When [there were] no depths, I was brought forth;

The oldest Bible I have on my E-Sword is Bishops, which long predates King James. He has borne, "I was borne." Other translations too.

Pro 8:25  Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
v. 26  While as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
v. 27  When He prepared the heavens (He is just preparing them.) I [was] there:

Are you could say, "I was already there." So before the creation something happened, something was brought forth. Before there was a earth, stars, moon of the creation, something was brought forth, some event happened. WISDOM WAS BIRTHED.

But we read J. Preston Eby and a whole bunch of these other guys, that time before the heavens and the earth were made, that was eternity and nothing happened.  Nothing.  Nothing changed, no event. Remember all those words events, processes, happenings... who you going to believe?

Now one of my favorite verses, because this verse says very little and yet it says a lot. We could meditate for some time on this.

Isa 9:6  For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting (aonian) Father, The Prince of Peace.
v. 7  Of the increase of [His] government and peace [there shall be] no end...

Dr. Strong gives a very brief definition there, it just says that word mean increase. But he uses the English word so let's see what the definition is, because this word is not contradictory like these time words are all contradicting.

American Heritage
Increase - to become greater or larger, to multiply, reproduce, to make greater or larger. The act or process of increasing. The amount or rate by which something is increased.
Synonyms: increase, expand, enlarge, extend, augment, multiply, these verbs to mean to make or become greater or larger, sometimes suggesting steady growth. To extend, to lengthen in space or time or to broaden in range. 

All of these lengthen, multiply, increasing, growing when will that stop? J. Preston Eby, at the end of the eons and all these other turkeys, at the end of the eons when eternity takes over. What do the Scriptures say? Never. "No end."

Now it would be nice if we had some twenty or thirty specifics about this, but we don't.  But think about what it is saying, increase, maturing, growing, expanding, becoming bigger, larger, greater in quality, quantity. Isn't that a marvelous teaching  All of these Christians reject it. We are going to be like Han Solo frozen in a block of metal, for all eternity. There will be no changing, nothing will happen. That's what they said is the definition of eternity, nothing happens. Unbelievable!   

Let's see what Webster has to say about that.
Increase - progressively greater as in size; to make greater, enlarge, augment, multiply; mean to make something greater, increased, used transitively implies progressive growth in size amount or intensity; addition or enlargement in size, extent or quantity; something that is added to an original stock; augmentation, growth, etc.

All of this growth and getting bigger and better and grander, when does it end? Never. We are told these things only happen in time and there will be no time. What a damnable doctrine. How marvelous is God's word.

[Comment from attendee: Doesn't the fact that the Angels shouted for joy at the creation, doesn't that kind of imply that they are around before creation?] Yes. [Comment from attendee: Is he saying that there is no passage of time with the angels?] Right, you could extrapolate various Scriptures that way. Let's go back to Proverbs. So God just created the earth and He made this and He formed these things, right? Well why didn't He create wisdom?Why didn't He make it, why didn't He form it? Why does He birth it? Because birth implies pain, hardship, okay. 

So did nothing happen before this creation? Like I said at the conference, did God ever do a hard honest days work in His life? Not according to Christianity. Oh marvelous works, great works, but not hard work, easy stuff, just speak the words. That probably was relatively easy, first He had to come up with a plan, how to do it. Do we think that nothing God says in relationship to what and how men do things has absolutely nothing to do with Himself? Simple things.

Christ said who would go out with an army to fight an enemy and not consider first whether he has sufficient men and manpower and weapons to beat that enemy (Luke 14:31). Who would do that? Who would be so foolish? God? Or He uses the analogy of building a tower, whether you have enough material or whatever before you start or People will come and laugh and say, yea he started to build the tower, but he can't finish it (Luke 14:28).

[Comment from attendee: We think that God doesn't think.] Yea, that's a good point. We think that God doesn't think and He doesn't plan. If God had to birth wisdom... seems to me wisdom is the master plan. That's the master plan! 

He did speak the words, let there be light and light came into being. Let the earth bring forth green and then more complicated advanced plants and then trees that have fruit that have seeds that produce and so on. "And it came to be so." He just made it, He formed it, He commanded it, He spoke it... but when He came up with the master plan He birthed it, with great pain and sorrow. That's why He used the word birth and he didn't create it. Before it was birthed it wasn't here.   

So God came to a time...Well you say, 'if eternity is like a circle, where is that?' I don't know. I'm not saying that I understand all the mysteries of the universe. I'm saying I can understand the things that He teaches us. So if there was a time, if wisdom was birthed, then that is an event that happened some 'time.' Then there was a time before it was birthed that it wasn't here. Then there was after it was birthed, it was here. 

Yet there was no universe or creation, to measure the minutes and the ticks of your heartbeat and the sun according to Eby. They haven't thought it through. They know these Scriptures, I have no doubt. J. Preston Eby has probably a twenty page article on the increase of His government or it can mean His dynasty. The increase of His kingdom or dynasty there shall be no end.

[Comment from attendee: Is wisdom Jesus? He is the first fruit, He is the beginning.] No, it's got to be more than that, because God birthed 'it' and the it has to do with ability and cleverness and all of those, if you look up the definition of wisdom. 

It means more than just bringing into being some other being that possesses these qualities.  Because, quite frankly, if Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then when did He become the Son of God? Well you will say, 'when He was born.' No, He was called the Son before that. So how then, was wisdom necessary to make a Son? Well where did He come up with the idea of a Son anyway? Where did He come up with the idea of a family? Well He did, because we are here and we have family relationship and so on. Where did He come up with that? Did mothers and fathers and children and aunts and uncles and cousins did they exist before the creation of the heavens? No. Well then God came up with that.

You say, 'no, God inhabited eternity. In eternity nothing changes and nothing happens, so therefore we existed and the universe existed before it was created. Because if He didn't create it and then He created it, then something happened.' Are we saying that He made it first and then it entered His mind what He did? Like He said, 'Oh my, look what I did, I wonder where that idea came from.' It's nonsense.

So Christians will say things like, 'you can't talk about how God thinks compared to how we think.' I know, you want to talk in riddles and nonsense. You want to speak in sentences that absolutely contradict each other, don't you? 'Yes.' Why? Because you are not accountable for anything, you're just gobble gook. Well my mind doesn't think that way and I refuse to go there. 

So anyway, will we step into eternity and will we be frozen like Han Solo in a perpetual nothingness? Nope nope nope. We will grow and expand forever. How great do you think that will be? Well how long do you suppose forever is? I mean this is almost to marvelous to comprehend.