RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 8:25:59 PM)

quote:


I am still interested in the idea that time is in God's jurisdiction or arena of knowing rather than ours though.


Oh I agree. In fact I think God said it best. "Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after." [Ecc 1:10-11]

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." [Ecc 3:1-11]



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 8:56:21 PM)

i looked back at the OP -- i forgot that's where it started.

I think people failed to notice that you just appreciate the references to time in the Bible, and you conclude, therefore that time is important to God, but that, on the other hand, time is unimportant to contemplate with regard to how old the earth is. That is, you are saying that the putative debate between science and religion does not seem to be over a point that God considers important, which you are basing off a rather extensive base of Biblical evidence. At the same time, it detracts from the beauty of God's story. Am I close to right?

So, yeah, sorry for the misunderstanding. I say let science have its discussions, as you probably do as well. Regarding Christianity, I think you have a very interesting and heartfelt point.

Perhaps you ought not let yourself get sucked into the mode of "argument." Why not just state the things that are on your mind? Just a thought.

About the "judgment" discussion: I haven't started thinking about framing one. Maybe though.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 9:18:14 PM)

quote:

To say God existed "outside of time" contradicts the meaning of language itself. It has nothing to do with placing limits on God. That is tantamamount to saying God is not expressed in language because language cannot do God justice. There are no limits placed on God by appropriately placing his "being" in its proper "event circumstance" which is time and place. That is simple theological nonsense; speculation at its worst, for the purpose of making God so far above men that he literrally become "out of reach." It is an exercise in voluntary humility, which is condemned in scripture.

Look my friend, God chose to communicate to men. And he chose the medium of language. And language has rules and functions, of which God is the master, and man is only the student. When God spoke to men, he spoke to certain men, but not to all men. For example Moses in Egypt, but not to Pharoah.

Paul tells us men are "earthen vessels" imperfect, but made fit for the master's use by the master himself. And the language he utilizes for communication is precise and unambiguous, and to the point.

When language describes what a noun and verb are, and their functions, and God uses nouns and verbs to communicate, who is man that he can modify the meaning inherent within the confines of the words themselves, to build a concept of God that goes outside the boundaries of those very words God used to communicate?


Brilliant argument TB! Make God out to be the biggest liar if the language He chose to use does not completely describe Him perfectly! Any lay man would fall for this, but let me point out one simple flaw in your point. You assume that since the only words in our language to describe how God acts in time are those that require time (and they do), then that must mean God always existed in time. No one (at least I'm not) is questioning that God exists (whether partially or completely) and acts in time right NOW (yes, this does require time). What is at question is whether or not God has ALWAY existed in and been limited by time.

Let me ask you a question. What word would (or could) you use to describe a God outside of time? There is none, because we can not understand that. What we DO however understand is that it IS scriptural that God is not limited by anything. Nothing is impossible for God to do, other than contradict His morality. Basically, the only thing He can not to is sin. So, here is the flaw. The foundation of your ideology is laid in the English language. So what is your explanation of the hundreds of verses that identify God and the Holy Spirit as MALE? Do they have certain genitalia unique to males? Are they capable of reproduction with a female? No, that would be utterly ridiculous to assert, but, since your foundation is in our limited language used in Scripture to describe God, (that same language which describes God as a male), what is your explanation? Could it be that God simply used words which we can understand to describe Him as best as we can, but not to the full extent, because as we both have finally agreed, we can not understand what has not been revealed in Scripture.

Let me answer your recent question as to where my accusations are founded. Throughout this debate, you most certainly have stated that you can understand everything about God that He has chosen to reveal to us in His Words. I agree! (wow!!!). BUT, what I have gathered, and perhaps I'm wrong, is that you believe God has revealed EVERYTHING about Him in His words, and you attempt to prove this by stating God has somehow "commanded" us to understand Him. Your argument goes something like this. "Scripture commands us to study Him, and if this is true, how could He command us to study something that is not complete? Therefore, since God has commanded us to understand Him completely, then the Bible must contain everything we need to know to understand Him completely, therefore, I am capable of understanding God in all His aspects perfectly." That is what I gathered from your posts, and more than once we have argued about it, and I apologize if I misunderstood you. But if you go back and read posts #137 & 140 very carefully, you may soon realize my interpretations of your beliefs are not unfounded. But again, if I am wrong, please correct me by making a clear doctrinal statement so I and drmark do not "misunderstand" you.



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 9:28:23 PM)

Hey, maybe this sums up all your posts, and what is good in your position:

quote:

God subjected himself to "time" when he recorded that it took six days for the creative process. Could he have simply thought everything into existence? I think he could have. But he chose to submit himself to time, and recorded the creation accordingly.


Aside from that, I guess you and everyone debating was caught up in the impossible debate of what happened BEFORE Genesis, which is not Biblical and does not appear to be amenable to logical conjecture either. Perhaps you were too belligerent about the idea that existence and time are absolutely connected -- so far as we know they are, but one can suppose all kinds of things about arenas beyond our knowledge. However, I do believe that time, as it has been set up by God is designed to END. I think this is very important. Don't you think the current mode is designed and foretold to end? "Being" though not as we know it, I am sure we would clumsily suggest will continue -- but why be partial to one word and not the other? Also, if eternal life is what is to come, I can see how that can only be understood (as of now!!) as within tie, so it is just as fair to say that time will not end -- how else could it last forever?? My point is that these philosophical concepts don't really help us appreciate God's actual message.

If they did, I'm sure Martin Heidegger could tell us all about what to believe about Christian theology. I'm not saying that I have read him, but I don't believe that is what he is known for, though he did write a book called "Being and Time."



evry1needsgod -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/18/2008 10:42:13 PM)

quote:

God subjected himself to "time" when he recorded that it took six days for the creative process. Could he have simply thought everything into existence? I think he could have. But he chose to submit himself to time, and recorded the creation accordingly.


hellohellohi:

Yes, this does sum up a lot of his posts, and I partially agree with it. God has subjected Himself (partially or completely I don't know for sure) because He acts in time as we know it. BUT, like I have asked TB countless times, how could God have subjected Himself to time if He was never out of time? In order for me to subject myself to something, let's say an authority, I must NOT be subjected to it. So, in order for God to subject Himself to time, He must have been "outside" of it, whether that means it existed or not. So TB basically shot himself in the foot with this quote.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 7:37:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

God subjected himself to "time" when he recorded that it took six days for the creative process. Could he have simply thought everything into existence? I think he could have. But he chose to submit himself to time, and recorded the creation accordingly.


hellohellohi:

Yes, this does sum up a lot of his posts, and I partially agree with it. God has subjected Himself (partially or completely I don't know for sure) because He acts in time as we know it. BUT, like I have asked TB countless times, how could God have subjected Himself to time if He was never out of time? In order for me to subject myself to something, let's say an authority, I must NOT be subjected to it. So, in order for God to subject Himself to time, He must have been "outside" of it, whether that means it existed or not. So TB basically shot himself in the foot with this quote.


I know nothing about you, so I will use "if" as an accomodation. "IF" you have children, and "IF" someday you were to play a game with them, I assume someone (you or they) will make some rules. In order to accomodate the game you are going to paly, you will have to play according to those rules. Does that mean your children rule over you? It does NOT. It means you have submitted yourself to their level of understanding for the temporary event called the game. But you submit to the rules.

God exist only in time. It does not rule him any more than it rules us. We mostly operate on schedules, because it fits our needs. That does not mean schedules rule man. It is an accomodation we choose to submit ourselves to.

God chose to make a covenant with his creation, man. He offered blessings if man is to join himself to that covenant. He offered curses if man, after joining himself to that covenant, changes his choice to one of disobediance to that covenant. Is God "bound" by that covenant? You bet he is. He is bound because his word was given, and his word is his bond. ("Bound" comes from "bond").

Within the "rules" of the covenant, God has stipulated, (prior to the agreement) that certain limiting factors are going to be incorporated into what he calls "feast days," and "Sabbath days," and several other kinds of special days, all of which serve to remind both God and man of the bondage of covenants. God "SUBMITTED" himself to abide by the terms of that covenant. Does the covenant rule God? NO! "Submitting" is not the same thing as "being submitted." THAT is why all who are in covenant relationship with God are volunteers. THAT is why God said to men, "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve" through Joshua, Moses' successor.

And that is why God is subject to time. He made the rules, and he submitted to them to show his integrity to men who trusted him, and followed his example. The difference is God is not faulted, men are. Men fail to keep covenant with God but God "changes not," does Not fail to keep all the terms of his covenant with men.

Men subject themselves to time even though we are in time. Just as we subject ourselves to law, even though we are born under law. Submission is voluntary. And do not pretend there are no men who do not submit to law, or to time. (I do not accuse you of pretending, it is a figure of speech for the occasion).

Look at the states that are divided over whether or not to "submit" to the "daylight saving time" laws. Some submit, and change their clocks twice in each year. Others do not and therefore live with a disparity in scheduling systems as a result. Some states even split by county; part submit, part does not.

But God is not partial, but is comitted to his word and his bond. He does not keep part of his covenant and not keep other parts of it.

As for His being outside of time, I have repeatedly asked you for some, any at all, scripture reference for your conclusion that God is outside of time. Nothing has been forthcoming except insulting remarks for my questions.

DO YOU HAVE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE for God being outside of time? Do you have scriptural reference for God creating time? And I am NOT referencing his creation of Sun, Moon, and Stars which he created for men to measure time by.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 7:40:14 AM)

quote:

I think people failed to notice that you just appreciate the references to time in the Bible, and you conclude, therefore that time is important to God, but that, on the other hand, time is unimportant to contemplate with regard to how old the earth is. That is, you are saying that the putative debate between science and religion does not seem to be over a point that God considers important, which you are basing off a rather extensive base of Biblical evidence. At the same time, it detracts from the beauty of God's story. Am I close to right?


Very close. For every issue God gives as evidence for believing, there will always be some men who will look upon it as evidence against believing.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 8:30:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

To say God existed "outside of time" contradicts the meaning of language itself. It has nothing to do with placing limits on God. That is tantamamount to saying God is not expressed in language because language cannot do God justice. There are no limits placed on God by appropriately placing his "being" in its proper "event circumstance" which is time and place. That is simple theological nonsense; speculation at its worst, for the purpose of making God so far above men that he literrally become "out of reach." It is an exercise in voluntary humility, which is condemned in scripture.

Look my friend, God chose to communicate to men. And he chose the medium of language. And language has rules and functions, of which God is the master, and man is only the student. When God spoke to men, he spoke to certain men, but not to all men. For example Moses in Egypt, but not to Pharoah.

Paul tells us men are "earthen vessels" imperfect, but made fit for the master's use by the master himself. And the language he utilizes for communication is precise and unambiguous, and to the point.

When language describes what a noun and verb are, and their functions, and God uses nouns and verbs to communicate, who is man that he can modify the meaning inherent within the confines of the words themselves, to build a concept of God that goes outside the boundaries of those very words God used to communicate?



Brilliant argument TB! Make God out to be the biggest liar if the language He chose to use does not completely describe Him perfectly!


Why do you always resort to caustic remarks and insults? Why do you not just make your point and move on? "Let God be true and every man a liar." Why is it to difficult for you to have a simple polite disagreement? If you think God is a liar because of language flaws, do not pretend it is of my making because of my remarks about language. Your assertion is dead wrong, but I will not take the time to teach you manners, as it seems to be a lost cause.

quote:


Any lay man would fall for this, but let me point out one simple flaw in your point. You assume that since the only words in our language to describe how God acts in time are those that require time (and they do), then that must mean God always existed in time. No one (at least I'm not) is questioning that God exists (whether partially or completely) and acts in time right NOW (yes, this does require time). What is at question is whether or not God has ALWAY existed in and been limited by time.


Brilliant. Simply brilliant! NOT!!!

What makes you think time somehow "limits" God? If Time always existed, how is God limited? If Time will always exist, How is God somehow "LIMITED?" If God is eternal, how is eternallity a limitation? Eternal MEANS "age lasting." Most of the terminology that is translated
"eternal" comes from language that literally means either "age lasting," or "through the ages."

"Age" is a reference to a particular notion of time. If something lasts as long as the particular notion of time, it is spoken of as "age lasting." If it lasts beyond the particular notion of time, it is said to last "through the ages. How does ANY of that limit God? It is a flase argument, a strawman argument built from ignorance, not from knowledge.

As for you "layman" "but not me" argument, I will only point out to you that it did not get by me, but I will not respond to the obvious.


quote:

Let me ask you a question. What word would (or could) you use to describe a God outside of time? There is none, because we can not understand that. What we DO however understand is that it IS scriptural that God is not limited by anything. Nothing is impossible for God to do, other than contradict His morality. Basically, the only thing He can not to is sin. So, here is the flaw. The foundation of your ideology is laid in the English language. So what is your explanation of the hundreds of verses that identify God and the Holy Spirit as MALE? Do they have certain genitalia unique to males? Are they capable of reproduction with a female? No, that would be utterly ridiculous to assert, but, since your foundation is in our limited language used in Scripture to describe God, (that same language which describes God as a male), what is your explanation? Could it be that God simply used words which we can understand to describe Him as best as we can, but not to the full extent, because as we both have finally agreed, we can not understand what has not been revealed in Scripture.


As a matter of fact, Adam was an "eesh," Eve was an "eeshee" because she was taken out of Adam; Angels are "eesh;" And God is an "eesh." I would provide references but it would be wasted on one who chooses to disbelieve everything I post. Look it up. Oh, by the way, male animals are "eesh," females are eeshee. And God is still EESH.

As for God being able to impregnate women, "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God (angels) saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." [Gen 6:1-7]

I know this is not just allegory (Sorry DRMARK) because it is referenced at least two other places in scripture.

Angels are "sons of God"
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of Elohiym
(God) shouted for joy? -Job 38:7

Angels are "elohiym" (Gods) When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the Elohiym (angels), and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: -Psalm 8:3-6

THESE SONS OF GOD PRESENTED THEMSELVES BEFORE GOD
Now there was a day when the sons of Elohiym (God) came to present
themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. -Job 1:6

Again there was a day when the sons of Elohiym (God) came to present
themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. -Job 2:1

SOME OF THESE SONS OF ELOHIYM "KEPT NOT THEIR FIRST HABITATION" And the angels which kept not their first estate [Gen 6:1-7], but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. -Jude 1:6

So it came about that sons of God went in unto daughters of men, and begot a race of giants in the earth. But, God had already planned to have a son from among the daughters of men (seed of the woman Gen 3:15) so he could not allow this "counterfeit" situation to continue. He therefore decided to end this counterfeit of man's life upon the earth.

But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. [Gen 1:1-8]

Concerning these angels, or "spirits," we are told they were kept in chains under darkness pending the judgment. These are those spirits to whom Jesus went and preached the gospel. They were to understand why they were not allowed to continue in the earth, defying God's plan for them. They violated their own habitation, by leaving it for that of man.

When Jesus' body was in the grave, his spirit went and spoke to the spirits in prison. [I Pet 3:19]

"... God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Pet 2:4

It was only reasonable that those "imprisoned Spirits" know why they were chained in darkness. They could not be told at the time, for if Satan had known, he would not have crucified Jesus [I Cor 2:8], and the plan of salvation for men would have had to be remade.

quote:

Let me answer your recent question as to where my accusations are founded. Throughout this debate, you most certainly have stated that you can understand everything about God that He has chosen to reveal to us in His Words. I agree! (wow!!!). BUT, what I have gathered, and perhaps I'm wrong, is that you believe God has revealed EVERYTHING about Him in His words, and you attempt to prove this by stating God has somehow "commanded" us to understand Him. Your argument goes something like this. "Scripture commands us to study Him, and if this is true, how could He command us to study something that is not complete? Therefore, since God has commanded us to understand Him completely, then the Bible must contain everything we need to know to understand Him completely, therefore, I am capable of understanding God in all His aspects perfectly." That is what I gathered from your posts, and more than once we have argued about it, and I apologize if I misunderstood you. But if you go back and read posts #137 & 140 very carefully, you may soon realize my interpretations of your beliefs are not unfounded. But again, if I am wrong, please correct me by making a clear doctrinal statement so I and drmark do not "misunderstand" you.


Consider yourself corrected:
Post 137:(quote) We are gods. "I have said ye are gods." We are gods made in flesh, which limits our "being" to the parameters of flesh which define our person. We are gods, made in the image of God. What awaits us the other side of mortality, in immortality, we can only glean clues from scripture. But we can "KNOW" the things about God that he Has chosen to reveal to us, AND UNDERSTAND THEM.

Does that mean I am as smart as God? Get real. It means God expects me to approach with humility, that revelation provided for our perusal, by his own hand.(end quote)

In this post I have clearly articulated that we can understand and kinow "WHAT GOD HAS REVEALED ABOUT HIMSELF." Do you DENY THIS? Then why did God reveal it? To frustrate himself? To frustrate men? Or to frustrate those who do not consider themselves "laymen?"

Post 140:(quote) As for my assertion that I can understand whatever God expresses in his revelation for my understanding, I hold to it. Otherwise God issues futile commands for ulterior purposes. Punishing people for failing to do what he commands them to do when they cannot do it is cruel. THAT is not God, that is man's attempt to make something of God that he is not.(end quote)

With which part of this do you disagree? Are you saying YOU cannot understand that part about God that he reveals about himself "FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING?"

(quote) But if God expresses himself to us in revelation ("Search the scriptures"), in prophecies, in dreams, in confrontations, any of the many ways God communicated to men through history, then we can certainly understand those things about God for which he punishes us for not understanding and doing.(end quote)

So which part of THAT do you disagree with? Or are you saying God just punishes us randomely for our natural born ignorance?

To YOUR comment (quote) And no, you CAN NOT possibly understand the Essence of God Almighty, PERIOD. (end quote) in post #138;

I responded in Post 140: (quote) "God's Essence" is not a scriptural consideration. It is found no where in scripture. It is a man made concept. And I will never attempt to understand the "essence of God" because it is nonsense. (end quote)

I do hope this clears up all those accusation you were so concerned about. Especially as they mostly come form YOUR posts. And that is the ONLY place they (your quotes) are found.



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 8:41:50 AM)

quote:

As for His being outside of time, I have repeatedly asked you for some, any at all, scripture reference for your conclusion that God is outside of time. Nothing has been forthcoming except insulting remarks for my questions.

DO YOU HAVE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE for God being outside of time? Do you have scriptural reference for God creating time? And I am NOT referencing his creation of Sun, Moon, and Stars which he created for men to measure time by.


No, I don't have any scriptural reference. I don't know if you were referring to me specifically.

However, that one that someone brought up from Job was good, which stated "Before all time..." But of course, "before time" would be an ironic time-based reference to something supposed out of time, and it still reinforces your very valid and perhaps crucial point that, as far as we ARE GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND, God exists in time. I like very much the idea that God has submitted himself to time.

I hope you are starting to make a bit more sense to the folks with which you've been having a disagreement. Of course, they had their good points too.

Perhaps I will look through the posts again to create a link to the Job scripture.



drmark -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 8:49:10 AM)

quote:

Eternal MEANS "age lasting."
You need a new dictionary, t_b!

eternal = without beginning or end; always existing. Synonyms: timeless, immortal, permanent

There are a dozen OT references to the eternal quality of God. God must be "outside of time" in order to be eternal! One last point, t_b. Surely you do not believe God is subjected to space and matter, do you? So why do you insist on this narrow-minded idea that God is subjected to time? Physical reality is defined by space, matter, and time. God is outside (and inside) physical reality - this is called "Transcendence" and you seem to have great difficulty accepting it conceptually.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 8:52:10 AM)

I don't find the reference in Job. Do you have it?

Of course, if it is not the KJV it may not be the same as mine. I will look in the Hebrew and Greek.



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 8:58:58 AM)

Just to mention,
I think the main points that the rest of the posters have had is that it doesn't sit right with them to "limit" God in anyway, to accomodate our ability to understand, for instance. However, I think we can all agree that humans are limited and that God has limited Himself in His interactions with us so that we will understand Him in the ways that are needed for His glory. For instance, God has apparently limited Himself in time, while also suggesting that this mode will end, I say. We have paradoxical metaphors to describe this, like Eternity, and phrases like "before all time." However, it is still true that we cannot comprehend this, and it is still true that as far as we know, God is very much concerned with time, and thus we should be also. In contrast, the Bible suggests in my opinion that we should not be concerned with what happens "after time" or even "tomorrow."

That scripture about us being gods sounds peculiar, I'll have to look it up. Did you say where it came from? I guess that's mentioned in the othe rpost though.



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 9:02:30 AM)

Oh, haha, it was "Jude," not "Job."

quote:

Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever.


Thanks to Jack (Jhud) for the original reference there.

Oh yeah, haha, there is even a song called the "Jude Benediction" that puts this verse to music. Don't know if it is well-known outside of my denomination (Moravian) though.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 9:05:04 AM)

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." [Psalm 82:6]

Quoted by Jesus in John 10:34-36 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 9:06:09 AM)

quote:

eternal = without beginning or end; always existing. Synonyms: timeless, immortal, permanent


That sounds very sensible to me.

To speak on t_b's behalf, heh, I would say that the Eternity of God is a mystery to us, but that t_b still has a good point that in the here and now, God has shown us that time is an important part of His plan of expressing His glory to us or for us or through us or what-have-you.



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 9:09:05 AM)

quote:

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." [Psalm 82:6]

Quoted by Jesus in John 10:34-36 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"


Cool.

I'm glad I've never run into folks who are tempted to use that idea out of context though. I'm sure there are some who would like to corrupt that, but oh well.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 9:09:24 AM)

quote:


Jude 1:25
to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever.


In the Greek "time" is kronos, not aiwnos, which is "age" or "ages" depending on the form used.

Jude 1:25 should read "to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all the age and now unto all the ages. Amen"



hellohellohi -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 9:14:39 AM)

quote:

Jude 1:25 should read "to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all age and now unto all the ages. Amen"


That's cool. The present age, perhaps you will agree, is called "time." I agree there is no sense beyond talking about time or beyond time. Before all age sounds just as paradoxical to me as before all time. But maybe it is easier to understand. God doesn't ask to contemplate "beyond time" perhaps, but perhaps He knows that if we can get a sense of what it is to be in this age, we can then POSIT the idea of another age heterogeneous with ours, without understanding what that will be -- such will be an expression of the glory of God! At present, this glory is not fully seen, because we choose to look away, I say.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 9:28:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

quote:

Jude 1:25 should read "to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all age and now unto all the ages. Amen"


That's cool. The present age, perhaps you will agree, is called "time." I agree there is no sense beyond talking about time or beyond time. Before all age sounds just as paradoxical to me as before all time. But maybe it is easier to understand. God doesn't ask to contemplate "beyond time" perhaps, but perhaps He knows that if we can get a sense of what it is to be in this age, we can then POSIT the idea of another age heterogeneous with ours, without understanding what that will be -- such will be an expression of the glory of God! At present, this glory is not fully seen, because we choose to look away, I say.


Actually it may have been God who got us started speculating about "beginnings." And it certainly was God who drew our attention to the instruments by which time is measured. He made them for that express purpose.

As for the age, I think we express it today as "in our time." Scripture references "old time" as well as "past times" and has specific references like "today, while it is called today."

It is an interesting study.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/19/2008 9:35:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Eternal MEANS "age lasting."
You need a new dictionary, t_b!

eternal = without beginning or end; always existing. Synonyms: timeless, immortal, permanent


YOU need to learn how to quote DR.
What I said was "Most of the terminology that is translated "eternal" comes from language that literally means either "age lasting," or
"through the ages."

My reference is to the Hebrew and Greek sources. I know what "eternal" means, and I also know that aiwnas does NOT mean eternal, but IS translated that way. And no, I do not need a new dictionary. What I need is a new adversary, one who understands "fairness" in reporting.

quote:

There are a dozen OT references to the eternal quality of God. God must be "outside of time" in order to be eternal! One last point, t_b. Surely you do not believe God is subjected to space and matter, do you? So why do you insist on this narrow-minded idea that God is subjected to time? Physical reality is defined by space, matter, and time. God is outside (and inside) physical reality - this is called "Transcendence" and you seem to have great difficulty accepting it conceptually.


ETERNAL is a reference to time. It is not a parenthesis between which time exists. It does not mean "beyond time," nor does it mean "outside of time." it literally mean "for all time."

And no, I do not believe God is "subjected" to ANYTHING. I do believe God subjects himself to some things, like his oath and his covenant, and those parts of his covenant which relate to time, and those parts of his covenant which relate to righteousness and prayer, yes, he submits his "self" to a lot of things, none of which are beyond his control.

And I have not said God is subjected to matter. So where did THAT come from?

AS for accepting your "reality of transcendence," What is your scriptural reference? Personally I think God transcends his creation, but you make it mean he transcends everything including time. He does not transcend himself, and time may well be a part of the "self" of God. I say this because while it is true God can "make the sun stand still" it is also true, he did not make "time" stand still. Since you insist on speculating about God's "transcendence," I thought I would toss that in for consideration.

And why do you insist that the use I make of "subjects self" comes out "is subjected?" One is active, the other is passive. God actively subjects himself, he is not passively subjected. Yet your questions and accusations continually make that change in what it is I actually said.

And if you cannot perceive God subjecting himself to the terms of his covenants with men, I cannot help you.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/20/2008 8:00:21 AM)

quote:

(every1needsgod):

Let me answer your recent question as to where my accusations are founded. Throughout this debate, you most certainly have stated that you can understand everything about God that He has chosen to reveal to us in His Words. I agree! (wow!!!). BUT, what I have gathered, and perhaps I'm wrong, is that you believe God has revealed EVERYTHING about Him in His words, and you attempt to prove this by stating God has somehow "commanded" us to understand Him. Your argument goes something like this. "Scripture commands us to study Him, and if this is true, how could He command us to study something that is not complete? Therefore, since God has commanded us to understand Him completely, then the Bible must contain everything we need to know to understand Him completely, therefore, I am capable of understanding God in all His aspects perfectly."


Allow me a moment. I do not post this as a criticism, but only to serve as an introduction to an explanation.

God made a covenant with man. Not all men, but a select family of men, the children of Israel. (Actually he began it with Israel's grandfather.) And part of this covenant consisted of man's obedience to the terms of the covenant, with a view toward receiving certain preanounced blessings also inherent within the terms of covenant. When the children of Israel rebelled in disobedience, God put into operation the curses inherent within the agreements of covenant.

BUT, he NEVER punished his people in secret; he ALWAYS made known to them the reason for their bad circumstances. And within that explanation to his people, he had this to say: " Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger? 25 Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt:

26 For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them: 27 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: 28 And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day." [Deu 29:24-28]

And when Jehovah finished with his explanation, he made a most remarkable statement. Remarkable in the scope of his understanding of men's ambitions to understand everything. "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." [Deu 29:29]

"The secret things belong to God." I do not believe God has revealed to men, everything there is to know about God. I do believe he has revealed all that is necessary for man to comit to obedience to the commandments of God.

And I believe this "secret things" category is necessary for man's proper place in God's creation. Man MUST be limited in what he can know or accomplish, or he will attain once more to the standard of arrogance displayed in the building of the tower of Babel.

That is the reason men will never attain star-travel. The stars in the heavens are among those "secrets that belong to God." "Ye are blessed of the LORD which made heaven and earth. 16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD'S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." [Psa 115:15-16]

I hope this explains my position as to what it is men are to know and something of the parameters of knowledge allotted to men to ponder.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/20/2008 3:26:42 PM)

quote:

"The secret things belong to God." I do not believe God has revealed to men, everything there is to know about God. I do believe he has revealed all that is necessary for man to comit to obedience to the commandments of God.

And I believe this "secret things" category is necessary for man's proper place in God's creation. Man MUST be limited in what he can know or accomplish, or he will attain once more to the standard of arrogance displayed in the building of the tower of Babel.


Thanks TB for clearing this up. I clearly misunderstood you, and for that I apologize.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/20/2008 4:19:28 PM)

I have thought of another instance in scripture that had I thought of it sooner, may have served to clear up part of the issue between us. And that is the issue of God "subjecting himself."

Remember the flood? God destroyed all the families of man with one exception; the family of Noah. Eight persons who served to replenish the species after the flood. Remember that it was God who placed a memorial within the pervue of men, and then "BOUND HIMSELF" to the symbolism of the memorial?

"And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15 AND I WILL REMEMBER MY COVENANT, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I WILL LOOK UPON IT, that I MAY REMEMBER the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.

17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."
[Gen 9:8-17]

When God makes a covenant, the outcome is predictable, is sure, and is as good as done. It can be depended upon. Why? Because God speaks of things that have not yet happened, as though they were already accomplished. And God binds hmself to his word so that his very utterances themselves become as real as if it was already happening.

Case in point: God said to Abraham, "I will make you a father of many nations." And in the very next verse God reacts to his own words as though something had been changed by the utterance itself. He said "A father of many nations I HAVE MADE thee." Notice the change in the tenses of the verbs.

"As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou SHALT BE (FUTURE) a father of many nations. 5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations HAVE I MADE (PAST TENSE) thee." Gen 17:4-5]

Paul, contemplating this aspect of God's dealings with men, understood very well this aspect of God's dependence upon his word. Paul reminds us of the depth of the faith of Abraham, who, upon hearing God's promise, did not scoff because of the age of his body, which was past the years of begetting children, nor did he consider the age of Sarah's ability to bear. He simply accepted the premise "if God said, I believe it, that settles it."

Rom 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:

20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

This is a record of the first time someone was "raised from the dead" though only figuratively of course. Isaac, the child product of the Promise of God, was indeed raised from the dead body of Abraham, and the dead body of Sarah. Dead both, because of age beyond the natural ability to beget and bear children. But it is a token to remind all men that when God promises a thing, it is sure.

Yet another time, and God once more placed Abraham in a position of assuring his faith, when the second instance of one being raised from the dead took place. God ordered Abraham to offer his only son Isaac, as a living sacrifice upon an altar. (This was the occasion of the forerunner of the sacrifice of Christ). Abraham did not quibble, or wail and moan, but comitted himself to preparing the sacrifice and proceeding with the command of God, knowing full well he was about to give death to his son just as surely as Sarah gave birth to him so many years ago.

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure." [Heb 11:17-19]

Just thought I would share that with you. It seems to me to be one of the most profound things in scripture.

The absolute most profound thing I find in scripture however, is "God who knows me best, loves me anyway."



evry1needsgod -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/20/2008 9:17:28 PM)

quote:

theo_book:

I know nothing about you, so I will use "if" as an accomodation. "IF" you have children, and "IF" someday you were to play a game with them, I assume someone (you or they) will make some rules. In order to accomodate the game you are going to paly, you will have to play according to those rules. Does that mean your children rule over you? It does NOT. It means you have submitted yourself to their level of understanding for the temporary event called the game. But you submit to the rules.

And that is why God is subject to time. He made the rules, and he submitted to them to show his integrity to men who trusted him, and followed his example.


Like I have said time after time, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you that God subjected Himself to time. He obviously must use it since He created us in time. No one is doubting that God is subjected to time, by making covenants with His children that require time.. The questions are whether He is COMPLETELY submitted and subjected to it, being limited by it, and whether or not God has always been submitted to time (making time as "old" as God).

If God subjected Himself to time (which we both agree) then God COULD NOT have always been in time. In your example, the dad submitted himself to the rules of the game when he chose to play with his son. But, guess what did not exist before the game was created? Rules (time). And before the game was created, the dad was not submitted to the rules (time) because the rules (time) did not exist. Your example is proving me right TB. You have yet to clearly answer my question.

"How can God subject Himself to time if He was always in time?" I can not subject myself to the human life. I was born as a human, mankind existed before I did, and therefore I was always and always will be a human. If time exited always just as God, and God never exited outside of time, then your argument that God subjected himself to time is faulty, because He had no choice. You can not subject yourself to something you were already subjected to.



theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (6/20/2008 10:07:11 PM)

quote:

Like I have said time after time, I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with you that God subjected Himself to time.


That is not what I read when going back over the thread. It has been stated clearly and with hostility, that God cannot be subjected to time.
Post # 138 specifically asks where God was prior to his submitting to time, as though he must have been outside of time to submit to time. THAT is not the issue at all.

quote:

He obviously must use it since He created us in time. No one is doubting that God is subjected to time, by making covenants with His children that require time.. The questions are whether He is COMPLETELY submitted and subjected to it, being limited by it, and whether or not God has always been submitted to time (making time as "old" as God).

If God subjected Himself to time (which we both agree) then God COULD NOT have always been in time. In your example, the dad submitted himself to the rules of the game when he chose to play with his son. But, guess what did not exist before the game was created? Rules (time). And before the game was created, the dad was not submitted to the rules (time) because the rules (time) did not exist. Your example is proving me right TB. You have yet to clearly answer my question.

"How can God subject Himself to time if He was always in time?" I can not subject myself to the human life. I was born as a human, mankind existed before I did, and therefore I was always and always will be a human. If time exited always just as God, and God never exited outside of time, then your argument that God subjected himself to time is faulty, because He had no choice. You can not subject yourself to something you were already subjected to.


Sure you can. All men are citizens of nations that are subject to laws of those nations. Some become outlaws because they refuse to subject themselves to those same laws. Others, considered good citizens, submit, subjecting themselves to laws and are called "law abiding citizens."

When God subjects himself to time, it is when he abides in the rules and commandments of his own covenant with men. The rules and commandments are not a part of time. They are a part of God's covenant, and he subjects himself to them insofar as he relates to the men with whom he makes covenant.

When you are the only entity, and time is all there is in which one is, it is not in SUBJECTION TO time, it is in HARMONY WITH time. But when one begins to make changes that alter time, then time itself becomes a factor in the circumstance that must be considered. Why, for example, did it take God six days to create? Was that time nexcessary for God to accomplish his will? Not at all. God himself tells us that the Sabbath was not provided because God needed the rest, but it was made for man to rest. It shows how prepared God was for every contingency involved in his creation. He submitted himself to the concept of a seventh day of rest, in order both for men to have a day of rest [Mark 2:27], and for God to supply the concept in example.

This in no way implies God is subservient to time. Rather it shows he is cognizant of all the ramifications of time, and subjects himself to the consequences of allowing time to be a consideration with his creation.

It is one thing to exist in time. It is another to make pacts and covenants which depend upon time for its fulfillment. Covenants require an understanding of the significance of units of time, that do not exist outside of the covenants. It is still time, but it is not covenant time. And God submits to the rules of covenant, not to time.

I do hope it is becoming clearer.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI