RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist?

RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (Full Version)

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

Message

davemiller7 -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 3:29:39 PM)
To me, it depends on whether we're talking about physical light, ie. the sunlight, or spiritual light, ie. the light of God. If the light of God, then it has always existed as God has always existed. If physical light, then God created that light at the dawn of creation. IMHO. -Dave

PromiseLander -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 3:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Could it be that in Genesis 1 where it says: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless, and void..." Could God be documenting that He started out creation by creating the elements through which He would make the rest of existence?? We know that God works through secondary causes - like when Adam was created from the dust of the ground - could the beginnings verses be referring to say the periodic table of stuff from which God created everything else? (that would explains the earth being formless and void, and the spirit of God hovering over the waters...) Could'a been. Could'a been several scenarios played out in the creative process, and personally I kinda' agree with yours. Trouble is, no evidence either way. Unless you are suggesting the evidence of probability derived from past action. Hmmm??? Yeah, and that's the rub - but only if you get rubbed over issues like this. We'll never be able to definately prove one way or another, but it certainly kindles the imagination. Either way it doesn't matter to me - I can see God in the creation and that's enough for me. It may not be for other folks but I never demended much. To me, the biggest miracle of all to prove God's existence is the fact that I'm even here talking to you. Without God, no one would be able to answer the biggest question of all - and that is the question of "why?" As in, "All this stuff is here, but for what purpose?" In Him we live and move and have our being... God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all... Truely the light of the Glory of God has existed from infinity to infinity, and this creation that we call home exists for God's own purposes of glorifying God - He desires to show His attributes, and He IS glorified. This life we have been given is a great analogy to the things to come and the things of God. God gives us life that we may catch a glimpse of what a life in Him truely is, God gives us marriage that we may know what a true relationship to Him may be like, and God gives us light that we may see a glimpse of what His glory is... Were we to stare into the sun our entire lives we would not even come close to the shine of the glory of God, but it is there that we may know of our goal...

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 3:37:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: [gluadys] No, since time and light were created simultaneously. Before there was light there was no time either. So there was no time in which light did not exist, since time is measured from the point at which God said "Let there be light" and there was light. WOW! Something that gluadys and I can totally agree on! quote: [JimboFletch]as long as God existed, light existed. [drmark]: Then what is your understanding of the creative act performed by God in Genesis 1:3? Or does God only exist in time? Do you think matter has existed as long as God has existed? What about space? Perhaps I may respond Dr Mark. The Hebrew "owr" seems to represent light in every way except possibly "figurative," and I am not sure of that. So the creative act performed in Gen 1:3 would be the act of speaking into existence something that was not already in existence; i.e., light. The fact that it came into being mixed with dark is as much a mystery to me as any subject found in scripture. God saw it, saw that it was very good, and THEN separated it from darkness. THAT interests me. You ask if God exists only in time. Tell me Doc, can you reference any verb that does not have a fulfillment in time? Any action that can be done "outside of time?" And further, can you think of ANY WAY God can violate his own laws of creation? Miracles do not violate his laws of creation, but seem rather to expedite them. Changing water into wine, which happens in nature eventually through the proccess of natural growth, and etc. Even raising the dead does not violate his laws of creation, because Jesus himself is the first of a new creation of resurrected men. Finally, has matter and space excisted as long as God has existed. My response concerning matter is emphatically no! God created matter. As for space, nowhere does scripture say God created it. It says God created heaven and earth, both of which are found IN space. And while it may be possible to argue heaven is not "in" space, it would be impossible to prove it from scripture.

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 4:18:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Not really. Many are the names "given" in scripture that serve as reminders of some message or other. It has nothing to do with "what something essentially is." Yes, really. This is why it was given to Adam to name the creatures, to say what they are. This is why names get changed, to indicate a change in nature (Jacob->Israel). quote: "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." [Mat 16:23] So is Mathew Satan? I assume you mean Peter. Yes, in that moment, he was expressing the essence of Satan and Jesus called him on it. quote: Not quite accurate. The action as accounted to us in Genesis begins with "created" while "in the beginning" tells us when. But that is limited to the beginning of creation, not the beginning of time. The "created" of Gen 1:1, like the "created" of Gen. 2:4 encompasses all the particular acts of creation within the body of the account. It is not a separate, preliminary action. quote: The eighth proverb tells us of another set of actions that predated the Genesis account of the beginning of creation. "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. IOW "before" time began. quote: 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. Ditto. quote: 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." [Prov 8:22-31] And here we get the description of creation, actions taking place in time So Wisdom is already there with God in eternity "prior" to creation, from everlasting, from the beginning and observes the beginning of creation, including the creation of matter, space and time. Note how this language is picked up again by John in the opening verses of his gospel to refer to Christ. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." The Greek form of the verb indicates an ongoing being, not one which began "in the beginning" but was itself without beginning. quote: Measured how? By the movement of photons. True, humans could not detect photons and use their motion to measure time until quite recently. But that doesn't mean that time had no measure. God was certainly capable of measuring the speed of light from the instant it was created. quote: There is no reference to a "point" in TIME at which light is created. Of course not. Time is measured from the point of the creation of light; hence that is not a point in time. quote: In fact, I agree with your assessment that an understanding of physical light is essential for an understanding of Genesis 1. Always nice to find a point of agreement. quote: Where I do not agree however, is when you say time began with the creation of light. God always existed. "Exist" carries the connotation "to be" (a verb of existence) to mean one "is." It requires time for one to "be." "To be" MEANS to exist, have being. Not necessarily. "being" can refer to existence or essence or to both together. God is usually understood as pure essence and hence technically does not exist. Of course that doesn't mean that God is not. But God's manner of being is not the same manner of being that we ordinarily call existence. Things exist because God calls them into being, and they cease to exist when their time is accomplished. But God does not need to call Godself into being as God always is. And there is no time period attached to God's always present being. God's eternal and absolute Being is what calls and sustains all contingent beings into existence and ushers them out of existence again. God qua God is not subject to the limitations of existence but is rather the Being that is the source of existence, the one in whom all existing things exist. quote: "Being" requires time, because being is itself a measure of change. No, being is not a measure of change, and eternal being is described as changeless. quote: To continue to be implies getting older. If God does not get older, then Daniel was wrong to reference God as "ancient of days." And Daniel was inspired to so designate Him. God does not need to be old. Only to be through all time and beyond time. God was present from the beginning and so is properly called "ancient" yet God is ageless. quote: [theo] Activity requires time, but does not require light. It has been profferred on another thread, that "Time is a measure of change, a description of a sequence of events..." So if there are events sequencing, time must be in existence. Outside of time, events are not sequenced. quote: ALL activity requires time. All activity involving matter in motion requires time. Activity that does not require that matter move through space does not require time. quote: That assumes physical activity is necessary for time to function. Correct. Time is a dimension of the space-time continuum, the material world. It has no application apart from matter. quote: As for being outside and beyond our dimensions, how then could he dwell in the temple in Jerusalem, or in the ark of the covenant, or walk in the various camps of the children of Israel while in the wilderness wanderings? God is immanent as well as transcendant. That is why Paul can say that in him "we live and move and have our being". That is why John and Paul can speak of eternal or spiritual life being a present, not just a future, reality. Eternity is not just outside time; it is all through time as well. Every moment in time connects to the eternal now of eternity.

davemiller7 -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 4:19:24 PM)
I agree with this but I'm trying to wrap my inadequate little mind around the "time" thing. Are you saying that time has always existed, as God has always existed? Or is time a consequence of the creation process? Or possibly a totally different dimension that we haven't (at least I haven't) yet comprehended? Great discussion! -Dave quote: God transcends his creation, but He did not create time. And there is no scripture that says He did. As for God "being outside of time," it is nowhere suggested in scripture, only in the doctrines and traditions of men.

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 4:22:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Finally, has matter and space excisted as long as God has existed. My response concerning matter is emphatically no! God created matter. As for space, nowhere does scripture say God created it. It says God created heaven and earth, both of which are found IN space. And while it may be possible to argue heaven is not "in" space, it would be impossible to prove it from scripture. Heaven and earth ARE space. All space that is not earth is heaven. So together they constitute space. Hence the creation of heaven and earth IS the creation of space.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 5:18:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Finally, has matter and space excisted as long as God has existed. My response concerning matter is emphatically no! God created matter. As for space, nowhere does scripture say God created it. It says God created heaven and earth, both of which are found IN space. And while it may be possible to argue heaven is not "in" space, it would be impossible to prove it from scripture. Heaven and earth ARE space. All space that is not earth is heaven. So together they constitute space. Hence the creation of heaven and earth IS the creation of space. I don't think you realize the foolishness of that statement. "All space that is not earth is heaven. Earth is not space, my friend, and neither are all the heavenly bodies that are found IN space. Mars, Jupiter, the many moons and etc. And it is a stretch to assume that all space between the second heaven and the third heaven is considered to be heaven of ANY description. By THAT understanding, the astronauts have already been to heaven and returned.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 5:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: davemiller7 I agree with this but I'm trying to wrap my inadequate little mind around the "time" thing. Are you saying that time has always existed, as God has always existed? Or is time a consequence of the creation process? Or possibly a totally different dimension that we haven't (at least I haven't) yet comprehended? Great discussion! -Dave quote: God transcends his creation, but He did not create time. And there is no scripture that says He did. As for God "being outside of time," it is nowhere suggested in scripture, only in the doctrines and traditions of men. I am saying that the concept "time" MUST consider all aspects of the meaning of the word. Time has been defined on another thread, as a measure of change; a description of a sequence of events." Yet there are those who do not consider the existence of God to be a major event in the universe. Both existing and continuing to exist are events that demonstrate the everlasing ongoing characteristic of time. Yes, time is as old as God. Time HAS to be, for God to be. Each requires the other to have meaning. Look Dave, at the meaning of the verbs. Verbs denote action. Action requires time. "To be" is a verb denoting existence, which requires time. Everyone with a dictionary should be able to look up the basic meanings of the words of a language. "I am" is the present tense of the verb "Be." It is in the present tense because "Now" is ALWAYS present with God. And he is never "past." There is no record anywhere of God "going back in time" to correct or modify any historical event. Yet theologies abound telling us God controls time, as though he somehow makes changes in it other than through prophecy and fulfillment thereof. It just ain't so. If it is I am not aware of it. If anyone has a record of it, please post it for all of us to get an education.

evry1needsgod -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 6:21:54 PM)
Sup TB!!! Man, you want another stab at this one huh? You're a funny guy, you know that? Well, I'm game (for a while), again... quote: Time has been defined on another thread, as a measure of change And the Bible says that God does not change, so therefor, He does not exist in time.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/27/2008 7:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Not really. Many are the names "given" in scripture that serve as reminders of some message or other. It has nothing to do with "what something essentially is." (gluadys) Yes, really. This is why it was given to Adam to name the creatures, to say what they are. This is why names get changed, to indicate a change in nature (Jacob->Israel). No, not really. God changed his name from Shaddai El, to Jehovah, but there is no evidence it changed his nature, whatever that means. "Nature of God" is a man made doctrine. There is no scriptural reason to develope a "nature of God" apart from what is already revealed in scripture. quote: (theo) "But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." [Mat 16:23] So is Mathew Satan? quote: (gluadys) I assume you mean Peter. Yes, in that moment, he was expressing the essence of Satan and Jesus called him on it. Correct, I meant Peter. And no, Peter was not "expressing the essence of Satan." What is the "essence" of Satan and of God? It is pure nonsense built up to a theology by men. Men who actually speak of "the essence of God" as though they know something that is not revealed in scripture. The only reference to any "essence" found in scripture has to do with perfume. And THAT is not in the KJV. quote: (theo) Not quite accurate. The action as accounted to us in Genesis begins with "created" while "in the beginning" tells us when. But that is limited to the beginning of creation, not the beginning of time. quote: (gluadys) The "created" of Gen 1:1, like the "created" of Gen. 2:4 encompasses all the particular acts of creation within the body of the account. It is not a separate, preliminary action. Depends upon what you mean by "preliminary." It certainly is the first word expressed after identifying who, and telling us when. It is the first verb showing any action. If you mean "preliminary to action" then no, it is not preliminary for it IS the action. It is "creating." And it is not "separate" so much as it is the start of a process which lasted over some period of time. quote: (theo) The eighth proverb tells us of another set of actions that predated the Genesis account of the beginning of creation. "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. quote: (gluadys) IOW "before" time began. Not at all. Time did not begin with creation, creation took place within time. "Be"-ing requires time in which to "be." God is, therefore requires time in which "to be." It is that simple. quote: (theo) 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. quote: (gluadys) Ditto. Ditto quote: (theo) 27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." [Prov 8:22-31] quote: (gluadys) And here we get the description of creation, actions taking place in time So Wisdom is already there with God in eternity "prior" to creation, from everlasting, from the beginning and observes the beginning of creation, including the creation of matter, space and time. Nothing is said about creation of time in all of scripture. Wisdom is present with God in TIME, for time is REQUIRED for action to take place. quote: (gluadys) Note how this language is picked up again by John in the opening verses of his gospel to refer to Christ. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." The Greek form of the verb indicates an ongoing being, not one which began "in the beginning" but was itself without beginning. Which verb are you referencing? "Was?" Een is simply the indicative aorist active form of "to be." There is NO reference in that word to indicate whether the one "being" had a beginning or not. And the "beginning" in that reference is the "beginning of the gospel" in John's writings. quote: (theo) Measured how? quote: (gluadys) By the movement of photons. True, humans could not detect photons and use their motion to measure time until quite recently. But that doesn't mean that time had no measure. God was certainly capable of measuring the speed of light from the instant it was created. I did not understand your reference to be to photon measurement. The question remains, in your original context, "measured how?" quote: (theo) There is no reference to a "point" in TIME at which light is created. quote: (gluadys) Of course not. Time is measured from the point of the creation of light; hence that is not a point in time. And what is your reference for THAT little gem? Only from the doctrines of men will you find that to even be considered. It is not in scripture. quote: (theo) In fact, I agree with your assessment that an understanding of physical light is essential for an understanding of Genesis 1. quote: (gluadys) Always nice to find a point of agreement. quote: (theo) Where I do not agree however, is when you say time began with the creation of light. God always existed. "Exist" carries the connotation "to be" (a verb of existence) to mean one "is." It requires time for one to "be." "To be" MEANS to exist, have being. quote: (gluadys) Not necessarily. "being" can refer to existence or essence or to both together. "Essence:" the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its signicant individual feature or features. "Essence:" something that exists, especially, a spiritual or immaterial entity. "Being:" to exist. "be." a verb of existence. present singular: 1st person "am;" 2nd "are;" 3rd "is." past singular: 1st person "was;" 2nd "were;" 3rd "was." Verb. any member of a class of words that are formally distinguished in many languages, as in English by taking the past ending in -ed, that function as the main elements of predicates, that typically express action, state, or a relation between two things. Act. Anything done, being done, or to be done. process of doing. Action. The process or state of doing or being active; an exertion of power; Active; being in a state of existence, progress, or motion. Time: the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other; duration. According to the meanings of words, "essence" only has meaning within the framework of "BEING." YOU say "Being can refer to Existence or essence or both. ESSENCE HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE SEPARATE AND APART FROM "BEING." "Essence; something that exists." "Exists" is a verb of being, requiring time in which to function, to "be." quote: (gluadys) God is usually understood as pure essence and hence technically does not exist. Of course that doesn't mean that God is not. But God's manner of being is not the same manner of being that we ordinarily call existence. Things exist because God calls them into being, and they cease to exist when their time is accomplished. But God does not need to call Godself into being as God always is. And there is no time period attached to God's always present being. "usually understood" only by those who look to doctrines and traditions of men for the source of truth. Look, you really must realize "essence" is only significant within the parameters of existence. Out of existing, essence is not. Existing is a reference to "being" and "being" requires time in which to "be." quote: (gluadys) God's eternal and absolute Being is what calls and sustains all contingent beings into existence and ushers them out of existence again. God qua God is not subject to the limitations of existence but is rather the Being that is the source of existence, the one in whom all existing things exist. God certainly IS subject to the limitations of existence. He cannot dis-exist. He cannot "un-exist." He cannot cease to exist. quote: (theo) "Being" requires time, because being is itself a measure of change. quote: (gluadys) No, being is not a measure of change, and eternal being is described as changeless. Only in relationship to his covenant with his people. 6 For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. 7 Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return? (Mal 3:6-7) When they rebelled against God, they expected him to refuse to accept them back if they would repent. He told them I am not the one that changed, You are. All you have to do is return to the covenant I am keeping. He told them they are not consumed BECAUSE he keeps covenant, i.e., "changes not." It has NOTHING to do with God not changing in any way for all times. In fact he changed all the time. Do a word search of "repent" and "repenteth" in the King James 'Version, and you will see God changed all the time. quote: (theo) To continue to be implies getting older. If God does not get older, then Daniel was wrong to reference God as "ancient of days." And Daniel was inspired to so designate Him. quote: (gluadys) God does not need to be old. Only to be through all time and beyond time. God was present from the beginning and so is properly called "ancient" yet God is ageless. That is only an opinion, not found in scripture. "beyond time" is not found in scripture. quote: [theo] Activity requires time, but does not require light. It has been profferred on another thread, that "Time is a measure of change, a description of a sequence of events..." So if there are events sequencing, time must be in existence. quote: (gluadys) Outside of time, events are not sequenced. True. But there is no "outside of time." If there is, please give the reference, not including science phantasy and science fiction, or religious commentaries. quote: (theo) ALL activity requires time. quote: (gluadys) All activity involving matter in motion requires time. Activity that does not require that matter move through space does not require time. And this comes from WHAT allknowing prophet? Matter moving through space is NOT the definition of time. Even immaterial "essence" requires time in which to "be." quote: (theo) That assumes physical activity is necessary for time to function. quote: (gluadys) Correct. Time is a dimension of the space-time continuum, the material world. It has no application apart from matter. Baloney. That is science phantasy. You have been watching too many movies. Time is not a dimension at all. "Dimension:" A property of space, an extension in a direction. Extension in time; Space-time has three dimensions of space (Length, width, thickness or depth) and one in time. Time is not a dimension, time HAS dimension, and is unidirectional. i.e., it can extend into the future of now. quote: (theo) As for being outside and beyond our dimensions, how then could he dwell in the temple in Jerusalem, or in the ark of the covenant, or walk in the various camps of the children of Israel while in the wilderness wanderings? quote: (gluadys) God is immanent as well as transcendant. That is why Paul can say that in him "we live and move and have our being". That is why John and Paul can speak of eternal or spiritual life being a present, not just a future, reality. Eternity is not just outside time; it is all through time as well. Every moment in time connects to the eternal now of eternity. Of course eternity is not outside of time. It is the endless unidirectional exttension of time in a forward direction. In no way is it outside of time. Time always was, always is, always will be. And no, it is not deity. It is a duration enabling function.

drmark -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/28/2008 1:59:24 AM)
quote: It would appear that you misunderstand the nature of God. He is ETERNAL and eternally transcendant. He is outside and beyond our dimensions, and yet able to interact with us. God does not "get older" This discussion was hashed around for almost three months on the Old God New Earth? thread. It didn't get anywhere then and I doubt it will get anywhere now! theo-book has his own definitions of "eternal" and "transcendent" as you can easily read from the previous thread, Everstudy.

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/28/2008 2:58:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book God changed his name from Shaddai El, to Jehovah, but there is no evidence it changed his nature, whatever that means. "Nature of God" is a man made doctrine. There is no scriptural reason to develope a "nature of God" apart from what is already revealed in scripture. God has not changed his name. Both names apply and both names speak to his nature. quote: Depends upon what you mean by "preliminary." It certainly is the first word expressed after identifying who, and telling us when. It is the first verb showing any action. If you mean "preliminary to action" then no, it is not preliminary for it IS the action. It is "creating." And it is not "separate" so much as it is the start of a process which lasted over some period of time. What I mean is that, as used here, it is not an action distinct and separate from the various creative actions in the whole account or occurring prior to them. It is a summary term that comprehends them all. IOW v.1 announces the complete event of creating the heavens and the earth and vv. 3ff breaks that single action into its individual components. quote: "Be"-ing requires time in which to "be." God is, therefore requires time in which "to be." It is that simple. No. "be" is a copula verb referring to a state, not an action. Since being is not an action and does not require movement or change of state (such as "becoming") , it does not require time. quote: There is NO reference in that word to indicate whether the one "being" had a beginning or not. Exactly. So the "being" already is when the beginning begins. quote: And the "beginning" in that reference is the "beginning of the gospel" in John's writings. Not in light of v. 3. The reference to creation makes the phrase a clear reference to Gen. 1:1 quote: I did not understand your reference to be to photon measurement. The question remains, in your original context, "measured how?" Far be it from me to speculate on any mechanism God used to measure the speed of light. I don't expect God needed a mechanism, but that God simply knew it. quote: "Essence:" the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its signicant individual feature or features. "Essence:" something that exists, especially, a spiritual or immaterial entity. The first definition is the one appropriate in this context. The second definition is more a reference to ghosts or the phantoms supposedly conjured up in seances. quote: YOU say "Being can refer to Existence or essence or both. ESSENCE HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE SEPARATE AND APART FROM "BEING." Right. Essence is being. However, there is a technical philosophical distinction between essence and existence. Sartre, for example, contended that humanity constitutes existence without essence. And God, as stated earlier, is considered to be pure essence, not needing existence in order to be. Only contingent beings, those whose essence is not eternal, have to cling to existence in order to be. quote: quote: (gluadys) All activity involving matter in motion requires time. Activity that does not require that matter move through space does not require time. And this comes from WHAT allknowing prophet? Matter moving through space is NOT the definition of time. Even immaterial "essence" requires time in which to "be." Mostly it comes from the definition of time. Since time is defined by the motion of matter through space, that which is immaterial is unrelated to time. quote: Of course eternity is not outside of time. It is the endless unidirectional exttension of time in a forward direction. If time were endless, there could be no first day. There could be no "in the beginning".

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/28/2008 7:55:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark This discussion was hashed around for almost three months on the Old God New Earth? thread. It didn't get anywhere then and I doubt it will get anywhere now! theo-book has his own definitions of "eternal" and "transcendent" as you can easily read from the previous thread, Everstudy. Yeah! Weeellll, the reason I "have my own definitions" of ANYTHING at all, is because the votes of those in power, as to what is truth, do not satisfy me. quote: (drmark): I've seen enough to once again realize the importance of denominational tradition in developing a correct understanding of essential Christian doctrine. quote: (theo)Let me see if I understand this. As far as I can tell, there are two ways to determine "essential Christian Doctrine." (Actually three, but I don't think denominational divisions are inspired) # One is based on time; i.e., the oldest traditions are closer to truth. By THAT standard, we would all still be Catholics. # Two is based on a vote. With several thousand certified denominations in the U.S. alone, (not counting worldwide), I guess my statement in post number 247 was right on the money. Your correction in post 248 "It has nothing to do with majority voting by whoever is in power" seems to have come full circle. "I've seen enough to once again realize the importance of denominational tradition in developing a correct understanding of essential Christian doctrine" seems to say it all. I believe truth is the basis for doctrine, and truth spoken or written negates a need for doctrine to be "developed" by denominational tradition. And the scriptures are the source for truth. So, if I look to the scriptures, ignore the popular vote of denominational traditions, I will get closer to truth than all the denominations combined, because I am not divided. Seems reasonable to me. Do you really want to rehash this from the other thread drmark?

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/28/2008 10:48:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Let me see if I understand this. As far as I can tell, there are two ways to determine "essential Christian Doctrine." (Actually three, but I don't think denominational divisions are inspired) # One is based on time; i.e., the oldest traditions are closer to truth. By THAT standard, we would all still be Catholics. # Two is based on a vote. With several thousand certified denominations in the U.S. alone, (not counting worldwide), I guess my statement in post number 247 was right on the money. Your correction in post 248 "It has nothing to do with majority voting by whoever is in power" seems to have come full circle. "I've seen enough to once again realize the importance of denominational tradition in developing a correct understanding of essential Christian doctrine" seems to say it all. I believe truth is the basis for doctrine, and truth spoken or written negates a need for doctrine to be "developed" by denominational tradition. And the scriptures are the source for truth. So, if I look to the scriptures, ignore the popular vote of denominational traditions, I will get closer to truth than all the denominations combined, because I am not divided. Seems reasonable to me. Stuff and nonsense. What arrogance to think that you alone of all Christians, closeted with your bible, can determine correct doctrine. The fact of the matter is that you don't. We all carry baggage derived from the teaching of our parents, our pastors, our peers. Even when we question it, even when we reject it, we are still responding to those voices in our memories. No one comes to correct doctrine solely by reading scripture. Furthermore, all doctrine is developed. Even doctrine in scripture is developed. God reveals God in action, in God's doings in history. Humans figure out what that means and encode it into teaching (doctrine). Some of that ends up in scripture. And then scripture is read and interpreted down through the ages. Yes, doctrine is developed---as the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was developed in the dialogues of the Church Fathers. And yes, VOTED on, at the Council of Nicaea. As the doctrine of the Incarnation and the two natures of Christ was VOTED on at the Council of Chalcedon. And as a consequence, we today, even in the privacy of our personal reading, approach scripture with these doctrines as a given, and interpret scripture accordingly--unless we were raised in a cult such as JWs which disowns them, and then we interpret scripture according to that tradition. There is no escaping the impact of doctrinal tradition on the way we understand scripture. Have a Baptist and a Presbyterian go through the NT passages on baptism and it will be clear to the Baptist than one is not to baptize infants too young to make a personal profession of faith and it will be equally clear to the Presbyterian that children are to be welcomed into the covenant community through baptism. The arrogance of individualism is the bane of the church and the source of many cults. The Church is to be a Body. Its unity is to be that of many-in-one under one Head. If the only way you can be "not divided" is to divide yourself from the Church and its tradition, then you are no longer one with the Body and your personal doctrine is rightly suspect. You are like the eye or ear Paul spoke of trying to be a body all on its own without the other members.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/28/2008 1:07:21 PM)
RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? - 6/28/2008 2:58:55 AM quote: :ORIGINAL: (theo_book) God changed his name from Shaddai El, to Jehovah, but there is no evidence it changed his nature, whatever that means. "Nature of God" is a man made doctrine. There is no scriptural reason to develope a "nature of God" apart from what is already revealed in scripture. quote: (gluadys) God has not changed his name. Both names apply and both names speak to his nature. (theo)(NEW) Scripture does not bear your opinion out. God gave Moses information about God's name, telling what it IS, and what it WAS [Exo 6:3] which constitutes a name change. He references "Shaddai El" only once again in all of the old testament, in Eze 10:5, in which "Shaddai" is articulated, that is, it has the article "the" which makes it a description of God, not a name. He is "the almighty God." In Gen 17:1 God reverses the terms, but the name is the same; i.e., God Almighty is the same as Almighty God. "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am (the) Shaddai El; walk before me, and be thou perfect." [Gen 17:1][Note: Shaddai is articulated in this verse] "And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, Jehovah (The God) of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah (The LORD) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. 16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, Jehovah (The LORD) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Egypt:" [Exo 3:13-16] "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai (God Almighty), but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."[Exo 6:2-3] The other verses where God's name is given as "El Shaddai." "And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;" [Gen 28:3] "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;" [Gen 35:11] "And God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may send away your other brother, and Benjamin. If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved." [Gen 43:14] "And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me," [Gen 48:3] "And the sound of the cherubims' wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when he speaketh." [Eze 10:5] quote: :(theo) Depends upon what you mean by "preliminary." It certainly is the first word expressed after identifying who, and telling us when. It is the first verb showing any action. If you mean "preliminary to action" then no, it is not preliminary for it IS the action. It is "creating." And it is not "separate" so much as it is the start of a process which lasted over some period of time. quote: (gluadys) What I mean is that, as used here, it is not an action distinct and separate from the various creative actions in the whole account or occurring prior to them. It is a summary term that comprehends them all. IOW v.1 announces the complete event of creating the heavens and the earth and vv. 3ff breaks that single action into its individual components. [theo] (NEW) Actually the "summary term" is found elsewhere, when God tells us "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,[Gen 2:4], and speaks not of the days of creation, but of "THE DAY" of creation, THAT is a summary term. "Created" is most certainly a distinct and separate term when we are told what it was he created, and compare it with all the other separate and distince things he created. In this particular use, he created heaven and earth. And separately and distinctly from this, he created light, herbs, trees, fish, beast, cattle, bugs, crawlies, no-see-ums, even people. quote: (theo)"Be"-ing requires time in which to "be." God is, therefore requires time in which "to be." It is that simple. quote: (gluadys) No. "be" is a copula verb referring to a state, not an action. Since being is not an action and does not require movement or change of state (such as "becoming") , it does not require time. [theo] (NEW); No!!! While it is true, when linking verbs ("state of being" verbs) reference a state of "being" they are considered to be linking verbs, it is not the fact that the word is a verb that is considered, but what the verb points to, as in "state of being." The verbs that point to a state of being are: be, shall be, should be, being, will be, would be, am, has been, can be, is, have been, could be, are, had been, should have been, was, shall have been, would have been, were, will have been, could have been. ANY verb ending in "be" or "been" is a form of the verb "BE." And here is the clincher in the deal. To be a "linking verb," the verb MUST be followed by a word that names or describes the subject. "I am" doe not do that at all. As a form of "to be," it is not a copula in any sense of the word. And While it may be argued "am" is used to describe "I," it does not follow the verb, but rather serves as a FORM OF the verb (to "be"). "BE;" to exist; most certainly does require time in order to accomodate its function. Something cannot "BE" without time in which to be. "BE" is a verb of existence, which is a state which requires time. Being: The fact of existence, existing; Philos. That which has actuality either materially or in idea; Absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, essence. Action: The process or state of..... being active. Active: being in a state of existence. Conclusion; action is accomplished by being in a state of existence. quote: (theo) There is NO reference in that word to indicate whether the one "being" had a beginning or not. quote: (gluadys) Exactly. So the "being" already is when the beginning begins. quote: (theo) And the "beginning" in that reference is the "beginning of the gospel" in John's writings. quote: (gluadys) Not in light of v. 3. The reference to creation makes the phrase a clear reference to Gen. 1:1 (theo)(NEW); Look at how John consistently references the beginning as the "beginning of the gospel." 1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; When John reminds some old brethren of a commandment which they had heard "from the beginning." they did not ask "What beginning?" They already knew. He then ties the "logos" and the "beginning" together. [1 John 2:7] Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is "the logos which ye have heard from the beginning." 1 John 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning...14 I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. 1 John 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 2 John 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 2 John 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. 1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. John follows this same pattern in his Gospel, referencing the beginning of the gospel, unless otherwise identified. BEGINNING OF CREATION: John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. IDENTIFIES "BEGINNING" OF MIRACLES: John 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL: John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 8:25 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. John 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning. John 16:4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you. John consistently expresses the "beginning of the gospel" in his writings, unless he identifies a different beginning with modifiers. This understanding of "in the beginning" does not conflict with the rest of scripture. To take the opposite position will do so. John it is, who puts "the beginning" and "the personification of the logos" together for us in one of the most misunderstood passages in all of scripture: [John 1:1-3] In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things became (were made)by him; and without him not any thing became (was made) that has become (was made). (Note: "Made" in this verse is the same form of the same word that is used in Luke 23:12, which states, "And the same day Pilate and Herod were 'made friends' together; for before that they were at enmity between themselves." - Pilate and Herod were not "created" friends - they were changed, from enmety, to friends. That is the reference to the word "made;" something was changed from what it previously was, to a "new" relationship, different in some aspect or other. This is referencing the "new creation," in which, and by which, all things were "made new." It is not a reference to original creation. quote: (theo) did not understand your reference to be to photon measurement. The question remains, in your original context, "measured how?" quote: (gluadys) Far be it from me to speculate on any mechanism God used to measure the speed of light. I don't expect God needed a mechanism, but that God simply knew it. (theo) (NEW) The original reference was where you said "time is measured from the point at which light is created." My response was "measured how." to which YOU now respond with something about photon measurement. What does "photons" have to do with time measurement? And why the switch from "time measurement" to "light measurement?" quote: (theo)"Essence:" the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its signicant individual feature or features. "Essence:" something that exists, especially, a spiritual or immaterial entity. quote: (gluadys) The first definition is the one appropriate in this context. The second definition is more a reference to ghosts or the phantoms supposedly conjured up in seances. (theo)(NEW) So now you consider God a ghost, or phantom? No, the second reference is specifically a reference to spiritual being, God, and such like. There is no Thomistic proof, and very little empirical evidence for phantoms and ghosts. So there is no reason to define their essence, as it is unknown. The first reference IN CONTEXT was Your reference to "essence of Satan" in post #29. The second reference IN CONTEXT was to the "essence of God" in Post #29 And "Essence" defined references spiritual beings and immaterial entities; both of which are in context with the observations of Post # 29. quote: (theo) YOU say "Being can refer to Existence or essence or both. ESSENCE HAS NO SIGNIFICANCE SEPARATE AND APART FROM "BEING." quote: (gluadys) Right. Essence is being. However, there is a technical philosophical distinction between essence and existence. Sartre, for example, contended that humanity constitutes existence without essence. And God, as stated earlier, is considered to be pure essence, not needing existence in order to be. Only contingent beings, those whose essence is not eternal, have to cling to existence in order to be. (theo)(NEW) "Essence is being" is not the same as "essence has no significance separate and apart from being." I did not say "Essence is being." I said Essence HAS being. I do not care what Sartre said as he is wrong. And God may well be pure essence, and does not "need existence" because he already exists. It is an empty argument. And since "to be" MEANS to exist, it cannot be said that being NEEDS existence; It IS existence. And the remainder of your statement, "Only contingent beings, those whose essence is not eternal, have to cling to existence in order to be" is nonsense in its purest form. Why? Because First you try to establish through Sartre that humans exists WITHOUT ESSENCE, then try to establish "only contingent beings whose essence is not eternal, have to cling to existence in order to be." You have contradicted yourself, and made a mockery of the meanings of "to be" and "existence." quote: (gluadys) All activity involving matter in motion requires time. Activity that does not require that matter move through space does not require time. quote: (theo)And this comes from WHAT allknowing prophet? Matter moving through space is NOT the definition of time. Even immaterial "essence" requires time in which to "be." quote: (gluadys) Mostly it comes from the definition of time. Since time is defined by the motion of matter through space, that which is immaterial is unrelated to time. (theo)(NEW) MATTER: physical or corporeal substance; solid, liquid, gas. As opposed to incorporeal substance; spirit, mind, qualities, as actions and such. Something that occupies space. TIME: A system of sequential relations that any event has with any other; indefinite and continuous duration in which events succeed one another. God "being" is certainly an event, and when he continues to be, it is a succession of events of God's being. Therefore, God requires time to "be." quote: (theo) Of course eternity is not outside of time. It is the endless unidirectional extension of time in a forward direction. quote: (gluadys) If time were endless, there could be no first day. There could be no "in the beginning". (theo)(NEW) You are confusing time with designations of time. "First day" is ALWAYS a reference to a day which is first of a series in some defined sequence; i.e. first day of the week, month, year, etc. First day I have been hime, and such like. And "In the beginning" certainly has designations of time. The beginning of sorrows; the beginning of creation; the beginning of miracles; the beginning of life as an adult; and many other applications. If time were NOT endless, there would be no "eternal life;" no "eternal damnation;" no "eternal" expression of God's love for us.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/28/2008 3:27:03 PM)
quote: theo_book Let me see if I understand this. As far as I can tell, there are two ways to determine "essential Christian Doctrine." (Actually three, but I don't think denominational divisions are inspired) # One is based on time; i.e., the oldest traditions are closer to truth. By THAT standard, we would all still be Catholics. # Two is based on a vote. With several thousand certified denominations in the U.S. alone, (not counting worldwide), I guess my statement in post number 247 was right on the money. Your correction in post 248 "It has nothing to do with majority voting by whoever is in power" seems to have come full circle. "I've seen enough to once again realize the importance of denominational tradition in developing a correct understanding of essential Christian doctrine" seems to say it all. I believe truth is the basis for doctrine, and truth spoken or written negates a need for doctrine to be "developed" by denominational tradition. And the scriptures are the source for truth. So, if I look to the scriptures, ignore the popular vote of denominational traditions, I will get closer to truth than all the denominations combined, because I am not divided. Seems reasonable to me. quote: (gluadys) Stuff and nonsense. What arrogance to think that you alone of all Christians, closeted with your bible, can determine correct doctrine. theo's response (NEW): What stupidity! First I am not "alone of all Christians." And second, we are told to "search the scriptures" and it is not referencing a majority caucus. quote: (gluadys) The fact of the matter is that you don't. theo's response (NEW) And you know this to be a fact HOW? By YOUR OWN limitations? quote: (gluadys) We all carry baggage derived from the teaching of our parents, our pastors, our peers. Even when we question it, even when we reject it, we are still responding to those voices in our memories. No one comes to correct doctrine solely by reading scripture. theo's response (NEW) I was raised a Catholic, and studied my way out of its errors. I tested the denominations systems before I struck out on my own. They are all in error as regards what scripture says. And no, my parents did not teach me anything religious. They sent me to Catholic schools where I was interested in studying for the priesthood before I began to see it was in error. My parents taught me NOTHING as regards religious matters. And YES! ANYONE can come to knowledge of truth by appealing to scriptures alone. In fact, they will probably come closer to the truth if they do not ask anyone for an opinion, and certainly if they do not fall for the voted-upon doctrines of denominationalism. quote: (gluadys) Furthermore, all doctrine is developed. Even doctrine in scripture is developed. God reveals God in action, in God's doings in history. Humans figure out what that means and encode it into teaching (doctrine). Some of that ends up in scripture. It can only get worse. So now you have God telling Moses "write these words in a book," but, wait, says Moses, I first have to figure out what they mean. So Moses, in his wisdom finally figures out what God meant to say, and wrote the words in the first five books of scripture. NOT!!! In fact, God tells us just the opposite. The prophets who prophesied those things which we read of in scripture did not understand it at all, but did understand that it was prophecied for US for whom it was intended. "Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: 11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." [I Pet 1:10-12] And God further revealed why. If man had indeed "figured it out and built doctrines of truth" as you claim, Satan would have found it out, because man cannot keep his mouth shut; and Satan would never have killed Jesus, or allowed him to die. "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." [I Cor 2:7-8] But God goes further and tells us men DID NOT understand what they wrote. "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."[I Cor 2:9] So your spewing is conjecture and doctrines of men. quote: (gluadys) And then scripture is read and interpreted down through the ages. Yes, doctrine is developed---as the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was developed in the dialogues of the Church Fathers. And yes, VOTED on, at the Council of Nicaea. As the doctrine of the Incarnation and the two natures of Christ was VOTED on at the Council of Chalcedon. theo's response (NEW) you are not helping your case. quote: (gluadys) And as a consequence, we today, even in the privacy of our personal reading, approach scripture with these doctrines as a given, and interpret scripture accordingly--unless we were raised in a cult such as JWs which disowns them, and then we interpret scripture according to that tradition. Just as Jesus accused the Pharisees, that they interpret scripture in the light of doctrines of men. YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. Doctrines of men MUST interpret their doctrines in the light of scripture, because scripture is where the light is kept, not in men. quote: (gluadys) There is no escaping the impact of doctrinal tradition on the way we understand scripture. theo's response (NEW) AMEN!!! And at the judgment before God, there will be no escaping the impact of doctrinal tradition on the way you understand scripture. quote: (gluadys) Have a Baptist and a Presbyterian go through the NT passages on baptism and it will be clear to the Baptist than one is not to baptize infants too young to make a personal profession of faith and it will be equally clear to the Presbyterian that children are to be welcomed into the covenant community through baptism. theo's response (NEW) Exactly what Paul preached AGAINST. "For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am a Baptist (of Paul); and I a Presbyterian (of Apollos); and I a Catholic (of Cephas); and I a denominationalist (of Christ). 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"[I Cor 1:11-13] quote: (gluadys) The arrogance of individualism is the bane of the church and the source of many cults. The Church is to be a Body. Its unity is to be that of many-in-one under one Head. If the only way you can be "not divided" is to divide yourself from the Church and its tradition, then you are no longer one with the Body and your personal doctrine is rightly suspect. You are like the eye or ear Paul spoke of trying to be a body all on its own without the other members. theo's response (new) TOTALLY WRONG. It was Paul who said that when brethren fall away from the truth we should separate ourselves from such. The church is supposed to be the pillar and ground of the truth, but when the church fails to uphold the truth, and exchanges for truth that which is a lie, I am under no obligation to stay within its purview or under its authority.

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/28/2008 10:19:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai (God Almighty), but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."[Exo 6:2-3] Notice, that God is not saying that El Shaddai is no longer his name. God is El Shaddai. God is also Yahweh. The writer of this scene claims Abraham did not know the name Yahweh, in spite of the fact that Yahweh often speaks to Abraham (under that name) in Genesis. And Abraham uses the name Yahweh. e.g. Gen. 12:8 "there [Abram] built an altar to Yahweh and invoked the name of Yahweh." quote: [theo] (NEW) Actually the "summary term" is found elsewhere, when God tells us "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,[Gen 2:4], and speaks not of the days of creation, but of "THE DAY" of creation, THAT is a summary term. So is Gen. 1:1. There is no reason a summary term cannot be used twice and it is not uncommon to use one as an introduction instead of or as well as a conclusion. quote: he created light, herbs, trees, fish, beast, cattle, bugs, crawlies, no-see-ums, even people. Yes, that is the detailed description of creating heaven and earth. quote: quote: (gluadys) No. "be" is a copula verb referring to a state, not an action. Since being is not an action and does not require movement or change of state (such as "becoming") , it does not require time. [theo] (NEW); No!!! While it is true, when linking verbs ("state of being" verbs) reference a state of "being" they are considered to be linking verbs, it is not the fact that the word is a verb that is considered, but what the verb points to, as in "state of being." The verbs that point to a state of being are: be, shall be, should be, being, will be, would be, am, has been, can be, is, have been, could be, are, had been, should have been, was, shall have been, would have been, were, will have been, could have been. ANY verb ending in "be" or "been" is a form of the verb "BE." And here is the clincher in the deal. To be a "linking verb," the verb MUST be followed by a word that names or describes the subject. "I am" doe not do that at all. As a form of "to be," it is not a copula in any sense of the word. I think you just flunked Grade 5 grammar. A copula IS a linking verb. That is what "copula" means. The difference between a copula or linking verb and an action verb is indicated by the fact that the predicate noun that follows it is not an object, but another identification of the subject. (In languages which indicate case, it is in the nominative rather than the accusative or dative case.) It takes time to move an action from subject to object. It does not take movement or time to be oneself. quote: John follows this same pattern in his Gospel, referencing the beginning of the gospel, unless otherwise identified. Now you are making up interpretive rules to support your theology. In any case, v.3 identifies that this beginning references creation. quote: (Note: "Made" in this verse is the same form of the same word that is used in Luke 23:12, which states, "And the same day Pilate and Herod were 'made friends' together; for before that they were at enmity between themselves." - Pilate and Herod were not "created" friends - they were changed, from enmety, to friends. That is the reference to the word "made;" something was changed from what it previously was, to a "new" relationship, different in some aspect or other. It is also the same verb used in the Greek translation of Gen. 1:3 to describe the creation of light. By the way it is also from this same verb that we get the name "Genesis" for the 1st book of the Torah. quote: What does "photons" have to do with time measurement? And why the switch from "time measurement" to "light measurement?" Time measures movement through space. Light is composed of photons. Light moves through space because photons move through space. We call the period between the departure of light (photons) leaving point X and their arrival at point Y a measurement of time. Just as we call the duration it takes a train to travel from New York to Chicago a period of time. It really doesn't matter whether it is light that moves or something else. All motion through/in space requires duration and we call that time. Light, however, is key to the beginning of time, for it is from the creation of light in the beginning that time is measured for the existence of the universe as a whole. quote: (theo)(NEW) So now you consider God a ghost, or phantom? No, the second reference is specifically a reference to spiritual being, God, and such like. There is no Thomistic proof, and very little empirical evidence for phantoms and ghosts. So there is no reason to define their essence, as it is unknown. I wasn't implying I believed in ghosts. But if you check the literature in which "essence" is used in this way --as in "an essence made itself known" -- it is usually in reference to a particular spirit, not to God. God is almost never referred to a "an essence" as if there were several such essences. Rather God is referred to as Essence without qualification. quote: I did not say "Essence is being." I said Essence HAS being. And you are wrong. Essence is being. quote: Because First you try to establish through Sartre that humans exists WITHOUT ESSENCE, then try to establish "only contingent beings whose essence is not eternal, have to cling to existence in order to be." You have contradicted yourself, and made a mockery of the meanings of "to be" and "existence." I am not saying I agree with Sartre or anyone else. The point of the citations was to show that the terms Essence and Existence are not identical in meaning. quote: Even immaterial "essence" requires time in which to "be." Since "being" is not an action or movement, no it does not require time. quote: God "being" is certainly an event, No, eternal being is not an event. Nor is it a succession of events. Being can only be an event in relation to non-Being. God's being can only be an event if at some time God was not and then God came to be. quote: If time were NOT endless, there would be no "eternal life;" no "eternal damnation;" no "eternal" expression of God's love for us. On the contrary, eternal life is timeless life in which there is no past or future but only an ever-present now.

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/28/2008 10:24:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys Heaven and earth ARE space. All space that is not earth is heaven. So together they constitute space. Hence the creation of heaven and earth IS the creation of space. I don't think you realize the foolishness of that statement. "All space that is not earth is heaven. Earth is not space, my friend, and neither are all the heavenly bodies that are found IN space. Mars, Jupiter, the many moons and etc. Actually, most of the earth is space as is most of any solid object. In any case, earth occupies space and any space not occupied by earth is heavenly space whether it is empty or occupied. So heaven and earth together constitute the sum total of space.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/29/2008 9:35:04 AM)
quote: (theo) "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai (God Almighty), but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."[Exo 6:2-3] (gluadys) Notice, that God is not saying that El Shaddai is no longer his name. [theo](NEW) Notice God is not saying El Shaddai is still his name. "I am Jehovah" tells us what is; "El Shaddai" tells us who was. quote: (gluadys) God is El Shaddai. God is also Yahweh. The writer of this scene claims Abraham did not know the name Yahweh, in spite of the fact that Yahweh often speaks to Abraham (under that name) in Genesis. And Abraham uses the name Yahweh. e.g. Gen. 12:8 "there [Abram] built an altar to Yahweh and invoked the name of Yahweh." [theo](NEW) O.K. I'll go along with your conclusion for the moment; God lied. Or forgot. Or didn't realize he misspoke. The truth of the matter is Moses is telling us who was involved, Abraham "called upon the name of Jehovah" does not mean Abraham knew God's name AS Jehovah. Abraham called upon Jehovah by calling the name "El Shaddai." "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai (God Almighty), but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." [Exo 6:3] Even one who gets his theology from the votes of men about the traditions of men can understand this. quote: [theo] Actually the "summary term" is found elsewhere, when God tells us "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,[Gen 2:4], and speaks not of the days of creation, but of "THE DAY" of creation, THAT is a summary term. (gluadys) So is Gen. 1:1. There is no reason a summary term cannot be used twice and it is not uncommon to use one as an introduction instead of or as well as a conclusion. [theo](NEW) There is no reason Genesis was not written three times, other than the fact it did not happen. "There is no reason something cannot be done" does not serve as evidence (or even good argument) that it did happen. It is a baseless argument without merit. The opening of the Genesis account is not a summary, it is a testimony as to what happened. quote: (theo) he created light, herbs, trees, fish, beast, cattle, bugs, crawlies, no-see-ums, even people. (gluadys)Yes, that is the detailed description of creating heaven and earth. [theo](NEW) No, it is not. It is the detailed account of what followed the creation of heaven and earth. quote: (gluadys) No. "be" is a copula verb referring to a state, not an action. Since being is not an action and does not require movement or change of state (such as "becoming") , it does not require time. [theo] No!!! While it is true, when linking verbs ("state of being" verbs) reference a state of "being" they are considered to be linking verbs, it is not the fact that the word is a verb that is considered, but what the verb points to, as in "state of being." The verbs that point to a state of being are: be, shall be, should be, being, will be, would be, am, has been, can be, is, have been, could be, are, had been, should have been, was, shall have been, would have been, were, will have been, could have been. ANY verb ending in "be" or "been" is a form of the verb "BE." And here is the clincher in the deal. To be a "linking verb," the verb MUST be followed by a word that names or describes the subject. "I am" does not do that at all. As a form of "to be," it is not a copula in any sense of the word. quote: (gluadys) I think you just flunked Grade 5 grammar. A copula IS a linking verb. That is what "copula" means. [theo](NEW)I know what "copula" means. It means you do not know grammar at all. What part of "To be a "linking verb," the verb MUST be followed by a word that names or describes the subject," was too fast for you? What part of "I am" does not do that at all; As a form of "to be," it is not a copula in any sense of the word" was too fast for you. Since there is no following word that names or describes the subject, "to be" does not qualify to be a linking verb. quote: (gluadys) The difference between a copula or linking verb and an action verb is indicated by the fact that the predicate noun that follows it is not an object, but another identification of the subject. (In languages which indicate case, it is in the nominative rather than the accusative or dative case.) [theo](NEW) Very Good!!! Accolades all around. Appropo to WHAT??? God is. "is" is the third person present singular form of "to be." There is no further identification of the subject. "Is" is not a copula in this sense and use of the verb. quote: (gluadys) It takes time to move an action from subject to object. [theo](NEW) Actually it doesn't. It only takes time to describe the action as it applies to what takes place. quote: (gluadys) It does not take movement or time to be oneself. [theo](NEW) Sure it does. That is simply bad philosophy having no place in a discussion of scripture. It is an opinion not based in fact. You are expressing the concept that even though we are in time, we can do things (like be one's self) that are outside of time. And THAT is rediculous. First because you cannot demonstrate it, and second because it is not true. Nothing can "be" either itself or anything else without time in which to be. quote: (theo) John follows this same pattern in his Gospel, referencing the beginning of the gospel, unless otherwise identified. (gluadys) Now you are making up interpretive rules to support your theology. In any case, v.3 identifies that this beginning references creation. [theo](NEW) Oh, I forgot. Only the ruling powers of denominationalism are allowed to do that. No, what I was doing was demonstrating from John's writings, the simple fact that John consistently references the beginning as the beginning of the gospel. That is not a "interpretive rule made up by me to support my theology." It is an observation of what is found in John's writings. quote: (theo)(Note: "Made" in this verse is the same form of the same word that is used in Luke 23:12, which states, "And the same day Pilate and Herod were 'made friends' together; for before that they were at enmity between themselves." - Pilate and Herod were not "created" friends - they were changed, from enmety, to friends. That is the reference to the word "made;" something was changed from what it previously was, to a "new" relationship, different in some aspect or other. (gluadys) It is also the same verb used in the Greek translation of Gen. 1:3 to describe the creation of light. By the way it is also from this same verb that we get the name "Genesis" for the 1st book of the Torah. [theo](NEW) How does that change the use of the word in the new testament? If John 1:3 was the first use of the term, you might have a point, but it is closer to the last use made of it. It's meaning within the new testament is determined by how it is used by inspired writers to get a message to the people. And it is NEVER translated create or created in the new testamant. Not only so, its use prohibits that understanding in the light of its use elsewhere. quote: (theo) What does "photons" have to do with time measurement? And why the switch from "time measurement" to "light measurement?" (gluadys) Time measures movement through space. [theo](NEW) Time doesn't measure anything. Men measure time. And God sometimes references a measurement of time. But time does not measure anything. quote: (gluadys continued) Light, however, is key to the beginning of time, for it is from the creation of light in the beginning that time is measured for the existence of the universe as a whole. [theo](NEW) Not at all. God was. "Was" is the 1st and 3rd person singular past tense form of "to be." "BE;" to exist; most certainly does require time in order to accomodate its function. Something cannot "BE" without time in which to be. "BE" is a verb of existence, which is a state which requires time. Being: The fact of existence, existing; Philos. That which has actuality either materially or in idea; Absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, essence. Action: The process or state of..... being active. Active: being in a state of existence. Conclusion; action is accomplished by being in a state of existence. quote: (theo) So now you consider God a ghost, or phantom? No, the second reference is specifically a reference to spiritual being, God, and such like. There is no Thomistic proof, and very little empirical evidence for phantoms and ghosts. So there is no reason to define their essence, as it is unknown. (gluadys) I wasn't implying I believed in ghosts. But if you check the literature in which "essence" is used in this way --as in "an essence made itself known" -- it is usually in reference to a particular spirit, not to God. God is almost never referred to a "an essence" as if there were several such essences. Rather God is referred to as Essence without qualification. [theo](NEW) But you see, I was not referencing "the literature" I was referencing YOUR use of "essence" in post # 29. And please explain why you have dodged the issue continually. It was after all, YOUR choice of terms. Your reference to "the essence of satan" quote: (gluadys)(Post #29) Yes, in that moment, he was expressing the essence of Satan and Jesus called him on it. Your reference to the "essence of God" in which you conclude God "technically" does not exist and is not subject to the limitations of existence. quote: (gluadys)(Post #29) Not necessarily. "being" can refer to existence or essence or to both together. God is usually understood as pure essence and hence technically does not exist. Of course that doesn't mean that God is not. But God's manner of being is not the same manner of being that we ordinarily call existence. Things exist because God calls them into being, and they cease to exist when their time is accomplished. But God does not need to call Godself into being as God always is. And there is no time period attached to God's always present being. God's eternal and absolute Being is what calls and sustains all contingent beings into existence and ushers them out of existence again. God qua God is not subject to the limitations of existence but is rather the Being that is the source of existence, the one in whom all existing things exist. [theo](NEW) Being: The fact of existence, existing; Philos. That which has actuality either materially or in idea; Absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, essence. Exist: To have actual being: be. Existence: The state or fact of existing; being. Action: The process or state of..... being active. Active: being in a state of existence. Conclusion; action is accomplished by being in a state of existence. quote: (theo) I did not say "Essence is being." I said Essence HAS being. (gluadys) And you are wrong. Essence is being. quote: (gluadys)I am not saying I agree with Sartre or anyone else. The point of the citations was to show that the terms Essence and Existence are not identical in meaning. [theo](NEW) Very neatly done Gluadys. So now we have "Essence is being" followed by "essence and being are not identical in meaning." Let me see if I understand your position on this. "Essence is being" "essence and being are not identical in meaning." Did you mean "Essence is being" "essence and being are not identical in meaning." Or did you mean "Essence is being" "essence and being are not identical in meaning." quote: (theo) Even immaterial "essence" requires time in which to "be." (gluadys) Since "being" is not an action or movement, no it does not require time. [theo](NEW) Action: The process or state of..... being active. Active: being in a state of existence. Conclusion; "being" is action accomplished by being in a state of existence. quote: (theo) God "being" is certainly an event, (gluadys) No, eternal being is not an event. Nor is it a succession of events. Being can only be an event in relation to non-Being. God's being can only be an event if at some time God was not and then God came to be. [theo](NEW) Active: Being in a state of existence Activity: Normal mental or physical power, function, or process. Event: Something that happens; occurrence. Happen: Occur; take place; come to pass. Happening: something that happens; event. God occurred by being, which is an event of activity which requires time in which to function. If being "eternal" is not an event, what am I to make of eternal life? Are you saying eternal life is not a life event? quote: (theo)If time were NOT endless, there would be no "eternal life;" no "eternal damnation;" no "eternal" expression of God's love for us. (gluadys) On the contrary, eternal life is timeless life in which there is no past or future but only an ever-present now. [theo](NEW) There is NEVER a "now" in which there is no past or future. Eternal life MEANS age-lasting. Even eternal damnation is based upon a past life of failure. And it certainly does not present a very encouraging future. But if there is no future in eternity, then you must be among those who believe eternal torment does not exist. And if eternal torment does not exist, then eternal salvation must not exist either, for both are described by the same terminology in scripture.

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/29/2008 5:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (theo) "And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jehovah: 3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El Shaddai (God Almighty), but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."[Exo 6:2-3] (gluadys) Notice, that God is not saying that El Shaddai is no longer his name. [theo](NEW) Notice God is not saying El Shaddai is still his name. Nor that it isn't. quote: The truth of the matter is Moses is telling us who was involved, Abraham "called upon the name of Jehovah" does not mean Abraham knew God's name AS Jehovah. Actually that is precisely what it means. To call on or invoke the name of Yahweh, means to use the name "Yahweh". The same phrase with the same meaning is used in Gen. 4:26 When Eve bore her first son, her words were "I have gotten a son with the help of Yahweh" Gen. 4:1 In Gen. 8:20 Noah builds an altar to Yahweh. In Genesis 14:26 Abram swears an oath by "Yahweh, God most high, maker of heaven and earth" and in conversation with God in chapter 15, he twice calls God "Yahweh Elohim" (vv. 2, 8) Yet 2 chapters later (17:1) the name El Shaddai is used. Later Abraham names the place where Isaac was nearly sacrificed "Yahweh Yireh" (The LORD will provide). When Jacob, after his dream sets up a pillar in Bethel his vow ends with the words "then Yahweh shall be my God." quote: Abraham called upon Jehovah by calling the name "El Shaddai." Gen. 15 & 17 show both names were familiar to Abraham. He knew when he was saying "Yahweh" and when he was saying "El Shaddai". quote: [theo](NEW) There is no reason Genesis was not written three times, other than the fact it did not happen. "There is no reason something cannot be done" does not serve as evidence (or even good argument) that it did happen. It is a baseless argument without merit. Actually, many parts of Genesis are written at least twice. That is why we have two accounts of creation, two of the flood, two of God's covenant with Abraham and so on. quote: [theo](NEW)I know what "copula" means. It means you do not know grammar at all. To be a "linking verb," the verb MUST be followed by a word that names or describes the subject," Since there is no following word that names or describes the subject, "to be" does not qualify to be a linking verb. quote: (gluadys) The difference between a copula or linking verb and an action verb is indicated by the fact that the predicate noun that follows it is not an object, but another identification of the subject. (In languages which indicate case, it is in the nominative rather than the accusative or dative case.) [theo](NEW) Very Good!!! Accolades all around. Appropo to WHAT??? God is. "is" is the third person present singular form of "to be." There is no further identification of the subject. "Is" is not a copula in this sense and use of the verb. Sorry, you are still flunking grammar. The full name revealed to Moses is not "I am". It is "I am who I am" "who I am" is a noun clause which functions in the sentence exactly the way a single-word noun does. So "am" (form of the verb 'to be') links the subject "I" to another identification of the subject ("who I am") exactly as expected of a copula. quote: No, what I was doing was demonstrating from John's writings, the simple fact that John consistently references the beginning as the beginning of the gospel. So what? When he means beginning of creation, he indicates that too as in John 1:1-3. Just because most of his uses of "beginning" refer to the beginning of the gospel doesn't mean all must be. Context decides. quote: It is an observation of what is found in John's writings. To say that over 90% of the time that John refers to "beginning" he is speaking of the beginning of the gospel is an observation. To turn that into an interpretive rule by which one interprets John 1:1-3 as also referring to the beginning of the gospel goes beyond observation. quote: [theo](NEW) How does that change the use of the word in the new testament? Does Greek use a different vocabulary and grammar depending on whether one is reading the OT or the NT? In fact, it is well established that the NT writers were familiar with and often quoted the Greek translation of the OT. This would argue for them using the same terms with the same meaning. quote: (theo) What does "photons" have to do with time measurement? And why the switch from "time measurement" to "light measurement?" (gluadys) Time measures movement through space. [theo](NEW) Time doesn't measure anything. Men measure time. And God sometimes references a measurement of time. But time does not measure anything. OK, time is the measure. I agree, time is not the agent which does the measuring. quote: (gluadys continued) Light, however, is key to the beginning of time, for it is from the creation of light in the beginning that time is measured for the existence of the universe as a whole. [theo](NEW) Not at all. God was. God is not the universe. quote: [theo](NEW) But you see, I was not referencing "the literature" I was referencing YOUR use of "essence" in post # 29. And please explain why you have dodged the issue continually. It was after all, YOUR choice of terms. And my use is based on the use of the term in western philosophy. So it would behove you to reference the literature if you wish to follow my usage. quote: "Essence is being" "essence and being are not identical in meaning." misquote. I said "essence" and "existence" are not identical in meaning. "Being" is equivocal in that it can refer to either. quote: Being in a state of existence Event: Something that happens; occurrence. IOW, an event interrupts a state of existence. When was God's being (or non-being) interrupted? quote: If being "eternal" is not an event, what am I to make of eternal life? Are you saying eternal life is not a life event? Eternal life is not an event. It is a state of being alive. quote: [theo](NEW) There is NEVER a "now" in which there is no past or future. Eternity means past and future are experienced as present. All moments of time, perceived linearly within time, are equally present in eternity. In eternity there is no passing of time. Every moment of time is present.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/29/2008 5:54:40 PM)
It seems it is time for me to take a break. I see where I have misquoted you twice, and it is never my best effort when that happens, but is rather a sign I am getting sloppy. So I will respond later. And I do appologize for that.

everstudy -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 12:45:56 PM)
quote: "Be"-ing requires time in which to "be." God is, therefore requires time in which "to be." Well, I think we then have found something higher and loftier than God... TIME. God cannot be higher than what He is dependant on, and since you say He is dependant on time for His existance, I say worship Time. Forget about this not so all powerfull god (little 'g' now that you've relagated him to a dependant). Time is the end all of Gods. Or does Time also depend on something for It's existance? I'd like to worship the Most High God... could you tell me who that would be now? ~ Everstudy ~~ please notice sarcasm...~~

evry1needsgod -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 1:01:34 PM)
quote: Well, I think we then have found something higher and loftier than God... TIME. God cannot be higher than what He is dependant on, and since you say He is dependant on time for His existance, I say worship Time. Forget about this not so all powerfull god (little 'g' now that you've relagated him to a dependant). Time is the end all of Gods. Or does Time also depend on something for It's existance? I'd like to worship the Most High God... could you tell me who that would be now? ~ Everstudy ~~ please notice sarcasm...~~ HAHA!! I like your post everstudy. But there is one simple point that TB will point out that I will point out before he does. [;)] God is "limited", but only by His nature. God can not sin, which means He can not lie. He is fair and just, which means He can not be unjust or unfair. These are thing that one could say God is "limited" by. Also, there are "things" that have existed as long as God has existed. God is holy, righteous, and love (just to name a few), which means love, holiness, and righteousness have always existed. Even anger and hate have always existed, because God hates sin. One could even argue that sin has always existed (this is something I'd be willing to accept because sin is a choice, meaning you are capable of not choosing to sin, and it does not necessarily come into existence the first time it has been manifested - Lucifer). So, I say all that to say this. Unless TB can prove time is an ASPECT of God - part of His Nature/Essence/Being/whatever you want to call it - then God is not limited by it. But if TB can somehow prove time is part of the Nature of God, and ALWAYS was, then I am willing to accept that God is "limited" by time, as much as He is "limited" by His own Nature.

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 1:11:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JimboFletch quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW quote: ORIGINAL: JimboFletch Scripture states, "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is