Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[JudgeRightly]

I can't be an open theist because I literally read 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2 correctly: Before time was started.

You can't be an open theist because of your own error.
Who cares about whether you're an open theist. What matters is whether you actually acknowledge what scripture says, and not presume it says something that it DOES NOT SAY, because of your a priori beliefs, AND not simply use a poor English translation (whether such translation is based on a commitment to Greek theology or not) when the Greek doesn't support the translation.

NEITHER verse says "before time was started" OR "before time began."

And btw, no, I didn't misquote scripture: "He is before" is exactly what it says and as I said, in more than one place. I can't be a hypocrite if I quoted it verbatim at least once.

"He 'is' before all things existed"

IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE.

What IS in scripture is "before Abraham was, I AM" and "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist," the former of which describing His deity, and the latter of which describing His preeminence and His status as a necessary Being. NEITHER of them are discussing God's relationship to time.

"You are before Jim in line," doesn't by necessity imply that you are in existence before Jim is. It just means that your position in line is in front of him; relative to Jim, you are first.

"Pro" can refer to place (figuratively too) as well as time.

You seem to be asserting that it must be time-related, but to me that seems to be question begging, or at best, special pleading, and have not given any good reason for it to specifically refer to time other than an a priori belief.

Er, no. The first is Chronos, the second aeon.

And NEITHER are "began."

Obfuscation.

It's not.

I quoted it verbatim and translated verbatim for you.

Your translation is wrong.

Sorry, this is special pleading. It says literally (word for word) what I translated.

No, it does not.

There is no verb in "pro chronon aionion."

You said "before time began." "Began" is a verb.

Therefore "began" cannot be in "pro chronon aionion," because there is no verb in that phrase.

"Pro chronon aionion"
Prep N-GMP Adj-GMP
"Before times unending" ("eternal" works too)

THAT is the literal translation.

I'd simply tell him the same thing: Wrong.

And you would be wrong.

You cannot appeal to authority on this one.

I didn't.

Two scriptures. S-C-R-I-P-T-U-R-E-S say 'pro (before) Chronos (time) aeonios (even started):

"Aionios" means "eternal." It's a plural adjective, modifying "times" ("chronos"), a plural noun.

"Even started" does not exist in the verse. Period. You CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST THIS. IT'S NOT THERE.

Literally. 2 Timothy 1:9

That's literally not what the verses say. I'm looking at the greek. There is no "began" in EITHER of the two passages.

His article is found wanting 1) because clearly scripture does says so

It doesn't say what you want it to say.

and 2) because he cannot obfuscate, blame Greeks, or Augustine, or anybody else for what is C-L-E-A-R-L-Y seen in scripture.

Which you apparently are blind to, because there IS NO "BEGAN," "STARTED," or ANY OTHER VERB in the prepositional phrase "pro chronos aionion."

Simply deal with scriptures that DO show He is beyond our understanding of time:

The two above in 2 Timothy and Titus are quite clear and understandable in what they say and mean.

It matters if scripture says 'before time began' and it does.

No, it doesn't.

That is ALL that matters. All this article does is tries to distance FROM scripture.

So, Bob points out that the two scriptures that people such as yourself use to claim God is outside of time don't actually say "before time began" and shows that there is no word "began," or any verb, for that matter, in the relevant part, and you claim he's trying to distance from scripture?

GET. REAL.

It is just this clear: "Before Time Began...." No more. No less.

Except it doesn't say that. PERIOD.

 

[Lon]

You can't be an open theist because of your own error. NEITHER verse says "before time was started" or "before time began."

In point of fact both do: "Pro" (before) "Chronos" (time and you know it!) "aeonios" (began, ensued, started, perpetuated). Both are JUST this clear. Try to prove it wrong. No Open Theist to date is capable: It says literally what it says and nice try!

"He 'is' before all things existed"

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE.

Existed is not needed. Stop parsing for NO OTHER REASON than to support a premise some other theologian spoon fed. Just follow scriptures where they lead. He is before (not was) and (listen): in Him, all things 'exist.' So before AND held together. You know how to read a sentence, JR. You are my brother and we are molded closely in Christ. This is our one thing between us. We just need to listen and not posture. I do, in fact, trust you enough with scriptures. They HAVE to say what you are saying, that is the high bar.

What IS in scripture is "before Abraham was, I AM" and "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist," the former of which describing His deity, and the latter of which describing His preeminence and His status as a necessary Being. NEITHER of them are discussing God's relationship to time.

Context is everything. Let's not settle on what someone else told us to believe, but what the text actually supports.

"You are before Jim in line," doesn't by necessity imply that you are in existence before Jim is.

Unless "I am before Jim was/existed/consisted" which is what Colossians 1:17 says.

It just means that your position in line is in front of him; relative to Jim, you are first.

You are better than this. Just read it with me. I actually trust you on that point.

"Pro" can refer to place (figuratively too) as well as time.

'Before... consisted' is the sentence.

You seem to be asserting that it must be time-related, but to me that seems to be question begging, or at best, special pleading, and have not given any good reason for it to specifically refer to time other than an a priori belief.

Its a good place to be between us and appreciate you saying so for both of us. It forces us to look and relook at the text together and honestly, I'd ask for no better person. You are capable here and better than many.

And NEITHER are "began."

Aeonois: It means 'ensue, begin, start, perpetuate' 2 Timothy 1:9 says chronos aeonios and Titus 1:2 has them reversed.

It's not.
Your translation is wrong.

"before time began" is the adverbial phrase modifying annointed with Grace or grace given depending on translation.

No, it does not.

There is no verb in "pro chronon aionion."

Adverb and aionios is an adjective describing time, with pros as literally 'before it began.' There is no way around it. You either see it as a verb, as many translate it, or as a descriptor of the whole: "at a point before time began."

You said "before time began." "Began" is a verb.

In this case it is a modifier. "Judge Rightly running" isn't a verb, it is acting as an adjective. Began is also, in the same manner, a descriptor of Time.

Therefore "began" cannot be in "pro chronon aionion," because there is no verb in that phrase.

"Running Bear, loved little White Dove." "Running," a verb, acts as an adjective describing Bear. "Before time began" is the adverbial phrase modifying when Jesus

"Pro chronon aionion"
Prep N-GMP Adj-GMP
"Before times unending" ("eternal" works too)

Like it. It says exactly what I am arguing: Before time(s).

THAT is the literal translation.

As I said, 'Like it.' "Before" time began or before time eternal both work for me. Neither is wrong btw, it is how you translate an adverbial phrase.

And you would be wrong.

Nope. You are just arguing translation at that point. Most translators put it the way I do. I'm fine with the way you've done it as well. It does literally mean what we both agree on: That there was an existence prior to time.

I didn't.

I meant the Enyart article, it doesn't address our concern here.

"Aionios" means "eternal." It's a plural adjective, modifying "times" ("chronos"), a plural noun.

As I said, I like your translation just fine. We differ because causing it to be a verb is within the description of 'time' as it relates to 'before.'

"Even started" does not exist in the verse. Period. You CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST THIS. IT'S NOT THERE.

I can in this sense: Anything 'before time' is related to it not being there before. If you don't like "even started" choose an honoring translation descriptor. Such is within the meaning of the passage.

That's literally not what the verses say. I'm looking at the greek. There is no "began" in EITHER of the two passages.

"Perpetuated" means began. You know it is the Strong's definition. Aionios.

It doesn't say what you want it to say.

Realize I've read translations before I learned Greek. While I have no problem with aeon translated as a verb, when it is a modifier of time in an adverbial phrase, I can agree with you (and do) that it is an adjective that carries an adverbial intent concerning time. "Everlasting" is a durative word thus acts as a an adjective, but within an adverbial phrase, modifies the verb in this case.

Which you apparently are blind to, because there IS NO "BEGAN," "STARTED," or ANY OTHER VERB in the prepositional phrase "pro chronos aionion."

Not at all: 'before" is from "pro" and means "before" in conjunction with time. Literally 'before time.'

The two above in 2 Timothy and Titus are quite clear and understandable in what they say and mean.

Yep. Agree "Before time."

No, it doesn't.

Let's let you have it your way for a moment: "Before time" is good enough.

So, Bob points out that the two scriptures that people such as yourself use to claim God is outside of time don't actually say "before time began" and shows that there is no word "began," or any verb, for that matter, in the relevant part, and you claim he's trying to distance from scripture?

Again, 'began' can be a point later: Just 'before time" then.

GET. REAL.

It gets very far from it. I'll leave it to another to make their own decision. I've read it and believe it gets very far off the beaten path.

Except it doesn't say that. PERIOD.

While I have given it to you for sake of argument, that "Before Time" is clear enough, I will still remind you and thread that 'began, perpetuated, started' is well within the parameters as a descriptor of time. It doesn't matter too much because the verse already says before time anyway. Neither you nor Enyart's paper addressed that other than to argue 'pro' doesn't always have to mean 'before' but in context in these two verses, it is evident it does. The KJV in both instances says 'began' for instance.

 

[Stripe]

1) His IQ is higher than ... mine.

So what?

2) NOBODY to date has 'been able' to disprove him.

So what?

Nobody.

Wait. Disprove him on what issue?

Nice answer to 'so what?' no?

If you had provided a rational reason for me to stop believing what I believe, I might have responded with something other than "so what."

When you appeal to popularity or authority, I'm perfectly justified in simply ignoring you.

You choose to be Open true enough but is it assailable with facts?

I don't know. Start sharing something of value rather than appealing to names.

The "so what" here is that theology you chose (not necessarily true) is shaping your truth and 'openness' to it. In that sense I'm an 'open' theist. If I have to change I will, but everything on the planet is against the small smattering of Open Theists at this present time, on this particular.

Actually, I'm not necessarily carrying any theological agenda into this. It's simple math, if you want to assess Einstein's IQ compared with mine.

Good, let's take 'minutes:' They are physically measured. Interesting, yeah?

Not really.

They are measured. Measuring is an aspect of physics. What is important is the process and parameters that are in place to perform a measurement on the speed of light. Einstein realized that measuring the one-way speed of light was not possible, so he simply assumed the "constancy" of lightspeed. He developed a mathematical model based on that assumption. We have a model built on the assumption that lightspeed is not the same regardless of frame of reference. The competing models can be tested against each other for accuracy.

Einstein's model produces useful answers, so there might not be any pressing need to stop using it and look for a new one, although such stagnation might hinder new, greater concepts.

Einstein and I are 'absurd.'

Not exactly. The idea is absurd. If you want to tie yourself to it, then, yeah, I guess you are.

However, if you're open to throwing out an idea based on logic and reason — you know ... science — then I do not mind what ideas you have.

Got it? Prove it.

Prove what? Einstein made an assumption. That's not controversial. I make a different assumption.

Until then I'll simply think he was brilliant (along with physicists everywhere).

:yawn:

I've literally posted a scripture that said 'time started.'

What scripture?

 

[Lon]

If you had provided a rational reason for me to stop believing what I believe, I might have responded with something other than "so what."

Haven't seen any Open Theist deal at all with Einstein to date, so it surprises me 'so what' and 'yawn' are viable responses to anybody who isn't indoctrinated.

When you appeal to popularity or authority, I'm perfectly justified in simply ignoring you.

You jumped in. I didn't/don't mind. When you actually engage, I enjoy your points (this sometimes too, I think your a good guy, it doesn't offend me, it just provides a break from substance discussion).

I don't know. Start sharing something of value rather than appealing to names.

Maybe read some of Judge and my back and forth. He and I do more on the biblical points, but I'd like to hear your input on Einstein. If you set two identical clocks at the same time, drive around for 6 months, the clock on the car will be different from the one at home. The clock at home will be ahead of the one you drove around with.

Actually, I'm not necessarily carrying any theological agenda into this. It's simple math, if you want to assess Einstein's IQ compared with mine.

To be fair, "So what?" isn't easier to answer. Somehow it places me needing to try to make you care and answer with something appealing or engaging. I often ask "what does that have to do with the price of tea in Siberia?" but it doesn't really give the other guy much for response either, so I appreciate so what questions, just have a hard time answering meaningfully. For you, I deem you intelligent enough and so thought maybe IQ would get us at least appreciating Einstein enough between us to discuss him.

Not really.

No, really: What other way do you know of to observe minutes? I don't know of anything but physical instruments.

They are measured.

You lost me, it looks like you just said not really, but agreed with me. How would you 'measuring' something without doing so in some physical manner?

Measuring is an aspect of physics. What is important is the process and parameters that are in place to perform a measurement on the speed of light. Einstein realized that measuring the one-way speed of light was not possible, so he simply assumed the "constancy" of lightspeed. He developed a mathematical model based on that assumption. We have a model built on the assumption that lightspeed is not the same regardless of frame of reference. The competing models can be tested against each other for accuracy.

Einstein's model produces useful answers, so there might not be any pressing need to stop using it and look for a new one, although such stagnation might hinder new, greater concepts.

I'm not sure something that works is stagnation: We still use an American system for measuring when the decimal system would help with import/export, but I'd not say we are stagnant because of it, but rather its sufficient for most needs, but I'd assume you mean something similar here: Einstein's theories serve very well.

Not exactly. The idea is absurd. If you want to tie yourself to it, then, yeah, I guess you are.

Because you don't believe your clock, that you put in your car, will show slower than the one at home? Because Satellites don't have to adjust, exactly as special relativity math says they need to to project correct time? I'd have to have you mark me as absurd then, because as I understand, Einstein's theories are used precisely to correct time for people using them for gps coordinates. I'm not sure our definition of 'absurd' is the same at that point.

However, if you're open to throwing out an idea based on logic and reason — you know ... science — then I do not mind what ideas you have.

Prove what? Einstein made an assumption. That's not controversial. I make a different assumption.

I believe you'd have to have something incredibly substantial. There are physicists that would like time to be constant but there is no challenge to date. It'd be weird to call such 'absurd' when science uses his theory reliably.

:yawn:

Are you yawning because you are zoning out, or your IQ is higher than his and mine? Most of my classroom kids yawning did so because they weren't absorbing the material. GPS really does use what you call 'absurd' to make satellites give you, in your car, accurate time, because their clocks read differently. It happens and Einstein's theories show consistently and accurately correct.

What scripture?

2 Timothy 1:9 Titus 1:2 "before time perpetuated/perpetually"

 

[Stripe]

Haven't seen any Open Theist deal at all with Einstein to date, so it surprises me 'so what' and 'yawn' are viable responses to anybody who isn't indoctrinated.

:yawn:

If you set two identical clocks at the same time, drive around for 6 months, the clock on the car will be different from the one at home.

That's because clocks are affected by gravity.

Einstein's theories serve very well.

And yet they can be improved upon.

You can ride a horse to work every day. You'll get there. But if you refuse to acknowledge that there might be something better than a horse, you'll never invent the train.

Because you don't believe your clock, that you put in your car, will show slower than the one at home?

You're talking observation. You're not justified in asserting that your explanation is the only game in town because you can point to an observation.

Because Satellites don't have to adjust, exactly as special relativity math says they need to to project correct time?

The adjustment is not exact when using Einstein's formulas. What he provided is a tool that can get the answer to within tolerable levels.

You've fallen for a fallacy that says because a calculation is useful, its name must be a description of reality.

I'd have to have you mark me as absurd then, because as I understand, Einstein's theories are used precisely to correct time for people using them for gps coordinates. I'm not sure our definition of 'absurd' is the same at that point.

I didn't call you absurd. And I wouldn't call you absurd for using a useful mathematical tool. I would call you absurd if you used a calculation and because it gave a useful answer, you insisted that the name someone placed on the formula must be a description of reality.

Warping "timespace" is an absurd notion. That you can manipulate numbers in a fashion that has been given the name "relativity" is no reason to believe that the name applies to reality.

It'd be weird to call such 'absurd' when science uses his theory reliably.

It's because people don't think clearly. If you have a hammer with the letters T.H.O.R. on the side and you can use the hammer to bang in nails perfectly well, you are not justified in claiming that a thunder god exists.

Are you yawning because you are zoning out, or your IQ is higher than his and mine?

I zone out every time you mention a name as if that should be reason enough for people to believe as you believe.

GPS really does use what you call 'absurd.'

No. GPS does not warp timespace.

It happens and Einstein's theories show consistently and accurately correct.

And if Einstein's ideas had been called by some other ridiculous name, you'd now be insisting we all bow to that notion.

2 Timothy 1:9 Titus 1:2

Those are talking about the creation of the world.

 

[Lon]

:yawn:

That's my line. It is simply a construct and there aren't that many open theists. It isn't even important to the rest of us.

That's because clocks are affected by gravity.

Nope. Quite wrong. A car and a house: same gravity.

And yet they can be improved upon.

Not to date, no.

You can ride a horse to work every day. You'll get there. But if you refuse to acknowledge that there might be something better than a horse, you'll never invent the train.

You don't like horses? While you are correct, Einstein's ideas were theory, the mathematics always add up: It is why gps can give you accurate time (a measurement). We still have and use horses. They are reliable, we just use other things, we didn't eliminate horses or saddles.

You're talking observation. You're not justified in asserting that your explanation is the only game in town because you can point to an observation.

It isn't gravity. You used the word 'absurd' and at face value, this is the first thought for most of us. It is interesting that this is titles 'summit clock' where "GPS satellites" would steer someone to actually look up those experiments. It certainly is not gravity, not even possible in a few of the tests. As far as the field of physics, it is wholly developed off of Einstein's theories and formulas.

The adjustment is not exact when using Einstein's formulas. What he provided is a tool that can get the answer to within tolerable levels.

Read the above link. Most of them are spot-on.

You've fallen for a fallacy that says because a calculation is useful, its name must be a description of reality.

No, not fallen for, just know proper places. My tape measure works very well and is a reality in all construction. Rather I argue that it is 'relative' to the need (just like time, Einstein was correct).

I didn't call you absurd. And I wouldn't call you absurd for using a useful mathematical tool. I would call you absurd if you used a calculation and because it gave a useful answer, you insisted that the name someone placed on the formula must be a description of reality.

I appreciate that and thank you for the clarification. I've always enjoyed you, even your banter so I took it in good humor because it is actually something I enjoy about you, even if it is pointed at me. I'd like to think when we disagree, it isn't separating.

Warping "timespace" is an absurd notion. That you can manipulate numbers in a fashion that has been given the name "relativity" is no reason to believe that the name applies to reality.

I believe it does for several reasons: 1) Because I got the idea from God: Revelation isn't just a non-happening, God made it so that John could/did interact with beings with a future EXACTLY as it will happen. For John, it already happened, he went through it. It necessary must inform my theology and then incidentally, my physics. 2) When I first encountered Einstein's theories, E=MC2 was solid, but I didn't realize how it interacted with Special Relativity. I too, didn't think it sounded real, but having read many experiments and articles, and then thinking of God knowing implicitly the future (and I believe Revelation cannot equate anyway else - strongly for several reasons) it made sense that time is a property of this physical universe. God 'divided' night and day, land and sea. Time also is a segmented division of eternity, both past and future.

It's because people don't think clearly. If you have a hammer with the letters T.H.O.R. on the side and you can use the hammer to bang in nails perfectly well, you are not justified in claiming that a thunder god exists.

I don't think the analogy works. Moreover Romans 1 uses exactly that: property that unequivocally declares God exists "so that all men are without excuse" and 'knowing God exists, they suppress Him with a lie."

No. GPS does not warp timespace.

It does in the sense that it tells one what time they have both to me and people in Australia, while hovering over the North Pole. We have already separated time 'relatively' to the sun across the planet. If I die today, they will not hear about it in Australia until tomorrow, or they'd have heard about it yesterday before I died. I realize that isn't true, the moment is the moment, BUT we do use time measurement exactly like we use tape measure: to what works for us, rather than a standard that is always consistent. It is rather a construct, observation, tool for us to do something to communicate effectively. In that sense, Einstein gave us a pretty good tool. I also agree with you, but specifically because time is relative, that something better than Einstein's theory could come along.

And if Einstein's ideas had been called by some other ridiculous name, you'd now be insisting we all bow to that notion.

We don't have to bow, we have to look at things adding up. His theories uphold biblical ideas: that God supersedes time, that it must be relative (as relative as any finite thing God has created).

Those are talking about the creation of the world.

"Cosmos" is the word for 'world.' These two verses use 'chronos aeon.'

 

[Stripe]

Nope. Quite wrong.

But you won't explain.

A car and a house: same gravity.

I don't know what that means. Houses are affected by gravity. Clocks are affected by gravity.

Not to date, no.

To date, yes.

The mathematics always add up.

Wrong. The math can always give a useful answer.

That is why GPS can give accurate time, even though proponents of weird notions such as warping timespace use it.

We didn't eliminate horses or saddles.

We haven't eliminated relativity, either. The existence of both is never evidence that they are the best tools for a given situation.

You're using a fallacy that doesn't have a name that I know of. What you're doing is holing up a hammer and declaring that your Taylor series is an accurate description of reality because the tool can bang in nails. Your argument is so nutty that it defies description.

It isn't gravity.

What isn't gravity?

My tape measure works very well and is a reality in all construction. Rather I argue that it is 'relative' to the need (just like time, Einstein was correct).

This makes no sense within the context of Einstein's work. It looks like you have no idea what is going on.

I'd like to think when we disagree, it isn't separating.

The problem is never disagreement.

The problem here is that you aren't representing my ideas at all. I would prefer to be ignored.

I got the idea from God: Revelation isn't just a non-happening, God made it so that John could/did interact with beings with a future EXACTLY as it will happen. For John, it already happened, he went through it. It necessary must inform my theology and then incidentally, my physics.

That's called narrative. It might be comforting, but it's not evidence.

I don't think the analogy works.

I think it does. It's quite likely you have not fully comprehended the criticism being leveled at you

It does.

No, it doesn't.

in the sense that it tells one what time they have both to me and people in Australia, while hovering over the North Pole. We have already separated time 'relatively' to the sun across the planet. If I die today, they will not hear about it in Australia until tomorrow, or they'd have heard about it yesterday before I died. I realize that isn't true, the moment is the moment, BUT we do use time measurement exactly like we use tape measure: to what works for us, rather than a standard that is always consistent. It is rather a construct, observation, tool for us to do something to communicate effectively. In that sense, Einstein gave us a pretty good tool. I also agree with you, but specifically because time is relative, that something better than Einstein's theory could come along.

This all has nothing to do with relativity.

We don't have to bow, we have to look at things adding up.

Same thing.

"Cosmos" is the word for 'world.' These two verses use 'chronos aeon.'

Which are used elsewhere in verses talking about the creation week.

 

[Lon]

But you won't explain.

I've linked to a couple. Gps satellites rely completely on Einistein's mathematics and Relativity to navigate space with one another and to project time correctly to each individual on the planet. It isn't just the time zones, but the seconds of difference as their clocks, all of them aren't affected by gravity. They and all full-fledged atomic clocks have electromagnetic oscillators that cancel gravitational affects according to the amount of gravitation pull, by necessity, against the gravitational assertion of this thread. It all works, at present upon Einstein's mathematics of Relativity.

I don't know what that means. Houses are affected by gravity. Clocks are affected by gravity.

Importantly: the same gravity. If gravity was culprit, then there should be no change in clocks as you drive around, but there is a change. Your clock on the car will seem to run slower, like you have more time while driving.

To date, yes.

If one takes a more prosaic view, and simply says "Newton was pretty much right other than adjusting for different times speeds and measured lengths," then one can develop a parallel model for motion under the influence of gravity, that works every bit as well at matching observations including gravitational lensing, the Shapiro time delay, planetary precession, satellite precession, relativistic rocket travel, photon sphere, gravitational waves, and the dynamics of falling into a non-ro[t]ating black holes. -Physics exchange It means that for Newton's laws to work, they MUST be 'relatively' adjusted. It is still applying dynamic factors to what Newton thought wasn't.

Wrong. The math can always give a useful answer.

That is why GPS can give accurate time, even though proponents of weird notions such as warping timespace use it.

Er, so "it always adds up" correctly. How didn't you just say 'no' and then substantiate what I said?

We haven't eliminated relativity, either. The existence of both is never evidence that they are the best tools for a given situation.

Correct.

You're using a fallacy that doesn't have a name that I know of. What you're doing is holing up a hammer and declaring that your Taylor series is an accurate description of reality because the tool can bang in nails. Your argument is so nutty that it defies description.

It is more like this, me: "This hammer works in every nail situation." You: "This pneumatic nailer does the same thing (perhaps, just an example)." Me: can it pull nails? When we are talking Special Relativity, as you said above, Newton's laws must have ideas of relativity added for them to work, perhaps like putting a claw on a pneumatic nailer (wouldn't work well and a pry bar separate from the nailer would work much better). It may not quite illustrate our difference, but I think it does: it is a preference, but Einstein didn't eject Newton's laws either. Your book above by Steven Bryant doesn't eliminate Einstein, he rather reworks his mathematics. It isn't novel, Einstein's math is fairly exacting, but it is like a truncated form of pi: it is 'good enough' at a certain point. Newton's laws must be adjusted to work as well as Einstein's by taking into account and reformulating things that aren't constant (see the physics exchange link above). It'd seem that we would be talking about a preference and I'd understand your fallacy analogy, but realize with me, that we are talking about a needed adjustment (like the nail puller). The reason Newton's laws can work, is by 'adjustment' today.

What isn't gravity?

This thread: Gravity is adjusted for in full-fledged atomic clocks.

This makes no sense within the context of Einstein's work. It looks like you have no idea what is going on.

Realize, I see time measurement as inextricably tied to the physical universe (as did Einstein). I'd say your Newtonian thought process here, is the culprit for not grasping the correlation.

The problem is never disagreement.

The problem here is that you aren't representing my ideas at all. I would prefer to be ignored.

That's okay too. I've been responding to you on these posts.

That's called narrative. It might be comforting, but it's not evidence.

Talking to a person, in a future, IS evidence. Sorry, we greatly disagree on this one.

I think it does. It's quite likely you have not fully comprehended the criticism being leveled at you

Oh, sure I have. Sorry to disappoint. I really don't care about the criticism, it isn't true. It is a false Thor-ian analogy that was actually pointed to Einstein. I just don't believe your analogy worked and had erroneous tenor.

No, it doesn't.

Let's be specific then, gps uses Einstein's math of General Relativity, to accurately project time to any receiver with their location and time.

This all has nothing to do with relativity.

Look up the definition of relativity. Time adjustments are made 'relative' to where a person is on earth from a difference in space (spacetime for both).

While I'm on it:
Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,
Rev 1:2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

The verbs are difficult: A future 'made known' (past tense) and he 'saw' (past tense).

Rev 4:1 After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”

Rev 5:4 and I began to weep loudly because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it.
Rev 5:5 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

He isn't just seeing, he is interacting and an elder with him, while he is weeping, in the future.

Which are used elsewhere in verses talking about the creation week.

Doesn't address the language of these two. "Before time."

 

[Stripe]

Gps satellites rely completely on Einistein's mathematics and Relativity to navigate space with one another and to project time correctly to each individual on the planet.

The assertion was that clocks are affected by gravity.

You're allowed to disagree with this, but you aren't providing any reasons for me to change my mind by asserting the pre-eminence of your idea.

It all works, at present upon Einstein's mathematics of Relativity.

Wrong. It all works because that mathematical model gives workable results. Getting useful results from a mathematical model does not justify taking the name of the model and insisting that it is a description of reality.

Importantly: the same gravity.

Actually, not the same gravity. Clocks exposed to different gravitational environments will respond differently, as will houses and everything else.

Gravity affects clocks.

If gravity was culprit...

You think that gravity doesn't affect clocks?

Your clock on the car will seem to run slower, like you have more time while driving.

Not necessarily. If your house is on the mountaintop and you drive from there to sea level, the clock will run faster.

Why?

Gravity.

Er, so "it always adds up" correctly. How didn't you just say 'no' and then substantiate what I said?

Because Einstein's equations are based on a Taylor series. The calculations can be done to varying degrees of accuracy, depending on what you need. However, they never add up perfectly. All you can ever get is an approximation, even if that approximation is good to far more decimal places than you will ever require.

Your book above by Steven Bryant doesn't eliminate Einstein, he rather reworks his mathematics.

Uh, no. It presents a model that eliminates Einstein's need for an assumption about the nature of lightspeed.

This thread: Gravity is adjusted for in full-fledged atomic clocks.

Gravity's effect on clocks is adjusted for by Einstein's and other models. What we need is some scientific honesty to rationally conclude which model is more effective and not use the names of the models to assert what reality is.

Realize, I see time measurement as inextricably tied to the physical universe (as did Einstein). I'd say your Newtonian thought process here, is the culprit for not grasping the correlation.

I don't know what that means. You keep leveling criticisms at me based on whose ideas you think I adhere to. When you stop doing that, we might be able to get somewhere.

Talking to a person, in a future, IS evidence.

And that's called assuming the truth of your narrative.

GPS uses Einstein's math of General Relativity to accurately project time to any receiver with their location and time.

And I can use my model to "accurately project time to any receiver." Does that mean the name I've given to my model — let's say I named it Spider-Man — is a description of reality?

 

[Lon]

The assertion was that clocks are affected by gravity.

You're allowed to disagree with this, but you aren't providing any reasons for me to change my mind by asserting the pre-eminence of your idea.



Wrong. It all works because that mathematical model gives workable results. Getting useful results from a mathematical model does not justify taking the name of the model and insisting that it is a description of reality.



Actually, not the same gravity. Clocks exposed to different gravitational environments will respond differently, as will houses and everything else.

Gravity affects clocks.



You think that gravity doesn't affect clocks?



Not necessarily. If your house is on the mountaintop and you drive from there to sea level, the clock will run faster.

Why?

Gravity.

Opposite

Because Einstein's equations are based on a Taylor series. The calculations can be done to varying degrees of accuracy, depending on what you need. However, they never add up perfectly. All you can ever get is an approximation, even if that approximation is good to far more decimal places than you will ever require.

As I'd said, it is similar to the equation for pi. Newton's law is part of Special Relativity, you are simply arguing about lightspeed needing to be in the equation. In the same way we account for differences in decimals and American standard, we might argue which is better, but I'd definitely argue that the decimal system, at this point, provides the better model.

Uh, no. It presents a model that eliminates Einstein's need for an assumption about the nature of lightspeed.

I realize this is your position but as I'd stated, Newton's laws must be augmented to even apply to physics and time, but Newton also used his law, from God's perspective of omnipresence, to formulate his theories and thus are proofs that yet don't help Open Theists escape God who is outside of their conception (present everywhere).

Gravity's effect on clocks is adjusted for by Einstein's and other models. What we need is some scientific honesty to rationally conclude which model is more effective and not use the names of the models to assert what reality is.

In this case, simple experimentation in space (GPS, rockets) and on earth are sufficient to indicate what model is more effective and helpful. Scientists rely on both of course, but physicists assume timespace and are able, much like other measure differences, to use commonality (relative to themselves) to make things work. It was a simple decimal to inches mistake that sent one probe spinning off course to the nether regions.

And that's called assuming the truth of your narrative.

More like arguing over the decimal system as the better by analogy.

And I can use my model to "accurately project time to any receiver." Does that mean the name I've given to my model — let's say I named it Spider-Man — is a description of reality?

Sure it is, but it is a 'relative' descriptor. It works. For that alone, I'm interested. I'm ALSO interested in the Open Theism discussion, but my contention is that gravity doesn't, in fact, affect true atomic clocks, lest we get lost in details, and yet, even with gravitational counter-measures, the evidence is that time and space indicate that time is a physical property God created. Because I approach the topic knowing Titus 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:9, that there was something 'before time,' I gravitate naturally to a measuring process that indicates exactly that. In Him -Lon

 

[Stripe]

Opposite

Opposite opposite.

Your link, like you, demands that I accept the ridiculous notion that gravity warps time, because... Einstein.

My link actually presents the fundamentals and explains concepts.

As I'd said, it is similar to the equation for pi.

Except that equations for pi can be correct. Do you know any?

Einstein's equation can't be correct.

Newton's law is part of Special Relativity, you are simply arguing about lightspeed needing to be in the equation. In the same way we account for differences in decimals and American standard, we might argue which is better, but I'd definitely argue that the decimal system, at this point, provides the better model.

I have no idea what any of this means.

Newton's laws must be augmented to even apply to physics and time

No, they don't. We can get e=mc² using them.

, but Newton also used his law, from God's perspective of omnipresence, to formulate his theories and thus are proofs that yet don't help Open Theists escape God who is outside of their conception (present everywhere).

I don't know what you're talking about or why.

Simple experimentation in space (GPS, rockets) and on earth are sufficient to indicate what model is more effective and helpful.

Great.

My model wins

My contention is that gravity doesn't, in fact, affect true atomic clocks.

It's pretty easy to demonstrate. Synchronize two clocks and put one on a mountain for a few weeks. Compare.

If it isn't gravity affecting them, what is it?

Magic?

lest we get lost in details, and yet, even with gravitational counter-measures, the evidence is that time and space indicate that time is a physical property God created.

Sounds like you've got an emotion-based reason for what you believe.

If you think time is a physical entity, what is it made of?

If God creates two rocks, does he have to create the space between them. Does He have to create the time between His actions?

ecause I approach the topic knowing Titus 1:2 and 2 Timothy 1:9, that there was something 'before time,' I gravitate naturally to a measuring process that indicates exactly that. In Him -Lon

Great.

Then use my model. It doesn't disallow your weird demands on God, it gives more accurate results than Einstein and it doesn't demand that we believe ridiculous things such as warping spacetime.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's pretty easy to demonstrate. Synchronize two clocks and put one on a mountain for a few weeks. Compare.

If it isn't gravity affecting them, what is it?

Magic?

Motion. One is moving faster than the other.

But it's not affecting time. It's affecting the clock.

You could even place the two clocks at different altitudes with the amount of gravity being the same (the earth's mass isn't distributed evenly throughout, so some places have higher gravity than others), and you'd still have the clocks end up different, because it's motion that affects them.

 

[Lon]

Motion. One is moving faster than the other.

But it's not affecting time. It's affecting the clock.

You could even place the two clocks at different altitudes with the amount of gravity being the same (the earth's mass isn't distributed evenly throughout, so some places have higher gravity than others), and you'd still have the clocks end up different, because it's motion that affects them.

Not for "full-fledged" atomic clocks: Gravity is cancelled.

 

[Lon]

Opposite opposite.

Your link, like you, demands that I accept the ridiculous notion that gravity warps time, because... Einstein.

My link actually presents the fundamentals and explains concepts.

Appreciate that, but for me, an eternal non-beginning. God, His past, for lack of better verb "is still going eternally." Such needed factoring in physics means at least Einstein took that into account. Newtonian ideas don't.

Except that equations for pi can be correct. Do you know any?

The last big one I remember.

Einstein's equation can't be correct.

I have no idea what any of this means.



No, they don't. We can get e=mc² using them.

See Why Einstein will/can never be wrong

I don't know what you're talking about or why.

Perhaps there is no need anymore: this thread was originally in 'theology' so the implication was always Open Theism. Newton formed his ideas believing God was omnipresent (I believe I provided a link). In the greater discussion: "If one omni, all omnis" by logic and mutuality. I've posted scriptures in the past that God is certainly, scripturally, omnipotent. That alone presents sufficient dilemma to all Open paradigms.

Great.

My model wins

Except the astrophysicist linked above substantiates why it doesn't and Einstein's theory is 1) superior and 2) substantiated for the need and 3) why. Perhaps it is a difference between your fields? Yours doesn't need but Newtonian formulas? His does. In addition, I'd say God's eternal non-beginning demands it/has to do so.

It's pretty easy to demonstrate. Synchronize two clocks and put one on a mountain for a few weeks. Compare.

Judge challenged that to a point, but full-fledged atomic clocks cancel gravitational pull.

If it isn't gravity affecting them, what is it?

Magic?

Relative to where they are located. God's eternal non-beginning 'that is still going backward, forever, as we speak, already challenges linear one directional time constraints.

Sounds like you've got an emotion-based reason for what you believe.

You are straw-grasping I said 'evidence.' Fact.

If you think time is a physical entity, what is it made of?

What is an 'inch' made of? Me: It is a concept of measurement to allow consistency with a physical reproducibility, and clear communication as a mutual standard for meaning.
What is time made of? Me: It is a concept of measurement to allow consistency with a physical reproducibility, and clear communication as a mutual standard for meaning.

Both are irreconcilably connected to physical properties.

If God creates two rocks, does he have to create the space between them.

"Have to" is awkward. Let me reword (if you allow): Does God create time-space between two rocks? Yes.

Does He have to create the time between His actions?

Yes. Measurement doesn't 'create' it segments what is already there. My analogy:
<------------------------------------------->
.__________________________.

The segment in a sense, is already there because the points are a property of what is already infinite. "Adding" the points seems to 'create' but it is just acknowledging what is part of what is already there. The mistake would be to think that 'only the part I see, the segment' is all there is.
In a nutshell, I believe this is the Open mistake.

Great.

Then use my model. It doesn't disallow your weird demands on God, it gives more accurate results than Einstein and it doesn't demand that we believe ridiculous things such as warping spacetime.

In the sense that Newton tied 'time' to the physical universe? Okay, as far as theology goes. The discussion in physics will needfully continue, but if we are on page at this point, it demands Open Theism entertains that time is a concept solely within the confines of the physical universe (Newton agreed). In Him -Lon

 

[JudgeRightly]

In point of fact both do:

No. They don't. Also, You need to read the edit to my post.

"Pro" (before)

No argument.

"Chronos" (time)

No, not "time" (singular). TIMES (plural)! "CHRONON" not "CHRONOS."

"aeonios" (began, ensued, started, perpetuated).

False. Flatly.

"Began, ensued, started, perpetuated" are all verbs.

AIONION is NOT a verb. It has never BEEN a verb. It never WILL BE a verb.

Therefore it CANNOT by definition mean any of those words.

AIONION in this verse is an adjective. It means "eternal, everlasting, age-long, unending, perpetual, for ever, everlasting, partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age."

The King James translators translated the word AIONION as "eternal" 42 times, and "everlasting" 25 times, and "for ever" 1 time. Contrast that to their wrong, by definition, translation of the word as "the world began" 2 times, and "since the world began" 1 time.

Both are JUST this clear.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and it is clearly, flatly, wrong.

Try to prove it wrong.

Done.

No Open Theist to date is capable:

And yet I, an open theist, which has nothing to do with anything here, just did.

It says literally what it says

INDEED IT DOES!

It just doesn't say what YOU WANT IT to say.

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Existed is not needed.

I was quoting you, Lon. YOU'RE the one who said "existed."

He 'is' before all things existed scripture says in more than one place

Thus, "He 'is' before all things existed" IS NOT a phrase found in scripture.

Stop parsing for NO OTHER REASON than to support a premise some other theologian spoon fed.

Says the one who is spouting a premise that was spoon fed to him but cannot be supported by scripture.

Just follow scriptures where they lead.

Take a leaf from your own book. Hypocrite.

He is before (not was)

Preeminence. Not pre-existence to time.

and (listen): in Him, all things 'exist.'

Wrong.

In Him, All things CONSIST. It's a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORD.

Exist is G5607.
Consist is G4921.

We just need to listen and not posture.

Then listen, and stop posturing.

They HAVE to say what you are saying, that is the high bar.

All you have to do to verify what I'm saying is in accordance with scripture is to read and study scripture yourself, and leave your a priori beliefs at the door.

Context is everything.

Which you seem to be ignoring.

Let's not settle on what someone else told us to believe, but what the text actually supports.

Beam from eye, Remove it.

Unless "I am before Jim was/existed/consisted" which is what Colossians 1:17 says.

No. Colossians 1:17 says "consists." It does not say "exists." It IS a different word.

Just read it with me.

And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Colossians 1:17

kai autos estin pro panton kai ta panta en auto sunesteken
[And] [He] [is] [before] [all things] [and] [-] [all things] [in] [Him] [hold together]

'Before... consisted' is the sentence.

'Before all things and all things hold together in Him' is the sentence.

Aeonois: It means 'ensue, begin, start, perpetuate'

No, Lon, it doesn't, no matter how many times you say it.

2 Timothy 1:9 says chronos aeonios

"Pro chronon aionion" just means "before times age-long."

and Titus 1:2 has them reversed.

It seems different versions of the Greek have it as "pro chronon aionion" or "pro aionion chronon".

Same thing, as far as I'm aware.

"before time began" is

... a bad translation. There is no verb "began" in the phrase in EITHER passage.

Adverb and aionios is an adjective describing time,

Yes it is. But it is not a verb.

with pros as literally 'before it began.'

Wrong.

Pros just means "before."

You either see it as a verb, as many translate it, or as a descriptor of the whole: "at a point before time began."

It cannot be a verb. Plain and simple.

It cannot mean "before time began," because there is no "began" or verb in the phrase.

Thus, anyone who says "it means 'at a point before time began' or the phrase is 'before time began'" are wrong, and continuing to hold to the belief that it says such exposes one's commitment to Greek philosophical ideas.

In this case it is a modifier.

"it"? The phrase or the word aionion?

"Judge Rightly running"

Isn't even a sentence. And "running" is a noun, not an adjective, nor is it a verb. Run is a verb, running is a noun or adjective.

isn't a verb, it is acting as an adjective.

Not just "acting" as an adjective, it IS an adjective.

Began is also, in the same manner, a descriptor of Time.

You're comparing apples to fish. Began is a verb. Run is a verb. Running is a noun/adjective. Began (verb) is not in the phrase. Aionion (adjective) is.

And no, began is not a descriptor of time. And again, in case you needed reminding, "times," not "time."

"Running Bear, loved little White Dove." "Running," a verb,

Running is not a verb.

Run is the verb. Running is a noun or an adjective depending on context.

acts as

Wrong. "IS."

"Before time began" is the adverbial phrase modifying when Jesus

Wrong. On multiple counts.

First: Again, "began" does not exist in the phrase.
Second: It's not an adverbial phrase, it's a prepositional phrase. Didn't you take grammar classes in school?
Third: You must have forgotten to finish your thought here...

Like it. It says exactly what I am arguing: Before time(s).

As I said, 'Like it.' "Before" time began or before time eternal both work for me.

Cognitive dissonance isn't healthy, Lon.

Neither is wrong btw,

False. "Before time began" is wrong, for the reasons explained prior.

it is how you translate an adverbial phrase.

Prepositional phrase. Not adverbial.

Nope.

Yep.

You are just arguing translation at that point. Most translators put it the way I do.

I'm always fascinated when people who claim to be educated use logical fallacies to argue their beliefs.

The two you are guilty of here are appeal to authority, and appeal to popularity.

They're fallacies for a reason, Lon.

I'm fine with the way you've done it as well. It does literally mean what we both agree on:

More cognitive dissonance.

That there was an existence prior to time.

There is no such thing as "prior to time."

I meant the Enyart article, it doesn't address our concern here.

Then why did you say "you cannot" when you weren't talking about me, but rather about Bob?

Either way, neither I nor Bob appealed to authority on this.

As I said, I like your translation just fine.

Supra, cognitive dissonance.

We differ because causing it to be a verb is within the description of 'time' as it relates to 'before.'

Saying it doesn't make it so, and is a commitment to Greek philosophy.

You're literally forcing the text to say "before time began," rather than what it actually says, which is "before times eternal."

It seems that you're ignoring the context of the passage:

who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began
2 Timothy 1:9 (NKJV)

The idea Paul is conveying is that before God created the universe, He purposed that by his grace, anyone who would be "in Christ Jesus" would be saved and called with a holy calling.

That means He was doing things that require sequence, of which time is a prerequisite. Thus, "before time began" is excluded not only because there's no verb, there's no "began," in the passage, but because it is a logical impossibility for there to be a "before time began" where God is planning out His creation.

I can in this sense:

No, Lon, you cannot. It's not there. You cannot argue that it is.

Anything 'before time' is related to it not being there before.

Question begging. You're assuming that time had a beginning, where there is no indication in scripture that it did, and scripture indicates that God DID do things PRIOR to the creation of the universe.

If you don't like "even started" choose an honoring translation descriptor.

Why are you asking me to defend YOUR false beliefs? Choose whatever you want. It's NOT. IN. THE. TEXT. PERIOD.

Such is within the meaning of the passage.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and I have SHOWN it NOT to be so.

"Perpetuated" means began.

Neither are present in the text.

You know it is the Strong's definition. Aionios.

It's not what the word means, despite James Strong's commitment to reformed beliefs.

While I have no problem with aeon translated as a verb,

You should, because it's not a verb, nor is it ever used as one, let alone translated as one (except by those who have a commitment to Greek philosophy, such as yourself).

The fact of the matter is that it doesn't say what you want it to say, nor does it say what you claim it says.

when it is a modifier of time in an adverbial phrase, I can agree with you (and do) that it is an adjective that carries an adverbial intent concerning time. "Everlasting" is a durative word thus acts as a an adjective, but within an adverbial phrase, modifies the verb in this case.

There. Is. No. Verb. In. The. Phrase: pro chronon aionion.

There is a preposition, a noun, and an adjective.

Not at all:

Yes, you are, because there IS NO "BEGAN," "STARTED," or ANY OTHER VERB in the prepositional phrase "pro chronos aionion." Please acknowledge that fact.

'before" is from "pro" and means "before"

No argument.

in conjunction with time.

Again, times, not time. as in, ages.

Literally 'before time.'

No. Literally, "before times eternal."

Yep. Agree "Before time."

I don't know what you're agreeing with, but it isn't with what I said. That, or your cognitive dissonance is showing again.

Let's let you have it your way for a moment: "Before time" is good enough.

No, it's not, because the phrase isn't "before time," nor have I argued such.

It says "before times eternal."

HUGE difference.

Again, 'began' can be a point later:

No. It cannot, for the reasons stated above.

Just 'before time" then.

Wrong.

It gets very far from it.

Again: Bob points out that the two scriptures that people such as yourself use to claim God is outside of time don't actually say "before time began" and shows that there is no word "began," or any verb, for that matter, in the relevant part, and you claim he's trying to distance from scripture?

Make the argument, Lon. Don't bear false witness.

I've read it and believe it gets very far off the beaten path.

So make the argument. Because all you're doing here is posturing.

While I have given it to you for sake of argument, that "Before Time" is clear enough,

Except it doesn't say "before time." It doesn't say "before time began."

It says "before times eternal."

Big difference!

I will still remind you and thread that 'began, perpetuated, started' is well within the parameters as a descriptor of time.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

It doesn't matter too much because the verse already says before time anyway.

No, it doesn't, Lon.

It says "before times eternal."

Neither you nor Enyart's paper addressed that other than to argue 'pro' doesn't always have to mean 'before'

Cite, please, as neither I NOR BOB have ever made that argument (as far as I'm aware), and CERTAINLY NOT in the kgov.com/time article.

I just searched (CTRL + F) for both "pro" and "before," and neither search turned up anywhere in the article that Bob made that argument. Please retract your claim, or cite to where he makes that argument, because bearing false witness is a sin, Lon.

Bob doesn't say anything about "before." He's talking about "began" being absent from the verse.

"Before time began" (2 Tim. 1:9 & Titus 1:2) is widely quoted yet in the Greek text of the New Testament there is no verb "began" in the original language. And the singular word "time" does not appear. Instead, Paul wrote, "before the times of the ages," which is very different from the way many of our Bible versions render this phrase, which translations do not flow from the grammar but from the translators' commitment to Greek philosophy.

but in context in these two verses, it is evident it does.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The KJV in both instances says 'began' for instance.

Again, the KJV translators had a commitment to Greek philosophy. The Greek doesn't allow "began," because "began" isn't in the verse. Stop trying to claim that it is.

 

[Stripe]

Motion. One is moving faster than the other.

Acceleration. Because it changes the gravity.

But it's not affecting time. It's affecting the clock.

Yep.

You could even place the two clocks at different altitudes with the amount of gravity being the same (the earth's mass isn't distributed evenly throughout, so some places have higher gravity than others), and you'd still have the clocks end up different, because it's motion that affects them.

It's all gravity. Acceleration just simulates — or actually is — additional gravity.

 

[Stripe]

Not for "full-fledged" atomic clocks: Gravity is cancelled.

By what? Magic?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Acceleration. Because it changes the gravity.


Yep.


It's all gravity. Acceleration just simulates — or actually is — additional gravity.

But gravity isn't motion. You csan have two static objects and they'll still be attracted to each other despite not moving relative to each other, for example, a rock sitting out in a field somewhere and the earth itself are motionless, not accelerating towards each other, yet they still are attracted to each other.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In point of fact both do: "Pro" (before) "Chronos" (time and you know it!) "aeonios" (began, ensued, started, perpetuated). Both are JUST this clear. Try to prove it wrong. No Open Theist to date is capable: It says literally what it says and nice try!

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Existed is not needed. Stop parsing for NO OTHER REASON than to support a premise some other theologian spoon fed. Just follow scriptures where they lead. He is before (not was) and (listen): in Him, all things 'exist.' So before AND held together. You know how to read a sentence, JR. You are my brother and we are molded closely in Christ. This is our one thing between us. We just need to listen and not posture. I do, in fact, trust you enough with scriptures. They HAVE to say what you are saying, that is the high bar.

Context is everything. Let's not settle on what someone else told us to believe, but what the text actually supports.

Unless "I am before Jim was/existed/consisted" which is what Colossians 1:17 says.

You are better than this. Just read it with me. I actually trust you on that point.

'Before... consisted' is the sentence.

Its a good place to be between us and appreciate you saying so for both of us. It forces us to look and relook at the text together and honestly, I'd ask for no better person. You are capable here and better than many.

Aeonois: It means 'ensue, begin, start, perpetuate' 2 Timothy 1:9 says chronos aeonios and Titus 1:2 has them reversed.

"before time began" is the adverbial phrase modifying annointed with Grace or grace given depending on translation.

Adverb and aionios is an adjective describing time, with pros as literally 'before it began.' There is no way around it. You either see it as a verb, as many translate it, or as a descriptor of the whole: "at a point before time began."

In this case it is a modifier. "Judge Rightly running" isn't a verb, it is acting as an adjective. Began is also, in the same manner, a descriptor of Time.

"Running Bear, loved little White Dove." "Running," a verb, acts as an adjective describing Bear. "Before time began" is the adverbial phrase modifying when Jesus

Like it. It says exactly what I am arguing: Before time(s).

As I said, 'Like it.' "Before" time began or before time eternal both work for me. Neither is wrong btw, it is how you translate an adverbial phrase.

Nope. You are just arguing translation at that point. Most translators put it the way I do. I'm fine with the way you've done it as well. It does literally mean what we both agree on: That there was an existence prior to time.

I meant the Enyart article, it doesn't address our concern here.

As I said, I like your translation just fine. We differ because causing it to be a verb is within the description of 'time' as it relates to 'before.'

I can in this sense: Anything 'before time' is related to it not being there before. If you don't like "even started" choose an honoring translation descriptor. Such is within the meaning of the passage.

"Perpetuated" means began. You know it is the Strong's definition. Aionios.

Realize I've read translations before I learned Greek. While I have no problem with aeon translated as a verb, when it is a modifier of time in an adverbial phrase, I can agree with you (and do) that it is an adjective that carries an adverbial intent concerning time. "Everlasting" is a durative word thus acts as a an adjective, but within an adverbial phrase, modifies the verb in this case.

Not at all: 'before" is from "pro" and means "before" in conjunction with time. Literally 'before time.'

Yep. Agree "Before time."

Let's let you have it your way for a moment: "Before time" is good enough.

Again, 'began' can be a point later: Just 'before time" then.

It gets very far from it. I'll leave it to another to make their own decision. I've read it and believe it gets very far off the beaten path.

While I have given it to you for sake of argument, that "Before Time" is clear enough, I will still remind you and thread that 'began, perpetuated, started' is well within the parameters as a descriptor of time. It doesn't matter too much because the verse already says before time anyway. Neither you nor Enyart's paper addressed that other than to argue 'pro' doesn't always have to mean 'before' but in context in these two verses, it is evident it does. The KJV in both instances says 'began' for instance.

False. Flatly.

"Began, ensued, started, perpetuated" are all verbs.

AIONION is NOT a verb. It has never BEEN a verb. It never WILL BE a verb.

Therefore it CANNOT by definition mean any of those words.

AIONION in this verse is an adjective. It means "eternal, everlasting, age-long, unending, perpetual, for ever, everlasting, partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age."

The King James translators translated the word AIONION as "eternal" 42 times, and "everlasting" 25 times, and "for ever" 1 time. Contrast that to their wrong, by definition, translation of the word as "the world began" 2 times, and "since the world began" 1 time.

More on this.

Doing a search for the phrase "the world began" (which includes the phrase "since the world began") returns only three verses in the entire bible, the first two being 2 Timothy 1:9 and Titus 1:2, and the third which we have not discussed yet, which is Romans 16:25, which says "chronois aioniois sesigemenou", which according to the app I use, translates to "[in times] [of the ages] [having been kept secret]."

In other words:

Where the English translates it as "[the mystery kept secret] since the world began," which despite not being a correct translation, means the same thing as what is actually said, the Greek says it in a different way, saying that during the current ages, it's been kept secret until now ("now" being the revelation unto Paul).

It's the "in times of the ages" part in particular that applies to the other two verses here.

The "times of the ages" is the period of time from creation to the present.

Which is why Bob, in his article, said a more accurate translation for "pro chronon aionion" is "before the times of the ages."

It's also, in addition to it contradicting your claim that "both work" (they don't), why I stressed "pro chronon aionion" as meaning "before times eternal." I would like to correct myself, however, or at least point out that the better translation would be "before times unending" rather than "eternal," as eternal has the connotation of extending infinitely in both directions, whereas unending implies that it's still ongoing right now, as the "times of the ages" are.

To summarize:

Because of the fact that there is no verb, "began" in 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, or in Romans 16:25, AND because the latter of those three uses the same words (as far as their roots go), "chronos" and "aionios" to describe a period of time that started with creation and was still ongoing up until Paul, we can use that meaning and interpret the other two verses using the Romans verse in the same way, not as "before time/the world began," nor as "before infinite time," but rather "before the times of the ages."

This is what it means to interpret scripture with scripture, without letting a priori beliefs interfere.

 

[Stripe]

Such needed factoring in physics means at least Einstein took that into account. Newtonian ideas don't.

Einstein made no such consideration, nor was it necessary, needed or indeed scientific. Neither did Newton exclude it.

See Why Einstein will/can never be wrong

You do not know what science is and neither have you appreciated the criticism you face:

Einstein’s gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don’t work.

The predictions of general relativity can always be made close enough. What will force Einstein’s theory out will be a model that does a better job.

So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.

Wrong. All we need to do is show the errors in his maths.

The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein’s theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory.

Done already.

But even if someone succeeds in creating a theory better than Einstein’s (and someone almost certainly will), Einstein’s theory will still be as valid as it ever was. Einstein won’t have been proven wrong, we’ll simply understand the limits of his theory.

This is Einsteinism, pseudoscience, nonsense. Stop worshiping ideas. They are all there to be shown impossible.

Einstein's maths is wrong. He says 1=0. He says E=mc². Both are wrong.

Except the astrophysicist linked above substantiates why it doesn't and Einstein's theory is
1) superior and 2) substantiated for the need and 3) why.

Then you've used the competing model to do all the calculations and shown them to be less precise? Wow, let's see them.

I said 'evidence.' Fact.

You say that, but you are presenting Einstein. That means you are asserting a theory as a fact. Relativity is not a fact. It's just a theory.

What is an 'inch' made of? Me: It is a concept of measurement to allow consistency with a physical reproducibility, and clear communication as a mutual standard for meaning. What is time made of? Me: It is a concept of measurement to allow consistency with a physical reproducibility, and clear communication as a mutual standard for meaning.

So time and space are non-physical concepts. Boy you sure do have a roundabout way of agreeing.

Both are irreconcilably connected to physical properties.

But they are not made of anything physical. Therefore, they are no physical entities.

Does God create time-space between two rocks? Yes.

Why? If He didn't, would the "concept" not exist?

Yes. Measurement doesn't 'create' it segments what is already there.

What was already there?

In the sense that Newton tied 'time' to the physical universe? Okay, as far as theology goes. The discussion in physics will needfully continue, but if we are on page at this point, it demands Open Theism entertains that time is a concept solely within the confines of the physical universe (Newton agreed).

I don't know what you're trying to say.