RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so.

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

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

Message

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 3:34:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace Time keeps on spinning, spinning, spinning into the future... [sm=icon_smile_sing.gif] A simple, "yes, He does," or "no, He doesn't," would be good enough for me. ANYTHING to get a straight answer. It doesn't even matter what it is at this point. [&:] For the sake of peace, I will give you the response you so desparately require. God is timeless as to his existence, having no beginning and no ending. That has no bearing on the fact he has submitted himself to time in his dealings with his creature, man. The sabbath, the Jubilee, both examples in which both God and man entered into binding covenant dealing with time elements. And God is still old according to the scriptures.

WesP -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 3:47:58 PM)
quote: God is timeless as to his existence, having no beginning and no ending. That has no bearing on the fact he has submitted himself to time in his dealings with his creature, man. Thank you so much. Now, can you tell us why you think God had to lower Himself to deal with us?

Jhud -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 3:52:35 PM)
quote: God is timeless as to his existence, having no beginning and no ending. That has no bearing on the fact he has submitted himself to time in his dealings with his creature, man. The sabbath, the Jubilee, both examples in which both God and man entered into binding covenant dealing with time elements. And God is still old according to the scriptures. Oh I agree that from our temporal time frame (which Scripture inhabits) God can be seen as being very 'old', but isn't it the simple fact that if God has, as you have now acknowledged, no beginning, there is no point from which we could actually measure His 'age'?

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: God is timeless as to his existence, having no beginning and no ending. That has no bearing on the fact he has submitted himself to time in his dealings with his creature, man. The sabbath, the Jubilee, both examples in which both God and man entered into binding covenant dealing with time elements. And God is still old according to the scriptures. Oh I agree that from our temporal time frame (which Scripture inhabits) God can be seen as being very 'old', but isn't it the simple fact that if God has, as you have now acknowledged, no beginning, there is no point from which we could actually measure His 'age'? Yes there is such a point. It is that point at which the Holy Spirit inspired Daniel to describe God as "the Ancient of days." And I did not "now aknowledge" as I have never said otherwise. However, you have finally aknowledged God can be seen as being very old. (See how irritating such rhetoric can be?) (Can we quit it for the sake of Christian love?)

Jhud -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:10:43 PM)
quote: Yes there is such a point. It is that point at which the Holy Spirit inspired Daniel to describe God as "the Ancient of days." And I did not "now aknowledge" as I have never said otherwise. However, you have finally aknowledged God can be seen as being very old. (See how irritating such rhetoric can be?) (Can we quit it for the sake of Christian love?) Why, when we are finally getting somewhere? [:)] Yes, from our perspective, God can appear to be very old. From God's perspective, because He has no beginning, and no end, every point in His existence is no closer, or farther from a beginning or ending of His his existence, thus His timelessness. That is why He simply says, "I am", and that is the proper understanding of how He exists.

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:19:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace quote: God is timeless as to his existence, having no beginning and no ending. That has no bearing on the fact he has submitted himself to time in his dealings with his creature, man. Thank you so much. Now, can you tell us why you think God had to lower Himself to deal with us? "had to lower Himself to deal with us?" I don't make any such claim. God does not "lower himself to deal with us" rather he raises us up to deal with him. I do not have to go to heaven. God does not have to bless us. God chooses to bless us. I choose to seek God and his blessings, including the promise of heaven. God chose a covenant relationship first with humankind, (Rainbow promise); with Abraham (seed promise; with Isaac; with Jacob; with David; and many other promises he committed himself to. He did not "have to" do any of it. He chose to. And because he is God, and has made promises, and both covenanted and made oath and confirmed the same, his oath and his promise bind him as firmly as it binds any man. Psa 105:7 He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth. 8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. 9 Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; 10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Acts 2:30 and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Heb 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, 14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. 15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. 16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie (his promise and his oath), we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:26:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Yes there is such a point. It is that point at which the Holy Spirit inspired Daniel to describe God as "the Ancient of days." And I did not "now aknowledge" as I have never said otherwise. However, you have finally aknowledged God can be seen as being very old. (See how irritating such rhetoric can be?) (Can we quit it for the sake of Christian love?) Why, when we are finally getting somewhere? [:)] Yes, from our perspective, God can appear to be very old. From God's perspective, because He has no beginning, and no end, every point in His existence is no closer, or farther from a beginning or ending of His his existence, thus His timelessness. That is why He simply says, "I am", and that is the proper understanding of how He exists. I do hope you are not trying to establish that to say "God is very old" is an "improper" understanding of his existence.

Jhud -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:28:25 PM)
quote: I do hope you are not trying to establish that to say "God is very old" is an "improper" understanding of his existence. Not from a temporal perspective.

WesP -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:30:14 PM)
I am having great difficulties following your reasoning. I apologize if you feel like I am attacking you. You said that God submits Himself to time in dealing with us. When I asked you about God lowering Himself, you said He didn't. He raises us up. I do not understand how submitting Himself is raising us up. Will you explain, please? Thank you.

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:31:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Yes, from our perspective, God can appear to be very old. From God's perspective, because He has no beginning, and no end, every point in His existence is no closer, or farther from a beginning or ending of His his existence, thus His timelessness. That is why He simply says, "I am", and that is the proper understanding of how He exists. That is not the point. There is no argument over "closer to his beginning;" it is a simple matter of trying to understand why he would inspire Daniel to picture him as "ancient of days." You see, I try to understand EVERYTHING God reveals in his word to us. And I try to limit my understanding to what God reveals in his word to us. ALL ELSE IS CONJECTURE AND DOCTRINES OF MEN.

Jhud -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:32:34 PM)
quote: That is not the point. There is no argument over "closer to his beginning;" it is a simple matter of trying to understand why he would inspire Daniel to picture him as "ancient of days." You see, I try to understand EVERYTHING God reveals in his word to us. And I try to limit my understanding to what God reveals in his word to us. ALL ELSE IS CONJECTURE AND DOCTRINES OF MEN. Daniel was temporal as well, last time I checked.

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:32:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I do hope you are not trying to establish that to say "God is very old" is an "improper" understanding of his existence. Not from a temporal perspective. And please tell us what was your perspective in which you declared "God is not old."

Jhud -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:40:39 PM)
quote: And please tell us what was your perspective in which you declared "God is not old." A heavenly one.

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 4:44:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace I am having great difficulties following your reasoning. I apologize if you feel like I am attacking you. You said that God submits Himself to time in dealing with us. When I asked you about God lowering Himself, you said He didn't. He raises us up. I do not understand how submitting Himself is raising us up. Will you explain, please? Thank you. If a great king offers to feed the poor of his realm; and if the poor respond to his offer by eating at the table he privided, he has raised them up to receive his providence. He did not have to do it. And he does not "lower" himself to some imagined level other than who he is. Providing covenant with man is part of who God is. He is "covenanteer" and provider. He is not lowering himself, he is expressing himself in a medium in which we can comprehend and comply with some modicum of choice. Since God has given us choice and free will, he raises us to a higher level than all the creatures he made without choice and free will. And he says to us "Come, let us reason together" as though he expects us to make an effort to actually do so. "Search the scriptures" he tells us. He even invites us to "try the spirits, whether they are of God." Has any other creature been so communicated to by God? How is it you ask how he has raised us up? How is it you perceive him lowering himself to work with man. It is HIS covenant. WE are participants by invitation.

lpt -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 5:11:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book Not me. I'm already accused of heresy for suggesting God is old. Even though Daniel calls him "ancient of days" using a word that MEANS "very old." I do notice though a propensity toward shouting "heresy" when someone does not want to deal with the issue raised prior to the utterance itself. It is simply a mob-reaction that basically says, "since we have lost our argument, we must gather and attack in numbers," with an embarrassment or an unnamed unspecific charge of some kind." The cry of "heresy" without naming the heresy is an empty insult, whose purpose it to get away from the fact issues are ignored, and arguments are not aknowledged. One says "God is not old." I show where Daniel calls God "the ancient of days." no aknowledgment. No "Wow! I never considered that!" No "I didn't know that!" Nothing. Just a cry of "heresy" with no degree of specificity. No, my friend, I cannot reach the board with any degree of fair practice, so I depart. I called some of your comments heresy, and I explained specifically why they were heretical. God the Father has a Son. You seem to be saying that God the Father has no Son. That is heresy. Is it not?

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 5:36:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lpt I called some of your comments heresy, and I explained specifically why they were heretical. God the Father has a Son. You seem to be saying that God the Father has no Son. That is heresy. Is it not? I try to respond to the entire doctrine of "God" that I think people are making. When you speak of "God" being eternal, (Not you specifically, you generically)(You as in "God believers," and yes, I believe in God) you speak of God being three persons; ONE God. So when you reference God I respond to the "oneness" not the deity. When I say God being alone, my reference is to the fact there is no other entity than God with whom God has to do. And That is narciccicism at its worst. It is total self-love. It has no outlet for the real God, who is merciful, compassionate, forgiving, long suffering, understanding, all the many aspects of God in his dealings with man have no respondent without God creating one with whom to respond. To think otherwise, you would have to explain why, if God has no positive need of man, he would bind himself to a lesser being; put the son of God through shame and disgrace, only to end up where he started; and cause so much pain and suffering in that part of his creature man, that is not submissive and cooperative. If anyone on the board can answer these questions, I for one would like to hear what you have to say, other than "Heresy." It is an honest question. Who do you perceive is the "head" of the church? Is it not the son of God? Even scripture tells us of God "Can the head say to the feet "I have no need of thee?" 1 Corinthians 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the HEAD TO THE FEET, I have no need of you.

Jhud -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 5:42:00 PM)
quote: To think otherwise, you would have to explain why, if God has no positive need of man, he would bind himself to a lesser being; put the son of God through shame and disgrace, only to end up where he started; and cause so much pain and suffering in that part of his creature man, that is not submissive and cooperative. If anyone on the board can answer these questions, I for one would like to hear what you have to say, other than "Heresy." It is an honest question. Love?

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 5:47:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: To think otherwise, you would have to explain why, if God has no positive need of man, he would bind himself to a lesser being; put the son of God through shame and disgrace, only to end up where he started; and cause so much pain and suffering in that part of his creature man, that is not submissive and cooperative. If anyone on the board can answer these questions, I for one would like to hear what you have to say, other than "Heresy." It is an honest question. Love? But it has already been presented that God in his "aloness" already had perfectness (himself) to love and respond thereunto. Why would he create a worm to love when he had God to love?

1love1God1way -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 5:48:10 PM)
If by "old" ya'll mean "infinite" I'll agree with you. Otherwise, I find this quite futile.

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 5:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1love1God1way If by "old" ya'll mean "infinite" I'll agree with you. Otherwise, I find this quite futile. "Infinite" describes Egypts strength, and Job's sins. "old" is described by "ancient of days."

Jhud -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 6:06:34 PM)
quote: But it has already been presented that God in his "aloness" already had perfectness (himself) to love and respond thereunto. Why would he create a worm to love when he had God to love? Well, as others have mentioned, God exists as three persons and His creation, man chief among all created things, is an invited guest into this relationship, much as a happy couple welcomes a child into their marriage, not motivated by 'aloneness' but a desire to share from their abundance.

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 6:32:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: But it has already been presented that God in his "aloness" already had perfectness (himself) to love and respond thereunto. Why would he create a worm to love when he had God to love? Well, as others have mentioned, God exists as three persons and His creation, man chief among all created things, is an invited guest into this relationship, much as a happy couple welcomes a child into their marriage, not motivated by 'aloneness' but a desire to share from their abundance. Oh come on! Now you pretend to know what motivates people to get married? To beget children? What motivates God to make creatures? I don't mind suggestions as to what "might" motivate God, but to suggest you know what does AND WHAT DOESNOT stretches it a bit. And while it is true we are "invited guests," it is not as spectators, but as participants.

EverLearning -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 6:55:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: My point is that matter existed (erets) prior to light and according to you time didn't exist till light so we have no idea how old matter is so now YEC has a problem in that dating of materials and the universe could infact be correct since the matter was around for ? long. Well, your point is wrong since there was no time before God spoke light into existence so "prior to light" is a meaningless term. (OET gymnastics, gotta love them.) quote: That's it just push it to the side since it causes problems. Oh, right EverLearning, let's just ignore, deny, misinterpret, or reject the other 30 verses of Genesis 1 to support someone's pet theory of zillions of years of evolution! (OET gymnastics, gotta love them.) Does anyone else have a reasoned explanation for Genesis 1:2 that helps us better understand it in relation to the first creative act in 1:3? What gymnastics? The Bible itself states that matter existed before light and therefore there is a prior to light. You stated that time began with light but there was matter before light so i am not the one doing the flips. You are the one that has claimed in the past that Genesis is to be understood in a plain reading sense so how is it possible that 1:2 seems to defy that? You can't have it both ways, you can't demand a plain reading interpretation then turn around and say "just not that verse".

theo_book -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 7:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EverLearning quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: My point is that matter existed (erets) prior to light and according to you time didn't exist till light so we have no idea how old matter is so now YEC has a problem in that dating of materials and the universe could infact be correct since the matter was around for ? long. Well, your point is wrong since there was no time before God spoke light into existence so "prior to light" is a meaningless term. (OET gymnastics, gotta love them.) quote: That's it just push it to the side since it causes problems. Oh, right EverLearning, let's just ignore, deny, misinterpret, or reject the other 30 verses of Genesis 1 to support someone's pet theory of zillions of years of evolution! (OET gymnastics, gotta love them.) Does anyone else have a reasoned explanation for Genesis 1:2 that helps us better understand it in relation to the first creative act in 1:3? What gymnastics? The Bible itself states that matter existed before light and therefore there is a prior to light. You stated that time began with light but there was matter before light so i am not the one doing the flips. You are the one that has claimed in the past that Genesis is to be understood in a plain reading sense so how is it possible that 1:2 seems to defy that? You can't have it both ways, you can't demand a plain reading interpretation then turn around and say "just not that verse". "Is" and "was" are both verbs of "being" He is; He was; different tenses of "am." God is. God was. God will be. All are true. All verbs of being are a reference to time for being. He is in a time called now; He was, in a time called then, or yesterday, or some modification thereof; He will be, in a time called then, or tomorrow, or some modification thereof. It has been established from scripture, that God possessed wisdom prior to Genesis' account of creation. Though it has also been stated that "possess" is timeless, and has no tenses (post #16), I disagree, and ask what is the difference between possessed, possesses, and will possess, if it is not the tenses of time. Had, have, will have. Possess,possessing, possessed, will possess. And why would God inspire men to reference ANYTHING with tenses of time, if time did not exist? No, my friend, time existed long before Genesis 1's creative effort began. I say this because Wisdom tells us of several days'worth of creation, which she preceded. And I do not believe it can be demonstrated that the days of creation were twenty-four hours, prior to the fourth day. Since Genesis speaks of "the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens and every plant of the field and every herb, etc." Gen 2:4 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, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew Time was involved in a way not revealed in Genesis 1.

Jhud -> RE: Old God New Earth? I don't think so. (4/11/2008 8:22:55 PM)
quote: Oh come on! Now you pretend to know what motivates people to get married? To beget children? What motivates God to make creatures? I don't mind suggestions as to what "might" motivate God, but to suggest you know what does AND WHAT DOESNOT stretches it a bit. And while it is true we are "invited guests," it is not as spectators, but as participants. So let me get this straight; you speculate lonliness, I speculate love, and I am the one pretending. Time to call the log removal service.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI