R&P Reading Group - Book 1: Time and Eternity

[Meatros]

Well, the only real question that has popped into my head through the first chapter (aside from when will I be done this chapter), was regarding what the context of the hebrew for some of the quoted Enoch passages he uses to justify his position... will eventually take a look, but if anybody wants to beat me to the punch I won't miss the research.

Hmm... Enoch isn't Canon. I can't remember the context that he brought it up - maybe what the ancients believed?

1 Enoch: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

[Rune]

Hmm... Enoch isn't Canon. I can't remember the context that he brought it up - maybe what the ancients believed?

1 Enoch: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

Context was the wrong word, although that would be intersting too... more I'd like to look at various translations I suppose, see what if anything differs, since he seemed to lean on it a little hard for his justification of timelessness. When I have the time, it's not a question that will be eating me up inside.

[psiconoclast]

Hmm... Enoch isn't Canon. I can't remember the context that he brought it up - maybe what the ancients believed?

1 Enoch: http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html

He was using Second Enoch as a way of proving that the concept of timelessness was conceptually available to biblical authors which gives a plausible reason to discount the idea that such a concept was simply philosophically inaccessible to biblical authors. Of course, the concept could have been accessible to the authors of 2 Enoch, and not the other books, and the dating that most scholars accept for 2 Enoch (100 CE or so) means that it would not have much to say about the temporal concepts available to the old testament authors at any rate.

[Rune]

He was using Second Enoch as a way of proving that the concept of timelessness was conceptually available to biblical authors which gives a plausible reason to discount the idea that such a concept was simply philosophically inaccessible to biblical authors. Of course, the concept could have been accessible to the authors of 2 Enoch, and not the other books, and the dating that most scholars accept for 2 Enoch (100 CE or so) means that it would not have much to say about the temporal concepts available to the old testament authors at any rate.

This is what I mean, I'm pretty unaware of this text. Need to gather more info before I can even try to analyse anything I've read.

[lasher]

The book of enoch thing is throwing me a bit off too. If it is being used as a justification for the "biblical authors" having conceptual ideas of timelessness then we already have a problem. The biblical authors span an arguable period of 1500 years. How would the book of enoch, dating at roughly 100 ce, justify the earliest writers of the psalms for example, having a concept of divine timelessness?

[psiconoclast]

The book of enoch thing is throwing me a bit off too. If it is being used as a justification for the "biblical authors" having conceptual ideas of timelessness then we already have a problem. The biblical authors span an arguable period of 1500 years. How would the book of enoch, dating at roughly 100 ce, justify the earliest writers of the psalms for example, having a concept of divine timelessness?

That's certainly my take at this point, but since the 2 Enoch reference seems to be bolstering evidence more than anything else, my plan is to simply discount it unless and until it gets either better explained, or relied on as something more central in importance.

[Jpenn89]

For anyone who is interested, this book is 9 dollars on the kindle.

I don't feel right reading it without buying it, and it will make it easier for me to read on the airplane tomorrow.

[SheHadMANHands]

He does seem to falsely portray Hawking's "imaginary time" solution, as if "God" (a term Hawking uses liberally), as a conscious, calculating being, is required if the universe does in fact have a definite temporal beginning. There are many other philosophical theories of course, as everyone is well aware, which don't require a conscious, creating entity: eternal/timeless multi-verse, string theory dimensions (!!), etc.

[SheHadMANHands]

Interesting chapter nonetheless. I imagine Craig sides with the timeless position. I'm currently of the opinion that the scripture writers didn't have that sort of philosophical depth to allude to a timeless God.. though saw the enoch reference as well. I think it's more likely they viewed God as temporal, existing infinitely before creation, in time, and infinitely after. Of course Craig then states, related to that stance:

In affirming God's infinite pre-existence, Ross must face the old question that dogged Newtonians: Why would God delay for infinite time the creation of the universe?

[lasher]

Interesting chapter nonetheless. I imagine Craig sides with the timeless position. I'm currently of the opinion that the scripture writers didn't have that sort of philosophical depth to allude to a timeless God.. though saw the enoch reference as well. I think it's more likely they viewed God as temporal, existing infinitely before creation, in time, and infinitely after. Of course Craig then states, related to that stance:

It really depends on what period of time you are talking about. There was certainly enough background for the new testament writers to formulate the concept. Aristotle thought of it, and then it travels onward to philo, who was alive during the first century.

And based on some of the old testament passages talked about in chapter one it's not hard to see the concept alive as well during the writing of the psalmist and the writer of proverbs.

Craig's position is not quite that God is timeless, he'll get into it I assume later in the book, but he sort of combines the concept of timeless and temporal by positing that the moment of creation was when God both created, and simultaneously entered time. It's much more nuanced than that, so don't take my clumsy articulation of it to be his full position.



edit: I threw nuanced in there just for you, meatros.

[lucious]

I always thought Christians believed God existed solely outside of space-time......not simultaneously outside of it and existed within it at all points?

[SheHadMANHands]

It really depends on what period of time you are talking about. There was certainly enough background for the new testament writers to formulate the concept. Aristotle thought of it, and then it travels onward to philo, who was alive during the first century.

And based on some of the old testament passages talked about in chapter one it's not hard to see the concept alive as well during the writing of the psalmist and the writer of proverbs.

Craig's position is not quite that God is timeless, he'll get into it I assume later in the book, but he sort of combines the concept of timeless and temporal by positing that the moment of creation was when God both created, and simultaneously entered time. It's much more nuanced than that, so don't take my clumsy articulation of it to be his full position.



edit: I threw nuanced in there just for you, meatros.

Agreed.

I think it's summarized up well here (below). I assume he moves away from quoting ancient scripture now, and more philosophical inquiry? I would think a modern mind more capable of solving this "riddle" verses ancient writers who were barely, if at all, exposed to any philosophy (plato, aristotle, etc). As you noted, there is a large window for the Biblical writers, but often WLC is referencing the OT, and Genesis story, etc, as if those writer's had greater insight. This seems illogical to me, but maybe it's a Christian faith thing (Bible divinely written/inspired, everything written as it is for a reason, no imperfections, etc)...

Thus, although scriptural authors speak of God as temporal and everlasting, there is some evidence, at least, that when God is considered in relation to creation He must be thought of as the transcendent Creator of time and the ages and therefore as existing beyond time. It may well be the case that in the context of the doctrine of creation, the biblical writers were led to reflect on God's relationship to time and chose to affirm His Transcendence. Still the evidence is not clear and we seem forced to conclude with Barr that "if such a thing as a Christian doctrine of time has to be developed, the work of discussing it and developing it must belong not to biblical but to philosophical theology."

[Rune]

note: take a break half way through chapter two, or you may find yourself napping.

[lucious]

im on page 31 now and hes left the bible doctrine stuff and getting deeper into relativity and verificationism.....that kind of thing is my bag, baby.

[lasher]

Agreed.

I think it's summarized up well here (below). I assume he moves away from quoting ancient scripture now, and more philosophical inquiry? I would think a modern mind more capable of solving this "riddle" verses ancient writers who were barely, if at all, exposed to any philosophy (plato, aristotle, etc). As you noted, there is a large window for the Biblical writers, but often WLC is referencing the OT, and Genesis story, etc, as if those writer's had greater insight. This seems illogical to me, but maybe it's a Christian faith thing (Bible divinely written/inspired, everything written as it is for a reason, no imperfections, etc)...

To me, it seems he is just first setting up a biblical background for the two possible theories of the nature of God and time in chapter 1, not attempting to solve them through ancient understanding, or some sort of greater insight. In fact he claims the issue is not at all clearly resolved in the bible, and needs to venture out into the metaphysics and philosophy of time to go further. You will find he pretty much leaves the biblical study of the issue as he ventures into the modern philosophical discussions of the issue in chapters 2+. In fact, he pretty much defacto states that in the last paragraph of chapter 1.

[lasher]

im on page 31 now and hes left the bible doctrine stuff and getting deeper into relativity and verificationism.....that kind of thing is my bag, baby.

Did you read the section on the hypertime theory attributed to Dr. Ross? Any insight on that? I've never heard of hypertime. Is it just some made up philosophical crap or does it have roots in physics?

[209vaughn]

Did you read the section on the hypertime theory attributed to Dr. Ross? Any insight on that? I've never heard of hypertime. Is it just some made up philosophical crap or does it have roots in physics?

Dr Hugh Ross?

[lasher]

Dr Hugh Ross?

yep

[Rune]

Did you read the section on the hypertime theory attributed to Dr. Ross? Any insight on that? I've never heard of hypertime. Is it just some made up philosophical crap or does it have roots in physics?

It's essentially just extra-temporal dimensions... iirc there are a few flavours of string theory that have 2 dimensions of time, there's not much else though that I know of.

[lasher]

It's essentially just extra-temporal dimensions... iirc there are a few flavours of string theory that have 2 dimensions of time, there's not much else though that I know of.

Guess I'm just not sure how to wrap my head around that. So essentially, in the supposed hypertime, every moment of hypertime would encompass every and all moments of regular time?

[Rune]

Guess I'm just not sure how to wrap my head around that. So essentially, in the supposed hypertime, every moment of hypertime would encompass every and all moments of regular time?

there's not much in the realm of a physical interpretation of it as far as I know.. just appears to be there in the math, most of them are more "exotic"/less main stream versions of the theory... so not a lot of study is really put into it.

makes sense, we can barely imagine an extra spatial dimension, extra time dimension is a total mind fuk to try to imagine.

[lucious]

Guess I'm just not sure how to wrap my head around that. So essentially, in the supposed hypertime, every moment of hypertime would encompass every and all moments of regular time?

smoke some dmt, it usually creates multiple dimensions of time.

[lasher]

smoke some dmt, it usually creates multiple dimensions of time.

Well beer is getting kinda boring ...

[Maiar]

I would recommend all of Gordon Clark's books (cf. his free articles here), but it depends on if you have specific questions or concerns as well as how much and the quality of apologetics you have been exposed to. Look at the table of contents in the following books to see what piques your interest (ordered according to type and personal preference):

If you want a Christian view on the history of philosophy, try Thales to Dewey, Ancient Philosophy, or Modern Philosophy.

If you're looking for a short and simple defense of Christianity, see In Defense of Theology, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, Lord God of Truth & Concerning the Teacher, or God's Hammer.

If you're looking for more thorough defenses of Christianity, look at Clark and His Critics, A Christian View of Men and Things, A Christian Philosophy of Education, or Christian Philosophy.

If you just want free online resources, I would suggest Vincent Cheung's books Captive to Reason and Ultimate Questions. I would suggest reading the first 14 pages of his Presuppositional Confrontations, as that was my own first exposure to a well-presented defense of presuppositional apologetics.

Appreciated, greenz for you. I have a long ass commute every day and tear through books, looking to expand my materials.

[lasher]

Appreciated, greenz for you. I have a long ass commute every day and tear through books, looking to expand my materials.

as a side note, I second vincent chaung's work. He is very well written, and covers a myriad of topics. And he's free. http://www.vincentcheung.com/

I would also recommend Dr. Ronald Nash. Specifically his books "Faith and Reason", "The word of God and the mind of man" and "Christian faith and historical understanding".

Nash is a real favorite of mine.

[SheHadMANHands]

Guess I'm just not sure how to wrap my head around that. So essentially, in the supposed hypertime, every moment of hypertime would encompass every and all moments of regular time?

From the Fig. 1.1, it looks like an extension of time into 2-dimensions, so that there are now two degrees of freedom. You could imagine the horizontal timescale, T(x) being God's dimension, and infinite, with one of the vertical lines as representing the single dimension of time within our space-time universe. If God were part of this infinite "hyper-time", he could create this lower dimension space-time I guess..

The second concept, in Fig 1.3, seems like this 2-dimensional "hyper-time" if we postulate that time is infinite and loops. Some scientists have also modeled the very space-time fabric of our universe in a similar manor (2D model of space-time on surface of 3D sphere) to illustrate a conceptual understanding of how space might loop (i.e. if you could see forever, eventually you'd see the back of your end..and be back where you began).

[IAMRED]

I had started reading this book some months ago before deciding to switch to God and Time: Four Views. Since then, I've come to tentatively accept Paul Helm's theory of time (i.e. divine timelessness; B-series view of time), although I think Craig has a point that the primary reason for accepting this position - that God must be immutable in a strong sense - requires better arguments than Helm provided in his book Eternal God.

In Craig's first chapter of Time and Eternity, I think one of the more important agreements between Helm and Craig would be that while biblical data certainly has a bearing on which view of time one should take, the arguments for one theory or the other will primarily be philosophical rather than exegetical. Showing that God utters tensed indexicals, for example, no more demonstrates that God is in time than does the fact that God utters spatial indexicals demonstrates that God is in space, as Craig notes both in Chapter I.II and in his review of Helm's Eternal God:

Helm argues very persuasively that the biblical writers neither accepted nor rejected the idea of divine timelessness, since they lacked a "reflective context" in which this question needed to be addressed at all. The biblical writers consistently speak of God as in time, but, Helm quite correctly points out, they with equal consistency speak of God as in space, too, and yet the vast majority of theologians and philosophers do not construe divine omnipresence as God's being spatially extended, but consider Him as transcending space. (link)

One could suggest that in both cases God chooses to use a form of divine accommodation (anthropomorphic language) which, while not true if interpreted literally, communicates truth more efficiently.

I won't go through the rest of this chapter because most of what Craig writes is at this point superficial, but I would probably define "time" in relation to "change."

[IAMRED]

Appreciated, greenz for you. I have a long ass commute every day and tear through books, looking to expand my materials.

No problem. I do a bit of commuting myself, so if you have a long drive, you might prefer to check out the free mp3 material on that same website (link). I would have mentioned it in my last post, but you only asked for stuff to read. In particular, I would recommend Collection 6, and even more particularly the last two lectures: A Christian Construction, Part 1; A Christian Construction, Part 2. They are audios of the last chapter of Clark's book Language and Theology (a book also contained in his Modern Philosophy).

I would also recommend Ronald Nash, even though he somewhat disagreed with Clark's epistemology (cf. Clark and His Critics). I enjoyed Nash's The Word of God and the Mind of Man.

[lasher]

No problem. I do a bit of commuting myself, so if you have a long drive, you might prefer to check out the free mp3 material on that same website (link). I would have mentioned it in my last post, but you only asked for stuff to read. In particular, I would recommend Collection 6, and even more particularly the last two lectures: A Christian Construction, Part 1; A Christian Construction, Part 2. They are audios of the last chapter of Clark's book Language and Theology (a book also contained in his Modern Philosophy).

I would also recommend Ronald Nash, even though he somewhat disagreed with Clark's epistemology (cf. Clark and His Critics). I enjoyed Nash's The Word of God and the Mind of Man.

Nash was definitely critical of Clark's deductional presuppositionalism. I remember listening to an RTS audio lecture where he recalled asking Clark if he knew his wife existed, since the bible doesn't explicitly say she does, he said clark just shrugged

[IAMRED]

Nash was definitely critical of Clark's deductional presuppositionalism. I remember listening to an RTS audio lecture where he recalled asking Clark if he knew his wife existed, since the bible doesn't explicitly say she does, he said clark just shrugged

He was probably irritated or amused by the irrelevancy of the question. I probably would have asked Nash if he knew his (or my, for that matter) wife existed and, if so, how.