God & Time

[Kenneth Redden]

Regarding multiple occurrences of the days in Genesis one, each doublet of days found in the KJV Bible has a plural reference from the beginning. For example, there are three in the KJV demonstration doublet beginning 2 Peter 3:3-8. The word, “days,” is for us reading the KJV Bible today, “lusts,” is for those referenced in this KJV epistle; and, "scoffers" may be for the "generations" and "heavens" in the prophetic doublet beginning Genesis 2:4. And, "Knowing this first," may be a picture of the KJV Creation from everlasting. In every doublet of days found in the KJV Bible; there is always plural reference, from the beginning: the first day.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Regarding multiple occurrences of the days in Genesis one, evidence of the different occurrences may be found in what are now known as so called, "contradictions." For example; on one occurrence of days, Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign in Jerusalem, as said in 2 Kings 24:8, but in 2 Chronicles 36:9 he was eight years old, a difference of ten years in reference to, "ten," in Psalms 33:2, Psalms 92:3 & Psalms 144:9. Different dispensations: a simple answer for a difficult question.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

All of the days of the Creation have been woven together using strings of text to form the KJV Bible. Paul has shown us demonstration of how to understand the KJV method.

 

[All4Christ]

All of the days of the Creation have been woven together, using strings of text, to form the KJV Bible. The apostle Paul has demonstrated to us how to understand this method.

Which was the correct translation of the Bible before the KJV was published in 1611? Are any translations in other languages valid? What about the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? Should translations for other languages be based on the KJV or based on the original languages?

Honest questions here - I don't understand your viewpoint on this, and I am curious as to what you believe on these questions.

 

[Hieronymus]

The ESV is often better than the KJV

 

[All4Christ]

The ESV is often better than the KJV

Yea I'm definitely not a KJV-only advocate.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yea I'm definitely not a KJV-only advocate.

Nor am i.
I like the archaic language though, and it's not a "bad Bible" either, but it has some sloppiness here and there.
[/off-topic]

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The ESV is often better than the KJV

And here I thought we'd never agree!

I actually prefer the (Revised) New English Bible or New English Translation (two different works) to most anything, I concur the ESV is a more useful and accurate translation than the KJV.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Which was the correct translation of the Bible before the KJV was published in 1611?

I don’t know which was the correct translation of the Bible before the KJV was published in 1611. That question never came up in my study.

Are any translations in other languages valid?

Again, I don’t know if any translations in other languages are valid.

What about the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?

The original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are essential parts of the finished English KJV Bible.

Should translations for other languages be based on the KJV or based on the original languages?

I would think that translations for other languages should be based on the original languages.

Honest questions here - I don't understand your viewpoint on this, and I am curious as to what you believe on these questions.

I believe there are two messages written in the KJV Bible. The first, the straight flat literal message in the text; in which the Christian Church is mired. The second, the one in demonstration of the Revelation of Jesus Christ and the Spirit and of power; given the apostle Paul.

 

[All4Christ]

I don’t know. That question never came up in my study.

Again, I don’t know.

They are essential parts of the finished KJV Bible.

I would think that they should be based on the original languages.

I can tell you that the interpretation Paul has demonstrated, is from an entirely different perspective than the one read by the Christian Church today.

Thanks for your answers.

One more question - The original KJV included the Apocrypha. Do you read the Apocrypha and / or consider it to be authoritative?

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Thanks for your answers.

One more question - The original KJV included the Apocrypha. Do you read the Apocrypha and / or consider it to be authoritative?

You are very welcome.
I have looked over the Apocrypha and it appears to be consistent with the KJV text, which is all that I can say about that.

 

[hedrick]

I don't see how a being who is everlasting is outside of time by default.

There are answers to this, but it seems clear that time in our universe is part of space-time. That began at the big bang. As such, I don't see how anyone in our timeline can be eternal in the negative direction. I suspect the same is true for the future, but the future of our universe is less clear.

What's worse, time as we know it isn't even independent of observer. So if God is in time, time in which reference frame? (I'm tempted to say, all of them, but I'm not sure any meaning can be assigned to that answer.)

The only answer I've heard that even addresses the problem is that God exists in something like time that still isn't identical to time as described by physics in our universe. I'm just not sure that this answer is meaningful.

Then there's the Lutheran answer: It's all a paradox.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

There are answers to this, but it seems clear that time in our universe is part of space-time. That began at the big bang. As such, I don't see how anyone in our timeline can be eternal in the negative direction. I suspect the same is true for the future, but the future of our universe is less clear.

Good odds it will end. Either by a reverse of the initial singularity and implosion (to use common phrases) or by heat death.

What's worse, time as we know it isn't even independent of observer. So if God is in time, time in which reference frame? (I'm tempted to say, all of them, but I'm not sure any meaning can be assigned to that answer.)

Quite so. The only reasonable conclusion is God is 'outside' of our time at least, and He is the independent observer.

The only answer I've heard that even addresses the problem is that God exists in something like time that still isn't identical to time as described by physics in our universe. I'm just not sure that this answer is meaningful.

It is meaningful in the same sense a trout might imagine riding a bicycle.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

There are answers to this, but it seems clear that time in our universe is part of space-time. That began at the big bang. As such, I don't see how anyone in our timeline can be eternal in the negative direction. I suspect the same is true for the future, but the future of our universe is less clear.

Yes; I believe that "To day," the last fourth day, is made according to the previous third day, and began just prior to the big bang. Christ is eternal in the negative sense because he does not die on the third day. Remember; Christ died on the first day, remained dead on the second day and is resurrected, having eternal life on the third day.

What's worse, time as we know it isn't even independent of observer. So if God is in time, time in which reference frame? (I'm tempted to say, all of them, but I'm not sure any meaning can be assigned to that answer.)

God the Father is from everlasting to everlasting, Psalms 90:2, Psalms 103:17 & Psalms 106:48. First, the everlasting unto the days of the creation unto the everlasting; a process which is soon continuing today.

The only answer I've heard that even addresses the problem is that God exists in something like time that still isn't identical to time as described by physics in our universe. I'm just not sure that this answer is meaningful.

I believe that the, "physics in our Universe," did not even begin until the beginning of our fourth day of the creation. This is what Paul has shown us in his demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 1 Corinthians 2:4.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

Good odds it will end. Either by a reverse of the initial singularity and implosion (to use common phrases) or by heat death.

I submit that we will never get there, Christ has come in due time, before those things can happen: Romans 5:6, 1 Timothy 2:6 & 1 Corinthians 15:8.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I submit that we will never get there, Christ has come in due time: Romans 5:6, 1 Timothy 2:6 & 1 Corinthians 15:8.

That of course is the unpredictable. I agree with you in opinion.

If I remember correctly, the 'heat death' is projected in something over One trillion years. But life, as we understand it, will be impossible long before the 'end'.

In fact, according to the astronomers who study such things, our sun is due to burn out (it's actually more complicated, but that phrase works for this discussion) in another five billion years or so, with life being impossible on Earth sooner than that. I'm thinking the Lord will blow the whistle prior to that. However, it's not something I consider of theological importance; we'll find out when the Lord is pleased to inform us.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

That of course is the unpredictable. I agree with you in opinion.

My point is that Christ is in due time for his second coming, as described beginning Revelation 6:12 through Revelation 19, which occur before those things could happen.

If I remember correctly, the 'heat death' is projected in something over One trillion years. But life, as we understand it, will be impossible long before the 'end'.

In fact, according to the astronomers who study such things, our sun is due to burn out (it's actually more complicated, but that phrase works for this discussion) in another five billion years or so, with life being impossible on Earth sooner than that. I'm thinking the Lord will blow the whistle prior to that. However, it's not something I consider of theological importance; we'll find out when the Lord is pleased to inform us.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

That of course is the unpredictable.

I believe there is ample reason found hidden in the KJV Bible to warrant proper cause for this unpredictability.

 

[Kenneth Redden]

If you recognize the KJV Bible for what it is, then you know what it is; about time in the Word of God.
I believe there are two messages written in the KJV Bible. The first is the straight flat literal message; in which the Christian Church is mired. The second one is, the demonstration of the Revelation of Jesus Christ and the Spirit and of power; given the apostle Paul.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I believe there is ample reason found hidden in the KJV Bible to warrant proper cause for this unpredictability.

I do not agree with the idea of 'hidden'. The statement is rather blatant and not subject to subtlety or hidden meaning. Nor is the limitation of 'the KJV' appropriate. Every translation of the Bible I have contains passages in Matthew (chapter 24) and Mark (chapter 13) relating the same statement of Jesus regarding His return: No one knows, only the Father.

That Jesus is returning, that time - in the form and sense humans understand - will end, that there will be a final Judgement of God upon humanity is certain. The actual time for such activity is not known. Since the time Jesus issued that statement - warning, admonition, tidbit - humans have attempted to second guess God and predict when Jesus returns. I recall the last one with notoriety was the late Harold Camping. (Probably otherwise a decent guy.) There have been several other predictions. They have come and gone, all without changing the essential function of the world.

That is the unpredictability of the event; it cannot be forecast with pinpoint precision to time.

In contrast, the theories of 'heat death' - which is not a certainty, but an alternative possibly regarding the future of the Universe - and the final stages of the sun - which is a certainty in terms of happening, but has a 'range' of time (a bit more precise than the Second Coming of Jesus, which isn't saying much) to happen; are both predicated on a continuing of the Universe and sun without interruption.