At 08:52 PM 2/16/00 -0700, dfsiemensjr@juno.com wrote:
>Nothing you have written changes what I have said. You still want a time
>before time, which is nonsense. I fully appreciate the problem of
>communicating the eternal to temporal humanity.
Actually you really don't appreciate the problem. Because in spite of my
clear statement that I do not have time before time, you continue to insist
that I do. I will state it again because maybe you didn't understand it.
There was no time prior to the Big Bang. But there was God and God was
doing something. How would you speak of the things God did then?
Even the language
>presents problems, for "eternal" may mean timelessness, time without
>beginning or end, and time with a beginning but no end. With the first,
>which applies to the deity, there can be no before. With the second,
>common to the ancient Greek philosophers, there was always both a before
>and an after to every moment. With the third, there is a before to most
>moments and an after to all. I take it to apply to the life of the
>believer.
>
>Jesus had no problem communicating the first notion: "... Before Abraham
>was, I am" (John 8:58).
There is a whole lot of before ABe before we get to the Big Bang. So I
don't see a clear reference here to before the Big Bang. But indeed, Jesus
'am' before the Big Bang.
The first verses of John are also clear, as are
>the three occurrences of "before the foundation of the world" (John
>17:24; Ephesians 1:4; I Peter 1:20).
Sounds to me like you believe in time before time. If there was no time
before the Big Bang, their really can't be a "before" according to the way
you are chiding me. Before is a temporal term. It doesn't apply outside of
the bounds of this universe. Yet we use it, because that is the way we have
to in order to understand the entire concept of prior to the universe.
But the complex temporal patterns at
>the beginning of Genesis do not communicate the eternal (sense 1) purpose
>of God. Indeed, the repetition of "evening," "morning" and "day" make
>their assignment to God's eternity incoherent.
Not according to St. Basil. Note what Basil says about the first day. He
connects it with eternity.
And the evening and the morning were one day.(4) Why does Scripture say
"one day the first day"? Before speaking to us of the second, the third,
and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one
the first which began the series? If it therefore says "one day," it is
from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the
time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one
day--we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices,
they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not
the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four
hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time
that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every
time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the
world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.
But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the
nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and,
wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from
period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the
week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins
and ends with itself. Such is also the character of eternity, to revolve
upon itself and to end nowhere. If then the beginning of time is called
"one day" rather than "the first day," it is because Scripture wishes to
establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and
natural to call "one" the day whose character is to be one wholly separated
and isolated from all the others. If Scripture
speaks to us of many ages, saying everywhere, "age of age, and ages of
ages," we do not see it enumerate them as first, second, and third. It
follows that we are hereby shown not so much limits, ends and succession of
ages, as distinctions between various states and modes of action. "The day
of the Lord," Scripture says, "is great and very terrible,"(5) and
elsewhere "Woe unto you
65
that desire the day of the Lord: to what end is it for you? The day of the
Lord is darkness and not light."(1) A day of darkness for those who are
worthy of darkness. No; this day without evening, without succession and
without end is not unknown to Scripture, and it is the day that the
Psalmist calls the eighth day, because it is outside this time of weeks.(2)
Thus whether you call it day, or whether you call it eternity, you express
the same idea. Give this state the name of day; there are not several, but
only one. If you call it eternity still it is unique and not manifold. Thus
it is in order that you may carry your thoughts forward towards a future
life, that Scripture marks by the word "one" the day which is the type of
eternity, the first fruits of days, the contemporary of light, the holy
Lord's day honoured by the Resurrection of our Lord. And the evening and
the morning were one day."
St. Basil, Homily II, one can get this electronically at:
http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers2/
Basil thought that the first day was eternity past.
>
>The day-age and literal day interpretations are not contradictory in this
>way, for they ascribe time to the process within creation. Their problems
>spring from incompatibility with the scientific evidence. The view that
>the days are merely a literary framework for a creation mythos is not
>incoherent, though the temporal references are denied relevance. I
>believe you do not like this view because you want a literal reading of
>scripture wherever possible. This is my attitude.
I don't deny this. I want the scientific account as close to the Scriptural
account as possible. George and I have had many debates about this issue.
I just don't see a reason to believe something is true if I have to say
that it isn't really true unless I can twist it into a mythos and make it
true. That doesn't sound like truth to me. It sounds like what the Hindu
does with the earth standing on the back of the elephant standing on the
turtle swimming int he cosmic sea. He can make that true by the same
approach. But is it really true? I think not.
But I cannot escape
>these views by imposing some kind of time onto the Eternal so that there
>can be a sequence of his announcements of intent, for this is eisegesis
>that produces contradiction. There has to be a different interpretation
>which is consistent.
As I have said, I am not imposing time on the eternal past. You don't seem
to listen however. I am saying that this is absolutely the best we can do
to describe the eternal past. It is a fundamental limitation of language
not to be able to talk about eternal past without using temporal words.
That is what Genesis 1 did.
>
>By the way, I recommend John 8:58 as an adequate response to "God must
>have existed before time." Jesus, as the eternal Son, could also have
>said, "Before time was, I am." This does _not_ provide a time before
>time, or an activity before creation.
I agree. I don't think we disagree about there being no time before the Big
Bang. You just aren't listening.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 17 2000 - 06:44:18 EST