I didn't mean for the Einstein thing to bring so much disagreement here. All I was trying to show was that the theory of relativity was in harmony with the word of God. So here are some quotes from the other thread that I wish to address.(AusDisciple;67215)
Actually, they BOTH agree simultaneously and harmoniously but you will not be able to see that unless you understand the theory of relativity. It makes perfect sense but you need to broaden your horizons to see it.Neither you nor me can refute what God chooses to reveal personally to each other but if you were to take a look outside the box, you'd see that this is perfectly harmonious as is the case with God in His perfection.I do not mean any disrespect Christina but I can see this from both perspectives and it DOES make sense scripturally and scientifically from ALL perspectives simultaneously. Science is NOT at odds with God here so I have no problem with accepting this harmony.1 day can = 1000 years at the same time as Peter speaking about how time is irrelevant to God because He exists outside time (He created time and space simultaneously when He created the Heavens and the Earth... or the Universe).
I agree here that the science and Bible are not at odds here. I don't really know how they could be. I guess they could be if it said 1 day is like 50, 000 years like the Qua ran says (I think).Yes God is outside of time however this is not the verse that explains this (keep reading I will show you why).If you exist without time (Time is the measure of change) that means that you never change. There is no past, present or future there is only an eternal NOW. The past, present and future are all one and that is why he knows the future.Hebrews 13:8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.There are plenty of other scriptures that tell you that God is eternal (exists outside of time). There are 47 verses that have the word eternal in them for anyone to check out.(Christina;67233)
Exactly Cedarhart you nailed itthere is absoulty no proof anywhere it means anything else other than exactly what it says one day = 1000 years...except by some confused mens opinions
Actually there is.2 Peter 3:8First, the Bible does not say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.”Peter actually wrote..But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.Also kindly note that the word "is" here is in brackets.When Peter says be not ignorant of this one thing etc.. he is reminding the people of Psalm 90:4For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.Remember the word here is not is.Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness. The fact is God existing outside of time means that 1000 does not equal 1 day. Actually it could but 100 000 years could equal a day as well. So why did he choose 1000 instead of an infinite amount of possibilities? You can't say 1000 = 1 day for God. The characteristics of God make that statement incorrect and finally and most importantly it is Biblically incorrect.Peter reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vs. 3-4). Peter wanted the church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9). Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise yesterday. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do:Let's seriously consider what the passage in 2 Peter 3 actually teaches. Which of the perhaps possible understandings of terms and expressions make more sense? Is Peter giving an explanation for why the coming of the Lord which was promised to happen "in this generation" would still be "soon" for Christians 2000 years later? Or is Peter affirming emphatically that God is not late when it comes to fulfilling His promises, such as the one about the coming of the Lord in "this generation", and that God will be faithful and keep His promises?(epistemaniac;67248)
the bit about the theory of relativity is interesting, however it makes a fundamental error here when it says The error is in asking how fast the Lord is traveling. The reason this is the case is because He is not traveling at all. How can a being travel that is already everywhere/omnipresent? Of course the Lord Jesus Christ possesses a body. But if He wanted to be somewhere, it does not seem as if He would need to "travel" at all to get there. He did in His pre-resurrection body, but not post-resurrection, He can just will Himself to be wherever it is that He wants to be, as He appeared in the upper room with the disciples. And of the course the omnipresent objection applies tot he Holy Spirit who is, as in the case of the Father, incorporeal. blessings,ken
Your right Ken. I'm sure God can will himself anywhere. Well even in saying that he is everywhere to begin with.But there is an answer to the question "The error is in asking how fast the Lord is traveling." I just cannot find it now. I read it but have no idea where. I will get back to you when i find it.(tim_from_pa;67254)
The formulas for time dilation can easily be solved using the Pythagorean theorem. Like you said as an object approaches the speed of light, time ceases to exists if light speed could be achieved (or stop whatever one wants to say). Therefore, any small fractional variation that ones puts in the equation near the speed of light can produce any ratio one wants such as 1000 years/ 1 day. So in itself does not tell me anything.Take note that if any matter would go near the speed of light to make the 1000yr/1 day ratio, it's mass would increase 365000 times.
Is the Lord made of matter however? I don't think that would apply in this occasion.(Christina;67285)
To be honest here if anyone is doing interpting and putting mans ideas and spin on this verse its those who say it means timeless or forever there is not one iota of evidence in all scripture that supports this ... Its a very simple straight forward verse God says 1 day with me is 1000 years (to you) ...To you 1000 years is but one Day to me
Christina now it seems that you are doing the same. Nowhere in that verse does it say (to you). God is not comparing our perception of time to his in this verse at all. Nor does he mention anyone but himself in this verse.Peter did not establish a formula for calculating God's time into man's time and visa versa (e.g. 1 day = 1000 years).As for the people that think this verse is in harmony or somehow in direct correlation with the verses in Revelation. I completely reject that notion. You can't just say that this verse is a reference to Revelation (for those that did in the other thread). The fact is if it is then how long will Jesus reign on earth? 1000 years or 1 day? Same thing could be said for Genesis is it 7 days of creation or 7000 years? We all know that the days of creation are literal days and that 1000 year reign is a literal 1000 year reign. If we combine 2 Peter with these books then we are confusing ourselves and others more than actually reading and learning what God has to say. You can't compare a simile with something that is to be taken literal.
Actually, they BOTH agree simultaneously and harmoniously but you will not be able to see that unless you understand the theory of relativity. It makes perfect sense but you need to broaden your horizons to see it.Neither you nor me can refute what God chooses to reveal personally to each other but if you were to take a look outside the box, you'd see that this is perfectly harmonious as is the case with God in His perfection.I do not mean any disrespect Christina but I can see this from both perspectives and it DOES make sense scripturally and scientifically from ALL perspectives simultaneously. Science is NOT at odds with God here so I have no problem with accepting this harmony.1 day can = 1000 years at the same time as Peter speaking about how time is irrelevant to God because He exists outside time (He created time and space simultaneously when He created the Heavens and the Earth... or the Universe).
I agree here that the science and Bible are not at odds here. I don't really know how they could be. I guess they could be if it said 1 day is like 50, 000 years like the Qua ran says (I think).Yes God is outside of time however this is not the verse that explains this (keep reading I will show you why).If you exist without time (Time is the measure of change) that means that you never change. There is no past, present or future there is only an eternal NOW. The past, present and future are all one and that is why he knows the future.Hebrews 13:8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.There are plenty of other scriptures that tell you that God is eternal (exists outside of time). There are 47 verses that have the word eternal in them for anyone to check out.(Christina;67233)
Exactly Cedarhart you nailed itthere is absoulty no proof anywhere it means anything else other than exactly what it says one day = 1000 years...except by some confused mens opinions
Actually there is.2 Peter 3:8First, the Bible does not say, “With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.”Peter actually wrote..But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.Also kindly note that the word "is" here is in brackets.When Peter says be not ignorant of this one thing etc.. he is reminding the people of Psalm 90:4For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.Remember the word here is not is.Peter used a figure of speech known as a simile to compare a day to a thousand years. It is not that one day is precisely equivalent to 1,000 years or vice versa. Rather, within the specific context of 2 Peter 3, one could say that they share a likeness. The fact is God existing outside of time means that 1000 does not equal 1 day. Actually it could but 100 000 years could equal a day as well. So why did he choose 1000 instead of an infinite amount of possibilities? You can't say 1000 = 1 day for God. The characteristics of God make that statement incorrect and finally and most importantly it is Biblically incorrect.Peter reminded Christians that “scoffers” would arise in the last days saying, “Where is the promise of His [Jesus’] coming?” (vs. 3-4). Peter wanted the church to know that “the Lord is not slack concerning His promise [of a return], as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9). Sandwiched between these thoughts is the fact that the passing of time does not affect God’s promises, specifically the promise of His return. If Jesus promised to return 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, it is as good as if He made the promise yesterday. Indeed, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” With men, the passing of long periods of time generally affects their keeping of promises, but not with God. Time has no bearing on whether He will do what He said He would do:Let's seriously consider what the passage in 2 Peter 3 actually teaches. Which of the perhaps possible understandings of terms and expressions make more sense? Is Peter giving an explanation for why the coming of the Lord which was promised to happen "in this generation" would still be "soon" for Christians 2000 years later? Or is Peter affirming emphatically that God is not late when it comes to fulfilling His promises, such as the one about the coming of the Lord in "this generation", and that God will be faithful and keep His promises?(epistemaniac;67248)
the bit about the theory of relativity is interesting, however it makes a fundamental error here when it says The error is in asking how fast the Lord is traveling. The reason this is the case is because He is not traveling at all. How can a being travel that is already everywhere/omnipresent? Of course the Lord Jesus Christ possesses a body. But if He wanted to be somewhere, it does not seem as if He would need to "travel" at all to get there. He did in His pre-resurrection body, but not post-resurrection, He can just will Himself to be wherever it is that He wants to be, as He appeared in the upper room with the disciples. And of the course the omnipresent objection applies tot he Holy Spirit who is, as in the case of the Father, incorporeal. blessings,ken
Your right Ken. I'm sure God can will himself anywhere. Well even in saying that he is everywhere to begin with.But there is an answer to the question "The error is in asking how fast the Lord is traveling." I just cannot find it now. I read it but have no idea where. I will get back to you when i find it.(tim_from_pa;67254)
The formulas for time dilation can easily be solved using the Pythagorean theorem. Like you said as an object approaches the speed of light, time ceases to exists if light speed could be achieved (or stop whatever one wants to say). Therefore, any small fractional variation that ones puts in the equation near the speed of light can produce any ratio one wants such as 1000 years/ 1 day. So in itself does not tell me anything.Take note that if any matter would go near the speed of light to make the 1000yr/1 day ratio, it's mass would increase 365000 times.
Is the Lord made of matter however? I don't think that would apply in this occasion.(Christina;67285)
To be honest here if anyone is doing interpting and putting mans ideas and spin on this verse its those who say it means timeless or forever there is not one iota of evidence in all scripture that supports this ... Its a very simple straight forward verse God says 1 day with me is 1000 years (to you) ...To you 1000 years is but one Day to me
Christina now it seems that you are doing the same. Nowhere in that verse does it say (to you). God is not comparing our perception of time to his in this verse at all. Nor does he mention anyone but himself in this verse.Peter did not establish a formula for calculating God's time into man's time and visa versa (e.g. 1 day = 1000 years).As for the people that think this verse is in harmony or somehow in direct correlation with the verses in Revelation. I completely reject that notion. You can't just say that this verse is a reference to Revelation (for those that did in the other thread). The fact is if it is then how long will Jesus reign on earth? 1000 years or 1 day? Same thing could be said for Genesis is it 7 days of creation or 7000 years? We all know that the days of creation are literal days and that 1000 year reign is a literal 1000 year reign. If we combine 2 Peter with these books then we are confusing ourselves and others more than actually reading and learning what God has to say. You can't compare a simile with something that is to be taken literal.
