There is no "future" time for Him to look down
upon from outside. Time is just a system of measurement for our finite
purposes as a point of reference. In "The End" there will be no more
time for there will be no more need for it. Our only point of reference
will be The Almighty ... should be that way now for those who are
His.
This came to me by The Ruach and The
Word. Perhaps Lance, Jonathan or Bill know of some other man who has
written of such things in their vast readings? I don't get out much as
it were re readings other than Scripture. In any case that is of little
(?no?) matter as this came to me of Divine origin.
Chris,
I will not claim divine origin here, but I do have an elementary
understanding of "time" and its makeup. Time is the experienced difference
between the speed of light and that of matter. At the speed of light, there is
no time. Light itself is timeless; it does not age as it moves through
space. The experience of time is relative to the velocity of matter in
relationship to the speed of light. The faster the movement of matter, the
slower the experience of time. As the velocity of matter decreases, the
passage of time increases proportionately (exponentially,
actually).
To help us get a handle on this idea, Einstein told a story of a set
of twins. One twin he set in a spaceship and blasted off at nearly the speed
of light. The other twin he left behind on earth. The twin in the spaceship
returned to earth one hour later, spaceship time. At his return he was one
hour older, yet his brother had aged 85 years.
Time, then, is experiential in its nature. It can only really be measured
as it is being experienced in the present. When we speak of the age of a
rock, for example, we can only measure its "age" in accordance with time
as we experience it now, in the present. We may conclude, by our methods of
measurement, that the rock is many millions of years old, perhaps even
billions of years old. This measurement may be fairly accurate, too
-- but no matter how accurate the measurement, it is relative to time in
its present experience.
In other words, if time had always been experienced the way that it is
right now, and if that rock had in its makeup the ability to record time, it
would tell us that it is so many million, or billion years old, just like our
measurements say. BUT we know that this is not actually the case. The universe
is winding down. The velocity of matter is slowing. Time is experienced faster
now than it was at the moment that rock was created. If that rock could talk,
it would tell us a different, much younger, "age" than our measurements can
concur. Its experience of time, throughout much of its existence, has been
different than ours in our present experience of time. Physicists can only
"really" set an age for the rock in relation to time as we experience it, as
if it had always experienced time the way we do now. And so, looking back on
time, as it were, they may conclude that that rock is 4.5 billion years old --
and they would be correct, if time had always been experienced as it is
right now.
AND that's really all they can conclude, because they cannot experience
time differently than they do right now. BUT what they do not tell us is the
rest of the story. They also know that the rock itself, experiencing time
each moment along the way, experienced much of its time more slowly than we,
and therefore may actually have experienced only a few thousand
years, moment by moment, throughout its entire existence. They tell the rock
it is 4.5 billion years old, and they are as right. Yet the rock, if it
could talk, would tell them it is 10,000 years old (or something close to
that), and it too would be right. Time is a relative measure.
What does this have to do with what you said, Chris? As long as there is
light and matter, there will be time (I will come back to this in a
moment). Light is timeless, matter is not. Matter cannot travel at
the speed of light, thus there must be time.
I agree with you: There was no time before God created the
heavens and the earth; and this because before then there was no matter. Time
came as a result of the creation of the first proton (which, wonderfully
enough, light will create if stretched to the proper wavelength). From that
moment on, matter moved at a rate slower than the speed of light and thus
"produced" time.
And I do not have a problem with what you say concerning the
"future." There is no future as it relates to time. There is only the present
and a record of present occurrences in what we call the past. The future, if
it is to be, is necessarily contingent upon something which transcends time,
in other words, a non-physical being. That something we call God (atheists
have a real problem here: either they have nothing to hope for, or no
basis for that in which they hope).
All of this is fine. What I do not understand about that
which the Ruach and the Word told you is why time will cease when the "end"
comes, and this "because there will be no more need for it." If we are
resurrected in a material\physical body, and if there is light in
"heaven," then the physical constitution of matter will have to change, or we
will experience time in the hereafter. I see no other option. And I am not
ready to believe that the physical state in which humanity
was created was not compatible with eternal life. Are you? Sure the
result of sin was death and thus sin brought an end to life in its
original state, but death came to humanity because of its exclusion from the
tree of life. Why must a resurrected body be made of a substance different
than that which was expelled from the garden and saved in Christ's
resurrection? Why in the heavenly city will the tree of life return, and there
produce a new fruit every month?
Bill
"The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it,
for the glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. And
the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of
the earth bring their glory and honor into it." Rev 21.23-24
"In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river,
was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree
yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the
healing of the nations." Rev 22.2
PS -- And, you being our resident expert on natural medicines
and all, I have a question for you: Why in "heaven" will there need to be a
tree, the leaves of which are "for the healing of the nations"? Who in heaven
will need be healed?
