God is 'Timeless'?

[Nixbits]

Gorgias:

either that the Bible is flawed (which, in a Christian context is a difficult case to make, right?) or that it isn’t – and your interpretation … is flawed. Right?

I’m not so sure that’s it’s a difficult case to make that the Bible is flawed. Because it’s not always clear whether a particular section of the Bible is intended to be allegory, allusion, parable, literary device or historical fact, it’s open to all sorts of interpretation. Viewed as a document from which I, as a reader of an English translation in the 21st century, am trying to discern physical or metaphysical truths, it’s far from ideal. It’s a flaw if the text does not fulfil its intended purpose (whatever that might have been). I freely admit, though, that my interpretations are flawed too.

Gorgias:

how, then, does the ancient inspired writer describe God, if not by comparing Him to things he knows, and describing Him in terms that he can relate to?

Going back to the verses that we were talking about, I’m suggesting that the writer(s) of Exodus could have easily avoided anthropomorphising God. When describing how God seemed and acted, they could have described only the human’s impressions of God, rather than the nature of God directly.

In this way Exodus 4:14 - “The Lord being angry at Moses, said Aaron the Levite is thy brother, I know that he is eloquent: behold he cometh forth to meet thee, and seeing thee shall be glad at heart.” might have been written as ‘And Moses felt the power of God’s will directed against him. The Lord said Aaron the Levite is thy brother …’ Similarly, Exodus 32:14 - “And the Lord was appeased from doing the evil which he had spoken against his people.” might have said ‘And it seemed to Moses that His people had fulfilled God’s will and avoided the evil that the Lord had warned of.’ In other words, don’t say God is angry if God does not have emotions: say instead that Moses felt something like anger.

When the writer(s) of Exodus report the words that God spoke to Moses, it’s more problematical, i suppose. If it is asserted that these are the actual words of God, albeit translated, then God anthropomorphised Himself. If, however, the writer has conveyed the message, not the exact words, then, for example, Exodus 32:10 - “Let me alone, that my wrath may be kindled against them, and that I may destroy them, and I will make of thee a great nation.” could have been written as ‘Leave me, for the power of my will shall be set against them, and I will destroy them …’. Such phraseology seems quite simple to me and I suspect it was available to the writer(s) in the 6th-5th century BCE.

Gorgias:

either the writer of Hebrews is a bumbling idiot… or you’re missing his meaning.

I see other possibilities. Perhaps the writer did not want this to be made clear. She or he (or they) wanted the unchanging nature of God, in contrast to the human nature of Jesus Christ, to remain a mystery. Or perhaps she or he (or they) didn’t want to try to explain it clearly because they didn’t understand it themself.

I fully accept your criticism of my Mount Everest analogy. I still maintain, though, that the words used don’t make it clear (to me) that God is unchanging. only that certain aspects of His nature that make him God do not change. I could have said that I fully manifest my purpose of being me. Without getting into discussions about my potentialities and actualities, I am me, and I will only ever be me. Though limited in time, I fully manifest my ‘me’-ness. But I change all the time. What this phrase means, perhaps, is that God is already at the peak of all of his attributes and always will be, and so none of those attributes or properties will ever change. If that’s the case, I will still argue that it would have been clearer (to me, and no doubt millions of others past, present and future) to simply state that God does not change at all in any way ever.

Gorgias:

More to the point, He is outside time, so there is no possibility of ‘change’ in Him.

Just when I thought the discussion was making some progress you state this assertion again, when this is precisely what we’re debating: What is the justification or evidence that God is outside of any sort of time?

Gorgias:

However, you’re open to learning, and your belief is in your professor (although not yet the material) – you believe that he’s telling the truth and will teach you accurately.

I agree with part of your classroom analogy. I’m willing to tentatively trust the professor, if she or he has suitable qualifications. But I will view the course material sceptically and critically until it’s demonstrated to be truthful and/or worthwhile. And if the professor is hopeless at lecturing, or if she or he doesn’t seem willing or able to properly explain he material, or if the course material itself seems irrelevant, out-dated, muddled or hopelessly contradictory, then I’m likely to leave the course.

Gorgias:

be willing to accept that the Church is teaching the truth, and work from there

By the same token, I’m willing to tentatively trust the Church’s teaching, but I can’t put my scepticism and critical-thinking on hold, not if I want to be intellectually honest. The accuracy of the teaching has to be demonstrated, as does the truth of the material.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Irenaeuslyons, thanks for joining this discussion.
I’m not sure it’s useful to use the word ‘eternity’ without also defining the sense in which it is being used. As well as meaning ‘timelessness’, it can also mean ‘infinite unending time’.

I was trying to convey that sense when I said "When people say that God is outside of time, that means eternity. "

Eternity is a state. A state where there is no spacetime. A state outside the created order.

As for your analogy, what you’ve described is a being not affected by the observational delay caused by distance. But such a being would still be subject to time. In other words, such a being, due to its omnipresence, would be able to simultaneously observe what is happening on Earth and on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy. But, such a being would still observe the events on each planet in the sequence in which they occur. The jump from omnipresence to timelessness is a significant one, and is not addressed by your analogy.

That is true, and that is why I could only provide an analogy. We don’t have access to the eternal state to give a sufficient example. My example used an actor that was within the created order/spacetime, and was subject to its limitations. Anything outside of the created order would not be subject to natural laws such as the sequencing of time. The omnipresence of God is not because He is everwhere in the created order, it is precisely because He is outside of it, that He has access to all of it.

In any case, I think I understand what is meant by the claim that God is omnipresent and outside of time. What we are debating is the justification for this claim.

Time is an abstract construct used to record change. If there was no change, you would/could not know time even exists. From scripture we know that God does not change, yet everything in the created order does.

My purpose in starting this thread was to try to find out where the notion of God’s timelessness and unchanging nature is to be found in Scripture and/or in the doctrine of the Church. I think that those who have kindly contributed their posts have answered this question. It seems to me that it’s not clearly stated in Scripture, and that it appears in doctrine as an assumption based, at least in part, on Aquinas’ works.

It was St Augustine (AD 354 – 430) who was the first to say that time was part of the created order. This was truly a remarkable thing to say as no other philosopher, theologian or scholar before that ever postulated such a thing. They thought time just always was.

“For you [God] made time itself, and periods could not pass by before you made the whole temporal procession.”
Confessions, 11.13

 

[Gorgias]

I’m not so sure that’s it’s a difficult case to make that the Bible is flawed. Because it’s not always clear whether a particular section of the Bible is intended to be allegory, allusion, parable, literary device or historical fact, it’s open to all sorts of interpretation. Viewed as a document from which I, as a reader of an English translation in the 21st century, am trying to discern physical or metaphysical truths, it’s far from ideal.

Hmm… ‘open to interpretation’ and ‘far from ideal’ don’t imply ‘flawed’, though, do they?

It’s a flaw if the text does not fulfil its intended purpose (whatever that might have been).

Are you saying that a text – if it doesn’t fulfill its purpose for even one reader – is flawed? By that standard, no writing – ever! – can escape that label. If, on the other hand, an authoritative source is able to glean a comprehensive, consistent meaning from the text, then can we really call the text ‘flawed’?

Going back to the verses that we were talking about, I’m suggesting that the writer(s) of Exodus could have easily avoided anthropomorphising God. When describing how God seemed and acted, they could have described only the human’s impressions of God, rather than the nature of God directly.

Yes, he could have. Yet, what right do we – as the readers of the text – have to impose our own literary desires upon the author? He wrote what he wrote. Our role is interpretation, not editorial critique. We receive the text and attempt to understand what is being communicated. That the author could have used *this * technique or *that * phrasing is immaterial…

In other words, don’t say God is angry if God does not have emotions: say instead that Moses felt something like anger.

Aren’t you imposing a 21st-century literary style preference on the text, here? And if so, then why is it reasonable to suggest that, three millennia after the creation of this account, we should be able to critique the writing style of the inspired author in this way?

What this phrase means, perhaps, is that God is already at the peak of all of his attributes and always will be, and so none of those attributes or properties will ever change. If that’s the case, I will still argue that it would have been clearer (to me, and no doubt millions of others past, present and future) to simply state that God does not change at all in any way ever.

OK – so let’s take this angle, then. Perhaps, as you suggest, it might have been more clear to state this as such. But, is it necessary that this teaching about God’s nature appears in the Bible? In other words, is the Bible the only place where God reveals Himself to humanity? From a Catholic perspective, the answer is ‘no’ – God is also revealed to us through Apostolic Teaching, which comes from the apostles and their successors. So, we can find information about God elsewhere, as well, with the kind of authority and believability that the Bible has. For instance, “The revelation of the ineffable name ‘I AM WHO AM’ contains then the truth that God alone IS. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and following it the Church’s Tradition, understood the divine name in this sense: God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end” (CCC, 213). So, there is reliable teaching about God’s immutability; and it’s found in the Church, to whom is entrusted the proclamation of God and His plan for our salvation!

Just when I thought the discussion was making some progress you state this assertion again, when this is precisely what we’re debating: What is the justification or evidence that God is outside of any sort of time?

Did God create the universe? (If so, He created – even if only indirectly – ‘time’.) Clearly, He’s outside of our concept of time. Yet, you ask “any sort of time”, by which I presume you mean “something along the lines of ‘time’ in the created universe, but not limited by the universe”?

But I will view the course material sceptically and critically until it’s demonstrated to be truthful and/or worthwhile. And if the professor is hopeless at lecturing, or if she or he doesn’t seem willing or able to properly explain he material, or if the course material itself seems irrelevant, out-dated, muddled or hopelessly contradictory, then I’m likely to leave the course.

So, let’s look at how that relates to the case at hand. Yes, if you were to decide that God or the Church “is hopeless”, and God’s self-revelation is “irrelevant, outdated, muddled or hopelessly contradictory”, then yeah, I guess you’d leave the faith. Yet, are you willing to make those assertions about God? After all, they strongly imply that God isn’t, in fact, God – or, at least, that He doesn’t have the attributes of God! That doesn’t seem to make any sense…

By the same token, I’m willing to tentatively trust the Church’s teaching, but I can’t put my scepticism and critical-thinking on hold, not if I want to be intellectually honest. The accuracy of the teaching has to be demonstrated, as does the truth of the material.

How would you propose that one do this, in the context of God’s self-revelation?

 

[Gorgias]

Logically, one must also include the possibility that both are flawed.

It’s already there, but immaterial.

The case I was making was “either the Bible is flawed or it isn’t.” If one claims it is flawed… well, that’s a tough claim for a Christian to make. (And, of course, if the Bible itself is flawed, then we don’t have to consider the case that interpretations of it are likewise flawed.)

 

[clem456]

I’m not so sure that’s it’s a difficult case to make that the Bible is flawed. Because it’s not always clear whether a particular section of the Bible is intended to be allegory, allusion, parable, literary device or historical fact, it’s open to all sorts of interpretation. Viewed as a document from which I, as a reader of an English translation in the 21st century, am trying to discern physical or metaphysical truths, it’s far from ideal. It’s a flaw if the text does not fulfil its intended purpose (whatever that might have been). I freely admit, though, that my interpretations are flawed too.

What do you mean by flawed?
The bible has fully human beings as authors, who are inspired by God (so it is also said that God is the author).
The authors of scripture are fully human, meaning they are unique in their flaws and in their gifts. God respects who we are and works with us, to accomplish everything he wills. Since God’s will is mysterious, it is not always obvious what a particular passage is trying to convey, and the particular sense that it uses to convey it.

Trying to discover the truths of scripture is no less messy than having a relationship with someone. There is confusion, misunderstandings, translation problems, words that mean different things in different contexts.
I try to remember what inspiration is: the life of a person (God) acting through the written word (oversimplification). Without a strong relationship with the Inspirer, the perceived flaws can close our hearts and minds to the inspiration. Christianity is unique (I think) in that the universal truth we all search for is personified (or incarnate), not merely written in a book.

 

[SMHW]

Yep; judging from your definition of eternity – as a timeline – we definitely have different understandings of what ‘time’ is!

I don’t pretend to have the knowledge of either physics or philosophy that is probably called for in this discussion.

However I think any discussion of God and time that uses the word “line” is going to be way too limiting.

We humans perceive time as a unidirectional “line” so we use word like before, now, and after.

I would imagine pure spirit creatures like angels perceive time in a fashion that is less limited than that of physical beings but at least subject to the binary time states of existence versus non-existence.

I think an interesting question is how time reflects God’s nature. Is time good, bad, or neutral? Or is perhaps time itself corrupted as a result of sin?

 

[Nixbits]

irenaeuslyons:

It was St Augustine (AD 354 – 430) who was the first to say that time was part of the created order. This was truly a remarkable thing to say as no other philosopher, theologian or scholar before that ever postulated such a thing. They thought time just always was.

More precisely, St Augustine of Hippo may have been the first person to say this about time from amongst those whose works were recorded and copies of which are still extant in our time. With that proviso, it’s still a remarkable piece of thinking.

But I don’t think it really touches on the discussion here. There is no disagreement that time exists in the physical world. The question being debated is whether or not there is, or can be, any sort of time outside of our physical world (or even if there is anything outside our physical world).

 

[Nixbits]

Gorgias:

Hmm… ‘open to interpretation’ and ‘far from ideal’ don’t imply ‘flawed’, though, do they?

Perhaps they do. It depends on the intended purpose (by the author) and the capabilities of the reader. If my intended purpose in writing a letter is to make it intelligible to a specific person, but I write in a language that the reader doesn’t understand, then, in my opinion, the letter is flawed. Similarly, if the intention is to convey some information in an unambiguous way, but the wording used is open to interpretation, then it is flawed.

Gorgias:

Are you saying that a text – if it doesn’t fulfil its purpose for even one reader – is flawed?

I think I’m suggesting that it is flawed in the subjective opinion of that reader. And if the author intended the text to fulfil its purpose for all of its readers, then this flaw is significant. I do accept though, that this sets the bar very high and is especially difficult when the capabilities of the intended readership is not known.

Gorgias:

Aren’t you imposing a 21st-century literary style preference on the text, here? And if so, then why is it reasonable to suggest that, three millennia after the creation of this account, we should be able to critique the writing style of the inspired author in this way?

You’ve characterised my criticism as relating to the use of a literary device or a literary style. I don’t see it that way. My criticism is that the author stated something (that God became angry) which you have said does not mean that God actually became angry. My criticism is therefore that either the author should not have stated this, or that the interpretation is wrong.

Gorgias:

But, is it necessary that this teaching about God’s nature appears in the Bible? In other words, is the Bible the only place where God reveals Himself to humanity?

Absolutely not, on both counts. But the Bible should not contain statements that state that God’s nature is other than it is. It’s surely not acceptable for the Bible to contain inaccuracies as long as they are contradicted elsewhere.

Gorgias:

Yet, you ask “any sort of time”, by which I presume you mean “something along the lines of ‘time’ in the created universe, but not limited by the universe”?

Precisely so. Just because God is outside our physical temporal world, does it necessarily follow that God is not subject to duration, sequence of events or change?

Gorgias:

How would you propose that one do this, in the context of God’s self-revelation?

In other words, how would I propose to demonstrate the accuracy of Church teaching and the truth of Scripture? That’s a big question. I think my answer is that I must use the same methods that I would for any other important assertion. I look for consistency, both within the assertions and in relation to my knowledge and experience of the real world. I look for truth, insofar as it relates to established facts. I also look for usefulness and relevance to my life and for evidence of benefit.

 

[hansard]

When you make the assertion that Zeus “had a beginning” and then conflate him with the God of Judeo-Christianity, you make any discussion of time meaningless. Assuming an equivalence between your “collection of deities” makes no more sense than arguing that fish can climb trees with the same skill as squirrels. There is no basis for discussion.

**
…and then conflate him…
**
No, I just compared apples and oranges. Your god, mine, theirs. They are all just as valid.

…you make any discussion of time meaningless. Precisely why? I was particularly addressing the concept of time. Read my post again.

Assuming an equivalence between your “collection of deities” makes no more sense than arguing that fish can climb trees with the same skill as squirrels.
Nobody said they were equivalent; just equally valid. Context is everything.

There is no basis for discussion
Fine. Then don’t discuss. I just won’t have my ideas brushed aside so easily, especially by someone who has no more knowledge on the matter than me. Such arrogance! If you think you have some special insight into the timelessness or otherwise of any god, then I’m sure we’re all hanging on your every word.

If you don’t like my perspective, tough luck.

 

[Ignatius]

I’m intrigued by what several posters have said about God being ‘outside of time’ and/or of being ‘timeless’.

God is Eternal without beginning or end. Everything in the material universe, including time, was created by Him. Time is a part of His creation and everything that is was created by Him. That is why He is called The Creator.

 

[hansard]

Hi, Appears so, just circular passing conversation that surely won’t solve our dilemma. What are your thoughts anyway?

My thoughts?
God had a beginning but might not have an end. God is co-existant with the universe.

 

[GaryTaylor]

God had a beginning but might not have an end. God is co-existant with the universe.

So what makes you think God had a beginning, when would this have begun?

 

[Gorgias]

Perhaps they do. It depends on the intended purpose (by the author) and the capabilities of the reader.

But different readers – especially in a variety of cultures and eras – ‘read’ in different ways, with different perspectives and expectations. It would be impossible to write one text that would be understood – on the surface of the text – in the same way by all people in all times. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon us (that is, ‘us the Church’) to read the Bible in the way that the author intended it. Those who insist on a strictly literalistic interpretation (e.g., “the Bible says God was angry; therefore, He must have been literally experiencing the emotion of ‘anger’ in a human way”) miss the meaning of Scripture.

If my intended purpose in writing a letter is to make it intelligible to a specific person, but I write in a language that the reader doesn’t understand, then, in my opinion, the letter is flawed.

But, if there are skilled interpreters and translators, who are able to read the letter and explain to a target audience what’s written there, then there’s no notion of being ‘flawed’ – unless, of course, you insist that the target audience be required to come to an understanding on their own and without authoritative guidance. In that case, the flawed approach doesn’t belong to the author, but to those who insist that each be able to interpret personally…

I think I’m suggesting that it is flawed in the subjective opinion of that reader.

Because that particular reader doesn’t understand it? So… Shakespeare is flawed because high school students don’t ‘get’ his plays? (But also not flawed because many people do understand him?) That’s an odd standard…

And if the author intended the text to fulfil its purpose for all of its readers, then this flaw is significant.

And if the author created a Church with the authority to interpret the text for all? Is there still a ‘flaw’?

My criticism is that the author stated something (that God became angry) which you have said does not mean that God actually became angry. My criticism is therefore that either the author should not have stated this, or that the interpretation is wrong.

Again, it comes down to modes of expression. You wish the Bible to be hyper-literal, for ease of personal interpretation. If that wasn’t what the ‘author’ intended, then why must the text meet a standard that you, personally, are attempting to impose upon it?

Precisely so. Just because God is outside our physical temporal world, does it necessarily follow that God is not subject to duration, sequence of events or change?

Your issue, then, is a misunderstanding of the definition of ‘eternity’: it has no duration (but is pure existence in-the-moment), and is not simply an unending sequence of events (which would be an ‘infinite sequence’, not an ‘eternity’), nor admits to change (by the very definition of change, which requires measurability).

In other words, how would I propose to demonstrate the accuracy of Church teaching and the truth of Scripture? That’s a big question. I think my answer is that I must use the same methods that I would for any other important assertion. I look for consistency, both within the assertions and in relation to my knowledge and experience of the real world. I look for truth, insofar as it relates to established facts. I also look for usefulness and relevance to my life and for evidence of benefit.

Fair enough. Am I accurate in characterizing this as a personal search? One that you undergo yourself, alone, in your heart? If so, where is the Scriptural warrant that this is the proper way to read and interpret Scripture? And – since there is no such direction in Scripture () – and since the Church positions herself as the authoritative interpreter of God’s self-revelation, why is it that you do not, then, simply address the Church’s teaching on the nature of God?

 

[irenaeuslyons]

More precisely, St Augustine of Hippo may have been the first person to say this about time from amongst those whose works were recorded and copies of which are still extant in our time. With that proviso, it’s still a remarkable piece of thinking.

What is problematic is that you could dismiss the originality of anything anyone has said in history by the same criteria.

The question being debated is whether or not there is, or can be, any sort of time outside of our physical world (or even if there is anything outside our physical world).

This will forever be a metaphysical question because the empirical domain has its limits within the created universe. So you have to resort to logical evidence for what exists outside of it.

You can start here:
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[Nixbits]

Ignatius:

God is Eternal without beginning or end. Everything in the material universe, including time, was created by Him. Time is a part of His creation and everything that is was created by Him. That is why He is called The Creator.

Ignatius, your post does not address the issue being discussed. By “God is Eternal” do you mean that God is ever-lasting, without beginning or end, or do you mean God exists in a timeless state whereby statements about duration are meaningless? Both interpretations of the word ‘eternal’ are possible. Whether you claim that one or other of these definitions is true, or perhaps a different interpretation altogether, the next question is what is the justification for your interpretation.

 

[Nixbits]

Gorgias:

It would be impossible to write one text that would be understood – on the surface of the text – in the same way by all people in all times.

I agree.

Gorgias:

it’s incumbent upon us (that is, ‘us the Church’) to read the Bible in the way that the author intended it.

Therein lies the problem because we don’t necessarily know what the author(s) intended.

Gorgias:

Those who insist on a strictly literalistic interpretation … miss the meaning of Scripture.

More precisely, they miss the non-literal meaning deduced by the interpreters of that Scripture. The question of which interpretation is correct, if either of them, still remains.

Gorgias:

unless, of course, you insist that the target audience be required to come to an understanding on their own and without authoritative guidance.

Preferably, yes. Going back to the analogy of the letter: If I write to my French friend, knowing that he can read both English and French, but I choose to write in German, requiring him to get the letter translated, then the flaw is mine, not his.

Gorgias:

So… Shakespeare is flawed because high school students don’t ‘get’ his plays?

No, your analogy is not valid. If Shakespeare wrote his plays to be understood by high school students in the 21st century, then it would be fair to say that they are not without flaws. But he wrote his plays, I believe, to be understood by the theatre audiences of his day. By all accounts he was quite successful.

Gorgias:

And if the author created a Church with the authority to interpret the text for all? Is there still a ‘flaw’?

I don’t think the ‘authority to interpret’ is relevant. It’s the accuracy of the interpretation that matters. If there are many interpretations and no clear consensus on the original meaning, or if the interpretation is open to question, then the I think the suggestion of a flaw is still valid.

Gorgias:

You wish the Bible to be hyper-literal, for ease of personal interpretation. If that wasn’t what the ‘author’ intended, then why must the text meet a standard that you, personally, are attempting to impose upon it?

You mis-characterise my position. I don’t wish the Bible to be ‘hyper-literal’, but I do wish it was less ambiguous. But your question here is a valid one. Perhaps being intelligible to me wasn’t what the author intended. But, if that is the case, it calls into question the claim that the Bible is the divinely-inspired inerrant word of God.

Gorgias:

Your issue, then, is a misunderstanding of the definition of ‘eternity’: it has no duration (but is pure existence in-the-moment), and is not simply an unending sequence of events (which would be an ‘infinite sequence’, not an ‘eternity’), nor admits to change (by the very definition of change, which requires measurability).

Perhaps so. But I claim that I have not misunderstood the definition of ‘eternity’. My claim is that there are several definitions of ‘eternity’ and it’s not clear what is meant by the use of this word in particular verses of the Bible.

Gorgias:

Am I accurate in characterizing this as a personal search? One that you undergo yourself, alone, in your heart? If so, where is the Scriptural warrant that this is the proper way to read and interpret Scripture?

I suppose it is a personal search. What other sort is there? I do not undergo this search in my heart. It’s very much in my brain. My heart just pumps blood. As for a ‘Scriptural warrant’, I have none and I don’t think such a thing would be valid anyway within the jurisdiction of my mind.

Gorgias:

why is it that you do not, then, simply address the Church’s teaching on the nature of God?

I though I was addressing the Church’s teaching. Or, by ‘address’, did you mean ‘accept without questioning’?

 

[Nixbits]

irenaeuslyons:

What is problematic is that you could dismiss the originality of anything anyone has said in history by the same criteria.

You could, but you would be unwise to do so. I did not dismiss the originality of Augustine’s thinking. I merely pointed out that we cannot know whether or not he was the first person to have this idea. So, we should not dismiss the originality of anything anyone said in history, but we should not assert it as truth.

 

[Gorgias]

Therein lies the problem because we don’t necessarily know what the author(s) intended.

More precisely, they miss the non-literal meaning deduced by the interpreters of that Scripture. The question of which interpretation is correct, if either of them, still remains.

I don’t think the ‘authority to interpret’ is relevant. It’s the accuracy of the interpretation that matters. If there are many interpretations and no clear consensus on the original meaning, or if the interpretation is open to question, then the I think the suggestion of a flaw is still valid.

Hmm… I would assert that ‘authority to interpret’ – and therefore, ability to interpret – is precisely what’s in play here. Do we “necessarily know what the authors intended”? Do we know “which interpretation is correct”? Yes, we do: the entity which has been given the charism to interpret the Scriptures – properly and accurately – is able to do so… and actually uses that charism to teach what God intended to teach in His self-revelation in Scripture!

Are there “many interpretations”? Is there “no clear consensus”? Indeed! Yet, that’s immaterial: there are ‘many interpretations’ of the law, and sometimes, ‘no clear consensus’ on what the law intends. Yet, there is only one relevant interpretation: the one that the entity empowered to interpret the law asserts. If the Supreme Court rules on a law, it doesn’t matter whether you or I personally agree, or if there are other interpretations besides theirs, or even whether there is not a consensus on their interpretation: by virtue of their mandate, their interpretation is the one that’s viewed as having force of law.

Similarly in this case: it is the Church who interprets Scripture validly. Whether there are two or ten or ten thousand other interpretations… whether there is ‘consensus’… whether there is ambiguity in the text being interpreted – all of these are immaterial, since the authoritative interpreter of Scripture has provided an interpretation.

Preferably, yes. Going back to the analogy of the letter: If I write to my French friend, knowing that he can read both English and French, but I choose to write in German, requiring him to get the letter translated, then the flaw is mine, not his.

Yes, but your analogy requires the intent that you desire your friend to personally read and understand your letter, without other help. The question remains: is God’s project, in the Bible, that each read and interpret individually? I maintain that the answer is ‘no’.

You mis-characterise my position. I don’t wish the Bible to be ‘hyper-literal’, but I do wish it was less ambiguous. But your question here is a valid one. Perhaps being intelligible to me wasn’t what the author intended. But, if that is the case, it calls into question the claim that the Bible is the divinely-inspired inerrant word of God.

How does it call that claim into question? “Intelligible to you” is a requirement that is still met if you have assistance in reaching your understanding. Beowulf is “intelligible” to high school students – but they require Cliffs Notes and a good teacher in order to understand it.

Perhaps so. But I claim that I have not misunderstood the definition of ‘eternity’. My claim is that there are several definitions of ‘eternity’ and it’s not clear what is meant by the use of this word in particular verses of the Bible.

We’re back to the ‘authority’ question, though, aren’t we? “It’s not clear” to you, but it’s less unclear to those who listen to the teachings of the Church on the matter…

I suppose it is a personal search. What other sort is there? I do not undergo this search in my heart. It’s very much in my brain. My heart just pumps blood. As for a ‘Scriptural warrant’, I have none and I don’t think such a thing would be valid anyway within the jurisdiction of my mind.

Why must the search be purely personal? Why must you require that it only happens in your brain and in the primary text? This isn’t a graduate seminar, after all, in which you hold fast to primary texts and eschew secondary commentary! The interpretation of the Church is critical in this “personal search”, for all of us!

I though I was addressing the Church’s teaching. Or, by ‘address’, did you mean ‘accept without questioning’?

No – but you seem to be rejecting it (or, at least, questioning it) with no other basis than “I don’t see it literally on the letter of these particular verses in Scripture”.

There’s a difference between ‘questioning’ and ‘arbitrarily rejecting’, isn’t there?

 

[Nixbits]

Gorgias, thank you for taking the time to take part in this discussion. On reflection, my difficulty in accepting the Church’s teaching on the issue of God’s timeless and changeless nature stems primarily from a discord between the Church’s teaching on several key topics and the knowledge and experience of the world that I have gained as an adult. I’m unconvinced by what the Church teaches on these matters.

Your suggestion seems to be that I shouldn’t try to rely on the Bible as a primary text without the guidance of the Church as authoritative interpreter. This is increasingly difficult to do when I have lost confidence in that interpreter. Consequently, I don’t arbitrarily object to every interpretation, but I do question each one and I don’t have the confidence to accept it unless I find sufficient concord with my own reasoning. My involvement with CAF is part of this questioning.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, thank you for taking the time to take part in this discussion. On reflection, my difficulty in accepting the Church’s teaching on the issue of God’s timeless and changeless nature stems primarily from a discord between the Church’s teaching on several key topics and the knowledge and experience of the world that I have gained as an adult. I’m unconvinced by what the Church teaches on these matters.

Aah. That would seem to be the direction from which to discuss this matter, then: if I read you correctly, it’s not that you disagree with the Church’s teaching on this particular matter, but that you are unwilling to consider this particular teaching, based on other issues that you have with other Church teachings. (Unfortunately, that’s not only out of scope for this thread, but may be a discussion that’s out of scope for *any sort of * internet discussion thread. :sad_yes:

Your suggestion seems to be that I shouldn’t try to rely on the Bible as a primary text without the guidance of the Church as authoritative interpreter.

No – rely on it, but if you perceive an incongruity between your observations and Church interpretation, go with the Church’s understanding.

This is increasingly difficult to do when I have lost confidence in that interpreter.

Yep; that’s quite the conundrum. Yet, how can you reject the Church but still accept the Scriptures which the Church produced?

I don’t have the confidence to accept it unless I find sufficient concord with my own reasoning. My involvement with CAF is part of this questioning.

Makes sense. Is it reasonable, however, to use one particular human’s individual experience (/reasoning) as the objective standard by which the Scriptures (or any passage therein) is measured?