Hi Chocolategenii:

Thanks for your explanation.

Some of the things I take in to consideration as to understanding what time is, is that it can be measured or perceived (for lack of a 'better' word) or else be totally non-existent.

From a scientific standpoint I was taught that time was simply the measurement of change. I'm not sure if my teachers would have said back then that in the absence of change, there is no time. (But that's just a passing thought that just now popped into my head but perhaps it could apply somehow. )

With 'simple' science, time measurement (macro observation) for us makes it appear to be linear. With advanced science (micro observation) time does not appear to be always linear but can vary depending upon energy levels and the apparent stretching of space. Theoretically then (at least within my limited scope of understanding) time can be thought to slow to a virtual stop. In this sense, time is strictly chronos even if it is not always linear because either way time is being measured and considered to be qualitative.

On the other hand, outside the bounds of science, time can be perceived as not necessarily being considered as linear or can be observed with a sense of linearity through not-so-precise scientific-like measurements such as noting changing positions of the sun and moon it appears to me that time can be considered to be 'roughly' linear using observations 'without science' by only using our five senses on a macro level and also non-linear without measurement of changes at all. In this sense time can be considered both qualitative and quantitative.

So from your explanation, it appears to me that you are then saying that kairos time is that aspect of existence where time is non-linear and not subject to extreme swings in the space-time continuum and is more subject to being qualitative rather than quantitative.

I cannot get a handle on (perceived) existence without time of some sort even though I understand from a scientific micro measurement standpoint time can virtually stop to become timeless. But even then 'zero', or 'near zero', is a measurement of time.

However, when you say, "therefore time is timeless" I find that to be un-understandable, kind of like saying something is nothing, even though I still have a sense of what you are meaning. That is where I'm at trying to figure out how yhwh is timeless where time as we know it does NOT exist at all. In that sense time is not timeless because if there is time, well, then, ... there is time, irregardless of how it is perception.

But an interesting aspect, extremely interesting to me at least, of this that I recently came across is that in the Hebrew language, verb tense is not subject to time at all (even though someone with a western thinking mind would attempt to read time into it somehow) but instead subject to actions in a two dimensional sense; complete and incomplete rather than the three dimensions of time in the English verb tense of past, present and future.

So then, that seems to suggest that from the perspective of yhwh, his foremost experience of existence is in terms of (righteous) actions rather than in terms of time. Anyway, that's something where I have yet some understanding to gain.

There is the aspect of scripture though that says that the teacher will always be greater than the student in terms of the 'real' existence that yhwh lives within (as opposed to our temporal physical experience). So perhaps this could mean that the existence of yhwh will never completely be understood by any other being because his existence is the only one that is timeless whereas all of other existence is subject to time.

In other words, even though yhwh has promised to give eternal life to anyone who believes he will do so and they do become righteous just like yhwh, they will NEVER become timeless like him, not even the messiah, who became subject to time upon his creation both as a being and later as a human. In that way yhwh will always be the 'teacher' and be greater than the 'students' of his kingdom. That is an aspect of his existence that perhaps we can never really know because we can never exist that way.

This may be getting away from Kairos time and instead a matter of differing types of measuring Chronos time. Perhaps the Hopis method of time keeping differs from how others today look at it but they still essentially live in Chronos time. We have friends from Uganda who have no regard for our western way of measuring chronos time, but they do not regard it as Kairos time but instead their view is simply a different method of measuring Chronos (ie. they missed allot of appointments ).

The same could be said for those of the first century when mechanized clocks were not used and the sundial was the way of measuring time. In this method of time measurement there is always 12 hours in a day (as in daylight). Hours were not used to measure the night time because of the absence of the sun. The night was measured by 'watches'.

When 'Jesus' asked, 'Is there not 12 hours in a day?', I thought, no, at least not in Canada. There are 24 hours and the number of hours of day (as in daylight) is quite variable. So to me that statement of 'Jesus' was not true. But somewhere along the line I realized that time measurement then was by sundial and during the 'day'light there is always 12 hours no matter the season or the length of daylight in a single rotation of the earth. Still Chronos time but a different method of measuring it.

I hope I am calling him what he likes to be called but that can not be determined at this point of time because of the early doctrines of Judaism and Christianity. Those doctrines dismissed the calling out of the name for various reasons which are still argued about to this day.

The name was revealed to Eve, to Moses (and other prophets) and to the disciples by 'Jesus'. But mankind quickly discarded it every time. In doing so mankind does not know yhwh and calls him anything but his name.

Exo_3:15 And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Exo_6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of El-Shaddai, but by my name YHWH was I not known to them?

Isa_42:8 I am YHWH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Now to take into consideration what you have said about the name of GOD Supreme being 'hyh', I once again go back to ...

Exo 3:14 And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

I think I mentioned this to you before that the exact word that the 'gods' said to Moses in this verse was not 'hyh' but instead 'ahyh' which has a different meaning whether or not it is a name or just a regular word. To be warned, I'm going to explain this in a completely different light from those based upon current traditions so if you aren't interested, you don't have to read any further, if you happened to have read this far.

According to those studying the ancient Hebrew 'ahyh' can mean different things depending upon what rules of grammar are applied to the arrangement of the letters of that word. None of the usual rules of grammar, particularly the modern rules now in use make any sense to me. And even those studying in depth the ancient Hebrew have come up with different rules that still don't always make sense to me but I tend to think they are closer to the truth of yhwh than current long standing traditions.

All that aside it seems to me currently that the 'mighty ones' ... well, maybe I should step back a bit here to describe the scene at the burning bush.

At the burning bush there were a number of beings, not just Moses and 'God', meeting together. There was first mentioned the 'angel of the yhwh'. yhwh was watching as well and when Moses approached the bush, those of the 'elohim' called out to Moses. So there was yhwh watching, the angel of yhwh (speaking on behalf of yhwh, ie. 'The Word'), perhaps several other of the 'mighty ones' (elohim), although it could be said that yhwh and his angel are specifically the only 'mighty ones present, and Moses. So there are at least three beings involved and perhaps more.

So looking at ...
Exo 3:13 And Moses said unto Elohim, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The Elohim of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
... Moses is talking to the 'mighty ones' collectively rather than to just yhwh or just the angel of yhwh. And Moses essentially asks the 'mighty ones', because he wants to know which one of the mighty ones is instructing him to approach the children of Israel, for a specific name rather than just saying the 'gods'.

So in verse 14, collectively the 'mighty ones' say to Moses (DCInC's version according to the individual meanings of the ancient letters 'ahyh') ...
And the 'mighty ones' said unto Moses, 'We are CHANGING the preception of THE PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE TO BRING ABOUT the (your) perceived CHANGING of the PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE: and they said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, there is a CHANGING of the preception of the PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE and this is the reason I am being sent unto you.
... then in verse 14, it seems to say to me currently ...
And the 'mighty ones' said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH of the 'mighty ones' of your fathers, the 'mighty ones' of Abraham, the 'mighty ones' of Isaac, and the 'mighty ones' of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is (to you) a name for ever, and this is (to you) a memorial unto all generations.

The 'mighty ones' decided to change the perception of the Israelites in how they, the 'mighty ones', existed, which was the same perception that Abraham had of the 'mighty ones'. That was cause for the statement made in verse 13 about such a change. The change was to better know the being named yhwh, which was previously known but not understood.

Because of traditions of Judaism and Christianity we tend to think in this modern age that the Israelites were monotheistic. But it can easily be seen from the scriptures that they were not as confirmed by comments like ...So the ancient Israelites were not monotheistic but instead more along the lines of henotheism or possibly polytheistic to begin with.

So it seems to me the change that took place at the burning bush was the beginnings of the change from polytheism of the ancient Hebrews to that of henotheism for the ancient Israelites as directed by yhwh himself through his angel.

Then later Judaism tried to change things to monotheism but against the will of yhwh and that is the beginning of the confusion we have amongst the numerous and growing number of religious organizations of our time today.

... for what it is worth.

Shalom

Kairos time must be experienced to understand it.



I guess that is one way to explain away what happened at the burning bush, when GOD revealed His name for the first time. Interesting topic DC, and deserves it's own thread....perhaps.

You can always move to Mexico...and be on "manana" time!

The idea, though, that because an individual experiences something makes that thing so is not really accurate. We've all had experiences of time slowing down (when expecting something pleasant to happen) or speeding up (your vacation) but that only means that our perceptions are altered.

Can we argue that altered perceptions create a universal reality, or is it safer to say that altered perceptions create what appears to be reality only to the individual experiencing the alteration?

Although manana time sounds great right about now.

Chronos time requires "speed", and so yes one can perceive time slowing up, and slowing down...depending on the situation like vacations etc. Kairos time, on the other hand, is not dependent on speed, but instead on "space". Chronos time, you might find time to "waste", but in kairos time or spirit time, time is "savored". Artists feel this kairos time to a limited degree... when they work. Yogis immerse themselves in kairos time during meditation and therefore are able to maintain yogic poses...like the tree pose for "chronological" hours; but while doing so...are LOVING eternal kairos time....as "chronological" time slips by.

Kairos time surpasses chronos time...and we all live by the clock, but we all wish time were timeless. Chronos time we do, kairos time we simply "are".

Doesn't time measure "speed"? Doesn't time require "change"? Seems to me without change time would not be perceivable.

What reference do you have for the word Elohim here? I ask this, because most modern day Bibles do not make the distinction.
Do you have Hebrew references?

We both know that chapter 3 verse 2 ...an "angel" appears... And then in verse 14 it says "God says". So is the Elohim God, because we are talking about God Almighty here?

Hi Chocolategenii:

This quote you re-quoted above comes from the Restored Name King James Version (RNKJV). I don't consider it totally accurate in its rendering, particularly in the NT, but it is far more accurate in terms of the original Hebrew than the traditional KJV.

In the RNKJV just about every time 'Elohim' appears, that is where the Hebrew has the word 'elohim'. There are a number of instances though where the RNKJV renders "Elohim" where the actual Hebrew word is the singular 'eloah' with a 'yod' suffix ('y', as in eloahy' which means (in the KJV vernacular) 'god manifests' and not just a single word definition like 'god' or 'gods' or 'God'. It remains singular despite traditions of English renderings.

All this is confirmed in any of the versions of the Hebrew Bibles that are available for the most part. If you have a computer program called e-sword you can load all those Bibles into it and easily confirm what I have found and what those researching the ancient Hebrew language are confirming on their websites from their work (TCP and AHRC, for instance).

You could probably find this in any interlinear Bible as well or on any on-line Bible websites by googling. And there is the IAV Bible as well although I haven't determined its accuracy as yet with the Hebrew.

I can only think of two English versions at the moment that makes a distinction and I've only seen them on computer, never in print, the RNKJV and the IAV. I've probably seen others on line but can't think of their names at the moment because I can confirm most things with what I have downloaded into my own computer (mentioned above) so far.

Exo 3:2 And the angel of YHWH appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. (RNKJV)
... compared to ...
Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. (KJV)The RNKJV specifically says "yhwh" where the KJV incorrectly says "LORD" which causes confusion who is being spoken of here. So as you say this is an angel of el/eloah almighty but the angel is another el who follows yhwh hence "angel of ..."

Exo 3:14 And Elohim said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (RNKJV) (emphasis by DCInC)
... compared to ...
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (KJV) (emphasis by DCInC)
... so there are at least two mighty ones (elohim) that are speaking hear. I suspect they include the angel of yhwh and at least one other who could be either yhwh himself or another mighty one (el/eloah). If the angel of yhwh is the el who later became "The Word" in John 1:1, then perhaps the other el is yhwh but if the angel of yhwh is not "The Word" then the other el must be "The Word". Hope that is more explanatory than confusing to you. There is a logic of sorts to it.

Also, when you consider ...
Exo 3:7 And YHWH said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; (RNKJV) (emphasis by DCInC)
... yhwh is certainly present albeit perhaps only in the voice of "The Word", which could be the angel of yhwh. But there are at least two behind the conversation on the elohim side of the discussion with Moses no matter who is who.

After all 'Jesus', "The Word" of the elohim?/yhwh? (the NT isn't exactly clear on that because of the use of the singular 'theos' when the plural 'elohim' has been used in Hebrew references) said he only spoke what came from his father yhwh, hence, "The Word" as in spokesman. So whenever "The Word" speaks there is ALWAYS more than one el/eloah present in the conversation. Consequently it perhaps could also be considered that when the RNKJV says or "YHWH said" that automatically means that yhwhshau (aka. Jesus) is actually uttering the words of yhwh directly to the one being spoken to because no one physical has ever met yhwh face to face, only his spirit being spokes-men/man/being(s), or angels (messengers), who physically manifest the uttering of his words .

But what it comes down to is that when the KJV says "God said" in this verse it is very misleading as the Hebrew uses the word "elohim", plural, as in 'gods' just as the RNKJV confirms by using the transcription 'Elohim'.

There is one aspect of the rendering of 'elohim' in the RNKJV that tends to still draw away from the exact Hebrew meaning. The RNKJV still considers 'elohim' to be a name and thus renders it 'Elohim' (uppercase 'E') in that version. And I'm not exactly sure but I suspect the doctrine of its translator(s) probably is that Elohim is another name for yhwh which is the doctrines behind the rendering of the traditional KJV. But that shouldn't be a bearing on what the Hebrew actually says as long as one understands what the doctrines might be behind the English renderings of any version of the Bible. Looking at the Hebrew words themsleves is the 'final' determining factor but for anyone not familiar with Hebrew, like myself, that can be quite an undertaking otherwise confusion exists to English only readers.

Where I find that the RNKJV is the closest to the Hebrew, which is often, I use it because it better illustrates some of the points that I try to make in my posts.

Shalom

Hi Cy_Click:

Except for a minor consideration or two that is pretty much what I was taught, that time is the measurement of change. Speed is a factor considering both time and distance together rather than just time.

Thank you DC.

Why is the English translation for Elohim. which is plural, translated singular as God? Should it not be translated "God(s)"...for a correct translation?