A Musical Soapbox

This is truly a rant. Your indulgence is humbly craved.

If you know me much, you know the soundtrack of my life consists of symphonies, operas, oratorios, string quartets and other delicious things. But for the life of me I can’t quite see why that isn’t the case for everyone else — and that’s what I’m going to rant about.

Before I plunge in, I had best describe my own musical background. If you are skimming, this is a good section to skip.

How I Discovered Classical Music

I grew up hearing scraps of the Beatles, a few soundtrack-like hits (things like Hawaii Five-O and Dueling Banjos), and whatever oldies were played back in the 90s. I had occasional exposure to a 5 CD set of random classical works, but I rarely listened beyond Rimsky-Korsakov’s Flight of the bumble bee.

At about the age of 12, I decided that I loved James Horner’s soundtrack to Universal’s animated film Balto. My mom graciously purchased a reasonably priced copy on eBay, which quickly became my mainstay of background music for playing with Legos. (I still have the same stereo I did then, come to think of it.) Mom, perhaps annoyed with the repetition of what I considered 43 minutes of heaven, trucked in the 5 CD boxed set of classical music into my room, suggesting I listen to some other music too. I dutifully accepted her offering. Memories returned of wanting to like the Dance of the Reed Pipes from The Nutcracker, but shunning the impulse — liking ballet could hardly be masculine, my childish mind reasoned. At one of my sister’s ballet recitals, I fell in love a short dance from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake. A complete recording shortly made its way into a BMG Music order. From there, it was not very difficult for me to see what I liked was something special.

My appreciation of a couple other forms of music (rock, jazz, rap, pop, etc.) seemed to vary inversely to my love of older compositions. Today my recollections of my friend and I thinking the Backstreet Boys emotionally affecting fill me with blushing shame. What was going on there??? Now I can barely listen to Phantom of the Opera with my stomach churning. I assume this is a personal problem. At least, that seems the easiest answer.

Perceptions of Something I Just Don’t Like

In my journal entry for January 19th, 2010, I reflected,

Which is worse, listening to rock CCM or watching football? The former, naturally, as the latter, rather than making you want to commit a mild act of violence, prompts the desire to do something that in some way stimulates the brain. This last desire is a good one, better [however] without such inducement.

It doesn’t take a psychologist to divine that I do not take a sanguine view of rock music. Dear me, I still have problems appreciating Stravinsky, let alone the far less sophisticated writings of various rock (and jazz) artists, as they are so quaintly termed. Gladly would I endure 15 minutes of a football broadcast if it meant forgoing 15 minutes of hoarse women, incorrigible drum players, and screaming “Are those men?”-quartets. (Those of you who have magnanimously deferred to my obstinate predilections have my heartfelt thanks — I do notice.)

The funny thing is that people decide of their own accord to hear this sort of thing. What I sometimes accidentally see on Amazon’s main music page leads me to believe that people actually buy recordings of some of this stuff. How could you want to hear that — again? I just don’t get it. Perhaps Richard Bonynge, conductor-husband of one of my favorite opera singers, understands better:

Richard Bonynge: If [audiences] want something modern, they’ll go to Broadway, but even the Broadway pieces that have success are as old-fashioned as they can possibly be. The idiom is almost 19th century with a bit of beat behind it, that’s all.

Interviewer: Is “rock” music?

Joan Sutherland: Don’t ask me that.

RB: I don’t think we’re in much of a position to say because we don’t know much about it. It doesn’t appeal to us very much, but it certainly appeals to a great many people, so there must be something about it. It’s primitive and very easy to listen to.

JS: Not for me it’s not! It’s taxing, sort of bang, bang, bang, bang...

My feelings align more with Joan Sutherland than Richard Bonynge, but the latter does have a point. He must, or else 90 percent of radio stations would be playing classical music (which, by the way, in its widest sense makes up the vast majority of music in existence).

What am I missing? Rock music makes me feel like I should be getting a headache. (It rarely gives me one, as I am generally impervious to the normal headache stimuli.) Is it enjoyed simply because it’s fashionable? Because people like their sappy dollar-store “Jesus Music” (sorry) because they just don’t know any better? Are they afraid of being elitist? Is it because I’m elitist? What is it?

But what really puts the icing on the cake for me is that they are rejecting one of the most delightful things God has allowed man to create.

What They Give Up

What great pleasures people forfeit! There is such greater, more glorious music written to God’s honor than that which airs these days. John Stainer’s Crucifixion, Sullivan’s Prodigal Son (set verbatim from various bits of scripture), anything by Bach, Handel’s Solomon (and a myriad of other Biblical oratorios), Mendelssohn’s Elijah, Tchaikovsky’s Moscow Cantata, Berlioz’ lovely setting of a religious poem by Thomas More — and this doesn’t even begin to cover secular music!

I’ve heard many of the excuses. “Classical isn’t my thing,” however, doesn’t cut the mustard. This is the musical equivalent of saying, “Oh, I’m not fond of cooked foods.” There is such a vast variety of music tritely labeled as “classical,” that an all-encompassing statement of preference shows either insanely narrow tastes or limited musical experience.

The latter seems more likely: Our culture does hardly anything to encourage the love of great music, as much as it uses it subliminally. Sure, instances of positively portrayed opera singers are on the rise, but it is still an uphill battle. Think of how many people will consciously name a bel canto aria as a favorite song, much less know what bel canto even is. Nevertheless, I believe that if people realized how much classical music they inadvertently heard—and even enjoyed—they would take a more favorable view on this subject. Indeed, some of the most pleasant classical music of the last 80 years has escaped much biased criticism by innocently advertising itself as a part of the soundtrack genre.

The Biblical Approach

What frustrates me perhaps the most is that I cannot come up with a solid Biblical response — in my favor or in theirs. (I attribute some of this to my yet insufficient knowledge of the Scriptures.) Well, there is I Corinthians 14:40:

But all things should be done decently and in order. (ESV)

However, as unpleasant as rock music is, it cannot be denied that it has some sort of order. There’s the guilt by association argument, which I think holds some water. Though we often forget it (unlike some rock artists — eek), a fair number of classical composers were less than saints, which opens up a whole new can of worms (which I won't open here).

Some people say the beats in rock, et al. are inherently bad. That could be, but there was a time that opera was considered an unrighteous form of entertainment to be shunned by anyone with a conscience. Still, whether they were wrong does not affect whether people today are wrong about the beats, though it certainly calls for closer inspection.

Paul tells us not to be caught under the influence of anything that isn’t God. Some describe the potentially darkly sensual effects of rock, et al. and tie it to Paul’s admonition. I know too little to offer an opinion.

Tapering Off

I have fumed enough on this matter, but it wouldn’t hurt if to focus some of the above:

• I’ve come to love classical music without being prodded
• I don’t understand rock, pop, jazz, rap, country (did I mention how little I can stand country music?)
• I don’t understand why people don’t like other kinds of music
• I’m frustrated that I can’t formulate a satisfactory Biblical answer in either direction (or another direction I have not considered)

Help me understand!

In truth I could pursue this painful theme much further, but behold, I have said enough.

Self-Evident Truths Vs. Self-Defeating Lies

You know what really churns my butter? People who challenge truths we hold to be self-evident. One of these recent challenges (which really isn't so recent, so much as it is prevalent today) is against knowledge. We can't really know anything for sure. Truth is what we make it to be.

Okay. But if that's the case, how can we know that we can't know anything for sure for sure? (i.e. how can we know for sure that we can't know anything for sure?) How can we know if that is true? Is the statement "truth is what we make it" true or false? It seems it matters no longer, because it has become something that it isn't.

That is, these challenges have become lies we hold to be self-defeating.

Al A. Gore-ically Speaking...

We have a problem on our hands. Consider the following fable:

A DOG, used to eating eggs, saw an Oyster and, opening his mouth to its widest extent, swallowed it down with the utmost relish, supposing it to be an egg. Soon afterwards suffering great pain in his stomach, he said, "I deserve all this torment, for my folly in thinking that everything round must be an egg."

Moral: They who act without sufficient thought, will often fall into unsuspected danger.*

Since when have scientists ceased to think—actually think—through their claims on Global Warming? Have they stopped checking themselves and begun assuming that it must be so? Since when have scientists ceased to have their "findings" cross-checked by other acclaimed scientists? Is this science? If so, abandon your posts you biologists! Flee for your lives you physicists! Run while you still can you astronomers! Your foundations have been utterly shaken by the earthquake of reason! The wind of reality has toppled the towers of your lofty ideas! The tide of truth has overtaken the walls of your "evidence"!

The inconvenient moral: scientists who do not incorporate thoughtful philosophy into their worldview will ultimately find themselves in a fix—a fix far worse than if global warming were real.

*http://aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?1&TheDogandtheOyster

Wisdom or Wackiness?

Welcome to the first edition of Wisdom or Wackiness, the game where one raver posts a questionable quotation and every raver critiques it, labeling as Wisdom, Wackiness, or Both.

Have a go at this one:

“All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire.” – Aristotle (384-322 BC)

When Zombies Attack the Naturalist

You know what’s worse than beating a dead horse? Beating a dead human being that just won’t die.

Okay, okay. So the zombie fetish hasn’t quite had its fill in Hollywood just yet. However, what’s quite interesting is that zombie’s do exist. Consider: “But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.”* Isn’t it odd? We are dead. We are living. We are dead and we are living. Sounds like a zombie to me. But that’s a simple answer for the Christian. The naturalist just won’t bring himself to admit it.

So this begs the question: are we truly what the naturalist says we are? Are we truly nothing but a blob of complex grey matter, a simple intricate collection of cells and bone? Are all our logical thought processes the simple result of electrical impulses crossing over synapses? If so, how can it be that it is so complex, intricate and logical?

C.S. Lewis is quoted as having stated that we are not a body. We do not have souls. We are souls. We have bodies.

No, we cannot see souls. No, we cannot see spirits. And that is the bane of the naturalist. His sense experiences will carry him only so far. He cannot see what the super-naturalist sees. And he cannot experience what the super-naturalist experiences. But he insists we are unscientific! He thinks he is beating a dead horse.

I like to think that he’s beating a dead zombie that just won’t die. It makes me feel better….

*Romans 8:10

Aliens

You know what really grinds my gears? People who believe in aliens. I will approach this topic from three different worldviews: Biblical, Evolutionist, and Agnostic.

A Biblical Worldview

For a Christian, the belief in extra-terrestrial life (in reference to other intelligent beings, a.k.a. little green men, not simple microorganisms on Mars or wherever) is unnecessary. If there are any sort of extra-terrestrial beings out there in the wide universe, they do not have souls; they are not created in the image of God. They cannot be saved and live with us in heaven.

This is because God's plan of the fall and redemption of mankind is for just that - mankind. The Bible makes no reference whatsoever to any life outside of the planet earth and in understanding the panoply of Scripture, God is concerned with human life on this planet. I am not saying that He is not concerned with anything else besides human life on this planet, but in terms of the fall and redemption, He only works with human life on this planet.

A view which would see alien life as sinless (so they too could participate in heaven) would be ridiculous. Angels fell, man fell, why would aliens not? If a sentient being is not God, that being is fallible and will fall. God's justice would then demand a price to be paid for the sins of aliens. Some do theorize that Jesus went to other planets to be a sacrifice for other beings as well, but this is a complete twisting of Scripture. Even more, it is an absolutely nonsensical addition to Scripture which is completely without merit.

If there are alien beings out there, they are animals - lesser creatures than man. And I do not see God's revelation to us making room for the existence of life on other planets. If God wanted to make microorganisms or animals on other planets that's His business (although I hold this is unrealistic.) Regardless, it would take a fanciful imagination to assume that God is dealing with life outside planet Earth.

An Evolutionist Worldview

This is actually the least likely worldview to allow the existence of aliens. The evolutionist first has to say that life can spring from non-life. Even though they do unfortunately hold this assumption, they then have face the astronomical odds against this happening naturally. (Setting aside the fact that the odds of this happening are simply zero, they at least have to face the overwhelming odds against this happening, regardless of how much time the universe has provided this opportunity.)

Even though it happened to come about on this planet, as they claim it has, it would have to happen again on another planet for alien life to be possible. If life originated on some other planet and the organisms were somehow hurtled through space to earth and other planets, and that is why beings can exist on multiple planets, then evolutionists would say that the common tendency is for simple organism to evolve and adapt to their environments - in a universe which all things tend toward chaos.*

Simply, if there are aliens on another planet, life sprung from non-life on that planet as well, defying even more astronomical odds, and the beings evolved. The concept of there being aliens on other planets, especially little green men which can travel to ours, the possibility that the unbelievably impossible odds of spontaneous life were defeated multiple times, is thoroughly laughable. Going several steps forward, things like Star Trek and Star Wars which have multiple intelligent races have to be kept strictly as science fiction. That this would have to even be said in today's world is regrettable.

*The craziness of a species adapting to environments toward greater complexity is another topic entirely - maybe someone else here would want to tackle it some day. How many generations of dogs thrown into the ocean will it take for them to finally figure out how to grow gills? I know the evolutionist would say that gradual adaptations into gradually changing environments is how it was done, but simple reason can still shoot down the concept of macro-evolution. That, however, is not the purpose if this post.

An Agnostic Worldview

For the purposes of this topic, I will consider an agnostic as one who believes that there could be divine out there, but not necessarily the God of the Bible. The general belief in mysticism, ghosts, angels, gods, and such - this way, anything is possible. Everything from the world resting on the back of a turtle, the Greek pantheon of Gods meddling in human affairs, Scientology, a careless creator who set evolution into order, etc.

It is in this view that the possibility of aliens is actually completely reasonable. Not only is it reasonable, it would be unreasonable to figure we humans are the only intelligent beings in the universe. Star Trek and Star Wars might as well be possible. This is obviously because the gods could go on creating new life to their hearts' content.

Conclusion

I know more reasons can be given by others to support my view. But in summary, it is unreasonable for a Biblical worldview to entertain the existence of aliens. It is also unreasonable in an evolutionist worldview. Only in an agnostic worldview is the existence of aliens any shade higher than practically impossible.

The Constant Cause of the Cosmos

What is it exactly that holds the universe together? Well, evolutionists and naturalists will claim “Not God.” Christians and theologians will say “God.” From a scientific point of view, we know that the world, the universe, and everything in it is made up of elements. My body is made up of smaller objects known as cells. What keeps those cells together? “Well,” says the naturalist, “Those cells are made up of molecules.” Okay, so what holds those molecules together? “Well,” says the evolutionist, “Molecules are held together by smaller particles known as atoms.” Interesting. But still, what keeps those atoms (which are mainly filled by empty space) from flying apart and dispersing in the air? “Well,” says the nuclear physicist, “Atoms are held together by smaller particles called quarks.” Fascinating! And what holds those quarks together? “Well,” says the astronomer, “We don’t actually know. We speculate that there is something called Dark Matter which holds the universe together.” Hmm…. Okay, given the assumption that Dark Matter exists, what is it made up of and how does it hold everything together and how is it held together?

We are met with silence. We don’t know.

But it certainly is not God.

Professing to be wise they become fools, for it is the one who says in his heart that “there is no God” who is the fool. Whatever means by which the universe is held together, from the largest super-cluster filament of galaxies to the smallest particle in the visible universe, God is in that means! And no, it is not ridiculous to say that God holds everything together by the word of His power. It is more ridiculous to say that everything is held together by its own power. We cannot explain what holds the smallest particles together, but instead of being convinced by the power of God we advocate for smaller particles that hold those particles together, and those particles are held together by smaller particles, which in turn are held together by even yet smaller particles…

And then somewhere down the line, we find turtles….

Advice from Egypt

Taking Hints from other Cultures

Let not your heart be puffed-up because of your knowledge; be not confident because you are a wise man. Take counsel with the ignorant as well as the wise. The full limits of skill cannot be attained, and there is no skilled man equipped to his full advantage. Good speech is more hidden than the emerald, but it may be found with maidservants at the grindstones. …

If you are a leader commanding the affairs of the multitude, seek out for yourself every beneficial deed, until it may be that your own affairs are without wrong. Justice is great, and its appropriateness is lasing; it has been disturbed since the time of him who made it, whereas there is punishment for him who passes over its laws. It is the right path before him who knows nothing. Wrongdoing has never brought its undertaking into port. It may be that it is fraud that gains riches, but the strength of justice is that it lasts. … [transcribed from Western Civilization Volume I: To 1715 by Jackson J. Spielvogel, 2003]

Aside from sounding like something off of a Wise or Otherwise card, this excerpt of advice given by Egyptian Vizier Ptah-hotep to his son comes across as being rather timeless. Much of it is solid teaching.

Before I get going, let me put forth a disclaimer: I am not about to advocate the cultural relativism that pervades postmodern thought. I am simply warning against a reaction that goes too far in the other direction.

We know what postmoderns are typically like.

The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone
All centuries but this and every country but his own.

Nevertheless, being nationalistic to the point of refusing to accept the possibility of the wisdom of other culture’s ideas — well, that’s not kosher either. Other cultures, just because they do not think like us or have the same religion as us, does not mean we can learn from them — or even that we should not desire to learn from them.

For example, consider this passage:

I swear by the time, / Most surely man is in loss, / Except those who believe and do good, and enjoin on each other truth, and enjoin on each other patience.

Not too terrible. Missing key information, but not extremely awful.

What do you say when I tell you that the above was an extract from the Koran? Not so good? Yes, the Koran is full of lies concerning the nature of God (70% of its content at least from what I can see), proper behavior (Jihad, anyone?), and who knows what else. But does that mean we should shrink in horror from every word that Mohammad dictated to his literate companions? I would say no, not because Mohammad was particularly wise and amazing, but because it would be difficult to create a truly and obviously terrible religious text — and have it followed by millions of people. (Sure, some of the teachings of the Koran/Qu’ran are terrible, but the whole thing is written agreeably enough. Some of the arguments even make sense initially, even if they are based on flawed premises.)

A couple things I’ve learned:

• There are a lot of really whack religious beliefs out there

• Every major religion has at least some common sense in it here and there (which is why we have to learn how to discern)

Maybe the best course of action when it comes to discussing other religions is to, as the English Proverb says,

Use soft words and hard arguments.

But it isn’t just religion I’m talking about. There is more to learn from the general wisdom of other peoples. The source of this wisdom (good or bad) can range from Plato’s writings to wise sayings from the Orient to the philosophical reflections of Arabians from the Middle Ages.

Then there’s always the argument that it is best to know which tunes the devil is playing. But that is another story.

I’m not quite sure where I want to land. Perhaps this tidbit from Master Kong is as good a place as any:

Ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon and star. – Confucius

Starlight in a Young Earth Model

A lot of this does assume that light has traveled at a constant speed of 300,00 km/s. Now, this is a good assumption, but the ramifications could be somewhat devastating. Depending on which view you take of time, space-time, and metaphysical time, light may not have always traveled at a constant speed.

The reason this becomes relevant is because it pertains to stars and light. I happen to believe in a young earth, young universe. However, the evidence of stars and light are pitted against this belief. Why? Because whether or not the light I see is present light, it still originated from some source *in space* and at some point *in time.* If light travels at 300,000 km/s, then working backwards using the distance of stars, we can determine the exact point *in time* that the source *in space* emitted its light. If a star were to say be born at some point *in space and time,* then the light (traveling at the assumed finite speed of light, 300,000 km/s) would take however long it takes for light to travel to get here. If this star were 11 million light-years away (one light-year being however far it takes for light to travel in a year), then it would take light 11 million years to travel to earth (assuming that light travels at a finite speed of 300,000 km/s). This is the problem that anyone who holds to a young earth-young universe must deal with.

How do we usually deal with it? Well, we say that the light was created on its way to earth. Okay. Plausible and no doubt a solution. But is it the best answer? Well, consider how it looks: it would be like God creating fossils in the ground that do not actually represent animals that actually existed. God would've created light from objects that do not exist (because, let's just say that the earth is 10,000 years old; this would mean that anything beyond 10,000 light-years away is non-existent; instead, it's just light carrying information which God created as light and which represents nothing other than light). People often appeal to this argument because they say that God created Adam as a full grown man. I would say however, that God creating Adam as a full grown man and creating light that does not actually represent anything are two very different things.

So what can we offer as a solution? Well, so far, all of this has been based off of principles of time, speed, and distance. I won't offer a full explanation of how the equation works (I probably wouldn't be able to offer it in an understandable sort of way). But I will leave you with one comment on what appears to be a faulty assumption, and I will leave you with a link that provides more information. One bit of advice: everything that you think is sure (i.e. science, astronomy, euclidian mathematics) has been proven wrong at some point. This goes for the explanation that evolutionists have used (above) and this goes for the explanation that the link provides (below). The only sure thing that we can cling to is Scripture. And if we cannot fully understand things now, we will when we see Him (1 John 3:2).

Distance equals speed multiplied by time. For the time, we will assume that the distances stars and other objects in the sky both near and far that we have measured are accurate (and there is good reason to believe that they are). If the distances are correct, then there can only be a discrepancy in either the speed or the time. If we believe that the speed (of light, i.e. 300,000 km/s) is accurate, then the time is what is incorrect (young-earth, young-universe). But if the speed of light is not constant, that is, finite, then perhaps there is no discrepancy in the time.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

Time Travel

You know what really grinds my gears? People who assume the possibility of time travel. People who propose the possibility of time travel (either forwards or backwards) immediately lose a bit of credibility in my mind. I am not referring to non-Christians because they don’t know any better, but a Christian who postulates such an idea is unfortunate. Let’s look at a few reasons why the concept of time travel is completely ridiculous. I do not pretend to be an expert in any of the scientific fields relating to this topic. However, some things can be evaluated on simple reason without any complex jargon. For this discussion, do not appeal to some authority and say “well, Einstein and Hawking said it could happen, so there.” Present ideas.

Providence

My first objection to time travel is that it seems to me against God’s character or plan to allow humans to manipulate time – the discussion of time travel is moot because God will not allow it. More will be said on this later. But moving forward, let’s assume that God would allow mankind to manipulate the space-time continuum.

Light/Speed of Light

Almost everyone who wants to say something about the possibility of time travel will discuss the effects of moving at the speed of light, so that is where I will begin. They daydream about shooting forward in time by traveling at the speed of light; while everyone ages at a normal rate, the individual shooting through space at such a rate ages much slower while the world passes him by.

First of all, aging is a physical process. Even if traveling at such a speed slows down the affects of aging on the body, it would still take 80 years of joyriding on a sunbeam for everyone on earth to age 80 years, for example. If even your own body did not age much physically, the rest of the world wouldn’t magically be 80 years ahead of you.

The whole idea of time slowing down for the object traveling at the speed of light is built on a flawed premise. Proponents of time travel look at starlight and assume that what they are seeing is light which is in the past – wrong. What they are seeing is light that is in the present, it is just finally hitting their eyes. It is the same light that, let’s assume for the sake of this discussion a universe which is very old, was shone from a star, say, one million years ago. What you are seeing is light that has been traveling for one million years. If that star burns out, it will take one million years for you to stop seeing its light. This concept to me does not seem very complex. You are not seeing light from the past; you are seeing present-time light that has simply been traveling for one million years. The light has not been “traveling through time,” it has been traveling through space, covering a very long distance.

If I take a direct flight from Minneapolis to Los Angeles, it will take me roughly four hours. If I traveled at the speed of light, however, it would take me roughly .01 seconds. Why would anyone else’s aging be affected as a result of this? And I don’t mean change in their physical bodies, I mean the space-time continuum. Why would time move any faster or slower as a result of the speed at which I was traveling, no matter the duration of my journey? Light travels at the speed of light and has been since the dawn of time – has this affected the rate of the passage of time? If I grabbed hold of a sunbeam, would it change the passage of time?

Two Models of Time

I believe there are two separate models of how time has been created by God.

The first: picture a globe. You can spin the globe and see the whole planet. You can put one finger on Moscow and another on Memphis. You can be in both places at once. God created a time with a definite beginning and end. God is outside of time and sees the whole of it at once. (I believe C.S. Lewis held this view; resident Lewis experts can confirm or deny this.) The second Person of the Godhead decided to enter time and be subject to it around the year 4 BC. With this model, all things must be happening at once. Julius Caesar is being betrayed at this very moment. Abraham Lincoln is being shot at this very moment. I am being born at this very moment. God gives prophecy based on what is going on right now, but at a different part of the globe. In this model, the possibility of traveling back in time is dependent upon God picking up a person and dropping him at a different part of the time. We simply cannot move to a different part of the globe, but God can and He can bring someone along for the ride.

The second: picture an arrow being fired. Time begins at the archer and ends at the target. As the arrow passes through space, it represents time as something that God started, and it will eventually end when God decides – the target. As the arrow passes through the air, the past is past and it is done with. There is no going back. The second Person of the Godhead decided to enter time when the arrow was at 4 BC and jumped off when the arrow was at roughly AD 29. God gives prophecy based on what He will in the future ensure happens. In this model, the height of ridiculousness is achieved by the one who believes traveling back in time is possible. One would have to resurrect every dead person and recreate every event on earth in reverse. Past events are not lingering around for someone to drop in on.

Time is Just a Concept

The universe in which we live is physical, not imagined. A person cannot manipulate every atom in the universe to reform and work in reverse to travel back in time. If you could witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence, it would be because you recreated the event by putting back together every atom of every cell of every person. You would not be viewing the actual event, unless, of course, you held to the globe model of time. If time is an object that God views from afar, you would still need to request Him to pick you up and drop you in a different area, you couldn’t scientifically derive a way to travel yourself – God simply would not allow it based on a comprehensive understanding of His character and plan for the timeline.

Time, really, is just a concept. It is not a physical element to be manipulated. People age because their bodies lose energy and then wither and die. Not because “time is passing.” I believe references to time in the Bible are anthropomorphisms. Planets rotate, weather patterns go through cycles, and objects are changed due to loss of energy or outside influences – this is the way God made it. We have calendars based on astronomical phenomena. Because we have calendars does not mean that some magical force called “time” is passing. I believe that if time is more than just a concept, then it would have pre-existence like God does. Time would have been passing all the while before God created the universe. Now, someone could easily say, “God created time and made it more than a concept.” Okay. But by “concept” I do not mean something that does not actually exist, I mean something that is not a physical force to be manipulated by any person. Not by building a time machine, and not by traveling at the speed of light.

Conclusion

The bottom line for the Christian is that time travel is simply impossible in any form because God will not allow it. But even if He did, I hold that it would not be possible due to time being a concept and not a physical force to be manipulated.