Scientists and philosophers in the secular world continue to discuss`(even as they have from time immemorial) this subject. We often refer to Time (with a capital T) as the natural creation or the universe itself. From this perspective, most would interpret the above referenced Scripture text; but is this actually the meaning and context of the passages presented here? The things presented by the angel to the perception of John’s senses here, no doubt have to do with the things of the Spirit, and the advancing and further appearing of the then approaching Kingdom of God:

There is no need (for the present writer) to waste and exhaust energy to attempt to convince the incorrigibles of the unbelieving world of the truth of the power of God unto salvation by and through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, - because Himself in His Own times must, will and "..Shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.." (1 Tim 6:15.) The Apostles found by experience through the teaching of the Holy Spirit that they must discontinue such vain attempts, the success thereof toward the castaways of that generation as then not presently being in the Will and Purpose of God:

(But - this is not to say that Apollos’ eloquence and ability as a preacher caused these Jews spiritually or evangelically to believe upon the Lord Jesus; but to merely convince them in the logic of their natural minds by comparing the face and plain force and language of their Old Testament Scriptures with the things that had transpired in Jerusalem of Judaea and in Galilee concerning Jesus of Nazareth - could be no other than the fulfillment of that which was spoken by the holy prophets in their Scriptures concerning the promised Anointed One.)

The natural realm and the spiritual realm are distinct from each other according to the inspired Scriptures:

I think much more than enough is stated here by the holy Apostle to abundantly prove this truth (and infinitely more.)

However, and first, if God will give ability, may we briefly examine only a few salient points of some of the more popular theories, (especially Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory, which remains the most accepted) presently held by scientists and philosophers which embraces the concept of time and its many supposed ramifications throughout the natural creation.

Although we commonly refer to Time as God’s Creation, or the present existence of the physical Universe, we also speak of time as the passage or the recording of events as they transpire before us. These two different aspects or concepts of time are sometimes confused in our minds. What we may reckon as the passing of time is merely our counting or measurement of what we then call "time"- in this instance, as a ticking of a clock, or any other method of measurement we may have arbitrarily selected, such as units of a moment, (split second) 1 second, a minute, hour, day, week, month, years, millennia, etc.. Does our selection of units of measurement of a concept that we find useful for our every day life and convenience have any effect upon (the absoluteness of) time itself (as if Time is to be considered a separate entity of creation?) I would think not.

Although much has been said about time, it still remains a source of much mystery and speculation for many philosophers and scientists, although it has generally been regarded as a simple concept by the ordinary person. Yet, as might be expected, many fanciful and imaginative beliefs have arisen through the centuries concerning Time. This has been especially true during the past 20th century with the supposed advance of science with their tools of modern technology.

One of the more fanciful beliefs that has been considered plausible and legitimate by a great part of the scientific establishment is the Theory of Special Relativity, which involves a concept of time, and is necessary for its support. This theory was first presented in 1905 by the long-since famous physicist and mathematician Albert Einstein. In fact, the introduction and wide acceptance of this theory at the time was actually the main cause of the beginning of his tremendous popularity throughout the scientific world - and the world in general. Therefore, most of the public, and many scientist in general - and even physicists - believe and have been taught by the establishment, and especially the popular media, that when Einstein first published this theory in 1905, it was a completely new theory; but this seems not to be true - in fact the theory of relativity had been around for a long time before 1905. Einstein only added the feature and name of special to relativity theory to distinguish it as a new theory. In this theory Einstein claimed that time is one of the four dimensions (instead of the classic and customary three dimensions) composing the make-up of the physical universe. He believed that the "flow" of time is completely relative, proceeding at different rates on every moving object in the universe. Partly from this it became common for science-fiction writers to present stories of time-travel, where a machine or other phenomenon makes it possible to travel in or throughout Time. Thus backward and forward travel is possible in these tales of the imagination - And not only in tales of science-fiction, but the lines between serious science and fiction, having become so blurred, that many, if not most of the scientific community have now accepted these ideas of the possibility of "time" travel, because they have come to accept the idea that time is a separate physical entity in the universe, (and not to be regarded merely as a concept existing only in the human mind for the utility and convenience of observing and recording the perceived events of the natural world.)

Many scientists have come to give credence to such bizarre ideas as "wormholes in space-time" created by Black Holes that lead to different "universes" distinct from the one which we perceive. Some go so far as to claim that there may be an infinity of parallel universes either co-existing or being created at every moment. These ideas are generally founded on some kind of chaos theory where every atom in the universe spawns an infinity of different realities every moment, and such ideas as the inability to calculate any certain position or patterns of motion of any electrons within an atom, also known as the uncertainty principle.

Special Relativity Theory, by making everything relative, seems to contradict itself; because if everything is relative to something else, of course, the same relationship is mutual both ways. For instance, if we are first cousins, then I am your first cousin, and you are my first cousin. So we are equal(ly) relative(s.) The same would hold true for Einstein’s Special Relativity. Einstein gives Time a life of its own by added it as an entity to the physical universe with a separate dimension and nature.

Scientists nowadays often refer to "the progression of time" as if the universe is wearing out, losing its energy and slowing down. Not only is this a general concept now held in science, but it is also usually held in philosophy and religion as well; though the two groups may approach it from different angles. Religionists, especially Judaic/Christians commonly believe and teach this idea. They say that the Bible teaches that everything is getting old, and therefore wearing out or losing its energy. But it seems to me that though the Bible does say everything is indeed getting old or older (which everyone realizes) and they are also changing (evolving) yet it does not necessarily state that the physical creation is "wearing out", or running down:

"… Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed.." Psa 102:25-26.

"… Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment….." Isa. 51:6.

Besides, these passages (to my mind) are referring to the comparative spirituality and glory in the Dispensations of time concerning the Law and Grace Dispensations, or The Old Heavens contrasted with The New Heavens and not to the physical heavens and earth. And again, even though the physical heavens may indeed be destined to materially perish (as most believe), yet the Scriptures do not say they are "losing their energy" or are "running down" according to the "law" of entropy. (more on The Second "Law" of Thermodynamics and entropy and enthalpy later.)

Solomon seems to teach an on-going process of constant evolution or change in his writings, while at the same time declaring that "there is nothing new under the sun"; but he describes a continual repetition of the events of nature (as we daily, weekly and yearly observe.)

The general theme of The Book of Ecclesiastes seems to be describing the mundane (in man’s perception) condition of "all things under the sun." In fact, the phrase, "under the sun" is found at least 29 times in this Book of the Bible. Every time it is used it is invariably referring to the (relatively) mundane and sometimes even depressing way of the natural man as he exists "under the sun"- as compared with the spiritual man in God and Christ through the Spirit when being carried in The Spirit "over the sun". Solomon, though given Divine wisdom, yet lived under the Legal Dispensation, and therefore wrote from that perspective. So, in this way we could say Solomon also taught the principles of "relativity", which predated Einstein’s theory by Millenniums.

Then, according to the wisdom of Solomon, there is "nothing new under the sun." Now, we would suppose from modern cosmological observations that Solomon also literally included the natural heavens and suns or stars beyond the sun of our solar system, and not only our Old Sol, or sun - and because, if there is really nothing new under Sol, then there is nothing new anywhere else in the universe. Everything is merely repeating itself over and over again as Solomon observes. It has always been a perceived truth that has impressed my mind since my youth that God only is the sole Creator as is proclaimed in Geneses:

This, though, is not to preclude any form or process of evolution in the further formation of His universe (as the passage itself seems to state that in the beginning of creation the earth was without and even void of the form that it later possessed with process of time;) only that all the material that God needed to form His physical Creation was placed in existence by His Almighty Power in the Beginning. From that point, this material of Creation has only been changing its form, but not its inherent substance. From this established principle we could at least have a philosophical and religious base (and perhaps one that finally leads to a firm and clear scientific one) to found the proposition that nothing is truly being "created" or "destroyed" throughout the universe, but that it is only changing form. Then, the so-called "creation" and "demise" of matter and energy is only the continual cycling and recycling of the substance of Nature - nothing has actually been created (from scratch), and nothing has truly been destroyed from the primeval or primordial existence that it had in the beginning(s) of its creation.

So - if one scientist (theoretically) puts us in a Black Hole where it seems impossible to be extricated from, then you can be sure that another physicist (such as Stephen Hawking) will come along to (theoretically) rescue us by cycling us out the other end of the vortex.

As was mentioned before, if every thing in the universe is relative, then I am as relative to you as you are to me. Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory says if a space traveler embarked upon a voyage from the earth and accelerated to vast velocities of speed approaching the speed of light and returned to earth in say, a few decades of time - in the traveler’s measurement of time, and using the same time-measuring instruments or clocks that were used on earth when the traveler left earth, then, upon his return to earth, the traveler would appear to be only a few years’ older as recorded on his clocks aboard the space craft; but upon his return arrival to planet earth, he would now find the inhabitants of earth to have aged perhaps hundreds of years. This is according to Einstein’s "time- dilation" and "time- compression" or time-shortening principles built into his relativity theory. - In other words, speeds approaching light speed shortens (relative) time for the traveler, while it (relatively) lengthens time for the one that stayed at home, or the one that is (relatively)? motionless. But how can either one be said to be either (relatively )motionless or (relatively) in motion, since they are (equally) RELATIVE to one another? For instance, take the scenario that the planet earth (instead of the space craft) has receded at great velocities from the space craft, while the space craft has remained motionless. (relatively to their respective starting positions) In this second scenario every thing should reverse or become opposite in it’s outcome according to Special Relativity - But how can it, if every thing in the universe is truly relative? Now, the persons left motionless in the space craft (at the starting position) when they greet the returning planet earth with its inhabitants, would find themselves much aged as compared to the (relatively) young inhabitants of the returning planet earth. The much younger earth inhabitants would thus discover a space craft with ancient people if not skeletons aboard, and all those aboard whom those on returning earth had known at their departure as being very much younger than themselves would now be very old, if not expired through old age. But Special Relativity’s "thought experiment" attempts to get around this with time dilation and compression, space warps and an observer’s relative position.

The "relativity" of time in Einstein’s theory is based upon the esoteric concept that an observer’s position in space can alter the various outcomes of the absoluteness and uniformity of the concept of time throughout the universe. Thus, one of the main points, if not the cornerstone in this theory is the observer’s relative position to the space traveler’s position and velocity - like the creature’s supposed free- will in the doctrine of offered salvation - has here become such a sacred cow - so sacrosanct, that it is not permitted by its adherents to be in any way violated. Would this change (an observer’s relative position to the space traveler) alter the absolute nature of the universe - if there were no witnesses to record the passing of events of God’s Creation? I think not. The creation, by its own inherent nature would, (and does) move smoothly on - if there are, or were no observers to record such transactions. This is similar to asking the philosophical question:

Does a falling tree (or for that matter, the contact of any two objects coming together in a suitable medium) produce any sound, if there is no one around to hear it?

Now scientifically, this is easy to answer, because sound is scientifically defined as being the production of waves in a medium of molecules of such substances as air or other fluid or solid caused by two or more bodies in collision. We understand that these sound waves will take place in nature if God had not created an observer, such as man - or any other creature to verify and certify this phenomenon called sound in order for it to come into actual existence. It would be proper to say that the observer did indeed hear the sound, but does not enter into the actual production of it. Because a phenomenon may appear differently to different observers does not necessarily alter or negate the fact of the actual existence of the phenomenon.

It has been shown by other physical theories that neither the consideration of time or the speed of light is necessary to logically understand the workings of the universe; and that in a much simpler way, which does not violate our natural comprehension and logic - and this without adding such bizarre and mysterious concepts in "thought experiments" such as are contained in Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory.

Then, perhaps there are no observers in such a scenario? - Or if we should arbitrarily remove the inserted observers- after all, Einstein arbitrarily introduced them in the first place, and that in order to make his theory work - just as he also introduced the speed of light into this scenario, because in other places he says that E=m (without adding the supposed multiplier c^2/c^2) - and by this in order to introduce a 1 into the expression, which of course mathematically cancels itself out, leaving only 1, and a term multiplied by 1 remains unchanged. But this manipulation makes room to bring in c or c^2 in the place of this division and subsequent multiplication, and thus the speed of light is subtlety added to the equation.

I would desire to pay all due respect to the acclaimed Einstein as a gifted mathematical genius - which he no doubt was - But was he much more of a math genius than he was a physicist? Contrary to popular conception, scientific theories are often (if not mostly) based upon "thought experiments" or mere philosophy of perceived logic of the mind than upon sound and well-proven experimental or empirical scientific knowledge. In addition to this, genius- mathematicians can use figures and calculations to make them say and "prove" whatever they may desire - as their strength of bias and dedication to a certain theory may or may not consist. Scientists, as well as others of all professions are, after all, only human, and are given to the vanity that sometimes plagues and exposes all of us to the forces of flattery, envy, popularity and future prospects of fame when these may present themselves. When Einstein’s radical theories began to become famous, we were living in a relatively new period of the advance of science and invention that was causing many to begin to believe that perhaps anything was possible in nature. Science-fiction tales were then becoming very popular, and being received by many as scientifically plausible. This phenomenon has only increased since that time with the corresponding, accelerated advance of invention and technology.

While "All things are possible with God"(Matt 19:26, Mark 9:23, Mark 10:27, Mark 14:36), it does not necessarily follow that "All things are possible" (according to human imagination) in the make-up of His present natural Creation - being not consistent with God’s Eternal Will and Purpose in the Design of the natural creation. In Romans 1, the divinely inspired Apostle has stated:

I believe the Apostle is here referring to that knowledge that God has infused by nature into the logic and nature of the human mind - This would include the natural ability to (finally) understand the basics of the principles of Creation, and this as being a divine gift from their Maker. This principle was manifested in Adam, because he was shown in one instance to have been enabled by his Maker with the intelligence to properly name the creatures of the earth. The aberration from this principle entered in, not because of the removal of this knowledge from the natural mind of Adam’s posterity, but because of his subsequent rebellion against God in common with all his heirs through the depravity of their spirit. The inexcuseableness of this violation consists in the fact that the knowledge of God in Creation is still fixed in the intellect of Adam’s descendants.

E=mc^2 again.

This has of long-time standing become the most famous equation in the world. We commonly hear commentators and journalists speak of this theory as if it is Gospel, and not just a scientific theory along with all the many other theories, speculations and imaginations of the world of science and science-fiction.

While this simple-looking little equation looks so upon the surface, it is supposed to inherently embody that knowledge which may eventually lead to the unlocking of the secrets of the natural universe itself. Although this commonly received notion about the supposed revolutionary aspects concerning Special Relativity Theory has been touted about even since Einstein first published his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905, this has not since proven to be the facts of the case; but seems rather to prove the opposite - Though the general scientific community, along with the popular media still continue to present such a view as the former, In reality, physics at the present time is pretty much at a stand-still - and that according to many popular physicists themselves:

Could physics be at a virtual stand-still because physicists have basically proceeded down the wrong track by following too closely with many fanciful and imaginative theories, such as Special Relativity Theory?

If not, then perhaps we shall join the conspiracy theorists - that think some powers- that- be, including governments of the world, have already uncovered much more than is generally realized by the public of these basics of nature, but who are keeping the results of these discoveries ultra secret (for some militaristic, or perhaps including other reasons, that may even be of a sinister nature,) and which is known only to themselves and privy insiders; but that which would also be in violation of the stated principles of our national democracies.

We could also combine many other conundrums while considering some of the more speculative and pure fantasies of the adherents and followers of the pseudo-scientific UFO and alien visitor scenarios - that we have already received extraterrestrial help from these, and therefore have obtained the stated sought-after knowledge from such "angels."

But for now, I personally prefer to stay with what little light and insight that I may have upon the subject based on mere human logic and go with that; because on the other hand, like Will Rogers, "I only know what I hear on the radio (and now see on TV) and read in the newspapers." And too, I place infinitely more confidence in the Word of God than I do in this world’s media.

OAB