tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post3734387436477144871..comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: EN ATOMWi in 1 Cor 15:52Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-4478004046698265252013-10-20T13:14:25.951-07:002013-10-20T13:14:25.951-07:00Good observation, Nathan. To describe the time it ...Good observation, Nathan. To describe the time it takes for an anointed Christian to be raised from the dead, during the Lord's PAROUSIA, as "the blink of an eye" (uncut time) is likely metaphorical. As we look at Aristotle's use of this language for time, we see that expressing matters this way is idiomatic as well. <br /><br />I believe you're correct about time having a smallest component as well. If time were to have a smallest part, that would probably mean that time be infinitesimally small. That view would be as suspect as the idea that there's a highest integer. So I think you're on the right track. Thanks for helping me to understand this scripture better.Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-77504246939667140272013-10-19T20:48:56.686-07:002013-10-19T20:48:56.686-07:00Edgar,
Excellent points!
In thinking about this...Edgar,<br /><br />Excellent points! <br /><br />In thinking about this issue, I wonder if Paul was simply using borrowed terms as a metaphor in his analogy. After all, if his language was meant to be taken literally then shouldn't we take his construal of time literally as well? This would mean that time really does have a smallest component (aka. Chronon), and that these components can be assembled together in order to hold experience. I'm not convinced that such a view accurately defines time, and I can't see how it would lend itself to empirical study even if it were true.<br /><br />NathanNathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-5851249726662878232013-10-19T18:43:24.060-07:002013-10-19T18:43:24.060-07:00Hi Nathan,
Your input is always appreciated. Now ...Hi Nathan,<br /><br />Your input is always appreciated. Now I just want to make it clear that it's not my intent to criticize Paul, but I've long wondered if the account of Corinthians is working with the current (from a first-century standpoint) definition of ATOMOS. It could just be the case (as you basically suggested) that Paul is working with the known definition of the time since we now know that atoms are not indivisible. Asimov wrote a great work on this very subject entitled "Atom."<br /><br />The notion of an indivisible thing called an "atom" goes way back in history. Some of the famous atomists are Democritus, Leucippus, and Epicurus. These ancient thinkers believed that an atom was the one thing that could not be divided any further. One can divide a heap of sand or continuously split wood. However, the ancients reasoned that atoms are not that way. They probably could not have envisioned that the atom could be split, fused, and then split again (i.e. the atom bomb). It's interesting that science today still retains the old name "atom" despite knowing that these constituents of matter are divisible after all. <br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />EdgarEdgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-54040862237673955772013-10-19T18:14:26.828-07:002013-10-19T18:14:26.828-07:00Hi Edgar,
Another great question!
I wonder wheth...Hi Edgar,<br /><br />Another great question!<br /><br />I wonder whether this account is more a case of modern science's misapplication of terms, rather than the biblical writers misunderstanding of a word. For instance, when the word atom was first applied to that particular construct which comprises the proton, neutron and electron, was it not considered the smallest object ever discovered? Further advances in particle physics have ostensibly invalidated this claim, but then again, if the quark or lepton was discovered before any application of the term "atom", would these (or something even more fundamental) have taken on the name instead?<br /><br />On the other hand, might Paul's use of the word be akin to Jesus' "tiniest of all the seeds" illustration – a relative remark, not an absolute account.<br /><br />NathanNathannoreply@blogger.com