Due to recent discussions on the board about 'time' I'd like to argue my currently held theory of time. I subscribe to Relationism as described below. I know of no argument that would render Relationism to be unscriptural. There are two traditionally rival views about the nature of time: Substantivalism and Relationism Substantivalism: Space and time exist as independent substances, i.e. they are existing particulars in their own right, over and above the material content of the universe. Space and time are continuous and pervasive media that extend everywhere and everywhen. Relationism: Space and time do not exist as independent substances, there is only the material content of the universe. Space and time are merely deﬁned through spatiotemporal relations among the material objects in the universe. In all of our discussions on the board the usage of the term 'time' seems to be a point of confusion for some, which simply obfuscates our attempted discussion. In the following case that I am putting forward I hope to help keep our discussion clear and understandable. To this end I will refer to 'space' and 'distance' as interchangeable words for the same idea. I will likewise refer to 'time' and 'duration' as interchangeable words for the same idea. For this post I will favor the term 'duration' instead of 'time' and at no occasion will I use 'time' to mean 'metered or marked time'. In Genesis we have 'duration' prior to the reference of metered time (even at that, Genesis 1:14b does not indicate that God created metered time at all… I propose that all types of metered time that we know of is man's referential 'naming', much in the same way that Adam named the beasts, but I digress… that is for another thread!) , so, there was duration prior to the celestial objects that were created 'for signs' a la 'metering'. I do not believe that 'duration' is a created thing. It can be said that time is the 'distance' between two events. The act of spanning between the two events accounts for the sensation of duration. The fact that we actually have the two events I'm referring to is all that is required for us to appreciate the idea of sequence and duration. Since we have the two events, what results concomitantly is 'relation' and in this example the relation is understood as 'duration'. With this understanding we can easily see how that in an existence void of finite beings, the idea of metered time is at best trivial. For two eternal beings to use the vocabulary of 'metered time' would be of little meaning. The only significant way to discuss events in relation to each other would be to refer to the order of occurrence, ie. before, during and after. While there would indeed be duration, referring to it with a vocabulary of an exact metering would be, again, at best trivial. However, in an existence where there are sentient beings which are aware that they had a 'beginning' and will experience some sort of a perceived and eventual 'end', the references to duration in a metered sense now has great significance, at least in the minds of those finite beings. In much the same way, I do not believe that distance is a created thing. It can be said that distance is the 'time' between two objects. The act of spanning between the two objects gives the sensation of motion. The fact that we actually have the two objects I'm referring to is all that is required for us to appreciate the idea of distance and motion. Since we have the two objects, what results concomitantly is 'relation' and the relation is understood as 'distance', ie. space. So, time and space are not created, they are a necessarily resultant relation of events and objects. Since time and space are not created things they will not cease to exist, since forevermore there will be things and events. If things and events were to be done away with then it seems to follow that space and time would no longer exist. But, to say that all space and time will come to an end and be nonexistent while yet keeping an opinion that there will still be objects and/or events, this seems just contradictory and absurd. Your thoughts and musings in reply are much appreciated.