What Does God Know?

[WordWolf]

Your post "quoting" mine had nothing to do with my post.

I'm still proceeding forwards in the thread.

I've completed my review of page 3.

I don't address page 5 while addressing page 3.

I also am not eager to address anything someone intentionally introduced-

by their own admission-

specifically TO TRAP ME.

If you want me to address this question, you might try "patience" and "waiting until I get there."

It works GREAT for everyone else.

I even addressed one of your EARLIER questions just now.

If you asked because you CARED ABOUT THE ANSWER,

you might appreciate it.

If, however, you asked it only to "score points", then you might NOT appreciate it.

Your post "quoting" mine had nothing to do with my post.

I'm still proceeding forwards in the thread.

I've completed my review of page 3.

I don't address page 5 while addressing page 3.

I also am not eager to address anything someone intentionally introduced-

by their own admission-

specifically TO TRAP ME.

If you want me to address this question, you might try "patience" and "waiting until I get there."

It works GREAT for everyone else.

I even addressed one of your EARLIER questions just now.

If you asked because you CARED ABOUT THE ANSWER,

you might appreciate it.

If, however, you asked it only to "score points", then you might NOT appreciate it.

And you did it again.

Honestly, I'm currently under the impression that your SOLE REASON for participating

in what's OTHERWISE a nice discussion about God's Knowledge is to lay traps and see who

you can have fall in them.

Since your posts have COMPLETELY FIXATED on one ADMITTED trap for the past FEW PAGES

and tantrums that no one's fallen into it, I don't see any other LOGICAL conclusion.

[Larry N Moore]

Your post "quoting" mine had nothing to do with my post.

I'm still proceeding forwards in the thread.

I've completed my review of page 3.

I don't address page 5 while addressing page 3.

I also am not eager to address anything someone intentionally introduced-

by their own admission-

specifically TO TRAP ME.

If you want me to address this question, you might try "patience" and "waiting until I get there."

It works GREAT for everyone else.

I even addressed one of your EARLIER questions just now.

If you asked because you CARED ABOUT THE ANSWER,

you might appreciate it.

If, however, you asked it only to "score points", then you might NOT appreciate it.

And you did it again.

Honestly, I'm currently under the impression that your SOLE REASON for participating

in what's OTHERWISE a nice discussion about God's Knowledge is to lay traps and see who

you can have fall in them.

Since your posts have COMPLETELY FIXATED on one ADMITTED trap for the past FEW PAGES

and tantrums that no one's fallen into it, I don't see any other LOGICAL conclusion.

Premise 1: It takes God's power to regenerate a person's heart to come to Him. True or false?

Premise 2: If you have come to God it is because God has regenerated your heart. True or false?

Premise 3: If you have not come to God it is because God has not regenerated your heart. True or false?

Conclusion: Therefore it is God who determines who comes to Him and who doesn't. Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

[Larry N Moore]

Honestly, I'm currently under the impression that your SOLE REASON for participating

in what's OTHERWISE a nice discussion about God's Knowledge is to lay traps and see who

you can have fall in them.

If you can't understand the difference between a discussion and someone getting up on a "soap-box" giving a sermon then we'll get nowhere. But since you'll fixated on going through the posts in order and replying to them (which doesn't allow much discussion) then I figure you'll eventually have to get to my posted syllogism. I'm just reminding you of them.

Oh and btw -- Are you familiar with the time when Moses appointed overseers for the children of Israel? You should check it out and then re-read one of your latest posts. You might discover how your reasoning is faulty.

Let's see. At this rate we should expect a discussion (or sermon) on my latest question by next month.

[WordWolf]

If you can't understand the difference between a discussion and someone getting up on a "soap-box" giving a sermon then we'll get nowhere.

Actually,

I've posted some things, and others have posted some things.

In some things, we've agreed, and in some we have not.

We call that "discussion."

Personally, I'd prefer more posting at the moment from the others, but I am responding

to what they posted, and they are responding to my posts.

We STILL call that "discussion."

If my posts-which ARE including the verses- are too long for your taste, sorry, you won't

find my posts to your taste. They ARE perfectly serviceable posts, and OTHERS are gaining benefits

from them. My posts ARE appreciated by others, and if you really cared about the topic, you

might receive benefits from them, especially since I answered a number of your questions.

As for you,

you've been a veritable one-note orchestra for several pages.

If that's not "soap-boxing", then nothing is.

If you don't understand that, then YOU'LL get nowhere in this discussion.

You'll waste the time of the posters, and gain little or nothing from what IS posted.

But since you'll fixated on going through the posts in order and replying to them (which doesn't allow much discussion) then I figure you'll eventually have to get to my posted syllogism. I'm just reminding you of them.

Actually, once or twice is "reminding."

The systematic reposting of the same thing over and over with no other posting is "spamming."

I had responded to you and said I WILL get back to you eventually, and you insisted on

repeating the question ad nauseum. That's not "reminding".

I've given this some thought, and I've made the following conclusion.

I actually was done with page 3, didn't see anything I needed to respond to on page 4,

and was thus next to approach page 5, and your original question.

So, I was GOING to address it DIRECTLY. (I've addressed its subject already, but not

phrased as a direct answer to you.)

However, I've considered, and I find the continual hectoring to be discouraged.

If I respond to what's acknowledged to be only there to be a TRAP, I don't give benefit to

the other posters. I MIGHT be able to teach you something.

However, at this point, I'd be rewarding you for poor manners, and I see no benefit for anyone

to do that. So, I will not be addressing your question after all.

That's a specific change of mind as the direct result of the poor manners you've evidenced the

past few pages. (In other words, if you had not been so persistent in rudeness, I WOULD have

addressed it, and have reconsidered DIRECTLY because you did so.)

I can't control your posts, neither of content, intent or style. I don't, however, have to ENCOURAGE

your posts or anyone elses, especially when I see poor behaviour. I don't wish to encourage it,

and you can't FORCE me to post to your satisfaction either.

I asked you nicely to exercise common courtesy. You refused.

You DEMANDED-repeatedly- I answer your question. I am NOW refusing.

You are free to throw a tantrum over it all you want. It's NOT going to benefit the other posters,

however, and they'll hardly welcome it.

Oh and btw -- Are you familiar with the time when Moses appointed overseers for the children of Israel? You should check it out and then re-read one of your latest posts. You might discover how your reasoning is faulty.

If you want to make a SPECIFIC on Moses and the overseers, feel free.

If you're going to play coy, then feel free as well.

I'd address a SPECIFIC, but not grammar-school games.

(You are free to throw a tantrum over THAT as well.)

Let's see. At this rate we should expect a discussion (or sermon) on my latest question by next month.

Actually, we WERE going to see a post on it (one post is not a discussion, posts from several people are a discussion)

on it within the last 24 hours. Now we won't be seeing one.

[WordWolf]

Oh, and for the benefit of those (or one) who don't see the benefit of it,

I'm going to ask a slightly self-serving question.

Are others of you appreciating my posts on this thread to date?

The ones about what God knows, of course, not the ones about rudeness.

If you are, please say so.

[another spot]

You bet. This is a subject I haven’t put a lot of thought into in the past. I do have at this stage a clear mental picture of God (in so far as it’s possible) and how He deals with us humans that I did not have before that I can apply to my day to day life. I see more clearly my free will and how God works with me. One of my still current post-twi concerns is clear up exactly how me and God is supposed to work….

The most remarkable thing is it opened up an understanding of God’s grace in my life. By grace I mean His unearned willingness and ability. (I posted on this aspect in detail on Dan’s thread in the decaffeinated section, so won’t repeat it here).

I do intend to take the posts and copy/paste into a permanent document when it’s done.

You may feel like you're talking to yourself, but you're not... :)

[Larry N Moore]

Actually,

I've posted some things, and others have posted some things.

In some things, we've agreed, and in some we have not.

We call that "discussion."

Personally, I'd prefer more posting at the moment from the others, but I am responding

to what they posted, and they are responding to my posts.

We STILL call that "discussion."

If my posts-which ARE including the verses- are too long for your taste, sorry, you won't

find my posts to your taste. They ARE perfectly serviceable posts, and OTHERS are gaining benefits

from them. My posts ARE appreciated by others, and if you really cared about the topic, you

might receive benefits from them, especially since I answered a number of your questions.

As for you,

you've been a veritable one-note orchestra for several pages.

If that's not "soap-boxing", then nothing is.

If you don't understand that, then YOU'LL get nowhere in this discussion.

You'll waste the time of the posters, and gain little or nothing from what IS posted.

Actually, once or twice is "reminding."

The systematic reposting of the same thing over and over with no other posting is "spamming."

I had responded to you and said I WILL get back to you eventually, and you insisted on

repeating the question ad nauseum. That's not "reminding".

I've given this some thought, and I've made the following conclusion.

I actually was done with page 3, didn't see anything I needed to respond to on page 4,

and was thus next to approach page 5, and your original question.

So, I was GOING to address it DIRECTLY. (I've addressed its subject already, but not

phrased as a direct answer to you.)

However, I've considered, and I find the continual hectoring to be discouraged.

If I respond to what's acknowledged to be only there to be a TRAP, I don't give benefit to

the other posters. I MIGHT be able to teach you something.

However, at this point, I'd be rewarding you for poor manners, and I see no benefit for anyone

to do that. So, I will not be addressing your question after all.

That's a specific change of mind as the direct result of the poor manners you've evidenced the

past few pages. (In other words, if you had not been so persistent in rudeness, I WOULD have

addressed it, and have reconsidered DIRECTLY because you did so.)

I can't control your posts, neither of content, intent or style. I don't, however, have to ENCOURAGE

your posts or anyone elses, especially when I see poor behaviour. I don't wish to encourage it,

and you can't FORCE me to post to your satisfaction either.

I asked you nicely to exercise common courtesy. You refused.

You DEMANDED-repeatedly- I answer your question. I am NOW refusing.

You are free to throw a tantrum over it all you want. It's NOT going to benefit the other posters,

however, and they'll hardly welcome it.

If you want to make a SPECIFIC on Moses and the overseers, feel free.

If you're going to play coy, then feel free as well.

I'd address a SPECIFIC, but not grammar-school games.

(You are free to throw a tantrum over THAT as well.)

Actually, we WERE going to see a post on it (one post is not a discussion, posts from several people are a discussion)

on it within the last 24 hours. Now we won't be seeing one.

piffle!

Look WW, I asked you politely: "If it's all the same to you . . . ." to address my latest post. You breezed right on by it and offered an excuse for why you didn't. Then you later said you had answered it and after that stated when you have time you might answer it and so on and so on and so. All of which was a discussion -- not a discussion on the subject per se but, nonetheless a discussion. So don't give me this line about you wanting to address the posts in order -- that's not true.

Now I could take the time to dissect your post here and point out in detail what I think but that would be wasting my time and it most likely would be followed by another post from you not addressing the topic. And we could continue this game of tit-for-tat indefinitely (until one of us gets tired of it). Why don't you just address my syllogism and I promise you I'll only make one post in response to it and then you can continue on your merry way?

Edited September 12, 2007 by Larry N Moore

[T-Bone]

Oh, and for the benefit of those (or one) who don't see the benefit of it,

I'm going to ask a slightly self-serving question.

Are others of you appreciating my posts on this thread to date?

The ones about what God knows, of course, not the ones about rudeness.

If you are, please say so.

Yeah – what Another Spot said - I feel the same way about your posts, WordWolf. Your posts never go unnoticed by me. I’m still mulling over the stuff you posted near the start of the thread…And I agree with your take on a certain poster setting up traps. It hits me as a tactic to belittle folks and control the thread – seems to be happening a lot around here lately.

[Larry N Moore]

Yeah – what Another Spot said - I feel the same way about your posts, WordWolf. Your posts never go unnoticed by me. I’m still mulling over the stuff you posted near the start of the thread…And I agree with your take on a certain poster setting up traps. It hits me as a tactic to belittle folks and control the thread – seems to be happening a lot around here lately.

For those lacking reading comprehension let me repeat what I ACTUALLY said:

Now what else am I suppose to think but that perhaps you know the implication of my syllogism and to answer it would trap you in a theology that makes you uncomfortable.

I didn't say I was setting a trap. What I said was -- What am I suppose to think (when he refuses to address my syllogism) but that he thinks it's a trap.

If you can't see the difference then so be it. Eventually WW will have to address the post if he is in fact doing what he says he's doing -- responding to the posts in order. Personally I would prefer that he holds off responding to my earlier posts and address the one I asked him to but, I can see he's not going to do that.

A discussion occurs when one person says something and another responds to it and then that person responds to that response and so forth. But at any time during a discussion it's NOT inappropriate for someone to say: Hey! Can you hold that thought and tell me what you think of this? That's how discussion go sometimes. And you know what -- he's told me so himself on a couple of occasions.

[T-Bone]

What a bunch of BS coming from someone who lacks basic comprehension of a poster saying “I’ll get back to that later.” ….And spare me the pseudo-intellectual reason “for discussion’s sake” when you exhibit the patience of a five year old and the attitude of a bar room brawler.

[Larry N Moore]

What a bunch of BS coming from someone who lacks basic comprehension of a poster saying “I’ll get back to that later.” ….And spare me the pseudo-intellectual reason “for discussion’s sake” when you exhibit the patience of a five year old and the attitude of a bar room brawler.

:) As insults go, that wasn't all that shabby. Don't hold back. Let it all hang out baby!!!

[T-Bone]

Gosh, thanks. But I fear if we continue in this trend we'll have to change the title of the thread to What do Larry and T-Bone Know? <_<

[Larry N Moore]

Gosh, thanks. But I fear if we continue in this trend we'll have to change the title of the thread to What do Larry and T-Bone Know? <_<

And the problem with that is what? :)

[T-Bone]

Nothing...It will just make for a very short thread.

[Larry N Moore]

Nothing...It will just make for a very short thread.

ROTFLMAO!!!! Can't argue with you on that one. ;)

[WordWolf]

Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

It would seem logical that if God would speak the future to a prophet and the test of a true prophet is does the thing come to pass, then God has to know the future.

As to how long: evidently for quite awhile. The Savior was to come from Abraham.

There are numerous examples of God foretelling the future to prophets.

It's come up that if God's perception is limited strictly to the present- as some have suggested-

then all He can offer is a general hope that everything turns out all right.

(No, it's not been posted ON THIS THREAD, but I've read this suggested.)

God gives prophecies of things to come. If God is not already aware of them definitely coming to pass

when He issues them, then He's deceiving people by leading them to believe He's giving them 100%

reliable information. I trust none of us here would suggest that God DOESN'T know a prophecy will

come to pass when He issues it.

The promise in Genesis 3:15 is one of the most famous ones, and it was about 4000 years (more or less)

after it was issued, perhaps, when it came to pass.

If God ONLY knew things 4000 years in the future, I'd find that a little silly. He PARTIALLY knows the future?

He PARTLY knows the end from the beginning?

That would be injecting opinion- or, as vpw called it, "private interpretation."

We trust God 100%, or we SHOULD.

God knows the future, and gives prophecies. We can trust them 100%.

It's been noted that the God who doesn't know the future is a more accessible God, perhaps a more

"warm and fuzzy" God because He's in the same boat as the rest of us-

He doesn't know what's going to happen any more than WE do.

He can comfort us, but not offer us security or confidence.

In short, trading "God is Loving" (which they embrace) for "God is All-Powerful" (which they reject.)

I can empathize with those seeking answers while rejecting their impassioned attempt to find answers

as having sought the WRONG answers.

Luk 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to [our]father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

He does things after the counsel of His own will.

I don’t think the point of Gen. 22 is that God didn’t know. I think the point is He wanted Abraham to prove it. Abraham was called the father of all who believe. That would require actual acts of believing as opposed to theory or foreknowledge. If you read about Abraham, there are several times God promises he would have fantastic progeny. It seemed to take awhile (Ishmael, for example) to get to the place he absolutely did take God at His word. This record of the sacrifice of Isaac parallels God sacrificing His own son. And, something I just realized. If God expects believing from us, He must have it Himself. One of the manifestations is the manifestation of believing.

If God wanted to, he could raise up stones to be whatever He wanted them to be. The point is He wanted it to be based on faith/believing as a freewill decision, and from that premise the Savior would come. He only asked one person to do it in terms of the grand scheme of things. Later Mary and Joseph also believed.

And now, way off topic I suppose…

No, I think that was entirely on-topic.

If you take a few steps back and ask where is Jesus in the story of Abraham and Isaac things become clearer. It's when we get lost in the minutia of this or that phrase, phrase-by-phrase that we get lost in the trees.

The story is a picture of Christ to come, of his sacrifice to come, and the grace that comes with yielding our all to God's will. And why would we yield our will to His if He doesn't quite know the way?

[sirguessalot]

wolf...what if God is aware of the present

because the present is all that really exists?

if all futures are possibilities that exist only in the present

and because with God...ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE

(and he has a very very very very very very good calculator)

God always already sees ALL POSSIBLE FUTURES right now

that is A LOT of futures at once

the bigger potential and trajectories wont change much

but the littler stuff and details can change a lot

and part of that kind of perspective includes the capacity to see that ALL THINGS WORK OUT FOR GOOD

always and forever

not because God is in control of exactly what it will be

but because God know that goodness is the ultimate nature of all creation

and sees all possibilities

this is both all powerful and all loving, imo

Edited September 14, 2007 by sirguessalot

[another spot]

I thought it might be interesting to consider this topic in light of God’s ultimate goal: peace within His universe.

Peace, freedom and sin cannot co-exist. God created angels. Some of these used their freewill to sin. Then man came along and by way of the influence of the serpent sinned as well. The plan to acquire ultimate peace for all God had created was Jesus. Jesus not only redeemed man, He will destroy the devil and the angels who sinned in the future.

In that light, I can start to understand the penalty of death for sin. The only way to make it gone is destruction, which is ultimately what will happen. Jesus paid the price so all mankind would not be destroyed. Yet God doesn’t like death. He considers life precious. Confronted with wrong freewill decisions there is no alternative. At the same time He is unwilling to overstep freewill. The lack of freewill is slavery. So what does He do? He works within things to bring about His ultimate desire, including evil.

Gen 50:17 So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil: and now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father. And Joseph wept when they spake unto him.

Gen 50:18 And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we [be] thy servants.

Gen 50:19 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for [am] I in the place of God?

Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive.

I believe this last verse is the underlying principle. Don’t ask me to explain it right now. I can’t. I don’t know if I ever will. I don’t have foreknowledge, ha!

Thinking back WW’s post about the tares. God is doing this even with the angels. Not in the sense He is going to make more (as far as I know), but in the sense they both continue to exist until He is ready to complete His ultimate goal.

Clearly God’s foreknowledge goes all the way back to before He created angels.

[another spot]

One other thought:

Abraham is referred to in the Bible as a friend of God. Yet not even he was considered righteous by God’s standards. Romans says God reckoned righteousness to him because of his believing. In a similar manner, righteousness is reckoned and given to us when we believe the gospel of Christ, thus putting us in a position to not be destroyed. It is an interesting way to give us something we didn’t have, could not get on our own. The result:

Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated [us] into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins:

So by choosing with our freewill to believe we get this. God worked out a way to overcome our sin problem without overstepping our freewill.

[WordWolf]

I thought it might be interesting to consider this topic in light of God’s ultimate goal: peace within His universe.

Peace, freedom and sin cannot co-exist. God created angels. Some of these used their freewill to sin. Then man came along and by way of the influence of the serpent sinned as well. The plan to acquire ultimate peace for all God had created was Jesus. Jesus not only redeemed man, He will destroy the devil and the angels who sinned in the future.

In that light, I can start to understand the penalty of death for sin. The only way to make it gone is destruction, which is ultimately what will happen. Jesus paid the price so all mankind would not be destroyed. Yet God doesn’t like death. He considers life precious. Confronted with wrong freewill decisions there is no alternative. At the same time He is unwilling to overstep freewill. The lack of freewill is slavery. So what does He do? He works within things to bring about His ultimate desire, including evil.

Gen 50:17 So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil: and now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father. And Joseph wept when they spake unto him.

Gen 50:18 And his brethren also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we [be] thy servants.

Gen 50:19 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for [am] I in the place of God?

Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; [but] God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as [it is] this day, to save much people alive.

I believe this last verse is the underlying principle. Don’t ask me to explain it right now. I can’t. I don’t know if I ever will. I don’t have foreknowledge, ha!

Thinking back WW’s post about the tares. God is doing this even with the angels. Not in the sense He is going to make more (as far as I know), but in the sense they both continue to exist until He is ready to complete His ultimate goal.

Clearly God’s foreknowledge goes all the way back to before He created angels.

I've long concluded that the "End-Times"- the Tribulation, the Great Tribulation- will function as a sort of "centrifuge".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge

A centrifuge uses centripetal force to separate out various substances of varying density.

Although the "End-Times" are "concentrated", it really hit me now that the same process operates NOW, just a LOT slower.

[another spot]

Interesting…WW. Would you care to elaborate on that?

Something else I thought of. If God were to tolerate sin or evil, how could we trust Him? That goes against God is beneficent.

[socks]

:) sirguessalot, that works if we view time the way we view distance, and the passage of time, distance travelled. Like a 100 mile stretch of road, viewed from overhead, from the air. It's possible to see the entire distance at once, and everything that happens between the two points. A snapshot would show everything that happened at that moment.

It would be possible to travel the entire distance in a single moment if you were in a car that was a 100 miles long. You wouldn't even have to move, just turn on the key and you're "there", be it the beginning of the stretch, end, or any point along the way.

If God inhabits eternity literally, that could be the way God experiences what we call time. We experience it in iterations, instances, events. Moment by moment sequentially. But that's perception, time appears to really be a total quantity. Like, an hour is an hour, a total amount of time, measured.

God being "God", He may experience it completely at once. That follows your line of thought I think - God exists in the "present", but in a state where the present is hmmm...very very big. Dunno, it's a line of thinking I tweak at, now and then.

If that's the case, and it's just an "if" and very meager stab at the topic of what God knows - God knows everything. It's as if to say, God's God. It's could be described as less the result of an intention and more the result of being God. God could then say exactly what's going to happen, within the range of endless possiblities we live in where "all things are possible". All things ARE possible, and known. If you're God.

Edited September 15, 2007 by socks

[WordWolf]

I've long concluded that the "End-Times"- the Tribulation, the Great Tribulation- will function as a sort of "centrifuge".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge

A centrifuge uses centripetal force to separate out various substances of varying density.

Although the "End-Times" are "concentrated", it really hit me now that the same process operates NOW, just a LOT slower.

Interesting…WW. Would you care to elaborate on that?

Not really, but since you asked nicely, I'll give it a shot.

A centrifuge spins. The purpose OF a centrifuge is to use the force of the spinning to separate substances.

If you had, say, water with several kinds of sand and clay mixed into it, placing the mixture

in a centrifuge would separate them, with the densest to the "bottom" (the outside of the spin),

and each of the others in a layer, in order of density, separating all of them from the water.

Then each is now all of one thing, whether sand, or clay, or water, and can be addressed

apart from the others.

If one left the container sitting out for very, very long periods of time, gravity might

separate them as well-but the wait is very, very long.

As I considered the end-times, it occurred to me that they function as an intensification

of the process by which souls determine their orientation, whether towards God or away

from God. The process will be compressed in something like a 7-year timeframe.

That's a life's decisions and actions squeezed into 7 years.

That's why I considered it like a centrifuge. It will speed up the process, and do

what was already happening- just a lot slower.

As you can see, the same process, just a lot slower- happens day by day,

decision by decision, right now.

Edited September 15, 2007 by WordWolf

[cman]

the end of what times?

[anotherDan]

It would be possible to travel the entire distance in a single moment if you were in a car that was a 100 miles long. You wouldn't even have to move, just turn on the key and you're "there", be it the beginning of the stretch, end, or any point along the way.

That's quite a "stretch," Socks!