That is 100%, absolutely, wholly, undeniably and irrefutably correct.
Absolutely. That's why you should reread post 57.
BTW. I'm just now getting to your post. Don't expect me to be online all the time. I work 12 hours. But when I have free time, I can give you a response to your post. And for Arial, I'm a HE not she.
And that would mean your use of Psalm 90:4 is an abuse of scripture and a false equivalence fallacy.
The author of Psalms 90:4 is using temporal conditions to describe the eternal God. It's comparing our timeframe of "thousand years" to the Eternal God outside of time "like a watch in the night." The word "eternal now" is not found in Scriptures, but we see the Biblical descriptions for the concept. That's why it's
like a day, yesterday, or today, a hour ago or the eternal now. So, we label that concept as an eternal now. That's how we 'drawn out' a meaning from the whole of Scriptures exegetically. Even omnipresence isn't found in Scriptures, but we see the Biblical descriptions for it. The term is exegetically drawn out from the whole of Scriptures. We simply use a term to label the Biblical concept as omnipresence.
God does not exist "inside of time."
God exist everywhere. He exists inside of time and outside of time simultaneously. He is both transcendence and immanence, like omnipresence for example.
It is ascribed to God relative to the temporal conditions of creation.
The word "everlasting" can be applied to both God and to a mountain or hill in the Bible. When it's applied to God like Psalms 90:2 does, then it's not referring to temporal conditions. And, besides, there is nothing wrong with using temporal conditions to explain eternal conditions. Again, the phrase "everlasting to everlasting" means eternal because it's ascribed to God and not some mountain or hill that still exist through the ages. It will eventually parish, but God won't and will remain the same since he is eternal. The Biblical authors uses temporal conditions to explain eternal conditions. Take for instant Hebrews 1:10-12 for example.
The Person of the Son is being compared to a garment. The garment will change, rot, an fade away, but the Person of the Son remains the same because he is immutable. This Scripture also expresses the idea of eternalness. It takes time for the garment to change or creation itself to perish, but through the whole process we have the Eternal Person of the Son remaining the same without change. It also uses a literacy device "and your years will never end," its not saying that God increase in age (one through countless years), since "years" imply change and beginning in our temporal understanding. But its understood in the sense that the Person of the Son is eternalness through immutability.
I asked you when God's throne first existed and that question has not been answered.
The Bible doesn't give an explicit time, year, and date. But the Bible does say,
Psalm 93:2 Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity.
Here it is again, the author of Psalms is comparing the atemporal throne to God's eternalness. It's the reflection of the Eternal God that counts. The Biblical authors compare temporal to reflect on eternalness or atemporal to reflect on eternalness. If the Biblical authors didn't do comparisons, then we wouldn't have the concept of an eternal now.
Also, the titles Father and Son and their relationship is eternal now (Hebrews 1:5, Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4, 1 John 3:8, John 11:27, and 1 John 5:20). The title Son is mentioned in his preexistence.
