1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you even know who wrote Revelations and why? And why it was included in your book of delusions?
We must keep in mind what kind of literature Revelation is when interpreting it. The vision revealed to John is prophecy like that revealed to Daniel and it must be interpreted in the same way. Just like the beasts in Daniel and Revelation do not represent literal beasts, but empires and kingdoms, the stars in Revelation may not represent literal stars, s ...[text shortened]... staken, because this does not apply to interpreting the creation account in Genesis chapter one.
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
We must keep in mind what kind of literature Revelation is when interpreting it. [quote]
This is true for the rest of the Bible, Genesis also.
[quote]
The vision revealed to John is prophecy like that revealed to Daniel and it must be interpreted in the same way.
The usage of some words are pre-scientific. A "star" to them was a point of light in the heavens. We might consider some of the pre-scientific language in other books as well including Genesis.
I think there is every reason to believe the light of the start of that week was from the sun. And the "light-holders" or "light-bearers" (a DIFFERENT Hebrew word used for the fourth day) was the sun also, made more clearly discernible to the seer.
Insisting that the sun was created on the fourth day is not exactly what it says and is like insisting that all the stars will fall to the earth in Isaiah or Revelation.
Just like the beasts in Daniel and Revelation do not represent literal beasts, but empires and kingdoms, the stars in Revelation may not represent literal stars, so we must not jump to conclusions since it is stated in the form of an analogy.
Some of us apply some sense of sober consideration in asking how Genesis should be interpreted as well. The heavenly bodies were made to appear on the fourth day like the dry land was made to appear out from under the water.
Insisting that God created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day is akin to insisting real Godzilla like animals come out of the ocean or that the stars of the Big Dipper fall to the earth.
The principle of realistic interpretation I think should apply in some YEC presentations of Genesis.
So this most likely refers to the sudden judgment of God that will come on mankind when he least expects it.
What is SAYS is that the stars fall. Now a massive meteor shower of the plunging of tons of material floating around the planet could have been what John saw.
If a massive meteor shower is what John prophetically witnessed then it makes sense that to him it appeared as the stars falling.
Possibly the same is true if there were a warping of space / time or perhaps the planet was wrenched out of its usual patterns of movement. I really don't know. But we know what it looked like to John.
And the words are similar to these passages:
" ... and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Matt. 24:29)
No, the Holy Bible does not say how far away the stars are from earth because it says God stretched out the heaven. So in the beginning the stars may have been closer to the earth, right?
Seriously now. The roaring of the seas (Luke 21:25) and the powers of the heavens being shaken, with signs in the heavens and falling "stars" has to mean nature seems to have gone wild. I think that is the general idea being conveyed. No one will be able to mistake that the physical creation is going wild.
I see your point. And I see that you are mistaken, because this does not apply to interpreting the creation account in Genesis chapter one.
I think the point is that some YECs have a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis, ie. a light before the sun on day one, replaced by the creation of the sun on day four.
Besides, the Hebrew word for "light" in verse 3 is not the same word for "lights" or better "light-bearers" in verse 14.
I think what the seer saw was sunlight diffuse on the day God said "Let there be light". And on the fourth day when God "made" the sun, moon, and stars, the source of light was made more precisely discernible.
The word for "made" as in "And God made the two great lights-bearers, the greater light-bearer to rule the day and the lesser light-bearer to rule the night, and the stars" can also be translated "appointed" . However "made" is fine, as long as we do not insist it has to mean created as bara is used in verse 1.
Strictly speaking Genesis 1:14-19 does not say that God created the sun, moon, and stars on that fourth day. There must be some YECs who have noticed this.
Originally posted by sonship[b]We must keep in mind what kind of literature Revelation is when interpreting it.[quote]
This is true for the rest of the Bible, Genesis also.
[quote]
The vision revealed to John is prophecy like that revealed to Daniel and it must be interpreted in the same way.
The usage of some words are pre-scientific. A ...[text shortened]... the sun, moon, and stars on that fourth day. There must be some YECs who have noticed this.[/b]There are different kinds of light just as there are different kinds of light bearers. So I believe it was necessary to make the light before the light bearer just as it is necessary to have water before a water bearer can exist.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd in this way you think the earth was rotating before another light until the sun was created ?
There are different kinds of light just as there are different kinds of light bearers. So I believe it was necessary to make the light before the light bearer just as it is necessary to have water before a water bearer can exist.
Which Hebrew word there represents the phrase "water bearer" ?
Originally posted by sonhouseIt depends on if you want the standard belief or your own twisted belief echoed back to you.
So who wrote Revelations and why? And who pushed for it to be included in the bible?
Keep this in mind: Just like RJH can spout creationism until the cows come home and not many who know better will buy into it, you can spout your belief ad nauseum and not many who know better will buy into it either.
Originally posted by SuzianneSo just what is my own 'twisted belief'? Tell me so I too can know.
It depends on if you want the standard belief or your own twisted belief echoed back to you.
Keep this in mind: Just like RJH can spout creationism until the cows come home and not many who know better will buy into it, you can spout your belief ad nauseum and not many who know better will buy into it either.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” and, “What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”
So who wrote Revelations and why? And who pushed for it to be included in the bible?
(Revelation 1:9-11 NKJV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Originally posted by RJHindsSo tell me why it isn't a tract against the Roman empire and who pushed to include it as the last book and why.
[b]I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,” ...[text shortened]... o Laodicea.”
(Revelation 1:9-11 NKJV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation[/b]