Diogenes the Cynic

Do you have any understanding at all of astronomy? How can stars "fall?" Do you think the stars are "up" anywhere to begin with? There is no "up and down" in space. There is nowhere to "fall" to because there is no "down."

As for a star falling on the earth, do you have any idea how big a star is? The sun is an average sized star. The sun is about 110 times larger than the earth. Imagine a basketball falling on top of a pea. That's what a star falling on the earth would look like. Only it still couldn't fall on the earth because the gravity of a star is much, much greater than the gravity of the earth. a larger celestial object cannot "fall" onto a smaller celestial object. The sun (or any other star) cannot "fall" onto the earth, the earth would have to fall into the star.

But wait, there's more. Even before the earth was able to make contact with a star, even before it got within a few million miles of the star, the earth would be incinerated by the HEAT of the star.

Now, could you explain how stars could "literally" fall? What would be physically happening? How can a star "literally" land on the earth? Where is it going to fit, how is it going to avoid incinerating the earth and how is the earth's gravity going to overcome the gravity of the star?
It's a solid dome. The word translated as "firmament" in Genesis is a Hebrew word which means a flat, solid surface. People in the ancient middle east believed that the sky was a solid dome with water on top of it and that the stars were stuck to the inside of the sky. Genesis 1:15-17 says exactly that - that God stuck the stars in the firmanent.

So my question is why the space shuttle doesn't bump into that dome.

Unbeliever

So it seems that Jenn6162 didn't really want to start a discussion after all, but merely wanted to come here and preach at us. Surprise, surprise! :banghead:

Diogenes the Cynic

It doesn't even say "pierced." That's a bogus translation. Plus it's not supposed to be about the Messiah anyway.

Viti

To me, the most obvious possibility is that the Gospels were written as myth/fiction/historical fiction and simply included some seeming prophecy fullfillments for authenticity :huh:

Do you know when and by whom the Gospels were written? How can you be sure they are an accurate reporting of events and not exagerrated, imbellished, or completely made up?

Jenn6162

I believe that is what John saw, but being a first century man maybe that was the best way he could describe it. Or they may really be horses? When he described the locusts, to me they seem a lot like helicopters. If you were a first century man trying to describe things today, it would probably be difficult. Overall I would disagree that horses are the main battle vehicles, and because I am curious also to what verses are you referring to specifically?

As for the witnesses I believe they are Enoch and Elijah, because the were the only ones who never died.

Jenn6162

Actually I came here originally because I heard about a deconversion thread. Then I thought the board was interesting, so I joined and started a thread. I should have known that topic had already been beaten to death. I realized that athiests knew a lot more about the Bible than I thought they did. Ignorant me. Then I decided this place was not for me, then I decided I was up to the challenge. I would tell you why I did not want to stay, but you would all laugh at me, so I will not. I have decided that I will not preach at anyone, only contribute to the threads when I have something to say or am asked. I have been invited to post another thread for dicussion, so I will when I find a topic worthy of discussion. I was met with a lot of good reasons for many people not believing the prophecy I posted, so I feel that I don't have much to add. Also there were so many responses I can't keep up. I am sorry.

edited to add: Also I was quite obnoxious at first, and for that I sincerely apologize. I examined my words and I was wrong. I do believe that there is a lot of explaining away, and one could explain away almost anything. As I said before there are many good reasons posted as to why that is not believed to be a fulfilled prophecy. You guys are good, I underestimated you. I am learning a lot here. Thanks for that.

John A. Broussard

Perhaps the best thing you could do is to not come back here. You are obviously very comfortable with your religious beliefs. Why open them up to challenges? I know you are certain that you won't lose your faith by participating in this forum, but others have been just as certain and have ended up doing exactly that--losing their faith.

Besides, you're no fun to argue with. You are too self-effacing and too unwilling to challenge some of the outrageous things that are posted here.

I, for one, much prefer the fire and brimstone theist who starts right out by condemning me to hell. I enjoy punching holes in his/her arguments.

But, with you, you simply believe. What's to argue? I like vanilla ice cream. Is there any point in you trying to convince me that I don't?

Well, whatever you decide, best of luck.

Diogenes the Cynic

pssst...Jenn...don't take John too seriously....he's kidding....I think...

Anyway, I hope you do stick around. Believe it or not, I have found that it's possible to learn something from a theist now and then.

Paradox

Can't recall the actual Scriptures in Revelation off the top of my head, but if you take Revelation literally, then you probably take the OT Scripture literally relating to the End-Times. If so, then those abound with horsey references.

This is where the lines between symbolism and literalism get blurred. I've often seen this line of reasoning concerning the locusts, but if you read their colourful description, you can actually see John is using signs of the Zodiac to detail which 5 months he is referring to. I can provide more detail on that if you like.
However, my point would be that until this is pointed out, you take the locusts as creatures that would literally appear on earth. How many other symbols are you seeing as literal things?

Ah, I think there's much more evidence to suggest he's referring to Moses and Elijah (I can provide ample references if you'd like). Besides, it couldn't be Enoch - he was apparently around before Israel was a nation - and that's who these two are supposed to be witnessing to.

Jenn6162

John and DTC,

I am sorry I am no fun to argue with. I will try harder, I am sure we can disagree more. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, surely there is plenty there to argue about. I enjoy learning, and have no fear of losing my faith. I came to believe because of a horrible experience with demons. No one could ever convince me that I did not see them. I had lots of outside evidence to prove to me, it was not only me seeing it. Also I have had so many answered prayers in my times of need, that I could never forget. So to make you dislike me more.... You are all going to hell!!! :devil3:




Just kidding