Jenn6162

Now this is interesting. I am interested in what you say about the zodiac. Of course I am not supposed to believe in any of that horoscope related stuff. I do find it interesting, as I am a Libra and fit it to a T. I would like to hear more if you have the time. As far as symbolism I am very careful to not take things in a symbolic sense. I believe only that with Revelation we have a first century man trying to describe things that are in our current age or beyond. If you look carefully at what John is describing, they really do seem more like helicopters than locusts. Then again who knows what might come out of the pit of hell?

I am not really all that sure of who the two witnesses are, and Moses would definately be an option. Except for the fact that the Bible says it is appointed that men die then judgement. I read articles comparing Moses and Jesus thay are pretty interesting. Who knows, I sure would like to see those witnesses in action.

Jenn6162

I would love to try to tackle this one, but I really don't know much about astronomy. I might try later when I have more time, and could research a little. Then you can laugh at what an idiot I sound like trying. Might be fun for you? It would be entertaining.

braces_for_impact

I think very few people here would be laughing at someone making an honest attempt to learn something. I know I wouldn't. I think Diogenes the Cynic was asking you questions in an attempt to have you think your views through to their logical conclusion, although he may correct me if I'm mistaken.

The point is, I'm a bit confused. You say you believe in the literal truth of the bible but your statements seem to indicate that you do not. For instance you say the locusts mentioned in Revelation seem like helicopters. But the bible doesn't say helicopters. Revelation also says stars fall to earth, not nuclear explosions. If you believe in the literal truth of the bible fine, to each his own. Claiming you believe in the literal truth of the bible while simultaneously ascribing symbolism to things that don't make sense when read in a literal context is cheating isn't it?

I'm not trying to make fun of ya Jenn, I just wish to understand the apparent conflict.

Since you're interested in learning, perhaps a study of the cannon of the bible and how they were formed might interest you. There is a wealth of info here at the library. An interesting factoid: Revelation just barely managed to squeak by in the committee that voted the bible into existence.

Jenn6162

I am not worried about anyone laughing at me really. I don't spend much time trying to pretend to be smart. I have no problem laughing at myself. I was kidding, but was saying I would try. No need to walk on eggshells with me.

To answer your question, I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. In the same way I believe John was literally trying to describe the things that he was shown. He was doing so by comparing them to things he had seen. If I had never seen anything moving that wasn't alive, I would probably compare it to something alive. So know I don't think that is cheating. I think John did his best. As for nuclear explosions and stars falling, well no one knows exactly what would happen in a nuclear explosion or simultaneous explosions. So it may be a consequence, I was only speculating. I don't see that as symbolism, but a first century man trying to describe what he was shown literally.

I am interested in learning lots of things, but that sounds really boring. No offense meant if you happen to find things like that interesting. Thanks for the factoid, and I can understand why Revelation barely made it into the Bible. I don't think it was meant to be understood by anyone until the time of the end. Daniel is also a book about the end times, and he was told to (copied and pasted cause I am lazy)
Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Same thing with Revelation, I am shocked that it made it in anyway. Of course I believe God probably had something to do with it.

Viti

We do know what happens though, and it doesn't include stars falling.

Perhaps John didn't know what a meteor was, I could buy that, but not that he was seeing nuclear exlosions.

Jenn6162

So what does happen? I am curious, but we are developing newer and more powerful weapons all the time. Again, I was only speculating. I am by no means an expert in the field of nuclear science.

Viti

Nukes have been tested for years, and we dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Bigger and more powerful nukes will produce the same results, just on a larger scale. There is a mushroom cloud, large blast leveling everything in it's path, nuclear winter (pitch black skies), fallout resulting in poisoning of the air, water, and ground. No falling stars.

Jenn6162

What about new weapons that aren't known or invented yet? I think it is possible, but I am not dogmatic about it. And to go further with my speculation of what John was seeing, maybe they weren't actually stars falling only something that looked like stars?

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not looking to laugh at you, I was just trying to show you that an absolutely literal reading of the Bible is not logically possible. And I don't mean that in the sense that God can't perform miracles, I mean that some of the claims are not literally possible even as miracles. The sun cannot "stop" if it isn't moving to begin with. The idea of stars falling to earth shows an archaic view of the physical universe which no longer makes sense. It is not possible for stars to "fall" because there is no "down." They can't land on the earth because they're much, much larger than the earth (if the sun were a hollow ball, it could hold more than a million planet earths), because their gravity is much, much stronger than the earth's gravity (The gravity of the sun is 28 times stronger than earth. If you weigh 100 lbs on earth, you'd weigh 2800 lbs on the sun) and because a star would incinerate the earth long before it could ever make contact.

You've already admitted that the horses and locusts might be metaphors.

There are other examples of things that would seem to be difficult to read literally. Will Jesus appear in the sky? Which part of the sky. The earth is round, so how could Jesus ever be visible to the entire world? No matter where he appears, most of the world wouldn't be able to see him?

Where was Jesus going when he ascended into the sky? Outer space? Is that where heaven is? Even if Jesus was going the speed of light, he still wouldn't even be out of the Milky Way galaxy.

Once again, I'm not raising these issues to mock you, but just to try to get you to think about what being a Biblical literalist really means. I'd also like to remind you that you don't have to be a Biblical literalist to be a committed Christian. many Christians interpret some parts of the bible as telling spiritual or symbolic truths rather than literal ones. Genesis says that the sun wasn't created until the third day. A day, by definition, is one rotation of the earth on its axis relative to the sun. If there is no sun, then what were the first two "days?" They can't logically be understood as literal days, so either it has to be a metaphor or a mistake. Do you see what I mean? Don't be afraid to open your mind to other possible ways to read the Bible. Remember, Jesus taught in parables. Whether there was really a good Samaritan was completely beside the point. It's the message of the story that matters, not its historicity.

Viti

The only thing I can think of is maybe meteorites.